4.6 Review

Stream Biofilm Responses to Flow Intermittency: From Cells to Ecosystems

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00014

Keywords

biofilm; dry-rewetting cycle; temporary; intermittency; bacteria; algae; Mediterranean

Funding

  1. European Community 7th Framework Programme [603629-ENV-2013-6.2.1.-Globaqua]
  2. Economy and Knowledge Department of the Catalan Government, Consolidated Research Group of the Catalan Institute for Water Research [2014 SGR 291]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Temporary streams are characterized by the alternation of dry and wet hydrological phases, creating both a harsh environment for the biota as well as a high diversity of opportunities for adaptation. These systems are mainly microbial-based during several of these hydrological phases, and those growing on all solid substrata (biofilms) accordingly change their physical structure and community composition. Biofilms experience large decreases in cell densities and biomass, both of bacteria and algae, during dryness. Algal and bacterial communities show remarkable decreases in their diversity, at least locally (at the habitat scale). Biofilms also respond with significant physiological plasticity to each of the hydrological changes. The decreasing humidity of the substrata through the drying process, and the changing quantity and quality of organic matter and nutrients available in the stream during that process, causes unequal responses on the biofilm bacteria and algae. Biofilm algae are affected faster than bacteria by the hydric stress, and as a result the ecosystem respiration resists longer than gross primary production to the increasing duration of flow intermittency. This response implies enhancing ecosystem heterotrophy, a pattern that can be exacerbated in temporary streams suffering of longer dry periods under global change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available