Keeping the cogs turning …

A few algae lift my soul when I see them under the microscope through their beauty.   To see such intricate yet symmetrical organisation in something too small to be visible with the naked eye never ceases to amaze and delight me.   One of the genera that has that effect is the green alga Pediastrum, which forms cog-like colonies: flat plates of cells whose outer members bear horn-like projections.   One of its representatives, Pediastrum boryanum, was common in the River Wear when I visited recently (see previous post).   You can see, from the illustration above (the scale bar is 20 micrometres – 1/50th of a millimetre – long), the characteristic disc-like arrangement of cells, always in multiples of four (there are 16 in the colony above).   There are many species of Pediastrum, differing in the shape of both the inner and marginal cells, and the number and length of the horns.

I have found Pediastrum on many occasions in the Wear in the past, but never quite as abundant as it was in my most recent samples.  Pediastrum boryanum is the species I find most often, here and elsewhere, but other species occur too.  I have also found Pediastrum in some unusual places, including deep in lake sediments when I was searching for fossil pollen grains and there is evidence that the cell walls of Pediastrum contain both silica and a sporopollenin-like material (sporopollenin is the extremely tough material found in the outer walls of pollen grains (which probably explains why it had survived the fierce mix of chemicals that we used to prepare the lake sediments for pollen analysis).   I am guessing that the sporopollenin and silica both add some structural integrity to the cells.   There are references in the literature to Pediastrum being planktonic but I often find it in samples from submerged surfaces and associated with submerged macrophytes, so I suspect that it is one of those species that moves between different types of habitat.  It should not really be a surprise that a relatively large colonial alga with a payload of silica and sporopollenin in addition to the usual cellulose cell wall, is going to be common in benthic films in a river towards the end of a long, dry summer.

Pediastrum is another genus that has been shaken up in recent years as a result of molecular studies.  According to these, Pediastrum boryanum should now be called Pseudopediastrum boryanum although the Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles continues to use the old name.   Not everyone agrees with this split (see McManus and Lewis’ paper in the list below) but the divisions suggested by molecular data do also seem to match differences in morphological characteristics of the group (see Table below).

Pediastrum is part of the family Hydrodictyaceae and, as I was writing this, it occurred to me that I have never written about another interesting member of this family, Hydrodictyon reticulatum.  As I like to accompany my posts with my own photographs, I spent part of yesterday afternoon tramping around a location where I have found Hydrodictyon in the past.   All I got for my troubles, however, was two damp feet, so that post will have to wait for another day.

 

Differentiating characteristics of Pediastrum and similar genera (after Krienitz & Bock, 2011).

Genus Features
Pediastrum Flat coenobia with intercellular spaces, marginal cells with two lobes
Lacunastrum Flat coenobia with large intercellular spaces, marginal cells with two lobes
Monactinus Flat coenobia with large intercellular spaces, marginal cells with one lobes
Parapediastrum Flat coenobia with intercellular spaces, marginal cells with two lobes, each divided into two projections
Pseudopediastrum Flat coenobia without intercellular spaces, marginal cells with two lobes, each with a single projection
Sorastrum Three-dimensional coenobia, each cell with two or four projections.
Stauridium Flat coenobia without intercellular spaces, marginal cells “trapezoid”* with deep incision to create two lobes, each with a concave surface, though the lobes are not really extended into “projections”

* not all of the illustrations show marginal cells that are strictly “trapezoid” (e.g. with at least one pair of parallel sides).

References

Buchheim, M., Buchheim, J., Carlson, T., Braband, A., Hepperle, D., Krienitz, L., Wolf, M. & Hegewald, E. (2005).  Phylogeny of the Hydrodictyaceae (Chlorophyceae): inferences from rDNA data.  Journal of Phycology 41: 1039-104.

Good, B.H. & Chapman, R.L. (1978).  The ultrastructure of Phycopeltis (Chroolepidaceae: Chlorophyta). I. Sporopollenin in the cell walls.  American Journal of Botany 65: 27-33.

Jena, M., Bock, C., Behera, C., Adhikary, S.P. & Krienitz, L. (2014).  Strain survey on three continents confirms the polyphyly of the genus Pediastrum (Hydrodictyaceae, Chlorophyceae).  Fottea, Olomouc 14: 63-76.

Krienitz, L. & Bock, C. (2012).  Present state of the systematics of planktonic coccoid green algae of inland waters.   Hydrobiologia 698: 295-326.

McManus, H.A. & Lewis, L.A. (2011).  Molecular phylogenetic relationships in the freshwater family Hydrodictyaceae (Sphaaeropleales, Chlorophyceae), with an emphasis on Pediastrum duplex.   Journal of Phycology 47: 152-163.

Millington, W.F. & Gawlik, S.R. (1967).  Silica in the wall of PediastrumNature (London) 216: 68.

Advertisements

Talking about the weather …

September is here.  When I visited this site two months ago we were in the midst of the heatwave and the samples I collected from the Wear at Wolsingham were different to any that I have seen at this location before, dominated by small green algae (see “Summertime blues …”).   As I drove to Wolsingham this time, I could see the first signs of autumn in the trees and the temperatures are more typical of this time of year.   We have had rain, but there has not been a significant spate since April and this means that there has been nothing to scour away these unusual growths and return the river to its more typical state.

That does not mean, however, that there have been no changes in the algae on the submerged stones.  Some of these differences are apparent as soon as I pick up a stone.  Last month, there was a thin crust on the surface of the stones; that is still here but now there are short algal filaments pushing through, and the whole crust seems to be, if anything, more consolidated than in July, and I can see sand grains amidst the filaments.   Biofilms in healthy rivers at this time of year are usually thin, due to intense grazing by invertebrates, so I’m curious to know what is going on here this year.

A cobble from the River Wear at Wolsingham, showing the thick biofilm interspersed with short green filaments.   Note, too, the many sand grains embedded in the biofilm.  The bare patch at the centre was created when I pulled my finger through it to show how consolidated it had become.  The cobble is about 20 centimetres across.

Many of the organisms that I can see when I peer at a drop of my sample through my microscope are the same as those I saw back in July but there are some conspicuous differences too.   There are, for example, more desmids, some of which are, by the standards of the other algae in the sample, enormous.   We normally associate desmids with soft water, acid habitats but there are enough in this sample to suggest they are more than ephemeral visitors.   And, once I had named them, I saw that the scant ecological notes that accompanied the descriptions referred to preferences for neutral and alkaline, as well as nutrient-rich conditions.  Even if I have not seen these species here before, others have seen them in similar habitats, and that offers me some reassurance.    In addition to the desmids, there were also more coenobia of Pediastrum boryanum and Coelastrum microporum compared to the July sample.

A view of the biofilm from the River Wear at Wolsingham on 1 September 2019. 

There were also more diatoms present than in my samples from July – up from about 13 percent of the total in July to just over 40 per cent in September.   The most abundant species was Achnanthidium minutissimum, but the zig-zag chains of Diatoma vulgare were conspicuous too.  The green filaments turned out to be a species of Oedogonium, not only a different species to the one I described in my previous post but also with a different epiphyte: Cocconeis pediculus this time, rather than Achnanthidium minutissimum.   I explained the problems associated with identifying Oedogonium in the previous post but, even though I cannot name the species, I have seen this form before (robust filaments, cells 1.5 to 2 times as long as broad) and associate it with relatively nutrient-rich conditions.  That would not normally be my interpretation of the Wear at Wolsingham but this year, as I have already said, confounds our expectations.   I did not record any Cladophora in this sample but am sure that, had I mooched around for longer in the pools at the side of the main channel, I would have found some filaments of this species too.

Desmids and other green algae from the River Wear at Wolsingham, 1 September 2019.  a. Closterium cf. acerosum; b. Closteriumcf. moniliferum; c. Cosmarium cf. botrysis; d. Closterium cf. ehrenbergii; e. Coelastrum microporum; f. Pediastrum boryanum.   Scale bar: 50 micrometres (= 1/20th of a millimetre).  

It is not just the differences between months this year that I’m curious about.  I did a similar survey back in 2009 and, looking back at those data, I see that my samples from August and September in that year had a very different composition.   There was, I remember, a large spate in late July or early August, and my August sample, collected a couple of weeks later had surprised me by having a thick biofilm dominated by the small motile diatom Nitzschia archibaldii.   My hypothesis then was that the spate had washed away many of the small invertebrates that grazed on the algae, meaning that there were few left to feed on those algae that survived the storm (or which had recolonised in the aftermath)..   As the algae divided and re-divided, so they started to compete for light, handing an advantage to those that could adjust their position within the biofilm.   This dominance by motile diatoms was, in my experience of the upper Wear, as uncommon as the assemblages I’m encountering this summer, though probably for different reasons.

Other algae from the River Wear at Wolsingham, September 2018.    The upper image shows Diatoma vulgare and the lower image is Oedogonium with epiphytic Cocconeis pediculus.   Scale bar: 20 micrometres (= 1/50th of a millimetre).

I suspect that it is the combination of high temperatures and low flows (more specifically, the absence of spates that might scour away the attached algae) that is responsible for the present state of the river.  This, along with my theory behind the explosion of Nitzschia archibaldii in August 2009, both highlight the importance of weather and climate in generating some of the variability that we see in algal communities in rivers (see “How green is my river?”).   The British have a reputation for talking about the weather.   I always scan the weather forecasts in the days leading up to a field trip, mostly to plan my attire and make sure that I will, actually, be able to wade into the river.  Perhaps I also need to spend more time thinking about what this weather will be doing to the algae I’m about to sample.

Comparing algae on a summer’s day …

I wrote about the effect of the long period of low flow in the River Wear a few weeks ago (see “Summertime Blues …”) and have, now, completed two dioramas depicting the state of the river in the main channel and in a filamentous algae-dominated backwater.  The first of these is dominated by free-living green algae, either single cells or coenobia (see note at end), which is a big contrast to the situation I recorded two months earlier when the assemblage was dominated by diatoms, with patches of filamentous green algae (see “Spring comes slowly up this way” and “A question of scale”).

I sent a small sample of the Wolsingham biofilm to Dave John for his opinion on the green algae, and he sent back a list with twenty one different green algae that he had found.  Fortunately, this confirmed my own original list, with Keratococcus bicaudatus, Scenedesmus, Desmodesmus and Monoraphidium all featuring.   He also commented that Keratococcus is hard to differentiate from Chlorolobium (which is also in his list) and that most of the green alga on his list are usually considered to be planktonic (Keratococcus and Chlorolobium are exceptions) although, as my earlier post suggested, these definitely formed a distinct biofilm on the surface of stones this year in the River Wear.

A diorama showing the biofilm in the River Wear at Woslingham, July 2018.   You can see coenobia of Demodesmuss communis (centre), Scenedesmus sp. (left) and Coelastrum microporum (right – half tucked behind a mineral particle, along with single cells of Keratococcus bicaudatus (upright cells) and Monoraphidium.  There are also some cells of Achnanthidium minutissimum on short stalks in the foreground and a cluster of Fragilaria gracilis cells in the background.

There seems to be little hard evidence on the habit of Keratococcus and Chlorobium apart from references to a preference for benthic habitats.   I have drawn them as upright cells, drawing on their similarity in form to Characium, for which there is better evidence of an upright habit (although Characium tends to grow on other algae, rather than on hard surfaces).  Whereas I often have a strong sense of the three dimensional arrangement of organisms within benthic biofilms, so little has been written about the preferences of these green algae that, apart from the Keratococcus, I have had to show them as a jumble of cells and coenobia across the picture frame.

The second diorama depicts the tangle of filamentous green algae that I found in the pools beside the main channel.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, these are species that I do not normally find at this site and are here, I presume, due to the long period of unusually warm weather and low flows.   One difference between these communities and that captured in my first diorama is that there is a more obvious organisation of the constituents here: the Cladophora filaments, though appearing as a tangle to us, form the foundation upon which epiphytes grow directly, but also around which Melosira filaments are entangled, rather like the lianas in a tropical rain forest.   The quantity of diatoms around the Cladophora is so great that their brown pigments completely mask the Cladophora’s green cells but note how the density of Cocconeis cells reduces towards the tips – the youngest parts of the filaments.

Depiction of filamentous algae growing in the margins of the River Wear at Wolsingham in July 2018, showing epiphytic Cocconeis pediculus and entangled Melosira varians.

There have been some recurring themes in my posts this summer: one is that UK rivers have been behaving quite differently to previous years, due to a combination of low flows (more accurately, a lack of the scour associated with high flows) and warm, well-lit conditions.   The low flows have also resulted, to some extent, in rivers becoming more physically heterogeneous, with side-pools and silty areas developing distinct assemblages of algae quite different to those encountered in the main channel.   Sometimes, the sum of these effects is for rivers to look less healthy than is usually the case.

The Wear at Wolsingham is one of those sites that I like to think I know well, having visited the location so many times over the past 30 years.  It is reassuring, in a rather humbling way, to know that it still has the capacity to surprise me.

Dave’s list of green algae from the Wolsingham biofilm, July 2018

Desmids
Closterium moniliferum
Closterium acerosum
Cosmarium botrytis
Cosmarium venustum
Staurastrum striatum

‘Chlorococcalean’ algae
Acutodesmus dimorphus
Coelastrum astroideum
(very small and atypical)
Coelastrum microporum (very small and atypical)
Chlorolobion braunii
Desmococcus olivaceum (subaerial species)
Desmodesmus communis
Desmodesmus subspicatus
Keratococcus bicaudatus

Monoraphidium arcuatum
Monoraphidium contortum
Monoraphidium griffithsia
Monoraphidium irregulare
Scenedesmus arcuatus
Pseudopediastrum boryanum
Tetradesmus obliquus
Tetraedron minimum

Note

A coenobium is a colony in which the cell number is fixed at the time of formation and not augmented subsequently.   Coenobia are particularly common in the Chlorococcalees.

Summertime blues …

My reflections on the effects of the heatwave on freshwater algae continued with the latest of my regular visits to the River Wear at Wolsingham.  A comparison of the picture above with that at the head of “Spring comes slowly up this way …” says it all: the sun was shining and the gravel berms that I usually use to enter the river were occupied by families with barbeques whilst their children splashed around in the water.   At times such as this, a grown man picking up stones and then vigorously brushing their tops with a toothbrush would have invited too many questions, so I slunk off 100 metres or so downstream and found a quieter spot to explore.

The biofilm in the main channel of the River Wear at Wolsingham, July 2018. 

The first thing I noticed was that the biofilm coating the submerged stones at the bottom of the river had a greenish tinge, rather than its usual chocolate brown appearance.  It also was more crusty and less slimy to the touch than I usually see in this river.  When I got a specimen under the microscope, I could see that the composition was completely different to that which I had observed in previous months.   Most samples from this location that I’ve looked at in the past have been dominated by diatoms, with occasional spring flourishes of filamentous green algae.  Today, however, the sample was dominated by small green algae – a group that I am not very confident at identifying.   My rough estimate is that these formed about three quarters of all the algae that I could see, with diatoms and cyanobacteria each accounting for about half of the remainder.   The most abundant greens were a tiny single-celled alga that I tentatively identified as Keratococcus bicaudatus, along with a species of Scenedesmus and Desmodesmus communis.   There were also a number of cells of Monoraphidium arcuatum and some of Ankistrodesmus sp.

Two views of biofilms from the River Wear, Wolsingham in January 2018.   Left: from the main channel; right: from pools at the edge of the channel.

Green algae from the River Wear at Wolsingham, July 2018: a. Desmodesmus communis; b. Monoraphidium arcuatum; c. Scenedesmus sp.; d. unidentified, possibly Keratococcus bicaudatus.  Scale bar: 10 micrometres (= 1/100th of a millimetre).

However, there were also pools at the side of the channel, away from the main current but not so cut off that they were isolated from the river itself.   These were dominated by dense, brown filamentous growths, very similar in appearance to the Melosira varians flocs I described in “Some like it hot …”.  The filaments, however, felt coarser to the touch and, in close-up, could be seen to be branched, even without recourse to a microscope.   Once I got these under the microscope, I could see that they were filaments of Cladophora glomerata, another green alga, but so smothered with epiphytic diatoms (mostly Cocconeis pediculus) that they appeared brown in colour.

This combination of Cladophora glomerata and Cocconeis pediculus in the backwaters were as much of a surprise as the green-algae-dominated biofilms in the main channel.   These are species usually associated with enriched rivers (see “Cladophora and friends”) and, whilst I have seen Cladophora in the upper Wear before, it is an unusual occurrence.   Just as for the prolific growths of Melosira varians described in “Some like it hot …” it is tempting to leap to the conclusion that this must be a sign that the river is nutrient-rich.  However, the same conditions will apply here as there: “nutrients” are not the only resource that can limit plant growth and a steady trickle of phosphorus combined with warm, sunny conditions is just as likely to lead to prolific growths as a more conventionally “polluted” river.

Cladophora filaments smothered by the diatom Cocconeis pediculus in a pool beside the River Wear at Wolsingham, July 2017.   The frame width of the upper image is about 1 cm; the scale bar on the lower images is 20 micrometres (= 1/50th of a millimetre).

Another way to think of these situations is that, just as even healthy people are occasionally ill, so healthy streams can go through short periods when, based on a quick examination of plants and animals present, they exhibit symptoms associated with polluted conditions or simply (as for the first sample I described) different to what we usually expect to find.   A pulse of pollution might have passed downstream or, as seems to be happening at the moment, an unusual set of conditions lad to different organisms thriving.   Just as the ability to fight off infection forms part of a doctor’s understanding of “health”, so I expect that the River Wear will, in a few weeks time, be back to its usual state.   Healthy ecosystems, just like healthy humans, show “resilience”.   The irony is that, in this case, the “symptoms” are most obvious at a time when we are enjoying a summer better than any we’ve had in recent years.

A question of scale …

It has taken some time to convert the observations from my last visit to the River Wear (see “Spring comes slowly up this way …”) into a picture.  Then, if you remember, the river was balanced between its “spring” and “summer” guises, the cool, wet weather that we experienced in March seems to have held the plants and animals that I usually see at this time of year back.   The result was a patchiness that was easy to see with the naked eye, but harder to visualise at the microscopic level.

First there were quite a few diatoms, Achnanthidium minutissimum in particular, – that suggested a thin biofilm subject to grazing by invertebrates (and I could see some chironomid larvae moving amongst the biofilm as I was sampling).   However, there were also diatoms such as Ulnaria ulna and Gomphonema olivaceum that suggested a thicker biofilm.    And finally there were filaments of the green alga Stigeoclonium tenue, mostly in discrete patches.   I never see healthy filaments of Stigeoclonium tenue smothered in epiphytes, which I have always assumed to be due to the copious mucilage that surrounds the plants.  However, I wondered if, nonetheless, Stigeoclonium contributes to overall habitat patchiness for the diatoms, as they subtly alter the way that water flows across the stone, reducing drag and shear stress in a way that favours Gomphonema and Ulnaria.   This is just speculation, of course…

That brings me back to a familiar theme: the problems of understanding the structure of the microscopic world (see “The River Wear in January” and “Baffled by the benthos (1)”) and, tangentially, to a paper on organisms’ responses to climate that was quoted at a scientific meeting I attended recently.   In this, Kristen Potter and colleagues demonstrated that there was typically a 1000 to 10,000 fold difference between the scale at which the distribution of organisms is studied and the size of those organisms.   That might be enough to draw out some coarse-scale patterns in distribution of species, but organisms actually live in microclimates, which may be patchy and which can often be quite different to the prevailing macroclimate (the difference between being exposed to full sun in open grassland and in the shade of a forest being a good example).   They suggested that the ideal spatial resolution is between one and ten times the organism’s length/height.

I see no reason why the same challenge should not also apply to the pressures faced by organisms in rivers where, again, we can get a certain amount of useful information from a coarse analysis of distribution in relation to (let’s say) average nutrient concentrations in a reach, but cannot really understand the reasons behind the spatial and temporal variation that we see in our data.  This mismatch between the scale at which organisms respond and the scale at which we study them is, I suspect, an even bigger problem for those of us who study the microscopic world.

A second illustration came at the same meeting in a talk by Honor Prentice from the University of Lund in Sweden.  She was dabbling in molecular biology years before this became a fashionable pastime for ecologists and has, over her career, developed some fascinating insights into how the structure of both plant communities and populations of individuals vary over short distances.  Her work has focussed on the island of Öland in Sweden which has the largest extent of alvar (limestone pavement) in Europe.   The system of grikes (the slabs) and clints (the fissures which separate the grikes) create quite different microclimates – the cool, moist conditions in the latter can create bog-like conditions with much lower pH than the limestone clints.   These differences influence not just the composition of the community but the genetic structure of species within these communities too.  I left thinking that if she could detect such differences at a scale barely more than one order of magnitude greater than the organisms, then how much more variation am I missing, with perhaps a five order of magnitude difference between organism size and sampling scale?

Based on these two studies, we would need to sample biofilms at a scale of about 1 mm2 in order to get a meaningful understanding of habitat patchiness in stream benthic algae.  That might just be possible with Next Generation Sequencing technologies, though I am not sure how one would go about collecting environmental data at that scale needed to explain what is going on.  Meanwhile, I am left with the coarse approach to sampling that is inevitable when you are five orders of magnitude bigger than the organism that you want to collect, and my imagination.

References

Potter, K.A., Woods, H.A. & Pincebourde, S. (2013).  Microclimatic changes in global change biology.   Global Change Biology 19: 2932-2939.

Prentice, H.C., Lonn, M., Lefkovitch, L.P. & Runyeon, H. (1995).   Associations between allele frequencies in Festuca ovina and habitat variation in the alvar grasslands on the Baltic island of OlandJournal of Ecology 83: 391-402.

 

Spring comes slowly up this way …*

I took a few minutes out on my trip to Upper Teesdale to stop at Wolsingham and collect one of my regular samples from the River Wear.  Back in March, I commented on the absence of Ulothrix zonata, which is a common feature of the upper reaches of rivers such as the Wear in early Spring (see “The mystery of the alga that wasn’t there …”).   I put this down to the unusually wet and cold weather that we had been experiencing and this was, to some extent, confirmed by finding prolific growths of Ulothrix zonata in late April in Croasdale Beck (see “That’s funny …”).   Everything seems to be happening a little later than usual this year.   So I should not have been that surprised to find lush growths of green algae growing on the bed of the river when I waded out to find some stones from which to sample.

These growths, however, turned out to be Stigeoclonium tenue, not Ulothrix zonata (see “A day out in Weardale”): it is often hard to be absolutely sure about the identity of an alga in the field and, in this case, both can form conspicuous bright green growths that are slimy to the touch.   Did I miss the Ulothrix zonata bloom in the River Wear this year?   Maybe.   Looking back at my records from May 2009 I see that I recorded quite a lot of narrow Phormidium filaments then but none were apparent in this sample.   That taxon thrived throughout the summer, so perhaps, again, its absence is also a consequence of the unusual weather.

Growths of Stigeoclonium tenue on a cobble in the River Wear at Wolsingham, May 2018.  

The photograph illustrates some of the problems that ecologists face: the distribution of algae such as Ulothrix zonata and Stigeoclonium zonata is often very patchy: there is rarely a homogeneous cover and, often, these growths are most prolific on the larger, more stable stones.   I talked about this in Our Patchwork Heritage; the difference now is that the patchiness is exhibited by different groups of algae, rather than variation within a single group.   Ironically, the patchiness is easier to record with the naked eye than by our usual method of sampling attached algae using toothbrushes.   That’s partly because we tend to sample from smaller substrata (the ones that we can pick up and move!) but also because of the complications involved in getting a representative sample.   We have experimented with stratified sampling approaches – including some stones with green algae, for example, in proportion to their representation on the stream bed – but that still means that we have to make an initial survey to estimate the proportions of different types of growth.

Under the microscope, therefore, the algal community looks very different.   There are fewer green cells and more yellow-brown diatom cells, these dominated by Achnanthidium minutissimum, elegant curved cells of Hannaea arcus and some Navicula lanceolata, still hanging on from its winter peak.   The patterns I described in The mystery of the alga that wasn’t there … are still apparent although the timings are all slightly adrift.

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

The schematic view below tries to capture this spatial heterogeneity.  On the left hand side I have depicted the edge of one of the patches of Stigeoclonium.   Healthy populations of Stigeoclonium do no support large populations of epiphytes, probably as a result of the mucilage that this alga produces.  My diagram also speculates that the populations of Gomphonema olivaceum-type cells and Ulnaria ulna may be living in the shadow of these larger algal growths, as neither is well adapted to the fast current speeds on more exposed rock surfaces.  Finally, on the right of the image, there are cells of Achnanthidium minutissimum, small fast-growing cells that can cope with both fast currents and grazing.   I have not included all of the taxa I could see under the microscope, partly because of the space available.  There is no Hannaea arcus or Navicula lanceolata and I have also left out the chain of Diatoma cells that you can see on the right hand side of the view down the microscope.

The speckled background in the image of the view down the microscope is, by the way, a mass of tiny bacteria, all jigging around due to Brownian motion.  The sample had sat around in the warm boot of the car for a few hours after collection so I cannot be sure that these were quite as abundant at the time of collection as they were when I came to examine it.  However, some people have commented on the absence of bacteria – known to be very abundant in stream biofilms – from my pictures, so these serve as a salutary reminder of an extra dimension that really needs to be incorporated into my next images.

Schematic view of the biofilm from the River Wear at Wolsingham, May 2018.  a. Stigeoclonium tenue; b. Gomphonema olivaceum complex; c. Ulnaria ulna; d. Meridion circulare; e. Achnanthidium minutissimum.   Scale bar: 10 micrometres (= 1/100th of a millimetre).

* Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Christabel (1816)

 

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.