Table 1.
Viral abundance, virus‐prokaryote ratio (VPR), burst size, frequency of infected cells (FIC), frequency of visible infected cells (FVIC), fraction of mortality due to viral lysis (FMVL), viral production and proportion of lysogenic bacteria in various fluvial waters; data are given as range (average)
| Location | Viral abundance (× 107 ml−1) | VPR | Burst size | FIC (%) | FVIC (%) | FMVL (% of the total bacterial population) | Viral production (× 108 VLPs l−1 h−1) | Lysogenic bacteria (% of the total bacterial population) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Running waters | |||||||||
| Ria de Aveiro (Portugal) | 2.4–25 (TEM) | 4.7–55.6 (18) | 49–74 | Almeida et al. (2001) | |||||
| Bremer River (Australia) | 1.2–13.5 (EFM) | 3.04–35.16 | 0–100 | 1702 | Pollard & Ducklow (2011) | ||||
| Brisbane River/Moreton Bay, Noosa River (Australia) | 0.5–30 (EFM) | 3–37 | <0.01–23 | Hewson et al. (2001) | |||||
| Charente River (France) | 3.9–9.8a (EFM) | 11.3–14.3a | Auguet et al. (2005) | ||||||
| Danube River (Austria) | 0.32–3.5 (2.09) (EFM) | 4.11–35.0 (19.8) | Peduzzi & Luef (2008) | ||||||
| Danube River (Austria) | 1.9–7.23 (EFM) | 5.7–27.5 | Besemer et al. (2009) | ||||||
| Ditch (Port Aransas, USA) | 14.6 (TEM) | Hennes & Suttle (1995) | |||||||
| Djeuss Stream (Senegal) | 1.1 (EFM), 2.6 (TEM) | 4.1 | 34 | 2.1b | 0.3 | 2.5 | 4.10 | 7.1 | Bettarel et al. (2006) |
| Ephemeral channel (Charles City, USA) | 1.0–7.0 (EFM) | Williamson et al. (2014) | |||||||
| Haihe River (China) | 7.35–88.8 (FCM) | 5.12–46.9 (21.4) | Ma et al. (2013) | ||||||
| Mahoning River (USA) | 0.2–2.02 (EFM) | 0.42–12.2 | Lemke et al. (1997) and Baker & Leff (2004) | ||||||
| Morava River (Czech Republic) | 0.17–4.74 (EFM) | Slováckova & Marsálek (2008) | |||||||
| Nile River (Cairo, Egypt) | 7.75 (EFM) | 14.24 | Peduzzi et al. (2013) | ||||||
| Svratka River (Czech Republic) | 0.19–5.81 (EFM) | Slováckova & Marsálek (2008) | |||||||
| Wadi Hatta (UAE) | 0.89 (EFM) | 6.61 | Peduzzi et al. (2013) | ||||||
| Yangtze river estuary (China) | 0.07–1.68 (FCM) | 1.52–72.0 (8.7) | Jiao et al. (2006) | ||||||
| River reservoirs | |||||||||
| Reservoirs (Sri Lanka) | 3.1–7.7 (EFM) | 9.7–23.8 | 10.8–26.9 | 1.6–4.4 | 13.2–46.1 | Peduzzi & Schiemer (2004) | |||
| Rímov Reservoir (Czech Republic) | 1.6 (EFM) | 19 | Simek et al. (2001) | ||||||
| Grim Dell Pond (Charles City, USA) | 0.36–1.35 (EFM) | Williamson et al. (2014) | |||||||
| Floodplains, wetlands | |||||||||
| Alte Donau (Austria) | 1.7–11.7 (5.0) (TEM) | 4–39 (19) | 18–48 | 10–63 (28) | 2.8–9 (5) | 26–125 | Fischer & Velimirov (2002) | ||
| Amazon floodplain lake (Brazil) | 0.5–1.7 (EFM, TEM) | 4.4–6.0a | 10 | 20 | Barros et al. (2010) | ||||
| Floodplain, Danube River (Austria) | 0.31–10.2 (2.62) (EFM) | 2.91–33.9 (13.3) | Luef et al. (2007) | ||||||
| Floodplain, Danube River (Austria) | 1.78–15.3 (EFM) | 2.5–15.0 | Besemer et al. (2009) | ||||||
| Danube River floodplain segments | 5.83–25.0 | Tvarogova (2010) | |||||||
| Kühwörther Wasser, Danube River backwater (Austria) | 1.2–6.1 (TEM) | 2.0–17.0 | 15.5–38.0 | 5.4–21.6 | 10.8–43.2 | Mathias et al. (1995) | |||
| Lobau, Danube River backwater (Austria) | 2.4–10.6 (6.38) (EFM) | 14.0–48.2 (7.23) | Peduzzi & Luef (2008) | ||||||
| Talladega Wetland (USA) | 0.009–0.12 (EFM) | 0.02–2.46 | Farnell‐Jackson & Ward (2003) | ||||||
| Trombetas River (Brazil) | 0.4–3.0 (EFM) | 2.2–9.1 | Almeida et al. (2015) | ||||||
| Others | |||||||||
| Barton Spring (Texas, USA) | 0.53 (EFM), 0.39 (TEM) | Hennes & Suttle (1995) | |||||||
| Hot springs (California, USA) | 0.007–0.7 (EFM) | 10.0–15.0 | Breitbart et al. (2004) | ||||||
| Marsh | 57.4–70.0 (EFM), 22.7 (TEM) | Hennes & Suttle (1995) | |||||||
| Benthic, running waters | |||||||||
| Brisbane River/Moreton Bay, Noosa River (Australia) | 0.2–4.8 × 109 cm−3 sediment (EFM) | 2–65 | Hewson et al. (2001) | ||||||
| Djeuss Stream (Senegal) | 15.5 × 107 ml−1 (EFM), 8.5 × 107 ml−1 (TEM) | 1.3 | <0.1 | 1.9 | Bettarel et al. (2006) | ||||
| Esino River (Italy) | 9.83 × 108 ml−1 (sediment) (EFM) | 0.77 | 16.6 | 18.4 | 770.0 | 1.48 | Mei & Danovaro (2004) | ||
| Mahoning River (USA) | 1.65–6.68 × 108 g−1 AFDM in particulate samples (EFM) | 0.2–1.2 | Lemke et al. (1997) | ||||||
| Mahoning River (USA) | 4.71–8.91 × 106 g−1 sediment (EFM) | Sediment: 0.09–0.45 | Baker & Leff (2004) | ||||||
| 4.81–21.8 × 108 g−1 leaf (EFM) | Leaf: 0.40–2.55 | ||||||||
AFDM, ash‐free dry mass; EFM, epifluorescence microscopy; FCM, flow cytometry; FIC, frequency of infected cells; FMVL, fractional mortality due to viral lysis; FVIC, frequency of visibly infected cells; TEM, transmission electron microscopy.
a
Range of means.
b
Calculated, using the formula: FIC = 7.11 × FVIC.