4.0 Review

A review of research on the Lemanea genus in Serbia

期刊

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.2478/oandhs-2021-0006

关键词

Lemanea fluviatilis; Lemanea fucina; Lemanea rigida; morphology; ecology; distribution; negative anthropogenic impact

资金

  1. Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development [451-03-68/2020-14/200122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The first data on the Lemanea genus in Serbia dates back to the late 20th century, with four taxa identified, including two species newly recorded in Serbia. Lemanea species were found to prefer specific environmental conditions and are sensitive to negative anthropogenic impact, particularly from the construction of small hydropower plants.
The first data on the Lemanea genus in Serbia come from the late 20th century. Only one species, L. fluviatilis, was reported from 10 localities in Serbian riverine ecosystems between 1991 and 2017. Extensive research on this genus was performed in April-November 2017-2019, surveying 150 localities in 97 upland and mountain rivers. During this study period, the Lemanea genus was recorded at 14 localities in 12 rivers, while it disappeared from five previously reported localities. A total of four taxa were identified: Lemanea fucina, L. rigida, Lemanea sp. and L. fluviatilis. Lemanea fucina and L. rigida were recorded in Serbia for the first time. L. fluviatilis was the most common taxon. Our research confirmed that Lemanea species prefer similar specific environmental conditions. These species were found in temperate, soft or moderately hard, well-oxygenated and weakly alkaline waters, with low, moderate or high conductivity, and in waters with low content of inorganic nutrients. Due to their sensitivity to changes in environmental conditions, Lemanea species are exposed to negative anthropogenic impact leading to the degradation of their habitats. Intensive construction of small hydropower plants has threatened most habitats of the Rhodophyta species in the last few years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据