Submitted:
23 May 2026
Posted:
25 May 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Selection of Sampling Sites
2.3. Sampling Design
2.3.1. Physicochemical Parameters
2.3.2. Protozoan Sampling
2.4. Data Analysis
2.4.1. Frequency Analysis
2.4.2. Beta Diversity
2.4.3. Outlying Mean Index (OMI) Analysis
- OMI: Measures the deviation between the average environmental conditions used by the species and the average environmental conditions for the entire study area. Species with high marginality are uncommon species with limited distribution (specialists), while low marginality indicates common or uniformly distributed species (generalists).
- Tolerance (T1): Value analogous to niche breadth. High values represent greater niche breadth (generalist species), while low values indicate small niche breadth (specialist species).
- Residual Tolerance (T2): Represents the proportion of variability in the habitat that is not explained by the measured environmental variables.
3. Results
3.1. Composition and Structure of the Protozoan Community
3.2. Frequency Analysis: Spatial and Temporal Effects
3.3. Beta Diversity
3.4. Relationship Between Protozoans and Physicochemical Variables: OMI Analysis
3.4.1. Niche Structure and Ecological Strategies
3.4.2. Influence of pH and Productivity Gradients
4. Discussion
4.1. Protozoan Community in the Upper Soto la Marina Basin: An Initial Approach to Its Diversity and Structure
4.2. Spatial Structuring of the Community and Absence of Seasonality
4.3. Weak Environmental Signal and Predominance of Generalist Strategists
4.4. Vorticella sp.: A Candidate Bioindicator in the Regional Context
4.5. Implications for the Conservation of the Basin and the Sierra de Tamaulipas
4.6. Limitations and Future Perspectives
5. Conclusions
- 1)
- The first inventory of protozoans for the upper Soto la Marina River basin is presented, establishing a baseline of 24 morphospecies (belonging to 8 phyla, with dominance of Ciliophora and Amoebozoa) for future ecological and monitoring studies in northeastern Mexico.
- 2)
- The protozoan community in this basin is strongly structured by local factors, evidenced by: (i) significant dependence of species on sampling site (χ² = 246.72, p < 0.001); (ii) high species turnover among sites (low beta similarity, <60% in most comparisons); and (iii) independence of community structure from temporality (absence of significant seasonal effect).
- 3)
- Most of the identified protozoans (23 out of 24 morphospecies) are generalist organisms, whose distributions did not correlate significantly with the measured physicochemical parameters (pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, alkalinity, hardness). This suggests that other unconsidered environmental factors (sediment type, hydrodynamics, food resources, biotic interactions) are the main modulators of their ecological niche in these systems.
- 4)
- Vorticella sp. stands out as a potential bioindicator of organic enrichment and high alkalinity conditions in the region, showing a significant (p = 0.0329) and specific response to these gradients. Its monitoring could be a useful, low-cost, and easily implementable tool for the early detection of nutrient and organic matter pollution in the basin.
- 5)
- The results underscore the importance of integrating multivariate analyses such as OMI in bioindication studies, since they allow discerning between generalist and specialist species, and evaluating the real strength of the environmental signal. This approach is fundamental for the development of effective biological monitoring programs in support of the conservation of the basin and protected natural areas such as the Sierra de Tamaulipas.
- 6)
- The hydrological connectivity between the rivers of the upper basin and the Vicente Guerrero Reservoir, the main water supply source for the region, highlights the relevance of implementing continuous biological monitoring programs that allow early detection of anthropogenic impacts and guide mitigation measures to preserve water quality and the ecological integrity of these ecosystems.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Curds, C. R. The Role of Protozoa in the Activated-Sludge Process. Am. Zool. 1973, 13 (1), 161–169. [CrossRef]
- Curds, C. R.; Cockburn, A. Protozoa in Biological Sewage-Treatment Processes—I. A Survey of the Protozoan Fauna of British Percolating Filters and Activated-Sludge Plants. Water Res. 1970, 4 (3), 225–236. [CrossRef]
- Finlay, B. J.; Esteban, G. F. Freshwater Protozoa: Biodiversity and Ecological Function. Biodiversity Conserv. 1998, 7 (9), 1163–1186. [CrossRef]
- Foissner, W.; Berger, H.; Schaumburg, J. Identification and Ecology of Limnetic Plankton Ciliates; Bavarian State Office for Water Management: Munich, Germany, 1999.
- Yang, Q.; Li, X.; Yang, S.; Chao, X.; Liu, H.; Ba, S. Protozoan Community Diversity and Its Impact Factor in the Middle Reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River in the Wet Season. Biodiversity Sci. 2023, 31 (4), 22500. [CrossRef]
- Qi, J.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, J.; Liao, C.; Liu, J.; Guo, C. Variations of Zooplankton Community as Bioindicators of Eutrophication and Water Quality in Shallow Yangtze Lakes. Limnologica 2025, 126248. [CrossRef]
- Heneash, A. M.; Alprol, A. E.; Abd El-Hamid, H. T.; Khater, M.; El Damhogy, K. A. Assessment of Water Pollution Induced by Anthropogenic Activities on Zooplankton Community in Mariout Lake Using Statistical Simulation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28 (1), 1–21. [CrossRef]
- Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP). Programa de Manejo de la Sierra de Tamaulipas; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020.
- Vázquez-Ochoa, L. A.; Correa-Sandoval, A.; Vargas-Castilleja, R. C.; Vázquez-Sauceda, M. L.; Rodríguez-Castro, J. H. Modelo hidrológico, calidad del agua y cambio climático: soporte para la gestión hídrica de la cuenca del río Soto la Marina. CienciaUAT 2021, 16 (1), 20–41. [CrossRef]
- Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas (UAT). Aportan universitarios al monitoreo de la calidad del agua en la región. Gaceta UAT [Online] 2025. https://www.uat.edu.mx/gaceta-uat/aportan-universitarios-al-monitoreo-de-la-calidad-del-agua-en-la-region (accessed date).
- Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA). Informe sobre la Región Hidrológica 25; Technical Report; CONAGUA: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020. https://www.conagua.gob.mx.
- American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- Gibson, C.; Munro, D. Field Surveys and Sampling Design for Water Quality Assessment in Rivers and Lakes. Water Res. 2010, 44 (15), 4690–4703. [CrossRef]
- Borges, B. N.; Rocha, O.; Santos-Wisniewski, M. J. Protozooplankton Communities in Tropical Reservoirs: Structure, Diversity and Response to Environmental Gradients. Acta Limnol. Bras. 2017, 29, e107. [CrossRef]
- Foissner, W.; Berger, H. A User-Friendly Guide to the Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) Commonly Used by Hydrobiologists as Bioindicators in Rivers, Lakes, and Waste Waters, with Notes on Their Ecology. Freshwater Biol. 1996, 35 (2), 375–482. [CrossRef]
- In An Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa, 2nd ed.; Lee, J. J.; Leedale, G. F.; Bradbury, P., Eds. An Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa, 2nd ed.; Society of Protozoologists: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2000.
- Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D. A. T.; Ryan, P. D. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4 (1), 1–9.
- Doledec, S.; Chessel, D.; Gimaret-Carpentier, C. Niche Separation in Community Analysis: A New Method. Ecology 2000, 81 (10), 2914–2927. [CrossRef]
- Morris, E. M.; Patel, A. S. Application of Multivariate Analysis in Water Quality Assessment: Understanding Complex Interactions among Environmental Variables. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195 (2), 150. [CrossRef]
- Thioulouse, J.; Chessel, D.; Dolédec, S.; Olivier, J. M. ADE-4: A Multivariate Analysis and Graphical Display Software. Stat. Comput. 1997, 7, 75–83.
- López, S. R.; Ríos, J. C. Application of Protozoan Communities as Bioindicators for Assessing Water Quality in Industrial and Urban Areas. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Smith, H. G.; Bobrov, A.; Lara, E. Diversity and Biogeography of Testate Amoebae: A Review. Protist 2018, 169 (3), 337–357. [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M. J.; Crist, T. O.; Chase, J. M.; Vellend, M.; Inouye, B. D.; Freestone, A. L.; Sanders, N. J.; Cornell, H. V.; Comita, L. S.; Davies, K. F.; et al. Navigating the Multiple Meanings of β Diversity: A Roadmap for the Practicing Ecologist. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14 (1), 19–28. [CrossRef]
- Dufour, A.; Arnot, J. A. Biological Indicators of Water Quality in Rivers and Reservoirs. Water Res. 2018, *134*, 234–245. [CrossRef]
- Anderson, R. J.; Johnson, L. M. Seasonal Dynamics of Protozoan Communities in Subtropical Lotic Systems: A Multi-Year Assessment. J. Freshwater Ecol. 2023, 38 (1), 45–62. [CrossRef]
- Lennon, J. T.; Jones, S. E. Microbial Community Structure and Function in Aquatic Ecosystems: The Role of Protozoa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2011, 56 (5), 1539–1548. [CrossRef]
- Wey, J. K.; Jürgens, K.; Weitere, M. Seasonal and Spatial Patterns of Protozooplankton in a Shallow, Temperate Lake: Implications for Microbial Food Web Dynamics. Freshwater Biol. 2020, 65 (4), 712–727. [CrossRef]
- Clements, W. H.; Kiffney, P. M. Effects of Pollutants on Aquatic Communities: A Review of the Literature. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1994, 32 (1), 65–85. [CrossRef]
- Harris, R.; Thompson, G. J. Impacts of Phosphate Enrichment on Freshwater Ecosystems: From Algal Blooms to Biodiversity Loss. J. Appl. Ecol. 2022, 59 (5), 1234–1247. [CrossRef]
- Behmel, S.; Krol, M. S.; Van Vliet, M. T. H. Water Quality and Availability in a Changing World: A Review of the Potential Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 66, 106–117. [CrossRef]
- Madoni, P. Protozoa in Wastewater Treatment Processes: A Minireview. Ital. J. Zool. 2011, 78 (1), 3–11. [CrossRef]
- Smith, A. J.; Lee, C. H. Effects of pH Fluctuations on Freshwater Ecosystems: Implications for Aquatic Health and Ecosystem Structure. Aquat. Ecol. 2023, 57 (2), 215–230. [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wang, H. Effects of Water Hardness on Freshwater Ecosystems: A Review of Calcium and Magnesium Impacts on Aquatic Biota. Water Res. 2022, 215, 118237. [CrossRef]
- Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP). Programa de Manejo de la Sierra de Tamaulipas; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020.
- Kebede, S.; McKay, L.; Vass, K. Assessment of Water Quality Using Biological Indicators in Freshwater Ecosystems. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192 (11), 712. [CrossRef]
- Gomez, E. R.; White, R. M. Impact of Land Use on Water Quality in Tropical Watersheds: A Case Study from Northeastern Mexico. J. Hydrol. 2021, 598, 126237. [CrossRef]
- Pawlowski, J.; Kelly-Quinn, M.; Altermatt, F.; Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil, L.; Beja, P.; Boggero, A.; Borja, A.; Bouchez, A.; Cordier, T.; Domaizon, I.; et al. The Future of Biotic Indices in the Ecogenomic Era: Integrating (e)DNA Metabarcoding in Biological Assessment of Aquatic Ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 1295–1310. [CrossRef]
- Morris, E. M.; Patel, A. S. Application of Multivariate Analysis in Water Quality Assessment: Understanding Complex Interactions among Environmental Variables. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195 (2), 150. [CrossRef]


| Code | Name | Description | Coordinates |
| RC-1 | Corona River - Final | 2,460 m downstream from the bridge on the Victoria-Matamoros highway | 23° 55’ 24.40” N; 98° 55’ 0.06” W |
| RC-2 | San Felipe River - Tributary of RC | On access to the town of Güémez | 23° 55’ 17.21” N; 99° 0’ 29.27” W |
| RC-3 | Corona River - Middle Reference | On bridge of the Victoria-Monterrey highway | 23° 58’ 8.54” N; 99° 6’ 24.33” W |
| RC-4 | Corona River - Reference | Interejidal highway - Upstream from Ejido El Alamito | 23° 0’ 24.35” N; 99° 18’ 38.43” W |
| RP-1 | Purificación River - Final | Highway bridge in the town of Nuevo Padilla | 23° 2’ 20.49” N; 98° 5’ 1.71” W |
| RP-2 | Purificación River - Middle | On highway bridge of the town of El Barretal | 23° 4’ 46.57” N; 99° 7’ 22.91” W |
| RP-3 | Purificación River - Reference | 11 km before the town of El Tomaseño, and 2 km upstream from the river | 24° 10’ 53.11” N; 99° 21’ 42.38” W |
| RPL-1 | Pilón River - Reference | 10 km north of the town of Villagrán along the road to the town of Garza Valdés | 24° 30’ 39.17” N; 99° 24’ 1.46” W |
| RPL-2 | Pilón River - Middle | Along La Soledad-San Carlos highway, 15.73 km north (Camacho Viejo) | 24° 12’ 28.49” N; 99° 1’ 9.57” W |
| RPL-3 | Pilón River - Final | Victoria-Matamoros highway, 6.5 km north of Nuevo Padilla | 24° 5’ 33.51” N; 99° 51’ 37.68” W |
| PVG-1 | Vicente Guerrero Reservoir - Pilón River confluence | River access | 24° 2’ 57.3” N; 98° 47’ 55.9” W |
| PVG-2 | Vicente Guerrero Reservoir - Purificación River confluence | River access | 24° 0’ 48.5” N; 98° 46’ 56.5” W |
| PVG-3 | Vicente Guerrero Reservoir - Corona River confluence | River access | 24° 56’ 12.8” N; 98° 48’ 36.5” W |
| PVG-4 | Vicente Guerrero Reservoir - Center | River access | 23° 57’ 51.1” N; 98° 44’ 34.9” W |
| PVG-5 | Vicente Guerrero Reservoir - Dam | River access | 23° 57’ 53.1” N; 98° 41’ 6.11” W |
| Phylum | Morphospecies | Rivers | ||||
| San Felipe | Corona | Purificación | Pilón | Total | ||
| Ciliophora | Loxodes sp. | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Chilodonella sp. | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 18 | |
| Euplotes sp. | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | |
| Oxytricha sp. | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | |
| Stylonychia sp. | 6 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 17 | |
| Halteria sp. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| Coleps sp. | 6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 13 | |
| Frontonia sp. | 6 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 18 | |
| Paramecium sp. | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 23 | |
| Vorticella sp. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
| Euglenozoa | Peranema sp. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Euglena sp. | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |
| Euglena deses | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | |
| Phacus sp. | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 12 | |
| Phacus pyrum | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 12 | |
| Percolozoa | Vahlkampfia sp. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Amoebozoa | Amoeba proteus | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Arcella sp. | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 25 | |
| Difflugia sp. | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 25 | |
| Astramoeba sp. | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 7 | |
| Choanozoa | Codosiga sp. | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| Bigyra | Actinophrys sol | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Ochrophyta | Oikomonas sp. | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 23 |
| Cryptophyta | Chilomonas sp. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 5 | 17 |
| Site (River) | February | April | June | August | October | December | Total |
| Corona | 14 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 76 |
| Pilón | 11 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 65 |
| Purificación | 11 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 65 |
| San Felipe | 17 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 90 |
| Total | 53 | 47 | 49 | 50 | 47 | 50 | 296 |
| Rivers | San Felipe | Corona | Purificación | Pilón |
| San Felipe | 100 | |||
| Corona | 46.2 | 100 | ||
| Purificación | 62.5 | 48.0 | 100 | |
| Pilón | 54.5 | 46.2 | 69.2 | 100 |
| Morphospecies | InerO | OMI | T1 | T2 | p |
| Loxodes sp. | 11.47 | 1.792 | 4.71 | 4.964 | 0.1729 |
| Chilodonella sp. | 12.07 | 0.5706 | 6.071 | 5.43 | 0.0729 |
| Euplotes sp. | 10.5 | 1.027 | 6.058 | 3.414 | 0.4769 |
| Oxytricha sp. | 12.53 | 1.773 | 2.674 | 8.083 | 0.1807 |
| Stylonychia sp. | 12.92 | 0.3122 | 3.76 | 8.851 | 0.4069 |
| Halteria sp. | 14.53 | 1.344 | 9.279 | 3.907 | 0.4581 |
| Coleps sp. | 10.76 | 0.5381 | 0.5506 | 9.667 | 0.3446 |
| Frontonia sp. | 12.62 | 0.3042 | 3.433 | 8.885 | 0.3628 |
| Paramecium sp. | 12.45 | 0.2527 | 4.561 | 7.633 | 0.1857 |
| Vorticella sp. | 13.91 | 1.379 | 4.636 | 7.897 | 0.0329 |
| Peranema sp. | 11.71 | 1.857 | 3.72 | 6.134 | 0.1647 |
| Euglena sp. | 10.2 | 1.482 | 3.05 | 5.665 | 0.1816 |
| Euglena deses | 11.71 | 1.857 | 3.72 | 6.134 | 0.1647 |
| Phacus sp. | 11.65 | 0.7047 | 4.073 | 6.869 | 0.2371 |
| Phacus pyrum | 12.25 | 0.566 | 3.674 | 8.013 | 0.3971 |
| Vahlkampfia sp. | 11.71 | 1.857 | 3.72 | 6.134 | 0.1647 |
| Amoeba proteus | 9.34 | 0.8715 | 4.121 | 4.348 | 0.4723 |
| Arcella sp. | 11.57 | 0.1866 | 3.833 | 7.554 | 0.2084 |
| Difflugia sp. | 11.57 | 0.1866 | 3.833 | 7.554 | 0.2084 |
| Astramoeba sp. | 9.34 | 0.8715 | 4.121 | 4.348 | 0.4723 |
| Codosiga sp. | 10.39 | 0.5223 | 0.8365 | 9.033 | 0.3659 |
| Actinophrys sol | 10.59 | 1.033 | 3.722 | 5.831 | 0.3604 |
| Oikomonas sp. | 12.29 | 0.2257 | 4.79 | 7.275 | 0.2451 |
| Chilomonas sp. | 7.189 | 0.1037 | 0.4459 | 6.639 | 0.9285 |
| Variable | Code | Axis 1 | Axis 2 |
| Conductivity (µS/cm) | Cond | 0.0587 | 0.2211 |
| Hydrogen Potential | pH | -0.2849 | 0.2240 |
| Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) | DO | -0.0025 | 0.0591 |
| Total nitrogen (mg/L) | N-Total | -0.2094 | -0.1054 |
| Nitrates (mg/L) | NO₃⁻ | -0.1998 | -0.1207 |
| Total phosphorus (mg/L) | P-Total | -0.1864 | -0.1006 |
| Phosphates (mg/L) | PO₄³⁻ | -0.1797 | -0.1042 |
| Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO₃) | Alc | -0.2566 | 0.0925 |
| Total hardness (mg/L CaCO₃) | Hard | -0.1797 | 0.0496 |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).