Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Ground Water Quality of Lucknow City under GIS Framework Using Water Quality Index (WQI)
Previous Article in Journal
Operation and Maintenance Cost of Water Management Systems: Analysis and Optimization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/w15173054
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Small Organisms in a Large River: What Provides the High Diversity of Scaled Chrysophytes in the Ob River?

by
Anna Bessudova
1,*,
Yelena Likhoshway
1,
Alena Firsova
1,
Elena Mitrofanova
2,
Mikhail Koveshnikov
2,
Andrey Soromotin
3,
Vitaly Khoroshavin
4 and
Vladimir Kirillov
2
1
Limnological Institute, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 3 Ulan-Batorskaya, 664033 Irkutsk, Russia
2
Institute for Water and Environmental Problems, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1 Molodezhnaya, 656038 Barnaul, Russia
3
Research Institute of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Tyumen State University, 6 Volodarsky, 625003 Tyumen, Russia
4
Institute of Earth Sciences, Tyumen State University, 2 Osipenko, 625048 Tyumen, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(17), 3054; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15173054
Submission received: 26 July 2023 / Revised: 15 August 2023 / Accepted: 18 August 2023 / Published: 25 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biodiversity and Functionality of Aquatic Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Currents are one of the main factors favoring the dispersal of microscopic planktic organisms over inland lakes and rivers. Large rivers of the northern hemisphere, flowing from south to north, can increase the diversity of northern latitudes with boreal species, while high water levels and floods expand the range of ecotopes and the biodiversity of rivers. We studied the distribution of the taxonomic structure and species richness of scaled chrysophytes downstream of the Ob river—a large river in West Siberia—at the end of the high-water period (June). Methods of scanning and transmission microscopy allowed the determination of a high taxonomic richness of these organisms, 67 species in total. The species were unevenly distributed by stations, with the maximum number of species (54) occurring in a shallow still bay without current and with minimum turbidity and a small number of diatoms. The species diversity in the main current was represented mainly by ubiquitous and cosmopolitan species.Water level fall usually coincides with the end of the vegetation of many scaled chrysophytes and the formation of stomatocysts. The stomatocysts of different species may drift downstream and then germinate when they find suitable conditions at theappropriatetime. Large rivers that are subject to significant changes in water level during their hydrologicalperiodsare able to host ahigh diversity of microscopic planktic organisms. Studying this capacity may reinforce the hypothesis of an omnipresence, i.e., that “everything is everywhere”.

1. Introduction

Free-living microeukaryotes are ubiquitous organisms [1,2,3]. They provide the primary productions of different waterbodies and of the planet in as a whole [4,5,6]. Scaled chrysophytes, Chrysophyceae Pascher, as well as diatoms, participate in the global Si cycle and play an important role in fresh waters. They transform water-dissolved siliceous acid to species-specific silica elements of their shells—scales and spines. At the end of their vegetation, they become dormant, forming siliceous stomatocysts which favor the dispersal of species [7,8]. Scaled chrysophytes are one of the most ancient groups of organisms. The age of stomatocysts preserved in sediments reaches back as far as ca. 100 million years BP [9], with molecular clock analysis predicting that their age maybe close to 330 Ma BP [10]. Some Eocene and Palaeocene chrysophyte species are morphologically similar to existing species [11,12,13,14]. It is evident that knowledge of the autecology of existing species allows for the reconstruction of past environments.
Scaled chrysophytes are thought to be euplanktic organisms mostly inhabiting freshwater ponds and lakes [15]. A significant species diversity of these organisms occurs in large, slow-flowing rivers and small streams [16,17,18]. In general, these organisms are considered to beindicators of pure cold waters, though they have various ecological and trophic preferences [15]. The order Synurales includes strict autotrophs, while representatives of the order Paraphysomonadales, from the genera Chrysosphaerella Lauterborn and Spiniferomonas Takahashi are mixotrophs, and those of the genus Paraphysomonas De Saedeleer are heterotrophs [19,20,21]. Several species of scaled chrysophytes have a limited distribution and show different tolerances to environments [8,15,22,23], allowing some of these species to serve as bioindicators [15]. The majority of scaled chrysophytes refer to widespread and cosmopolitan species [24,25], e.g., representatives of the order Synurales from the most investigated and species-rich genera Synura and Mallomonas occur worldwide [8,26].
There are two hypotheses regarding the dispersal of siliceous scales protists [8]: abiotic (water and wind transfer) [24] and biotic, i.e., dispersal on the hair of animals and the feathers of water fowl [8,24,27,28]. The circumpolar dispersal of scaled chrysophytes in the northern hemisphere could occurat the border of the High Pleistocene–Holocene through a network of ice-dammed lakes and streams [29]. Nowadays, rivers may also play an important role in the dispersal of scaled chrysophytes [8]. Water courses of the northern hemisphere, running into the Arctic ocean, are able to transfer boreal species a thigh arctic latitudes, while global warming creates suitable conditions for their acclimatization there [29]. Large lowland rivers are subject to seasonal water level changes. Spring floods deluge adjacent areas and form new ecotopes, such as shallow still bays, that dry out at the end of summer when the water level falls. In order to reinforce the hypothesis that there are different species compositions of scaled chrysophytes in primary channels and in such short-lived bays, we studied samples collected downstream of the Ob river during high water. We revealed high species richness and showed a sensibility of organisms that have different trophic preferences to various abiotic factors such as turbidity and river flow rate. We consider high water to be one of the mechanisms favoring the enrichment of species diversity and dispersal through river flow in the context of the hypothesis of omnipresence [3].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The Ob river is one of the largest rivers of Russia; its catchment area is one of the largest in the world [30,31]. It flows through West Siberia rising in the Altai mountains at the confluence of the Biya and Katun rivers [30]. The river feeds mainly from precipitation, more than 50% of which being snow and 20–25% being rain and ground water [31,32]. It provides more than 30% runoff into the Kara sea, impacting water circulation there and, according to some estimates, in the whole Arctic ocean [33,34].
We studied three transects in the low Ob within the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (Figure 1, Table 1).
The Azovy transect (St. A) goes over the Little Ob river. The bottom of the left bank is covered with sand and organic silt; that of the right bank consists of solid sandy deposits. The Kazym-Mys transect (St. K) is located against Kazym-Mys village. The bottom of the right bank is formed by boulders and coarse pebbles intermitting with sand and organic silt in bays; that of the left bank is covered with solid coarse sandy deposits. The Salemal transect (St. C) is situated at the Ob river 8 km upstream from the Salemal village at the narrowing of the riverbed. The bottom of the right bank is covered with medium-sized and coarse pebbles and boulders; that of the left bank is formed by solid silt–clayey deposits with detritus.

2.2. Field and Laboratory Methods

For our study we collected 14 samples over the period 7–13 June 2022 (Figure 1). We applied hydrochemical and hydrometric methods that had been described earlier [35]. Sampling coordinates, data and time as well as hydrochemical parameters of each station are given in Table 1. The maximum depth (Hmax) at each station was undertaken using a Garmin GPS map 420s (Garmin, Lenexa, KS, USA) chartplotter. The chartplotter showed that near-shore sections are 5–8 m deep on average, 50 m from the right bank and 150 m from the left bank there are steep slopes to the main channel, the central flat part of the channel is 24–26 m deep (Table 1). pH and dissolved oxygen (O2) were determined in situ using a WTW 3420 multimeter (Xylem Analytics, Weilheim, Germany). Water flow rate and temperature were measured with a GRS-3 device (NPO Typhoon, Obninsk, Russia). Water transparency (S) was measured with a white Secchi disc 30 cm in diameter.
All phytoplankton samples were processed by standard hydrobiological methods [36]. Samples were collected from water surface at all stations using a 5 L Ruttnertube sampler. For scanning electron microscopy (SEM), 10–12 mL samples were filtered through 13 mm filter with 0.8 µm pores (Whatman Part of GE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA). The filter with precipitate was dried at room temperature and then attached to the SEM stub with double tape, coated with gold in an SDC 004 vacuum evaporator (Balzers, Liechtenstein) and examined using a QUANTA 200 SEM (FEI Company; Hillsboro, OR, USA). Before the calculation of diatom cells and the detection of scaled chrysophytes by means of transmission electron microscopy (TEM), samples taken with a water bottle were filtered through 35 mm acetate cellulose membrane filters with 0.85–1.0 µm pores (Vladipor, Vladimir, Russia) using a filtering plant. Precipitate was washed from the filters with 500 µL of water, and 4% formaldehyde solution was added in a 1:10 ratio for fixation. The further processing of sample for TEM analysis was undertaken according to an established protocol [21].
Precipitate meant for the enumeration of diatom cells was washed from the filters with 500 µL of filtered water into 10 mL bottles; the volumes of filtered samples and those of the samples in each bottle were measured for the calculation of the quantity and biomass of phytoplankton. Diatom cells were identified and counted with a light microscope Laboval 4 (Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) in a 0.1 mL Nageotte counting chamber. For the estimation of biomass, the volume of cells was calculated using approximations to geometrical shapes. Species with the maximum contribution to abundance and biomass were taken as phytoplankton dominants.

3. Results

3.1. Water Parameters

According to Table 1, water temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations, both in the flooded areas (stations K4 and A4) and in the main current, varied insignificantly. Only at stations S1–S6 did the cross-section water temperature change within 12.9–14.4 °C, regardless of sampling depth. Samples collected near the surface, e.g., at St. S1 (0.1 m), had lower temperatures than those taken deeper, e.g., at St. S4 (5.4 m) (see Table 1).
Water flow rate at the studied cross-sections varied significantly, e.g., 0.12 (St. K1) to 0.38 m·s−1 (St. S4) in the main channel. In the shallow bay St. K4 and riparian St. A1, the water flow rate was within 0–0.03 m·s−1; however, in one case (riparian St. A4) there was a weak reverse flow (0.1 m·s−1) against the main current.
Visual examinations of SEM filters with collected material show water samples that, regardless of similar Secchi disc transparency (S = 0.35–0.60 m), differed in turbidity, i.e., they had different contents of mineral particles (see Table 1, Figure 2).
Samples collected in the main current contained many clayey particles. Particles at St. K1–K3, A1–A4, S1–S6 consisted of mineral particles approximately 0.5 to 32 µm in size (Figure 2B,C). One station at the Kazym-Mys transect (St. K4) was located at a shallow bay (0.5 m) at the right flooded swampy bank of the river. There was no current, and the sampled water had almost no mineral particles. Only microalgae precipitated on the filters, and mineral particles were rare (Table 1, Figure 2D). At the Azovy transect, the high right bank was flooded insignificantly. One of the right bank stations (A4) was shallow. A sample was taken from sunken willow branches and contained few mineral particles (see Table 1). Silt–sandy beaches at the left bank and around the islands of the Salemal cross-section as well as the rocky shoals of the right bank were under water. Station S1 is located near the Yamburina channel and is influenced with its water. Water transparency at that station is minimal (0.35 m), while the number of mineral particles is high.

3.2. Diversity and Distribution of Chrysophytes

The study area has high species richness of scaled chrysophytes, with a total of 67 species from 5 genera Chrysosphaerella (n = 2), Paraphysomonas (n = 5), Spiniferomonas (n = 10), Mallomonas (n = 32), and Synura (n = 18) identified (Table 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Distributions of scaled chrysophytes at the stations of the Ob mouth had some patterns.
First, the riparian stations showed higher species diversity than those at the main channel. The highest species diversity was observed at the right bank stations K3 (19 species), K4 (54 species), and A4 (31 species) and the left bank station A1 (22 species). Stations K4 and A4 are situated far from the main channel, with samples at those stations collected near the bank at a depth of 0.5 m, without current and with a small number of mineral particles at St. A4 (see Table 1). It is noteworthy that the bottom of St. K4—which had the highest number of species, including intact cells—was covered with silt and that mineral particles in the water were scarce. Among the stations with various species of scaled chrysophytes, we note that St. K3 had an increasing sampling depth (1.4 m) and showed a burst of flow rate of up to 0.19 m·s−1. The species composition at that station was very similar to that of the adjacent St. K4 (Table 2). This may be explained by the transfer of scales downstream, as scaled chrysophytes here occurred as individual scales. Twenty-two species of scaled chrysophytes were found at the left bank station (St. A1) where a current was fine to nonexistent. Species diversity at stations K1, K2, A2, A3, and S2–S6, situated in the main channel, was low varying within 5–13 species. The depth of the river at the Salemal cross-section reaches 16–27 m and the narrowing of the bed increases the flow rate at the surface by up to 0.38 m·s−1 (see Table 1). Stations with a low species diversity or without scaled chrysophytes (St. S1) were found in the center of the river or near deep stony banks with high flow rate and high content of mineral particles (see Table 1). No scaled chrysophytes were identified at St. S1, regardless of its small maximum depth (1.9 m). Nevertheless, a diatom bloom was observed at that station (see Table 1). The station is located near a river branch and is under the influence of its water.
Second, according to the frequency of scales in the samples, species in the main channel are ubiquitous and cosmopolitan Spiniferomonas trioralis, S. bourrellyi, Mallomonas acaroides, M. akrokomos, M. alpina, M. caudata, M. crassisquama, M. crassisquama var. papillosa, M. punctifera, M. tonsurata, Synura americana, S. glabra, S. borealis, S. petersenii, S. spinosa and S. uvella.
Third, the highest diversity of scaled chrysophytes was observed when there was almost no ability to derive silicon from diatoms. Thus, the minimum number and biomass of diatoms was observed at St. K4 (21.6 × 103 cells·L−1 and 0.03 g·m−3, respectively) (see Table 1), while at the same time the number of species at that station was the highest, with 54 species (see Table 2).
The dominant complex of diatoms at the cross-sections included a planktic species Asterionella formosa Hassall and planktic–benthic species Aulacoseira granulata (Ehrenberg) Simonsen and A. distans (Ehrenberg) Simonsen. At the same time, A. granulata occurred at all stations, but in different quantities.

3.3. Rare Species and Species with Specific Morphology

Two rare species—Synura biseriata and S. punctulosa—previously found in boreal waters were identified in the study area. Our investigation provides additional data on their autecology.
S. biseriata (Figure 8K–N). This species was described for the first time in ponds and marshes of the Napaskiak area (Alaska), mainly from submergent Carex and Sphagnum [37], as an undesignated species in June (Figure 15 in [38]). Later, the species was identified in the Rybinsk reservoir in May at a pH = 7.15–7.3, T = 11.2–13 °C [39]. The species may thus be typical for boreal waters. In our study, scales of S. biseriata occurred at T = 14–14.4 °C. The main diagnostic features of the scales coincide with those previously described: scales are oval to oval–triangular, 3.3–3.7 × 2.6–3.1 µm, the spine is cylindrical up to 2.1 µm, and the basal folded edge is 0.63–0.69 µm wide.
S. punctulosa (Figure 7D). This species was described from samples taken in Rybinsk (April, May) and Kama (October) reservoirs at pH = 7.0–7.4, T = 5.0–12.1 °C [39]. Further, the species was found in September in a small lake of the Low Yenissei catchment area at pH = 7.3, T = 4.5 °C, EC25 = 41.5 µS·cm−1 [40], in a pond of Finland [41], as well as in the mouth of the Barguzin river and the delta of the Selenga river in May, June and September at pH = 7.31–8.15, T = 3.2–13.4 °C, EC25 = 144–200 µS·cm−1 [17]. Thus, the species may be typical of northern waters irrespective of the season. In this study, the scales of S. punctulosa occurred at T = 13.1–14.33 °C. The parameters of the diagnostic features of the scales coincide with those described previously: scales are oval, 3.0–3.7 × 1.9–2.2 µm, the spine is cylindrical up to 1.2 µm, and the basal folded edge is 0.23–0.35 µm wide.
The cells of Spiniferomonas bourrellyi (Figure 3A), S. silverensis (Figure 3B) and S. triangularis (Figure 3H) found at station K4 had very long spines atypical for their diagnoses, measuring 16.6, 16.6 and 15.3 µm, respectively.
Some spines of the S. bourrellyi found in the study area had pores (Figure 3L). We had observed such morphological features in spines in Lake Labynkyr (Figure 2I in [21]). Pores on spines are not typical of species of the genus Spiniferomonas [42,43], most often they characterize representatives of Chrysosphaerella [44]. Nonetheless, the found specimens cannot be referred to as the genus Chrysosphaerella as they have lamellar scales of simple structure, with one lacuna. Furthermore, a septum is typical of Chrysosphaerella spines [44] but was absent from the specimens found. The cells may belong to a new species, though only molecular studies can resolve the issue.

3.4. Undetermined Species

We also found scales with a morphology that differed from all species previously described. These might be new species; a description of their scales and spines is given below.
Chrysosphaerella sp. (Figure 3A,B,D). Two types of plate scales were found, including subcircular (2.5–2.9 × 2.2–2.4 µm in diameter) and oval scales (2.9–3.5 × 1.9–2.4 µm). Both types of scales were ornamented with a series of elongated, round ridges, forming a scalloped pattern. Considerably large round ridges differentiate these scales from structures in other known species. Spines have a shaft joining two plates of a bobbin-like structure. Spines are 8–14 µm long. We had previously found lamellar scales with similar morphology at the mouth of the Olenyok river, Yakutia (Figure S1c,d in [18]). Scales were observed at stations A4, S2, and S6, at pH = 7.52–7.87 and T = 12.9–14.3 °C.
Spiniferomonas sp. (Figure 4F,G). Cells are covered with plate and spine scales. Plate scales are elliptical (0.9–1.3 × 0.5–0.7 µm) with a wide thickened margin creating a single central elliptical lacuna. There are up to 16 spine scales per cell. Spines are 2.4–3.2 µm long, slightly curved in the distal part at one-third of their length, triangular in cross section, and comprise three membranes united along a common edge. A median rib tapers to an obtuse apex 0.52–0.74 µm long. In the area of the bend of the spine, margins of two membranes end in an obtuse apex 0.16–0.20 µm long. Spine shafts are anchored on large conical bases 0.7–1.1 µm in diameter and 0.28–0.41 µm high. The combination of lamellar scales with one lacuna and triangular spines with shafts and a conical base distinguishes these cells from known species of the genus Spiniferomonas. Scales were found at St. K4, at T = 14.3 °C.
Paraphysomonas sp. 1 (Figure 3F). The baseplate is round-to-oval, 1.5–1.9 µm in diameter, with a dense rim. Spine is straight, 1.3–2.2 µm long, with an acute tip. Scales were found at St. K4, at T = 14.0 °C.
Paraphysomonas sp. 2 (Figure 3H). The baseplate is round, 1.3–1.7 µm in diameter, without a dense margin. The central part of the baseplate has a looser area. The spine is straight, 4.3–5.2 µm long, with an acute tip. Scales were found at St. A4, at T = 14.3 °C.
Mallomonas sp. (Figure 6E,F). Has a small apical oval scale, 1.0 × 2.5 µm, with a long spine rounded at the end, and is 6.6 µm long. The shield area of the scale is unstructured with pores in some places. The V-rib is acute and without a hood. The distal ends of the V-rib arms curve and become continuous with the anterior submarginal ribs. Anterior flanges are smooth and narrow. The anterior ends of the scales have a structure similar to carina. The posterior flange is smooth. Scales were found at St. K4, at T = 14.0 °C.
Several morphotypes of the Synura petersenii sensu lato species complex were observed. We provide descriptions of morphotypes observed in our samples.
Synura sp. 1 (Figure 8F–H). The body scales are 3.7–4.8 × 1.7–2.5 µm. The Keel is cylindrical, sometimes slightly widened anteriorly, ornamented by pores of different sizes—medium (diameter, 47–70 nm) to very large (diameter, 120–180 nm)— and ends in a prominent acute tip. The baseplate is ornamented by small pores. The foramen pore on the baseplate is circular, 0.38–0.47 µm in diameter. Numerous struts (28–32) extend regularly from the keel to the scale perimeter, sometimes these are interconnected by transverse folds. The rim of the baseplate is broad (up to 0.60 µm wide) and encircles more than half of the perimeter of the scale. Scales were found at stations K4, A3, and S2, at pH = 7.48–7.87 and T = 12.9–14.3 °C.
Synura sp. 2 (Figure 8C,D). The body scales are 3.5–3.9 × 1.7–2.1 µm. A wide cylindrical keel ornamented with medium-sized pores ends in a prominent acute tip. The baseplate is ornamented by small pores. The foramen pore on the baseplate is circular and is0.28–0.34 µm in diameter. Numerous struts (23–26) extend from the base of the keel towards the margin and are sometimes somewhat reduced, without transverse folds. The rim of the baseplate is broad (up to 0.44 µm wide) and encircles more than half of the perimeter of the scale. Scales were found at stations K4, A3, and S2, at pH = 7.77 and T = 14.0–14.15 °C.

3.5. Stomatocysts

Thirty-one various morphotypes of chrysophycean stomatocysts were identified in the study area (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The most various morphotypes of stomatocysts were found in samples collected at riparian stations K4 and St. A4, with 20 and 7 morphotypes respectively. Five morphotypes were found at St. K3. At stations K1, K2, A1–A3, and S1–S6 of the main channel, stomatocysts were rare, and only one-to-three morphotypes were observed.
As a rule, widespread morphotypes of stomatocysts prevailed [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Four of the found morphotypes conformed to stomatocysts of the species Chrysosphaerella longispina Lauterborn—Stomatocyst 49, Duff and Smol, 1991 (identified at St. A1), Ochromonas globosa Skuja—Stomatocyst 112 Zeeb et al., 1990 (identified at St. A4), Urostipulosphaera Pusztai and Skaloud (U. notabilis (B. Mack) Pusztai and Škaloud U. lindiae (Bourrelly) Pusztai and Škaloud, U. soniaca (Conrad) Pusztai and Škaloud)—135 Duff and Smol, 1992 (identified at St. K4) as well as some species of Paraphysomonas, forming Stomatocyst 1 Duff and Smol, 1988 (identified at St. S2).
Stomatocyst 462 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018 was the most common among the morphotypes. This morphotype had been already described in tributaries of North Baikal [52] and Boguchany reservoir [53], thoughits species is unknown.
We would like to note that the list of scaled chrysophytes given in Table 2 does not contain the species Chrysosphaerella longispina, whose stomatocysts we found. This may indicate that the species has either already completed its vegetation and moved toa dormant stage or was brought by the river during the observation period. Beyond this species, among the discovered morphotypes of stomatocysts, there may be additional species of scaled chrysophytes of an identification unknown in the literature. Thus, the diversity of scaled chrysophytes in the study area maybe even higher than that in Table 2.
A new morphotype was discovered among stomatocysts at stations A1 and S1. Here is its description:
Stomatocyst 507 Firsova and Bessudova (Figure 10K,L)
Negative number: 18114_002, 18119_004, 18119_003
Biological affinity: unknown
Locality: Stations A1, S1
SEM description: Spherical stomatocyst (diameter 11.5–12.5 µm) with a cylindrical collar (diameter 4.1 µm; height 1.3 µm), and an acute apex. The surface is ornamented with numerous (about 100) echinate spines that are sometimes a little twisted at the ends (spine height 1.0–2.6 µm).
References: We were not able to link this stomatocyst with any previously published morphotype.

4. Discussion

We suggest that the hydrologic regime is the most important factor governing the biodiversity and distribution of scaled chrysophytes downstream of the Ob river during high water. The present study was undertaken during high water when the riverbed became wider and the banks were flooded forming still backwaters in which, as opposed to the main channel with a high flow rate, there were less turbidity. At that time, according to Table 1, at the studied stations, the flow rate, turbidity and water transparency varied significantly from 0 to 0.38 m·s−1 and 0.35 to 0.60 m, respectively, while other water parameters were comparable. Our data bear evidence that these differences were enough to create different ecotopes, and consequently to manifest peculiarities in the distribution of species diversity of scaled chrysophytes. The high diversity of scaled chrysophytes (75 species) we previously observed at the mouth of the arctic lowland Olenyok river (Yakutia) was closely related to the slower flow, temperature, transparency and impact of small tundra tributaries [18]. Only five species [18] were identified in the same area in the mountain Indigirka river, which lacks large lowlands and has a minimal amount of meanders.
The various environmental conditions in the study area during the observation period favored the formation of a high species richness of scaled chrysophytes (67 species). Such a high biodiversity is comparable tot hat of the mouths of arctic rivers in Yakutia (82 species) [18], Baikal region (79 species) [56], Bolshezemelskaya tundra (75 species) [57], and the small arctic ponds near Tiksi (65 species) [58] that we have described previously. Therefore, the northern waters of East Siberia have a high species diversity of scaled chrysophytes. The highest diversity of scaled chrysophytes during this study occurred in shallow sites without flow, isolated from the main channel (such as stations K4, A4 and A1).
The differences in habitat parameters distributed the species in accordance with their ecological preferences, once again indicating the sensitivity of scaled chrysophytes to different parameters of the habitat [15]. Our data show (see Table 1 and Table 2) that increasing flow rate and turbidity remove most the of species that occur in hydrologically stable environments of backwaters and riparian stations, such as Mallomonas actinoloma, M. alata, M. eoa, M. calceolus, M. insignis, M. mangofera var. mangofera, M. multiunca, M. papillosa, M. kuzminii, M. scalaris, M. scrobiculata, M. torquata var. torquata, Synura cf. asmundiae, S. conopea, S. praefracta, S. multidentata, S. spinosa f. longispina, and S. splendida from the species composition of the main channel.
Vegetation of scaled chrysophytes in the study area was also limited by an active bloom of diatoms at some stations, e.g., at St. S1. The lowest number and biomass of diatoms was observed at St. K4, which had the highest variety of species composition of scaled chrysophytes, where they occurred as whole cells (see Table 1). Vegetative peaks of scaled chrysophytes are known to coincide, as a rule, with the end of vegetation of large diatom species [59,60]; this seems to be related to an ability toproduce Si.
If we analyze the list of species in termsof biogeography (see Table 2), we will see the cosmopolitan and widespread species Mallomonas acaroides, M. akrokomos, M. alpina, M. caudata, M. crassisquama, M. crassisquama var. papillosa, M. punctifera, M. tonsurata, Synura americana, S. glabra, S. borealis, S. petersenii, S. spinosa and S. uvella occurred in the main channel, sometimes as whole cells, and manifestedtheir vegetation during sampling. The same species had been shown to predominate by frequency of cells and scales at the mouths of the mountain Yenissei [61], Upper Angara, Kichera [62] rivers as well as at the mouths of the arctic Indigirka and Kolyma rivers [18], i.e., these species may be described as current-tolerant. The distribution of representatives of the order Paraphysomonadales is less investigated. In this study, species of the genus Spiniferomonas with limited distribution, such as S. abrupta, S. cornuta, S. minuta, S. serrata, S. silverensis, S. takahashii and S. triangularis, occurred in ditchwater at stations K4, A4 and A1, indicating their sensibility to current. A high species richness of species of the genus Spiniferomonas, including the species mentioned above, has already been described in the Baikal [59], Labynkyr and Vorota [21,60] lakes, in warm bays of the northern part of Baikal lake [62], in lakes near the Bothnian bay [63], in waters of the Bolshezemelskaya tundra [56], and in lakes of Connecticut [64]. Single cells of the cosmopolitan species Spiniferomonas bourrellyi and S. trioralis have been found in the main channel of the Ob river. These species havebeen previously described at the mouths of the Yenissei, Upper Angara, Kichera, Indigirka and Kolyma rivers [18,61,62] and may be considered current-tolerant. Species of the genus Paraphysomonas are also typical of lakes [20,57], though their high species diversity may be more frequent in backwaters with slow current [18]. In this study, species P. cf. v. vulgaris, Paraphysomonas sp. 1 and Paraphysomonas sp. 2 occurred only in riparian ditchwater. Two species, P. u. uniformis and P. gladiata, occurred in the main channel.
Formation of chrysophycean stomatocysts is known to have two peaks during a year—spring and summer-autumn [52,65,66]. In this study, the most variety of stomatocyst morphotypes were observed at the riparian stations K4 and A4 at T = 14–14.3 °C, manifesting around different periods of the seasonal cycles at the studied stations with different water parameters. The relatively low common diversity of stomatocyst morphotypes, with less than half of the total number of scaled chrysophytes found, may testify to the idea that the species were at a stage of intensive vegetation.
Dispersal of scaled chrysophytes at the end of the vegetative period by current in the form of thick-walled stomatocysts is highly likely [8,24,28], while their germination can be delayed for several years [8,67,68,69,70].

5. Conclusions

Lowland rivers have suitable conditions for the formation of a high diversity of scaled chrysophytes. Morphometric peculiarities of the riverbed such as meanders, large flood plain and lowlands favor the species richness of scaled chrysophytes, most of which vegetate during high water. The low diversity of scaled chrysophytes in the main channel and their high diversity near banks in bays and backwaters where the flow is almost absent or very slow bear the evidence of different sensibility to hydrological and hydrochemical conditions. Distribution of scaled chrysophytes with different trophic preferences follows some patterns. Cosmopolitan and ubiquitous representatives of the autrophic genera, such as Synura and Mallomonas, are able to inhabit the surface layer of the main channel. The turbidity and high flow rate seen during high water do not suppress their vegetation but may limit them. The main part of mixotrophic (genus Spiniferomonas) and heterotrophic (genus Paraphysomonas) representatives of scaled chrysophytes do not tolerate current and turbidity. During low water and dewatering of shallow bays in summer, chrysophytes, including their stomatocysts, may be transferred to the main channel and vegetate downstream when they meet favorable conditions.
This combination of factors, such as change of hydrologic stages, different trophic preferences, tolerance to current and capacity to form stomatocysts, may play the primary role in the formation of a high biodiversity and a dispersal of scaled chrysophytes by the current in the context of the hypothesis of omnipresence, or “everything is everywhere” [1,2,3].

Author Contributions

A.B., electron microscopy, identification of scaled chrysophytes, literature search, interpretation of the results, and writing of the first version of the manuscript; E.M., light microscopy, counting of the Ob river phytoplankton, determination of diatoms proportion in the abundance and biomass of phytoplankton; M.K., A.S., V.K. (Vladimir Kirillov) and V.K. (Vitaly Khoroshavin), sampling, hydrochemical analysis; A.F., electron microscopy, identification of stomatocysts; Y.L., writing, review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study is supported by project FWSR-2021-0008, No. 121032300186-9 (Limnological Institute—electron microscopy, identification species of silica-scaled chrysophytes, stomatocysts and their description) and by project of the State Research Program No. 0306-2021-0001 (IWEP SB RAS—light microscopy, identification of phytoplankton species). The study was undertaken within the state assignment of IWEP SB RAS with support of the Russian Center for Arctic Development (Salekhard, Russia). This study was partly funded by the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District Government (West-Siberian Interregional Science and Education Center’s project) and the Russian Center for Arctic Development (Salekhard, Russia). The role of the sponsors was to fund expeditions to the Ob river, as well as to fund chemical and biological analyses of water samples.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The microscopy studies were performed at the Electron Microscopy Center of the Shared Research Facilities “Ultramicroanalysis” of Limnological Institute, https://www.lin.irk.ru/copp/. The authors are thankful to M.M. Makarov for his help with cartography (accessed on 22 June 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Finlay, B.J.; Clarke, K.J. Ubiquitous dispersal of microbial species. Nature 1999, 400, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Finlay, B.J. Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science 2002, 296, 1061–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. O’Malley, M.A. ‘Everything is everywhere: But the environment selects’: Ubiquitous distribution and ecological determinism in microbial biogeography. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 2008, 39, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Field, C.B.; Behrenfeld, M.J.; Randerson, J.T.; Falkowski, P.G. Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 1998, 281, 237–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Benoiston, A.-S.; Ibarbalz, F.M.; Bittner, L.; Guidi, L.; Jahn, O.; Dutkiewicz, S.; Bowler, C. The evolution of diatoms and their biogeochemical functions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2017, 372, 20160397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Strelnikova, N.I.; Gladenkov, A.Y. Diatoms and their application in stratigraphic and paleogeographic studies. Issues Mod. Algol. 2019, 2, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Duff, K.E.; Zeeb, B.A.; Smol, J.P. Chrysophyte cyst biogeographical and ecological distributions: A synthesis. J. Biogeogr. 1997, 24, 791–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kristiansen, J. Dispersal and biogeography of silica-scaled chrysophytes. Biodiv. Conserv. 2008, 17, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harwood, D.M.; Gersonde, R. Lower Cretaceous diatoms from ODP Leg 113 Site 693 (Wendell Sea). Part 2: Resting spores, Chrysophycean cysts, and endoskeletal dinoflagellate, and notes on the origin of diatoms. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Science Result; Barker, P.F., Kennett, J.P., Eds.; Ocean Drilling Program: College Station, TX, USA, 1990; pp. 403–425. [Google Scholar]
  10. Boo, S.M.; Kim, H.S.; Shin, W.; Boo, G.H.; Cho, S.M.; Jo, B.Y.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Yang, E.C.; Siver, P.A.; et al. Complex phylogeographic patterns in the freshwater alga Synura provide new insights into ubiquity vs. endemism in microbial eukaryotes. Mol. Ecol. 2010, 19, 4328–4338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Siver, P.A.; Wolfe, A.P. Scaled chrysophytes in middle Eocene lake sediments from northwestern Canada, including descrip-tions of six new species. Nova Hedwig. Beih. 2005, 128, 295–308. [Google Scholar]
  12. Siver, P.A.; Wolfe, A.P. Eocene scaled chrysophytes with pronounced modern affinities. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 166, 533–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Siver, P.A.; Lott, A.M.; Wolfe, A.P. A summary of Synura taxa in early Cenozoic deposits from northern Canada. Nova Hedwig. Beih. 2013, 142, 181–190. [Google Scholar]
  14. Siver, P.A.; Jo, B.Y.; Kim, J.I.; Shin, W.; Lott, A.M.; Wolfe, A.P. Assessing the evolutionary history of the class Synurophyceae (Heterokonta) using molecular, morphometric, and paleobiological approaches. Am. J. Bot. 2015, 102, 921–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Siver, P.A. Synurophyte algae. In Freshwater Algae of North America: Ecology and Classification, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 607–651. [Google Scholar]
  16. Siver, P.A.; Vigna, M.S. The distribution of scaled chrysophytes in the delta region of the Parana River, Argentina. Nova Hedwig. 1997, 64, 421–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bessudova, A.; Sorokovikova, L.M.; Tomberg, I.V.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Silica-scaled chrysophytes in large tributaries of Lake Baikal. Cryptogam. Algol. 2018, 39, 145–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bessudova, A.; Gabyshev, V.A.; Firsova, A.D.; Gabysheva, O.I.; Bukin, Y.U.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Diversity of silica-scaled chrysophytes and physicochemical parameters of their environment in the estuaries of rivers in the Arctic watershed of Yakutia, Russia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sandgren, C.D.; Smol, J.P.; Kristiansen, J. Chrysophyte Algae: Ecology, Phylogeny and Development; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; 399p. [Google Scholar]
  20. Scoble, J.M.; Cavalier-Smith, T. Scale evolution in Paraphysomonadida (Chrysophyceae): Sequence phylogeny and revised taxonomy of Paraphysomonas, new genus Clathromonas, and 25 new species. Europ. J. Protistol. 2014, 50, 551–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bessudova, A.; Firsova, A.; Bukin, Y.; Kopyrina, L.; Zakharova, Y.; Likhoshway, Y. Under-ice development of silica-scaled chrysophytes with different trophic mode in two ultraoligotrophic lakes of Yakutia. Diversity 2023, 15, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Siver, P.A. The distribution of scaled chrysophytes along a pH gradient. Can. J. Bot. 1989, 67, 2120–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Paterson, A.M.; Cumming, B.F.; Smol, J.P.; Hall, R.I. Scaled chrysophytes as indicators of water quality changes since preindustrial times in the Muskoka-Haliburton region, Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2001, 58, 2468–2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kristiansen, J. Cosmopolitan chrysophytes. Syst. Geog. Plants 2000, 70, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Škaloud, P.; Škaloudová, M.; Pichrtová, M.; Němcová, Y.; Kreidlová, J.; Pusztai, M. www.chrysophytes.eu—A database on distribution and ecology of silica-scaled chrysophytes in Europe. Nova Hedwig. Beih. 2013, 142, 141–146. [Google Scholar]
  26. Siver, P.A. The distribution and variation of Synura species (Chrysophyceae) in Connecticut, USA. Nord. J. Bot. 1987, 7, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schlichting, H.E. The role of waterfowl in the dispersal of algae. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 1960, 79, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siver, P.A.; Lott, A.M. Biogeographic patterns in scaled chrysophytes from east coast of North America. Freshw. Biol. 2012, 57, 451–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bessudova, A.; Bukin, Y.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Dispersal of silica-scaled chrysophytes in northern water bodies. Diversity 2021, 13, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bulavina, A.S. Modelling of the Ob River runoff under climate change. Tr. KSC RAS 2021, 3, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bulavina, A.S. Spatio-temporal analysis of climatic factors of the Ob River runoff formation. Tr. KSC RAS 2022, 4, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aleshina, N.I.; Gefke, I.V. Features of hydrological regime of the Upper Ob for the possibility of water management. Intern. J. Hum. Nat. Sci. 2019, 11–12, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Broecker, W.S. Thermohaline circulation, the Achilles heel of our climate system: Will man-made CO2 upset the current balance. Science 1997, 278, 1582–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kulakov, M.Y. A new approach for modelling of water circulation in Arctic Seas. Probl. Arct. Antarct. 2012, 2, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
  35. Soromotin, A.; Moskovchenko, D.; Khoroshavin, V.; Prikhodko, N.; Puzanov, A.; Kirillov, V.; Koveshnikov, M.; Krylova, E.N.; Krasnenko, A.; Pechkin, A. Major, trace and rare earth element distribution in water, suspended particulate matter and stream sediments of the Ob River mouth. Water 2022, 14, 2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wetzel, R.G. Limnological Analysis, 3rd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000; 430p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hillard, D.K.; Asmund, B. Studies on chrysophyceae from some ponds and lakes in Alaska. II. Notes on the genera Dinobryon, Hyalobryon and Epipyxis with descriptions of new species. Hydrobiologia 1963, 22, 331–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Asmund, B. Studies on Chrysophyceae from some ponds and lakes in Alaska. VI. Occurrence of Synura species. Hydrobiologia 1968, 31, 497–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Balonov, I.M. Genus Synura Ehr. (Chrysophyta): Biology, ecology and systematic. In Biology, Morphology and Systematics of the Aquatic Organisms; Science: Leningrad, Russia, 1976; pp. 61–81. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bessudova, A.; Bukin, Y.S.; Sorokovikova, L.M.; Firsova, A.D.; Tomberg, I.V. Silica-scaled chrysophytes in small lakes of the lower Yenisei basin, the Arctic. Nova Hedwig. 2018, 107, 315–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kristiansen, J.; Preisig, H.R. Chrysophyta and Haptophyta algae, 2nd part: Synurophyceae. In Süsswasser Flora Von Mitteleuropa (Freshwater Flora of Central Europe); Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 1–252. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nicholls, K.N. Spiniferomonas (Chrysophyceae) in Ontario lakes including a revision and descriptions of two new species. Can. J. Bot. 1981, 59, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nicholls, K.N. Spiniferomonas septispina and S. enigmata, two new algal species confusing the distinction between Spiniferomonas and Chrysosphaerella (Chrysophyceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 1984, 148, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kristiansen, J.; Tong, D. Chrysosphaerella annulata n. sp., a new scale-bearing chrysophyte. Nord. J. Bot. 1989, 9, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Duff, K.E.; Zeeb, B.A.; Smol, J.P. Altas of Chrysophycean Cysts; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 1–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wilkinson, A.N.; Zeeb, B.A.; Smol, J.P. Atlas of Chrysophycean Cysts; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume II, pp. 1–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Piątek, J.; Piątek, M. Chrysophyte stomatocysts of the sulphuric salt marsh in the Owczary Reserve (Central Poland). Pol. Bot. J. 2005, 50, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
  48. Piątek, J. Chrysophyte stomatocysts from sediments in a manmade water reservoir in central Poland. Ann. Bot. Fennici. 2007, 44, 186–193. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pang, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Q. Ten new chrysophycean stomatocysts ornamented with spines from bogs near Da’erbin Lake, China. Nova Hedwig. 2012, 94, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pang, W.; Wang, Q. Chrysophycean stomatocysts from Xinjiang Province, China. Phytotaxa 2016, 288, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Safronova, T.V. Golden Algae (Chrysophyceae, Synurophyceae) of Nature Reserves of Leningrad Oblast and Sankt-Petersburg. Ph.D. Thesis, BIN RAN, Sankt-Petersburg, Russia, 2018; pp. 1–204. [Google Scholar]
  52. Firsova, A.D.; Bessudova, A.Y.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Chrysophycean stomatosysts in tributaries of northern limit of Lake Baikal. Acta Biol. Sib. 2018, 4, 25–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Firsova, A.D.; Bessudova, A.Y.; Sorokovikova, L.M.; Zhychenko, N.A.; Istomina, N.A.; Sezko, N.P.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Stomatocyst diversity in the first years of the plankton species structure formation in Reservoir of Hydropower Plants (Boguchany Reservoir, Russia). Phytotaxa 2019, 424, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Firsova, A.D.; Bessudova, A.Y.; Kopyrina, L.I.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Chrysophycean stomatocysts from two unique lakes of Yakutia (Russia). Phytotaxa 2020, 474, 197–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ignatenko, M.; Yatsenko-Stepanova, T.; Kapustin, D. Morphological variability of stomatocyst 131 Pang & Wang (Chrysophyceae) from a freshwater shallow lake in South Urals, Russia. Phytotaxa 2022, 542, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bessudova, A.Y.; Sorokovikova, L.M.; Sinyukovich, V.N.; Firsova, A.D.; Tomberg, I.V.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Effects of water levels on species diversity of silica-scaled chrysophytes in large tributaries of Lake Baikal. Acta Biol. Sib. 2020, 55, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Siver, P.A.; Voloshko, L.N.; Gavrilova, O.V.; Getsen, M.V. The scaled chrysophyte flora of the Bolshezemelskaya tundra. Nova Hedwig. 2005, 128, 125–150. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bessudova, A.; Gabyshev, V.; Bukin, Y.; Gabysheva, O.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Species richness of scaled chrysophytes in arctic waters in the Tiksi Region (Yakutia, Russia). Acta Biol. Sib. 2022, 8, 431–459. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bessudova, A.; Domysheva, V.M.; Firsova, A.D.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Silica-scaled chrysophytes of Lake Baikal. Acta Biol. Sib. 2017, 3, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bessudova, A.; Tomberg, I.V.; Firsova, A.D.; Kopyrina, L.I.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Silica-scaled chrysophytes in lakes Labynkyr and Vorota of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, Russia. Nova Hedwig. Beih. 2019, 148, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Firsova, A.D.; Bessudova, A.; Sorokovikova, L.M.; Tomberg, I.V.; Likhoshway, Y.V. The diversity of chrysophycean algae in an arctic zone of river and sea water mixing, Russia. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 2439–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bessudova, A.; Firsova, A.D.; Tomberg, I.V.; Sorokovikova, L.M.; Likhoshway, Y.V. Biodiversity of silica-scaled chrysophytes in tributaries ofnorthern limit of Lake Baikal. Acta Biol. Sib. 2018, 4, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nĕmcová, Y.; Pusztai, M.; Škaloudová, M.; Neustupa, J. Silica-scaled chrysophytes (Stramenopiles, Ochrophyta) along a salinity gradient: A case study from the Gulf of Bothnia western shore (northern Europe). Hydrobiologia 2015, 50, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Siver, P.A. The distribution and ecology of Spiniferomonas (Chrysophyceae) in Connecticut (U.S.A). Nord. J. Bot. 1988, 8, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Firsova, A.D.; Kuzmina, A.E.; Tomberg, I.V.; Potemkina, T.G.; Likhochway, Y.V. Seasonal dynamics of Chrysophyte stomatocyst formation in the plankton of Southern Baikal. Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Seriya Biol. 2008, 5, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Firsova, A.D.; Bessudova, A.; Likhoshway, Y.V. New data of chrysophycean stomatocysts from Lake Baikal. Acta Biol. Sib. 2017, 3, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cronberg, G. Changes in phytoplankton of Lake Trummen induced by restoration. Hydrobiologia 1982, 86, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sandgren, C.D. The ecology of chrysophyte flagellates: Their growth and perennation strategies as freshwater phytoplankton. In Growth and Reproductive Strategies of Freshwater Phytoplankton; Sandgren, C.D., Ed.; Cambridge university Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988; pp. 9–104. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sandgren, C.D. Chrysophyte reproduction and resting cysts: A paleolimnologist’s primer. J. Paleol. 1991, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Korkonen, S. Chrysophyte Stomatocysts and Their Biogeography in Finland; Academic Dissertation: Helsinki, Finland, 2020; pp. 1–65. [Google Scholar]
