Elliptochloris bilobata, Tschermak-Woess, 1980
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.1080/00318884.2024.2325329 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15536616 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5F246365-FFE3-FFF7-7605-FB0445D2FC5D |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Elliptochloris bilobata |
status |
|
is a widely distributed free-living species. After numerous records of this alga on granite rock outcrops ( Mikhailyuk et al. 2003; Mikhailyuk 2008, 2013), where it often dominates ( Mikhailyuk et al. 2003; Mikhailyuk 2008) and even forms macroscopic growths (Mikhailyuk 2008). Mikhailyuk (2008) hypothesized a preference for rocky substrates in this genus. However, E. bilobata is much more commonly found in soils of various climates, especially in forests ( Hoffmann et al. 2007; Temraleeva et al. 2015; Dirborne & Ramanujam 2017; Glaser et al. 2018). The species is also abundant in the soil of tundra ( Andreyeva 2004, 2005; Andreyeva & Chaplygina 2007; Novakovskaya et al. 2012; Novakovskaya & Patova 2013; Patova & Novakovskaya 2018; Novakovskaya et al. 2020), whereas no occurrence in the desert has been recorded. Similarly to other photobiont species (see Diplosphaera chodatii below), E. bilobata shows a broad tolerance to air pollution and thus thrives in the highly polluted centre of Leipzig, Germany ( Freystein et al. 2008). Furthermore, this alga is encountered in Antarctica ( Garraza et al. 2011; Borchhardt et al. 2017) and has been identified in caves (Vinogradova et al. 2009).
Another symbiotic member of Elliptochloris View in CoL is E. perforata , which occurs free-living on bark, epilithic on tombstone ( Darienko et al. 2016), and in soil ( Hoffmann et al. 2007; Samolov et al. 2020). A different species, E. reniformis , is also common in soil ( Lukešová 2001; Neustupa & Škaloud 2005; Khaybullina et al. 2010; Temraleeva et al. 2015; Darienko et al. 2016; Novakovskaya et al. 2020). Additionally, the species was reported from rocks ( Johansen et al. 2007) and from building facades ( Hofbauer & Gärtner 2021).
In addition, E. subsphaerica is a very versatile species confirmed from lichen thalli ( Voytsekhovich et al. 2011; Masumoto 2020) as well as from many different types of substrates. It is frequently reported from soil ( Zancan et al. 2006; Hoffmann et al. 2007; Takeshita et al. 2010; Schulz et al. 2016; Samolov et al. 2020) even from soil in heavily anthropogenically affected areas ( Lukešová 2001; Neustupa & Škaloud 2005) and city centres ( Rindi & Guiry 2003; Freystein et al. 2008). Other substrates include tree bark ( Freystein et al. 2008; Neustupa & Škaloud 2010; Masumoto 2020), building facades ( Hofbauer 2007; Hofbauer & Gärtner 2021) and rocks ( Rifón-Lastra & Noguerol-Seoane 2001; Johansen et al. 2007; Mikhailyuk 2013; Mikhailyuk et al. 2018a). Furthermore, E. subsphaerica represents the dominant species in some studies ( Mikhailyuk et al. 2003; Mikhailyuk 2008; Novakovskaya et al. 2020). It was also observed in pine litter ( Maltsev & Maltseva 2018).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Genus |