Present-day characteristics of phytoplankton, microphytobenthos and phytoepiphyton of the Kaniv reservoir
Report 1: taxonomic, ecological diversity and spatial pattern
Authors
,
Semeniuk N.Ye.,
Davydov O.A.,
Larionova D.P.
Section:
Ecology, Cenology, Conservation of Algae and their Role in NatureIssue:
Vol. 33 No. 3 (2023)Pages:
147–184DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/alg33.03.147Abstract
The paper considers the present-day taxonomic and ecological diversity, spatial patterns of phytoplankton and algae on the interface of two phases: water – substratum (microphytobenthos and phytoepiphyton) in the most typical biotopes of Kaniv Reservoir in summer seasons of 2017–2022. 301 species (311 intraspecific taxa) of algae have been identified from 142 genera, 75 families, 44 orders, 15 classes and 8 phyla. At the phyla level Bacillariophyta, Chlorophyta and Cyanobacteria dominated. The highest number of species and infraspecific taxa – 143 (146) have been found in microphytobenthos. The highest diversity at the level of genera (98), families (57), orders (37), classes (11) and phyla (7) was observed for the phytoplankton. The phytoplankton was dominated by Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta, the microphytobenthos and phytoepiphyton – by Bacillariophyta. The highest level of species similarity has been recorded between the algal communities at the interface of two phases: water – substratum, the highest dissimilarity – between phytoplankton and phytoepiphyton. According to geographic distribution cosmopolite species prevail, according to saprobity – χ-ο- and β-mesosaprobic organisms, according to salinity preferences – indifferent species, according to pH preferences – alcalifilic species. According to biotopic preference typically planktonic and eurytopic forms dominate the phytoplankton, and benthic and eurytopic forms dominate the microphytobenthos and phytoepiphyton. Comparing the present-day findings with the retrospective data has not shown any significant changes in the phytoplankton and the microphytobenthos structures. As before, Chlorophyta, Bacillariophyta and, to a lesser extent, Cyanobacteria continue to dominate in phytoplankton, and Bacillariophyta and Chlorophyta – in microphytobenthos. It is explained by natural internal processes prevailing in Kaniv Reservoir, relatively stable level of human impact, and constant algal flow from Kyiv Reservoirs and tributaries. Nowadays phytoplankton, microphytobenthos and phytoepiphyton are distinguished by high taxonomic diversity and play an important role in Kaniv Reservoir biodiversity.
Keywords:
phytoplankton, microphytobenthos, phytoepiphyton, taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity, spatial patterns, Kaniv ReservoirFull text
References
Barinova S.S., Medvedeva L.A., Anisimova O.V. 2006. Biodiversity of algae - indicators of the environment. Tel Aviv: PiliesStudio. 498 p. [Баринова С.С., Медведева Л.А., Анисимова О.В. 2006. Биоразнообразие водорослей-индикаторов окружающей среды. Тель Авив: PiliesStudio. 498 с.].
Cantonati M., Lowe R.L. 2014. Lake benthic algae: towards an understanding of their ecology. Freshwat. Sci. 33(2): 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1086/676140
Guiry M.D., Guiry G.M. 2023. AlgaeBase. World-wide electron. publ. Nat. Univ. Ireland, Galway.
Klochenko P., Shevchenko T. 2017. Distribution of epiphytic algae on macrophytes of various ecological groups (the case study of water bodies in the Dnieper River basin). Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 46(3): 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1515/ohs-2017-0030
Law J.R. 2011. A review of the function and uses of, and factors affecting, stream phytobenthos. Freshwat. Rev. 4: 135–166. https://doi.org/10.1608/FRJ-4.1.448
Maystrova N.V. 2002. New floristic finding in the plankton of the Kaniv Reservoir. Algologia. 12(4): 451–459. [Майстрова Н.В. 2002. Новые флористические находки в планктоне Каневского водохранилища. Альгология. 12(4): 451–459].
Methods of hydroecological investigations of surface waters. 2006. Ed. V.D. Romanenko. Kyiv: Logos. 408 p. [Методи гідроекологічних досліджень поверхневих вод. 2006. За ред. В.Д. Романенка. Київ: Логос. 408 с.].
Naselli-Flores L., Padisák J. 2023. Ecosystem services provided by marine and freshwater phytoplankton. Hydrobiologia. 850(12-13): 2691–2706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-022-04795-y https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35106010 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8795964
Oksiyuk O.P., Davydov O.A. 2006a. Assessment of the ecological state of water bodies according to microphytobenthos. Kyiv: Inst. Hydrobiol. NAS Ukraine. 32 p. [Оксиюк О.П., Давыдов О.А. 2006a. Оценка экологического состояния водных объектов по микрофитобентосу. Киев: И-т гидробиол. НАН Украины. 32 с.].
Oksiyuk O.P., Davydov O.A. 2006b. Principles of methods of the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies using microphytobenthos. Hydrobiol. J. 42(4): 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v42.i4.80
Oksiyuk O.P., Davydov O.A., Karpezo Yu.I. 2011. Microphytobenthos as bioindicator of state of aquatic ecosystems. Hydrobiol. J. 47(1): 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v47.i1.70
Oksiyuk O.P., Davydov O.A., Karpezo Yu.I. 2012. Sanitary and hydrobiological assessment of the state of the river section of the Kanev Reservoir in terms of the structural indices of microphytobenthos algae cenoses. Hydrobiol. J. 48(5): 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v48.i5.50
Oksiyuk O.P., Davydov O.A., Dyachenko T.N. et al. 2005. Benthic vegetation of the river section of the Kanev reservoir. Kyiv: Logos. 40 p. [Оксиюк О.П., Давыдов О.А., Дьяченко Т.Н. и др. 2005. Донная растительность речного участка Каневского водохранилища. Киев: Логос. 40 с.].
Pligin Yu.V., Shcherbak V.I., Arsan O.M. et al. 1998. Impact of surface flow on the biota of the Kaniv Reservoir within Kyiv city and recommendations regarding its purification. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific-Practical Conference "Ecology of Cities and Recreation Zones". Odessa: Astroprint. Pp. 272–277. [Плигин Ю.В., Щербак В.И., Арсан О.М. и др. 1998. Влияние поверхностного стока на биоту Каневского водохранилища в районе г. Киева и рекомендации по его очистке. В кн.: Материалы международной научно-практической конференции "Экология городов и рекреационных зон". Одесса: Астропринт. С. 272–277].
Priymachenko A.D. 1967. Distribution and dynamics of phytoplankton in the upper stretch of the Dnieper. In: Hydrobiological regime of the Dnipers under conditions of regulated flow. Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka. Pp. 176–194. [Приймаченко А.Д. 1967. Распределение и динамика фитопланктона в верхнем течении Днепра. В кн.: Гидробиологический режим Днепра в условиях зарегулированного стока. Киев: Наук. думка. С. 176–194].
Reynolds C.S. 1996. Algae. In: River Biota. Diversity and Dynamics. Oxford: Black. Sci. Pp. 6–26.
Reynolds C.S. 2006. The Ecology of Phytoplankton. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 535 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542145
Roll Ya.V. 1940. An attempt to zone the Dnieper according to its phytoplankton composition. Visti AN URSR. 10: 48–58. [Ролл Я.В. 1940. Спроба районування Дніпра за складом його фітопланктону. Вісті АН УРСР. 10: 48–58]. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005576X.1940.11750532
Roll Ya.V., Markovskiy Yu.M. 1955. Plankton of the Middle Dnieper in connection with prognosing the Kremenchug Reservoir. Zool. J. 34(3): 506–521. [Ролл Я.В., Марковский Ю.М. 1955. Планктон среднего Днепра в связи с прогнозом Кременчугского водохранилища. Зоол. журн. 34(3): 506–521]. https://doi.org/10.3775/jie.34.506
Semenyuk N.Ye. 2018. Homeostasis of phytoepiphyton of the Dnieper reservoirs. Hydrobiol. J. 54(2): 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v54.i2.20
Semenyuk N.Ye. 2020. Epiphytic algal communities of the Dnieper basin waterbodies: Dr. Sci. (Biol.) Abstract. Kyiv. 40 p. [Семенюк Н.Є. 2020. Фітоепіфітон водних об'єктів басейну Дніпра: Автореф. дис. … д-ра біол. наук. Київ. 40 с.].
Semenyuk N.Ye., Shcherbak V.I. 2016. Structural and functional organization of phytoepiphyton of the Dnieper reservoirs and factors influencing its development. Rep. 1. Role of some hydrophysical factors. Hydrobiol. J. 52(5): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v52.i5.10
Shcherbak V.I., Maistrova N.V. 1998. Phytoplankton from the Kanev Reservoir and estuaries of its main tributaries, and its contribution to water quality formation. Hydrobiol. J. 34(4-5): 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v34.i4-5.30
Shcherbak V.I., Maystrova N.V. 2001. Phytoplankton of the Kyiv section of the Kaniv Reservoir and factors affecting its development. Kyiv: Inst. Hydrobiol. NAS Ukraine. 70 p. [Щербак В.І, Майстрова Н.В. 2001. Фітопланктон київської ділянки Канівського водоймища та чинники, що його визначають. Київ: Ін-т гідробіології НАН України. 70 с.].
Shcherbak V.I., Zadorozhnaya A.M. 2013. Seasonal dynamics of phytoplankton of the Kiev Section of the Kanev Reservoir. Hydrobiol. J. 49(4): 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v49.i4.30
Shcherbak V.I., Zadorozhnaya A.M., Kalenichenko K.P. 2014. Phytoplankton spatial and temporal dynamics in the additional net of the Kiev Section of the Kanev Reservoir. Hydrobiol. J. 50(3): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v50.i3.10
Shcherbak V.I., Yakushin V.M., Zadorozhnaya A.M. et al. 2016. Seasonal and interannual dynamics of phytoplankton, phytomicroepiphyton, and nutrients content in the River Section of the Kanev Reservoir. Hydrobiol. J. 52(1): 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v52.i1.50
Shevchenko T.F. 2011. Distribution of periphyton algae of the Dnieper reservoirs depending on the type of substratum. Hydrobiol. J. 47(3): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v47.i3.10
Shevchenko T.F., Klochenko P.D., Timchenko V.M., Dubnyak S.S. 2019. Epiphyton of a cascade plain reservoir under different hydrodynamic conditions. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 19(3): 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2019.01.006
Shmidt V.M. 1980. Statistical methods in comparative floristics. Leningrad: Leningrad Univ. Publ. 176 p. [Шмидт В.М. Статистические методы в сравнительной флористике. Л.: Изд-во Ленингр. ун-та. 176 с.].
Sørensen T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation of Danish commons. Kong. Dansk. Videns. Selskab Biol. Skrift. 5(4): 1–46.
Tarashchuk O.S. 2009. Epiphyton algae communities of the river section of the Kanev Reservoir depending on ecological factors. Hydrobiol. J. 46(5): 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1615/HydrobJ.v45.i6.30
Topachevskyi O.V., Oksiyuk O.P. 1960. Diatoms - Bacillariophyta. In: Identification manual of the freshwater algae of Ukrainian RSR. Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka. Issue 9. 411 p. [Топачев-ський О.В., Оксіюк О.П. 1960. Діатомові водорості - Bacillariophyta. В кн.: Визначник прісноводних водоростей Української РСР. Київ: Наук. думка. Вип. 9. 411 с.].
Vadeboncoeur Y., Steinman A.D. 2002. Periphyton functions in lake ecosystems. Sci. World. 2: 1449–1468. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2002.294 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805932 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6009390
Vegetation and bacterial population of the Dnieper and its reservoirs. 1989. Eds L.A. Sirenko, I.L. Koreliakova, L.Ye. Mikhailenko. Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka. 232 p. [Растительность и бактериальное население Днепра и его водохранилищ. 1989. Под ред. Л.А. Сиренко, И.Л. Корелякова, Л.Е. Михайленко и др. Киев: Наук. думка. 232 с.].
Vladimirova K.S. 1978. Phytomicrobenthos of the Dnieper, its reservoirs and the Dnieper-Bug Estuary. Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka. 365 p. [Владимирова К.С. 1978. Фитомикробентос Днепра, его водохранилищ и Днепровско-Бугского лимана. Киев: Наук. думка. 365 с.].
Wehr J.D., Descy J.P. 1998. Use of phytoplankton in large river management. J. Phycol. 34: 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.1998.340741.x
Yarmoshenko L.P. 2007. Formation of microphytobenthos in the upper part of Kaniv Reservoir under conditions of human impact: PhD (Biol.) Abstract. Kyiv. 24 p. [Ярмошенко Л.П. 2007. Формування мікрофітобентосу верхньої частини Канівського водосховища за умов антропогенного впливу: Автореф. дис. … канд. біол. наук. Київ. 24 с.].
Zadorozhna H., Semeniuk N., Shcherbak V. 2017. Interaction between phytoplankton and epiphytic algae in the Kaniv Water Reservoir (Ukraine). Int. Let. Nat. Sci. 61: 56–68. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILNS.61.56
