Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Association of Biochemical Characterization and Genetic Determinants of TNF-α, CXCR2, and CCR5 Delta 32 Mutation with Predisposition to Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Biometry as an Obesity Diagnosis Tool: A Review of Current Applications and Future Directions
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Non-Concentrated Storage on the Centrifugation Yield of Microchloropsis gaditana: A Pilot-Scale Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/life14080948
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite 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

Algal Biodiversity of Nine Megaliths in South-East Bulgaria

by
Maya Stoyneva-Gärtner
1,
Miroslav Androv
1,
Blagoy Uzunov
1,*,
Kristian Ivanov
1 and
Georg Gärtner
2
1
Department of Botany, Faculty of Biology, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 8 blvd. Dragan Tsankov, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Institute of Botany, Innsbruck University, Sternwartestrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2024, 14(8), 948; https://doi.org/10.3390/life14080948 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 5 July 2024 / Revised: 25 July 2024 / Accepted: 25 July 2024 / Published: 28 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Algae—a Step Forward in the Sustainability of Resources)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper presents the first data on the biodiversity of lithophytic algae from Bulgarian megaliths obtained after the application of the direct sampling method, subsequent cultivation, and processing by light microscopy. A rich algal flora was found: 90 species and 1 variety of 65 genera from Cyanoprokaryota/Cyanobacteria (29 species, 13 genera), Chlorophyta (40 species and 1 variety, 38 genera), Streptophyta (5 species, 1 genus), and Ochrophyta (16 species, 13 genera). Among them were the globally rare Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata (Chlorophyta), found for the first time in such lowland and warm habitats, and Scotiella tuberculata (Chlorophyta), for which this is the first finding in the country. Three of the recorded species are conservationally important. The low floristic similarity between the sites (0–33%) shows the diversity of the algal flora, with no common species found for all the megaliths studied. The most widespread were the strongly adaptive and competitive Stichococcus bacillaris, Apatococcus lobatus, and Chloroidium ellipsoidium (Chlorophyta). The correlations estimated between the species number and substrate temperature (18.1–49.6 °C) suggest the prospect of future research related to the impact of global warming. In addition, the study points to the safety aspects as it revealed species from nine potentially toxin-producing cyanoprokaryotic genera that could be harmful to visitors’ health.

1. Introduction

Currently, problems affecting aquatic systems and organisms related to rapidly advancing climate changes and eutrophication are recognized worldwide, and scientific publications on these topics appear in emerging ways. However, much less attention is paid to the effects of both expanded eutrophication of the atmosphere (caused by increased nitrogen compounds and hydrocarbons) and of global warming on the land, aeroterrestrial environments, and their inhabitants [1]. More than 1000 algae, both prokaryotic and eukaryotic, form an important part of the rich aeroterrestrial microbial life on hard natural substrates such as soils, rocks, stones, tree barks, and different manufactured surfaces, including fences, roofs, building facades, and monuments [1,2,3]. However, they are much less studied compared to their aquatic counterparts [1,4] mainly because their reliable identification requires time-consuming and labor-intensive cultivation-dependent methods [5,6]. Nevertheless, interest in these organisms has been increasing over the years for several reasons: (1) they serve as an essential organic-matter basis for heterotrophic organisms due to their photosynthetic ability and their role as primary producers [7]; (2) living in outdoor habitats, they are directly exposed to all adverse environmental factors and include some rare and threatened species (e.g., [8]); (3) there is currently increasing evidence that is useful for modern biotechnology, food industry, medicine, pharmacy, cosmetics, etc. [4,9,10]; (4) some of them are able to synthesize toxic substances that are harmful for ecosystem and human health [11,12]; (5) there is a currently growing interest to non-suspended, attached cultivation that offers higher biomass yields, better control of contamination, and lower water consumption compared to ordinary suspended photobioreactors [13,14]; (6) in the long term, algae, together with all other inhabitants of hard substrates (e.g., bacteria, mosses and lichens), play a destructive role in their physical weakening and color changes during a biological weathering process, also known as bioerosion or biodeterioration [1,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23].
Although bioerosion has long been recognized as a threat to the conservation of historical buildings and monuments [1,24,25,26], some evidence of the positive effects of biocolonization on inhabited surfaces has also been accumulated in recent years [27,28]. During the ongoing debate on biodeterioration vs. bioprotection [29], several authors have noted the need for the correct identification of algal inhabitants as an important step towards preventing the destruction of monuments or towards their subsequent restoration [30]. Nevertheless, documentation of their algal biodiversity is sparse [1,31]. This is particularly true for megaliths, which are traditionally defined as large, uncovered stones used in the construction of ancient structures, as sacred landmarks commemorating important places or events, or as astronomic observation sites in various civilizations [24,32,33]. The term was derived from the Greek words “mega” (great) and “lithos” (stone) and was first used regarding the Stonehenge complex in England [34]. According to the documents of the UNESCO Meeting “Megalithic Sites and the World Heritage Convention” that took place in Antequera—Málaga, Spain in 2011, “these large stones are often cut or carved, and range from single-standing stones, line or circle arrangements, simple chambers made using a lintel structure, complex buildings with multiple chambers, entrances and passages, and also appear in their natural state as part of a geological formation” [35] (p. 1). Since each megalith can be used either alone or together with other stones, there is a variety of terms depending on the number of stone blocks used and the way they are organized [36]. As there is no universally accepted conventional terminology [37], it should be noted that some of the most popular and widely accepted terms are those derived from Celtic words. These include, for example, (1) menhir (used for a high, single upright stone) which is composed of the Celtic words “mean, men” (stone) and “hir” (long, high); (2) dolmen (used for a simple, rectangular tomb covered by large vertical stone walls), which comes from the Celtic words “daul, taol, dol” (table) and “maen, men” (stone), and (3) cromlech (applied for a set of vertical stones arranged in a circular structure), also derived from the Celtic words “crom” (bent, curved) and “lech, lech” (stone) [33].
Various megaliths are spread all over the world, with the last estimations showing that about 35,000 of them have been discovered in Europe, representing some of the oldest cultural landscapes on the continent [32,38]. For thousands of years, they have been a significant part of the cultural landscape and today attract numerous tourists like a magnet [33]. Therefore, their distribution, function, and social significance comprise an important part of scientific research [39]. In contrast to the megaliths of Western Europe which are well documented archaeologically and enjoy great popularity [39], the megaliths of the Balkan Peninsula, are less known to the general public [40]. Some of them are recorded in north-eastern Greece and north-western Turkey, but most of these prehistoric structures are concentrated in eastern and south-eastern Bulgaria [40,41,42,43,44]. Although the petrography is not completely clarified, it is assumed that the host rocks of the Bulgarian megaliths are mainly granitoid quartz-bearing rocks (granites or gneisses) [41].
Field investigations of megaliths in Bulgaria began in the late 19th–early 20th century and continue to this day [45]. There are different opinions about the age of these ancient constructions: Most scholars date them to the Iron Age (1200–500 BC), while for some of them, the earlier Chalcolithic period (5000–3500 BC) has been hypothesized [41]. Studies have been carried out by historians, archaeologists, paleoastronomers, geographers, and geologists, but up to date, the megaliths located in Bulgaria have not been the focus of phycologists. This should be seen in the context of the numerous phycological studies which started at the end of the 19th century [46] and led to the identification of about 500 aeroterrestrial algae from soils, rocks, caves, tree barks, mosses, plants, and snow, representing 1% of the total algal biodiversity in the country [6,8,47].
This paper is the first report on the algal growth on Bulgarian megaliths. It is based on selected megaliths, situated in the Haskovo district in the southeastern part of the country. In addition to encountering algal biodiversity, the study also considers the safety aspects and points out the presence of potential toxin-producing species that could be harmful to the health of visitors to the megaliths. Last, but not least, we made a preliminary attempt to find evidence of global warming‘s influence on the algal biodiversity in such strongly exposed extremophile habitats.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials were collected from 14–18 July 2022 from nine selected megaliths in the Haskovo district in south-eastern Bulgaria (Table 1, Figure 1). The names of the megaliths are transliterated according to the Transliteration Act of the Bulgarian Government [48].
Sampling sites were identified using combined land and drone observations. The megaliths were observed using a drone DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Dual Pro (DJI Technology Co, LTD, Shenzhen, China) equipped with a photo and thermal camera (Figure 2).
From the layers with visible coloration, altogether 53 samples were scrapped following the direct collection method [49] with a medical scalpel from all available megalithic surfaces, including crevices and cracks, onto agar plates covered with Bold Basal Medium—BBM [50] (Table 1). The rock surfaces were not affected and none of the ancient monuments were damaged. To avoid destroying the megaliths, five endolithic samples were taken only from already broken pieces found in the first three megaliths.
During the collection, the temperature of the megalith surfaces (Table 1) was measured directly on each sampling site with a Bosch GTC 400C Thermo Camera which has a measurement range of −10 to +400 °C (Figure 3). Both drone and thermal cameras are applied for the first time during the sampling of aeroterrestrial algae in Bulgaria.
After collection, the Petri dishes were transported to the lab, where the material was further proceeded for future cultivation on BBM and for obtaining clone cultures by standard methods [49,50]. Each sample was investigated at regular intervals according to the visible growth of the culture. Identification of algae was performed on non-permanent slides on an Olympus BX53 light microscope. Photomicrographs were taken by an Olympus DP72 micro photo camera.
The taxonomic sources used for the determination of the algae include the standard Central European taxonomic literature (e.g., [2,3,51,52,53]) with currently published relevant papers. Since we follow the International Code for Nomenclature of Algae, Fungi, and Plants [54], the phylum name Cyanoprokaryota according to [51,52,53] is used here for the prokaryotic blue-green algae, which are also known as Cyanobacteria. All other updates of the synonymy, as well as the distribution data, follow AlgaeBase [55]. Some of the species are not yet definitely identified for objective reasons: (1) due to the absence of reproductive or resting stages, which are important diagnostic features; (2) due to the finding of some fragments in the initial samples, which did not develop during the cultivation process, or (3) due to peculiar features that do not fit the species descriptions in the available literature.
The floristic similarity was estimated according to the standard Sørensen Correlation Index [56]. The conservation status of the recorded species was checked in the Red List of Bulgarian Microalgae [57]. The potential toxin producers have been outlined following the methodology and references provided in detail in [11,12]. Considering the high surface temperatures measured (up to 49.6 °C at the most exposed places) and their broad range of about 29 °C between different sites during the quite short period of collection (five days), some correlations between the temperatures and diversity (total and by phyla) were estimated. For these estimations, the coefficient r from Microsoft Excel Version 2406 for Windows 11 was used and the correlation was accepted as significant if the statistical threshold value (STV) was at least p < 0.05 [58]. The correlations were estimated on the basis of the lowest and the highest measured temperatures for each megalith (including data on temperatures of the scrapped surfaces from which no growth was detected in the laboratory cultures) and the temperatures of each sampling point.
The terminology used follows the standard understanding of rock- and stone-associated aeroterrestrial algae as lithophytes (lithobionts), which, are further subdivided into epiliths (epilithic algae) for those inhabiting the rock surfaces and endoliths (endolithic algae) developing inside the rock substratum or in the crevices [2,3,47,59], depending on the area of colonization.

3. Results

A total of 90 species and 1 variety from 65 genera and 4 phyla were identified: Cyanoprokaryota (29 species from 13 genera), Chlorophyta (40 species and 1 variety from 38 genera), Streptophyta (5 species from one genus), Ochrophyta (16 species from 13 genera)—Table 2.
The number of species per sample was quite low—from 1 to 12, with 3 being the average. In 10 samples, no growth was obtained in the lab. Regarding the phyla, the average number was 1, except for Chlorophyta, for which the average number per sample was 2 species. The real number per sample in different phyla was as follows: Cyanoprokaryota (0–6), Chlorophyta (0–7), Streptophyta (0–2), and Ochrophyta (0–2).
The number of identified species in each of the megaliths varied between 4 and 26 (Figure 4).
The richest algal flora was found at the large Thracian cult complex Gluhite Kamuni, which included various habitats such as rock walls with specific manufactured niches (Figure 5), rock sanctuaries, and different caves. Twenty-five species and one variety were found there (Table 2, Figure 4). The most widespread in the surface layers was Stichococcus bacillaris, followed by Klebsormidium klebsii, Pleurochloris commutata, and Aphanothece cf. saxicola (Figure 5). Parachlorella kessleri and Printzina lagenifera were relatively common (Figure 5). Trentepohlia cf. jucunda was found together with Aphanothece cf. saxicola as an endolith, inside the rock surfaces (Figure 5).
Similar vertical walls with manufactured rock niches are typical for the large Thracian cult complex Angel Voyvoda (Figure 6) from the rock surfaces of which 24 species have been identified (Table 2, Figure 4). Most of them were sparsely distributed and only Chloroideum ellipsoideum was found in two samples.
In the Evdzhika rock sanctuary (known also as Dolmen Evdzhika), 22 species were identified (Table 2, Figure 4). The most common species was Elliptochloris bilobata (Figure 7), which occurred both epilithically (on the rock surfaces) and endolithically (inside the rocks). Three other species were recorded as endolithic—Coenobotrys gloeobotrydiformis, Stichococcus minutus, and Stichococcus mirabilis (Figure 7).
In the two-chambered megalith Tsarski Dolmen (which in the Bulgarian language means Kings Dolmen), 21 species were identified on the rock surfaces (Table 2, Figure 4). The most common species on this megalith were Edaphochlorella mirabilis and Muriella terrestris, and, in only one sample, Scotiella tuberculata (Figure 8) was found.
Twenty-one species were recorded from the megalith called Stupkata na Bogoroditsa (which means Mother Mary’s Step in Bulgarian)—Table 2, Figure 4. The most widespread species there were Chloroideum ellipsoideum, Klebsormidium dissectum, Klebsormidium flaccidum, Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata, Stichococcus bacillaris, and Tribonema minus (Figure 9).
Thirteen species were identified on the rock surfaces of the Plevun megalith (Table 2, Figure 4 and Figure 10), none of which occurred in all sampled algal layers.
Seven species were detected in the megalith circle, named Cromleh (Table 2, Figure 4), the most common being Leptolyngbya sp. and Anabaena sp. ster. (Figure 11).
Ten species were identified in the samples from the Kovan Kaya complex, which contained manufactured rock niches (Table 2, Figure 4 and Figure 12). There, the only common species in the surface algal layers was Symploca cf. dubia (Figure 12).
Only four species were identified on the surfaces of the Sharapanite megalithic complex (Table 2, Figure 5 and Figure 13). There, only Klebsormidium klebsii (Figure 13) was found as a common species in different algal layers.
The floristic similarity between the studied megaliths was very low, reaching the highest value of 33% only between the relatively closely situated Tsarski Dolmen and Evdzhika (Figure 14). The other values of SSI ranged between 0 and 25%, being between 12 and 18% in most cases (Figure 14).
The correlation estimated between the temperatures and total algal diversity in each sampling point was relatively low—r = 0.3 (Figure 15). Similarly, the correlations between these temperatures and separate taxonomic phyla were relatively low (Figure 15). When the generalized data for each megalith were used, the correlation between the total number of species and the lowest temperature was significant and relatively strong (r = −0.69, p < 0.05), whereas the correlation between the number of species and the highest measured temperature of the respected site was much lower (r = −0.21). Only Cyanoprokaryota showed positive correlations with the temperature and although the coefficient values were relatively low, it seems that the diversity of this phylum rises with increasing temperature (r = 0.33) being almost independent of the lowest temperatures (r = 0.02). A similar coefficient value was found when the number of Ochrophyta species and maximum temperature were correlated. For this group, the correlation with the minimum temperature was slightly stronger and negative (r = −0.39) (Figure 15). Negative were also the correlations between the species number of Chlorophyta and both minimum and maximum temperatures (r = −0.81 and r = −0.57, respectively). Much lower, and with different directions were the correlations estimated for the number of Streptophyta species and temperature extremes (r = 0.18 and r = −0.06, respectively).

4. Discussion

During the study, 90 algal species and 1 variety from 65 genera were identified (Table 2). Most of them were from the green evolutionary line, with a predominance of Chlorophyta (46% from the species diversity and 58% from the genera diversity) and significantly fewer species and genera from Streptophyta (5 and 2%, respectively)—Table 2. According to the number of species, Cyanoprokaryota outnumbered Ochrophyta (29 and 16, respectively), while the number of genera identified was similar in both phyla (13). From the large phylum Ochrophyta of the yellow-brown evolutionary line, which comprises more than 20 classes [74,75], algae from only three classes were found, namely Xanthophyceae (eight species from seven genera), Eustigmatophyceae (six species from four genera) and Bacillariophyceae (two species from two genera). The prevalence of green algae and cyanoprokaryotes supports the opinion of several authors that they are the pioneers of stone colonization (for details see [30]). The species from these two groups were the major components in most of the sampled algal layers, where they constituted two and one species on average, reaching a maximum number of species of 12 and 7, respectively.
Although there are numerous publications on the algae of historical buildings and monuments [1], few studies are concerned with the algal growth on megaliths or other monuments utilizing natural rocks in different parts of the world. Moreover, they have all been obtained using different methods and concern different taxonomic categories of algae [7,76,77,78,79,80]. Some studies have focused on the soils in which megaliths were submerged (e.g., [10]). Therefore, the comparisons with all these data are extremely cautious. In general, the published algal flora from various megaliths is not rich and abundant in contrast to the mass growth of lichens and some mosses that have developed to varying degrees on the megalith surfaces [76,77,80]. At this point, reference should, therefore, be made to the interesting results of studies from the Netherlands, which show that terrestrial arthropods feed on epilithic algae, thus leaving more space for lichens [77]. In agreement with these observations, all megaliths located in open areas in the Haskovo district were largely covered by lichens (Figure 16), while algae and mosses occupied a much smaller part of their surface. The latter group was better developed only on some stones from the Stupkata na Bogoroditsa complex (Figure 17).
The algal layers were better developed on the shadier surfaces of the megaliths located in forest habitats or in the inner surfaces of the megaliths (Figure 18).
The species composition obtained during this study, is generally consistent with: (1) the culture-dependent investigations of the phototrophic community from the limestones of the World Heritage site the ‘University of Coimbra—Alta and Sofia’ (Portugal) [7], which identified green microalgae from the clades Prasiolales, Chlorellales, Watanabea, Chlamydomonadales, and Sphaeropleales and cyanoprokaryotes from the clades Nostocales and Synechococcales; (2) summarized data on the cyanoprokaryotes and green algae that have been identified on the European historical monuments in the Mediterranean formed by marble, limestone, travertine, dolomite, sandstone and granite, among which were the paleolithic sculptures in Angles-sur-l’Anglin [30,81]; (3) culture-dependent and culture-independent approaches in the study of the endolithic algae from the exposed dolomites in the alpine Piora Valley (Switzerland), which demonstrated the presence of the chlorophytes Chlorella sorokiniana and Stichococcus bacillaris, and of the cyanoprokaryotes Calothrix, Chroococcidiopsis, Leptolyngbya, Microcoleus, Nostoc, Scytonema, and Symploca [82].
As this is the first study on the algal biodiversity on megaliths in Bulgaria, considering the aerophytic mode of life on rocks, it is possible to compare the currently obtained results with those from previous studies on lithophytic and other aeroterrestrial algae in the country, based on cultivation methods [31,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Although the main taxonomic groups and genera are similar, the main difference lies in the much higher number of taxa identified from the megaliths (91 algae) compared to those on the epilithic algae from historical monuments, open caves, and Belogradchik rocks [31,63,66,69,70,73]. In this way, 48 identified algae are reported for the first time in the country as lithophytic: 10 cyanoprokaryotes, 19 chlorophytes, and 19 ochrophytes (Table 2). Most of them, with the exception of Pinnularia sp., Tribonema aequale, and Tribonema minus, are new records for the country. Only six algae were found to grow endolithically: Aphanothece cf. saxicola, Coenobotrys gloeobotrydiformis, Elliptochloris bilobata, Stichococcus minutus, Stichococcus mirabilis, and Trentepohlia cf. jucunda. In our previous studies of the Belogradchik rocks [69], endolithic development was demonstrated for 11 algae, among which were Stichococcus sp. and Trentepohlia sp. Subsequent detailed morphological analysis of the cultural material for Stichococcus revealed its similarity to Stichococcus bacillaris var. minor [63,66], which was considered an uncertain taxon at the time of the study [2] but is currently considered a synonym of Stichococcus bacillaris [3,55]. The presence and the interpenetration of Trentepohlia between sandstone grains to an average depth of 0.26 mm has been demonstrated in the ruins of Angkor temples in Cambodia [29]. Species of Trentepohlia and Stichococcus, as well as of Chlorella and Klebsormidium, were observed as endolithic on churches in Portugal and Spain [30,83].
The study revealed differences in the algal flora of individual megaliths, with no common species for all of them. This is reflected by the low floristic similarity between the sites (Figure 14). The greatest biodiversity was found in the large Thracian cult complex Gluhite Kamuni (25), followed by the single megalith Evdzhika (22), while the lowest number of species was found on the megalithic complex Sharapanite (4)—Table 2, Figure 4. Consistent with the overall biodiversity recorded, and with the average number of species per sample, chlorophyte species prevailed on all megaliths, except Cromleh, where cyanoprokaryotes were the richest taxonomic group. In contrast, not a single cyanoprokaryote was found on the Sharapanite megalithic complex. Only green algae from two genera, Stichococcus and Klebsormidium, were found there. This evidence, together with the finding of various Klebsormidium species on five other megaliths, is consistent with data on the strong surveillance abilities of algae of this genus, which can withstand drought, temperature extremes, strong insolation, and can grow in a wide pH range (e.g., [1,71,84,85,86,87,88]). Stichococcus is common on stone monuments of temperate and tropical regions [30,83,89]. Stichococcus bacillaris, in particular, was one of the most widespread algae, found in the surface layers of eight of the nine studied megaliths (Table 1). These results agree with the ubiquitous cosmopolitan distribution of this alga [2,3,55] which has been recorded from aeroterrestrial habitats in Bulgaria [47,60]. The other two widespread algae were the chlorophytes Apatococcus lobatus and Chloroidium ellipsoideum, which were found on five and four megaliths, respectively (Table 2). Chloroidium has a broader distribution, recorded in Europe, Asia, South America, Australia, and New Zealand [55], while the number of records of Apatococcus lobatus is lower and originates in Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand [55]. However, Apatococcus has often been found to be dominant among aerophytic green algal communities due to its highly competitive strength and strong resistance combination of adaptive traits on morphological, ecophysiological, and biochemical levels [90]. These characteristics allow it to live in overshadowed and moist microclimatic conditions, but also in towns with air pollution and relatively drier air conditions (e.g., [31,91]).
In view of the relatively small number of megaliths studied, it is difficult to make a clear statement about the relationship between diversity and rock substrates, or megalith area. At first glance, however, it can be concluded that diversity was greater in the shadier and relatively colder places, which most likely explains the lowest number of species in the most exposed complexes of Cromleh and Sharapanite. This could be related to the pilot data obtained on the relatively strong significant correlation between total algal biodiversity and minimum temperature contrasted with the much lower correlation with the highest measured temperature (Figure 15). Considering the low total number of species in each algal layer (three on average) and the low correlations between temperatures and the number of species in certain phyla, estimated by samples (Figure 15), it is difficult to point to one phylum as a good indicator regarding temperature changes. However, some trends for increasing species number with rising temperatures could be predicted for cyanoprokaryotes and ochrophytes according to the low, but positive correlations estimated regarding the maximum temperatures (Figure 15). The surprising, at first glimpse, negative correlations of Chlorophyta with temperature extremes, most probably, could be explained by the autecology of the recorded species and by the fact that the highest constant temperature at which green algae were reliably identified as growing in Bulgarian thermal springs was 41 °C [91,92], while the maximum temperature measured by us was 49.6 °C (Table 1). The finding of certain (mainly chlorophyte and cyanoprokaryote) species on the most exposed surfaces and estimations of some stronger correlations between species diversity of certain phyla and temperature extremes (minimum and maximum measured values), shows the perspective of further detailed analysis based on the autecology of the species (which was beyond the scope of this study) and could stimulate future studies based on more samplings from different megaliths. Such investigations seem to be more necessary considering one of the greatest modern challenges that affects historical monuments, namely climate change [77]. Although, for more than two decades, it has been shown that global warming promotes the growth of aeroterrestrial algae [1], studies of its impact on archaeological monuments and other aeroterrestrial environments are limited [1,77].
Some of the species recorded were of conservation importance. One of these was Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata, which is considered extremely rare on a global scale. To date, according to AlgaeBase [55] and the comprehensive Syllabus der Boden-, Luft- und Flechtenalgen [2,3], it has been reported in five publications [93,94,95,96,97], mainly in the cold deserts of the Arctic, Antarctic, and alpine regions of the world. In Bulgaria, the species was previously found only once in alpine soils from Pirin Mts [60,66,67] and was included in the Red List of microalgae under the category “Endangered” [57]. Therefore, the two recent finds in much lower and warmer localities, such as Angel Voyvoda and Stupkata na Bogoroditsa megaliths, are of particular importance.
Another species of interest is Scotiella tuberculata, recorded for the first time in Bulgaria and, in our opinion, needs to be included in the current update of the Red List of Bulgarian Microalgae [98]. In addition, this species has rarely been documented on a global scale [2,3,67], with a few findings in Europe [99,100] and India [101].
We found one more endangered species from the Red List of Bulgarian Microalgae, namely Vischeria stellata [57].
As some aeroterrestrial algae produce toxins, the species from the genera Anabaena s.l., Aphanocapsa, Aphanothece, Calothrix, Leptolyngbya, Microcoleus, Nostoc, Schizothrix, and Scytonema can be potential sources of cyanotoxins harmful for the health of visitors to megaliths [11,12].

