Epiphytic diatoms and water quality in shallow lakes: the neutral substrate hypothesis revisited

Cejudo-Figueiras, Cristina; Álvarez-Blanco, Irene; Bécares, Eloy; Blanco, Saúl

doi:10.1071/mf10018

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Tunca et al (2014) Our study, therefore, supports the view that macrophytes with a complex structure not only offer a larger surface area than those with a simple structure, but also maximises access to light by providing more attachment sites (Pettit et al, 2016;Taniguchi et al, 2003;Tunca et al, 2014). These discrepancies in periphyton composition between natural and artificial macrophytes indicate that, unlike artificial macrophytes, natural submerged macrophytes are not neutral substrates for periphyton (Blindow, 1987;Cejudo-Figueiras, Alvarez-Blanco, B ecares, & Blanco, 2010). These discrepancies in periphyton composition between natural and artificial macrophytes indicate that, unlike artificial macrophytes, natural submerged macrophytes are not neutral substrates for periphyton (Blindow, 1987;Cejudo-Figueiras, Alvarez-Blanco, B ecares, & Blanco, 2010).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 68%

Comparison of periphyton communities on natural and artificial macrophytes with contrasting morphological structures

Hao

Cao

et al. 2017

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It remains an open question whether or not artificial macrophytes are good alternatives to natural macrophytes in studies of periphyton abundance and composition in lakes. Here, a mesocosm experiment was conducted in winter (when plant growth is low) to compare simultaneously the periphyton community on three submerged macrophytes (Potamogeton lucens, Vallisneria sp. and Cabomba caroliniana) with contrasting leaf structural complexities (leaf fractal dimension = 1.12, 1.17 and 1.37, respectively) and on three types of artificial macrophytes with similar morphologies as the natural plants. We also compared intertreatment differences in phytoplankton sampled from mesocosms. Both for natural and artificial macrophytes, the periphyton chlorophyll a (Chl‐a) was positively associated with leaf fractal dimension. Although the morphological structure of natural and artificial plants and the physicochemical characteristics of the water were similar, the periphyton community differed between natural and artificial macrophytes, with the difference being dependent on the leaf structural complexity of the macrophytes. For leaves with a simple structural complexity, the abundance and composition of periphyton on natural and artificial plants were not statistically different. In addition, periphyton Chl‐a, density and biovolume were higher on the adaxial side than on the abaxial side of natural P. lucens leaves, but no differences were found between sides of the artificial leaves. For leaves with a medium structural complexity, the abundance of periphyton was lower on the natural than artificial plants, and the proportion of diatoms to the total community differed. For leaves with a high structural complexity, periphyton Chl‐a of the artificial plants was notably higher than on the natural plants, while no significant differences were found for periphyton density, biovolume, and the proportion of diatoms and green algae. Permutational multivariate analysis of periphyton genus composition confirmed that periphyton composition on the artificial plants (medium and high leaf structural complexities) was different overall from that on the natural plants. Phytoplankton Chl‐a, density, biovolume, and diversity did not show any pronounced differences among treatments. Our results suggest that artificial macrophytes cannot fully substitute for natural plants even when they are morphologically similar. Artificial macrophytes should therefore be used with caution when investigating the periphyton community on macrophytes.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 68%

Comparison of periphyton communities on natural and artificial macrophytes with contrasting morphological structures

Hao

Cao

et al. 2017

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the abundant and sediment free thalli of macroalgae reported in the SAO channel (Martinetto et al 2010) might play an important role as suitable substrate for diatom settlement as has been found in other studies (e.g. Cejudo-Figueiras et al 2010). Therefore, it is possible that micro-macroalgal interactions might impact development of the different macroalgal assemblages in the two channels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Ulvales, Cocconeis and tube dwelling diatoms), which consequently would affect not only the benthic but also the planktonic system of the research area. Macroalgae, in turn, provide suitable substrate to different diatom groups (Cejudo-Figueiras et al 2010). Thus, the abundant and sediment free thalli of macroalgae reported in the SAO channel (Martinetto et al 2010) might play an important role as suitable substrate for diatom settlement as has been found in other studies (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Changes in Coastal Benthic Algae Succession Trajectories and Assemblages Under Contrasting Nutrient and Grazer Loads

Fricke

Kopprio

Alemany

et al. 2015

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eutrophication plays a crucial role in coastal systems, driving changes in the composition and abundance of flora and fauna with consequent effects for the entire ecosystem. Sensitive to nutrient levels, micro-and macroalgal blooms serve as valuable indicators of eutrophication. The San Antonio Bay (Northern Argentinean Patagonia, 40°43′ S, 64°56′ W) provides an appropriate system to study in situ eutrophication processes on coastal communities. In a multiscale approach, using two different kind of settlement substrates (micro: polyethylene terephthalate, and macro: ceramic), the present study followed benthic algal dynamics over one year, distinguishing changes in natural succession and seasonality. Strong differences were found in the biofilm assemblages after three days, marked by tube dwelling diatoms and Cocconeis spp. under high nutrient-grazer conditions and needle like diatoms (e.g. Nitzschia spp., Tabularia spp.) under lower nutrient-grazer loads. The succession continued by the colonization of macroalgae, with a higher recruitment rate in the nutrient and grazer rich environment with a concomitant higher diversity. Our results show that under higher nutrientgrazer conditions natural benthic succession not only differs in trajectory but in its final taxa composition promoting higher biodiversity and biomass accumulation. In addition, taxa specific substrate preferences interfere with the observed eutrophication pattern, suggesting substrate dependant interrelations between the bloom forming taxa. These findings provide evidence that nutrient enrichment can not only affect an established assemblage but also affect the early succession stages, changing the succession trajectory and thus the final assemblage.

show abstract

“…These mechanisms could explain our results, that macrophyte community composition is determined by a combination of both substrate and river bank characteristics, whereas non-diatom benthic algae communities are determined mainly by substrate. A possible explanation for the influence of river bank characteristics on diatom communities could be an indirect effect of macrophytes; because different diatom communities grow on different species of macrophytes (Cejudo-Figueiras et al, 2010), and diatoms are readily dispersed down river with the water flow (Simpson et al, 2008), diatom communities on stone substrates could be influenced by diatom communities on upstream macrophytes. Not enough is known about dispersal mechanisms for macrophytes and benthic algae, but a scenario like the one described above could explain our results that the similarity matrices in diatom and macrophyte communities are highly correlated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do macrophytes, diatoms and non-diatom benthic algae give redundant information? Results from a case study in Poland

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWe analyzed species composition and abundance of macrophytes, diatoms and non-diatom benthic algae, water chemistry and habitat structure of 24 river sites in Poland, in order to better understand which parameters structure macrophyte and benthic algae communities. Community patterns for macrophytes and diatoms are most closely related, while macrophytes and non-diatom benthic algae have the weakest relationship. Environmental parameters best explaining community patterns are channel substrate parameters for non-diatom benthic algae, and a combination of channel substrate and river bank characteristics for submerged macrophytes, emergent macrophytes and diatoms. Among the organism groups investigated, the diatom community pattern is best correlated to the environmental data similarity matrix. We hypothesize that the results can be explained by the shorter generation time of diatoms compared to macrophytes, and by a higher dispersal rate of diatoms compared to macrophytes and non-diatom benthic algae. This has several practical consequences for bioindication: (1) Diatoms are usually the organism group most closely following environmental parameters, for both increasing and decreasing impact. (2) Since the biotic indices developed for the Water Framework Directive are meant to primarily indicate ecological changes, not water chemistry, the nature of diatoms to closely reflect water chemistry is not necessarily advantageous. (3) The applicability of macrophyte and probably also non-diatom benthic algae indices is more locally restricted, while diatom indices are applicable to greater areas. (4) In ecosystems which are subject to changing environmental conditions, differences in biotic indices between macrophytes, diatoms and non-diatom benthic algae are to be expected. These differences could provide information relating to ecosystem stability. (5) In stable ecosystems, analyzing one of the three organism groups "diatoms", "non-diatom benthic algae" and "macrophytes" will be sufficient to characterize the quality element "macrophytes and phytobenthos", as required by the Water Framework Directive. However, in ecosystems subject to increasing pressure, macrophytes likely will have a tendency to indicate "too good", while in ecosystems subject to decreasing pressure, diatoms will have a tendency to indicate "too good".

show abstract

Epiphytic diatoms and water quality in shallow lakes: the neutral substrate hypothesis revisited

Cited by 29 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of periphyton communities on natural and artificial macrophytes with contrasting morphological structures

Comparison of periphyton communities on natural and artificial macrophytes with contrasting morphological structures

Changes in Coastal Benthic Algae Succession Trajectories and Assemblages Under Contrasting Nutrient and Grazer Loads

Do macrophytes, diatoms and non-diatom benthic algae give redundant information? Results from a case study in Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About