ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Biofilms in caves: easy method for the assessment of dominant phototrophic groups/taxa in situ.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A glimpse into darkness: Diversity of culturable cyanobacteria, green algae and fungi from subaerial cave biofilms.Journal of phycology · 2025Article
- Unveiling the menace of lampenflora to underground tourist environments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Into the Unknown: Microbial Communities in Caves, Their Role, and Potential Use.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Influence of Light Conditions on Microalgae Growth and Content of Lipids, Carotenoids, and Fatty Acid Composition.Biology · 2021Review
- Characterisation of Environmental Biofilms Colonising Wall Paintings of the Fornelle Cave in the Archaeological Site of Cales.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Domination of certain aerophytic phototrophic group or specific taxon in biofilms is connected with biofilm features recognised in situ. Well-developed, gelatinous, olive to dark-green biofilms are composed mostly of coccoid cyanobacterial forms. The same features, characterised biofilms dominated by one coccoid taxon, except the latter were vividly coloured. Gloeobacter caused the appearance of purple, Gloeocapsa representatives yellow and Chroococcidiopsis black biofilm. The brown to the dark colour of heterocytous biofilms was mainly caused by Nostoc. Simple trichal Cyanobacteria were occasionally present in biofilm, except in one blue-coloured sample. According to the principal component analysis (PCA), well-developed and gelatinous biofilms were correlated with Cyanobacteria, while scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed richness of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) in such biofilms. Biofilm with calcified cyanobacterium (Geitleria cf. calcarea) was also found. Chlorophyta-abundant biofilms (many rich in Desmococcus), thinner than cyanobacterial, were predominantly green and occasionally yellow and blue. Many were dry when observed in situ (confirmed with PCA), with few being moistened (i.e. Klebsormidium-dominant). Diatom biofilms were usually developed on sediment, mosses or near seeping water (demonstrated by PCA) and were also thinner than cyanobacterial ones. Compared to cyanobacterial biofilms, SEM showed less developed EPS in those rich in diatoms and green algae, where microorganisms are more exposed to the environment. The study demonstrates an easy method for biofilm assessment based on visual characterisation and provides encouragement for more frequent biofilm investigation in caves that can be important from an ecological, biological, biotechnological point of view and which assessment can have an irreplaceable role in potential monitoring and protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33089398What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.