| Issue |
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 426, 2025
Anthropogenic impact on freshwater habitats, communities and ecosystem functioning
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 28 | |
| Number of page(s) | 7 | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2025026 | |
| Published online | 05 November 2025 | |
- Bell AG, McMurtrie J, Bolaños LM, Cable J, Temperton B, Tyler CR. 2024. Influence of host phylogeny and water physicochemistry on microbial assemblages of the fish skin microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 100 (3): fiae021. [Google Scholar]
- Bergerot B, Lasne E, Vigneron T, Laffaille P. 2008. Prioritization of fish assemblages with a view to conservation and restoration on a large scale European basin, the Loire (France). Biodivers Conserv 17 (9): 2247–2262. [Google Scholar]
- Boutin S, Bernatchez L, Audet C, Derôme N. 2013. Network analysis highlights complex interactions between pathogen, host and commensal microbiota. PLoS One 8: e84772. [Google Scholar]
- Chen CZ, Li P, Liu L, Li ZH. 2022. Exploring the interactions between the gut microbiome and the shifting surrounding aquatic environment in fisheries and aquaculture: A review. Environ Res 214: 114202. [Google Scholar]
- Chiarello M, Auguet JC, Bettarel Y, Bouvier C, Claverie T, Graham NAJ, Rieuvilleneuve F, Sucré E, Bouvier T, Villéger S. 2018. Skin microbiome of coral reef fish is highly variable and driven by host phylogeny and diet. Microbiome 6: 147. [Google Scholar]
- Clements KD, Raubenheimer D, Choat JH. 2009. Nutritional ecology of marine herbivorous fishes: ten years on. Funct Ecol 23: 79–92. [Google Scholar]
- Coenye T. 2014. The Family Burkholderiaceae. In Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F, eds. The Prokaryotes − Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 759–76. [Google Scholar]
- Côte J, Jacquin L, Veyssière C, Manzi S, Etienne R, Perrault A, Cambon MC, Jean S, White J. 2022. Changes in fish skin microbiota along gradients of eutrophication in human-altered rivers. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 98: fiac006. [Google Scholar]
- Colston TJ, Jackson CR. 2016. Microbiome evolution along divergent branches of the vertebrate tree of life: what is known and unknown. Mol Ecol 25: 3776–3800. [Google Scholar]
- Craig JF. 2000. Percid Fishes. Systematics, Ecology and Exploitation. Oxford: Blackwell Science. [Google Scholar]
- Crotti E, Rizzi A, Chouaia B, Ricci I, Favia G, Alma A, Sacchi L, Bourtzis K, Mandrioli M, Cherif A, Bandi C, Daffonchio D. 2010. Acetic acid bacteria, newly emerging symbionts of insects. Appl Environ Microbiol 76: 6963–6970. [Google Scholar]
- Delghandi MR, El-Matbouli M, Menanteau-Ledouble S. 2020. Mycobacteriosis and infections with non-tuberculous mycobacteria in aquatic organisms: A review. Microorganisms 8: 1368. [Google Scholar]
- Escalas A, Auguet JC, Avouac A, Seguin R, Gradel A, Borrossi L, Villéger S. 2021. Ecological specialization within a carnivorous fish family is supported by a herbivorous microbiome shaped by a combination of gut traits and specific diet. Front Mar Sci 8: 91. [Google Scholar]
- Farkas M, Kaszab E, Radó J, Háhn J, Tóth G, Harkai P, Ferincz Á, Lovász Z, Táncsics A, Vörös L, Kriszt B, Szoboszlay S. 2020. Planktonic and benthic bacterial communities of the largest central European shallow lake, Lake Balaton and its main inflow Zala River. Curr Microbiol 77: 4016–4028. [Google Scholar]
- Felis E, Kalka J, Sochacki A, Kowalska K, Bajkacz S, Harnisz M, Korzeniewska E. 2020. Antimicrobial pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment-occurrence and environmental implications. Eur J Pharmacol 866: 172813. [Google Scholar]
- Fieseler C, Wolter C. 2006. A fish-based typology of small temperate rivers in the northeastern lowlands of Germany. Limnologica 36: 2–16. [Google Scholar]
- Giang PT, Sakalli S, Fedorova G, Tilami SK, Bakal T, Najmanova L, Grabicova K, Kolarova J, Sampels S, Zamaratskaia G, Grabic R, Randak T, Zlabek V, Burkina V. 2018. Biomarker response, health indicators, and intestinal microbiome composition in wild brown trout (Salmo trutta m. fario L.) exposed to a sewage treatment plant effluent-dominated stream. Sci Total Environ 625: 1494–1509. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez JA, Primm TP. 2021. A slimy business: the future of fish skin microbiome studies. Microb Ecol 82: 275–287. [Google Scholar]
- Kim PS, Shin NR, Lee JB, Kim MS, Whon TW, Hyun DW, Bae JW. 2021. Host habitat is the major determinant of the gut microbiome of fish. Microbiome 9: 166. [Google Scholar]
- Krotman Y, Yergaliyev TM, Shani RA, Avrahami Y, Szitenberg A. 2020. Dissecting the factors shaping fish skin microbiomes in a heterogeneous inland water system. Microbiome 8: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Kruk A. 2007. Role of habitat degradation in determining fish distribution and abundance along the lowland Warta River, Poland. J Appl Ichthyol 23: 9–18. [Google Scholar]
- Legrand TPR, Catalano SR, Wos-Oxley ML, Stephens F, Landos M, Bansemer MS, Stone DAJ, Qin JG, Oxley APA. 2018. The inner workings of the outer surface: skin and gill microbiota as indicators of changing gut health in yellowtail kingfish. Front Microbiol 8: 2664. [Google Scholar]
- Legrand TP, Wynne JW, Weyrich LS, Oxley APA. 2020. A microbial sea of possibilities: current knowledge and prospects for an improved understanding of the fish microbiome. Rev Aquacult 12: 1101–1134. [Google Scholar]
- Lipko IA, Krasnopeev AY, Tikhonova IV, Timoshkin OA, Kabilov MR, Belykh OI. 2020. Genetic diversity of Actinobacteria inhabiting water and sponges of Lake Baikal. Limnol Freshw Biol 998–999. [Google Scholar]
- Liu H, Guo X, Gooneratne R, Lai R, Zeng C, Zhan F, Wang W. 2016. The gut microbiome and degradation enzyme activity of wild freshwater fishes influenced by their trophic levels. Sci Rep 6: 24340. [Google Scholar]
- Llewellyn MS, Boutin S, Hoseinifar SH, Derome N. 2014. Teleost microbiomes: the state of the art in their characterization, manipulation and importance in aquaculture and fisheries. Front Microbiol 5: 207. [Google Scholar]
- Minich JJ, Petrus S, Michael JD, Michael TP, Knight R, Allen EE. 2020. Temporal, environmental, and biological drivers of the mucosal microbiome in a wild marine fish, Scomber japonicus. mSphere 5: 10–1128. [Google Scholar]
- Mougin J, Joyce A. 2023. Fish disease prevention via microbial dysbiosis‐associated biomarkers in aquaculture. Rev Aquac 15: 579–594. [Google Scholar]
- Paruch L, Paruch AM, Eiken HG, Sørheim R. 2019. Faecal pollution affects abundance and diversity of aquatic microbial community in anthropo-zoogenically influenced lotic ecosystems. Sci Rep 9: 19469. [Google Scholar]
- Pyrzanowski K, Zięba G, Marszał L, Leśniak M, Banasiak D, Przybylski M. 2025. Do endangered lampreys benefit from water pollution? Effect of municipal sewage treatment plant operation on growth and abundance of the Ukrainian Brook Lamprey and the European Brook Lamprey. Water 17: 494. [Google Scholar]
