Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 142, Issue 1, pp 73–93 | Cite as

Water column nutrient processing rates in rivermouths of Green Bay (Lake Michigan)

  • James H. LarsonEmail author
  • Mary Anne Evans
  • Faith A. Fitzpatrick
  • Paul C. Frost
  • Sean Bailey
  • Robert Kennedy
  • William F. James
  • William B. Richardson
  • Paul C. Reneau
Article

Abstract

Understanding the quantity and form of nutrient loads to large lakes is necessary to understand controls over primary production, phytoplankton community composition and the production of phytotoxins. Nutrient loading estimates to large lakes are primarily made at stream gages that are deliberately placed outside the direct influence of lake processes, but these estimates cannot take into account processes that occur in the biologically active river-to-lake transition zone. These transition zones (rivermouths) sometimes alter nutrient concentrations and ratios substantially, but few studies have directly measured processing rates of nutrients within rivermouths. From April through September 2016, we conducted 23 water column incubation experiments to measure nutrient loss rates in four rivermouths. First order loss rates (K) for inorganic nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) indicated greater loss in light than in dark treatments, suggesting primary production increases N and P removal. Variability in K was high across both time and space, and the measured environmental parameters did not appear to be strongly associated with this variation in K for most N and P forms. If the measured K values and water residence times are accurate, then between 0 and 99% of the inorganic P and nitrates entering the rivermouth would be lost (i.e., converted to organic or particulate P). In late summer, Fox River discharge is low and residence times are usually long, which allow for much higher proportional nutrient removal in the water column. Water column processing appears to be capable of transforming large quantities of dissolved N and P to particulate forms and thus altering its transport and presumably its bioavailability.

Keywords

Nutrient processing Nitrogen Phosphorus Rivermouths Green Bay Water column uptake 

Supplementary material

10533_2018_517_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 38 kb)
10533_2018_517_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (71 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 70 kb)
10533_2018_517_MOESM3_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. Aldridge KT, Brookes JD, Ganf GG (2009) Changes in abiotic and biotic phosphorus uptake across a gradient of stream condition. River Res Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1276 Google Scholar
  2. Auer MT, Canale RP (1986) Mathematical model of primary production inGreen Bay (Lake Michigan, USA), a phosphorous- and light-limited system. Hydrol Bull 20:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow-Busch L, Baulch HM, Taylor WD (2006) Phosphate uptake by seston and epilithon in the Grand River, southern Ontario. Aquat Sci 68:181–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-006-0806-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrascal LM, Galván I, Gordo O (2009) Partial least squares regression as an alternative to current regression methods used in ecology. Oikos 118:681–690.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16881.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Stasio BT, Schrimpf MB, Cornwell BH (2014) Phytoplankton communities in Green Bay, Lake Michigan after invasion by dreissenid mussels: increased dominance by cyanobacteria. Diversity 6:681–704.  https://doi.org/10.3390/d6040681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dila DK, Biddanda BA (2015) From land to lake: contrasting microbial processes across a Great Lakes gradient of organic carbon and inorganic nutrient inventories. J Great Lakes Res 41:75–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2015.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards KF, Thomas MK, Klausmeier CA, Litchman E (2016) Phytoplankton growth and the interaction of light and temperature: a synthesis at the species and community level. Limnol Oceanogr 61:1232–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glibert PM (2017) Eutrophication, harmful algae and biodiversity — Challenging paradigms in a world of complex nutrient changes. Mar Pollut Bull 124:591–606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris TD, Wilhelm FM, Graham JL, Loftin KA (2014) Experimental manipulation of TN: TP ratios suppress cyanobacterial biovolume and microcystin concentration in large-scale in situ mesocosms. Lake Reserv Manag 30:72–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2013.876131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helsel DR (2005) Nondetects and data analysis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  11. Hilton J, O’Hare M, Bowes MJ, Jones JI (2006) How green is my river? A new paradigm of eutrophication in rivers. Sci Total Environ 365:66–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hope AJ, McDowell WH, Wollheim WM (2014) Ecosystem metabolism and nutrient uptake in an urban, piped headwater stream. Biogeochemistry 121:167–187.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9900-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klump JV, Edgington DN, Sager PE, Robertson DM (1997) Sedimentary phosphorus cycling and a phosphorus mass balance for the Green Bay (Lake Michigan) ecosystem. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:10–26.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f96-247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kreiling RM, Thoms MC, Richardson WB (2018) Beyond the edge: linking agricultural landscapes, stream networks, and best management practices. J Environ Qual 47:42.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.08.0319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krieger K (2003) Effectiveness of a coastal wetland in reducing pollution of a Laurentian Great Lake: hydrology, sediment, and nutrients. Wetlands 23:778–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larson JH, Frost PC, Lodge DM, Lamberti GA (2007) Photodegradation of dissolved organic matter in forested streams of the northern Great Lakes region. J North Am Benthol Soc 61:35–425.  https://doi.org/10.1899/06-097.1 Google Scholar
  17. Larson JH, Trebitz AS, Steinman AD et al (2013) Great Lakes rivermouth ecosystems: scientific synthesis and management implications. J Great Lakes Res 39:513–524.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2013.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larson JH, Frost PC, Vallazza JM et al (2016) Do rivermouths alter nutrient and seston delivery to the nearshore? Freshw Biol 61:1935–1949.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee L (2017) Nondetects and data analysis for environmental data. 64Google Scholar
  20. Lin P, Klump JV, Guo L (2016) Dynamics of dissolved and particulate phosphorus influenced by seasonal hypoxia in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Sci Total Environ 541:1070–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKee LJ, Eyre BD, Hossain S (2000) Transport and retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in the sub-tropical Richmond River estuary, Australia: a budget approach. Biogeochemistry 50:241–278.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006339910533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mevik B, Cederkvist H (2004) “Mean Squared Error of Prediction (MSEP) Estimates for Principal Component Regression (PCR) and Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR). J Chemom 18:422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mevik B-H, Wehrens R (2007) The pls package: principal component and partial least squares regression in R. J Stat Softw 18:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v018.i02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrice JA, Kelly JR, Trebitz AS et al (2004) Temporal dynamics of nutrients (N and P) and hydrology in a Lake Superior Coastal Wetland. J Great Lakes Res 30:82–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(04)70379-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nielsen K, Nielsen LP, Rasmussen P (1995) Estuarine nitrogen retention independently estimated by the denitrification rate and mass balance methods: a study of Norsminde Fjord, Denmark. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 119:275–284.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps119275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prater C, Frost PC, Howell ET et al (2017) Variation in particulate C:N:P stoichiometry across the Lake Erie watershed from tributaries to its outflow. Limnol Oceanogr.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10628 Google Scholar
  27. Price K, Carrick H (2011) Meta-analytical approach to explain variation in microbial phosphorus uptake rates in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat Microb Ecol 65:89–102.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  29. Reisinger AJ, Tank JL, Rosi-Marshall EJ et al (2015) The varying role of water column nutrient uptake along river continua in contrasting landscapes. Biogeochemistry 125:115–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-015-0118-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robertson DM, Saad DA (2011) Nutrient inputs to the laurentian great lakes by source and watershed estimated using SPARROW watershed models. J Am Water Resour Assoc 47:1011–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00574.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robertson DM, Hubbard LE, Lorenz DL, Sullivan DJ (2018) A surrogate regression approach for computing continuous loads for the tributary nutrient and sediment monitoring program on the Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 44:26–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2017.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schade JD, Espeleta JF, Klausmeier CA et al (2005) A conceptual framework for ecosystem stoichiometry: balancing resource supply and demand. Oikos 109:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlesinger WH, Bernhardt ES (2013) Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change, 3rd edn. Academic Press, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith VH, Schindler DW (2009) Eutrophication science: where do we go from here? Trends Ecol Evol 24:201–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith VH, Dodds WK, Havens KE et al (2014) Comment: cultural eutrophication of natural lakes in the United States is real and widespread. Limnol Oceanogr 59:2217–2225.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2014.59.6.2217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soballe DM, Fischer JR (2004) Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Procedures: water quality monitoring. Technical Report LTRMP 2004-T02-1 (Ref. 95-POO2-5). La CrosseGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinman AD, Mulholland PJ (2006) Phosphorus limitation uptake, and turnover in Benthic Stream Algae. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 187–212Google Scholar
  38. Sterner RW (2008) On the phosphorus limitation paradigm for lakes. Int Rev Hydrobiol 93:433–445.  https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200811068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stream Solute Workshop (1990) Concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 9:95–119.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1467445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson TA, Baedke SJ (1995) Beach-ridge development in Lake Michigan: shoreline behavior in response to quasi-periodic lake-level events. Mar Geol 129:163–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(95)00110-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trebitz AS (2006) Characterizing seiche and tide-driven daily water level fluctuations affecting coastal ecosystems of the Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 32:102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinke AD, Kendall ST, Kroll DJ et al (2014) Systematically variable planktonic carbon metabolism along a land-to-lake gradient in a Great Lakes coastal zone. J Plankton Res 36:1528–1542.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbu066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  44. Wetzel RG, Likens GE (2000) Light and temperature. Limnological analysis. Springer, New York, pp 15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilcox DA, Thompson TA, Booth RK, Nicholas JR (2007) Lake-level variability and water availability in the Great Lakes: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1311Google Scholar
  46. Wilkerson FP, Dugdale RC, Parker AE et al (2015) Nutrient uptake and primary productivity in an urban estuary: using rate measurements to evaluate phytoplankton response to different hydrological and nutrient conditions. Aquat Ecol 49:211–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-015-9516-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Larson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary Anne Evans
    • 2
  • Faith A. Fitzpatrick
    • 3
  • Paul C. Frost
    • 4
  • Sean Bailey
    • 1
  • Robert Kennedy
    • 1
  • William F. James
    • 5
  • William B. Richardson
    • 1
  • Paul C. Reneau
    • 3
  1. 1.Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences CenterU.S. Geological SurveyLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.Great Lakes Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Wisconsin Water Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyMiddletonUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  5. 5.Department of BiologyUniversity of Wisconsin-StoutMenomonieUSA

Personalised recommendations