Skip to main content
Log in

Phytoplankton Kinetics in the Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model

  • Published:
Water Quality and Ecosystems Modeling

Abstract

The CE-Qual-ICM model computes phytoplankton biomass and production as a function of temperature, light, and nutrients. Biomass is computed as carbon while inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica are considered as nutrients. Model formulations for production, metabolism, predation, nutrient limitation, and light limitation are detailed. Methods of parameter determination and parameter values are presented. Results of model application to a ten-year period in Chesapeake Bay indicate the model provides reasonable representations of observed biomass, nutrient concentrations, and limiting factors. Computed primary production agrees with observed under light-limited conditions. Under strongly nutrient-limited conditions, computed product is less than observed. The production characteristics of the model are similar to behavior reported for several similar models. Process omitted from the model that may account for production shortfalls include variable algal stoichiometry, use of urea as nutrient, and vertical migration by phytoplankton.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • R. Ambrose, T. Wool, J. Martin, J. Connolly, and R. Schanz, WASP4, A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model-Model Theory, User's Manual, and Programmer's Guide(Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens GA, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Bartleson, W. Boynton, S. Brandt, J. Hagy, K. Hartman, W. Kemp, J. Luo, C. Madden, M. Meyers, T. Rippetoe, and R. Wetzel, Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Modeling Program Technical Synthesis Report 1993-1994(US Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis MD, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Bienfang, P. Harrison, and L. Quarmby, “Sinking rate respone to depletion of nitrate, phosphate, and silicate in four marine diatoms,” Marine Biology 67, 295–302 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Boynton and W. Kemp, “Nutrient regeneration and oxygen consumption along an estuarine salinity gradient,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 23, 45–55 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Cerco, “Response of Chesapeake Bay to nutrient load reductions,” Journal of Environmental Engineering 121(8), 549–557 (1995a).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Cerco, “Simulation of long-term trends in Chesapeake Bay eutrophication,” Journal of Environmental Engineering 121(4), 298–310 (1995b).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Cerco and M. Meyers, “Tributary refinements to the Chesapeake Bay Model,” Journal of Environmental Engineering 126(2), 164–174 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Cerco and T. Cole, “Three-dimensional eutrophication model of Chesapeake Bay,” Journal of Environmental Engineering 119(6), 1006–10025 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Cerco and T. Cole, Three-Dimensional Eutrophication Model of Chesapeake Bay, Technical Report EL-94-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Cloern, C. Grenz, and L. Vidergar-Lucas, “An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyll:carbon ratio-the conversion factor between productivity and growth rate,” Limnology and Oceanography 40(7), 1313–1321 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Cole and E. Buchak, CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged, Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 2.0, Instruction Report EL-95-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Davis, N. Breitner, and P. Harrison, “Continuous culture of marine diatoms under silicon limitation. 3. a model of Si-limited diatom growth,” Limnology and Oceanography 23, 41–52 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • D. DiToro, S. O'Connor, and R. Thomann, A dynamic model of the phytoplankton population in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Nonequilibrium systems in water chemistry(American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1971), pp 131–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. DiToro and J. Fitzpatrick, Chesapeake Bay Sediment Flux Model, Contract Report EL-93-2, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Doney, D. Glover, and R. Najjar, “A new coupled, one-dimensional biological-physical model for the upper ocean: Applications to the JGOFS Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study (BATS) site,” Deep Sea Research II, 43(2-3), 591–624 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Donigian, B. Bicknell, A. Patwardhan, L. Linker, D. Alegre, C. Chang, and R. Reynolds, Watershed Model Application to Calculate Bay Nutrient Loadings(Chesapeake Bay Program Office, US Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, MD, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Eppley, O. Holm-Hansen, and J. Strickland, “Some observations on the vertical migration of dinoflagellates,” Journal of Phycology 4, 333–340 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Eppley, J. Rogers, and J. McCarthy, “Half-saturation constants for uptake of nitrate and ammonium by marine phytoplankton,” Limnology and Oceanography 14(6), 912–920 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Fasham, H. Ducklow, and S. McKelvie, “A nitrogen-based model of plankton dynamics in the oceanic mixed layer,” Journal of Marine Research 48, 591–639 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Fisher, E. Peele, J. Ammerman, and L. Harding, “Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 82, 51–63 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Foree and P. McCarty, “Anaerobic decomposition of algae,” Environmental Science and Technology 4, 842–849 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Garber, “Laboratory study of nitrogen and phosphorus remineralization during the decomposition of coastal plankton and seston, Estuarine,” Coastal and Shelf Science 18, 685–702 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Glibert, D. Conley, T. Fisher, L. Harding, and T. Malone, “Dynamics of the 1990 winter/spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 122, 27–43 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Grill and F. Richards, “Nutrient regeneration from phytoplankton decomposing in seawater,” Journal of Marine Research 22, 51–69 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Harding, B. Meeson, and T. Fisher, “Phytoplankton production in two east coast estuaries: photosynthesis-light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware bays,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23, 773–806 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Heaney and R. Eppley, “Light, temperature and nitrogen as interacting factors affecting diel vertical migrations of dinoflagellates in culture,” Journal of Plankton Research 3(2), 331–344 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Hutchinson, A Treatise on Limnology, Volume II(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967), pp. 245–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • HydroQual., A steady-state coupled hydrodynamic/water quality model of the eutrophication and anoxia process in Chesapeake Bay, Final Report, HydroQual Inc., Mahwah, NJ (1987).

  • A. Jassby and T. Platt, “Mathematical formulation of the relationship between photosynthesis and light for phytoplankton,” Limnology and Oceanography 21, 540–547 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Johnson, K. Kim, R. Heath, B. Hsieh, and L. Butler, “Validation of a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of Chesapeake Bay,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 199(1), 2–20 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Keefe, “The contribution of inorganic compounds to the particulate carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in suspended matter and surface sediments of Chesapeake Bay,” Estuaries 17(1B), 122–130 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Kemp, E. Smith, M. DiPasquale, and W. Boynton, “Organic carbon balance and net ecosystem metabolism in Chesapeake Bay,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 150, 229–248 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Laws and J. Archie, “Appropriate use of regression analysis in marine biology,” Marine Biology 65, 13–16 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Laws and M. Chalup, “A microalgal growth model,” Limnology and Oceanography 35(3), 597–608 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Leonard, “A stable and accurate convection modelling procedure based on quadratic upstream interpolation,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 19, 59–98 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Lomas and P. Glibert, “Temperature regulation of nitrate uptake: A novel hypothesis about nitrate uptake and reduction in cool-water diatoms,” Limnology and Oceanography 44(3), 556–572 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Malone, L. Crocker, S. Pike, and B. Wendler, “Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 48, 235–249 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Malone, D. Conley, T. Fisher, P. Gliert, L. Harding, and K. Sellner, “Scales of nutrient-limited phytoplankton productivity in Chesapeake Bay,” Estuaries 19(2B), 371–385 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Marshall and R. Lacouture, “Seasonal patterns of growth and composition of phytoplankton in the lower Chesapeake Bay and vicinity,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23, 115–130 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Miller, D. Penry, and P. Glibert, “The impact of trophic interactions on rates of nitrogen regeneration and grazing in Chesapeake Bay,” Limnology and Oceanography 40(5), 1005–1011 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Monod, “The growth of bacterial cultures,” Annual Review of Microbiology 3, 371–394 (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  • D. McGillicuddy, J. McCarthy, and A. Robinson, “Coupled physical and biological modeling of the spring bloom in the North Atlantic (I): model formulation and one dimensional bloom processes,” Deep Sea Research I 42(8), 1313–1357 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Moore and T. Villareal, “Size-ascent relationships in positively buoyant marine diatoms,” Limnology and Oceanography 41(7), 1514–1520 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Morales, “Carbon and nitrogen content of copepod faecal pellets: effect of food concentration and feeding behavior,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 36, 107–114 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. (W. B Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1971), pp. 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Otsuki and T. Hanya, “Production of dissolved organic matter from dead green algal cells. I. aerobic microbial decomposition,” Limnology and Oceanography 17, 248–257 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Parsons, M. Takahashi, and B. Hargrave, Biological Oceanographic Processes, 3rd ed. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Pett, “Kinetics of microbial mineralization of organic carbon from detrital Skeletonema Costatumcells,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 52, 123–128 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Pritchard, “Observations of circulation in coastal plain estuaries.” Estuaries. G. Lauff ed. (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, 1967), pp. 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Redfield, B. Ketchum, and F. Richards, “The influence of organisms on the composition of sea-water.” The Sea Volume II(Interscience Publishers, New York, 1966), pp. 26–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Richardson and J. Cullen, “Changes in buoyancy and chemical composition during growth of a coastal marine diatom: ecological and biogeochemical consequences,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 128, 77–90 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Ricker, “Linear regressions in fishery research,” Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30, 409–434 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • U. Riebesell, “Comparison of sinking and sedimentation rate measurements in a diatom winter/spring bloom,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 54, 109–119 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Riemann, P. Simonsen, and L. Stensgaard, “The carbon and chlorophyll content of phytoplankton from various nutrient regimes,” Journal of Plankton Research, 11(5), 1037–045 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Schubel, “Turbidity maximum of the northern Chesapeake Bay,” Science 161, 1013–1015 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Taft, W. Taylor, and J. McCarthy, “Uptake and release of phosphorus by phytoplankton in the Chesapeake Bay estuary, USA,” Marine Biology 33, 21–32 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Tang and R. Peters, “The allometry of algal respiration,” Journal of Plankton Research 17(2), 303–315 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Thomann and J. Fitzpatrick, Calibration and Verification of a Mathematical Model of the Eutrophication of the Potomac Estuary(HydroQual Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Waite, P. Thompson, and P. Harrison, “Does energy control the sinking rates of marine diatoms?.” Limnology and Oceanography 37(3), 468–477 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Y. Wen and R. Peters, “Empirical models of phosphorus and nitrogen excretion by zooplankton,” Limnology and oceanography 39(7), 1669–1679 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Westrich and R. Berner, “The role of sedimentary organic matter in bacterial sulfate reduction: the G model tested,” Limnology and Oceanography 29, 236–249 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Wheeler, P. Gilbert, and J. McCarthy, “Ammonium uptake and incorporation by Chesapeake Bay phytoplankton: short-term uptake kinetics,” Limnology and Oceanography 27, 1113–1128 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cerco, C.F. Phytoplankton Kinetics in the Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model. Water Quality and Ecosystem Modeling 1, 5–49 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013964231397

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013964231397

Navigation