Hydrobiologia

, Volume 206, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

The effect of fetch on periphyton spatial variation

  • Antonella Cattaneo
Article

Abstract

The marked spatial variation in periphyton could reflect differences in exposure, grazing or substratum. To determine if any of these factors was significant, I studied the relationship between the degree of exposure to waves (measured as fetch), grazing intensity (measured as invertebrate biomass) and spatial variation in periphyton biomass in sites of similar substratum along an island in the central mesotrophic basin of Lake Memphremagog (Québec). In spring, there was a positive relationship between fetch and periphyton biomass both on stones and on artificial substrata. This effect was especially strong for diatoms, for algae between 100–1000 µm3, for planktonic forms and for filamentous and long-stalked species. In spring, water renewal encouraged growth of these forms, but the effect disappeared in summer, coincident with silica depletion. Grazers, which were not important in the spatial variation observed in spring, probably contributed to the sudden decline of periphyton in the exposed sites in summer. Observations in nearby lakes indicate that these patterns may be general.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton, D. R. & J. C. H. Carter, 1982. Shallow-water epilithic invertebrate communities of eastern Georgian Bay, Ontario, in relation to exposure to wave action. Can. J. Zool. 60: 984–993.Google Scholar
  2. Beach Erosion Board, 1972. Waves in inland reservoirs. U.S. Army Corps Eng., Beach Erosion Bd Tech. Memo 132.Google Scholar
  3. Bergman, M. & R. H. Peters, 1980. A simple reflectance method for the measurement of particulate pigment in lake water, and its application to phosphorus-chlorophyll-seston relationships. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37: 111–114.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S. D. & A. P. Austin, 1973. Spatial and temporal variation in periphyton and physico-chemical conditions in the littoral of a lake. Arch. Hydrobiol. 71: 181–232.Google Scholar
  5. Castenholz, R. W., 1961. An evaluation of a submerged glas method of estimating production of attached algae. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 14: 155–159.Google Scholar
  6. Cattaneo, A., 1983. Grazing on epiphytes. Limnol Oceanogr. 28: 124–132.Google Scholar
  7. Cattaneo, A., 1987. Periphyton in lakes of different trophy. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 44: 296–303.Google Scholar
  8. Cattaneo, A. & J. Kalff, 1978. Seasonal changes in the epiphyte community of natural and artificial macrophytes in Lake Memphremagog (Que. & Vt.). Hydrobiologia 60: 135–144.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, P. A., 1987. Nearshore occurrence of submersed aquatic macrophytes in relation to wave action. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 44: 1666–1669.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, E. J., 1988. Has the role of substratum been under estimated for algal distribution patterns in freshwater ecosystems. Biofouling 1: 49–63.Google Scholar
  11. Dillon, P. J. & F. H. Rigler, 1974. The phosphorus-chlorophyll relationship in lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 19: 767–773.Google Scholar
  12. Duarte, C. M. & J. Kalff, 1986. Littoral slope as a predictor of the maximum biomass of submerged macrophyte communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31: 1072–1080.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, J. L., T. O. Olaug & T. A. Olson, 1969. The ecology of periphyton in Western Lake Superior. 1. Taxonomy and distribution. Bull. Water Resour. Res. Cent. Univ. Minn. 14: 1–97.Google Scholar
  14. Hakanson, L., 1981. A manual of lake morphometry. Springer-Verlag. New York, NY, 78 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Hoagland, K. H., 1983. Shot-term standing crop and diversity of periphytic diatoms in a eutrophic reservoir. J. Phycol. 19: 30–38.Google Scholar
  16. Horner, R. R. & E. B. Welch, 1981. Stream periphyton development in relation to current velocity and nutrients. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 38: 449–457.Google Scholar
  17. Kairesalo, T., 1983. Dynamics of epiphytic communities on Equisetum fluviatile L.: Response to short-term variation in environmental conditions. In R. G. Wetzel (ed.), Periphyton of freshwater ecosystems. Hydrobiologia/Dev. Hydrobiol. 17: 153–160.Google Scholar
  18. Keddy, P. A., 1982. Quantifying within-lake gradients of wave energy: Interrelationships of wave energy, substrate particle size and shoreline plants in Axe Lake, Ontario. Aquat. Bot. 14: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Komar, P. D., 1976. Beach processes and sedimentation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 429 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Lamberti, G. A/ & V. H. Resh, 1983. Stream periphyton and insect herbivores: an experimental study of grazing by a caddisfly population. Ecology 64: 1124–1135.Google Scholar
  21. Liaw, W. K. & H. R. MacCrimmon, 1978. Assessing changes in biomass of riverbed periphyton. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 63: 155–171.Google Scholar
  22. Lock, M. A. & P. H. John, 1979. The effect of flow pattern on uptake of phosphorus by river periphyton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 376–383.Google Scholar
  23. Loeb, S. L., 1981. An in situ method for measuring the primary productivity and standing crop of the epilithic periphyton community in lentic systems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26: 394–399.Google Scholar
  24. Lund, J. W., 1964. Primary production and periodicity of phytoplankton. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 15: 37–56.Google Scholar
  25. McCauley, E., 1984. The estimation of the abundance and biomass of zooplankton in samples. In J. A. Downing and F. H. Rigler (eds.), A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in freshwater. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 228–265.Google Scholar
  26. McIntire, C. D., 1966. Some effect of current velocity on periphyton communities in laboratory streams. Hydrobiologia 27: 559–570.Google Scholar
  27. Menzel, D. W. & H. Corwin, 1965. The measurement of total phosphorus based on the liberation of organically bound fractions by persulfate oxidation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10: 280–282.Google Scholar
  28. Newcombe, C. L., 1950. A quantitative study of attachment materials in Sodon Lake, Michigan. Ecology 31: 204–215.Google Scholar
  29. Pennak, R. W., 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. J. Wiley & Sons. New York. 803 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Pieczynska, E., 1965. Variation in the primary productivity of plankton and periphyton in the littoral zone of lakes. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci. 13: 219–225.Google Scholar
  31. Reuter, J. E., S. L. Loeb & C. R. Goldman, 1986. The physiological ecology of nuisance algae in an oligotrophic lake. In L. V. Evans & K. D. Hoagland (eds.). Algal Biofouling. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam: 115–127.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds, C. S., 1984. The ecology of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 384 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Silvester, N. R. & M. A. Sleigh, 1985. The forces on microorganisms at surfaces in flowing water. Freshwat. Biol. 15: 433–448.Google Scholar
  34. Smock, L. A., 1980. Relationships between body size and biomass of aquatic insects. Freshwat. Biol. 10: 375–383.Google Scholar
  35. Strickland, J. D. H. & T. R. Parsons, 1972. A practical handbook of seawater analysis. 2nd. ed. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 167: 310 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Tanimizu, K., T. Miura & M. Higashi, 1981. Effect of water movement on the photosynthetic rate of an algal community attached to reed stems. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 21: 584–589.Google Scholar
  37. Whitford, L. A., 1960. The current effect and growth of freshwater algae. Trans. am. Microsc. Soc. 79: 302–309.Google Scholar
  38. Young, O. W., 1945. A limnological investigation of periphyton in Douglas Lake, Michigan. Trans. am. Microsc. Soc. 64: 1–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonella Cattaneo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations