Fig 1.
Digitized reference landmarks for morphometric analysis of Chironomus columbiensis.
A) mentum; B) wing.
Fig 2.
Deformities of the Chironomus columbiensis mentum per treatments and generation.
A) absence of teeth; B) increase of teeth; C) space between teeth; D) fusion of teeth.
Table 1.
Rate of deformity (%) of the Chironomus columbiensis mentum by treatments and generation.
N = number of samples per treatment and per generation; M = mercury; MC = mercury-cyanide.
Fig 3.
Canonical variate analysis in the shape of the Chironomus columbiensis mentum.
A) Explain 82% of the total variance of the data in its two first exes, ellipses = 95%CI. B–E shows the shape variation of the mentum of Chironomus columbiensis in its four first canonic axes, which explain 95.5% of the total variance of the data. Light blue line: consensus composition of the shape. Dark blue line: disparities of the shape represented in each component. CV1: 68.2%, CV2: 13.8%, CV3: 7, and CV4: 6.5%. M = mercury and MC = mercury-cyanide.
Fig 4.
Canonical variate analysis of the fluctuating asymmetry of the Chironomus columbiensis mentum.
A) Explain 83.04% of the variance of the data in its two first exes, ellipses = 95%CI. B–E shows the fluctuating asymmetry of Chironomus columbiensis in its four first canonic axes, which explain 93.4% of the total data variance. Light blue line: consensus decomposition of the shape. Dark blue line: disparities of the shape represented in each component. CV1: 39.8%, CV2: 21.3%, CV3: 17.7%, and CV4: 14.6%. M = mercury and MC = mercury-cyanide.
Fig 5.
Principal components analysis of the wing of Chironomus columbiensis showing the sexual dimorphism among the individuals.
M = mercury and MC = mercury-cyanide. Ellipses = 95%CI. A) Individuals per treatments; B) Individuals per experiments; C) Individuals per generation; D) Individuals per gender.
Fig 6.
Deformations of the wing shape of males and females of Chironomus columbiensis represented in the first two (A,B) principal components.
Fig 7.
Canonical variate analysis of the Chironomus columbiensis wing.
A) Explaining 90.3% of the variance of the data in its two first exes, ellipses = 95%CI. B–E shows the deformations represented in the first four canonic analyses, explaining 98.7% of the variance. Light blue line: consensus decomposition of the shape. Dark blue line: disparities of the shape represented in each component. CV1 = 60%, CV2: 22.3%, CV3: 5.2%, and CV4: 3.2%. M = mercury and MC = mercury-cyanide.
Fig 8.
Principal components analysis of the physical-chemical and hydrological variables and the sites evaluated.