Water 15 03054 g001
Figure 1. Map—Sampling area of the Ob river.
Figure 1. Map—Sampling area of the Ob river.
Water 15 03054 g001
Water 15 03054 g002
Figure 2. Micrographs of water samples from stations with high and low turbidity. SEM: (A) view of a part of the filter from St. S6 with numerous particles of clay and a cell of Mallomonas punctifera (red arrow); (B) a large particle of clay at high magnification (St. K2); (C) small particle of clay at high magnification (St. K2); (D) view of a part of the filter from St. K4 with low turbidity. Individual cells of Mallomonas akrokomos and M. crassisquama (red arrows) are seen on the filter. Scale bars: (C) 2 µm; (A,B,D) 50 µm.
Figure 2. Micrographs of water samples from stations with high and low turbidity. SEM: (A) view of a part of the filter from St. S6 with numerous particles of clay and a cell of Mallomonas punctifera (red arrow); (B) a large particle of clay at high magnification (St. K2); (C) small particle of clay at high magnification (St. K2); (D) view of a part of the filter from St. K4 with low turbidity. Individual cells of Mallomonas akrokomos and M. crassisquama (red arrows) are seen on the filter. Scale bars: (C) 2 µm; (A,B,D) 50 µm.
Water 15 03054 g002
Water 15 03054 g003
Figure 3. Chrysosphaerella, Paraphysomonas and Spiniferomonas taxa from the Ob river, TEM (A–C,E–I,L,M), SEM (D,J,K): (A,B,D) Chrysosphaerella sp., oval (A), circular plate scales (B), and spines and plate scales (D); (C) Paraphysomonas sp., aberrant scale; (E) C. coronacircumspina, spine; (F) Paraphysomonas sp. 1; (G) P. cf. v. vulgaris; (H) Paraphysomonas sp. 2; (I) P. u. uniformis; (J) S. triangularis, a cell with overlapping scales; (K) S. cornuta, spines and plate scales; (L) Spiniferomonas bourrellyi, spine scale. The arrow points to a small circular hole; (M) S. minuta, spine scale. Scale bars: (A–C,F–M) 2 µm; (E) 5 µm; (D) 10 µm.
Figure 3. Chrysosphaerella, Paraphysomonas and Spiniferomonas taxa from the Ob river, TEM (A–C,E–I,L,M), SEM (D,J,K): (A,B,D) Chrysosphaerella sp., oval (A), circular plate scales (B), and spines and plate scales (D); (C) Paraphysomonas sp., aberrant scale; (E) C. coronacircumspina, spine; (F) Paraphysomonas sp. 1; (G) P. cf. v. vulgaris; (H) Paraphysomonas sp. 2; (I) P. u. uniformis; (J) S. triangularis, a cell with overlapping scales; (K) S. cornuta, spines and plate scales; (L) Spiniferomonas bourrellyi, spine scale. The arrow points to a small circular hole; (M) S. minuta, spine scale. Scale bars: (A–C,F–M) 2 µm; (E) 5 µm; (D) 10 µm.
Water 15 03054 g003
Water 15 03054 g004
Figure 4. Spiniferomonas taxa from the Ob river, SEM: (A) Spiniferomonas bourrellyi, long spine; (B,C) S. silverensis, long spine (B), spines and plate scales (C); (D) S. takahashii, spines and plate scales; (E) S. trioralis, spines and plate scales; (F,G) Spiniferomonas sp., spines and plate scales; (H) S. triangularis, a cell covered with long spine and plate scales; (I) S. serrata, spines and plate scales; (J) S. abrupta, spines and plate scales. Scale bars: (C–G) 2 µm; (I,J) 5µm; (A,B,H) 10 µm.
Figure 4. Spiniferomonas taxa from the Ob river, SEM: (A) Spiniferomonas bourrellyi, long spine; (B,C) S. silverensis, long spine (B), spines and plate scales (C); (D) S. takahashii, spines and plate scales; (E) S. trioralis, spines and plate scales; (F,G) Spiniferomonas sp., spines and plate scales; (H) S. triangularis, a cell covered with long spine and plate scales; (I) S. serrata, spines and plate scales; (J) S. abrupta, spines and plate scales. Scale bars: (C–G) 2 µm; (I,J) 5µm; (A,B,H) 10 µm.
Water 15 03054 g004
Water 15 03054 g005
Figure 5. Mallomonas taxa from the Ob river, TEM: (A) Mallomonas kuzminii; (B) M. alpina; (C) M. elongata; (D) M. tonsurata; (E) M. costata; (F) M. trummensis; (G) M. acaroides, caudal scale; (H) M. insignis; (I) M. kalinae; (J) M. calceolus; (K) M. punctifera; (L) M. papillosa; (M) M. caudata; (N) M. actinoloma; (O) M. actinoloma var. maramuresensis; (P) M. heterospina. Scale bars: 2 µm.
Figure 5. Mallomonas taxa from the Ob river, TEM: (A) Mallomonas kuzminii; (B) M. alpina; (C) M. elongata; (D) M. tonsurata; (E) M. costata; (F) M. trummensis; (G) M. acaroides, caudal scale; (H) M. insignis; (I) M. kalinae; (J) M. calceolus; (K) M. punctifera; (L) M. papillosa; (M) M. caudata; (N) M. actinoloma; (O) M. actinoloma var. maramuresensis; (P) M. heterospina. Scale bars: 2 µm.
Water 15 03054 g005
Water 15 03054 g006
Figure 6. Mallomonas taxa from Ob River, TEM: (A) Mallomonas torquata var. torquata; (B) M. alata f. hualvensis; (C) M. alata; (D) M. lychenensis; (E,F) Mallomonas sp., bristle (E) and scale (F); (G,H) M. munda, body (G) and apical scales (H); (I) M. scalaris, apical scale; (J) M. akrokomos; (K–M) M. mangofera var. mangofera; (N,O) M. striata var. serrata; (P) M. annulata; (Q) M. eoa. Scale bars: (A–D,F–Q) 2 µm; (E) 5 µm.
Figure 6. Mallomonas taxa from Ob River, TEM: (A) Mallomonas torquata var. torquata; (B) M. alata f. hualvensis; (C) M. alata; (D) M. lychenensis; (E,F) Mallomonas sp., bristle (E) and scale (F); (G,H) M. munda, body (G) and apical scales (H); (I) M. scalaris, apical scale; (J) M. akrokomos; (K–M) M. mangofera var. mangofera; (N,O) M. striata var. serrata; (P) M. annulata; (Q) M. eoa. Scale bars: (A–D,F–Q) 2 µm; (E) 5 µm.
Water 15 03054 g006
Water 15 03054 g007
Figure 7. Mallomonas and Synura taxa from Ob River, TEM: (A) Mallomonas scrobiculata; (B) M. multiunca; (C) Synura splendida; (D) S. punctulosa; (E–G) M. crassisquama, various variants of the coarse reticulum on shield; (H) M. crassisquama var. papillosa; (I,J) S. multidentata; (K)S. spinosa f. longispina; (L) S. spinosa; (M) S. petersenii; (N) S. uvella; (O) S. echinulata; (P,Q) S. cf. asmundiae; (R) S. borealis. Scale bars: (D,I–R) 1 µm; (A–C,E–H) 2 µm.
Figure 7. Mallomonas and Synura taxa from Ob River, TEM: (A) Mallomonas scrobiculata; (B) M. multiunca; (C) Synura splendida; (D) S. punctulosa; (E–G) M. crassisquama, various variants of the coarse reticulum on shield; (H) M. crassisquama var. papillosa; (I,J) S. multidentata; (K)S. spinosa f. longispina; (L) S. spinosa; (M) S. petersenii; (N) S. uvella; (O) S. echinulata; (P,Q) S. cf. asmundiae; (R) S. borealis. Scale bars: (D,I–R) 1 µm; (A–C,E–H) 2 µm.
Water 15 03054 g007
Water 15 03054 g008
Figure 8. Synura taxa from the Ob river, TEM: (A,B) Synura americana; (C,D) Synura sp. 2, a wide, cylindrical keel, ornamented with medium-sized pores. Numerous struts somewhat reduced, without transverse folds; (E) S. conopea; (F–H) Synura sp. 1, the keel is ornamented by pores of different sizes—from medium to very large; (I) S. praefracta, apical scales with rounded spine terminated by several short teeth; (J) S. glabra; (K–N) S. biseriata, body scales, the arrow shows an additional row of meshes (E); (O–S) S. cf. hibernica, apical scales with prominently protruding keel tip (O–Q), body scale (R), rear scale (S). Scale bars: 1 µm.
Figure 8. Synura taxa from the Ob river, TEM: (A,B) Synura americana; (C,D) Synura sp. 2, a wide, cylindrical keel, ornamented with medium-sized pores. Numerous struts somewhat reduced, without transverse folds; (E) S. conopea; (F–H) Synura sp. 1, the keel is ornamented by pores of different sizes—from medium to very large; (I) S. praefracta, apical scales with rounded spine terminated by several short teeth; (J) S. glabra; (K–N) S. biseriata, body scales, the arrow shows an additional row of meshes (E); (O–S) S. cf. hibernica, apical scales with prominently protruding keel tip (O–Q), body scale (R), rear scale (S). Scale bars: 1 µm.
Water 15 03054 g008
Water 15 03054 g009
Figure 9. Stomatocysts from the Ob river, SEM: (A) Stomatocyst 001 Duff and Smol, 1988; (B) Stomatocyst 29 Duff and Smol, 1989; (C) Stomatocyst 41 Piątek, 2007; (D) Stomatocyst 49 Duff and Smol, 1991; (E) Stomatocyst 188 Brown and Smol, 1994; (F) Stomatocyst 58 Duff and Smol, 1994; (G) Stomatocyst 183 Brown and Smol, 1994; (H) Stomatocyst 234 Duff et al., 1995; (I) Stomatocyst 152 Zeeb and Smol, 1993; (J) Stomatocyst 181 Brown and Smol, 1994; (K) Stomatocyst 112 Zeeb et al., 1990; (L) Stomatocyst 198 Duff and Smol, 1994; (M) Stomatocyst 203 Duff and Smol, 1994; (N) Stomatocyst 462 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018; (O) Stomatocyst 10 Duff and Smol, 1988; (P) Stomatocyst 279 Gilbert and Smol, 1997; (Q) Stomatocyst 380 Wilkinson and Smol; (R) Stomatocyst 135 Duff and Smol, 1992; (S) Stomatocyst 262 Zeeb and Smol, 1996; (T) Stomatocyst 263 Zeeb and Smol, 1996. Scale bars: 2 µm.
Figure 9. Stomatocysts from the Ob river, SEM: (A) Stomatocyst 001 Duff and Smol, 1988; (B) Stomatocyst 29 Duff and Smol, 1989; (C) Stomatocyst 41 Piątek, 2007; (D) Stomatocyst 49 Duff and Smol, 1991; (E) Stomatocyst 188 Brown and Smol, 1994; (F) Stomatocyst 58 Duff and Smol, 1994; (G) Stomatocyst 183 Brown and Smol, 1994; (H) Stomatocyst 234 Duff et al., 1995; (I) Stomatocyst 152 Zeeb and Smol, 1993; (J) Stomatocyst 181 Brown and Smol, 1994; (K) Stomatocyst 112 Zeeb et al., 1990; (L) Stomatocyst 198 Duff and Smol, 1994; (M) Stomatocyst 203 Duff and Smol, 1994; (N) Stomatocyst 462 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018; (O) Stomatocyst 10 Duff and Smol, 1988; (P) Stomatocyst 279 Gilbert and Smol, 1997; (Q) Stomatocyst 380 Wilkinson and Smol; (R) Stomatocyst 135 Duff and Smol, 1992; (S) Stomatocyst 262 Zeeb and Smol, 1996; (T) Stomatocyst 263 Zeeb and Smol, 1996. Scale bars: 2 µm.
Water 15 03054 g009
Water 15 03054 g010
Figure 10. Stomatocysts from the Ob river, SEM: (A) Stomatocyst 467 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018; (B) Stomatocyst 207 Duff and Smol, 1994; (C) Stomatocyst 319 Brown and Smol, 1997; (D) Stomatocyst 239 Duff et al., 1995; (E) Stomatocyst 131 Pang and Wang, 2017; (F) Stomatocyst 178 Zeeb andSmol, 1993; (G,H) Stomatocyst 464 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018; (I) Stomatocyst 307 Duff, 1996; (J) Stomatocyst 410/13 Safronova, 2018; (K,L) a new Stomatocyst 507 Firsova and Bessudova, this study. Scale bars: 2 µm.
Figure 10. Stomatocysts from the Ob river, SEM: (A) Stomatocyst 467 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018; (B) Stomatocyst 207 Duff and Smol, 1994; (C) Stomatocyst 319 Brown and Smol, 1997; (D) Stomatocyst 239 Duff et al., 1995; (E) Stomatocyst 131 Pang and Wang, 2017; (F) Stomatocyst 178 Zeeb andSmol, 1993; (G,H) Stomatocyst 464 Firsova and Bessudova, 2018; (I) Stomatocyst 307 Duff, 1996; (J) Stomatocyst 410/13 Safronova, 2018; (K,L) a new Stomatocyst 507 Firsova and Bessudova, this study. Scale bars: 2 µm.
Water 15 03054 g010
Table 1. A list of sampling sites and physicochemical parameters of the mouth of the Ob river included in this study (site numbers in Figure 1).
Table 1. A list of sampling sites and physicochemical parameters of the mouth of the Ob river included in this study (site numbers in Figure 1).
River TransectSt. No.Station Position in the RiverbedCoordinates N/EDate of Sampling
dd.mm.yy		Time of Sampling
hh:mm		Hmax,mh, mT, °CpHS, mV, m·s−1O2
mg·L		General View of the Sample in the SEM, Magnification
×1500–1600		Diatoms
Abundance, 103 Cells·L−1/
Biomass, g·m−3
Kazym-
Mys		K1Left bank64.6555°
65.6333°		8 June 202208:3518.83.813.17.310.540.129.5Water 15 03054 i00190.4/1.27
K2The center of the riverbed64.6532°
65.6333°		8 June 202210:0015.83.013.17.300.450.229.58Water 15 03054 i00257.1/1.08
K3Right bank64.6655°
65.6391°		8 June 202211:007.01.413.17.200.550.199.35Water 15 03054 i00391.2/0.86
K4Shallow bay64.6666°
65.6166°		7 June 202211:300.50.114.0-to the bottom0.0-Water 15 03054 i00421.6/0.03
AzovyA1Left bank64.8666°
65.1833°		9 June 202210:3010.12.014.337.520.500.039.23Water 15 03054 i00548.5/0.78
A2The center of the riverbed64.8769°
65.1906°		9 June 202215:0022.74.514.277.530.500.159.50Water 15 03054 i00645.6/0.81
A3Right bank64.8666°
65.1910°		9 June 202216:3022.04.414.337.480.450.359.18Water 15 03054 i00792.0/0.62
A4Right bank64.8789°
65.1956°		9 June 202209:300.50.014.33-to the bottom−0.1 reverse flow8.81Water 15 03054 i00850.4/0.58
SalemalS1Left bank, tributaries66.7932°
68.8884°		12 June 202216:301.90.113.0-0.350–0.159.85Water 15 03054 i009208.5/2.48
S2Left bank66.7831°
68.9657°		12 June 202224:0016.03.212.97.870.500.2010.18Water 15 03054 i01092.4/1.17
S3To the left of the riverbed center66.7804°
68.9658°		12 June 202222:3025.05.014.47.820.540.269.37Water 15 03054 i01161.0/0.90
S4The center of the riverbed66.7769°
68.9660°		12 June 202219:1027.05.414.47.780.570.389.71Water 15 03054 i01262.7/0.80
S5The right of the center of the riverbed66.7741°
68.9663°		12 June 202216:3025.05.014.337.770.600.279.83Water 15 03054 i01370.4/0.80
S6Right bank66.7715°
68.9665°		12 June 202213:0018.03.814.157.770.600.30-Water 15 03054 i01438.5/0.52
Table 2. List of scaled chrysophytes and their distribution in the Ob river. Station numbers correspond to those in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Table 2. List of scaled chrysophytes and their distribution in the Ob river. Station numbers correspond to those in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Site SpeciesK1K2K3K4A1A2A3A4S2S3S4S5S6
1. Chrysosphaerella coronacircumspina Wujek and Kristiansen in Wujek, Gretz and Wujek +
2. Chrysosphaerella sp. ++ +
3. Paraphysomonas gladiata Preisig and Hibberd+ + +
4. P. cf. vulgaris vulgaris Scoble andCavalier-Smith + +
5. P. uniformis uniformis Scoble and Cavalier-Smith + + + +
6. Paraphysomonas sp. 1 +
7. Paraphysomonas sp. 2 +
8. Spiniferomonas abrupta Nielsen +
9. S. bourrellyi Takahashi++ ++ ++
10. S. cornuta Balonov +
11. S. minuta Nicholls ++
12. S. serrata Nicholls + +
13. S. silverensis Nicholls +
14. S. takahashii Nicholls +
15. S. triangularis Siver +
16. S. trioralis Takahashi++++ +++
17. Spiniferomonas sp. +
18. Mallomonas acaroides Perty+ +++++ ++ +
19. M. actinoloma Asmund and Takahashi + +
20. M. actinoloma var. maramuresensis Asmund and Takahashi + ++
21. M. annulata Harris +++
22. M. akrokomos Ruttner + ++ +
23. M. alpina Pascher and Ruttner +++ +
24. M. alata Asmund ++ +
25. M. alata f. hualvensis Asmund, Cronberg and Dürrschmidt + ++
26. M. elongata Reverdin + +
27. M. eoa Takahashi in Asmund and Takahashi + +
28. M. caudata Iwanoff + + ++
29. M. calceolus Bradley +
30. M. crassisquama (Asmund) Fott+++++++++++++
31. M. crassisquama var. papillosa Siver and Skogstad + + + +
32. M. costata Dürrschmidt + +
33. M. heterospina Lund ++ +
34. M. insignis Pénard +
35. M. lychenensis Conrad ++ +
36. M. mangofera var. mangofera Harris and Bradley + +
37. M. multiunca Asmund + +
38. M. munda (Asmund, Cronberg and Dürrschmidt) Nemcova +
39. M. papillosa Harris and Bradley ++ +
40. M. punctifera Korshikov++++++ + ++ +
41. M. kalinae Řezáčová ++
42. M. kuzminii Gusev and Kulikovskiy +
43. M. scalaris Dürrschmidt +
44. M. scrobiculata Nicholls +
45. M. striata var. serrata Harris and Bradley ++ +
46. M. tonsurata Teiling +++++++ +
47. M. torquata var. torquata Asmund and Cronberg +
48. M. trummensis Cronberg ++ +
49. Mallomonas sp. +
50. Synura americana Škaloud, Kynčlová, Benada, Kofroňová, Škaloudová +++++ ++++++
51. S. cf. asmundiae (Cronberg and Kristiansen) Škaloud, Kristiansen and Škaloudová +
52. S. conopea Škaloudand Kynclová +
53. S. glabra (Korshikov) Škaloud and Kynclová+ + + ++++
54. S. echinulata Korshikov +++
55. S. biseriata Balonov + + +
56. S. borealis Škaloud and Škaloudová ++ + + +
57. S. cf. hibernica Škaloud and Škaloudová + +
58. S. petersenii (Korshikov) Škaloud and Kynclová++++ ++ +++
59. S. praefracta (Asmund) Škaloud and Škaloudová +
60. S. punctulosa Balonov +++ ++
61. S. multidentata Péterfi and Momeu ++ +
62. S. spinosa Korshikov +++ +
63. S. spinosa f. longispina Petersen and Hansen +
64. S. splendida Korshikov +
65. S. uvella Ehrenberg + ++ +
66. Synura sp. 1 + + +
67. Synura sp. 2 + +
TOTAL871954229133111511613
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bessudova, A.; Likhoshway, Y.; Firsova, A.; Mitrofanova, E.; Koveshnikov, M.; Soromotin, A.; Khoroshavin, V.; Kirillov, V. Small Organisms in a Large River: What Provides the High Diversity of Scaled Chrysophytes in the Ob River? Water 2023, 15, 3054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15173054

AMA Style

Bessudova A, Likhoshway Y, Firsova A, Mitrofanova E, Koveshnikov M, Soromotin A, Khoroshavin V, Kirillov V. Small Organisms in a Large River: What Provides the High Diversity of Scaled Chrysophytes in the Ob River? Water. 2023; 15(17):3054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15173054

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bessudova, Anna, Yelena Likhoshway, Alena Firsova, Elena Mitrofanova, Mikhail Koveshnikov, Andrey Soromotin, Vitaly Khoroshavin, and Vladimir Kirillov. 2023. "Small Organisms in a Large River: What Provides the High Diversity of Scaled Chrysophytes in the Ob River?" Water 15, no. 17: 3054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15173054

APA Style

Bessudova, A., Likhoshway, Y., Firsova, A., Mitrofanova, E., Koveshnikov, M., Soromotin, A., Khoroshavin, V., & Kirillov, V. (2023). Small Organisms in a Large River: What Provides the High Diversity of Scaled Chrysophytes in the Ob River? Water, 15(17), 3054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15173054

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop