The role of dissolved organic matter, particularly free amino acids and humic substances, in freshwater ecosystems

Abstract

1. Although the mass of dissolved organic matter (DOM) often exceeds that of living organisms in freshwaters, little is known about the roles of its constituent molecules as sources of energy and information for aquatic organisms. In the present review attention is focused on free amino acids (FAA) and humic substances (HS) as examples of labile and refractory components within DOM.2. The following questions are addressed. (i) What are spatiotemporal patterns in the distribution of DOM, HS and FAA? (ii) What are the origins of the components of DOM and how are their concentrations regulated? (iii) What is the significance of the spatial and temporal distributional patterns of DOM, HS and FAA to detritivorous invertebrates and other organisms associated with them? (iv) What is the relevance of DOM to the food web concept and to the biochemical ecology of freshwater ecosystems?3. Concentrations of DOM, FAA and HS within lentic ecosystems are ranked as follows: Sediment pore water > Air–water interface > Midwater column. Comparisons between water bodies show that the concentrations of labile constituents of DOM, such as FAA, are usually positively correlated with base cations, nutrients and biological activity. In contrast, HS concentrations are negatively correlated with base cations or nutrients but positively correlated with the rate of biological degradation (the maximum values occurring in the autumn). The FAA : HS ratios might serve therefore as an indicator of the potential productivity of a water body.4. External sources of DOM in general, and FAA and HS in particular, include rainwater, windborne material, surface flow and groundwater. The relative importance of these allochthonous sources of DOM decreases along the length of lotic ecosystems and also with increase in size of lentic ecosystems. Internal sources of FAA and HS include synthesis or polymerization from existing organic matter, degradation of organic matter and release from both living and dead organisms. The net accumulation of DOM released by living bacteria, phytoplankton, epilithon, macrophytes and invertebrates is much reduced due to heterotrophic uptake. Hence, most of the allochthonous DOM in freshwater originates from dead organic matter deposited on the sediment. Phytoplankton‐dominated ecosystems may, however, differ, as most of their DOM may be recycled within the water column.5. The factors that determine the external concentrations of DOM, FAA and HS are discussed. Evidence is cited in support of the following testable hypotheses. (i) The rates of production of DOM components will be favoured by increasing base cation and nutrient concentrations. (ii) Colloidal clay, base cations, biopolymers and living organisms, particularly bacteria, facilitate the removal of HS. Consequently, base‐rich eutrophic waters tend to have lower HS concentrations than oligotrophic, base‐deficient waters. (iii) As a result of higher productivity and selective removal of FAA, eutrophic waters tend to have higher FAA concentrations than those that are oligotrophic.6. Labile DOM components, such as FAA, act as sources of information for aquatic organisms. More research is needed in this field. There is a consensus that DOM acts as an important source of energy for aquatic bacteria, thus forming the microbial loop. However, higher eukaryotic organisms also utilize DOM, including components released by bacteria and plants as metabolic end‐products and photoassimilates, respectively. As a result, these DOM components may be more important as food for macrodecomposers than the microdecomposers themselves. HS may also benefit aquatic organisms by promoting their growth and protecting them from inimical forces. Conversely, the removal of photons and the release of toxins by HS may be detrimental to aquatic organisms.7. It is concluded that the central dogma of the foodweb, and its implicit assumption that the energy flow in aquatic ecosystems can be quantified solely by measuring rates of photosynthesis, ingestion of solid food and its digestion by higher organisms, is invalid. To extend our understanding of the role of DOM as a source of nutrition and information to aquatic organisms it is suggested that the subject should be studied within the context of ‘modules’ which have the following properties: (i) the components have co‐evolved; (ii) the more vulnerable components will have protective mechanisms; (iii) the components will derive mutual benefits from co‐existence; (iv) sedentary components will release kairomonal attractants or developmental primers; (v) living components will exchange energy and information; (vi) the module will collapse following the removal of strongly interactive keystone species. An example of a three‐component, three‐subset module, is provided by tubificid worms, epilithic bacteria and algae. A more complex module consisting of pulmonate snails, associated macrophytes, their epiphytic bacteria and algae has four components and six subsets. The elucidation of the interactive mechanisms within such modules demands an interdisciplinary approach, involving microbiology, biochemistry and behavioural biology.