Marine Biology

, Volume 126, Issue 4, pp 791–801 | Cite as

Succession and growth limitation of phytoplankton in the Gulf of Bothnia (Baltic Sea)

  • A. Andersson
  • S. Hajdu
  • P. Haecky
  • J. Kuparinen
  • J. Wikner


A one year field study of four stations in the Gulf of Bothnia during 1991 showed that the biomass was ca. two times, and primary productivity ca. four times, lower in the north (Bothnian Bay) than in the south (Bothnian Sea) during the summer. Nutrient addition experiments indicated phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton in the Bothanian Bay and the coastal areas in the northern Bothnian Sea, but nitrogen limitation in the open Bothanian Sea. A positive correlation between the phosphate concentration and the production/biomass ratio of phytoplankton was demonstrated, which partly explained the differences in the specific growth rate of the phytoplankton during the summer. Differences in photosynthetic active radiation between the stations also showed a covariation with the primary productivity. The relative importance of nutrient or light limitation for photosynthetic carbon fixation could not, however, the conclusively determined from this study. Marked differences in phytoplankton species composition from north to south were also observed. The number of dominating species was higher in the Bothnian Sea than in the Bothnian Bay. The distribution of some species could be explained as due to nutrient availability (e.g. Nodularia spumigena, Aphanizomenon sp.), while salinity probably limits the distribution of some limnic as well as marine species. The potentially toxic phytoplankton N. spumigena, Dinophysis acuminata and Chrysochromulina spp. were common in the Bothnian Sea but not in the Bothnian Bay. The pico- and nanoplankton biomass during late summer was higher than previously reported due to a revised carbon/volume ratio.


Biomass Phytoplankton Specific Growth Rate Photosynthetic Active Radiation Phytoplankton Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alasaarela E (1979) Ecology of phytoplankton in the north of the Bothnian Bay. Acta bot fenn 110: 63–70Google Scholar
  2. Andersson A, Haecky P, Hagström Å (1994) Effect of light and temperature on the growth of micro-, nano- and picoplankton. Impact on algal succession. Mar Biol 120: 511–520Google Scholar
  3. Andersson A, Rudehäll Å (1993) Proportion of plankton biomass in particulate organic carbon in the northern Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 95: 133–139Google Scholar
  4. Edler L (1979) Recommendations on methods for marine biological studies in the Baltic Sea. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll. The Baltic Marine Biolgists. Publ No. 5. Gotab, MalmöGoogle Scholar
  5. Forsgren G, Jansson M (1992) The turnover of river-transported iron, phosphorus and organic carbon in the Öre Estuary, northern Sweden. Hydrobiologia 235/236: 585–596Google Scholar
  6. Forsgren G, Jansson M (1993) Sedimentation of phosphorus in limnetic and estuarine environments in the River Öre system, northern Sweden. Hydrobiologia 253: 233–248Google Scholar
  7. Gargas E (1975) A manual for phytoplankton primary production studies in the Baltic. Baltic Marine Biologists. Publ. No. 2. Water Quality Institute, Horsholm, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  8. Grane'li E, Wallström K, Larsson U, Graneli W, Elmgren R (1990) Nutrient limitation of primary production in the Baltic Sea area. Ambio 19: 142–151Google Scholar
  9. Grasshoff K, Ehrhardt M, Kremling K (1983) Methods of seawater analysis. (2nd edn) Verlag Chemie, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  10. Hajdu S, Wille'n T (1985) Development of phytoplankton in the Gulf of Bothnia during May 1979–1984. The Swedish Marine Association, Annual Raport. SMHI Press, Norrköping (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  11. Hecky RF, Kilham P (1988) Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in freshwater and marine environments: a review of recent evidence on the effects of enrichment. Limnol Oceanogr 33: 796–822Google Scholar
  12. Huttunen M, Kononen K, Leppänen J-M, Wille'n T (1986) Phytoplankton of the open sea areas of the Gulf of Bothnia — observations of the first stage of the Baltic Monitoring Programme in 1979–1983. Publ. No. 68 of the Water Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 139–144Google Scholar
  13. Hällfors G, Niemi A, Ackefors H, Lassig J, Leppäkoski E (1981) Biological oceanography. I. Voipio A (ed) The Baltic Sea. Elsevier Oceanogr Ser 30: 219–274Google Scholar
  14. Janson S, Carpenter EJ, Bergman B (1994) Fine structure and immunopocalisation of proteins in Aphanizomenon sp. from the Baltic Sea. Eur J Phycol 29: 203–211Google Scholar
  15. Jerlov NG (1968) Optical oceanography. Elsevier Oceanography Series, No. 5. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones HLJ, Leadbeater BSC, Green JC (1994) Mixotrophy in haptophytes. In: Green JC, Leadbeater BSC (eds) The haptophyte algae. Systenatics Association, Special Volume No. 51. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 247–263Google Scholar
  17. Kangas P, Alasaarela E, Lax H-G, Jokela S, Storgård-Envall C (1993) Seasonal variation of primary production and nutrient concentrations in the coastal waters of the Bothnian Bay and the Quark. Aqua fenn 23: 165–176Google Scholar
  18. Karlsson K-G (1993) Climate overview. Gulf of Bothnia 1993. Environmental report No. 1. Umeå Marine Sciences Center, Umeå (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  19. Kivi K, Kaitata S, Kuosa H, Kuparinen J, Leskinen E, Lignell R, Mareussen B, Tamminer T (1993) Nutrient limitation and grazing control of the Baltic plankton community during annual succession. Limaol Oceanogr 38: 893–905Google Scholar
  20. Kononen K (1988) Phytoplankton summer assemblages in relation to environmental factors at the entrance of the Gulf of Finland during 1972–1985. Kieler Meeresforsch 6 (Sdhft): 281–294Google Scholar
  21. Kanonen K, Lahdes EO, Grönlund L (1993) Physiological and community responses of summer plankton to nutrient manipniation in the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) with special reference to phosphorus. Sarsia 78: 243–253Google Scholar
  22. Krom MD, Kress N, Brenner S (1991) Phosphorus limitation of primary productivity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Limnol Oceanogr 36: 424–432Google Scholar
  23. Kuosa H (1988) Observations on the taxonomy and ecology of Monoraphidium (Chlorophyceae, Chlorococcales) and Koliella (Chlorophyceae, Ulotrichales) species in the Tvärminne Sea area, SW coast of Finland. Arch Protistenk 135: 45–53Google Scholar
  24. Kuparinen J, Leonardsson K, Mattila J, Wikner J (1996) Food web structure and function in the Gulf of Bothnia, the Baltic Sea. Ambio (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Larsson U, Hagström Å (1982) Fractionated phytoplankton primary production, exudate release and bacterial production in a Baltic cutrophication gradient. Mar Biol 67: 57–70Google Scholar
  26. Montagnes DJS, Beges JA, Harrison PJ, Taylor FJR (1994) Estimating carbon, nitrogen, protein, and chlorophyll a from volume in marine phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 39: 1044–1060Google Scholar
  27. Pankow H (1990) Ostsee — Algenflora, Gustav Fisher Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  28. Sakshaug E, Holm-Hansen O (1986) Photoadaptation in Antarctic phytoplankton: variation in growth rate, chemical composition and P versus I curves. J Plankton Res 8: 459–473Google Scholar
  29. Smith SV, Kimmerer WJ, Walsh TW (1986) Vertical flux and biogeochemical turnover regulate nutrient limitation of net organic production in the North Pacific Gyre. Limnol Oceanogr 31: 161–167Google Scholar
  30. Sterner RW, Elser JJ, Hessen DO (1992) Stoichiometric relationship among producers, consumers and nutrient cycling in pelagic ecosystems. Biogeochemistry (Dordrecht) 17: 49–67Google Scholar
  31. Strathmann R (1967) Estimating the organic carbon content of phytoplankton from cell volume or plasma volume. Limnol Oceanogr 12: 411–418Google Scholar
  32. Tikkanen T, Wille'n T (1992) Phytoplankton flora. The Swedish Environmental Protection Ageney, Solna (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  33. Valiela I (1984) Marine ecological processes. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Verity PG, Robertson CY, Tronzo CR, Andrews MG, Nelson JR, Sieracki ME (1992) Relationships between cell volume and the carbon and nitrogen content of marine photosynthetic nanoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 37: 1434–1446Google Scholar
  35. Wallström K, Johansson S, Larsson U (1992) Effects of nutrient enrichment on planktonic blue-green algae in the Baltic Sea. Acta phytogeogr suec 78: 25–31Google Scholar
  36. Wintermans JFGM, Demots A (1965) Spectrophotometric characteristics of chlorophylls a and b and their phaephytins in ethanol. Biochim Biophys Acta 109: 448–453Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Andersson
    • 1
  • S. Hajdu
    • 2
  • P. Haecky
    • 1
  • J. Kuparinen
    • 3
  • J. Wikner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Systems EcologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Finnish Institute of Marine ResearchHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations