International Journal of Earth Sciences

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 251–260

Phytoplankton, protozooplankton and nutrient dynamics in the Bornholm Basin (Baltic Sea) in 2002–2003 during the German GLOBEC Project

  • Justus E. E. van Beusekom
  • Dirk Mengedoht
  • Christina B. Augustin
  • Mario Schilling
  • Maarten Boersma
Original Paper

Abstract

From March 2002 to until April 2003 we investigated the seasonal nutrient and phytoplankton dynamics in the central Bornholm Basin (Baltic Sea) within the framework of the German GLOBEC Project. We choose a nested approach consisting of vertical fluorescence profiles, phytoplankton counts and nutrient analyses. The Fluoroprobe (MultiProbe, BBE Moldaenke) is capable of distinguishing four algal groups (Cryptophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Bacillariophyceae + Dinophyceae). Winter nutrient concentrations were about 5 μM NO3 and 0.5 μM PO4 in the central Basin. The spring phytoplankton bloom was dominated by the diatom Skeletonema sp. and reached a maximum of about 270 μg C/l before the onset of the seasonal stratification. Protozooplankton was dominated by the Mesodinium rubrum (a phototrophic ciliate = Myrionecta rubra) and reached a maximum biomass of about 200–300 μg C/l about 2 weeks after the demise of the diatom spring bloom. During summer, the water column was stratified and a subsurface maximum developed near the thermocline consisting of Bacillariophyceae, Cryptophycea and other phototrophic flagellates. Phytoplankton and protozooplankton biomass was generally low. Nutrient concentrations point towards a nitrogen limitation during this period. The stratification period ended during September and surface nutrient concentrations increased again. Protozooplankton reached a second maximum during September. With the Fluoroprobe small scale structures in the plankton community could be detected like a subsurface Cryptophyceae maximum near the thermocline that however, could not be confirmed by cell counts. The chlorophyll a estimate of the Fluoroprobe was in good agreement with the phytoplankton biomass estimated from counts. We conclude that only by combining modern sensing technology with microscopy, the small-scale dynamics and taxonomic spectrum of the plankton can be fully captured.

Keywords

Phytoplankton Nutrients Fluorescence Fluoroprobe Baltic GLOBEC 

References

  1. Alheit J (2004) The GLOBEC-Germany Project. Int Globec Newsl 10:9Google Scholar
  2. Augustin CB, Boersma M (2006) Effects of nutritional stress on different Acartia species. J Plankton Res 28(4):429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beutler M, Wiltshire KH, Meyer B, Moldaenke C, Dau H (2001) In situ profiles of phytoplankton: algal composition and biomass determined fluorometrically. In: Ninth international conference on harmful algal blooms, Hobart (Australia), pp 202–205Google Scholar
  4. Beutler M, Wiltshire KH, Meyer B, Moldaenke C, Luring C, Meyerhofer M, Hansen UP Dau H (2002) A fluorometric method for the differentiation of algal populations in vivo and in situ. Photosynth Res 72:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broglio E, Jonasdottir SH, Calbet A, Jakobsen HH, Saiz E (2003) Effect of heterotrophic versus autotrophic food on feeding and reproduction of the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa: relationship with prey fatty acid composition. Aquat Microb Ecol 31:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cloern JE, Grenz C, Vidergar-Lucas L (1995) An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyll:carbon ratio-the conversation factor between productivity and growth rate. Limnol Oceanogr 40:1313–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford DW (1989) Mesodinium rubrum: the phytoplankter that wasn’t. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 58:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickmann M (2005) Feeding ecology of sprat (Sprattus sprattus L.) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus W.) larvae in the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea. PhD Thesis, University of Rostock, p 93Google Scholar
  9. Edler L (1979) Recommendations on methods for marine biological studies in the Baltic Sea. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll. Baltic Mar Biol 5:1–38Google Scholar
  10. Fennel W (1995) A model of the yearly cycle of nutrients and plankton in the Baltic Sea. J Mar Syst 6:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleming V, Kaitala S (2006) Phytoplankton spring bloom intensity index for the Baltic Sea estimated for the years 1992 to 2004. Hydrobiologia 554:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon HR, McCuley A (1975) Estimation of the depth of sunlight penetration in the sea for remote sensing. Appl Opt 14:413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustafson DEJ, Stoecker DK, Johnson MD, Van Heukelem WF, Sneider K (2000) Cryptophyte algae are robbed of their organelles by the marine ciliate Mesodinium rubrum. Nature 405:1049–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graneli E, Turner JT (2002) Top–down regulation in ctenophore-copepod-ciliate-diatom- phytoflagellate communities in coastal waters: a mesocosm study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 239:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hällfors G (2004) Checklist of Baltic Sea phytoplankton species: including some heterotrophic protistan groups. Baltic Sea environment proceedings. Baltic Environmental Protection Commission-HELCOM, p 95Google Scholar
  16. Hinrichsen HH, Lehmann A, Möllmann C, Schmidt JO (2003) Dependency of larval fish survival on retention/dispersion in food limited environments: the Baltic Sea as a case study. Fish Oceanogr 12:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirche HJ, Meyer U, Niehoff B (1997) Egg production of Calanus finmarchicus: Effect of temperature, food and season. Mar Biol 127:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johansson M, Gorokhova E, Larsson U (2004) Annual variability in ciliate community structure, potential prey and predators in the open northern Baltic Sea proper. J Plankton Res 26:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kivi K (1993) Nutrient limitation and grazing control of the Baltic plankton community during annual succession. Limnol Oceanogr 38:893–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein Breteler WCM., Koski M, Rampen S (2004) Role of essential lipids in copepod nutrition: no evidence for trophic upgrading of food quality by a marine ciliate. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laamanen MJ, Forsström L, Sivonen K (2002) Diversity of Aphanizomenon populations (cyanobacteria) on a Baltic Sea salinity gradient—only one ITS1-S genotype persits in the Baltic Sea. In: Laamanen MJ (ed) Genetic and species diversity of planktonic cyanobacteria in the northern Baltic Sea. Contributions of the Finnish Inst. of Marine Research, Helsinki, vol. 4, Part IV, p 14Google Scholar
  22. Maar M, Nielsen TG, Gooding S, Tonnesson K, Tiselius P, Zervoudaki S, Christou E, Sell A, Richardson K (2004) Trophodynamic function of copepods, appendicularians and protozooplankton in the late summer zooplankton community in the Skagerrak. Mar Biol 144:917–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maar M, Nielsen TG, Richardson K, Christaki U, Hansen OS, Zervoudaki S, Christou E (2002) Spatial and temporal variability of food web structure during the spring bloom in the Skagerrak. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 239:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malzahn AM (2006) Larval fish dynamics in changing environments. PhD Thesis, University of Kiel, p 98Google Scholar
  25. Möllmann C, Kornilovs G, Sidrevics L (2000) Long-term dynamics of main mesozooplankton species in the central Baltic Sea. J Plankton Res 22:2015–2038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peters J, Renz J, van Beusekom JEE, Boersma M, Hagen W (2006) Trophodynamics and seasonal cycle of the copepod Pseudocalanus acuspes in the Central Baltic Sea (Bornholm Basin) – evidence from lipid composition. Mar Biol 149:1417–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Platt T, Sathyendranath S (1988) Oceanic primary production: estimation by remote sensing at local and regional scales. Science 241:1561–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Putt D, Stoecker DK (1989) An experimentally determined carbon: volume ratio for marine “oligotrichous” ciliates from estuarine and coastal waters. Limnol Oceanogr 34:1097–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Renz J, Hirche HJ (2006) Life cycle of Pseudocalanus acuspes Giesbrecht (Copepoda, Calanoida) in the Central Baltic Sea: I. Seasonal and spatial distribution. Mar Biol 148:567–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Setala O, Kivi K (2003) Planktonic ciliates in the Baltic Sea in summer: distribution, species association and estimated grazing impact. Aquat Microb Ecol 32:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sommer F (2003) A comparison of the impact of major mesozooplankton taxa on marine, brackish and freshwater phytoplankton during summer. PhD Thesis, University of Kiel, Berichte aus dem Institut für Meereskunde an der Universität Kiel, No. 329, p 91Google Scholar
  32. St John MA, Clemmesen C, Lund T, Köster F (2001) Diatom production in the marine environment: implications for larval fish growth and condition. ICES J Mar Sci 58:1106–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tang KW, Taal M (2005) Trophic modification of food quality by heterotrophic protists: species-specific effects on copepod egg production and egg hatching. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 318:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Utermöhl H (1958) Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplanktonmethodik. Mitt Int Verh Theor Angew Limnol 9:1–38Google Scholar
  35. von Bodungen B, von Bröckel K, Smetacek V, Zeitschel B (1981) Growth and sedimentation of the phytoplankton spring bloom in the Bornholm Basin. Kieler Meeresforschung Sonderheft 5:49–60Google Scholar
  36. Wasmund N, Nausch G, Mathäus W (1998) Phytoplankton spring blooms in the southern Baltic Sea—spatio-temporal development and long-term trends. J Plankton Res 20:1099–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wasmund N, Pollehne F, Postel L, Siegel H, Zettler ML (2003) Assessment of the biological state of the Baltic Sea in 2002 (in German). Meereswiss Ber 56:1–78Google Scholar
  38. Wasmund N, Uhlig S (2003) Phytoplankton trends in the Baltic Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 60:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justus E. E. van Beusekom
    • 1
  • Dirk Mengedoht
    • 2
  • Christina B. Augustin
    • 3
  • Mario Schilling
    • 4
  • Maarten Boersma
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Wadden Sea Station Sylt. Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine ResearchList/SyltGermany
  2. 2.Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine ResearchBremerhavenGermany
  3. 3.Biologische Anstalt HelgolandAlfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine ResearchHelgolandGermany
  4. 4.Leibniz-Institut für Ostseeforschung WarnemündeRostockGermany
  5. 5.Institute for Coastal ResearchGKSS-Research CentreGeesthachtGermany

Personalised recommendations