Next Article in Journal
Biodiversity and Reproductive Status of Beach-Cast Seaweeds from Espírito Santo, Southeastern Brazil: Sustainable Use and Conservation
Previous Article in Journal
Biorefinery of Beach Cast Seaweed in Brazil: Renewable Energy and Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Phycology
Volume 4
Issue 3
10.3390/phycology4030023
phycology-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

Microalgal Diversity and Molecular Ecology: A Comparative Study of Classical and Metagenomic Approaches in Ponds of the Eifel National Park, Germany

by
Karl-Heinz Linne von Berg
,
Leonie Keilholz
,
Nadine Küchenmeister
,
Ekaterina Pushkareva
and
Burkhard Becker
*
Institute for Plant Sciences, University of Cologne, 50923 Köln, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Phycology 2024, 4(3), 414-426; https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology4030023
Submission received: 24 June 2024 / Revised: 2 August 2024 / Accepted: 18 August 2024 / Published: 31 August 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
While molecular methods have begun to transform ecology, most algal biodiversity is still studied using the classical approach of identifying microalgae by light microscopy directly in sample material or using cultures. In this study, we compare both approaches (light microscopy and metagenomics as a molecular approach) using the freshwater ponds of the Eifel National Park in Germany as a case study. The ponds were found to be rich in desmids by light microscopy. A total of 299 species representing 81 genera were identified by light microscopy. While the molecular method does not currently allow species identification in most cases, we were able to identify 207 different algal genera. In total, 157 genera were detected only by metagenomics, 50 genera were found with both methods, and 31 genera were found by light microscopy, highlighting the need to continue using light microscopy in addition to a molecular approach. The metagenomics method has several advantages over the light microscopy method: (1) deeper assessment of alpha biodiversity, (2) better abundance numbers, and (3) complete coverage of all living matter. The latter is also a significant improvement over metabarcoding, as universal PCR primers are not available.

1. Introduction

The field of algal ecology is still largely dominated by classical approaches, such as the microscopic identification of algae including abundance measurements, determination of chlorophyll a concentrations and other group-specific compounds by spectrometry, establishment of cultures for further analysis, etc. [1,2,3]. In contrast, molecular methods (metabarcoding, metagenomics, meta-transcriptomics) are widely used in other fields of microbial ecology (e.g., study of fungi and bacteria). Only barcoding is used to some extent in algal ecology, mostly to identify algae in culture at the molecular level.
In the light microscopic approach, the taxa of interest are typically identified by morphological characteristics such as colour, cell size and shape, or motility [4,5,6,7]. The use of light microscopy for identification is relatively fast and inexpensive compared to molecular techniques [8] but requires expert knowledge for many taxa, as morphological features are often difficult to recognise and distinguish [9]. The classical approach was established in the middle of the last century but is still widely used, and new additions or new keys for the identification of algae are still being published (e.g., [10,11]).
Morphological characteristics are not always stable, as they can change in response to environmental factors [12]. Alternatively, a set of molecular sequence markers, known as barcodes, can be used when unialgal cultures are available [13]. The typical barcode sequences used for algae are the 16S/18S rRNA gene and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) rDNA, RuBisCO large subunit (rbcL), plastid elongation factor tufA, and cytochrome oxidase I (COX I) [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. A major drawback of this approach is that the majority of microorganisms present in environmental samples are unculturable [21,22,23,24]. To overcome the limitations of cultivation, metabarcoding can be used to assess biodiversity [25,26,27]. Total DNA (eDNA) is extracted from an environmental sample and used as a template to generate an amplicon mixture from a barcoding gene [25]. The resulting PCR products are then sequenced using high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technology [25,28]. Taxa are identified by annotating the resulting sequence reads against an appropriate database, and sequence counts provide information on the taxonomic abundance in the sample [25,29]. However, (meta)barcoding also has several pitfalls, such as the introduction of sequence errors during PCR, the design of appropriate metabarcoding primers that cover all taxa of interest, and, again, the need for appropriate reference databases [25].
PCR-dependent bias and reliance on single barcodes can be avoided by using shotgun metagenomics and metatranscriptomics [30,31]. Similar to metabarcoding, total nucleic acids are isolated from an environmental sample, but the amplification step is omitted [30,31]. Instead, total DNA or cDNA is applied directly to the HTS, and the resulting sequences are assembled for any gene or transcript of interest, such as small ribosomal subunit RNA [32]. This powerful approach allows more reliable taxonomic identification than metabarcoding [33] but is dependent on the availability of correctly determined sequence data [30,34].
While working on biological soil crusts in polar regions, we identified a significant potential of metagenomics and metatranscriptomics for algal ecology (e.g., [35,36,37,38]). We were able to show that metabarcoding revealed higher biodiversity than the traditional light microscopy approach [36]. Furthermore, in a recent paper, we showed that metagenomics is a more effective approach than metabarcoding for studying algal biodiversity in natural habitats [33]. In this study, we directly compare light microscopic and metagenomic methods to study the biodiversity of freshwater ponds in the Eifel National Park, Germany.
The Eifel National Park was established in 2004 by the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The park covers an area of approximately 110 square kilometres in the south-west of North Rhine-Westphalia. The aim of the park is to allow nature to develop mainly naturally, and it consists of areas that are completely closed to the public and managed areas that allow various types of activities. The Eifel National Park was created with the aim of playing a major role in the protection of flora and fauna in North Rhine-Westphalia. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to make an inventory of all organisms living in the national park (for an up-to-date summary, see [39]). While this is a relatively simple task for many macrophytes and metazoans, the detection and identification of microbial diversity are still time-consuming and difficult. To this end, algal biodiversity in the Eifel National Park has been monitored using the classical approach by one of us (Linne von Berg) almost since its inception, and this work has been documented in annual reports. A total of 926 algal species, including 66 cyanobacteria, have been documented [40].
In this report, we attempt to determine the microalgal biodiversity (focus on diatoms and zygnematophytes) by light microscopy and microbial diversity using a metagenomic approach of the 14 (5 by metagenomics) artificial water bodies located mainly in the closed area of the national park. All water bodies are man-made (fishing ponds), often constructed many years before the establishment of the national park, and were maintained when the national park was established. In a few cases, additional ponds were added after the establishment of the national park. We show that although molecular methods offer considerable advantages, there were still a number of algal species that we observed using only classical methods.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Descriptions and Sampling

Samples were collected from a total of 17 ponds in the Eifel National Park at three sites between March and June 2021. In addition, samples for metagenomic studies were collected from five selected ponds in October 2022. The first site consists of six ponds called “Himmelsteiche” (coordinates: N 50°30′20″; E 6°19′06″), which are perennial ponds surrounded by dense vegetation (Table 1). The six ponds vary in size, depth, and surface mats of plants and algae, as well as in the presence and abundance of Sphagnum sp. (Table 1). The second site was the 10 ponds called “Schürhübelteiche” (coordinates: N 50°33′13″; E 6°26′03″). It is important to note that these ponds have the potential to dry out completely or fragment during periods of drought (Table 1). Of the ten ponds present, only six were sampled, as four of them tend to dry out early in the year. Ponds 6–8 have a dominant clay composition in their soils, while the other ponds have a higher presence of organic compounds. All ponds are surrounded by dense vegetation, with Sphagnum sp. found in a much lower abundance in only one of the ponds. The third site consists of two ponds located at “Helingsbach” (coordinates: N 50°33′18″; E 6°24′57″) within the public area of the Eifel National Park, whereas the other two sites are not accessible to the public. Both ponds are perennial and surrounded by dense vegetation but lack Sphagnum sp. All 14 ponds are artificial, with the 2 ponds at “Helingsbach” being former tank canals, originally part of a military training area.
Floating plant or Sphagnum vegetation was collected and squeezed by hand. The flow of water was collected as a water body sample, as a plankton net could not be used for sampling due to the shallow water depth in some ponds. A sediment sample—usually from the centre of the pond—was taken using a telescopic rod with a beaker glass at the end. Both samples were analysed separately by light microscopy and combined to represent the observed diversity of a pond. For DNA isolation, both samples were combined and processed together.

2.2. Water Chemistry Analysis

Chemical analyses were carried out on all 14 ponds twice within a three-week period in May 2021 to determine the levels of phosphate, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, carbonate, and total water hardness. The average is given in Supplemental Table S1.
Nitrate was measured with the RQflex® 10 reflectometer (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) using Reflectoquant test strips. Ammonia, phosphate, and nitrite were quantified using the WTW PhotLab S12 photometer (WTW, Weilsheim, Germany) and Merck commercial ammonium, phosphate, and nitrite tests. The sera aqua test box was used to determine carbonate hardness and total water hardness. Values were converted to mmol/L using the factor of 1° = 0.1783 mmol/L. On-site measurements of electrical conductivity and pH were carried out for all 14 ponds using the GMH 3400 conductivity (Greisinger, Regesntstauf, Germany) and the G1500 pH meter (Greisinger, Regenstauf, Germany). The average of 5 measurements at five different days is given in Supplemental Table S1.

2.3. Light Microscopy and Species Identification

The collected samples were first examined using a microscope (Olympus XC41 microscope) at 20×–60× magnification, and images were taken for documentation. The species were identified using the relevant literature [7,41,42,43,44,45,46]. To identify diatom species, photographs were taken using immersion oil (Olympus XC41 microscope) at 100× magnification. For diatoms, we used a slightly modified protocol of the widely used Naphrax embedding method [47]. Briefly, the sample was pipetted onto a microscope slide and dried under a hood. The slide was then heated with an ethanol burner, and Naphrax was added to the sample. A coverslip was placed over the sample, and the slide was heated again to liquefy and spread the Naphrax under the coverslip.
For the light microscopic determination of biodiversity indices for the ponds, the abundance of algal species was determined in 5 replicates taken directly from the pond. An arbitrary scale was used to convert the microscopic observations into numerical values: rare 1, moderate 10, common 100, very common 200.

2.4. DNA Isolation and Metagenomic Sequencing

Total DNA was extracted from the five most diverse ponds (see Figure 2 (with two technical replicates of two field replicates collected) using the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequently, the extracted DNAs were then sent to Eurofins Genomics (Konstanz, Germany) for metagenomic sequencing. Illumina paired-end sequencing (2 × 150 bp) with 3 Gb raw data per package was performed on a NovaSeq6000 platform. The raw reads were submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) at NCBI under the project number PRJNA1124436.

2.5. Bioinformatic and Statistical Analyses

The obtained FASTQ files were processed using the OmicsBox software package (https://www.biobam.com/omicsbox/) (Biobam Bioinformatics S.L., Valencia, Spain). The files were quality-filtered and trimmed using the Trimmomatic [48]. Furthermore, 16S and 18S rRNAs were separated from the dataset using the SortMeRNA [49] and taxonomically assigned using the SILVA database (v138.1).
Statistical analyses were carried out in R (v 4.3.2). To test for differences in various parameters among the sampling sites, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test (p-value < 0.05). The normality of variance was assessed using Shapiro–Wilk’s test. Furthermore, to illustrate the taxonomic differences between the sampling sites’ light microscopical abundance of taxa and metagenomic reads assigned to taxa, non-metrical multidimensional scaling (NMDS) was performed using the package vegan [50], and statistical difference was tested with the ANOSIM test. Soil parameters were fitted into the ordination space using the function envfit, and the significance of the associations was determined by 9999 random permutations.

3. Results

3.1. Water Bodies in the Eifel National Park

The investigated water bodies are a diverse collection of man-made ponds with quite variable environmental parameters, such as size, depth, surface cover with plants and/or algae, the presence of Sphagnum, etc. Table 1 summarises the majority of these parameters. A comprehensive list can be found in Supplemental Table S1. Additionally, Supplemental Table S1 contains the number of algal species (total, desmids, diatoms) for each pond as well as the chemical characteristics of the ponds.
In brief, the pH varied between 5.8 and 7.3. The conductivity was low (29.1–77.9 µS), indicating that the majority of the ponds were nutrient-poor. The latter is supported by the rather low ammonia (0.04–0.28 mg/L), nitrite (below detection limit–up to 0.07 mg/L), and phosphate (0.10–0.65 mg/L) concentrations observed, whereas nitrate was below the detection limit in all ponds. Total hardness (0.36–0.72 mmol/L) and carbonate hardness (0.36–0.54 mmol/L) were also low. Based on these chemical values, the ponds would be assigned to the category of good of the European water framework directive [51].

3.2. The Algal Biodiversity of the Investigated Ponds: Classical Approach

A total of 299 different algal species (plus a number of morphologically different taxa that could be not determined at the species level), including 117 desmids and 30 diatoms, were identified by light microscopy in the 14 ponds examined (Supplemental Table S2). Four of the beautiful desmids found in the Eifel ponds are depicted as an example in Figure 1. We could not determine the exact species for all microalgae. For example, there are at least nine clearly morphologically different Mougeotia species in addition to the two determined species (see Supplemental Table S2). However, for many of these species, the presence of zygotes is required to determine the species correctly.
The numbers of algal species found in each pond varied between 19 (SU09) and 121 (HT03) and are included in Supplemental Table S1, together with the Shannon (between 3.08 and 4.25) and Simpson diversity (0.68–0.85) indices. All species are listed in Supplemental Table S2. HT06 had an especially rich microalgal flora containing 121 different algal species, including 60 different desmids. To compare the different lakes with each other, we used a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) method. The obtained plot is shown in Figure 2. The vectors indicate the environmental factors showing a significant correlation with the observed microalgal diversity pattern. Pond depth, pH, and nitrite were the only three environmental factors showing a significant correlation with the observed diversity pattern.

3.3. Microbial Diversity: Metagenomic Approach

Five ponds representing the observed light microscopical diversity (SU01, SU08, KG01, HT03, and HT06, see Figure 2) were selected for metagenomic analyses. Two technical replicates for two replicate samples each were analysed, except for HT03 and SU08 (two and three replicates, respectively). For each site, the replicates were sequenced (Nova600, PE 150 bp) at the sequencing facility of Eurofins. Between 11,986,763 and 30,051,744 read pairs were sequenced and the ribosomal DNA reads extracted using the SortMeRNA tool. The rDNA reads were aligned with the Silva database, and the reads were counted so as to measure the relative abundance.
Figure 3a shows the relative abundance of various organismal groups in the total dataset and Figure 3b the relative abundance of the microalgal sub-dataset. As is evident from Figure 3a,b, the biodiversity was represented by a large number of different species, with all major eukaryotic groups detected in all ponds, although the various ponds differed in the relative abundance of the different groups. Interestingly, photoautotrophs represented only a minor fraction of the complete molecular diversity observed (relative abundance of exemplary photoautotrophs: cyanobacteria relative total abundance~3.189%; chlorophyta relative total abundance~1.435%). However, there were some major differences between the ponds in the microalgal communities, with different groups dominating in different ponds. Most strikingly, the microalgal sub-metagenome of SU01 was dominated by dinoflagellates. Most of the dinoflagellate reads came from a single species, which, interestingly, we have never observed by light microscopy. Klebsormidiophyceae were present only in large amounts in the HT06 pond, which lacked a large zygnematophyte population. Green algae represented 45% to 75% of the observed microalgal biodiversity, except for SU01, which is dominated by the single dinoflagellate. Bacillariophyceae had their largest abundance in HT06 (relative abundance~19.904%).
The NMDS approach using the molecular abundance data for the five investigated ponds gave a similar pattern as the light microscopy approach (Figure 4). The biodiversity of microalgae in the investigated ponds could be correlated with pH, nitrite, and depth as distinguishing factors. For this dataset, we also observed a correlation with conductivity and carbon hardness.

3.4. A Comparison of the Alpha Biodiversity Found by Light Microscopic and Molecular Analysis of Photoautotrophs

When we compared the microscopic analyses with the metagenomic analyses (Figure 5), more microalgal genera were found with the metagenomic analysis (207 genera) than with the microscopic method (81 genera). In total, 50 genera were observed with both methods, while 157 were found with only the molecular method and 31 genera only with the classical approach.

4. Discussion

4.1. Microalgal Biodiversity of Eifel Ponds

The biodiversity of the microalgae in the Eifel National Park has been monitored almost since its establishment. By December 2020, 926 different algae, including 66 species of cyanobacteria, had been recorded [40]. Of these, 216 are rare species included on red lists [40]. In this study, we provide molecular evidence for the presence of a further 157 previously unreported genera. This represents a huge increase in algal diversity. The real additional molecular diversity is likely to be much higher, as we investigated only five ponds using metagenomics, and due to the still incomplete databases, which allow us to detect genera using only the Silva database, the genera identified by molecular methods may represent many species (see, for example, in Supplementary Table S2, the large number of desmid species identified by light microscopy representing a single genus in the ponds investigated). One of the most striking differences between the two methods in this study is the large number of rRNA reads found for the dinoflagellate Jadwigia sp. Jadwigia was found only in a single pond (SU1) and only by metagenomics. Jadwigia was described only in 2005 [52,53] and has never been observed in a pond in the Eifel National Park. As we also sampled sediments from the investigated ponds for the metagenomic approach, we think that a large number of hypnozygotes of Jadwigia could have been present in the sediment. Future studies are needed to support this explanation.

4.2. Differences between the Two Approaches

In this report, we determined the microalgal biodiversity of 14 ponds using the classical approach (identification of species by light microscopy [4,5,6,7]). Based on the light microscopical results, five ponds representing the light-microscopically observed diversity were selected and analysed by a molecular approach, which has been suggested to be superior to the classical approach [25,26,27]. Initially, most molecular studies were performed using the metabarcoding approach; however, more recently, metagenomics has started to replace metabarcoding. We chose metagenomic sequencing of environmental DNA as an approach, as this has recently been shown by us to be preferential to metabarcoding [33]. Metagenomics allows a deeper investigation (detection of rare species) of the biodiversity and is not impeded by PCR biases as the metabarcoding approach. Similar to earlier results [36], we found a larger number of microalgal genera using the molecular method (207) than using the classical approach (81). In addition, metagenomics (mapping reads to sequence databases) always gives quantitative numbers that can be used for quantitative analyses [25,29], while it is still very difficult to infer the abundance of microalgae using the classical methods, employing either Utermöhl sedimentation chambers (fixed material, [54]), or more often, artificial numbers to record the abundance of the microalgae observed. Another major advantage of the molecular method is that it allows the detection and analysis of the entire biodiversity (fungi, photoautotrophs, animals, prokaryotes, etc.) of the studied ponds. Light microscopic identification is based on expert training, and there is no one in the world who can identify all the eukaryotic groups at the same time.
However, it is important to note that molecular methods still have some problems on their own. Most strikingly, 31 genera were found only using the light microscopy method, suggesting that the molecular method still introduces some artificial bias, either at the DNA isolation or sequencing stage of the investigation. Another drawback is that while microscopic observations often allow us to identify the microalgae at the species level, molecular methods generally allow us to assign algae at only the genus level. Incomplete and wrongly annotated reference data are a major problem when performing molecular analyses of any kind and impair the correct determination of genera in environmental samples [25,34]. The microbial dark matter, meaning the total of unculturable microorganisms, complicates this matter even more, as classical methods fail to add sequence information to the databases [55]. However, the developing omics techniques can overcome the limit of culturability and supply the databases with novel sequences [55].
Molecular and light microscopical methods gave similar results regarding the ecology of the investigated ponds. Water depth, pH, and nitrite correlated with the observed biodiversity differences. Again, the molecular method identified two additional factors correlating with the observed differences: conductivity and carbon hardness. The reason for this better “resolution” of the discriminating factors might be twofold: i. greater alpha diversity and ii. better abundance numbers. The read number determined for the rRNA of the different species is directly correlated to the cell number of an alga. It might be different for different algae dependent on the rRNA gene numbers and genome size, leading to different percentages of the genome coding for rRNA. However, they are constant for each species and allow for a direct comparison of the numbers for the different algae [25,29]

5. Conclusions

Our results show that overall, a molecular determination of the biodiversity of photoautotrophs offers several advantages over the classical approach: greater alpha biodiversity, better abundance numbers, and the inclusion of all organismal groups. However, it is important to keep in mind that the molecular approach is still not able to detect some organisms found by light microscopy. In addition, the databases are still missing many species, which, therefore, can be detected at only the genera level. For this reason, if a complete determination of the algal biodiversity is required, it is still preferential to use both approaches.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/phycology4030023/s1, Table S1: Environmental parameters of the investigated ponds of the Eifel National Park; Table S2: Complete list of all algal species identified in the investigated ponds of the Eifel National Park.

Author Contributions

The work presented in this report was conceptualised by B.B. and K.-H.L.v.B.; samples were obtained by K.-H.L.v.B. and N.K.; light microscopy, K.-H.L.v.B. and N.K.; isolation of DNA and molecular analyses, L.K. and E.P.; writing—original draft preparation, L.K.; writing—review and editing, K.-H.L.v.B., E.P. and B.B.; visualisation, L.K. and E.P.; supervision, B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All raw reads of the metagenomic analyses can be found at the NCBI Bioproject number: PRJNA1124436.

Acknowledgments

We like to thank the students of the Biology of Algae class in the winter term 2022 for their help with DNA isolation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Skinner, C.E. Isolation in pure culture of green algae from soil by a simple technique. Plant Physiol. 1932, 7, 533–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bischoff, H.; Bold, H. Some Soil Algae from Enchanted Rock and Related Algal Species; University of Texas Publications: Austin, TX, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
  3. Waterbury, J.B.; Stanier, R.Y. Patterns of growth and development in pleurocapsalean Cyanobacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 1978, 42, 2–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prescott, G.W. How to Know the Fresh-Water Algae; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lind, E.M.; Brook, A.J. A Key to the Commoner Desmids of the English Lake District; Freshwater Biological Association: Windermere, UK, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cox, E.J. Identification of Freshwater Diatoms from Live Material; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  7. John, D.M.; Whitton, B.A.; Brook, A.J. The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles: An Identification Guide to Freshwater and Terrestrial Algae; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Misawa, S. Rapid diagnosis of infectious diseases; features and limitations of the microscopic examination of clinical specimens. J. Assoc. Rapid Method Autom. Microbiol. 1999, 10, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  9. Manoylov, K.M. Taxonomic identification of algae (Morphological and molecular): Species concepts, methodologies, and their implications for ecological bioassessment. J. Phycol. 2014, 50, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Dillard, G.E. Common Freshwater Algae of the United States; Schweizerbart Science Publishers: Stuttgart, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bellinger, E.G.; Sigee, D.C. Freshwater Algae: Identification, Enumeration and Use as Bioindicators; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  12. Albrecht, M.; Pröschold, T.; Schumann, R. Identification of Cyanobacteria in a eutrophic coastal lagoon on the Southern Baltic coast. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Vieira, H.H.; Bagatini, I.L.; Guinart, C.M.; Vieira, A.A.H. tufA gene as molecular marker for freshwater Chlorophyceae. Algae 2016, 31, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Buchheim, M.A.; Chapman, R.L. Phylogeny of the colonial green flagellates: A study of 18S and 26S rRNA sequence data. BioSystems 1991, 25, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wilmotte, A. Molecular evolution and taxonomy of the Cyanobacteria. In The Molecular Biology of Cyanobacteria; Bryant, D., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  16. Doyle, J.J.; Doyle, J.L.; Ballenger, J.A.; Dickson, E.E.; Kajita, T.; Ohashi, H. A phylogeny of the chloroplast gene rbcL in the Leguminosae: Taxonomic correlations and insights into the evolution of nodulation. Am. J. Bot. 1997, 84, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. An, S.S.; Friedel, T.; Hegewald, E. Phylogenetic relationships of Scenedesmus and Scenedesmus-like coccoid green algae as inferred from ITS-2 rDNA sequence comparison. Plant Biol. 1999, 1, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Evans, K.M.; Wortley, A.H.; Mann, D.G. An assessment of potential diatom “barcode” genes (cox1, rbcL, 18S and ITS rDNA) and their effectiveness in determining relationships in Sellaphora (Bacillariophyta). Protist 2007, 158, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sherwood, A.R.; Vis, M.L.; Entwisle, T.J.; Necchi, O., Jr.; Presting, G.G. Contrasting intra versus interspecies DNA sequence variation for representatives of the Batrachospermales (Rhodophyta): Insights from a DNA barcoding approach. Phycol. Res. 2008, 56, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hall, J.D.; Fucikova, K.; Lo, C.; Lewis, L.A.; Karol, K.G. An assessment of proposed DNA barcodes in freshwater green algae. Cryptogam. Algol. 2010, 31, 529–555. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ward, D.M.; Weller, R.; Bateson, M.M. 16S rRNA sequences reveal numerous uncultured microorganisms in a natural community. Nature 1990, 345, 63–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Schloss, P.D.; Handelsman, J. Metagenomics for studying unculturable microorganisms: Cutting the Gordian knot. Genome Biol. 2005, 6, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shi, X.L.; Marie, D.; Jardillier, L.; Scanlan, D.J.; Vaulot, D. Groups without cultured representatives dominate eukaryotic picophytoplankton in the oligotrophic South East Pacific Ocean. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Massana, R.; del Campo, J.; Sieracki, M.E.; Audic, S.; Logares, R. Exploring the uncultured microeukaryote majority in the oceans: Reevaluation of ribogroups within stramenopiles. ISME J. 2014, 8, 854–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Taberlet, P.; Coissac, E.; Pompanon, F.; Brochmann, C.; Willerslev, E. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21, 2045–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yoon, T.-H.; Kang, H.-E.; Kang, C.-K.; Lee, S.H.; Ahn, D.H.; Park, H.; Kim, H.W. Development of a costeffective metabarcoding strategy for analysis of the marine phytoplankton community. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elferink, S.; Neuhaus, S.; Wohlrab, S.; Toebe, K.; Voss, D.; Gottschling, M.; Lundholm, N.; Krock, B.; Koch, B.P.; Zielinski, O.; et al. Molecular diversity patterns among various phytoplankton size-fractions in West Greenland in late summer. Deep Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2017, 121, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Margulies, M.; Egholm, M.; Altman, W.E.; Attiya, S.; Bader, J.S.; Bemben, L.A.; Berka, J.; Braverman, M.S.; Chen, Y.J.; Chen, Z.; et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature 2005, 437, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pawlowski, J.; Christen, R.; Lecroq, B.; Bachar, D.; Shahbazkia, H.R.; Amaral-Zettler, L.; Guillou, L. Eukaryotic richness in the abyss: Insights from pyrotag sequencing. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e18169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Urich, T.; Lanzén, A.; Qi, J.; Huson, D.H.; Schleper, C.; Schuster, S.C. Simultaneous assessment of soil microbial community structure and function through analysis of the meta-transcriptome. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Urich, T.; Lanzén, A.; Stokke, R.; Pedersen, R.B.; Bayer, C.; Thorseth, I.H.; Schleper, C.; Steen, I.H.; Øvreas, L. Microbial community structure and functioning in marine sediments associated with diffuse hydrothermal venting assessed by integrated meta-omics. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 16, 2699–2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Geisen, S.; Tveit, A.T.; Clark, I.M.; Richter, A.; Svenning, M.M.; Bonkowski, M.; Urich, T. Metatranscriptomic census of active protists in soils. ISME J. 2015, 9, 2178–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Becker, B.; Pushkareva, E. Metagenomics provides a deeper assessment of the diversity of bacterial communities in polar soils than metabarcoding. Genes 2023, 14, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Klimke, W.; O’Donovan, C.; White, O.; Brister, J.R.; Clark, K.; Fedorov, B.; Mizrachi, I.; Pruitt, K.D.; Tatusova, T. Solving the problem: Genome annotation standards before the data deluge. Stand. Genom. Sci. 2011, 5, 168–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rippin, M.; Lange, S.; Sausen, N.; Becker, B. Biodiversity of biological soilcrusts from the Polar Regions revealed by metabarcoding. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94, fiy036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rippin, M.; Borchhardt, N.; Williams, L.; Colesie, C.; Jung, P.; Büdel, B.; Karsten, U.; Becker, B. Genus richness of microalgae and Cyanobacteria in biological soil crusts from Svalbard and Livingston Island: Morphological versus molecular approaches. Polar Biol. 2018, 41, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pushkareva, E.; Elster, J.; Holzinger, A.; Niedzwiedz, S.; Becker, B. Biocrusts from Iceland and Svalbard: Does microbial community composition differ substantially? Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1048522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pushkareva, E.; Elster, J.; Kudoh, S.; Imura, S.; Becker, B. Microbial community composition of terrestrial habitats in East Antarctica with a focus on microphototrophs. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 14, 1323148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pardey, A.; Twietmeyer, S. Artenvielfalt im Nationalpark Eifel. Nat. NRW 2018, 3, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nationalparkforstamt Eifel, Wald und Holz NRW. Leistungsbericht 2020. Available online: https://www.nationalpark-eifel.de/de/ueber-uns/berichte-monitoring-und-artikel/leistungsberichte/ (accessed on 29 August 2024).
  41. Coesel, P.F.M.; Meesters, K.J. Desmids of the Lowlands; KNNV Publishing: Zeist, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hofmann, G.; Werum, M. Diatomeen im Süßwasser-Benthos von Mitteleuropa; Horst Lange Bertalot, A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G.: Rugell, Liechtenstein, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lenzenweger, R. Desmidiaceenflora von Österreich—Teil 1, Band 101; Gebrüder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany; Stuttgart, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lenzenweger, R. Desmidiaceenflora von Österreich—Teil 2, Band 102; Gebrüder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany; Stuttgart, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lenzenweger, R. Desmidiaceenflora von Österreich—Teil 3, Band 104; Gebrüder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany; Stuttgart, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lenzenweger, R. Desmidiaceenflora von Österreich—Teil 4, Band 111; Gebrüder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany; Stuttgart, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  47. Burfeid-Castellanos, A.M.; Kloster, M.; Beszteri, S.; Postel, U.; Spyra, M.; Zurowietz, M.; Nattkemper, T.W.; Beszteri, B. A Digital Light Microscopic Method for Diatom Surveys Using Embedded Acid-Cleaned Samples. Water 2022, 14, 3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bolger, A.M.; Lohse, M.; Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kopylova, E.; Noé, L.; Touzet, H. SortMeRNA: Fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 3211–3217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Oksanen, J. Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: Vegan tutorial. R Doc. 2011, 1, 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  51. Moss, B.; Stephen, D.; Alvarez, C.; Becares, E.; Bund, W.V.; Collings, S.E.; Donk, E.V.; Eyto, E.D.; Feldmann, T.; Fernández-Aláez, C.; et al. The determination of ecological status in shallow lakes—A tested system (ECOFRAME) for implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2003, 13, 507–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lindberg, K.; Moestrup, Ø.; Daugbjerg, N. Studies on woloszynskioid dinoflagellates I: Woloszynskia coronata re-examined using light and electron microscopy and partial LSU rDNA sequences, with description of Tovellia gen. nov. and Jadwigia gen. nov. (Tovelliaceae fam. nov.). Phycologia 2005, 44, 416–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moestrup, Ø.; Calado, A.J. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Dinophyceae; Springer Spektrum: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 6, pp. 1–560. [Google Scholar]
  54. Paxinos, R.; Mitchell, J.G. A rapid Utermöhl method for estimating algal numbers. J. Plancton Res. 2000, 22, 2255–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Solden, L.; Lloyd, K.; Wrighton, K. The bright side of microbial dark matter: Lessons learned from the uncultivated majority. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2016, 31, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Phycology 04 00023 g001
Figure 1. Examples of species identified with light microscopy. (a): Euastrum humerosum, (b): Micrasterias truncata, (c): Euastrum verrucosum, (d): Micrasterias americana.
Figure 1. Examples of species identified with light microscopy. (a): Euastrum humerosum, (b): Micrasterias truncata, (c): Euastrum verrucosum, (d): Micrasterias americana.
Phycology 04 00023 g001
Phycology 04 00023 g002
Figure 2. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on algae species, identified with light microscopy, in different sites. Vectors indicate significant correlations between algae diversity and environmental variables (p-value for depth = 0.0029, p-value for nitrite = 0.0215, and p-value for pH = 0.0042), (p < 0.05). HT = Himmelteiche, KG = Kleingewässer, and SU = Schürhübelteiche. Sampling sites used for metagenomic studies are indicated with their abbreviations.
Figure 2. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on algae species, identified with light microscopy, in different sites. Vectors indicate significant correlations between algae diversity and environmental variables (p-value for depth = 0.0029, p-value for nitrite = 0.0215, and p-value for pH = 0.0042), (p < 0.05). HT = Himmelteiche, KG = Kleingewässer, and SU = Schürhübelteiche. Sampling sites used for metagenomic studies are indicated with their abbreviations.
Phycology 04 00023 g002
Phycology 04 00023 g003
Figure 3. (a) The total microbial community composition of the different ponds. (b) The phototroph community composition based on the genera identified with SILVA. The relative abundance as measured by the number of reads aligning with rRNA for the different groups is shown.
Figure 3. (a) The total microbial community composition of the different ponds. (b) The phototroph community composition based on the genera identified with SILVA. The relative abundance as measured by the number of reads aligning with rRNA for the different groups is shown.
Phycology 04 00023 g003
Phycology 04 00023 g004
Figure 4. The non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on the abundance of the microalgal ribosomal RNA reads from different sites. The vectors indicate significant correlations between the algae diversity and environmental variables (the p-value for the depth = 0.0022, the p-value for the nitrite = 0.0006, the p-value for the conductivity = 0.0447, the p-value for the carbonate hardness = 0.0056, and the p-value for the pH = 0.0089), (p < 0.05). HT = Himmelteiche, KG = Kleingewässer, and SU = Schürhübelteiche.
Figure 4. The non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on the abundance of the microalgal ribosomal RNA reads from different sites. The vectors indicate significant correlations between the algae diversity and environmental variables (the p-value for the depth = 0.0022, the p-value for the nitrite = 0.0006, the p-value for the conductivity = 0.0447, the p-value for the carbonate hardness = 0.0056, and the p-value for the pH = 0.0089), (p < 0.05). HT = Himmelteiche, KG = Kleingewässer, and SU = Schürhübelteiche.
Phycology 04 00023 g004
Phycology 04 00023 g005
Figure 5. A comparison of the total alpha diversity of microalgal genera in 5 different ponds in the Eifel National Park. Light microscopy: the algae were determined by light microscopical identification. Silva: algal genera were determined by aligning metagenomic reads with the Silva database. Cyanobacteria were not counted in this comparison.
Figure 5. A comparison of the total alpha diversity of microalgal genera in 5 different ponds in the Eifel National Park. Light microscopy: the algae were determined by light microscopical identification. Silva: algal genera were determined by aligning metagenomic reads with the Silva database. Cyanobacteria were not counted in this comparison.
Phycology 04 00023 g005
Table 1. An overview of the descriptive site parameters of the sampled sites: Himmelteiche 1–6 (HT01–HT06); Schurhübelteiche 1, 6–10 (SU01, SU06–SU10); and Kleingewässer am Helingsbach 1–2 (KG01–KG02).
Table 1. An overview of the descriptive site parameters of the sampled sites: Himmelteiche 1–6 (HT01–HT06); Schurhübelteiche 1, 6–10 (SU01, SU06–SU10); and Kleingewässer am Helingsbach 1–2 (KG01–KG02).
SiteSize (m2) (1)Depth (m)PerennialSoil CompositionVegetation Cover (%) (2)Presence of Spaghnum
HT011260.4YesOrganic95Yes
HT023140.5YesOrganic30Yes
HT031620.6YesOrganic40Yes
HT041950.4YesOrganic50Yes
HT05640.6YesOrganic50Yes
HT06240.6YesOrganic100Yes
SU1200.4NoOrganic90Little
SU6960.3NoMineral40No
SU7640.3NoMineral30No
SU8350.3NoMineral25No
SU9400.5NoOrganic100Little
SU10n.d.0.4NoOrganic80No
KG1840.5YesOrganic90No
KG21020.6YesOrganic90No
(1) Date of Measurement: 10 March 2021 Schürhübelteiche; 24 March 2021 Himmelsteiche; 28 March 2021 Kleingewässer am Helingsbach. (2) Density of vegetation: density on the water surface; data collection 17 July 2021, a few days after heavy rain. n.d., not determined: due to practical reasons, it was not possible to determine the size of the pond.
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

Linne von Berg, K.-H.; Keilholz, L.; Küchenmeister, N.; Pushkareva, E.; Becker, B. Microalgal Diversity and Molecular Ecology: A Comparative Study of Classical and Metagenomic Approaches in Ponds of the Eifel National Park, Germany. Phycology 2024, 4, 414-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology4030023

AMA Style

Linne von Berg K-H, Keilholz L, Küchenmeister N, Pushkareva E, Becker B. Microalgal Diversity and Molecular Ecology: A Comparative Study of Classical and Metagenomic Approaches in Ponds of the Eifel National Park, Germany. Phycology. 2024; 4(3):414-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology4030023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Linne von Berg, Karl-Heinz, Leonie Keilholz, Nadine Küchenmeister, Ekaterina Pushkareva, and Burkhard Becker. 2024. "Microalgal Diversity and Molecular Ecology: A Comparative Study of Classical and Metagenomic Approaches in Ponds of the Eifel National Park, Germany" Phycology 4, no. 3: 414-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology4030023

APA Style

Linne von Berg, K. -H., Keilholz, L., Küchenmeister, N., Pushkareva, E., & Becker, B. (2024). Microalgal Diversity and Molecular Ecology: A Comparative Study of Classical and Metagenomic Approaches in Ponds of the Eifel National Park, Germany. Phycology, 4(3), 414-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology4030023

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop