Instructions for abstracts submission to the XII CBL - Read before start the submission
1. The submission of the
abstract will be available 1-3 days after payment of the registrations. You
will receive an electronic message confirming your registration. The deadline
for submission of abstracts is 19 May 2009 using the link provided
below.
2. The abstracts should be prepared using a text software, copied (Ctrl
+ c) and pasted (Ctrl + v) in the abstract form. Use the Internet Explorer
browser to submit the abstract (others browsers may not work properly).
3. The abstract should contain a maximum of 1200 characters, including
spaces.
4. Each registration allows the submission of 1 abstract. However, you
can participate as a co-author in abstracts submitted by other authors.
5. Prepare the abstract carefully. They will not be evaluated, but only
checked for a minimum of readability and content. Language errors will not be
fixed. The accuracy of the abstract is responsibility of their authors.
6. The
abstract should describe an unpublished work. An abstract can be submitted if
it includes at least preliminary data. Abstracts stating that “results will be presented in the
future” should not be submitted.
7. Some abstracts will be selected for oral presentation (around 80).
The submission form includes an option to declare your intention to present
your work in poster or oral. Notice that opting for oral presentation does not
imply that your work will be presented in oral form. This will depend on the
number of authors that opt for this type of presentation and the selection by
the congress committee. In case you opt for the oral presentation, you will
receive a message informing if you are going to present in oral or poster
format.
8. Suggestion for writing of the abstract:
a.
As any other text, the abstract must include introductory phrases, indicate
clearly the objectives, include basic information on how the work was done,
show the most important results e conclude with a discussion. Include all these
items is not an easy task, but surely possible.
b.
The abstract should be self-explanatory. Be sure that untrained readers are
able to understand your text. A good test is ask some colleague that do not
work on the same subject to read your abstract.
c.
The abstract must contain explicit objectives. Well-defined objectives turn the
description of results straightforward.
d.
Do not include citations or references in the abstract.
e.
The space for the abstract is short (1200 characters). Evaluate if all phrases
are necessary. Make an experiment: delete one phrase and check whether you lose
information. If not, the phrase was not fundamental.
f. The abstract must contain: 1) Title, 2) Authors, 3) Institutions(s) name(s),
4) electronic mail address of the corresponding author, 5) Body of the abstract
including a maximum of 1200 characters and 6) Agencies supporting the work.
9. Format
Title: Use only the first letter in capital. Do not include a period at
the end of the title.
Authors: João T. Silva(1),
Graziela B.T. Santos(1) & Mário B. Albuquerque(2).
Do not leave spaces between author names and numbers indicating
institutions.
Address: (1)Universidade
Federal do Acre, (2)Universidade Estadual de Maringá.
Do not cite the full address, but only the institution. Do not include
departments.
Finacial support: CNPq, CAPES, FINEP, FAPESP
10. Example
Diversidade beta de macroinvertebrados em riachos: importância relativa do ambiente e do espaço
Shirley S. Costa(1) & Adriano S. Melo(1),(2)
(1)Universidade Federal de Goiás, (2)Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.
shirley_scost@yahoo.com.br
A comunidade de macroinvertebrados é um importante componente da diversidade em riachos. Neste estudo avaliamos a diversidade beta de macroinvertebrados bentônicos em três riachos e em quatro microhabitats: i) musgos na interface ar-água; ii) raízes submersas de plantas terrestres, iii) folhas em remansos e iv) pedras em corredeiras. Nós empregamos Análise de Correspondência Canônica parcial (pCCA) para avaliar qual fator, sítio amostral ou microhabitat, foi mais importante na determinação da variação da comunidade, i.e., diversidade beta. A pCCA revelou que microhabitats foi o fator mais importante, explicando 42,02% da variação total. A variação entre-sítios foi de 22,27%. Análises multivariadas exploratórias confirmaram os resultados obtidos com a pCCA e revelaram a existência de quatro grupos, cada um correspondente a um microhabitat, independente do sítio amostral. Nossos resultados indicam que diferenças ambientais são muito mais importantes que diferenças em localização espacial na escala estudada. Microhabitats adjacentes num riacho podem abrigar comunidades mais dissimilares entre si do que aquelas encontradas num mesmo microhabitat mas em diferentes riachos.
Apoio: CNPq, CAPES, FAPESP