- Restivo VE, Kidd KA, Surette MG, Servos MR, Wilson JY. 2021. Rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum) from a river impacted by municipal wastewater effluents have altered gut content microbiomes. Sci Total Environ 751: 141724. [Google Scholar]
- Sazykina MA, Minkina TM, Konstantinova EY, Khmelevtsova LE, Azhogina TN, Antonenko, EM et al. 2022. Pollution impact on microbial communities composition in natural and anthropogenically modified soils of Southern Russia. Microbiol Res 254: 126913. [Google Scholar]
- Sehnal L, Brammer-Robbins E, Wormington AM, Blaha L, Bisesi J, Larkin I, Martyniuk CJ, Simonin M, Adamovsky O. 2021. Microbiome composition and function in aquatic vertebrates: small organisms making big impacts on aquatic animal health. Front Microbiol 12: 358. [Google Scholar]
- Sullam KE, Essinger SD, Lozupone CA, O'Connor MP, Rosen GL, Knight R, Kilham SS, Russell JA. 2012. Environmental and ecological factors that shape the gut bacterial communities of fish: a meta‐analysis. Mol Ecol 21: 3363–3378. [Google Scholar]
- Sun L, Toyonaga M, Ohashi A, Tourlousse DM, Matsuura N, Meng XY, Tamaki H, Hanada S, Cruz R, Yamaguchi T, Sekiguchi Y. 2016. Lentimicrobium saccharophilum gen. nov., sp. nov., a strictly anaerobic bacterium representing a new family in the phylum Bacteroidetes, and proposal of Lentimicrobiaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66: 2635–2642. [Google Scholar]
- Suzuki TA. 2017. Links between natural variation in the microbiome and host fitness in wild mammals. Integr Comp Biol 57: 756–769. [Google Scholar]
- Tarnecki AM, Burgos FA, Ray CL, Arias CR. 2017. Fish intestinal microbiome: diversity and symbiosis unravelled by metagenomics. J Appl Microbiol 123: 2–17. [Google Scholar]
- Tay DD, Kumar VS, Shapawi R, Shah MD. Ahmad HF, Mazlan N. 2025. The relationship between the gut microbiome and the aqua cultured fish, General prospects toward fish health: A systematic review. Appl Biochem Biotechnol: 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Vacca M, Celano G, Calabrese FM, Portincasa P, Gobbetti M, De Angelis M. 2020. The Controversial role of human gut Lachnospiraceae. Microorganisms 8: 573. [Google Scholar]
- Wang AR, Ran C, Ringø E, Zhou ZG. 2018. Progress in fish gastrointestinal microbiota research. Rev Aquacult 10: 626–640. [Google Scholar]
- Worischka S, Koebsch C, Hellmann C, Winkelmann C. 2012. Habitat overlap between predatory benthic fish and their invertebrate prey in streams: the relative influence of spatial and temporal factors on predation risk. Freshw Biol 57: 2247–2261. [Google Scholar]
- Xavier R, Severino R, Silva SM. 2024. Signatures of dysbiosis in fish microbiomes in the context of aquaculture. Rev Aquac 16: 706–731. [Google Scholar]
- Xue X, Jia J, Yue X, Guan Y, Zhu L, Wang Z. 2021. River contamination shapes the microbiome and antibiotic resistance in sharpbelly (Hemiculter leucisculus). Environ Pollut 268: 115796. [Google Scholar]
- Zięba G, Moryl M, Drzewiecka D, Przybylski M, Pyrzanowski K, Grabowska J. 2024. Effects of domestic pollution on European Brook Lamprey ammocoetes in a lowland river: Insights from microbiological analysis. Water 16: 2349. [Google Scholar]
- Zweimüller I. 1995. Microhabitat use by two small benthic stream fish in a 2nd order stream. Hydrobiologia 303: 125–137. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.