Spirogyra species and accompanying algae from pools and ditches in The Netherlands

Simons, J.; Beem, A.P. van

doi:10.1016/0304-3770(90)90073-t

Cited by 27 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The species identification of vascular plants and bryophytes is often difficult because of the lack of fruiting or flowering specimens and hybridisation (e.g. Spirogyra; Simons & van Beem, 1990). The identification of macroalgae is generally restricted to genus despite the fact that ecology can vary substantially within a genus (e.g.…”

Section: Aquatic Macrophyte Indices: a Critical Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

River macrophyte indices: not the Holy Grail!

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audience1. Recent studies have demonstrated that there is generally no unambiguous relationship between plant species composition and specific environmental conditions in rivers. Nevertheless, indices of environmental pressures based on macrophytes are flourishing, because of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). 2. We first reviewed nine such indices against 13 criteria for bioindicators. Then, using data from France and England, we tested whether the IBMR (Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers) and LEAFPACS (predictions and classification system for macrophytes) methods could reliably indicate nutrient and hydromorphological pressures. Finally, we used an improved bootstrapping method to estimate accuracy. 3. Currently, most indices lack ecological meaning for a variety of reasons, including partial sampling (backwaters are excluded); reliance on list of taxa (there are identification difficulties) rather than structure and functions; correlation rather than causation; application within a limited biogeographical area; reliance on 'expert' judgement; high precision but poor accuracy; poorly defined reference conditions; lack of independent tests; and an inability to discriminate reliably between the target pressures of interest from confounding background variables. 4. IBMR was a far better indicator of pH (or HCO3-pCO2) than it was of soluble reactive phosphorus, SRP (or SRP-NH4). While there was a highly significant correlation between IBMR and SRP after removing the effect of pH, the relationship was weak (r2 = 0.08, n = 215, P < 0.001). 5. LEAFPACS is a multi-metric method summing up five individual indices, each compliant with the WFD. Its individual metrics were not better correlated with nutrient and hydromorphological pressures (with r2 < 0.1, n = 62, P < 0.05) than was the IBMR. The meaning of the overall metric is questionable. 6. There are problems in determining the precision of the indices, owing to uncertainties in recording, but they are less than the uncertainties in determining accuracy (because species optima and tolerances are sometimes poorly known). 7. Reliable information is needed to improve the state of our rivers. Macrophyte indices are able to detect statistically significant pressures from a large population of sites but cannot be applied at specific sites, as required by the WFD, owing to large uncertainties and low explanatory power. Typically, more than 90% of the variability in macrophyte indices is attributed to factors other than human pressure. The WFD would be better served by a simpler, holistic approach based on our current mechanistic understanding of river processes. These findings are likely to apply also to other taxonomic groups (macroinvertebrates, diatoms, fish) used in the assessment of purported ecological quality and to palaeolimnological measures of reference status

show abstract

Section: Aquatic Macrophyte Indices: a Critical Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

River macrophyte indices: not the Holy Grail!

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The filaments are covered by a layer of mucilage, which is responsible for the slimy appearance (HoShaw & MCCourt 1988). The genus is distributed worldwide in fresh to slightly brackish water bodies (Rieth 1983;HoShaw & MCCourt 1988;SimonS & Van Beem 1990). Spirogyra covers a wide ecological range from dystrophic mountain lakes and bogs to highly eutrophicated systems (Hainz et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slow evolution of 1506 group I intron in Spirogyra Link 1820 (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta), a fast evolving lineage in the Zygnemataceae.

Chen¹,

Schagerl²

2012

Fottea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylogenetic analyses of SSU rDNA sequences of 130 Spirogyra strains have revealed that these strains were subdivided into eight clades. Approximately 60% of the assessed strains (clades A-D) contain a 1506 group I intron, whereas strains without introns form individual clades (E-H). The Spirogyra intron shared the common insertion site of the Zygnematalean intron (position 1506 relative to the Escherichia coli smallsubunit rRNA). Phylogenetic analyses of the Spirogyra group I intron showed the monophyletic origin within the Zygnematophyceae. Therefore, we assume the secondary loss of the intron in clades E-H is caused by the high evolutionary rate of Spirogyra and its long evolutionary history. The Spirogyra intron belongs to the IC group I introns and shares many common features with the intron of other Zygnematophyceae (the typical domain structure (P1-P9), the base composition, the highly conserved regions the U preceding the 5' splice site and the G to which it pairs, and the G preceding the 3' splice site are typical for IC group I intron). Spirogyra group I introns exhibit features of early desmids (optional P2 domain) as well as of later diverging desmids (variation from the typical L5b-GAAA tetraloop). The P2 domain shows an additional optional P2 sub-domain in clade B. Surprisingly, the mutation rate of the Spirogyra SSU rRNA exceeds the rate of the intron by far. Evolutionary rates differ significantly within the Spirogyra SSU rRNA accessions, but not within the respective group I intron sequences.

show abstract

“…Simons and van Beem (1990), who studied the algal flora of ditches in The Netherlands, also noted that large‐celled species of Spirogyra seemed to persist into the summer, although most species developed in March or April with maximum coverage in May or June. They found that Spirogyra populations at a single site and time could be composed of up to 15 species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE AND IRRADIANCE ON THE SEASONAL VARIATION OF A SPIROGYRA (CHLOROPHYTA) POPULATION IN A MIDWESTERN LAKE (U.S.A.)

Berry

Lembi

2000

Journal of Phycology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Spirogyra Link (1820) is a common mat‐forming filamentous alga in fresh waters, little is known of its ecology. A 2‐year field study in Surrey Lake, Indiana, showed that it grew primarily in the spring of each year. The population consisted of four morphologically distinct filamentous forms, each exhibiting its own seasonal distribution. A 45‐μm‐wide filament was present from February to late April or early May, a 70‐μm‐wide form was present from late April to mid‐June, a 100‐μm‐wide form was present from February to mid‐June, and a 130‐μm‐wide form appeared only in February of 1 of 2 study years. The 70‐ and 100‐μm‐wide forms contributed to the peak amount of biomass observed in late May and early June. Multiple regression analysis indicated that the presence of the 45‐, 70‐, and 100‐μm‐wide forms was negatively correlated with temperature. Presence of the 130‐μm‐wide form was negatively correlated with irradiance. Isolates of these filament forms were exposed to temperature (15, 25, and 35° C)/irradiance (0, 60, 200, 400, 900, and 1500 μmol·m−2·s−1) combinations in the laboratory. Growth rates of the 45‐μm‐wide form were negative at all irradiances at 35° C, suggesting that this form is susceptible to high water temperatures. However, growth rates of the other forms did not vary at the different temperatures or at irradiances of 60 μmol·m−2·s−1 or above. Net photosynthesis was negative at 35° C and 1500 μmol·m−2·s−1 for the 100‐ and 130‐μm‐wide forms but positive for the 70‐μm‐wide form. All forms lost mat cohesiveness in the dark, and the 100‐ and 130‐μm‐wide forms lost mat cohesiveness under high irradiances and temperature. Thus, the morphological forms differed in their responses to irradiance and temperature. We hypothesize that the rapid disappearance of Spirogyra populations in the field is due to loss of mat cohesiveness under conditions of reduced net photosynthesis, for example, at no to low light for all forms or at high light and high temperatures for the 100‐ and 130‐μm‐wide forms. Low light conditions can occur in the interior of mats as they grow and thicken or under shade produced by other algae.

show abstract

Spirogyra species and accompanying algae from pools and ditches in The Netherlands

Cited by 27 publications

References 12 publications

River macrophyte indices: not the Holy Grail!

River macrophyte indices: not the Holy Grail!

Slow evolution of 1506 group I intron in Spirogyra Link 1820 (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta), a fast evolving lineage in the Zygnemataceae.

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE AND IRRADIANCE ON THE SEASONAL VARIATION OF A SPIROGYRA (CHLOROPHYTA) POPULATION IN A MIDWESTERN LAKE (U.S.A.)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About