The relationship between macroalgal morphological complexity and hydraulic conditions in stream habitats

Tonetto, Aurélio Fajar; Cardoso-Leite, Ricardo; Novaes, Marcos Carneiro; Ferreira, Rhainer Guillermo Nascimento

doi:10.1007/s10750-014-2120-1

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The periphyton Chl-a on HA was obviously higher than on HN. This is possibly due to the differences in leaf fractal dimension between HN (1.37) and HA (1.30), suggesting that higher morphological complexity means greater surface area (Mcabendroth, Ramsay, Foggo, Rundle, & Bilton, 2005;Thomaz, Dibble, Evangelista, Higuti, & Bini, 2008;Tonetto, Cardoso-Leite, Novaes, & Guillermo-Ferreira, 2015). Therefore, the differences in the abundance and composition of periphyton between natural and artificial plants showed a complex pattern, confirming that the periphyton community may be affected by the morphological architecture (and metabolic activity) of a particular macrophyte (Grutters et al, 2017;Tunca et al, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

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: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

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

“…The roughness provided by the crevices on the surface of the substrata was, therefore, responsible for the higher beta diversity among complex than among simplified substrata when species richness was accounted for. Indeed, the streambed in natural lotic systems is composed of various irregularities (Taniguchi & Tokeshi, ) that provide refuges against grazing and physical disturbances such as high‐discharge and desiccation events for periphytic algae (DeNicola & McIntire, ; Taniguchi & Tokeshi, ; Schneck, Schwarzbold & Melo, ; Tonetto et al ., , ). Complex substrata provide suitable conditions to a large set of species and might favour the occurrence of stochasticity in colonisation/establishment history.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 legend for additional details. Taniguchi & Tokeshi, 2004;Schneck, Schwarzbold & Melo, 2013;Tonetto et al, 2014Tonetto et al, , 2015. Complex substrata provide suitable conditions to a large set of species and might favour the occurrence of stochasticity in colonisation/establishment history.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substratum simplification reduces beta diversity of stream algal communities

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Reduced species richness with increased habitat simplification is a well‐known relationship in community ecology. However, habitat simplification can also lead to a reduction in beta diversity if the loss of species is not random. We tested the hypothesis that beta diversity of periphytic algae is lower among simple than among complex substrata. We conducted a field experiment using simple (smooth) and complex (rough) artificial substrata colonised by periphytic algae to calculate beta diversity among each substratum type. We initially estimated beta diversity using the Jaccard dissimilarity index and its turnover component. As species richness differed between substratum types, we also employed the Raup–Crick dissimilarity index that estimates beta diversity by resampling from the species pool. We also deconstructed the total dataset into three functional groups based on the position occupied by each species within the periphytic matrix (low‐profile, high‐profile and motile functional groups). Beta diversity estimated using both Jaccard dissimilarity and its turnover component was higher among simplified substrata for the all‐species dataset and for high‐profile and motile groups. However, after taking into account the differences in species richness between substratum types using the Raup–Crick index, beta diversity was higher among complex substrata than among simple ones for the total dataset and for the low‐profile group. We emphasise that differences in species richness must be considered for the quantification of beta diversity, because this might confound the dissimilarity identified and, consequently, lead to erroneous conclusions. The higher beta diversity among complex substrata might be the result of priority effects, in which early colonists constrain the establishment of later arriving species, causing each patch to harbour a distinct species composition. Furthermore, algae life strategies may be an important driver of beta diversity among simple and among complex substrata, as periphytic algae position in the biofilm may affect their susceptibility to shear stress. On the one hand, stochasticity in colonisation history on complex substrata may have driven high beta diversity for the low‐profile group among this type of substratum. On the other hand, the reduced set of high‐profile and motile species on simple habitats may have driven these species to more occasional and rare occurrence, increasing beta diversity among this type of substratum and resulting in similar beta diversity among both types of substrata. Priority effects should be most frequent on complex substrata. However, only a reduced set of species might survive on simple substrata, occupying most of the available patches and causing beta diversity reduction.

show abstract

“…108 In rivers, higher (average) velocities can somewhat counterintuitively reduce drift in some invertebrate species, which may reflect the gains in feeding efficiency and reductions in predation pressure that can be experienced in higher velocity areas. 110 With respect to aquatic plants, turbulence preferences may differ according to plant morphology, 111,112 but turbulent flows facilitate exchanges of solutes between plants and surrounding water to aid growth, and stimulate the epiphytic communities of bacteria, microalgae, and invertebrates on plant surfaces. 94 A range of animals either make vortices or use those generated by other roughness elements for movement and feeding.…”

Section: Exploitation Of Turbulent Flow Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life in turbulent flows: interactions between hydrodynamics and aquatic organisms in rivers

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The turbulent properties of flow in rivers are of fundamental importance to aquatic organisms yet are rarely quantified during routine river habitat assessment surveys or the design of restoration schemes due to their complex nature. In this paper, we review the two-way interactions between aquatic biota and hydrodynamics in rivers, and key methodological approaches used in their quantification, to encourage more explicit consideration of the importance of turbulence in river science and management. We explore recent advances and issues relating to the study of these interactions in the field, laboratory and numerical modeling, the use of artificial and live biota, and different flow measurement technologies. We also review methods for the quantification of ecologically relevant turbulent flow properties, identifying key descriptors of the intensity, periodicity, orientation, and the scale of turbulent flow structures. Our analysis highlights not only the various ways in which plants and animals modify the flow field but also how this can deliver beneficial effects relating to solute exchange, food availability, oxygenation, waste removal, locomotion, and predator-prey interactions. It also demonstrates potential threats to growth and survival relating to turbulence, including injury, dislodgement, increased energy expenditure, mortality, and complex influences on predators and prey. We conclude by identifying some remaining barriers to the integration of turbulence into the science and practice of river assessment and restoration but also opportunities in the form of controlled laboratory experimentation, increasingly sophisticated flow sensors and imaging technologies, and numerical simulation of turbulence that could advance understanding in this complex field of research.There is considerable diversity in the research approaches applied to the study of interactions FIGURE 1 | Definition of Reynolds number and laminar and turbulent flow, with example Reynolds numbers for different types of organisms interacting with the flow. Advanced Reviewwires.wiley.com/water

show abstract

The relationship between macroalgal morphological complexity and hydraulic conditions in stream habitats

Cited by 12 publications

References 44 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

Substratum simplification reduces beta diversity of stream algal communities

Life in turbulent flows: interactions between hydrodynamics and aquatic organisms in rivers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About