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrates the rich biodiversity of prokaryotic and eukaryotic algae that live attached to the nine selected megaliths in Bulgaria, with green algae predominating in the analyzed layers. The finding of rare and threatened species and the low similarity between different rock complexes clearly show the need for further research on the numerous other megaliths scattered around the country. The algal flora varied significantly from site to site, showing low floristic similarity (0–33%) between the sites and there were no common species found on all megaliths. However, the results obtained so far suggest that the algal diversity was not primarily related to the area and substrate of the megaliths, but mainly to the environmental factors. The obtained data on correlations between the number of species, total and in specific taxonomic groups recorded at each site and the temperature could stimulate further studies based on autecological data regarding the response of the lithophytes to global warming. A final concern relates to the safety and health of tourists, as algae from nine of the found genera have been reported as potential toxin producers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.-G.; methodology, M.S.-G. and G.G.; investigation, M.A., M.S.-G., B.U. and K.I.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.-G. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, B.U. and G.G.; visualization, M.S.-G., M.A., B.U. and K.I.; supervision, G.G.; project administration, M.S.-G. and B.U.; funding acquisition, M.S.-G. and B.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded regarding the field sampling by the Scientific Fund of Sofia University “St Kliment Ohridski” grant number 80-10-47/10.05.2022, while the continuous cultivation work and APS were funded by the European Union-NextGenerationEU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria, project No. BG-RRP-2.004-0008.

Data Availability Statement

Data contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Georgi Nehrizov, from the National Archaeological Institute with Museum of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences for his advisory help in the selection of megaliths, based on his long-lasting expertise, during our common work in the project funded by the Scientific Fund of Sofia University “St Kliment Ohridski” grant number 80-10-47/10.05.2022.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hofbauer, W.K.; Gärtner, G. Microbial Life on Façades; Springer Spectrum: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ettl, H.; Gärtner, G. Syllabus der Boden-, Luft- und Flechtenalgen; Gustav Fischer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ettl, H.; Gärtner, G. Syllabus der Boden-, Luft- und Flechtenalgen; Springer Spektrum: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.; Uzunov, B.; Gärtner, G. Enigmatic Microalgae from Aeroterrestrial and Extreme Habitats in Cosmetics: The Potential of the Untapped Natural Sources. Cosmetics 2020, 7, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Johansen, J.R.; Shubert, L.E. Algae in soils. Nova Hedwig. 2001, 123, 297–306. [Google Scholar]
  6. Uzunov, B.; Stoyneva, M.P.; Gärtner, G. Review of the studies on aero-terrestrial cyanoprokaryotes and algae in Bulgaria with a Checklist of the recorded species. I. Phytol. Balc. 2007, 13, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  7. Soares, F.; Portugal, A.; Trovão, J.; Coelho, C.; Mesquita, N.; Pinheiro, A.C.; Gil, F.; Catarino, L.; Cardoso, S.M.; Tiago, I. Structural diversity of photoautotrophic populations within the UNESCO site ‘Old Cathedral of Coimbra’ (Portugal), using a combined approach. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2019, 140, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gärtner, G.; Uzunov, B.A.; Dimitrova, P.H.; Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P. Review of the studies of aeroterrestrial algae along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast (1890–2017) with special attention to the newly described and threatened species. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2018, 11, 53–55. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.; Uzunov, B.; Gärtner, G. Aeroterrestrial and Extremophilic Microalgae as Promising Sources for Lipids and Lipid Nanoparticles in Dermal Cosmetics. Cosmetics 2022, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nguyen, K.-U.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, R.; Jin, X.; Taniguchi, M.; Miller, E.S.; Lindsey, J.S. Tolyporphins–Exotic Tetrapyrrole Pigments in a Cyanobacterium—A Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 6132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.; Uzunov, B. Algal Toxic Compounds and Their Aeroterrestrial, Airborne and other Extremophilic Producers with Attention to Soil and Plant Contamination: A Review. Toxins 2021, 13, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hofbauer, W.K. Toxic or Otherwise Harmful Algae and the Built Environment. Toxins 2021, 13, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Katarzyna, L.; Sai, G.; Singh, O.A. Non-enclosure methods for non-suspended microalgae cultivation: Literature review and research needs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 1418–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhuang, L.-L.; Li, M.; Ngo, H.H. Non-suspended microalgae cultivation for wastewater refinery and biomass production. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 308, 123320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Negi, A.; Sarethy, I.P. Microbial Biodeterioration of Cultural Heritage: Events, Colonization, and Analyses. Microb. Ecol. 2019, 78, 1014–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Grobbelaar, J.U. Lithophytic algae: A major threat to the karst formation of show caves. J. Appl. Phycol. 2000, 12, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gheorghe, I.; Sârbu, I.; Pecete, I.; Blăjan, I.; Balotescu, I. Multi-Level Characterization of Microbial Consortia Involved in the Biodeterioration of Wooden and Stone Romanian Heritage Churches. Conserv. Sci. Cult. Herit. 2020, 20, 289–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stanaszek-Tomal, E. Environmental Factors Causing the Development of Microorganisms on the Surfaces of National Cultural Monuments Made of Mineral Building Materials—Review. Coatings 2020, 10, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Warscheid, T.; Braams, J. Biodeterioration of stone: A review. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2000, 46, 343–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zurita, Y.P.; Cultrone, G.; Castillo, P.S.; Sebastián, E.; Bolívar, F.C. Microalgae associated with deteriorated stonework of the fountain of Bibatauín in Granada, Spain. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2005, 55, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Becherini, F.; Cassar, J.A.; Galea, M.; Bernardi, A. Evaluation of the shelters over the prehistoric Megalithic Temples of Malta: Environmental considerations. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dakal, T.C.; Cameotra, S.S. Microbially induced deterioration of architectural heritages: Routes and mechanisms involved. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2012, 24, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gaylarde, C.; Baptista-Neto, J.A.; Ogawa, A.; Kowalski, M.; Celikkol-Aydin, S.; Beech, I. Epilithic and endolithic microorganisms and deterioration on stone church facades subject to urban pollution in a sub-tropical climate. Biofouling 2017, 33, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kamaljit, K.; Pandey, S. Biodeterioration Study of the Prehistoric Megalithic Rock Structures of Manipur: A Case Study. J. Bioremediat. Biodegr. 2020, 11, 470. [Google Scholar]
  25. Crispim, C.; Gaylarde, C. Cyanobacteria and Biodeterioration of Cultural Heritage: A Review. Microb. Ecol. 2005, 49, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Marvasi, M.; Cavalieri, D.; Mastromei, G.; Casaccia, A.; Perito, B. Omics technologies for an in-depth investigation of biodeterioration of cultural heritage. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2019, 144, 104736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Saiz-Jimenez, C. Biodeterioration vs. biodegradation: The role of microorganisms in the removal of pollutants deposited onto historic buildings. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1997, 40, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zanardini, E.; Abbruscato, P.; Realini, M.; Brusetti, L.; Sorlini, C. Molecular techniques applied to the study of microbial communities colonising different lithotypes. Coalition 2002, 5, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bartoli, F.; Casanova Municchia, A.; Futagami, Y.; Kashiwadani, H.; Moon, K.H.; Caneva, G. Biological colonization patterns on the ruins of Angkor temples (Cambodia) in the biodeterioration vs. bioprotection debate. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014, 96, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Macedo, M.F.; Miller, A.Z.; Dionísio, A.; Saiz-Jimenez, C. Biodiversity of cyanobacteria and green algae on monuments in the Mediterranean Basin: An overview. Microbiology 2009, 155, 3476–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva, M.P. First Study of Aerophytic Cryptogams on Monuments in Bulgaria. Ber. Naturwiss. Med. Ver. Innsbr. 2003, 90, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  32. Megalith. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith (accessed on 4 July 2024).
  33. Krzemińska, A.E.; Dzikowska, A.; Zaręba, A.D.; Jarosz, K.R.; Widawski, K.; Łach, J.S. The Significance of Megalithic Monuments in the Process of Place Identity Creation and in Tourism Development. Open Geosci. 2018, 10, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Herbert, A. Cyclops Christianus, or, an Argument to Disprove the Supposed Antiquity of the Stonehenge and Other Megalithic Erections in England and Britanny; J. Petheram: London, UK, 1849. [Google Scholar]
  35. Meeting on Megalithic Sites and the World Heritage Convention. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/events/767/ (accessed on 4 July 2024).
  36. Pearsall, D.M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Archaeology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tsonev, L.V.; Kolev, D.Z. Bulgarian megaliths—Present state and future research directions. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2012, 12, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nikita, E.; Rehren, T. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Archaeology, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wunderlich, M. Megalithic monuments and social structures. Comparative studies on recent and Funnel Beaker societies. In Scales of Transformation in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies; Sidestone Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tsonev, L.V.; Kolev, D.Z. Megalithic structures and dolmen orientation in Bulgaria. Archaeoastron. Anc. Technol. 2013, 1, 55–84. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kostov, R.I. Geological and mineralogical background of the megalithic and rock-cut sites in Bulgaria and some other European countries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy, Sofia, Bulgaria, 29–30 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nekhrizov, G. A cromlech near Dolni Glavanak in the Eastern Rhodopes. (Preliminary communication). In Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory; Nikolova, L., Ed.; BAR International Series 854; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nekhrizov, G. Cult Places of the Thracians in the Eastern Rhodopes Mountains (End of the 2nd–1st millennium BC). In The Culture of Thracians and Their Neighbours: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table “Archaeological Map of Bulgaria”, Kazanluk, Bulgaria, 30 September–3 October 1999; Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L., Eds.; BAR International Series 1350; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 153–158. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nekhrizov, G. Dolmens and Rock-cut monuments. In A Companion to Ancient Thrace; Valeva, J., Nankov, E., Graninger, D., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 126–143. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kirilova, P. (Non-)protection of the megalithic monuments in Bulgaria. Bulg. E J. Archaeol. 2015, 4, 175–183. [Google Scholar]
  46. Petkoff, S. Contribution to the studies of Bulgarian one-celled green, freshwater algae living on Rila Mt., Kostenski Balkan (Rhodopi Mt), Vitosha Mt, in Dragoman swamp and around Sofia. Period. Spis. Bulg. Knizh. Druzh. 1898, 57, 111–135. [Google Scholar]
  47. Uzunov, B.; Stoyneva, M.P.; Gärtner, G. Review of the studies on aero-terrestrial cyanopro-karyotes and algae in Bulgaria with a Checklist of the recorded species. II. Phytol. Balc. 2008, 14, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Transliteration Act in the State Gazette No. 19 of 13 March 2009, Last Changed in the State Gazette No. 98 of 13 December 2019. Available online: https://lex.bg/en/laws/ldoc/2135623667 (accessed on 18 June 2024).
  49. Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva, M.P.; Mancheva, A.D.; Uzunov, B.A. A new method in collection and cultivation of aerophytic andendolithic algae. Ber. Nat. Med. Ver. Innsbr. 2010, 96, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  50. Andersen, R.A. (Ed.) Algal Culturing Techniques; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  51. Komárek, J.; Anagnostidis, K. Cyanoprokaryota. 1. Teil: Chroococcales. In Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bd. 19/1; Ettl, H., Gärtner, G., Heynig, G., Mollenhauer, D., Eds.; Gustav Fischer: Jena, Germany; Stuttgart, Germany; Lübeck, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  52. Komárek, J.; Anagnostidis, K. Cyanoprokaryota. 2. Teil: Oscillatoriales. In Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bd. 19/2; Büdel, B., Gärtner, G., Krienitz, L., Schagerl, M., Eds.; Elsevier Spektrum Akad. Verl.: Heidelberg, Germany; München, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  53. Komárek, J. Cyanoprokaryota. In 3rd Part: Heterocytous Genera. In Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Büdel, B., Krienitz, L., Gärtner, G., Schagerl, M., Eds.; Elsevier Spektrum Akad. Verl.: Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 19. [Google Scholar]
  54. Turland, N.J.; Wiersema, J.H.; Barrie, F.R.; Greuter, W.; Hawksworth, D.L.; Herendeen, P.S.; Knapp, S.; Kusber, W.-H.; Li, D.-Z.; Marhold, K.; et al. (Eds.) International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code) Regnum Vegetabile 159; Koeltz Botanical Books: Glashütten, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  55. Guiry, M.D.; Guiry, G.M. AlgaeBase. World-Wide Electronic Publication; National University of Ireland: Galway, Ireland, 2024; Available online: https://www.algaebase.org (accessed on 5 July 2024).
  56. Sørensen, T. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. 1948, 5, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P.; Isheva, T.; Uzunov, B.; Dimitrova, P. Red List of Bulgarian Algae. II. Microalgae. Ann. Sof. Univ. Fac. Biol. Book 2 Bot. 2016, 100, 15–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Di Leo, G.; Sardanelli, F. Statistical significance: P value, 0.05 threshold, and applications to radiomics—Reasons for a conservative approach. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2020, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mojumdar, A.; Behera, H.T.; Ray, L. Lithobiontic Ecology: Stone Encrusting Microbes and their Environment. In Environmental and Agricultural Microbiology: Applications for Sustainability; Mishra, B.B., Nayak, S.K., Mohapatra, S., Samantaray, D., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 341–360. [Google Scholar]
  60. Uzunov, B.A. Aeroterrestrial algae from Pirin Mountain (Bulgaria). Ph.D. Thesis, Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  61. Stoyneva, M.P.; Gärtner, G. Remarkable and newly recorded aeroterrestric Cyanoprokaryotes and algae in Bulgaria. In Proceedings of the IV Balkan Botanical Congress, Sofia, Bulgaria, 20–26 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
  62. Videv, P.V.; Gärtner, G.; Uzunov, B.A.; Dimitrova, P.H.; Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P. Epimycotic Algae on the Medicinal Fungus Trametes versicolor (L.) Lloyd. Int. J. Adv. Res. Bot. 2017, 3, 18–26. [Google Scholar]
  63. Mancheva, A. Aerophytic algae from the rock phenomenon and nature monument Belogradchishki Skali. Ph.D. Thesis, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Uzunov, B.A.; Stoyneva, M.P.; Gärtner, G. First record of Coelastrella species (Chlorophyta: Scenedesmaceae) in Bulgaria. Ber. Nat. Med. Ver. Innsbr. 2008, 95, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  65. Stoyneva, M.P.; Uzunov, B.A.; Gärtner, G. Aerophytic green algae, epimycotic on Fomes fomentarius (L. ex Fr.) Kickx. Annu. Sofia Univ. Fac. Biol. Book 2 Bot. 2016, 99, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Stoyneva, M.P. Contribution to the Studies of the Biodiversity of Hydro- and Aerobiontic Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Algae in Bulgaria. DrSc Thesis, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  67. Uzunov, B.A.; Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva, M.; Ingolić, E. First record of coenocytic coccal green soil algae in Bulgaria. Ecol. Eng. Environ. Prot. 2010, 1, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  68. Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva, M.; Uzunov, B. First record of Palmellopsis texensis (Groover et Bold) Ettl et Gärtner (Chlorophyta, Tetrasporales, Palmellopsidaceae) from Bulgaria, found in a 20 years dried soil of a herbarium specimen. Algol. Stud. 2015, 148, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Stoyneva, M.; Mancheva, A.; Gärtner, G.; Uzunov, B. Are the algae from the uncommon Belogradchik rocks common ones? In Proceedings of the VII National Botanical Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, 29–30 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
  70. Uzunov, B.A.; Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva, M.P. Notes on the akinete-forming strain of the green alga Klebsormidium dissectum (Streptophyta) from Pirin Mts., Bulgaria. Phyton Ann. Rei Bot. 2012, 52, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  71. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.; Uzunov, B.; Gärtner, G.; Radkova, M.; Atanassov, I.; Atanasova, R.; Borisova, C.; Draganova, P.; Stoykova, P. Review on the biotechnological and nanotechnological potential of the streptophyte genus Klebsormidium with pilot data on its phycoprospecting and polyphasic identification in Bulgaria. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2019, 33, 559–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Stoykova, P.; Stoyneva-Gärtner, G.; Uzunov, B.; Gärtner, G.; Atanassov, I.; Draganova, P.; Borisova, C. Morphological characterization and phylogenetic analysis of aeroterrestrial Vischeria/Eustigmatos strains with industrial potential. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2019, 33, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gärtner, G.; Stoyneva, M.P.; Uzunov, B.A.; Mancheva, A.D.; Ingolić, E. Ultrastructure of vegetative cells and autospores of an aerophytic strain of Vischeria stellata (Chodat ex Poulton) Pascher. Fottea 2012, 12, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P.; Uzunov, B.A. Bases of Systematics of Algae and Fungi; Publ. House JAMG: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  75. Temniskova, D.; Stoyneva, M. Algology; Pensoft: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  76. Aptroot, A.; Berg, M.P. Collembola help lichens in competition with algae. Lichenologist 2004, 36, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cassar, J.; Cefai, S.; Grima, R.; Stroud, K. Sheltering archaeological sites in Malta: Lessons learnt. Herit. Sci. 2018, 6, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, T.; Cai, Y.; Ma, Q. Microbial Diversity on the Surface of Historical Monuments in Lingyan Temple, Jinan, China. Microb. Ecol. 2023, 85, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Adhikary, S.P. Survival in darkness and heterotrophic growth of epilithic cyanobacteria from temples of India. Algol. Stud. 2002, 105, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Romão, P.M.S.; Rattazzi, A. Biodeterioration on megalithic monuments. Study of lichens’ colonization on Tapadão and Zambujeiro dolmens (southern Portugal). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1996, 37, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dupuy, P.; Trotet, G.; Grossin, F. Protection des monuments contre les cyanophycees en milieu abrite et humide. In Proceedings of the International Symposium the Conservation of Stone I, Bologna, Italy, 19–21 June 1975. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sigler, W.V.; Bachofen, R.; Zeyer, J. Molecular characterization of endolithic cyanobacteria inhabiting exposed dolomite in central Switzerland. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 5, 618–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Banciu, H.L. Diversity of endolithic prokaryotes living in stone monuments. Stud. UBB Biol. 2013, 58, 99–109. [Google Scholar]
  84. Karsten, U.; Holzinger, A. Light, temperature and desiccation effects on photosynthetic activity, and drought-induced ultrastructural changes in the green alga Klebsormidium dissectum (Streptophyta) from a high alpine soil crust. Microb. Ecol. 2012, 63, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Ryšánek, D.; Elster, J.; Kováčik, L.; Škaloud, P. Diversity and dispersal capacities of a terrestrial algal genus Klebsormidium (Streptophyta) in polar regions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Škaloud, P.; Rindi, F. Ecological differentiation of cryptic species within an asexual protist morphospecies: A case study of filamentous green alga Klebsormidium (Streptophyta). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2013, 60, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Rindi, F.; Guiry, M.D.; López-Bautista, J.M. Distribution, morphology and phylogeny of Klebsormidium (Klebsormidiales, Charophyceae) in urban environments in Europe. J. Phycol. 2008, 44, 1529–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Türk, R.; Gärtner, G. Biological soil crusts in the subalpine, alpine, and nival areas in the Alps. In Biological Soil Crusts: Structure, Function and Management; Belnap, J., Lange, O.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001; pp. 67–73. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kumar, R.; Kumar, A.V. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments: An Overview; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  90. Karsten, U.; Peine, M.; Gustavs, L.; Schumann, R. Apatococcus lobatus (Trebouxiophyceae) dominates green algal biofilms on roof tiles in Northern Germany. Nova Hedwig. 2022, 114, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stoyneva, M.P. Survey on green algae of Bulgarian thermal springs. Biol. Bratisl. 2003, 58, 563–574. [Google Scholar]
  92. Stoyneva, M.P.; Gärtner, G. Taxonomic and Ecological Notes to the List of Green Algal Species from Bulgarian Thermomineral Waters. Ber. Nat. Med. Ver. Innsbr. 2004, 91, 67–89. [Google Scholar]
  93. Broady, P.A. A new genus and two new species of terrestrial Chlorophycean algae from Signy Island, South Orkney Islands, Antarctica. Br. Phycol. J. 1977, 12, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Patova, E.N.; Davydov, D.A.; Andreeva, V.M. Cyanoprokaryotes and algae. In Plants and Fungi of the Polar Deserts in the Northern Hemisphere; Matveyeva, N.V., Ed.; Marafon: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2015; pp. 133–166. [Google Scholar]
  95. Raabová, L.; Kovácik, L. Four aeroterrestrial algae grown at a special substrate of deglaciated coastal areas of Petuniabukta, Svalbard. Czech Polar Rep. 2013, 3, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Patova, E.N.; Novakovskaya, I.V. Soil algae of the northeast of the European part of Russia. Nov. Sist. Nizsh. Rast. 2018, 52, 311–353. [Google Scholar]
  97. Patova, E.; Novakovskaya, I.; Gusev, E.; Martynenko, N. Diversity of Cyanobacteria and algae in biological soil crusts of the Northern Ural Mountain Region assessed through morphological and metabarcoding approaches. Diversity 2023, 15, 1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P.; Uzunov, B.; Gärtner, G.; Androv, M.I.; Ivanov, K.R. Updated Red Lists of Bulgarian algae. In Proceedings of the XX International Botanical Congress Madrid 2024, Madrid, Spain, 21–27 July 2024. [Google Scholar]
  99. Fanés Treviño, I.; Comas González, A.; Sánchez Castillo, P.M. Catálogo de las algas verdes cocales de las aguas continentales de Andalucía. Acta Bot. Malacit. 2009, 34, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cambra Sánchez, J.; Álvarez Cobelas, M.; Aboal Sanjurjo, M. Lista Florística y Bibliográfica de los Clorófitos (Chlorophyta) de la Península Ibérica, Islas Baleares e Islas Canarias; Asociación Española de Limnología: Burgos, Spain, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  101. Gupta, R.K. A Checklist of Chlorophyceae, Xanthophyceae, Chrysophyceae and Euglenophyceae; Algae of India; Botanical Survey of India/Ministry of Environment & Forests: Kolkata, India, 2012; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
Life 14 00948 g001
Figure 1. Map of Bulgaria with borders of different country districts, with enlargement of the map of the Haskovo district and indication of megalith locations: 1—Tsarski Dolmen, 2—Evdzhika, 3—Gluhite Kamuni, 4—Plevun, 5—Kovan Kaya, 6—Cromleh, 7—Angel Voyvoda, 8—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, and 9—Sharapanite.
Figure 1. Map of Bulgaria with borders of different country districts, with enlargement of the map of the Haskovo district and indication of megalith locations: 1—Tsarski Dolmen, 2—Evdzhika, 3—Gluhite Kamuni, 4—Plevun, 5—Kovan Kaya, 6—Cromleh, 7—Angel Voyvoda, 8—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, and 9—Sharapanite.
Life 14 00948 g001
Life 14 00948 g002
Figure 2. Examples of measurement of the temperature on the megalith surfaces by application of a drone: Kovan Kaya—general view (1) and one of the rock niches magnified (2), Cromlex—general view (3). On the lower row—the same places in the same order with differences in the temperatures measured by the drone. The temperature variations from cold to hot are expressed by blue-violet and yellow-orange colors.
Figure 2. Examples of measurement of the temperature on the megalith surfaces by application of a drone: Kovan Kaya—general view (1) and one of the rock niches magnified (2), Cromlex—general view (3). On the lower row—the same places in the same order with differences in the temperatures measured by the drone. The temperature variations from cold to hot are expressed by blue-violet and yellow-orange colors.
Life 14 00948 g002
Life 14 00948 g003
Figure 3. Examples of collecting the material from visible algal layers and measuring the temperature on the megalith surfaces of Evdzhika (1–3) and Gluhite Kamuni (4) by application of a thermal camera (indicated by white arrow).
Figure 3. Examples of collecting the material from visible algal layers and measuring the temperature on the megalith surfaces of Evdzhika (1–3) and Gluhite Kamuni (4) by application of a thermal camera (indicated by white arrow).
Life 14 00948 g003
Life 14 00948 g004
Figure 4. General algal biodiversity of each of the nine studied megaliths represented by the number of species in each of the main taxonomic groups (white numerals). Abbreviations on the ordinate indicate the megaliths: TD—Tsarski Dolmen, Ev—Evdzhika, GK—Gluhite Kamuni, Pl—Plevun, KK—Kovan Kaya, Cr—Cromleh, AV—Angel Voyvoda, SB—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, Sh—Sharapanite.
Figure 4. General algal biodiversity of each of the nine studied megaliths represented by the number of species in each of the main taxonomic groups (white numerals). Abbreviations on the ordinate indicate the megaliths: TD—Tsarski Dolmen, Ev—Evdzhika, GK—Gluhite Kamuni, Pl—Plevun, KK—Kovan Kaya, Cr—Cromleh, AV—Angel Voyvoda, SB—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, Sh—Sharapanite.
Life 14 00948 g004
Life 14 00948 g005
Figure 5. Megalithic complex Gluhite Kamuni (part of the complex with wall niches—(1)) and some algae growing in the obtained cultures: Aphanothece cf. saxicola (2), Nostoc linckia and Chloroideum ellipsoideum (arrow) (3), Klebsormidium klebsii (4), Sphaerococcomyxa olivacea and Pseudostichococcus monallantoides var. exiguus (arrow) (5), Printzina lageniforme (6), and Trentepohlia cf. jacunda (7).
Figure 5. Megalithic complex Gluhite Kamuni (part of the complex with wall niches—(1)) and some algae growing in the obtained cultures: Aphanothece cf. saxicola (2), Nostoc linckia and Chloroideum ellipsoideum (arrow) (3), Klebsormidium klebsii (4), Sphaerococcomyxa olivacea and Pseudostichococcus monallantoides var. exiguus (arrow) (5), Printzina lageniforme (6), and Trentepohlia cf. jacunda (7).
Life 14 00948 g005
Life 14 00948 g006
Figure 6. Thracian complex near village Angel Voyvoda (part of the complex with old rock sanctuaries, remnants of fortress walls, and circular rock excavations—(1)) with examples of some identified algae: Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata (2), Apatococcus lobatus (3), Tribonema minus (4), Pleurochloris commutata (5), and Chloridella minuta (6).
Figure 6. Thracian complex near village Angel Voyvoda (part of the complex with old rock sanctuaries, remnants of fortress walls, and circular rock excavations—(1)) with examples of some identified algae: Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata (2), Apatococcus lobatus (3), Tribonema minus (4), Pleurochloris commutata (5), and Chloridella minuta (6).
Life 14 00948 g006
Life 14 00948 g007
Figure 7. The rock sanctuary Evdzhika near the village Hlyabovo (front view—(1)) with examples of some species growing in the cultures: Muriella decolor (arrow) and Elliptochloris bilobata (2), Stichococcus chlorelloides (3), Muriella terrestris (4), Elliptochloris subshaerica (5), Stichococcus mirabilis (6), and Sphaerococcomyxa olivacea (7). Photos (3–5) are taken after staining with Lugol’s solution.
Figure 7. The rock sanctuary Evdzhika near the village Hlyabovo (front view—(1)) with examples of some species growing in the cultures: Muriella decolor (arrow) and Elliptochloris bilobata (2), Stichococcus chlorelloides (3), Muriella terrestris (4), Elliptochloris subshaerica (5), Stichococcus mirabilis (6), and Sphaerococcomyxa olivacea (7). Photos (3–5) are taken after staining with Lugol’s solution.
Life 14 00948 g007
Life 14 00948 g008
Figure 8. Tsarski Dolmen (1) and examples of species growing in the obtained cultures: Calothrix sp. juv. (2), Nostoc minutum (3), Edaphochlorella mirabilis (4), Scotiella tuberculata (arrow) surrounded by cells of Chloroideum ellipsoideum (5), and Desmococcus olivaceus (6).
Figure 8. Tsarski Dolmen (1) and examples of species growing in the obtained cultures: Calothrix sp. juv. (2), Nostoc minutum (3), Edaphochlorella mirabilis (4), Scotiella tuberculata (arrow) surrounded by cells of Chloroideum ellipsoideum (5), and Desmococcus olivaceus (6).
Life 14 00948 g008
Life 14 00948 g009
Figure 9. The megalith Stupkata na Bogoroditsa (1) and some species growing in the obtained cultures: Choricystis parasitica (2), Klebsormidium dissectum (3), Chloroideum ellipsoideum (4), Tribonema minus (5), and Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata—before (6) and after coloration by Lugol’s solution (7).
Figure 9. The megalith Stupkata na Bogoroditsa (1) and some species growing in the obtained cultures: Choricystis parasitica (2), Klebsormidium dissectum (3), Chloroideum ellipsoideum (4), Tribonema minus (5), and Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata—before (6) and after coloration by Lugol’s solution (7).
Life 14 00948 g009
Life 14 00948 g010
Figure 10. The megalith Plevun (1,2) and examples of algae from the obtained cultures: Chloridella minuta (3) and Lobosphaeropsis lobophora (4).
Figure 10. The megalith Plevun (1,2) and examples of algae from the obtained cultures: Chloridella minuta (3) and Lobosphaeropsis lobophora (4).
Life 14 00948 g010
Life 14 00948 g011
Figure 11. The megalith circle, Cromleh (1) and examples of species growing species in the collected samples: Anabaena sp. ster. (2,3), Stigonema cf. hormoides (4), and Heterococcus anguinis (5).
Figure 11. The megalith circle, Cromleh (1) and examples of species growing species in the collected samples: Anabaena sp. ster. (2,3), Stigonema cf. hormoides (4), and Heterococcus anguinis (5).
Life 14 00948 g011
Life 14 00948 g012
Figure 12. The rock niches Kovan Kaya (1) and examples from some species growing in the obtained cultures: Symploca cf. dubia (2) and Microcoleus vaginatus (3).
Figure 12. The rock niches Kovan Kaya (1) and examples from some species growing in the obtained cultures: Symploca cf. dubia (2) and Microcoleus vaginatus (3).
Life 14 00948 g012
Life 14 00948 g013
Figure 13. Megalith Sharapanite (1) and some species growing in the obtained cultures: Klebsormidium dissectum (2), Apatococcus lobatus, and Klebsormidium klebsii (arrow) after staining with Lugol’s solution (3).
Figure 13. Megalith Sharapanite (1) and some species growing in the obtained cultures: Klebsormidium dissectum (2), Apatococcus lobatus, and Klebsormidium klebsii (arrow) after staining with Lugol’s solution (3).
Life 14 00948 g013
Life 14 00948 g014
Figure 14. The floristic similarity between the nine studied megaliths is represented by Sørensen’s Similarity Index (SSI). The number of species in each megalith is shown with bold numerals on the diagonal (green). Above the diagonal, the number of common species for each two megaliths is shown (light blue), and below the diagonal the values of SSI are shown, grouped into five classes through 10%. Abbreviations indicate the megaliths: KD—Tsarski Dolmen, Ev—Evdzhika, GK—Gluhite Kamuni, Pl—Plevun, KK—Kovan Kaya, Cr—Cromleh, AV—Angel Voyvoda, SB—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, Sh—Sharapanite.
Figure 14. The floristic similarity between the nine studied megaliths is represented by Sørensen’s Similarity Index (SSI). The number of species in each megalith is shown with bold numerals on the diagonal (green). Above the diagonal, the number of common species for each two megaliths is shown (light blue), and below the diagonal the values of SSI are shown, grouped into five classes through 10%. Abbreviations indicate the megaliths: KD—Tsarski Dolmen, Ev—Evdzhika, GK—Gluhite Kamuni, Pl—Plevun, KK—Kovan Kaya, Cr—Cromleh, AV—Angel Voyvoda, SB—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, Sh—Sharapanite.
Life 14 00948 g014
Life 14 00948 g015
Figure 15. Correlations between the temperatures of the nine studied megaliths (minimum and maximum for each megalith, and by samples,) and algal biodiversity (total and by taxonomic phyla) represented by values of the correlation coefficients (when p < 0.05). NS—number of species.
Figure 15. Correlations between the temperatures of the nine studied megaliths (minimum and maximum for each megalith, and by samples,) and algal biodiversity (total and by taxonomic phyla) represented by values of the correlation coefficients (when p < 0.05). NS—number of species.
Life 14 00948 g015
Life 14 00948 g016
Figure 16. Examples of megalith surfaces covered by lichens exemplified by parts of (1) Tsarski Dolmen; (2) Megalith Plevun; (3) Cromleh; and (4) Angel Voyvoda.
Figure 16. Examples of megalith surfaces covered by lichens exemplified by parts of (1) Tsarski Dolmen; (2) Megalith Plevun; (3) Cromleh; and (4) Angel Voyvoda.
Life 14 00948 g016
Life 14 00948 g017
Figure 17. Megalith surfaces with mosses (arrows) exemplified by parts of (1) Evdzhika; (2) Cromleh; (3,4) and Stupkata na Bogoroditsa.
Figure 17. Megalith surfaces with mosses (arrows) exemplified by parts of (1) Evdzhika; (2) Cromleh; (3,4) and Stupkata na Bogoroditsa.
Life 14 00948 g017
Life 14 00948 g018
Figure 18. Examples of megalith surfaces with visible algal layers: (1,2) different parts of the Gluhite Kamuni with visible green layers on the outer surfaces of the sandy rocks in the deciduous forest; (3) Open rock pass Utrobata (which in the Bulgarian language means Uterus) in the complex Gluhite Kamuni with greenish layers in the inner parts; (4) inner part of the Evdzhika with well-developed green layer; (5) inner part of Stupkata na Bogoroditsa with visible green algal layers.
Figure 18. Examples of megalith surfaces with visible algal layers: (1,2) different parts of the Gluhite Kamuni with visible green layers on the outer surfaces of the sandy rocks in the deciduous forest; (3) Open rock pass Utrobata (which in the Bulgarian language means Uterus) in the complex Gluhite Kamuni with greenish layers in the inner parts; (4) inner part of the Evdzhika with well-developed green layer; (5) inner part of Stupkata na Bogoroditsa with visible green algal layers.
Life 14 00948 g018
Table 1. The location of the selected megaliths from the Haskovo district, represented by geographical coordinates, temperature range of the surfaces from which samples have been collected, and number of collected samples (NCS).
Table 1. The location of the selected megaliths from the Haskovo district, represented by geographical coordinates, temperature range of the surfaces from which samples have been collected, and number of collected samples (NCS).
MegalithGeographic CoordinatesTemperature Range [°C]NCS
Tsarski Dolmen (=Dolmen Nachovi Chairi)42.051401, 26.22858525.0–33.55
Evdzhika42.046864, 26.26185619.8–26.45
Ancient complex Gluhite Kamuni41.727805, 25.95523118.1–27.215
Plevun41.481050, 26.00442025.0–42.03
Kovan Kaya41.617610, 25.72295031.1–32.22
Cromleh41.681972, 25.81275032.0–47.72
Ancient complex Angel Voyvoda41.833155, 25.26270928.4–49.69
Stupkata na Bogoroditsa41.940107, 25.34598431.5–37.99
Sharapanite 41.919580, 25.31621632.8–33.52
Table 2. Species composition of the investigated megaliths from Haskovo district, South-Eastern Bulgaria: TD—Tsarski Dolmen, Ev—Evdzhika, GK—Gluhite Kamuni, Pl—Plevun, KK—Kovan Kaya, Cr—Cromleh, AV—Angel Voyvoda, SB—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, and Sh—Sharapanite. Inside the phyla, species are organized in alphabetical order. Previous records of each species in the aeroterrestrial flora of Bulgaria (PRAFB) are indicated by relevant references [31,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Table 2. Species composition of the investigated megaliths from Haskovo district, South-Eastern Bulgaria: TD—Tsarski Dolmen, Ev—Evdzhika, GK—Gluhite Kamuni, Pl—Plevun, KK—Kovan Kaya, Cr—Cromleh, AV—Angel Voyvoda, SB—Stupkata na Bogoroditsa, and Sh—Sharapanite. Inside the phyla, species are organized in alphabetical order. Previous records of each species in the aeroterrestrial flora of Bulgaria (PRAFB) are indicated by relevant references [31,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Species/MegalithsTDEvGKPlKKCrAVSBShPRAFB
CYANOPROKARYOTA
Anabaena sp. ster. 1 (?Trichormus sp.)x
Anabaena sp. ster. 2 (?Isocystis sp.) x
Anabaena sp. ster. 3 x [47]
Aphanocapsa fusco-lutea Hansgirg x
Aphanocapsa cf. rivularis (Carmichael) Rabenhorst x
Aphanocapsa sp. 1 x x
Aphanocapsa sp. 2 x x
Aphanothece cf. saxicola Nägeli x [47,60]
Aphanothece sp. 1x
Aphanothece sp. 2 x x x
Calothrix sp. juv. (ad Calothrix fusca Bornet and Flahault)x
Gloeobacter violaceus Rippka, J. B. Waterbury and Cohen-Bazire x x
Gloeothece confluens Nägeli x
Leptolyngbya foveolarum (Gomont) Anagnostidis and Komárek x [47]
Leptolyngbya af. gloeophila (Borzì) Anagnostidis and Komárek x
Leptolyngbya cf. subtilissima (Hansgirg) Komárek x
Leptolyngbya ‘Albertano-Kovacik green’ 1992 x
Leptolyngbya sp. 1 (ad Leptolyngbya compacta Komárek) x
Leptolyngbya sp. 2 x
Leptolyngbya sp. 3 x
Leptolyngbya sp. 4 (? Leiblenia sp.) x
Microcoleus vaginatus Gomont x [47]
Nostoc linckia Bornet ex Bornet and Flahaultx x x [47]
Nostoc minutum Desmazières ex Bornet and Flahaultx
Pseudophormidium hollerbachianum (Elenkin) Anagnostidis x [60]
Schizothrix cf. epilithica (Ercegović) Anagnostidis x
Scytonema sp.x [47]
Stigonema cf. hormoides Bornet and Fhaultx xx [47]
Symploca cf. dubia Gomont (?Leptolyngbya sp.) x x
CHLOROPHYTA
Apatococcus lobatus (Chodat) Petersenxx xxx[31,61,62,63]
Chlorella vulgaris Beijerinck x [47,60,62,63]
Chlorella sp. x
Chloroidium ellipsoideum (Gerneck) Darienko and al.xxx xx [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,63]
Choricystis parasitica (Brandt) Pröschold and Darienko x x x [60]
Chromochloris zofingiensis (Dönz) Fucíková and Lewis x [63]
Coccomyxa subglobosa Pascher x x x
Coelastrella terrestris (Reisigl) Hegewald and Hanagata xx [60,64]
Coenobotrys gloeobotrydiformis (Reisigl) Kostikov and al. x [60,63]
Desmococcus olivaceus (Persoon ex Acharius) Laundonx [61,62,63,65]
Deuterostichococcus tetrallantoideus (Kol) Pröschold and Darienko x
Edaphochlorella mirabilis (Andreeva) Darienko and Pröscholdx x [63]
Elliptochloris bilobata Tschermak-Woess x [60]
Elliptochloris subsphaerica (Reisigl) Ettl and Gärtner xx [63]
Eubrownia aggregata (R. M. Brown and Bold) Shin Watanabe and Lewis x
Hemichloris polyspora Tschermak-Woess, Hua, Gärtner and Hesse x
Lobosphaera undulata (Shin Watanabe) Ettl and Gärtnerx
Lobosphaeropsis lobophora (Andreeva) Ettl and Gärtnerxx x [63]
Monoraphidium nanum (Ettl) Hindák x
Muriella decolor Vischer x
Muriella terrestris J. B. Petersenxx
Mychonastes homosphaera (Skuja) Kalina and Puncochárováx x [61,62,63,66,68]
Neocystis brevis (Vischer) Kostikov and Hoffmann x
Parachlorella kessleri (Fott and Nováková) Krienitz and al. x
Pleurastrum minutum (Starr) Sciuto and al. xx x
Printzina lagenifera (Hildebrand) Thompson and Wujek x
Pseudodictyochloris multinucleata (Broady) Ettl and Gärtner xx [60,66,67]
Pseudostichococcus monallantoides var. exiguus (Gerneck) Pröschold and Darienko x [63]
Radiococcus bilobatus (Broady) Kostikov and al. x
Scotiella tuberculata Bourrellyx
Sphaerococcomyxa olivacea (Petersen) Kostikov and al. xx x
Stichococcus bacillaris Nägelixxxxx xxx[47,60,62,63,65,66,69]
Stichococcus chlorelloides Grintzesco and Ș. Péterfi x
Stichococcus minutus Grintzesco and Ș. Péterfixx [60,63,65]
Stichococcus mirabilis Lagerheim xx x
Tetracystis pulchra R. M. Brown and Bold x x
Trebouxia sp. (ad Asterochloris excentrica (Archibald) Skaloud and Peksa) x [47,61]
Trentepohlia arborum (Agardh) Hariot x xx
Trentepohlia jolithus (Linnaeus) Wallroth x [47]
Trentepohlia cf. jucunda (Cesati) Hariot x
Uvulifera mucosa (Broady and Ingerfeld) Molinarix
STREPTOPHYTA
Klebsormidium crenulatum (Kützing) Lokhorst x
Klebsormidium dissectum (Gay) Ettl and Gärtner xx[60,62,70,71]
Klebsormidium flaccidum (Kützing) Silva, Mattox and Blackwell xx [47,60,63,71]
Klebsormidium cf. flaccidum (Kützing) Silva, Mattox, and Blackwell x
Klebsormidium klebsii (Smith) Silva, Mattox and Blackwell xx x[63,69]
OCHROPHYTA
Botrydiopsis sp. x
Chlorellidium astigmatum Schwarz x
Chloridella minuta Gayral and Mazancourt x x
Chlorobotrys gloeothece Pascher x
Ellipsoidion perminimum Pascherx x
Gloeobotrys piriformis Reisigl x
Gloeobotrys terrestris Reisigl x
Heterococcus anguinus Pitschmann x
Monodus guttula Pascher x
Navicula sp. s.l. x [47]
Pinnularia sp. x
Pleurochloris commutata Pascher xx x
Tribonema aequale Pascher x
Tribonema minus (Wille) Hazen x
Vischeria magna (Petersen)
Kryvenda and al. 		x [60,63,66,72]
Vischeria stellata (Chodat) Pascher x [60,63,66,69,72,73]
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

Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.; Androv, M.; Uzunov, B.; Ivanov, K.; Gärtner, G. Algal Biodiversity of Nine Megaliths in South-East Bulgaria. Life 2024, 14, 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14080948

AMA Style

Stoyneva-Gärtner M, Androv M, Uzunov B, Ivanov K, Gärtner G. Algal Biodiversity of Nine Megaliths in South-East Bulgaria. Life. 2024; 14(8):948. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14080948

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stoyneva-Gärtner, Maya, Miroslav Androv, Blagoy Uzunov, Kristian Ivanov, and Georg Gärtner. 2024. "Algal Biodiversity of Nine Megaliths in South-East Bulgaria" Life 14, no. 8: 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14080948

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