A brief history of time-wasting …*

Having talked about diversity on a microscale in the previous post, I thought it would be interesting to place this in context by looking at the variations that I have observed in the River Wear at Wolsingham over the past decade or so.   The River Wear has seen some significant improvements in water quality over this period, but those have mainly affected sections of the river downstream from Wolsingham.  Most of the changes at Wolsingham are, therefore, giving us some insights into the range of natural variation that we should expect to see in a river.

I’ve got 31 samples from the River Wear at Wolsingham on my database, collected since 2005.  Over this period, nine different diatom species have dominated my counts: Achnanthidium minutissimum on 21 occasions, Nitzschia dissipata twice and Cocconeis euglypta, Encyonema silesiacum, Gomphonema calcifugum, Navicula lanceolata, Nitzshia archibaldii, N. paleacea and Reimeria sinuata once each.   I also have records for non-diatoms during 2009, during which time the green alga Ulothrix zonata, and two Cyanobacteria, Phormidium retzii and Homeothrix varians were the dominant alga on one occasion each.   In total, I have recorded 131 species of diatom from this one reach, although only I’ve only found 91 of them more than once, and only 59 have ever formed more than one percent of the total.   I’ve also got records of 22 species other than diatoms.

This – along with my comments in “The mystery of the alga that wasn’t there …” raises questions about just how effective a single sample is at capturing the diversity of algae present at a site.  .    In 2009 I collected a sample every month from Wolsingham and the graph below shows how the total number of species recorded increased over that period.   Typically, I find between 20 and 30 species in a single sample, and each subsequent month revealed a few that I had not seen in earlier samples.   Importantly, no single sample contained more than 40 per cent of the total diversity I observed over the course of the year.  Part of this high diversity is because of the greater effort invested but there is also a seasonal element, as I’ve already discussed.   The latter, in particular, means that we need to be very careful about making comments about alpha diversity of microalgae if we only have a single sample from a site.

Increase in the number of diatom taxa recorded in successive samples from the River Wear at Wolsingham.  In 2009 samples were collected monthly between January and December whilst in 2014 samples were collected quarterly. 

This seasonal pattern in the algal community also translates into variation in the Trophic Diatom Index, the measure we use to evaluate the condition of streams and rivers.  The trend is weak, for reasons that I have discussed in earlier posts, but it is there, nonetheless.   Not every river has such a seasonal trend and, in some cases, the community dynamics results in the opposite pattern: higher values in the summer and lower values in the winter.  It is, however, something that we have to keep in mind when evaluating ecological status.

Variation in the Trophic Diatom Index in the River Wear at Wolsingham between 2005 and 2015, with samples organised by month, from January (1) to December (12).   The blue line shows a LOESS regression and the grey band is the 95% confidence limits around this line.

All of these factors translate into uncertainty when evaluating ecological status.   In the case of the River Wear at Wolsingham, this is not particularly serious as most of the samples indicate “high status” and all are to the right of the key regulatory boundary of “good status”.  However, imagine if the histogram of EQRs was slid a little to the left, so that it straddled the good and moderate boundaries, and then put yourself in the position of the people who have to decide whether or not to make a water company invest a million pounds to improve the wastewater coming from one of their sewage treatment plants.

At this point, having a long-term perspective and knowing about the ecology of individual species may allow you to explain why an apparent dip into moderate status may not be a cause for concern.  Having a general sense of the ecology of the river – particularly those aspects not measured during formal status assessments – should help too.  It is quite common for the range of diatom results from a site to encompass an entire status class or more so the interpretative skills of the biologists play an important role in decision-making.   Unfortunately, if anything the trend is in the opposite direction: fewer samples being collected per site due to financial pressures, more automation in sample and data analysis leading to ecologists spending more time peering at spreadsheets than peering at stream beds.

I’ve never been in the invidious position of having to make hard decisions about how scarce public sector resources are used.  However, it does strike me that the time that ecologists used to spend in the field and laboratory, though deemed “inefficient” by middle managers trying to find cost savings, was the time that they learned to understand the rivers for which they were responsible.  The great irony is that, in a time when politicians trumpet the virtues of evidence-led policy, there is often barely enough ecological data being collected, and not enough time spent developing interpretative skills, for sensible decisions to be made.   Gathering ecological information takes time.   But if that leads to better decisions, then that is not time wasted …

Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR: observed TDI / expected TDI) of phytobenthos (diatoms) at the River Wear, Wolsingham) between 2005 and 2015.   Blue, green, orange and red lines show the positions of high, good, moderate and poor status class boundaries respectively.

* the title is borrowed from the late Janet Smith’s BBC Radio 4 comedy series

Advertisements

Our patchwork heritage* …

The problem with the case I set out for a “switch” from a winter / early spring biofilm community to a summer / autumn assemblage is the sample that I was writing about contained elements of both.   This, I think, is another aspect of an issue that I touched upon in “The River Wear in January”: that the scale that we work at is much greater than the scales at which the forces which shape biofilms operate.   There is no intrinsic driver for this switch beyond the physical forces in the river but each stone will have a slightly different history.  A smaller cobble will be more likely to be rolled than a boulder, as will one that is not sheltered from the main current, or not well bedded into the substratum.  The sample I collect is a composite from the upper surface of five separate cobbles so will blend these different histories.   The more stable stone might have more Navicula lanceolata and Gomphonema olivaceum whilst the recently rolled might be dominated by early colonisers such as Achnanthidium minutissimum.

The same processes can even work on a single stone.   Arlette Cazaubon, a French diatomist, now retired, wrote several papers on this topic (see references at the end of this post).  She highlighted how the diatom assemblages differed across the surface of a boulder, depending on the exposure to the current.  However, that is only part of the story.  The picture at the top of the post was taken in January, when I was collecting my first samples of the year.  You can see the streak where I ran my finger through the biofilm and some other marks, perhaps where the heel of my wader had scuffed the stone (I’m trying to keep my balance in the middle of a northern English river in January whilst holding a waterproof camera underwater, remember).   But such damage could have arisen just as easily from twigs or stones that were being washed downstream.   Taken together with Arlette’s work, it shows how a mature Navicula lanceolata / Gomphonema olivaceum assemblage can live alongside a pioneer Achnanthidium minutissimum assemblage.

A schematic view of the biofilm in the River Wear at Wolsingham, March 2018.   a. Navicula lanceolata; b. Gomphonema olivaceum complex; c. Fragilaria gracilis; d. Achnanthidium minutissimum.   Scale bar: 10 micrometres (= 1/100th of a millimetre).

I’ve tried to depict that in the schematic diagram above.   On the left-hand side there is a mature biofilm, with long-stalked Gomphonema species creating a matrix within which motile diatoms such as Navicula lanceolata live whilst, on the right, there is a pioneer community dominated by Achnanthidium minutissimum.   However, whilst this patchiness is a natural phenomenon, it can contribute to the variability we see in ecological data and, indirectly, to an impression that ecological data are not precise.   If I were to divide the diagram above into two halves, the left-hand side would return a higher TDI than the right.  This is because the diatoms on that side have broader ecological tolerances than those on the other (the sample size, by the way, is far too small to do this seriously but I just want to make a point).   In practice, however, the entire diagram represents little more than the width of a single bristle of the toothbrush that I use to collect samples so a sample is, inevitably, an amalgam of many different microhabitats on a stone.  Our assessment of the condition of the river represents the average of all the patches across the five stones that form a typical sample on that day.

The importance of patchiness in determining the structure and composition of stream communities has been known for some time (see review by Alan Hildrew and Paul Giller in the reference list).   What we have to remember when trying to understand phytobenthos is that patchiness is, to some extent, embedded in the samples we collect, rather than being something that our present sampling strategies might reveal.

* “… for we know our patchwork heritage is a strength not a weakness ..” Barack Obama: inaugural address, 2009

Reference

A useful review on patchiness in stream ecosytems (several other papers in this volume also discuss patchiness in freshwater and marine environments):

Hildrew, A.G. & Giller, P.S. (1994).  Patchiness, species interactions and disturbance in the stream benthos.  pp. 21-62.  In: Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern and Process (edited by P.S. Giller, A.G. Hildrew & D.G. Rafaelli).   Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Some of Arlette Cazaubon’s papers on variability in diatom assemblages across the surfaces of single stones:

Rolland, T., Fayolle, S., Cazaubon, A. & Pagnetti, S. (1997). Methodological approach to distribution of epilithic and drifting algae communities in a French subalpine river: inferences on water quality assessment. Aquatic Science 59: 57-73.

Cazaubon, A. & Loudiki, M. (1986). Microrépartition des algues épilithiques sur les cailloux d’un torrent Corse, le Rizzanese. Annals de Limnologie 22: 3-16.

Cazaubon, A. (1986). Role du courant sur la microdistribution des diatomées epilithiques dans une Riviere Méditerranéenne, L’Argens (Var, Provence). pp. 93-107.   Proceedings of the 9th Diatom Symposium.   Bristol.

Cazaubon, A. (1988). The significance of a sample in a natural lotic ecosystem: microdistribution of diatoms in the karstic Argens Spring, south-east France.  pp. 513-519.   In: Proceedings of the 10th Diatom Symposium, Joensuu, Finland.

The mystery of the alga that wasn’t there…

I was back at the River Wear at Wolsingham a few days ago for my second visit of the year (see “The River Wear in January” and “The curious life of biofilms” for accounts of the first visit).   I had wanted to go out earlier in the month but we’ve had a month of terrible weather that has translated into high river flows.  Even this trip was touch and go: the river was about 30 cm higher than usual and the gravel berm that usually stretches out under the bridge on the left bank was largely submerged.

Compare the image of the substratum with the one I took in January: that one had a thick film with a chocolate-brown surface whilst the March substratum had a much thinner film lacking any differentiation into two layers.  When I put a small sample of the biofilm under my microscope, I could see that it was dominated by diatoms with only a few strands of green algae.   Many of the diatoms that I saw in January were still here in March but Navicula lanceolata, which comprised over half the algal cells I saw in January was now just 15 per cent of the total whilst Achnanthidium minutissimum was up from about 15 per cent to about 40%.    However, as A. minutissimum is a much smaller cell, N. lanceolata still formed more of the total biovolume.   One other difference that I noticed as I peered down my microscope was that there was much less amorphous organic matter in the March sample compared with the one from January.

The substratum at the River Wear, Wolsingham on 24 March 2018.   The photograph at the top shows the view from the road bridge looking downstream.

When I looked back at notes I had taken after my visit in March 2009, I saw that the riverbed then had been covered with lush growths of the green alga Ulothrix zonata (you can see a photograph of this in “BollihopeBurn in close-up”).   I did not see this on my visit last week.  That might be because the high water level means that I could not explore as much of the river as I wanted, but it was more likely a consequence of the preceding conditions.   The graph below shows at least three separate high flow events during March, the first of which associated with the melting of the snow that fell during the “Beast from the East”.   I suspect that these high flow events would have both moved the smaller substrata (the ones I usually pick up to sample!) scouring away the biofilms in the process.

A view of the biofilm from the River Wear, Wolsingham in March 2018.

River levels at Stanhope, 20 km upstream from Wolsingham across March 2018 showing three separate high flow events.  A screenshot from www.gaugemap.co.uk.

The final graph shows the trend in the three algae that I’ve been talking about over the course of 2009, which is similar to what I am seeing in 2018 except that that the timing of the decline in Navicula lanceolata and Ulothrix zonata along with the increase in Achnanthidium minutissimum is slightly different.   In very broad terms N. lanceolata is typical of winter / early spring conditions, favoured by thick biofilms partly created by the matrix of stalks that Gomphonema olivaceum and relatives creates.   Achnanthidium minutissimum, on the other hand, is the most abundant alga through the summer and early autumn.  It is a species that thrives in disturbed conditions, such as we would expect after the weather we’ve experienced this March.   However, we must not forget that the grazing invertebrates that thrive

during the summer months also represent a type of disturbance.  Ulothrix zonata thrives in the late winter / early spring window (see “The intricate ecology of green slime”).   I would have expected it to have persisted beyond March but, as I said earlier in the post, I may have missed some as it was difficult to get a good impression of the whole reach due to high flows.

This moveable switch between a “winter” and “summer” state creates a problem when we are sampling for ecological status assessments.   The Environment Agency has, for as long as I have worked with them, had a “spring” sampling window that starts on 1 March and runs to the end of May.  As you can see, this straddles the period when there is a considerable shift in the composition of the flora.   I’ve always suggested that they wait as long as possible within this window to collect diatom samples to increase the chance of being past the switch.  However, with a huge network to cover in a short period, along with other logistical considerations, this was always easier said than done.   I’ve worked closely with the Environment Agency to manage as much of the variation in their diatom analyses as is possible (see “Reaching a half century …”); one of the mild ironies is that simply being a huge Behemoth of an organisation can, itself, be the source of some of the variation that we are trying to manage.

Trends in approximate biovolume of three common taxa discussed in this post in the River Wear at Wolsingham during 2009.  

Natural lenses …

The photograph above is as about as far from Andreas Gursky’s careful constructions, described in the previous post, as it is possible to get.  It is a close-up of a green algal floc Heather noticed whilst on a walk around a local nature reserve.   I guess it fits the general description of “decisive moment” except that it takes a special sort of observer to find any interest at all in such an unprepossessing habitat.

Under the microscope, the floc turned out to be composed of filaments of Spirogyra, with a single helical chloroplast.  Members of this genus (and related genera such as Mougeotia) produce copious mucilage so are always slimy to the touch.  However, this mucilage makes it difficult for the waste gases produced by photosynthesis to diffuse away, leading to the production of bubbles within the mucilage mass.   The interest, today, however, was that these air bubbles are acting as tiny lenses through which it is possible to make out the individual filaments of Spirogyra.

The green floc beside a footpath in Crowtrees local nature reserve from which the other images in this post were derived. 

I should add the caveat here that the photograph was taken with the “super macro” facility of our Olympus TG2 camera but the end-product is, nonetheless, impressive.   It also offers us an insight into the world of the very earliest microscopists.  Anton van Leuwenhoek’s microscopes consisted of a metal plate which held a tiny sphere of glass which acted as a convex-convex lens capable of up to 266x magnification to a resolution of little  more than a micron (1/1000th of a millimetre) (follow this link for more details).  To give an idea of what he might have seen with this, the right hand image below used 400x magnification.

That, however, only tells us part of the story of Anton van Leuwenhoek’s genius.   Whilst we should not underestimate the skill required to make the lenses and their mounts, the other essential element is curiosity.   Curiosity is, itself, multifaceted: in a few weeks we will probably make a trip out to an old quarry where we know we will find several species of orchids, and maybe some excursions to locations new to us but where others have reported interesting assemblages.  That’s one type of curiosity.  However, simply looking harder at the habitats all around us involves a different type of curiosity: a recognition that there is more to know even about things we think we already know about.   The former broadens our experiences, the latter deepens them …

The algal floc at Crowtrees local nature reserve in close-up: left: an extreme macro view of a single bubble from the image at the top of the post and, right: filaments of Spirogyra photographed under the microscope.  Scale bar: 20 micrometres (= 1/50th of a millimetre).

Desmid diversity …

Back in September, I wrote about a joint British Phycological Society and Quekett Microscopical Club field weekend looking at desmids in the Lake District (see “Desmid Masterclass”, “Lessons from School Knott Tarn” and “Different tarn, different desmids …”).  Dave John sent some of the samples that we collected to David Williamson, the UK’s leading expert on desmids but, at 92, too frail to join us, and he has now sent back some fine drawings illustrating the range of desmids that he encountered.

Two of the tarns (Long Moss Tarn, Kelly Hall Tarns) are already recognised as Internationally Important Plant Areas (IPAs) for desmids because of their desmid diversity and containing internationally very rare desmids (based largely on David Williamson’s records) so their diversity is not a complete surprise to us.  Nonetheless, David found a total of 129 desmid taxa in the three tarns, whilst another desmid specialist, Marien van Westen, identified almost 160 desmids in another set of samples from the same tarns.

The drawings are arranged in three plates, one for each tarn.   Desmids identified by David Williamson from the three tarns are illustrated.  The desmids have been numbered and the captions prepared by David John who is analysing the findings and comparing them with surveys dating back to the 1970s.   David Williamson has drawn the taxa at different scales to roughly balance the arrangement on the collage, and adjusted the sizes so important details are visible.   No details of the chloroplasts are given since all samples had been preserved in formalin.  A few of the desmids, particularly those that are very long, have not been included in the plates.

Desmids from Long Moss Tarn (SD 292 936), September 2017.   Long Moss Tarn is shown in the photograph at the top of this post.

Desmids from Kelly Hall Tarn (SD 289 933), September 2017.

Desmids from School Knott Tarn (SD 427 973), September 2017.

Key

1-Actinotaenium diplosporum; 2-Actinotaenium turgidum;  3-Bambusina borreri;  4-Closterium acerosum var. borgei; 5-Closterium angustatum;  6-Closterium archerianum var. pseudocynthia;  7-Closterium archerianum; 8-Closterium attenuatum;  9-Closterium baillyanum var. alpinum; 10-Closterium baillyanum; 11-Closterium closterioides; 12-Closterium costatum; 13-Closterium dianae var. arcuatum; 14-Closterium dianae var. minus;  15-Closterium didymotocum; 16-Closterium incurvum; 17-Closterium intermedium; 18-Closterium kuetzingii;  19-Closterium lunula; 20-Closterium navicula;  21- Closterium setaceum; 22-Closterium striolatum; 23-Cosmarium amoenum; 24-Cosmarium anceps; 25-Cosmarium binum; 26-Cosmarium brebissonii; 27-Cosmarium contractum;  28-Cosmarium davidsonii; 29-Cosmarium debaryi;  30-Cosmarium depressum; 31-Cosmarium formosulum; 32-Cosmarium hostensiense; 33-Cosmarium incrassatum var. schmidlei; 34-Cosmarium margaritatum; 35-Cosmarium margaritiferum; 36-Cosmarium monomazum var. polymazum;  37-Cosmarium obtusatum;  38-Cosmarium ornatum; 39-Cosmarium ovale;  40-Cosmarium pachydermum; 41-Cosmarium pachydermum var. aethiopicum; 42-Cosmarium perforatum var. skujae; 43-Cosmarium portianum; 44-Cosmarium punctulatum;  45-Cosmarium quadratum; 46-Cosmarium quadrum; 47-Cosmarium subochthodes var. majus; 48-Cosmarium subtumidum var. groenbladii;  49-Cosmarium subundulatum; 50-Cosmarium tetragonum var. ornatum ; 51-Cosmarium tetraophthalmum; 52-Cosmarium variolatum;  53-Cosmocladium tuberculatum; 54-Desmidium aptogonum; 55-Desmidium swartzii; 56-Docidium baculum; 57-Euastrum ampullaceum; 58-Euastrum ansatum;  59-Euastrum bidentatum var. speciosum; 60-Euastrum gemmatum; 61-Euastrum luetkemulleri; 62-Euastrum oblongum; 63-Euastrum pectinatum; 64-Euastrum pulchellum; 65-Euastrum verrucosum; 66-Gonatozygon aculeatum; 67-Gonatozygon brebissonii; 68-Groenbladia undulata; 69-Haplotaenium minutum;  70-Hyalotheca dissiliens;  71- Micrasterias americana var. boldtii; 72-Micrasterias compereana; 73-Micrasterias crux-melitensis; 74-Micrasterias denticulata; 75-Micrasterias furcata; 76-Micrasterias pinnatifida;  77-Micrasterias radiosa; 78-Micrasterias rotata; 79-Micrasterias thomasiana; 80-Micrasterias truncata; 81-Netrium digitus; 82-Netrium digitus var. latum; 83-Netrium interruptum;  84-Penium exiguum; 85-Penium margaritaceum; 86-Pleurotaenium coronatum var. robustum;  87-Pleurotaenium ehrenbergii; 88-Pleurotaenium truncatum; 89-Sphaerozosma filiforme; 90-Staurastrum arachne;  91-Staurastrum arctiscon; 92-Staurastrum bieneanum; 93-Staurastrum boreale var. robustum; 94-Staurastrum cristatum; 95-Staurastrum dilatatum; 96-Staurastrum inconspicuum; 97-Staurastrum kouwetsii; 98-Staurastrum lapponicum; 99-Staurastrum maamense; 100-Staurastrum polytrichum; 101-Staurastrum productum; 102-Staurastrum quadrangulare; 103-Staurastrum striolatum; 104-Staurastrum teliferum; 105-Staurastrum tetracerum; 106-Staurodesmus convergens; 107-Staurodesmus convergens var. wollei; 108-Staurodesmus cuspidatus var. curvatus; 109-Staurodesmus megacanthus; 110- Xanthidium antilopaeum; 111-Xanthidium antilopaeum var. laeve; 112-Xanthidium antilopaeum var. polymazum; 113-Xanthidium cristatum.

Burnhope Burn’s beautiful biofilms …

I have continued the series of studies that I started in “In search of the source of the Wear” with a three-dimensional diorama of the biofilm that I found at the mouth of Burnhope Burn, and can now compare it with the corresponding study from Wolsingham (see “The curious life of biofilms”).   The two big differences are the greater number of green filaments at Burnhope and the large numbers of cells of Navicula lanceolata at Wolsingham.   I suspect the two are linked: the Wolsingham biofilm was a mix of diatoms and organic particulate matter along with associated bacteria whilst the Burnhope biofilm was green algae and organic matter with diatoms in a subordinate role.  I speculated, in my earlier post, that Burnhope Burn’s location below a reservoir may have altered the hydrology of the stream such that green algae were favoured.   I wonder, too, if the presence of green algae then subtly shifts the composition of the biofilm matrix such that dense aggregations of Navicula lanceolata are not able to develop in the way that they could at Wolsingham.

There is something about the ecology of a few Navicula species that leads to the development of these aggregations (see “The ecology of cold days” for more about freshwaters, whilst “An excuse for a crab sandwich, really” and “A typical Geordie alga …” describes similar phenomena in brackish habitats).   Conversely, Nitzschia dissipata, which was the most abundant diatom at Burnhope Burn, never seems to form these dense monocultures.   Nitzschia dissipata was also much less common in the biofilm from Killhope Burn, just a few metres away from where I collected the Burnhope sample and where filamentous green algae are scarce.  wonder if this, too, is more than a coincidence and that N. dissipata is actually adapted to living within matrices formed by filamentous algae rather than on top of matrices dominated by diatoms and organic particulates?

I have seen a few other motile diatoms – Denticula tenuis is one – that seem to be more abundant in the presence of filamentous algae.   There may also be species that thrive when the matrix is composed largely of inorganic particles, as well as other species (Navicula angusta and N. notha are two that spring to mind) that may be naturally “understory” species that are never especially abundant in biofilms.   All this is pure speculation, but it is worth remembering that most of the insights into diatom ecology come from studies on cleaned valves which removes all traces of non-diatom algae, and also that the prevailing dogma of diatom sensitivity to their chemical environment is such that non-chemical factors are largely overlooked in academic studies.   No evidence, in this case, may just mean that no-one has asked the right questions.

More about Platessa oblongella and Odontidium mesodon

As my last post used the conventions of figurative art to describe algal ecology, I thought I would stick to graphs – science’s very own school of abstract art – for this one.   I spent some time in “Small details in the big picture” discussing the ecology of Platessa oblongella (including P. saxonica) but without saying very much about the types of streams where these species were found.  So I am going to take a step away from the Ennerdale catchment in this post and, instead, collate environmental data a large number of sites to get a broader understanding of their habitat preferences.  As these species are often associated with Odontidium mesodon (see “A tale of two diatoms …”), I will summarise the preferences of this species at the same time (but see Annex 1 for a graph of this species’ preferences for still versus standing water).

The first set of graphs show the response of these species to pH and alkalinity and establish both as species typical of circumneutral soft water.  Platessa oblongella can be abundant in more acid conditions (i.e. to the left of the green vertical lines) but most of the records where it is abundant have pH values between 6.5 and 7.5.   Note that P. oblongella can also be found in humic waters, where lower pH thresholds apply (see Annex 2).

Distribution of Odontidium mesodon and Platessa oblongella (including P. saxonica) to pH and alkalinity in UK streams.   Vertical lines for pH indicate threshold values that should support high (blue), good (green), moderate (orange) and poor (red) ecological status classes.  See Annex 2 for more explanation.

The second set of graphs shows how these species respond to inorganic nutrients.   Both are most abundant when inorganic nutrients are present in low concentrations, though the trend is stronger for phosphorus than it is for nitrate-nitrogen.   The graphs for Platessa oblongella, however, both have a few outliers.   I have seen P. oblongella in a few situations where I did not expect it – I remember finding it in the Halebourne, a stream draining heathland around Aldershot and Bagshot in Surrey, where the water was well buffered (mean alkalinity: 61.3 mg L-1 CaCO3) and nutrient concentration were high (mean total oxidised nitrogen: 4.01 mg L-1; dissolved phosphorus: 0.25 mg L-1) and Carlos Wetzel and colleagues note some other anomalous records from the literature in their paper (cited in my earlier post), including a few from high conductivity and even brackish environments.   So we should treat these plots as indicative of the ecological preferences rather than definitive.

Distribution of Odontidium mesodon and Platessa oblongella (including P. saxonica) to nitrate-N and dissolved phosphorus in UK streams.   Vertical lines indicate threshold values that should support high (blue), good (green), moderate (orange) and poor (red) ecological status classes.  See Annex 2 for more explanation.

The final pair of plots show how the relative abundance of these two species changes over the course of the year.  These plots show the months when each taxon is abundant, by the standards of that taxon.  Because Platessa oblongella tends to be very numerous in samples, the threshold for this taxon (the 90th percentile of all records) is higher than that for O. mesodon.   This reveals a very clear pattern of O. mesodon thriving in Spring whilst P. oblongella is abundant throughout the year, but with a slight preference for summer and autumn.  We need to reconcile these patterns with the observations in A tale of two diatoms that show that P. oblongella is associated with thinner biofilms than O. mesodon and try to work out whether season is driving the patterns or whether the seasonal patterns are the manifestation of other forces.   My suspicion is that P. oblongella is a classic pioneer species but also has a low-growing prostrate habit which means that it should be resistant to heavy grazing, which may confer an advantage in the summer and autumn when grazers are most active.  However, I may be getting ahead of myself, as we are in the process of analysing data on grazer-algae interactions in the River Ehen and Croasdale Beck that may throw more light on this.  There are clearly more layers to this story yet to be revealed …

Distribution of Odontidium mesodon (i.) and Platessa oblongella (j., including P. saxonica). The solid lines represent relative sampling effort (i.e. the proportion of samples in the dataset collected in a particular month) and the vertical bars represent samples where the relative abundance of taxon in question exceeded the 90th percentile for that taxon (20% for P. oblongella/P. saxonica and 5% for O. mesodon).

Reference

The dataset used for these analyses is that used in:

Kelly, M.G., Juggins, S., Guthrie, R., Pritchard, S., Jamieson, B.J., Rippey, B, Hirst, H & Yallop, M.L. (2008). Assessment of ecological status in UK rivers using diatoms. Freshwater Biology 53: 403-422.

Annex 1: Odontidium mesodon’s preference for still or standing water

As I included a graph showing the preference of Platessa oblongella / P. saxonica for still or standing water in “A tale of two diatoms …”, I have included a similar graph for Odontidium mesodon here.   I have not included any data from the streams that flow into Ennerdale Water’s north-west corner in this graph as this would give a distorted picture.  To date, I have only seen a single valve of O. mesodon during analyses of 14 samples from these streams but I have not yet sampled these in spring which, as the graph above shows, is the time when O. mesodon is most abundant.   Like Platessa oblongella, O. mesodon is predominately a species of running, rather than standing waters.

Differences in percentage of Odontidium mesodon in epilithic samples from Ennerdale Water and associated streams.  Data collected between 2012 and 2018.

Annex 2: notes on species-environment plots

These are based on interrogation of a database of 6500 river samples collected as part of DARES project.  Vertical lines show UK environmental standards for conditions necessary to support good ecological status: blue = high status; green = good status, orange = moderate status and red = poor status.  Note that there are no environmental standards for alkalinity and the vertical lines show a rough split of the gradient into low alkalinity (“soft water”: < 10 mg L-1 CaCO3), low/moderate alkalinity (³ 10, < 75 mg L-1 CaCO3), moderate/high alkalinity (³ 75, < 150 mg L-1 CaCO3) and high alkalinity (“hard water”: ³ 150 mg L-1 CaCO3).

pH thresholds are for clear water (see UK TAG’s Acidification Environmental Standards.  The corresponding thresholds for humic waters are lower (high/good: 5.1; good/moderate: 4.55; moderate/poor: 4.22; poor/bad: 4.03).

Phosphorus thresholds are based on UK TAG’s A Revised Approach to Setting WFD Phosphorus Standards.   Current UK phosphorus standards are site specific, using altitude and alkalinity as predictors.  This means that a range of thresholds applies, depending upon the geological preferences of the species in question.  The plots here show the position of boundaries based on the average alkalinity and altitude measurements in the DARES database.

Note, too, that phosphorus analyses use the Environment Agency’s standard measure, which is unfiltered molybdate reactive phosphorus.  This approximates to “soluble reactive phosphorus” or “phosphorus as orthophosphate” in most circumstances but the reagents will react with phosphorus attached to particles that would have been removed by membrane filtration.

Nitrate-nitrogen: There are, currently, no UK standards for nitrates in rivers.  Values plotted here are derived in the same way as those for phosphorus (see “This is not a nitrate standard”)