Next Article in Journal
Syntaxonomy of Charophyte Algal Communities in the Northeastern Part of the Black Sea (Russia)
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Proliferative Kidney Disease in Brown Trout and Habitat Characteristics Associated with a Swiss Wastewater Treatment Plant
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/environments10090153
environments-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

The Charophytes (Charophyceae, Characeae) from Dagestan Aquatic Habitats, North Caucasus: Biogeographical and Barcoding Perspectives

by
Roman E. Romanov
1,
Maxim M. Mallaliev
2,
Sophia Barinova
3,*,
Vyacheslav Yu. Nikulin
4 and
Andrey A. Gontcharov
4
1
Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professora Popova Str., 2, 197376 St. Petersburg, Russia
2
Mountain Botanical Garden of the Dagestan Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences (MBG DFRC RAS), Gadgiev St., 45, 367000 Makhachkala, Russia
3
Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Abba Khoushi Ave, 199, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel
4
Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 100-letiya Vladivostoka Ave, 159, 690022 Vladivostok, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2023, 10(9), 153; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10090153
Submission received: 14 July 2023 / Revised: 14 August 2023 / Accepted: 28 August 2023 / Published: 1 September 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The charophytes in many regions of the world are still poorly understood. This hampers the synthesis of distributional and ecological datasets at worldwide and continental scales, as well as complicates the generalization of species concepts for widely distributed and local taxa. To fill in the blanks for charophytes in the Caucasus and to improve our knowledge of species distribution areas in Eurasia, a field survey and study of available specimens from Dagestan (North Caucasus, Russia) was conducted based on morphological observation using light and scanning electron microscopy and molecular genetic analyses allowing for the precise identification and testing of the presence of cryptic and undescribed taxa. Nineteen new localities for seven Chara species and one Tolypella species, seven new species, and one new genus were identified in the studied region, and one new species in the Caspian Sea region was found. Some species records changed the outline or filled in the gaps in species distribution data. The presence of species distributed mainly in central Eurasia (C. globata, C. neglecta) with mainly Mediterranean–Middle Eastern species (C. gymnophylla) is notable for this region, as well as for other studied regions of the Caucasus characterized by a mixture combination of species with different distribution patterns. Chara gymnophylla was frequent in Dagestan, similar to the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions. Small brackish waterbodies on the coast of the Caspian Sea, freshwater mountain rivers, small associated waterbodies, and water reservoirs are the main habitats of charophytes in the studied region. Based on habitat preference and distribution in the Caucasus, recommendations for the protection of some species were suggested. The lack of endemic species among charophytes from Dagestan and Caucasus contrasts with the flora of terrestrial magnoliophytes that is rich in species endemism.

1. Introduction

The charophytes comprise a distinct group of macroscopic algae widely known mainly as ecosystem engineers and pioneer species [1]. Their life strategies and ecology are diverse [2,3,4] and still poorly studied for many species, especially outside Europe and Australia. Regional surveys of charophytes are an essential step toward better understanding their distribution and ecology. They allow further testing and improvement of species concepts and clarification of the bioindication potential of charophytes. The DNA barcoding of widely and narrowly distributed species fits the same targets, allowing testing of the presence of cryptic and undescribed taxa. Lesser known and remote areas are especially important from this perspective.
Some species of charophytes are typical for the protected freshwater habitat types “Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic stoneworts Chara spp.” of the Habitat Directive from the European Union and “C1.2a. Permanent oligotrophic to mesotrophic waterbody with Characeae”, a vulnerable one according to the European Red List of Habitats [5]. The charophytes are one of the most threatened groups of plants in Europe [6], easily illustrated by their proportionally high representation among endangered species on European and national Red Lists [7,8]. The key areas important for the protection of vulnerable and endangered species were outlined in only a few European countries [9,10].
The current approach in taxonomical studies of charophytes is detailed morphological studies using light and scanning electron microscopy [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], usually in combination with phylogenetic analyses [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Different regions of Eurasia were the focus of floristic research on charophytes in the last decade [10,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76], covering distribution, ecology, and protection, but only Europe has contemporary comprehensive flora mostly based on integrative taxonomy for its whole territory [77].
Knowledge about the charophytes of Dagestan, a region east of the North Caucasus, is limited and almost unknown worldwide. All available data are basically limited to three old specimens of Chara vulgaris L. from rivers Akusha and Yaloma and small water bodies near the village of Kajagent collected by Th. Alexeenko and reported in two articles covering large areas of Northern and Central Eurasia [78,79], later summarised by Hollerbach [80]. A few recent records, mainly at the genus level (Chara L.), are available at iNaturalist.org [81]. A similar situation could be noted for the entire North Caucasus, based on a longer list of references with only a few records in each of them (see note for Table 1 below).
As a first step towards better understanding this group of freshwater macrophytes, a keystone in some ecosystems and notable for their ecological role, we present here the main results of some recent field and herbarium investigations. In previous studies of Caucasian charophytes, species identification was carried out using only a morphological approach, which did not allow precise species identification in all cases. The aim of this study was to investigate the species composition of the charophytes of Dagestan using a polyphasic approach, which included morphological observations and molecular genetic analyses of the DNA of the studied species according to contemporary charophyte research standards.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Morphological Identification

The specimens were usually collected by hand during a careful survey of water bodies. They were dried as herbarium specimens and stored in LE (acronyms according to [82]). Some specimens collected in the 19th and 20th centuries were found in LE. Almost all of them had no identification before this study. Our efforts to search charophyte specimens from Dagestan stored elsewhere yielded no results. More than 30 pressed specimens were examined in the present study. A few records of charophytes were available at iNaturalist.org [81], but only two can be identified at the species level (Chara globata Migula).
The morphological features of the specimens were studied using an Olympus SZ61 stereomicroscope (Olympus Corporation, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan). Photographs of diagnostic traits were taken using a digital camera. Oospores taken from some recent specimens for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were treated according to a previously described method [26]. The cleaned oospores were coated with gold and studied using a Jeol JSM 6390LA scanning electron microscope (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Taxonomy followed the most recent reference [77]. The Ecoregions’ mapping program was used to map the individual charophyte species distribution in the studied territory [83]. The BioDiversity Pro 2.0 program was used for the similarity calculation [84].

2.2. DNA Extraction, Amplification, and Sequencing

Total genomic DNA was extracted as described previously by Echt et al. [85] with some modifications [86]. Part of the rbcL gene was amplified as described previously [37]. The PCR products were purified with ExoSAP-IT PCR Product Cleanup Reagent (Affymetrix Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) and sequenced in both directions using an ABI 3500 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA) with a BigDye terminator v. 3.1 sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA). Sequences were assembled using the Staden Package v.1.4 [87] and aligned manually in the SeaView program [88]. The rbcL sequences were deposited in GenBank (C. connivens OQ607406; C. neglecta OQ607411; C. neglecta OQ607412; C. globata OQ607413; C. gymnophylla OQ607410; C. gymnophylla OQ607409; C. gymnophylla OQ607408; C. vulgaris var. longibracteata OQ607407; Supplementary Materials).
Before the phylogenetic analyses, the sequences of the rbcL gene were compared with those available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI, Bethesda, MD, USA) using a BLAST search [89] to estimate their taxonomic position.

2.3. Phylogenetic Analyses

The rbcL dataset was used to access the affinity of our Chara species with the genus representatives retrieved from the NCBI. This dataset was assembled as described by Romanov et al. [37,38]. Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses were carried out using PAUP 4.0b10 [90]. Bayesian inference (BI) was performed using MrBayes 3.1.2 [91]. To determine the most appropriate DNA substitution models for our datasets, we used the Akaike information criterion (AIC; [92]), which was applied using jModelTest 2.1.1 [93]. The GTR+I+G model was selected as the best fit for the rbcL dataset. ML analyses were carried out using heuristic searches with a branch-swapping algorithm (tree bisection-reconnection). Using BI, four parallel MCMC runs were carried out for 3 million generations. Sampling was carried out every 100 generations for a total of 30,000 samples. The convergence of these two chains was assessed, and stationarity was determined according to the ‘sump’ plot (the first 25% of samples were discarded as ‘burn-in’). The posterior probabilities were calculated from the trees sampled during the stationary phase. The robustness of the trees was estimated based on bootstrap percentages (BP; [94]) in ML and posterior probabilities (PP) in BI. A BP < 50% and PP < 0.95 were not considered. An ML-based bootstrap analysis was inferred using the web service RAxML version 7.7.1 (http://embnet.vitalit.ch/raxml-bb/; [95]; accessed on 1 March 2023).

3. Results

3.1. Charophyte Diversity and Distribution

Eight species of charophytes, including seven species of Chara and one species of Tolypella (A.Braun) A.Braun, were found at 24 localities in Dagestan according to all available data (see below). The presence of a few taxa known before from this territory, i.e., C. vulgaris var. vulgaris and var. longibracteata (Kütz.) Kütz. [78,79] was confirmed with the studied specimens. Twenty two localities of charophytes were found for the region, and all of them were based on vouchers available for study.
All localities were situated in two ecoregions: Pontic steppe and Caucasus mixed forests (Figure 1b,c). The first region is rich in both species and localities. All species except C. contraria A.Braun ex Kütz. were previously known. Chara connivens Salzm. ex A.Braun, C. contraria, C. globata Migula, C. globularis Thuill., C. gymnophylla, A.Braun, and C. vulgaris were found in a few water bodies in Caucasus mixed forests.
Distribution data, the habitat, and floristic novelty for the species found in the studied area are listed below. Chara connivens, C. contraria, C. globata, C. globularis, C. gymnophylla, C. neglecta Hollerb., and Tolypella nidifica (O.F.Müll.) A.Braun are new species records for Dagestan. Chara neglecta is the second species record reported for the Caucasus. Tolypella nidifica is the first species and genus record for the Caspian Sea region.
Chara connivens Salzm. ex A.Braun (Figure 1b and Figure 2a)
Studied specimens: 1. [Gergebilsky District], River Sulak, Chiryurt Reservoir, at shallow, in a pit, 8 August 1968, V.M. Katanskaya (LE A0002061). 2. [Babayurtovsky District] lower reach of the River Sulak, Lake Mekhteb [currently Mekhteb Reservoir], together with C. globularis Thuill., 1968, V.M. Katanskaya (LE).
Habitat: large mountain and coastal water reservoirs.
Chara contraria A.Braun ex Kütz (Figure 1b).
Studied specimen: Dagestan, distr. Dargi. In paludosis ad fl. Akuscha inter pagos Urkhuwah et Urchaczi [currently River Akusha or Akushinka, vicinity of the rural locality of Urkhuchimakhi (Urkhuchi)], 4000′ [1219 m a.s.l.], [together with C. vulgaris in Ch. 64], 16 July 1898, Th. Alexeenko. Flora Caucasi/C. foetida Al. Br., [det. J. Vilhelm] (LE Ch 63–65). This locality was cited for C. vulgaris [76].
Habitat: wetlands associated with mountain rivers.
Chara globata Migula (Figure 1b and Figure 3a–f)
Studied specimen: Coast of the Caspian Sea, Makhachkala, the settlement of Turali, small lake, 42.9317 N, 47.5865 E, 25 m b.s.l., together with C. neglecta, 28 June 2020, M.M. Mallaliev (LE).
Records at iNaturalist [81]: 1. Derbentskiy District, vicinity of the village of Arablyar, an oxbow of the Rubas River near the mouth at the coast of the Caspian Sea, 41.9381 N, 48.3816 E, 3 May 2023, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/159590371. 2. Kayakentskiy District, northern of the town of Izberbash, small coastal water body, abundant, 42.6005 N 47.8506 E, 5 June 2023, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/166546785 (accessed on 10 June 2023).
Habitat: small coastal brackish water bodies.
Chara globularis Thuill. (Figure 1b)
Studied specimen: [Babayurtovsky District] lower reach of the River Sulak, Lake Mekhteb [currently Mekhteb Reservoir], together with C. connivens, 1968, V.M. Katanskaya (LE).
Chara gymnophylla A.Braun (Figure 1c, Figure 2b–e and Figure 4a–c)
Studied specimens: 1. Caucasus orientalis. Dagestania borealis, pr. Chodshalmaihi [currently Khadzhalmakhi] ad calarzailem, 500–600 hex [800–960 m a.s.l.], 22 June 1861, Ruprecht (LE A0001459). 2. Dagestan. obl. [Dagestan Oblast], Aul Gunib, 17 May 1890, W. Lipsky. Flora Caucasica (LE A0001311). 3. Dagestan, Gunib Okrug, the valley of the river Karasu–Koysu [currently Karakoisu, called Tleiseruch in its middle reach] between settlements of Yryb and Ylyb, lateral bay of river, ca. 1700 m a.s.l., 31 August 1929, A. Poretzky. Plantae dagestanicae anno 1929 collectae. Geobotanic Expedition of the Institute of Dagestanian Culture of 1929 (LE). 4. Untsukulsky District, near the aul of Arakany [Arakani], road to pass, beyond the gorge, near waterfall, elevation ca. 400 m, 29 August 1953, Ya.I. Prokhanov, N.T. Cheldyshev. Dagestan Agricultural Institute. Ya.I. Prokhanov, Plants of North Dagestan, No. 386a/Chara gymnophylla A.Braun f. subnudifolia Mig., det. M.M. Hollerbach, 26 February 1955 (LE). 5. Caucasus, Dagestan, Tlyaratinsky District, the village of Tlyarata, southeastern part, in a gorge, in shallow flowing water, 25 July 1960, Dzhafarov (LE). 6. Levashi District, vicinity of the village of Tsudakhar, Sana River, 42.3291 N, 47.1613 E, 1124 m a.s.l., 8 July 2020, M.M. Mallaliev (LE). 7. Charodinsky District, vicinity of the village of Gochada, stagnant water body at the bank of the Karalazurger River, 42.2716 N, 46.7718 E, 1506 m a.s.l., 29 July 2020, M.M. Mallaliev (LE).
Habitat: mostly water bodies associated with mountain rivers, slowly flowing reaches of mountain rivers.
Chara neglecta Hollerbach (Figure 1b, Figure 4e,f and Figure 5)
Studied specimens: 1. Dagestan, Petrovsk [Makhachkala], 2 July 1891, W. Lipsky/C. aspera Willd., det. R. Romanov, 7 October 2015 (LE). 2. Coast of the Caspian Sea, the town of Kaspiysk, in a small stagnant water body, 42.9048 N, 47.6117 E, 21 m b.s.l., together with Tolypella nidifica (O.F.Müll.) A.Braun, 7 June 2020, M.M. Mallaliev (LE). 3. Coast of the Caspian Sea, Makhachkala, the settlement of Turali, small lake, 42.9317 N, 47.5865 E, 25 m b.s.l., together with C. globata, 28 June 2020, M.M. Mallaliev (LE).
Habitat: small coastal brackish water bodies.
Chara vulgaris L. var. vulgaris (Figure 1c)
Studied specimens: 1. Dagestan, [no locality], Flora Caucasica No. 4428 (LE). 2. Makhachkala, bog, in a ditch, 25 May 1953, Prokhanov, No. 113 (LE).
Studied specimens: 1. Dagestan, distr. Dargi. In paludosis ad fl. Akuscha inter pagos Urkhuwah et Urchaczi [currently River Akusha or Akushinka, vicinity of the rural locality of Urkhuchimakhi (Urkhuchi)], 4000’ [1219 m a.s.l.], [together with C. contraria], 16 Jul 1898, Th. Alexeenko. Flora Caucasi/C. foetida, [det. J. Vilhelm] (LE Ch. 64). 2. Prov. Dagestan, distr. Kurink. In littore ad ostium fl. Jaloma [Yaloma River], –80’ [24 m b.s.l.], 11 Aug 1899, Th. Alekseenko. Flora Caucasi No. 3530/C. foetida f. longibracteata Mig., det. J. Vilhelm, 1929 (LE 71). 3. Prov. Dagestan, distr. Kaitag–Tabassaran. Pr. st. Kajakent [currently Kajagent]. In fossis humidis, –20 [6 m b.s.l.], 17 Jul 1900, Th. Alekseenko. Flora Caucasi No. 4428/C. foetida f. condensata A.Braun, [det. J. Vilhelm] (LE) (LE). 4. Buynak District, the village of Kapchugay, Shura-Ozen River [Shuraozen River], in water, 2 May 1955, Ya.I. Prokhanov. Dagestan Agricultural Institute. Ya.I. Prokhanov, Plants of North Dagestan, No. 73/det. M.M. Hollerbach (LE). 5.1. Makhachkala District, Makhachkala I, bog, in a ditch near radio station, in water, 4 May 1955, Ya.I. Prokhanov. Dagestan Agricultural Institute. Ya.I. Prokhanov, Plants of North Dagestan, No. 113/det. M.M. Hollerbach (LE). 5.2. The same, in a ditch, 16 Jul 1953, No. 1109 (LE).
Published records: 1. “Caucasus. Dagestan, distr. Dargi. In paludosis ad fl. Arkuscha inter pagos Urkhuwah et Urchaczi 4000’ (10 et 16 July 1898, leg. Th. Alexeenko)” (under the name of C. foetida A.Braun; [78]). This gathering contains C. contraria and C. vulgaris (see above). 2. “Prov. Dagestan, distr. Kaitag–Tabassaran. Pr. st. Kajakent [currently Kajagent]. In fossis humidis (17 July 1900, leg. Alekseenko)” (under the name of C. foetida f. condensata A.Braun; [79]).
Habitat: small lowland water bodies.
Chara vulgaris var. longibracteata (Kütz.) Kütz. (Figure 1c)
Studied specimens: 1. Makhachkala District, Makhachkala, bog, in a ditch, 25 May 1953, Ya.I. Prokhanov. Dagestan Agricultural Institute. Ya.I. Prokhanov, Plants of North Dagestan, No. 595 (LE)/C. vulgaris, det. M.M. Hollerbach (LE). 2. Makhachkala District, bog, near the railroad station of Tarki [in the settlement of Noviy Khushet], Cherkes-Ozen River, in water, 15 Sep 1953, Ya.I. Prokhanov. Dagestan Agricultural Institute. Ya.I. Prokhanov, Plants of North Dagestan, No. 1301 (LE)/C. vulgaris, det. M.M. Hollerbach (LE). 3. [Kizilyurtovsky District] Chiryurt Reservoir at the Sulak River, in the bay on the right coast, at a depth of 0.3 m, at an oozy–sandy bottom, 14 August 1958, V.M. Katanskaya (LE). 4. [Gergebilsky District], Gergebil Reservoir, at shallow, in water from spring, 7 Aug 1968, V.M. Katanskaya (LE A0002061).
Published record: “Prov. Dagestan, distr. Kurink. In littore ad ostium fl. Jaloma [Yaloma River] (11 August 1899, leg. Alekseenko)” (under the name of C. foetida f. longibracteata Mig.; [79]). This specimen belongs to var. vulgaris (see above).
Habitat: small lowland water bodies, bays, and shallows of mountain water reservoirs, the mouth of lowland rivers.
Tolypella nidifica (O.F.Müll.) A.Braun (Figure 1b, Figure 3g,h and Figure 4d)
Studied specimen: Coast of the Caspian Sea, the town of Kaspiysk, in a small stagnant water body, 42.9048 N, 47.6117 E, 21 m b.s.l., together with C. neglecta, 7 June 2020, M.M. Mallaliev (LE).
Habitat: small coastal brackish water bodies.
A few other records of Chara are known from Dagestan [81], but they cannot be identified at the species level according to available photos.

3.2. Species Identification and Phylogenetic Analysis

The identification of some Chara samples was based on a combination of morphological and molecular genetic approaches. DNA was isolated from most species, but our efforts were successful for only eight samples (five species: C. connivens, lobateata, C. gymnophylla, C. neglecta, C. vulgaris var. longibracteata). The topologies of the ML and BI trees based on the rbcL dataset were similar to that of the BI tree, except for some differences in clade support (Figure 6). Samples of C. connivens, C. vulgaris var. longibracteata, and lobateata were placed within species clades (60/0.96, –/– and 65/–, respectively), being part of the species haplotypes (Supplementary Materials). Samples of C. neglecta fell in shared haplotype with sequences of C. galioides DC. and C. aspera Willd. Three samples of C. gymnophylla represented a single haplotype that differed from the nearest (C. gymnophylla MN793052) by one substitution.

4. Discussion

Eight species of charophytes from two genera, Chara and Tolypella, are reliably known from Dagestan. Seven species are reported here for the first time in the area studied. The investigation of the biodiversity of charophytes of Dagestan using a polyphasic approach allowed us to conduct precise taxa identification of Chara species. Morphological traits of oospores studied with SEM were considered. They are in good agreement with species variability [40,52,77,96]. The images of gyrogonites and the surface of the oospore of C. neglecta were taken for the first time.
The overall topology of our rbcL tree (Figure 6) was similar to that presented in the previous studies of the genus Chara [37,38,41,97,98]. We somewhat extended taxon sampling in the genus by adding sequences for C. neglecta. Neither cryptic nor new species were found in Dagestan, and all Chara accessions were resolved within already-known haplotypes.
Environments 10 00153 g006
Figure 6. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree inferred in PAUP with the GTR+I+G nucleotide substitution model from 92 rbcL sequences of Chara. ML BP (>50%) and BI PP (>0.95). Branches received 100% BP and 1.00 PP support, and the newly obtained sequences are shown in bold. Sequences carrying one genotype are marked with grey. Chara sections and subsections are based on [99] with changes from [15,38].
Figure 6. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree inferred in PAUP with the GTR+I+G nucleotide substitution model from 92 rbcL sequences of Chara. ML BP (>50%) and BI PP (>0.95). Branches received 100% BP and 1.00 PP support, and the newly obtained sequences are shown in bold. Sequences carrying one genotype are marked with grey. Chara sections and subsections are based on [99] with changes from [15,38].
Environments 10 00153 g006
The subsection Hartmania R.D. Wood of the genus Chara is widely known as “crux et scandalum botanicorum.” In other words, it represents a group of species with still debatable and uncertain boundaries [52,77]. The molecular markers applied so far failed to be helpful in this case [27,31,97,98,100] except for C. globata, a species delineable with rbcL sequences [26,35], in this study.
Some further perspectives could be outlined based on the phylogenetic data presented here. It was found that C. neglecta is undistinguishable from C. galioides and C. aspera despite well-pronounced differences between these species in stem cortex arrangement (e.g., weakly tylacanthous to isostichous triplostichous in C. galioides and weakly aulacanthous diplo-triplostichous to isostichous triplostichous in C. neglecta [47,77]). A detailed study on C. neglecta phenotypic plasticity is required and will be conducted by the authors in the future with more populations for evaluation of its delineation or merging with C. galioides.
There are 25 species of charophytes known in the Caucasus (Table 1), but some species records require confirmation. Georgia has the richest charophyte flora among the compared regions. The species lists of Caucasian regions largely overlap but are not identical to each other. Seven species known from Dagestan represent less than a third of the species richness of the Caucasus. This number seems low, and new species records are expected according to the species distribution in the Caucasus and neighboring regions (Table 1). The species composition of charophytes from Dagestan is similar to those from Caucasian regions, whereas Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as Armenia and Dagestan, are closer to each other (Figure 7).
Table 1. Species of charophytes from different regions of the Caucasus.
Table 1. Species of charophytes from different regions of the Caucasus.
SpeciesDagestan 1Others 2Georgia 3Armenia 4Azerbaijan 5
Chara baltica (Hartm.) Bruzelius –+––(+)
C. braunii C.C.Gmel.––+–+
C. canescens Desv. and Loisel. in Loisel.–++++
C. connivens Salzm. ex A.Braun+++++
C. contraria A.Braun ex Kütz.+++++
C. denudata A.Braun––––+
C. globata Migula++++–
C. globularis Thuill.+++++
C. gymnophylla A.Braun+++++
C. hispida L.––+–(+)
C. neglecta Hollerbach+–––+
C. papillosa Kütz.––+(+)+
C. squamosa Desf.–+–––
C. strigosa A.Braun––––(+)
C. tomentosa L.–(+)–––
C. vulgaris L.+++++
Lamprothamnium papulosum (Wallr.) J.Groves–++–+
Nitella capillaris Krock.––+–+
N. flexilis (L.) C.Agardh–+–––
N. mucronata (A.Braun) Miq.–++––
N. opaca (C.Agardh ex Bruzelius) C.Agardh––+––
Nitellopsis obtusa (Desvaux) J.Groves––+––
Sphaerochara prolifera (Ziz ex A.Braun) Soulié-Märsche ––+––
Tolypella glomerata (Desv. in Loisel.) Leonh.––+++
T. nidifica (O.F.Müll.) A.Braun+++––
Number of species813(14)186(7)13(16)
1 A comprehensive bibliography is impossible to report within the scope of this article, so the cited references are those that include all known species from the territory. 1 this study, 2 Russian regions of the Caucasus excl. the Republic of Dagestan: Chechen Republic, Kabardino–Balkarian Republic, Karachayevo–Circassian Republic, Krasnodar Territory, Republic of Adygeya, Republic of Ingushetia, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania, Stavropol Territory [63,80,81,99,101,102,103,104,105,106], 3 [80,106,107,108,109], 4 [77,80,81,107,110,111,112,113], 5 [41,79,80,81,101,107,114,115,116,117]. (+) –: Other Russian regions of the Caucasus–records need confirmation with specimen study; existence of vouchers is unknown; Armenia–a record of C. papillosa from Lake Sevan needs confirmation because it could actually be based on misidentification of C. globata; a record of C. connivens from Lake Sevan needs checking because of similarity of its images to C. aspera [cf. 81]; Azerbaijan–the recent record of C. baltica [81,117] needs to be confirmed with an independent study of the specimen; the old record of C. hispida [7] needs confirmation because it could be based on another species.
A few old species records [80] and specimens could not be georeferenced, even up to administrative regions or the whole territory of the Caucasus, but they could be evidence of the possible occurrence of some species in the studied area. The collection by F.A. Marschall von Bieberstein (1768–1826) stored in LE (LE 01157109–01157113) and checked by the first author contained Chara cf. globularis Thuill., C. vulgaris, Nitella opaca (C.Agardh ex Bruzelius) C.Agardh and Tolypella glomerata (Desv. in Loisel.) Leonh. Some of them were collected in “deserto Cumanum” [118], i.e., in an arid region of the drainage basin of the Kuma River that belongs to the Dagestan, Kalmykia, and Stavropol Territory of Russia. The exact georeferencing of these specimens is not possible. Old records of C. aspera and C. tomentosa L. from the Lake Atu–Kol of the Terek Oblast of the Russian Empire [107] could belong to the current territory of the Republic of Kalmykia. The occurrence of some species of Nitella C.Agardh, Sphaerochara Mädler, Nitellopsis obtusa (Desvaux) J.Groves and Lamprothamnium papulosum (Wallr.) J.Groves seems to be possible in Dagestan, although they are rarely found in West Asia [101,119,120].
Despite a long interval of collecting, 1861–2020, only 22 localities are still known from this region, which could be explained by the fact that the charophytes were a neglected group in this region for a long time. The new species records from Dagestan improve species distribution ranges, filling the gaps and changing their outlines in several cases. New localities of C. connivens are situated between a few localities in the South Caucasus and the Lower Volga region [45,77,78,101,107].
New localities of C. contraria, C. globularis,C. vulgaris, and, especially, C. gymnophylla add essential details to their distribution in the Caucasus. Chara contraria, C. globularis, and C. vulgaris are widely distributed species. They are generalists in many temperate regions [121]. Chara gymnophylla is the second most frequently found species in the area studied. It has a wide distribution area in Eurasia, but most records are concentrated in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East [49,77,101,122,123]. It is the second most common species in Iran [49] and northern Israel [123]. Its records are unknown north of the area studied [77,101], i.e., in the southeastern margin of Eastern Europe, and its northern distribution range can be tentatively outlined with the Piedmont area of the North Caucasus.
Chara globata is mainly a Central Asian species with several localities in Southeast Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and China [26,35,49,75,101,124]. Its distribution area extends north of the Caucasus to the arid regions of Volga and Don Interfluve [75,107]. It is known from a few localities in the Caucasus, although its remarkable habit and size nearly exclude its undersampling during targeted searches for charophytes and allow it to be used as a flagship species for biogeographical studies [26]. The records from small water bodies on the coast of the Caspian Sea add a new type of habitat known for this species, mostly associated with much bigger permanent lakes [77,124].
Chara neglecta is a species mostly known from the south of Eastern Europe and Central Asia [77]. In the Caucasus, it was formerly known only in Azerbaijan [96,115]. New records in Dagestan point towards its wider distribution in coastal regions of the Caspian Sea.
Tolypella nidifica is a species occurring mostly in coastal regions of Europe, where it is mostly known from North and West Europe as well as the West Mediterranean [77]. Only two reliable small areas are known from the North Black Sea region [77,101,104,125,126], and one recent record from inland Georgia by V.S. Vishnyakov [81,112], https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/156074494, accessed on 13 July 2023. The record from the inland of Crimea [53,126] belongs to Sphaerochara prolifera, according to published images. Lake Issyk Kul is the sole locality for this species in Central Asia [96,101]. The unexpected new record from Dagestan is the first for the Caspian Sea region and fills the gap in the eastern part of the species distribution area in Eurasia.
The combination of species with distribution areas mainly in the center of Eurasia, such as C. globata and C. neglecta with mainly Mediterranean–Middle East C. gymnophylla, is a notable trait of charophyte flora of the area studied. It seems to be a trait common to other Caucasian regions.
The habitat preference of species recorded from the area studied allows tentative suggestion of two main groups of habitats having dissimilar species compositions. Chara contraria, C. gymnophylla, and C. vulgaris have been found mostly in freshwater small water bodies usually associated with rivers. Chara globata, C. neglecta, and Tolypella nidifica are known only from small brackish water bodies at the coast of the Caspian Sea. They grew together here with Ruppia maritima L. during our survey, which evidently indicates a brackish environment. Chara connivens and C. globularis fall outside this scheme because they are known only from two large artificial mountain and coastal water reservoirs. Surveys of the region, especially of the oligotrophic mountain, brackish coastal, and lowland temporal spring water bodies, seem to be the most fruitful in further clarification of the biogeography of charophytes in the North Caucasus.
Based on habitat preference and distribution in the Caucasus, recommendations can be given to protect some of the species. Coastal water bodies threatened from both land and sea sides are some of the most endangered and shrinking habitats worldwide [127,128]. There is no assessment of charophyte habitat loss at the coast of the Caspian Sea available, but a long-term negative trend is notable for the Black Sea region, where it has already resulted in a significant decrease in charophyte biomass and their community areas [47,129,130,131]. Some lagoons in this region harbor gyrogonites and oospores in bottom sediments, whereas charophyte stands seem to be lacking [132,133]. The evident loss of coastal habitat can be recognized as too late for the restoration of the initial state [134] and may result in the irreversible disappearance of brackish water charophytes [135]. Charophyte communities of Albufera de València lagoon in the West Mediterranean vanished due to long-lasting and still ongoing eutrophication, although viable oospores and gyrogonites were stored in bottom sediments, leaving a small hope for future restoration of aquatic vegetation [136]. The hydrological change, habitat destruction, and expansion of reed stands because of a decline in livestock grazing can lead to similar results in brackish environments [137,138]. Therefore, Chara globata, C. neglecta, Tolypella nidifica, and their habitats are suggested here as primary targets for charophyte protection in Dagestan. The same need to protect coastal brackish habitats of charophytes was highlighted for Scotland [137], Great Britain [139], the Baltic Sea [138], France [140], and Sardinia [10].
The territory of Dagestan was recognized as a floristic province at the beginning of the study of its flora. It is one of the key areas for the speciation of xerophytic flora in the Caucasus, which can be proven by the high number of local endemics of magnoliophytes [141]. The absence of endemic species among charophytes from Dagestan and the Caucasus disagrees with the flora of terrestrial magnoliophytes, which have a large number of endemic species [142,143,144]. In contrast, the flora of the submersed aquatic magnoliophytes of this area consists of mostly widely distributed species [111,143,144,145,146], although recent speciation of hygrophyte species of Cardamine L. (Brassicaceae) probably driven by both geographic separation and ecological divergence was revealed [147]. Therefore, the aquatic ecosystems of this region do not seem to be an area with ongoing diversification and speciation of submersed aquatic macroscopic plants. This paradox looks similar to Tajikistan, which has no unique species of charophytes in contrast with its original flora of terrestrial magnoliophytes [55].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/environments10090153/s1, Supplementary Materials: Species name, GenBank accession number, and the haplotypes for the taxa used in our analyses. The sequences obtained in this study are in bold. Shared haplotypes are highlighted in yellow.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.E.R.; methodology, R.E.R., M.M.M. and S.B.; software, R.E.R., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; validation R.E.R., M.M.M., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; formal analysis, R.E.R., M.M.M., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; investigation, R.E.R., M.M.M., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; data curation, R.E.R., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.E.R., M.M.M., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; writing—review and editing, R.E.R., M.M.M., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; visualization, R.E.R., M.M.M., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G.; funding acquisition, R.E.R., S.B., V.Y.N. and A.A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the project “Flora and taxonomy of algae, lichens and bryophytes in Russia and phytogeographically important regions of the world” (no. 121021600184-6) of the Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, within the state assignment of Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (theme No. 121031000117-9), with the financial support the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under the agreement dated 28 September 2021, no. 075-15-2021-1056 (placement of the algal specimens in the LE collection), and the Israel Ministry of Aliyah and Integration.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. In addition, data that support the findings of this study are openly available in GenBank.

Acknowledgments

L.A. Kartseva is kindly acknowledged for her assistance in SEM studies, I.V. Tatanov for his encouragement and guidance with historical herbarium collection, V.V. Vishnyakov and S.V. Smirnova for inaccessible reference copies, anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and kind suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Schubert, H.; Blindow, I.; Bueno, N.C.; Casanova, M.T.; Pełechaty, M.; Pukacz, A. Ecology of charophytes—Permanent pioneers and ecosystem engineers. Perspect. Phycol. 2018, 5, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Casanova, M.T.; Brock, M.A. Life histories of charophytes from permanent and temporary wetlands in Eastern Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 1999, 47, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Calero, S.; Rodrigo, M.A. The life cycle of a parthenogenetic population of Chara canescens from an interdunal Mediterranean pond. Bot. Lett. 2018, 165, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Blindow, I.; Carlsson, M.; van de Weyer, K. Re-establishment techniques and transplantations of charophytes to support threatened species. Plants 2021, 10, 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment; Tsiripidis, I.; Piernik, A.; Janssen, J.; Tahvanainen, T.; Molina, J.A.; Giusso del Galdo, G.; Gardfjell, H.; Dimopoulos, P.; Šumberová, K.; et al. European Red List of Habitats. Part 2, Terrestrial and Freshwater Habitats; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2017; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/091372 (accessed on 13 July 2023).
  6. Baastrup-Spohr, L.; Iversen, L.L.; Dahl-Nielsen, J.; Sand-Jensen, K. Seventy years of changes in the abundance of Danish charophytes. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 58, 1682–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Becker, R. Gefährdung und Schutz von Characeen. In Armleuchteralgen—Die Characeen Deutschlands; Arbeitsgruppe Characeen Deutschlands; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 149–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stewart, N.F. Provisional Red List of European charophytes. In Characeae of Europe; Schubert, H., Gregor, T., Blindow, I., Nat, E., Stewart, N., Romanov, R., van der Weyer, K., Denys, L., Korsch, H., Casanova, M.T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stewart, N.F. Important Stonewort Areas. An Assessment of the Best Areas for Stoneworts in the United Kingdom; Plantlife International: Salisbury, UK, 2004; pp. 1–134. [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker, R. The Characeae (Charales, Charophyceae) of Sardinia (Italy): Habitats, distribution and conservation. Webbia 2019, 74, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Casanova, M.T. Typification and circumscription of Nitella sonderi (Characeae, Charophyceae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2007, 20, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Casanova, M.T. An overview of Nitella in Australia (Characeae, Charophyta). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2009, 22, 192–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Casanova, M.T. Review of the species concepts Chara fibrosa and C. flaccida (Characeae, Charophyceae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2013, 26, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Soulié-Märsche, I.; Triboit, F.; Despréaux, M.; Rey-Boissezon, A.; Laffont-Schwob, I.; Thiéry, A. Evidence of Chara fibrosa Agardh ex Bruzelius, an alien species in South France. Acta Bot. Gall. 2013, 160, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Casanova, M.T.; Karol, K.G. A revision of Chara sect. Protochara, comb. et stat. nov. (Characeae: Charophyceae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2014, 27, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Casanova, M.T. A revision of Chara sect. Charopsis (Characeae: Charophyceae) in Australia, including specimens collected for Bush Blitz. Aust. Syst. Bot. 2015, 27, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ribeiro, C.A.; Ramos, G.J.P.; Bueno, N.C.; Prado, J.F.; Moura, C.W.N. O gênero Chara (Charophyceae, Characeae) das Regiões Metropolitanas de Salvador e de Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brasil. Rodriguésia 2018, 69, 1987–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Milozza, A.; Abdelahad, N. The contribution of historical and morphological studies on herbarium specimens to a better definition of Chara pelosiana Avetta (Charales, Charophyceae). Plants 2021, 10, 2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ribeiro, C.A.; Bueno, N.C.; Prado, J.F.; Ramos, G.J.P.; Moura, C.W.N. Notas taxonômicas sobre o gênero Nitella C. Agardh (Characeae) da Região Metropolitana de Feira de Santana, Estado da Bahia, Brasil. Hoehnea 2021, 48, e1132020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Casanova, M.T.; Karol, K.G. Charophytes of Australia’s Northern Territory—I. Tribe Chareae. Aust. Syst. Bot. 2023, 36, 38–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sakayama, H.; Nozaki, H.; Kasaki, H.; Hara, Y. Taxonomic re-examination of Nitella (Charales, Charophyceae) from Japan, based on microscopical studies of oospore wall ornamentation and rbcL gene sequences. Phycologia 2002, 41, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sakayama, H.; Miyaji, K.; Nagumo, T.; Kato, M.; Hara, Y.; Nozaki, H. Taxonomic re-examination of 17 species of Nitella subgenus Tieffallenia (Charales, Charophyceae) based on internal morphology of the oospore wall and multiple DNA marker sequences. J. Phycol. 2005, 41, 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sakayama, H. Taxonomy of Nitella (Charales, Charophyceae) based on comparative morphology of oospores and multiple DNA marker phylogeny using cultured material. Phycol. Res. 2008, 56, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sakayama, H.; Kasai, F.; Nozaki, H.; Watanabe, M.M.; Kawachi, M.; Shigyo, M.; Nishihiro, J.; Washitani, I.; Krienitz, L.; Ito, M. Taxonomic reexamination of Chara globularis (Charales, Charophyceae) from Japan based on oospore morphology and rbcL gene sequences, and the description of C. leptospora sp. nov. J. Phycol. 2009, 45, 917–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pérez, W.; Hall, J.D.; McCourt, R.M.; Karol, K.G. Phylogeny of North American Tolypella (Charophyceae, Charophyta) based on plastid DNA sequences with a description of Tolypella ramosissima sp. nov. J. Phycol. 2014, 50, 776–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Romanov, R.E.; Gontcharov, A.A.; Barinova, S.S. Chara globata Mig. (Streptophyta: Charales): Rare species revised. Fottea 2015, 15, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Urbaniak, J.; Sakayama, H. Taxonomical analysis of closely related species of Chara L. section Hartmania (Streptophyta: Charales) based on morphological and molecular data. Fottea 2017, 17, 222–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Borges, F.R.; Necchi, O., Jr. Taxonomy and phylogeny of Nitella (Charophyceae, Characeae) from Brazil with emphasis on the midwest and southeast regions. Phytotaxa 2018, 356, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karol, K.G.; Alix, M.S.; Scribailo, R.W.; Skawinski, P.M.; Sleith, R.S.; Sardina, J.A.; Hall, J.D. New records of the rare North American endemic Chara brittonii (Characeae), with comments on its distribution. Brittonia 2018, 70, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, E.Y.; Bae, E.H.; Choi, K.C.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, S.R. Molecular taxonomic report of Nitella megacephala sp. nov. (Characeae, Charophyceae) from Korea. Phytotaxa 2019, 414, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Urbaniak, J.; Kwiatkowski, P. Taxonomic studies on the Chara section Hartmania in Poland based on morphological and molecular data. PhytoKeys 2019, 135, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Romanov, R.E.; Nikulin, V.Y.; Yeo, R.S.W.; Ho, B.C.; Gontcharov, A.A. Nitella singaporensis (Charophyceae, Charales): New species and implications for the taxonomy of the genus Nitella. Phytotaxa 2020, 438, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Trbojević, I.; Marković, A.; Blaženčić, J.; Simić, G.S.; Nowak, P.; Ballot, A.; Schneider, S. Genetic and morphological variation in Chara contraria and a taxon morphologically resembling Chara connivens. Bot. Lett. 2020, 167, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kato, S.; Tanaka, J.; Tanaka, N.; Yokoyama, J.; Ito, Y.; Fujiwara, Y.; Higa, A.; Kobayashi, S.; Watanabe, M.M.; Sakayama, H. New distributional records, taxonomy, morphology, and genetic variations of the endangered brackish-water species Lamprothamnium succinctum (Charales: Charophyceae) in Japan. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2021, 14, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Saber, A.A.; Gontcharov, A.A.; Nikulin, A.Y.; Nikulin, V.Y.; Rayan, W.A.; Cantonati, M. Integrative taxonomic, ecological and genotyping study of charophyte populations from the Egyptian Western-Desert Oases and Sinai Peninsula. Plants 2021, 10, 1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Casanova, M.T.; Becker, R. Lamprothamnium sardoum sp. nov. (Characeae, Streptophyta): A new species of Lamprothamnium for Europe. Phytotaxa 2022, 567, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Romanov, R.E.; Barinova, S.S.; Nikulin, Y.V.; Gontcharov, A.A. Chara lipkinii (Charales, Charophyceae): A new dioecious Mediterranean species under risk of extinction in the wild and some implications for the taxonomy of the genus Chara. Fottea 2022, 22, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Romanov, R.E.; Nikulin, A.Y.; Nikulin, V.Y.; Gontcharov, A.A. New species Chara oryzae and a new section Corillionia of Chara (Charales, Charophyceae) from European Mediterranean rice fields. Eur. J. Phycol. 2022, 57, 328–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Romanov, R.E.; Vidal-Russell, R.; Nikulin, V.Y.; Gontcharov, A.A.; Quiroga, M.P. Nitella sonderi (Charales, Charophyceae)—A new record for South America, and first record from outside Australia. Cryptogam. Algol. 2022, 43, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Holzhausen, A.; Nowak, P.; Ballot, A.; Becker, R.; Gebert, J.; Gregor, T.; Karol, K.G.; Lambert, E.; Pérez, W.; Raabe, U.; et al. Plastid DNA sequences and oospore characters of some European taxa of Tolypella section Tolypella (Characeae) identify five clusters, including one new cryptic Tolypella taxon from Sardinia, but they do not coincide with current morphological descriptions. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1096181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Romanov, R.E.; Barinova, S.S.; Nikulin, V.Y.; Gontcharov, A.A. ‘Unfinished’ morphogenesis hides different speciation path-ways in charophytes: Evidence from the 190-year-old original material of Chara denudata (Charales, Charophyceae). Diversity 2023, 15, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Auderset Joye, D.; Rey-Boissezon, A. Les Characées de Genève et Environs. Distribution et Ecologie; Groupe d’Ecologie Aquatique, Institut Forel et Institut des Sciences l’Environnement, Université de Genève: Genève, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 1–92. [Google Scholar]
  43. Biberdžić, V.; Blaženčić, J. Charophytes (Charales) of Ulcinj and Velika Plaža beach (Montenegro). Nat. Montenegrina Podgor. 2013, 12, 553–561. [Google Scholar]
  44. Azzella, M.M. Italian volcanic lakes: A diversity hotspot and refuge for European charophytes. J. Limnol. 2014, 73, 502–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Klinkova, G.Y.; Zhakova, L.V. New and rare species of Charales in the flora of the Lower Volga Region. Bull. Mosc. Soc. Naturalists. Biol. Ser. 2014, 119, 61–66. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  46. Blaženčić, J.; Stevanović, B. Catalogue of Charophytes (Charales) of Montenegro. Catalogues 11. The Section of Natural Sciences 10; Montenegrian Academy of Sciences and Arts: Podgorica, Montenegro, 2015; pp. 1–51. (In Montenegrin) [Google Scholar]
  47. Korolesova, D.D. The biocoenoses of charophytes as an important element of coastal ecosystems (by the example of Tendrovsky and Yagorlytsky bays of the Black Sea). Odesa Natl. Univ. Her. Geogr. Geol. 2015, 20, 134–148. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  48. Mouronval, J.B.; Baoudouin, S.; Borel, N.; Soulié-Märche, I.; Grillas, P. Guide des Characees de France Mediterraneenne; Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage: Paris, France, 2015; pp. 1–211. [Google Scholar]
  49. Noedoost, F.; Riahi, H.; Sheidai, M.; Ahmadi, A. Distribution of charophytes from Iran with three new records of Characeae (Charales, Chlorophyta). Cryptogam. Algol. 2015, 36, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Torn, K.; Kovtun-Kante, A.; Herkül, K.; Martin, G.; Mäemets, H. Distribution and predictive occurrence model of charophytes in Estonian waters. Aquat. Bot. 2015, 120A, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Trajanovska, S.; Talevska, M.; Budzakoska-Gjoreska, B.; Trajanovski, S. Review of the extant researches of the stoneworts (Charophyta) from Lake Ohrid. PSI Hydrobiol. Inst.—Ohrid. Rev. 2015, 43, 96–103. (In Macedonian) [Google Scholar]
  52. Becker, R.; Blindow, I.; Doege, A.; Franke, T.; Gregor, T.; Hamann, U.; Jäger, D.; Jorda, C.; Kabus, T.; Korsch, H.; et al. Beschreibung der Characeen-Arten Deutschlands. In Armleuchteralgen. Die Characeen Deutschlands; Arbeitsgruppe Characeen Deutschlands Lehrstuhl für Ökologie der Universität Rostock; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 209–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Borysova, O.V.; Palamar-Mordvintseva, G.M.; Tsarenko, P.M. Flora Algarum Ucrainicae. Charophyta; Kholodny Institute of Botany of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2016; Volume 12, pp. 1–282. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar]
  54. Rodrigo, M.A.; Alonso-Guillén, J.L. The charophyte flora in a Ramsar Mediterranean wetland (Albufera de Valencia Natural Park, Spain) during the period 2017–2010. Bot. Serbica 2016, 40, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Romanov, R.E.; Boboev, M.T. Charophytes (Streptophyta, Charales) from the South-Tajik Depression (Tajikistan). Bot. Zhurnal 2016, 101, 275–286. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sviridenko, T.V.; Sviridenko, B.F. Charophyta of the West Siberian Plain: Monograph; Amphora: Omsk, Russia, 2016; pp. 1–247. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  57. Zeneli, V.; Kashta, L. Some Charophyta (Charales) from coastal temporary ponds in Velipoja area (North Albania). J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2016, B5, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Abdelahad, N.; Piccoli, F. Report on charophytes from rice fields in northern Italy including the alien species Chara fibrosa ssp. Benthamii. Plant Biosyst. 2017, 152, 599–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Romanov, R.E.; Zhakova, L.V.; Chemeris, E.V.; Konechnaya, G.Y.; Leostrin, A.V.; Efimova, A.A.; Biryukova, O.V.; Shestakova, A.A.; Anissimova, O.V.; Shilov, M.P. Synopsis of the charophytes (Charophyceae) of the Upper Volga Region. Bot. Zhurnal 2017, 102, 147–162. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Blaženčić, J.; Kashta, L.; Vesić, A.; Biberdžić, V.; Stevanović, B. Charophytes (Charales) of Lake Skadar/Shkodra: Ecology and distribution. In The Skadar/Shkodra Lake Environment. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Pešić, V., Karaman, G., Kostianoy, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018; Volume 80, pp. 169–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Romanov, R.E.; Chemeris, E.V.; Zhakova, L.V.; Ivanova, A.V.; Palagushkina, O.V. The charophytes (Charales, Charophyceae) from the Middle Volga Region (Russia): Synopsis of localities and species protection. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2018, 3 (Suppl. S2), 1–20. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Romanov, R.E.; Patova, E.N.; Teteryuk, B.Y.; Chemeris, E.V. Charophytes (Charales, Charophyceae) on the northeastern edge of Europe: Is it something different across Northern Europe in their diversity and biogeography? Nova Hedwig. Beih. 2018, 147, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Slonov, T.L.; Slonov, L.K.; Chipova, D.A.; Zhemukhov, D.A.; Adzhieva, D.K. The charophytes (Charophyta) of some water ecosystems of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria (Central Caucasus). In Materials of the XX Annivessary International Scientific Conference “Biological Diversity of Caucasus and South of Russia”; IPE RD Publishing: Makhachkala, Russia, 2018; pp. 251–254. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  64. Borysova, O.V.; Gromakova, A.B. Diversity and distribution of Charales (Charophyta) in the Kharkiv Region. Chornomorski Bot. J. 2019, 15, 43–53. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hrafnsdottir, T.; Ingimarsson, F.; Ingvason, H.R.; Stefánsson, S.M.; Þorvaldsdóttir, E.G.; Malmquist, H.J.; Langangen, A. New finds of charophytes in Iceland with an update on the distribution of the charophyte flora. Nord. J. Bot. 2019, 37, e02111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Romanov, R.; Napolitano, T.; van de Weyer, K.; Troia, A. New records and observations to the Characean (Charales, Charophyceae) flora of Sicily (Italy). Webbia 2019, 74, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chemeris, E.; Romanov, R.; Kopyrina, L.; Filippova, V.; Mochalova, O.; Efimov, D.; Bobrov, A. How charophytes (Streptophyta, Charales) survive in severe conditions of the permafrost area in Far North-East Asia. Limnologica 2020, 83, 125784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Khuram, I.; Ahmad, N.; Barinova, S. Effect of water quality on the spatial distribution of charophytes in the Peshawar Valley, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 2021, 50, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sinkevičienė, Z.; Gudžinskas, Z. Revision of the Characeae (Charales, Charophyceae) species and their distribution in Lithuania. Botanica 2021, 27, 95–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vishnyakov, V.S.; Romanov, R.E.; Komarova, A.S.; Belyakov, E.A.; Moseev, D.S.; Churakova, E.Y.; Czhobadze, A.B.; Philippov, D.A. New charophyte records (Characeae) in European Russia. Bot. Zhurnal 2021, 106, 61–76. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hindáková, A.; Gąbka, M.; Hrivnák, R. Checklist, Red List, and distribution pattern of charophytes (Charophyceae, Charales) in Slovakia based on critical revision of herbarium specimens. Diversity 2022, 14, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Romanov, R.E.; Anisimova, O.V.; Anishchenko, L.N.; Efimov, D.Y.; Kapitonova, O.A.; Kipriyanova, L.M.; Konechnaya, G.Y.; Kopyrina, L.I.; Kotovshchikov, A.V.; Kurganov, A.A.; et al. The noteworthy new records of charophytes (Charales, Charophyceae) from Russian regions: Improvement of species distribution ranges in Eurasia. Bot. Zhurnal 2022, 107, 466–477. [Google Scholar]
  73. Romanov, R.E.; Efimov, D.Y.; Makeeva, E.G.; Shaulo, D.N.; Kipriyanova, L.M.; Zotina, T.A.; Pospelov, I.N.; Ebel, A.L.; Zarubina, E.Y.; Polyanskaya, D.Y. The charophytes (Characeae, Charophyceae) from the Yenisey Siberia (Russia). Turczaninowia 2022, 25, 19–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Marković, A.; Blaženčić, J.; Tanasković, A.; Šinžar-Sekulić, J. Diversity and ecology of charophytes from Vojvodina (Serbia) in relation to physico-chemical and bioclimatic habitat properties. Diversity 2023, 15, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nurashov, S.; Jumakhanova, G.; Barinova, S.; Romanov, R.; Sametova, E.; Jiyenbekov, A.; Shalgimbayeva, S.; Smith, T.E. Diversity and distribution of charophytes (Charophyceae, Charales) in south and southeast Kazakhstan. Plants 2023, 12, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Romanov, R.E.; Abdullin, S.R. Charophytes (Charales, Characeae) of the Republic of Bashkortostan (South Ural). Bot. Zhurnal 2023, 108, 14–25. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  77. Schubert, H.; Blindow, I.; Nat, E.; Korsch, H.; Gregor, T.; Denys, L.; Stewart, N.; van der Weyer, K.; Romanov, R.; Casanova, M.T. (Eds.) Characeae of Europe; Springer Nature: Berlin, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  78. Vilhelm, J. Characeae Europae orientalis et Asiae ex herbario instituti cryptogamici horti botanici reipublicae rossicae (ante Petropolitani). Sp. Vydávané Přírodovědeckou Fak. Karlov. Univ. 1928, 80, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  79. Vilhelm, J. Ad Characearum Europae orientalis et Asiae cognitionem additamentum. Izv. Bot. Sada Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R. Bull. Du Jard. Bot. Princ. De L’urss 1930, 29, 582–596, (In Russian and Latin). [Google Scholar]
  80. Hollerbach, M.M. The systematic list of charophytes, found on USSR territory till 1935 inclusively. Tr. Bot. Instituta Im. V.L. Komar. AN SSSR. Ser. 2. Sporovye Rast. 1950, 5, 20–94. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  81. iNaturalist.org. Available online: http://www.inaturalist.org (accessed on 13 July 2023).
  82. Thiers, B. Index herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. 2023. Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/ (accessed on 13 July 2023).
  83. Shorthouse, D.P. SimpleMappr, an Online Tool to Produce Publication-Quality Point Maps. 2010. Available online: https://www.simplemappr.net (accessed on 6 December 2022).
  84. McAleece, N.; Gage, J.D.G.; Lambshead, P.J.D.; Paterson, G.L.J. BioDiversity Professional Statistics Analysis Software; Jointly developed by the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the Natural History Museum: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  85. Echt, C.S.; Erdahl, L.A.; McCoy, T.J. Genetic segregation of random amplified polymorphic DNA in diploid cultivated alfalfa. Genome 1992, 35, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kiselev, K.V.; Dubrovina, A.S.; Tyunin, A.P. The methylation status of plant genomic DNA influences PCR efficiency. J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 175, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bonfield, J.K.; Smith, K.F.; Staden, R. A new DNA sequence assembly program. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995, 23, 4992–4999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Galtier, N.; Gouy, M.; Gautier, C. Seaview and phylo-win: Two graphic tools for sequence alignment and molecular phylogeny. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 1996, 12, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Available online: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi (accessed on 2 March 2023).
  90. Swofford, D.L. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods); Version 4.0b10; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  91. Huelsenbeck, J.P.; Ronquist, F. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 2001, 17, 754–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1974, 19, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Darriba, D.; Taboada, G.L.; Doallo, R.; Posada, D. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Stamatakis, A.; Hoover, P.; Rougemont, J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57, 758–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kozlov, A.M.; Darriba, D.; Flouri, T.; Morel, B.; Stamatakis, A. RAxML-NG: A fast, scalable and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 2019, 35, 4453–4455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hollerbach, M.M.; Krassavina, L.K. Determination Key of Freshwater Algae of USSR. Vol. 14. Charophyta; Nauka: Leningrad, Russia, 1983; pp. 1–189. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  97. Schneider, S.C.; Nowak, P.; Ammon, U.V.; Ballot, A. Species differentiation in the genus Chara (Charophyceae): Considerable phenotypic plasticity occurs within homogenous genetic groups. Eur. J. Phycol. 2016, 51, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schneider, S.C.; Rodrigues, A.; Moe, T.F.; Ballot, A.; de Clerck, O. DNA barcoding the genus Chara: Molecular evidence recovers fewer taxa than the classical morphological approach. J. Phycol. 2015, 51, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wood, R.D. A revision of the Characeae. In Monograph of the Characeae; Wood, R.D., Imahori, K., Eds.; Verlag von J. Cramer: Weinheim, Germany, 1965; pp. i–xxiv, 1–904. [Google Scholar]
  100. Nowak, P.; Schubert, H. Genetic variability of charophyte algae in the Baltic Sea area. Bot. Mar. 2019, 62, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Romanov, R.E.; (Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, Russia). Personal Communication, 2023. (Unpublished Data).
  102. Ruprecht, F.J. Distributio cryptogamarum vascularium in Imperio Rossico. Beiträge Zur Pflanzenkunde Russ. Reiches 1845, 3, 1–56. [Google Scholar]
  103. Iwanoff, L. Bericht über die algologische Exkursion im Sommer des Jahres 1901 in Kaukasus. Trav. La Société Impériale Nat. St. Petérsbourg 1902, 33, 1–9. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  104. Petrov, K.M. Macrophytes of Black Sea nearshore of the Taman Peninsula and the North Caucasus. In Proceedings of the Novorossiysk Biological Station; Rostov University Publishing: Rostov-na-Donu, Russia, 1961; pp. 41–67. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  105. Nikolaeva, E.V. Towards freshwater algal flora of artificial and natural water bodies of Big Sochi Area. In Contemporary Problems of Algology: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference and VII School for Marine Biology; SSC Publishing: Rostov-na-Donu, Russia, 2008; pp. 250–251. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  106. GBIF.org. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.hvrzbv (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  107. Petunnikow, A. Die kaukasischen Characeen. Vestnik Tiflisskago Botaniceskago Sada. Monit. Jard. Bot. Tiflis 1919, XIII–XIV, 8–15. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  108. Nahucrishvili, I.G. (Ed.) Flora of Cryptogamous Plants of Georgia: Conspectus; Mecniereba: Tbilisi, Georgia, 1986; pp. 1–885. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  109. GBIF.org. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.htwked (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  110. Gambaryan, P.P. Distribution of macrophytes of Lake Sevan. Proc. Sevan Hydrobiol. Stn. Acad. Sci. Armen. SSR 1979, 17, 122–129. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  111. Barsegyan, A.M. Aquatic and Swamp Vegetation of the Armenian SSR; Institute of Botany of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR: Yerevan, Armenia, 1990; pp. 1–353. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  112. Krilov, A.V. (Ed.) Lake Sevan. Ecological State during the Period of Water Level Change; Filigran: Yaroslavl, Russia, 2016; pp. 1–328. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  113. GBIF.org. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.uhgc79 (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  114. Aliev, D.A. Charophytes occurring in water bodies of Talysh and Apsheron peninsula. Sci. Proc. Kirov Azerbaijan State Univ. 1961, 4, 45–46. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  115. Hollerbach, M.M. De specie nova Chara neglecta Hollerb. (Charophyta). Novit. Syst. Plant. Non Vasc. 1981, 18, 3–9. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  116. Musaev, N.; Ismailov, E. Bioelectrical properties of Chara gymnophylla plasmomembrane during interaction with Cobalt, (Co2+). Ekoloji 2007, 16, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  117. GBIF.org. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.bw5swp (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  118. Romanov, R.E. Typification of Chara connivens Salzmann ex A.Braun f. brevifolia Vilhelm, C. crinita Wallroth and C. glomerulifera Ruprecht and clarification of conflicting species concepts for C. arcuatifolia Vilhelm (Charales, Charophyceae). Not. Algarum 2022, 223, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  119. Romanov, R.E.; Barinova, S.S. Species of Nitella (Charophyceae, Charales) from Israel: Low species richness and rare occurrence. Bot. Serbica 2016, 40, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Romanov, R.E.; Barinova, S.S.; Vishnyakov, V.S. Species of Tolypella from Western, Central and Northern Asia. In Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Group of European Charophytologists, València, Spain, 18–22 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  121. Kolada, A. Charophyte variation in sensitivity to eutrophication affects their potential for the trophic and ecological status indication. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2021, 422, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Krause, W. Charales (Charophyceae) Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa 18. In Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Ettl, H., Gärtner, G., Heynig, H., Mollenhauer, D., Eds.; Fischer: Jena, Germany, 1997; pp. 1–202. [Google Scholar]
  123. Romanov, R.E.; Barinova, S.S. The charophytes of Israel: Historical and contemporary species richness, distribution, and ecology. Biodivers. Res. Conserv. 2012, 25, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Romanov, R. New interesting records of charophytes (Charales, Charophyceae) from Eurasia and Africa. Webbia 2019, 74, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Morozova-Vodyanitskaya, N. Phytobenthos of the Karkinitzky Gulf. Proc. Sevastopol Biol. Stn. Acad. Sci. USSR 1936, 5, 219–232. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  126. Palamar-Mordvintseva, G.M. Charophyta of the Crimean Peninsula (Ukraine). Algologia 1998, 8, 14–22. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  127. Crain, C.M.; Halpern, B.S.; Beck, M.W.; Kappel, C.V. Understanding and managing human threats to the coastal marine environment. Year Ecol. Conserv. Biol. 2009 Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1162, 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Li, X.; Bellerby, R.; Craft, C.; Widney, S.E. Coastal wetland loss, consequences, and challenges for restoration. Anthr. Coasts 2018, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Korolesova, D.D. Current state of the macrophytobenthos in Tendrivska and Yagorlycka bays of the Black Sea Biosphere Reserve. Chornomorski Bot. J. 2017, 13, 457–467. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Berezenko, N.S.; Milchakova, N.A. Long-term changes of macrophytobenthos of “Sudzhuk Lagoon” Natural Monument (Black Sea). Nat. Conserv. Res. 2018, 3, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Romanov, R.; Korolesova, D.; Afanasyev, D.; Zhakova, L. Chara baltica (Charophyceae, Charales) from the Black Sea region and taxonomic implications of extrastipulodes. Botanica 2020, 26, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Demirci, E.; Tunoğlu, C.; Tuncer, A.; Bilen, C. Charophytes and other subrecent microfossils of Lake Liman (Kızılırmak Delta, Samsun, Northern Turkey). Environ. Exp. Biol. 2022, 20, 130. [Google Scholar]
  133. Demirci, E.; Soulié-Märsche, I.; Bilen, C.; Tuncer, A.; Tunoğlu, C. Charophytes and ostracods of the Lake Karaboğaz (Kızılırmak Delta, Samsun). In 21th Paleontology-Stratigraphy Workshop Pandemia Special; Paleontology Working Group: Turkey, 2020; pp. 64–66. [Google Scholar]
  134. Scapini, F.; Ciampi, G. (Eds.) Coastal Water Bodies Nature and Culture Conflicts in the Mediterranean; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1–167. [Google Scholar]
  135. Rosqvist, K. Distribution and Role of Macrophytes in Coastal Lagoons: Implications of Critical Shifts. Ph.D. Thesis, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland, 2010; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  136. Rodrigo, M.A.; Jose, L.; Alonso-Guillén, J.L.; Soulié-Märsche, I. Reconstruction of the former charophyte community out of the fructifications identified in Albufera de València lagoon sediments. Aquat. Bot. 2010, 92, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Martin, A.; Carvalho, L.; Downie, A.J. Rare charophytes in Scotland’s coastal saline lagoons. Bot. J. Scotl. 2002, 1, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Blindow, I.; Garniel, A.; Munsterhjelm, R.; Nielsen, R. Conservation and threats—Proposal of a Red Data Book for charophytes in the Baltic Sea. In Charophytes of the Baltic Sea; Schubert, H., Blindow, I., Eds.; A.R.G. Gantner: Ruggel, Liechtenstein, 2003; pp. 251–260. [Google Scholar]
  139. Stewart, N.F.; Church, J.M. Red Data Books of Britain and Ireland: Stoneworts; Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough, UK, 1992; pp. 1–144. [Google Scholar]
  140. Lambert, E.; Desmots, D.; Le Bail, J.; Mouronval, J.B.; Felzines, J.C. Tolypella salina R. Cor. on the French Atlantic coast: Biology and ecology. Acta Bot. Gall. 2013, 160, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Murtazaliev, R.A. The Conspectus of the Flora of Dagestan. Vol. 1–4; Epokha Press: Makhachkala, Russia, 2009. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  142. Grossheim, A.A. Analysis of the Flora of the Caucasus; Publishing of the Azerbaijan Branch of the Academy os Sciences of USSR: Baku, Azerbaijan, 1936; pp. 1–259. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  143. Takhtajan, A.L. (Ed.) Caucasian Flora Conspectus. Vol. 1–3 (1,2); Saint-Petersburg University Press: Saint Petersburg, Russia; KMK Press: Moscow, Russia, 2003. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  144. Solomon, J.C.; Schatz, G.E.; Shulkina, T. (Eds.) Red List of the Endemic Plants of the Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Russia, and Turkey; Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis, MI, USA, 2013; pp. 1–451. [Google Scholar]
  145. Fayvush, G.; Aleksanyan, A. Plant diversity in riverine wetlands of Armenia. Bocconea 2021, 29, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Tedoradze, G.; Akobia, I.; Janiashvili, Z.; Jugeli, T.; Lachashvili, N.; Megvinetukhutsesi, N.; Metreveli, V.; Mikeladze, G.; Kikvidze, Z. The annotated checklist of plant species that occur in the wetland habitats of Georgia (the Caucasus). Caucasiana 2023, 2, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Kantor, A.; Kučera, J.; Šlenker, M.; Breidy, J.; Dönmez, A.A.; Marhold, K.; Slovák, M.; Svitok, M.; Zozomová-Lihová, J. Evolution of hygrophytic plant species in the Anatolia–Caucasus region: Insights from phylogenomic analyses of Cardamine perennials. Ann. Bot. 2023, 131, 585–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Environments 10 00153 g001
Figure 1. Species distribution in the context of elevation (a) and ecoregions (b,c) in the region studied at three sampling intervals: a–all species, b: 1—Chara connivens, 20th century, 2—C. globularis, 20th century,, 3—C. contraria, 19th century, 4—C. globata, 21th century, 5—C. neglecta, 19th century, 6—C. neglecta, 21th century, 7—Tolypella nidifica, 21st century, c: 1—C. gymnophylla, 19th century, 2—C. gymnophylla, 20th century, 3—C. gymnophylla, 21st century, 4—C. vulgaris var. vulgaris, 19th century, 5—C. vulgaris var. vulgaris, 20th century, 6—C. vulgaris var. longibracteata, 20th century. Ecoregions [83]: dark brown–Caspian lowland desert, light brown–Pontic steppe, green–Caucasus mixed forests.
Figure 1. Species distribution in the context of elevation (a) and ecoregions (b,c) in the region studied at three sampling intervals: a–all species, b: 1—Chara connivens, 20th century, 2—C. globularis, 20th century,, 3—C. contraria, 19th century, 4—C. globata, 21th century, 5—C. neglecta, 19th century, 6—C. neglecta, 21th century, 7—Tolypella nidifica, 21st century, c: 1—C. gymnophylla, 19th century, 2—C. gymnophylla, 20th century, 3—C. gymnophylla, 21st century, 4—C. vulgaris var. vulgaris, 19th century, 5—C. vulgaris var. vulgaris, 20th century, 6—C. vulgaris var. longibracteata, 20th century. Ecoregions [83]: dark brown–Caspian lowland desert, light brown–Pontic steppe, green–Caucasus mixed forests.
Environments 10 00153 g001
Environments 10 00153 g002
Figure 2. Chara connivens and C. gymnophylla from Dagestan (LE): (a)—the general habit of pressed C. connivens from the Mekhteb Reservoir showing elongated general appearance and long slender branchlets; (b–e)—C. gymnophylla from the stagnant water body on the bank of the Karalazurger River: (b)—general appearance of living plant; (c,e)—diplostichous aulacanthous stem cortex with tiny ((c), arrowhead) and slightly elongate solitary spine cells ((e), arrowhead); (d)—whorl of well-developed completely ecorticate branchlets with long adaxial bract cells and conjoined gametangia (arrowheads). Scale: (a)—5 cm, (c,e)—1 mm, (d)—4 mm. Photos: (a,c–e)—by R.E. Romanov, (b)—by M.M. Mallaliev.
Figure 2. Chara connivens and C. gymnophylla from Dagestan (LE): (a)—the general habit of pressed C. connivens from the Mekhteb Reservoir showing elongated general appearance and long slender branchlets; (b–e)—C. gymnophylla from the stagnant water body on the bank of the Karalazurger River: (b)—general appearance of living plant; (c,e)—diplostichous aulacanthous stem cortex with tiny ((c), arrowhead) and slightly elongate solitary spine cells ((e), arrowhead); (d)—whorl of well-developed completely ecorticate branchlets with long adaxial bract cells and conjoined gametangia (arrowheads). Scale: (a)—5 cm, (c,e)—1 mm, (d)—4 mm. Photos: (a,c–e)—by R.E. Romanov, (b)—by M.M. Mallaliev.
Environments 10 00153 g002
Environments 10 00153 g003
Figure 3. Chara globata and Tolypella nidifica from water bodies on the coast of the Caspian Sea (LE): (a,c)—upper parts of first morphotype of C. globata lacking evident lime incrustation and having long abaxial bract cells (arrowhead); (b)—upper part of the second morphotype of C. globata showing evident lime incrustation and abaxial bract cells of moderate length; it is really similar to C. baltica (Hartm.) Bruzelius and differs with strong lime incrustation only; (c)—whorl of branchlets of second morphotype of C. globata showing acute stipulodes of moderate length (arrowhead), abaxial bract cells of moderate length (double arrowhead) and mainly solitary aculeate spine cells of moderate length; €—nodes of branchlet of first morphotype of globata showing corticated segments, long verticillate bract cells and solitary conjoined gametangia (oogonium–arrowhead, antheridium–double arrowhead); (f)—starchless nodal bulbils of first morphotype of globata; (g)—apical part of rewetted specimen of T. nidifica showing obtuse end cells of branchlets (arrowhead); (h)—fertile head of rewetted specimen of T. nidifica showing presence of oogonia (arrowheads) and at least one antheridium (double arrowhead). Both morphotypes of globata were found in the same lake near the settlement of Turali. Scale: (c,d)—5 mm, (e,f)—1 mm. Photos: (a,b)—by M.M. Mallaliev, (c–h)—by R.E. Romanov.
Figure 3. Chara globata and Tolypella nidifica from water bodies on the coast of the Caspian Sea (LE): (a,c)—upper parts of first morphotype of C. globata lacking evident lime incrustation and having long abaxial bract cells (arrowhead); (b)—upper part of the second morphotype of C. globata showing evident lime incrustation and abaxial bract cells of moderate length; it is really similar to C. baltica (Hartm.) Bruzelius and differs with strong lime incrustation only; (c)—whorl of branchlets of second morphotype of C. globata showing acute stipulodes of moderate length (arrowhead), abaxial bract cells of moderate length (double arrowhead) and mainly solitary aculeate spine cells of moderate length; €—nodes of branchlet of first morphotype of globata showing corticated segments, long verticillate bract cells and solitary conjoined gametangia (oogonium–arrowhead, antheridium–double arrowhead); (f)—starchless nodal bulbils of first morphotype of globata; (g)—apical part of rewetted specimen of T. nidifica showing obtuse end cells of branchlets (arrowhead); (h)—fertile head of rewetted specimen of T. nidifica showing presence of oogonia (arrowheads) and at least one antheridium (double arrowhead). Both morphotypes of globata were found in the same lake near the settlement of Turali. Scale: (c,d)—5 mm, (e,f)—1 mm. Photos: (a,b)—by M.M. Mallaliev, (c–h)—by R.E. Romanov.
Environments 10 00153 g003
Environments 10 00153 g004
Figure 4. Oospores and gyrogonites of Chara gymnophylla, C. neglecta, and Tolypella nidifica (LE), SEM: (a–c)—oospore of C. gymnophylla from the stagnant water body at the bank of the Karalazurger River: (a)—later view (ruptured during preparation), showing low ridges and absence of basal cage; (b,c)—surface of fossae, pustulate and densely minutely granulate between pustulae; (d)—tangential view of oospore of T. nidifica from the small stagnant water body near the town of Kaspiysk, showing smooth surface and prominent ridges; (e,f)—gyrogonite and oospore surface of C. neglecta from the same water body: (e)—lateral view of gyrogonites missing apical part of lime shell, an apex of oospore with low ridges is visible; (f)—roughened surface of oospore fossa. Scale: (a)—200 μm, (b)—10 μm, (c)—5 μm, (d,e)—100 μm, (f)—20 μm. Photos by R.E. Romanov.
Figure 4. Oospores and gyrogonites of Chara gymnophylla, C. neglecta, and Tolypella nidifica (LE), SEM: (a–c)—oospore of C. gymnophylla from the stagnant water body at the bank of the Karalazurger River: (a)—later view (ruptured during preparation), showing low ridges and absence of basal cage; (b,c)—surface of fossae, pustulate and densely minutely granulate between pustulae; (d)—tangential view of oospore of T. nidifica from the small stagnant water body near the town of Kaspiysk, showing smooth surface and prominent ridges; (e,f)—gyrogonite and oospore surface of C. neglecta from the same water body: (e)—lateral view of gyrogonites missing apical part of lime shell, an apex of oospore with low ridges is visible; (f)—roughened surface of oospore fossa. Scale: (a)—200 μm, (b)—10 μm, (c)—5 μm, (d,e)—100 μm, (f)—20 μm. Photos by R.E. Romanov.
Environments 10 00153 g004
Environments 10 00153 g005
Figure 5. Chara neglecta from a small water body on the coast of the Caspian Sea near the town of Kaspiysk (LE): (a)—upper parts of living robust male plants showing arcuate upper branchlets; (b,c)—upper part of pressed male plants showing arcuate completely corticated branchlets with solitary antheridia and verticillate bract cells, sparsely short spiny stems, aculeate diplostephanous stipulodes of moderate length (arrowhead indicates triangular shields of antheridium); (d)—well-developed whorl of branchlets of female plant (rewetted specimen) having smaller and slender appearance in comparison with male plants (sexual dimorphism), showing completely corticated branchlets with verticillate bract cells of moderate length and solitary oogonia with ripe black oospores, short aculeate stipulodes, short spine cells; (e)—branchlet and base of branchlet whorl of pressed female plant showing aculeate diplostephanous stipulodes of moderate length, completely corticated branchlets with short end cells, well-developed verticillate bract cells (double arrowhead), whose length gradually decrease from the base to the tip of branchlet; (f)—nodal starchless bulbils (arrowheads) of pressed plants; (g)—isostichous triplostichous stem cortex with short solitary acute spine cells (rewetted plant); (h)—short aculeate diplostephanous stipulodes (arrowhead) of rewetted plant and irregular diplo-triplostichous stem cortex, slightly aulacanthous (double arrowhead). Scale: (b,c,f)—2 mm, (e,g)—1 mm. Photos: (a)—by M.M. Mallaliev, (b–h)—by R.E. Romanov.
Figure 5. Chara neglecta from a small water body on the coast of the Caspian Sea near the town of Kaspiysk (LE): (a)—upper parts of living robust male plants showing arcuate upper branchlets; (b,c)—upper part of pressed male plants showing arcuate completely corticated branchlets with solitary antheridia and verticillate bract cells, sparsely short spiny stems, aculeate diplostephanous stipulodes of moderate length (arrowhead indicates triangular shields of antheridium); (d)—well-developed whorl of branchlets of female plant (rewetted specimen) having smaller and slender appearance in comparison with male plants (sexual dimorphism), showing completely corticated branchlets with verticillate bract cells of moderate length and solitary oogonia with ripe black oospores, short aculeate stipulodes, short spine cells; (e)—branchlet and base of branchlet whorl of pressed female plant showing aculeate diplostephanous stipulodes of moderate length, completely corticated branchlets with short end cells, well-developed verticillate bract cells (double arrowhead), whose length gradually decrease from the base to the tip of branchlet; (f)—nodal starchless bulbils (arrowheads) of pressed plants; (g)—isostichous triplostichous stem cortex with short solitary acute spine cells (rewetted plant); (h)—short aculeate diplostephanous stipulodes (arrowhead) of rewetted plant and irregular diplo-triplostichous stem cortex, slightly aulacanthous (double arrowhead). Scale: (b,c,f)—2 mm, (e,g)—1 mm. Photos: (a)—by M.M. Mallaliev, (b–h)—by R.E. Romanov.
Environments 10 00153 g005
Environments 10 00153 g007
Figure 7. The similarity of charophytes species composition of different regions of the Caucasus according to Bray–Curtis cluster analysis (single link) based on reliable records; others: Russian regions of the Caucasus excl. The Republic of Dagestan: Chechen Republic, Kabardino–Balkarian Republic, Karachayevo–Circassian Republic, Krasnodar Territory, Republic of Adygeya, Republic of Ingushetia, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania, Stavropol Territory.
Figure 7. The similarity of charophytes species composition of different regions of the Caucasus according to Bray–Curtis cluster analysis (single link) based on reliable records; others: Russian regions of the Caucasus excl. The Republic of Dagestan: Chechen Republic, Kabardino–Balkarian Republic, Karachayevo–Circassian Republic, Krasnodar Territory, Republic of Adygeya, Republic of Ingushetia, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania, Stavropol Territory.
Environments 10 00153 g007
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

Romanov, R.E.; Mallaliev, M.M.; Barinova, S.; Nikulin, V.Y.; Gontcharov, A.A. The Charophytes (Charophyceae, Characeae) from Dagestan Aquatic Habitats, North Caucasus: Biogeographical and Barcoding Perspectives. Environments 2023, 10, 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10090153

AMA Style

Romanov RE, Mallaliev MM, Barinova S, Nikulin VY, Gontcharov AA. The Charophytes (Charophyceae, Characeae) from Dagestan Aquatic Habitats, North Caucasus: Biogeographical and Barcoding Perspectives. Environments. 2023; 10(9):153. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10090153

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romanov, Roman E., Maxim M. Mallaliev, Sophia Barinova, Vyacheslav Yu. Nikulin, and Andrey A. Gontcharov. 2023. "The Charophytes (Charophyceae, Characeae) from Dagestan Aquatic Habitats, North Caucasus: Biogeographical and Barcoding Perspectives" Environments 10, no. 9: 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10090153

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