THE IMPACT OF STORM-FLOW ON RIVER BIOFILM ARCHITECTURE

Citation
Sa. Blenkinsopp et Ma. Lock, THE IMPACT OF STORM-FLOW ON RIVER BIOFILM ARCHITECTURE, Journal of phycology, 30(5), 1994, pp. 807-818
Citations number
57
Categorie Soggetti
Plant Sciences","Marine & Freshwater Biology
Journal title
ISSN journal
00223646
Volume
30
Issue
5
Year of publication
1994
Pages
807 - 818
Database
ISI
SICI code
0022-3646(1994)30:5<807:TIOSOR>2.0.ZU;2-K
Abstract
The impact of storm-flow on river biofilm architecture was investigate d using transmission (TEM) and scanning (SEM) electron microscopy. TEM resin substrata were colonized under light-grown (LG) or dark-grown ( DG) conditions for 33 weeks in the Clywedog River, North Wales, prior to exposure to ambient-flow (approx. 60 cm.s(-1)) or storm-flow (appro x. 235 cm.s(-1) + river sediment) in a laboratory flume, Line transect methodology was used to quantify information from TEM ultrathin secti ons of LG material. In the LG ambient-flow biofilm, bacteria were more abundant directly adjacent to the substratum and were noticeably dens er directly under the adnate diatom Cocconeis. Higher in the biofilm, the bacteria were loosely dispersed in the matrix between other cells. Cyanobacteria occurred most frequently, as single cells but were also found in large ''palisade'' formations adjacent to the substratum. Si gnificant horizontal and vertical nearest-neighbor associations were n oted for both bacteria and cyanobacteria. Cells of Cocconeis were comm on adjacent to the substratum providing shelter to, and often elevated upon, an ''organic pad'' of bacteria, cyanobacteria, and densely stai ning exopolysaccharide. Cyanobacteria and Cocconeis were resistant to removal by storm-flow, but Cocconeis frustules were sometimes damaged. Bacteria in the LG storm-flow samples were less common adjacent to th e substratum and were sometimes more dispersed higher in the biofilm t han in ambient-flow samples. We suggest that storm-flow hydrodynamic f orces may redistribute bacteria adjacent to the substratum into higher areas of the biofilm. In addition, bacteria and the exopolysaccharide matrix were sometimes removed down to the substratum by storm-flow, u nless beneath Cocconeis. The DG biofilm consisted almost entirely of b acteria. Storm-flow only removed surface growth from DG biofilms, and SEM revealed peritrich stalk abrasion and ''blow-down.'' Pre-disturban ce biofilm architecture appears to influence the form of destruction. We suggest that the ''microcosms'' of Cocconeis and their underlying c ells not only serve as an inoculum to recolonize the surface when cond itions permit but enhance immigration by interrupting flow patterns ac ross the surface.