Advertisement

Microbial Ecology

, Volume 75, Issue 4, pp 875–887 | Cite as

Flooding Duration Affects the Structure of Terrestrial and Aquatic Microbial Eukaryotic Communities

  • Oliver RöhlEmail author
  • Nadine Graupner
  • Derek Peršoh
  • Martin Kemler
  • Moritz Mittelbach
  • Jens Boenigk
  • Dominik Begerow
Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

The increasing number and duration of inundations is reported to be a consequence of climate change and may severely compromise non-adapted macroorganisms. The effect of flooding events on terrestrial and aquatic microbial communities is, however, less well understood. They may respond to the changed abiotic properties of their native habitat, and the native community may change due to the introduction of alien species. We designed an experiment to investigate the effect of five different flooding durations on the terrestrial and aquatic communities of eukaryotic microorganism, using the AquaFlow mesocosms. With amplicon sequencing of the small subunit (SSU) and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) rRNA gene regions, we analyzed community compositions directly before and after flooding. Subsequently, they were monitored for another 28 days, to determine the sustainability of community changes. Our results revealed a temporary increase in similarity between terrestrial and aquatic communities according to OTU composition (operational taxonomic unit, serves as a proxy for species). Increased similarity was mainly caused by the transmission of OTUs from water to soil. A minority of these were able to persist in soil until the end of the experiment. By contrast, the vast majority of soil OTUs was not transmitted to water. Flooding duration affected the community structure (abundance) more than composition (occurrence). Terrestrial communities responded immediately to flooding and the flooding duration influenced the community changes. Independent from flooding duration, all terrestrial communities recovered largely after flooding, indicating a remarkable resilience to the applied disturbances. Aquatic communities responded immediately to the applied inundations too. At the end of the experiment, they grouped according to the applied flooding duration and the amount of ammonium and chloride that leached from the soil. This indicates a sustained long-term response of the aquatic communities to flooding events.

Keywords

Flooding duration Terrestrial eukaryotes Aquatic eukaryotes Mesocosm experiment Metabarcoding High-throughput sequencing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Stiftung Mercator (Pr-2013-0036) is acknowledged for financial support of the AquaFlow experiment. We want to thank Thomas Korte and Andreas Mölls from the Emschergenossenschaft und Lippeverband (eglv; Dortmund, NRW, Germany) for access to the Emscher River, Marcus Kamplade from the Grünflächenamt Bochum for providing access to soil, the technical staff of the botanical garden UDE for assistance and equipment, as well as Prof. Dr. Hardy Pfanz for the access to the autoclave, Marisa Bartling for assisting in the experimental phase of this study, Andreas Brachmann (LMU Munich) for amplicon library sequencing, and Marco Guerreiro for assistance with bioinformatic problems. We would like to thank Alistair McTaggart (FABI, University of Pretoria) for critical language revision of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

OR, DB, NG, and JB designed the AquaFlow experiment, which was conducted by OR and NG. Laboratory work was conducted by OR and NG. DP supported the HTS library preparation conducted by OR. OR analyzed the data with support by DP, MM, and MK. OR wrote the manuscript with guidance and support of MK, DP, and DB. All authors discussed and commented on the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

248_2017_1085_MOESM1_ESM.docx (139 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 139 kb)
248_2017_1085_Fig5_ESM.jpg (23 kb)
ESM 2

(JPEG 23 kb)

248_2017_1085_MOESM2_ESM.eps (1.6 mb)
High resolution image (EPS 1645 kb)
248_2017_1085_Fig6_ESM.jpg (65 kb)
ESM 3

(JPEG 65 kb)

248_2017_1085_MOESM3_ESM.eps (566 kb)
High resolution image (EPS 565 kb)
248_2017_1085_Fig7_ESM.jpg (29 kb)
ESM 4

(JPEG 28 kb)

248_2017_1085_MOESM4_ESM.eps (871 kb)
High resolution image (EPS 870 kb)
248_2017_1085_Fig8_ESM.jpg (29 kb)
ESM 5

(JPEG 29 kb)

248_2017_1085_MOESM5_ESM.eps (873 kb)
High resolution image (EPS 873 kb)
248_2017_1085_Fig9_ESM.jpg (36 kb)
ESM 6

(JPEG 35 kb)

248_2017_1085_MOESM6_ESM.eps (825 kb)
High resolution image (EPS 825 kb)
248_2017_1085_Fig10_ESM.jpg (47 kb)
ESM 7

(JPEG 47 kb)

248_2017_1085_MOESM7_ESM.eps (10.5 mb)
High resolution image (EPS 10724 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Milly PCD, Wetherald RT, Dunne KA, Delworth L (2002) Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature 415:4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haines A, Kovats RS, Campbell-Lendrum D, Corvalan C (2006) Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability and public health. Public Health 585–596. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.01.002
  3. 3.
    Adger N, Aggarwal P, Agrawala S, et al (2007) Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability working group II contribution to the intergovernmental panel on climate change fourth assessment report summary for policymakersGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khallil AM (1995) Seasonal fluctuations of aquatic fungi recovered from Egyptian soil (Delta Region). J Basic Microbiol 35:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monard C, Gantner S, Bertilsson S, et al (2016) Habitat generalists and specialists in microbial communities across a terrestrial-freshwater gradient. Nat Publ Gr 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37719
  6. 6.
    Dini-Andreote F, Pylro V, Baldrian P, et al (2016) Ecological succession reveals potential signatures of marine-terrestrial transition in salt marsh fungal communities Ecological succession reveals potential signatures of marine-terrestrial transition in salt marsh fungal communities. ISME 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.254
  7. 7.
    Graupner N, Röhl O, Jensen M, et al (2017) Effects of short-term flooding on aquatic and terrestrial micro-eukaryotic communities—a mesocosm approach. Aquat Microb Ecol 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01853
  8. 8.
    Wiens JA, Crawford CS, Gosz JR (1985) Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45:421–427.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3565577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moran EV, Alexander J (2014) Evolutionary responses to global change: lessons from invasive species. Ecol Lett 637–649.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12262
  10. 10.
    Röhl O, Peršoh D, Mittelbach M, et al (2017) Distinct sensitivity of fungal freshwater guilds to water quality. Mycol Prog 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-016-1261-1
  11. 11.
    Mallon CA, Van Elsas JD, Salles JF (2015) Microbial invasions: the process, patterns, and mechanisms. Trends Microbiol 23:719–729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Traveset A, Richardson DM (2014) Mutualistic interactions and biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 89–113.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091857
  13. 13.
    Veresoglou SD, Halley JM, Rillig MC (2015) Extinction risk of soil biota. Nat Commun 6:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aslan CE, Sikes BA, Gedan KB (2015) Research on mutualisms between native and non-native partners can contribute critical ecological insights. NeoBiota 26:39–54.  https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.26.8837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (1999) A review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3546992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Havel JE, Kovalenko KE, Kats LB (2015) Aquatic invasive species: challenges for the future. Hydrobiologia 147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2166-0
  17. 17.
    Power ME, Stout RJ, Cushing CE, et al. (1988) Biotic and abiotic controls in river and stream communities. J Am Benthol Soc 7:456–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh BK, Bardgett RD, Smith P, Reay DS (2010) Microorganisms and climate change: terrestrial feedbacks and mitigation options. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:779–790.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2439 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Logue JB, Mouquet N, Peter H, Hillebrand H (2011) Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol Evol 26:482–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shade A, Peter H, Allison SD, et al. (2012) Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. Front Microbiol 3:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Unger IM, Motavalli PP, Muzika R (2009) Agriculture, ecosystems and environment changes in soil chemical properties with flooding: a field laboratory approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:105–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Unger IM, Kennedy AC, Muzika R (2009) Flooding effects on soil microbial communities. Appl Soil Ecol 42:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sorte CJB, Ibanez I, Blumenthal DM, et al (2013) Poised to prosper? A cross-system comparison of climate change effects on native and non-native species performance. Ecol Lett 261–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12017
  24. 24.
    Park D (1972) On the ecology of heterotrophic micro-organisms in fresh-water. Trans Br Mycol Soc 58:291–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1536(72)80157-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rillig MC, Antonovics J, Caruso T, et al. (2015) Interchange of entire communities: microbial community coalescence. Trends Ecol Evol 30:470–476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peay KG, Kennedy PG, Talbot JM (2016) Dimensions of biodiversity in the Earth mycobiome. Nat Publ Gr 14:434–447.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.59 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yurkov AM, Röhl O, Pontes A, et al. (2015) Local climatic conditions constrain soil yeast diversity patterns in Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub biome. FEMS Yeast Res 16:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/fov103 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Proulx M, Mazumder A (1998) Reversal of grazing impact on plant species richness in nutrient-poor vs. nutrient-rich ecosystems. Ecology 79:2581–2592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Procházková G, Brányiková I (2014) Effect of nutrient supply status on biomass composition of eukaryotic green microalgae. J Appl Phycol:1359–1377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-0154-9
  30. 30.
    Rinklebe J, Langer U (2006) Microbial diversity in three floodplain soils at the Elbe River (Germany). Soil Biol Biochem 38:2144–2151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Short DPG, Sandoya G, Vallad GE, et al (2015) Dynamics of Verticillium species microsclerotia in field soils in response to fumigation, cropping patterns, and flooding. Ecol Epidemiol 638–645Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sánchez-Andrés R, Sánchez-Carillo S, Ortiz-Llorente MJ, et al (2017) Do changes in flood pulse duration disturb soil carbon dioxide emissions in semi-arid floodplains? Biogeochemistry 257–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9472-z
  33. 33.
    Wilcox WF, Mircetich SM (1985) Effects of flooding duration on the development of Phytophthora root and cro wn ro ts of cherry. Ecol Epidemiol 75:12–16Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peršoh D, Theuerl S, Buscot F, Rambold G (2008) Towards a universally adaptable method for quantitative extraction of high-purity nucleic acids from soil. J Microbiol Methods 75:19–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2008.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lange A, Jost S, Heider D, et al (2015) AmpliconDuo: a split-sample filtering protocol for high-throughput amplicon sequencing of microbial communities. PLoS One 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141590
  36. 36.
    White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplificatoin and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogentics. In: PCR Protoc. A Guid. to Methods Appl. Academic Press Inc., pp 315–322Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Publ Gr 7:335–336.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth0510-335 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McMurdie PJ, Holmes S (2014) Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput Biol 10:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wu S, Zhu Z, Fu L, et al. (2011) WebMGA: a customizable web server for fast metagenomic sequence analysis. BMC Genomics 12:444–453.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-444 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, et al. (2014) The SILVA and “All-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res 42:643–648.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li W, Fu L, Niu B, et al. (2012) Ultrafast clustering algorithms for metagenomic sequence analysis. Brief Bioinform 13:656–668.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbs035 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, et al. (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:590–596.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Team RC (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Package 2015Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. R Package 2009Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roberts DW (2016) labdsv: ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R Package 2016Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hope RM (2013) Rmisc: Ryan miscellaneous. R Package 2016Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Oksanen J (2016) Vegan: community ecology package. R Package 2016Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dragulescu AA (2014) Read, write, format Excel 2007 and Excel 97/2000/XP/2003 files. R Package 2014Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Chapman MG (2006) On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 330:55–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2005.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jost L (2007) Partitoning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:2427–2439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Freestone AL, Sanders NJ (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of b diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01552.x
  53. 53.
    Baselga A (2013) Separating the two components of abundance-based dissimilarity: balanced changes in abundance vs. abundance gradients. Methods Ecol Evol 552–557.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12029
  54. 54.
    Solaiman MZ, Hirata H (1996) Effectiveness of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization at nursery-stage on growth and nutrition in wetland rice (Oryza sativa L.) after transplanting under different soil fertility and water regimes. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 561–571.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.1996.10416325
  55. 55.
    Faust K, Raes J (2012) Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nat Publ Group 10:538–550.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2832 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Glinka C, Hawkes C V (2014) Environmental controls on fungal community composition and abundance over 3 years in native and degraded shrublands. Soil Microbiol 807–817.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-014-0443-0
  57. 57.
    Crump BC, Amaral-zettler LA, Kling GW (2012) Microbial diversity in arctic freshwaters is structured by inoculation of microbes from soils. ISME 6:1629–1639.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Blume E, Bischoff M, Reichert JM, et al. (2002) Surface and subsurface microbial biomass, community structure and metabolic activity as a function of soil depth and season. Appl Soil Ecol 20:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fierer N, Schimel JP, Holden PA (2003) Variations in microbial community composition through two soil depth profiles. 35:167–176Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Callahan MT, Micallef SA (2017) Soil type, soil moisture, and field slope influence the horizontal movement of Salmonella enterica and Citrobacter freundii from floodwater through soil. J Food Prot 80:189–197.  https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-263 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jones EBG (1994) Fungal adhesion. Mycol Res 98:961–981.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(09)80421-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rillig MC, Mummey DL (2006) Mycorrhizas and soil structure. New Phytol 41–53Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Megharaj M, Kantachote D, Singleton I, Naidu R (2000) Effects of long-term contamination of DDT on soil microflora with special reference to soil algae and algal transformation of DDT. Environ Pollut 109:35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(99)00231-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Uebelmesser ER (1956) Uber einige neue Chytridineen aus Erdboden. Arch Mikrobiol BD 25:307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schmidt SK, Costello EK, Nemergut DR, et al. (2007) Biogeochemical consequences of rapid microbial turnover. Ecology 88:1379–1385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mentzer JL, Goodman RM, Balser TC (2006) Microbial response over time to hydrologic and fertilization treatments in a simulated wet prairie. Plant Soil 85–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-0032-1
  67. 67.
    Peršoh D (2015) Plant-associated fungal communities in the light of meta’omics. Fungal Divers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-015-0334-9
  68. 68.
    Palmer MA, Covich AP, Lake S, et al. (2000) Linkages between aquatic sediment biota and life above sediments as potential drivers of biodiversity and ecological processes. Bioscience 50:1062.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[1062:LBASBA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Baldwin DS, Colloff MJ, Rees GN, et al (2013) Impacts of inundation and drought on eukaryote biodiversity in semi-arid floodplain soils. 1746–1758.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12190
  70. 70.
    Van De Vijver B, Ledeganck ÆP, Beyens ÆL (2002) Soil diatom communities from Ile de la Possession. Polar Biol 25:721–729.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-002-0392-9 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kharitonova GV, Manucharov AS, Matyushkina LA, et al. (2013) Biomorph silica in meadow soils of the Mid-Amur lowland. Moscow Univ Soil Sci Bull 68:32–40.  https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147687413010043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Johansen JR, Javakul A, Rushforth SR (1982) Effects of burning on the algal communities of a high desert soil near Wallsburg, Utah. J Range Manag 35:598–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Scholz E (1958) Über morphologische Modifikationen bei niederen Erdphycomyceten und Beschreibung zweier neuer Arten von Rhizophydium und Thraustochytrium. Arch für Mikrobiol Mikrobiol 29:354–362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chen SF, Chien CY (1995) Some chytrids of Taiwan (I). Bot Bull Acad Sin 36:235–241Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Peralta AL, Ludmer S, Kent AD (2013) Hydrologic history influences microbial community composition and nitrogen cycling under experimental drying/wetting treatments. Soil Biol Biochem 66:29–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Peralta AL, Johnston ER, Matthews JW, Kent AD (2016) Abiotic correlates of microbial community structure and nitrogen cycling functions vary within wetlands. Freshw Sci 35:573–588.  https://doi.org/10.1086/685688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Polme S, et al. (2014) Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346(80):1078–1088.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256688 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Frossard A, Ramond J, Seely M, Cowan DA (2015) Water regime history drives responses of soil Namib Desert microbial communities to wetting events. Sci Rep 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12263
  79. 79.
    Barnard RL, Osborne CA, Barnard RL, et al. (2013) Responses of soil bacterial and fungal communities to extreme desiccation and rewetting. ISME:2229–2241.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.104
  80. 80.
    Hein T, Baranyi C, Reckendorfer W, Schiemer F (2004) The impact of surface water exchange on the nutrient and particle dynamics in side-arms along the River Danube, Austria. Sci Total Environ 328:207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Pace ML, Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1999) Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trees 14:483–488Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sharpley AN (1985) The selective erosion of plant nutrients in runoff. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1527–1534Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Jeppesen E, Søndergaard M, Jensen JP, et al (2005) Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading—an analysis of contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies. Freshw Biol 1747–1771.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01415.x
  84. 84.
    Anderson NJ, Jeppesen E, Sondergaard M (2005) Ecological effects of reduced nutrient loading (oligotrophication) on lakes: an introduction. Freshw Biol 1589–1593.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01433.x
  85. 85.
    Vadeboncoeur Y, Jeppesen E, Vander Zanden MJ, et al. (2003) From Greenland to green lakes: cultural eutrophication and the loss of benthic pathways in lakes. Limnol Ocean 48:1408–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Soininen J, Bartels PIA, Heino J, et al. (2015) Toward more integrated ecosystem research in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Bioscience 65:174–182.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Abeliovich A, Azov Y (1976) Toxicity of ammonia to algae in sewage oxidation ponds. Appl Environ Microbiol 31:801–806PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Källqvist T, Svenson A (2003) Assessment of ammonia toxicity in tests with the microalga, Nephroselmis pyriformis, Chlorophyta. Water Res 37:477–484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00361-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    de Menezes AB, Prendergast-Miller MT, Richardson AE, et al. (2014) Network analysis reveals that bacteria and fungi form modules that correlate independently with soil parameters. Environ Microbiol 17:2677–2689.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12559 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lake PS, Palmer MA, Biro P, et al. (2000) Global change and the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems: impacts on linkages between above-sediment and sediment biota. Bioscience 50:1099–1107.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[1099:GCATBO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    De Boeck HJ, Vicca S, Roy J, et al. (2015) Global change experiments: challenges and opportunities. Bioscience 65:922–931.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AG Geobotany, Faculty of Biology and BiotechnologyRuhr Universität BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biodiversity, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.AG Ökologie der Pflanzen; Institute of BiologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations