Advertisement

Journal of Oceanology and Limnology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 1053–1062 | Cite as

Influence of light availability on the specific density, size and sinking loss of Anabaena flos-aquae and Scenedesmus obliquus

  • Yingying Huang (黄莹莹)
  • Haichun Zhang (张海春)
  • Rufeng Gao (高如峰)
  • Xiaochen Huang (黄晓琛)
  • Xiaojuan Yu (于晓娟)
  • Xuechu Chen (陈雪初)
ICTC-10 Special Issue: Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins: responses and detection
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Harmful algal blooms in eutrophic waters pose a serious threat to freshwater ecosystems and human health. In-situ light availability control is one of the most commonly used technologies to suppress algae in lakes and reservoirs. To develop a better understanding of the effects of light on algal growth, specific density, colony size and sinking loss, Anabaena flos-aquae (cyanobacteria) and Scenedesmus obliquus (green algae) were evaluated in varying light scenarios. The results showed that the specific density and colony size of these two species varied during growth, and there were obvious differences among the light scenarios. At the end of exponential phase, S. obliquus incubated under light-limited condition maintained a higher specific density and formed larger aggregates, whereas A. flos-aquae formed a longer filament length. Both species exhibited higher sinking loss rates with lower light availability. These results implied that the sinking loss rate was not always constant but should be considered as a variable response to the change of light availability, and in-situ light availability control might result in a significant increase of the sinking loss of algae due to the change of size and specific density, thereby further affecting the algal biomass in the water column.

Keyword

specific density size light availability control sinking loss 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn C Y, Park M H, Joung S H, Kim H S, Jang K Y, Oh H M. 2003. Growth inhibition of cyanobacteria by ultrasonic radiation: laboratory and enclosure studies. Environ. Sci. Tech nol., 37 (13): 3 031–3 037,  https://doi.org/10.1021/es034048z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bright D I, Walsby A E. 1999. The relationship between critical pressure and width of gas vesicles in isolates of Planktothrix rubescens from Lake Zürich. Microbiology, 145 (10): 2 769–2 775,  https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-145-10-2769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burford M A, O'Donohue M J. 2006. A comparison of phytoplankton community assemblages in artificially and naturally mixed subtropical water reservoirs. Freshwater Biology, 51 (5): 973–982,  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01536.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen M J, Li J, Dai X, Sun Y, Chen F Z. 2011. Effect of phosphorus and temperature on chlorophyll a contents and cell sizes of Scenedesmus obliquus and Microcystis aeruginosa. Limnology, 12 (2): 187–192,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-010-0336-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen X C, He S B, Huang Y Y, Kong H N, Lin Y, Li C J, Zeng G Q. 2009a. Laboratory investigation of reducing two algae from eutrophic water treated with light-shading plus aeration. Chemosphere, 76 (9): 1 303–1 307,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.05.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen X C, Kong H N, He S B, Wu D Y, Li C J, Huang X C. 2009b. Reducing harmful algae in raw water by lightshading. Process Biochem istry, 44 (3): 357–360,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2008.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Condie S A, Bormans M. 1997. The influence of density stratification on particle settling, dispersion and population growth. J. Theor. Biol., 187 (1): 65–75,  https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1997.0417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diehl S, Berger S, Ptacnik R, Wild A. 2002. Phytoplankton, light, and nutrients in a gradient of mixing depths: field experiments. Ecology, 83 (2): 399–411,  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0399:PLANIA]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dockko S, Kim J, Lee H. 2015. Modeling and experiment for removal of algae and nutrient using a DAF system installed on a ferryboat. Desalin. Water Treat., 55 (2): 325–330,  https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.913994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang Y Y, Chen X C, He S B, An Y, Yu X J, Peng X. 2016. Sinking loss should be taken into account while studying the dynamics of Microcystis under light-availability control. J. Hazard. Mater., 314: 270–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hudnell H K, Jones C, Labisi B, Lucero V, Hill D R, Eilers J. 2010. Freshwater harmful algal bloom (FHAB) suppression with solar powered circulation (SPC). Harmful Algae, 9 (2): 208–217,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2009.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huisman J, Sharples J, Stroom J M, Visser P M, Kardinaal W E A, Verspagen J M H, Sommeijer B. 2004. Changes in turbulent mixing shift competition for light between phytoplankton species. Ecology, 85 (11): 2 960–2 970,  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huisman J, Van Oostveen P, Weissing F J. 1999. Critical depth and critical turbulence: two different mechanisms for the development of phytoplankton blooms. Limnol. Oceanogr., 44 (7): 1 781–1 787,  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1999.44.7.1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huisman J, Weissing F J. 1994. Light-limited growth and competition for light in well-mixed aquatic environments: an elementary model. Ecology, 75 (2): 507–520,  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huisman J, Weissing F J. 1995. Competition for nutrients and light in a mixed water column: a theoretical analysis. Am. Nat., 146 (4): 536–564,  https://doi.org/10.1086/285814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huisman J. 1999. Population dynamics of light-limited phytoplankton: microcosm experiments. Ecology, 80 (1): 202–210,  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0202:PDOLLP]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jezberová J, Komárková J. 2007. Morphometry and growth of three Synechococcus-like picoplanktic cyanobacteria at different culture conditions. Hydrobiologia, 578 (1): 17–27,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0429-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jungo E, Visser P M, Stroom J, Mur L R. 2001. Artificial mixing to reduce growth of the blue-green alga Microcystis in Lake Nieuwe Meer, Amsterdam: an evaluation of 7 years of experience. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 1 (1): 17–23.Google Scholar
  19. Kaiblinger C, Greisberger S, Teubner K, Dokulil M T. 2007. Photosynthetic efficiency as a function of thermal stratification and phytoplankton size structure in an oligotrophic alpine lake. Hydrobiologia, 578 (1): 29–36,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0430-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim H K, Kim J M, Lee Y J, Kim B I, Lee B C, Chang N I. 2007. Vertical profile of algal distribution during aeration prior to intake tower for safe drinking water. Water Sci. Technol., 55 (1–2): 321–327,  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kojima S. 2000. Corroborating study on algal control by partial shading of lake surface. Main-Water and Wastewater, 42 (5): 5–12. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  22. Kruk C, Peeters E T H M, Van Nes E H, Huszar V L M, Costa L S, Scheffer M. 2011. Phytoplankton community composition can be predicted best in terms of morphological groups. Limnol. Oceanogr., 56 (1): 110–118,  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2011.56.1.0110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li M, Gao L, Lin L. 2015. Specific growth rate, colonial morphology and extracellular polysaccharides (EPS) content of Scenedesmus obliquus grown under different levels of light limitation. Annales de Limnologie-International Journal of Limnology, 51 (4): 329–334,  https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2015033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li M, Zhu W, Guo L L, Hu J, Chen H M, Xiao M. 2016. To increase size or decrease density? Different Microcystis species has different choice toform blooms. Sci. Rep., 6: 37 056,  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maestre-Valero J F, Martínez-Alvarez V, Nicolas E. 2013. Physical, chemical and microbiological effects of suspended shade cloth covers on stored water for irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 118: 70–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.11.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Naselli-Flores L, Barone R. 2007. Pluriannual morphological variability of phytoplankton in a highly productive Mediterranean reservoir (Lake Arancio, Southwestern Sicily). Hydrobiologia, 578 (1): 87–95,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0436-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Naselli-Flores L, Padisák J, Albay M. 2007. Shape and size in phytoplankton ecology: do they matter? Hydrobiologia, 578 (1): 157–161,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-2815-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O'Neil J M, Davis T W, Burford M A, Gobler C J. 2012. The rise of harmful cyanobacteria blooms: the potential roles of eutrophication and climate change. Harmful Algae, 14: 313–334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.10.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Padisák J, Soróczki-Pintér É, Rezner Z. 2003. Sinking properties of some phytoplankton shapes and the relation of form resistance to morphological diversity of plankton-An experimental study. Hydrobiologia, 500 (1–3): 243–257,  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024613001147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pertoft H. 2000. Fractionation of cells and subcellular particles with Percoll. Journal of Biochemical and Biophysical Methods, 44 (1–2): 1–30,  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-022x(00)00066-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ptacnik R, Diehl S, Berger S. 2003. Performance of sinking and nonsinking phytoplankton taxa in a gradient of mixing depths. Limnol. Oceanogr., 48 (5): 1 903–1 912,  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2003.48.5.1903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds C S. 2006. Entrainment and distribution in the pelagic (Chapter 2). In: Reynolds C S ed. The Ecology of Phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.38–92.Google Scholar
  33. Spencer C N, King D L. 1989. Role of light, carbon dioxide and nitrogen in regulation of buoyancy, growth and bloom formation of Anabaena flos-aquae. J. Plankton Res., 11 (2): 283–296,  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/11.2.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoyneva M P, Descy J P, Vyverman W. 2007. Green algae in Lake Tanganyika: is morphological variation a response to seasonal changes? Hydrobiologia, 578 (1): 7–16,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0428-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Visser P, Ibelings B, Van Der Veer B, Koedood J, Mur R. 1996. Artificial mixing prevents nuisance blooms of the cyanobacterium Microcystis in Lake Nieuwe Meer, the Netherlands. Freshwater Biology, 36 (2): 435–450,  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1996.00093.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. WolffD A. 1975. The separation of cells and subcellular particles by colloidal silica density gradient centrifugation. In: Prescott D M ed. Methods in Cell Biology. Academic Press, United States. p.85–104.Google Scholar
  37. Yamamoto Y, Nakahara H. 2009. Seasonal variations in the morphology of bloom-forming cyanobacteria in a eutrophic pond. Limnology, 10 (3): 185–193,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-009-0270-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yingying Huang (黄莹莹)
    • 1
  • Haichun Zhang (张海春)
    • 2
  • Rufeng Gao (高如峰)
    • 3
  • Xiaochen Huang (黄晓琛)
    • 4
  • Xiaojuan Yu (于晓娟)
    • 5
  • Xuechu Chen (陈雪初)
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Shanghai Key Lab for Urban Ecological Processes and Eco-Restoration, School of Ecological and Environmental SciencesEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Shanghai Environmental Monitoring CenterShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Shanghai Administration Center for Ocean AffairsShanghaiChina
  4. 4.East Sea Information Center of State Oceanic Administration People’s Republic of ChinaShanghaiChina
  5. 5.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations