Stimulation of phytoplankton production in coastal waters by natural rainfall inputs: Nutritional and trophic implications

Paerl, Hans W.; Rudek, J.; Mallin, Michael A.

doi:10.1007/bf01319823

Cited by 120 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These shifts result from the temporal patterns of allochthonous N and P supplied from remote watersheds, local sediments and, though not included here, local watersheds (Jordan et al 1991a, b) and the atmosphere (Paerl et al 1990). Nutrient stored internally by phytoplankton arriving at the seaward boundary is also potentially an important determinant of temporal patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal progression of factors limiting phytoplankton pigment biomass in the Rhode River estuary, Maryland (USA). II. Modeling N versus P limitation

Gallegos¹,

Jordan²

1997

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pre\~iously reported experiments demonstrated that N addition enhanced phytoplankton growth rate more frequently and to a greater extent than did addition of P alone. Here w e develop a modcl of nutrient-limited net phytoplankton production for the Rhode River estuary, Maryland (USA). to determine the sensitivity of observed patterns to changes in the manner in which nutrients are delivered to the system The model successfully reproduced the seasonal pattern of phytoplankton chlorophyll variation for an average year, the relatlve timlng of P and N limitat~on, and the ~nterannual val-1-ability in the timing of the shift from P to N limitation. Manipulat~on of nutrient sources In the model suggested that the disappearance of N at the seaward boundary of the estuary is sufficient to produce the shift from P to N I~inltation. Raising the modeled N:P ratio of sediment nutrient release to a value greater than that of the phytoplankton biolnass caused CO-liinltation by both N and P in the sumnler, but no manipulations produced lim~tation solely by P in the summer. In the model, different computed indicators of nutrient limitation (i.e. ratios of available N:P, physiological ~ndicators of internal nutrient pools, and computed growth stimulation by nutrient additions) generally identified the same nutrient as limiting at a particular time. The model demonstrates how observed shifts in nutrient limitation result from changes In delivery of N and P from the watershed, from the sediment, and from incoming phytoplankton.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal progression of factors limiting phytoplankton pigment biomass in the Rhode River estuary, Maryland (USA). II. Modeling N versus P limitation

Gallegos¹,

Jordan²

1997

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24, as well as all the components of the filter. Climatically driven pulse inputs of nutrients, either from terrestrial runoff (Hama & Handa 1994) or atmospheric deposition (Paerl et al 1990), can trigger responses such as algal blooms and anoxia. Conversely, these expressions of eutrophication are weakest during climate anomalies of low precipitation and nutrient runoff (Rask et al 1999).…”

Section: A View To the Future: How Can This Science Advance?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem

Cloern¹

2001

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

2,397

1,533

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary focus of coastal science during the past 3 decades has been the question: How does anthropogenic nutrient enrichment cause change in the structure or function of nearshore coastal ecosystems? This theme of environmental science is recent, so our conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem continues to change rapidly. In this review, I suggest that the early (Phase I) conceptual model was strongly influenced by limnologists, who began intense study of lake eutrophication by the 1960s. The Phase I model emphasized changing nutrient input as a signal, and responses to that signal as increased phytoplankton biomass and primary production, decomposition of phytoplanktonderived organic matter, and enhanced depletion of oxygen from bottom waters. Coastal research in recent decades has identified key differences in the responses of lakes and coastal-estuarine ecosystems to nutrient enrichment. The contemporary (Phase II) conceptual model reflects those differences and includes explicit recognition of (1) system-specific attributes that act as a filter to modulate the responses to enrichment (leading to large differences among estuarine-coastal systems in their sensitivity to nutrient enrichment); and (2) a complex suite of direct and indirect responses including linked changes in: water transparency, distribution of vascular plants and biomass of macroalgae, sediment biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling, nutrient ratios and their regulation of phytoplankton community composition, frequency of toxic/harmful algal blooms, habitat quality for metazoans, reproduction/growth/survival of pelagic and benthic invertebrates, and subtle changes such as shifts in the seasonality of ecosystem functions. Each aspect of the Phase II model is illustrated here with examples from coastal ecosystems around the world. In the last section of this review I present one vision of the next (Phase III) stage in the evolution of our conceptual model, organized around 5 questions that will guide coastal science in the early 21st century: (1) How do system-specific attributes constrain or amplify the responses of coastal ecosystems to nutrient enrichment? (2) How does nutrient enrichment interact with other stressors (toxic contaminants, fishing harvest, aquaculture, nonindigenous species, habitat loss, climate change, hydrologic manipulations) to change coastal ecosystems? (3) How are responses to multiple stressors linked? (4) How does human-induced change in the coastal zone impact the Earth system as habitat for humanity and other species? (5) How can a deeper scientific understanding of the coastal eutrophication problem be applied to develop tools for building strategies at ecosystem restoration or rehabilitation? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 210: 223-253, 2001 mobilize the nutrient elements nitrogen and phosphorus through land clearing, production and applications of fertilizer, discharge of human waste, animal production, and combustion of fossil fuels (e.g. Nixon 1995). As a result of these activities, surface wat...

show abstract

“…Klein and Coste, 1984) and atmospheric inputs (e.g. Paerl et al, 1990). Additional studies involving the determination of nanomolar nutrient concentrations are clearly required to con"rm the temporal association between nutrient supply and phytoplankton growth.…”

Section: Temporal Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Basin-scale variability of phytoplankton biomass, production and growth in the Atlantic Ocean

Marañón

Holligan

Varela

et al. 2000

Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers

198

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The latitudinal distributions of phytoplankton biomass, composition and production in the Atlantic Ocean were determined along a 10,000-km transect from 503N to 503S in October 1995, May 1996 and October 1996. Highest levels of euphotic layer-integrated chlorophyll a (Chl a) concentration (75}125 mg Chl m\ ) were found in North Atlantic temperate waters and in the upwelling region o! NW Africa, whereas typical Chl a concentrations in oligotrophic waters ranged from 20 to 40 mg Chl m\ . The estimated concentration of surface phytoplankton carbon (C) biomass was 5}15 mg C m\ in the oligotrophic regions and increased over 40 mg C m\ in richer areas. The deep chlorophyll maximum did not seem to constitute a biomass or productivity maximum, but resulted mainly from an increase in the Chl a to C ratio and represented a relatively small contribution to total integrated productivity. Primary production rates varied from 50 mg C m\ d\ at the central gyres to 500}1000 mg C m\ d\ in upwelling and higher latitude regions, where faster growth rates ( ) of phytoplankton ( '0.5 d\ ) were also measured. In oligotrophic waters, microalgal growth was consistently slow [surface averaged 0.21$0.02 d\ (mean$SE)], representing (20% of maximum expected growth. These results argue against the view that the subtropical gyres are characterized by high phytoplankton turnover rates. The latitudinal variations in were inversely correlated to the changes in the depth of the nitracline and positively correlated to those of the integrated nitrate concentration, supporting the case for the role of nutrients in controlling the large-scale distribution of phytoplankton growth rates. We observed a large degree of temporal 0967-0637/00/$ -see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 7 -0 6 3 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 8 7 -4 variability in the phytoplankton dynamics in the oligotrophic regions: productivity and growth rates varied in excess of 8-fold, whereas microalgal biomass remained relatively constant. The observed spatial and temporal variability in the biomass speci"c rate of photosynthesis is at least three times larger than currently assumed in most satellite-based models of global productivity.

show abstract

Stimulation of phytoplankton production in coastal waters by natural rainfall inputs: Nutritional and trophic implications

Abstract: Abstract. Recent evaluations of estuarine and coastal nutrient budgets implicate atmospheric deposition as a potentially significant (20 to

Cited by 120 publications

References 25 publications

Seasonal progression of factors limiting phytoplankton pigment biomass in the Rhode River estuary, Maryland (USA). II. Modeling N versus P limitation

Seasonal progression of factors limiting phytoplankton pigment biomass in the Rhode River estuary, Maryland (USA). II. Modeling N versus P limitation

Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem

Basin-scale variability of phytoplankton biomass, production and growth in the Atlantic Ocean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About