, Volume 617, Issue 1, pp 65–73

The effects of variable nutrient additions on a pond mesocosm community

Primary research paper


The effects of nutrient additions on aquatic systems have been frequently studied. Typically, these studies report an increase in algal biomass and a decrease in species diversity in response to nutrient increases. However, it is not clear why comparable aquatic communities respond differently to nutrient additions of similar magnitudes. We tested the effects of the rate and amount of nutrient load on community structure in 760 l mesocosms; treatments manipulated the total amount of nutrients that entered an aquatic system (small versus large load) and the temporal pattern in which these nutrients entered the system (annually, monthly, or weekly). We found that the effects of the loading rate of nutrients were at least as important as the total amount of the nutrients for several response variables. Although these effects were manifested in several ways, the response to the different rates was most prominent within groups of the primary producers, which showed large shifts in composition and abundance.


Load Loading rate Variability Ponds Mesocosms Primary productivity 


  1. Abrams, P. A., 1993. Effect of increased productivity on the abundances of trophic levels. American Naturalist 141: 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balcer, M. D., N. L. Korda & S. I. Dodson, 1984. Zooplankton of the Great Lakes. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beisner, B. E., 2001. Plankton community structure in fluctuating environments and the role of productivity. Oikos 95: 496–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blindow, I., G. Andersson, A. Hargeby & S. Johansson, 1993. Long-term pattern of alternative stable states in 2 shallow eutrophic lakes. Freshwater Biology 30: 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brett, M. T., & C. R. Goldman, 1997. Consumer versus resource control in freshwater pelagic food webs. Science 275: 384–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brett, M. T., D. C. Muller-Navarra & S. K. Park, 2000. Empirical analysis of the effect of phosphorus limitation on algal food quality for freshwater zooplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 45: 1564–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butzler, J. M., 2002. The role of nutrient variability in aquatic ecosystems. Masters Thesis, Department of Biology, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley & V. H. Smith, 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8: 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase, J. M., 1999. Food web effects of prey size refugia: variable interactions and alternative stable equilibria. American Naturalist 154: 559–570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chase, J. M., M. A. Leibold, A. L. Downing & J. B. Shurin, 2000. The effects of productivity, herbivory, and plant species turnover in grassland food webs. Ecology 81: 2485–2497.Google Scholar
  11. Chesson, P., 2000. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson, P. & Huntly, N., 1997. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. American Naturalist 150: 519–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clesceri, L. S., A. E. Greenberg & A. D. Eaton (eds.). 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation.Google Scholar
  14. DeAngelis, D. L., 1992. Dynamics of Nutrient Cycling and Food Webs. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Dodson, S. I., S. E. Arnott & K. L. Cottingham, 2000. The relationship in lake communities between primary productivity and species richness. Ecology 81: 2662–2679.Google Scholar
  16. Floder, S. & C. W. Burns, 2005. The influence of fluctuating light on diversity and species number of nutrient-limited phytoplankton. Journal of Phycology 41:950–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Floder, S., J. Urabe & Z. Kawabata, 2002. The influence of fluctuating light intensities on species composition and diversity of natural phytoplankton communities. Oecologia 133: 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, L. F. & L. W. Wilcox, 2000. Algae. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Grover, J. P., 1997. Resource Competition. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Hann, B. J. & L. G. Goldsborough, 1997. Responses of a prairie wetland to press and pulse additions of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus: invertebrate community structure and interactions. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 140: 169–194.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, G. P., 1980. Temporal and spatial scales in phytoplankton ecology. Mechanisms, methods, and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 877–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchinson, G. E., 1961. The paradox of the plankton. American Naturalist 95: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janse, J. H., E. Van Donk & T. Aldenberg, 1998. A model study on the stability of the macrophyte-dominated state as affected by biological factors. Water Research 32: 2696–2706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korner, S., 2001. Development of submerged macrophytes in shallow Lake Muggelsee (Berlin, Germany) before and after its switch to the phytoplankton-dominated state. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 152: 395–409.Google Scholar
  25. Lampert, W., U. Sommer & J. F. Haney, 1997. Limnoecology: The Ecology of Lakes and Streams. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lawrence, S. G., D. F. Malley, W. J. Findlay, M. A. Maclver & I. L. Delbaere, 1987. Method for estimating dry-weight of fresh-water planktonic crustaceans from measures of length and shape. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 264–274.Google Scholar
  27. Leibold, M. A., 1997. Do nutrient-competition models predict nutrient availabilities in limnetic ecosystems? Oecologia 110: 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leibold, M. A., J. M. Chase, J. B. Shurin & A. L. Downing, 1997. Species turnover and the regulation of trophic structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leibold, M. A. & H. M. Wilbur, 1992. Interactions between food-web structure and nutrients on pond organisms. Nature 360: 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCauley, E. 1984. The estimation of the abundance and biomass of zooplankton in samples. In Downing, J. A. & F. H. Rigler (eds), A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. Blackwell Scientific Publications: 228–265.Google Scholar
  31. McDougal, R. L., L. G. Goldsborough & B. J. Hann, 1997. Responses of a prairie wetland to press and pulse additions of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus: production by planktonic and benthic algae. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 140: 145–167.Google Scholar
  32. Meerhoff, M., N. Mazzeo, B. Moss & L. Rodriguez-Gallego, 2003. The structuring role of free-floating versus submerged plants in a subtropical shallow lake. Aquatic Ecology 37: 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merriman, J. L. & K. L. Kirk, 2000. Temporal patterns of resource limitation in natural populations of rotifers. Ecology 81: 141–149.Google Scholar
  34. Micheli, F., 1999. Eutrophication, fisheries, and consumer-resource dynamics in marine pelagic ecosystems. Science 285: 1396–1398.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems—Science, Technology, and Public Policy. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. Oksanen, L., S. D. Fretwell, J. Arruda & P. Niemela, 1981. Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. American Naturalist 118: 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oksanen, L. & T. Oksanen, 2000. The logic and realism of the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. American Naturalist 155: 703–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ostfeld, R. O. & F. Keesing, 2000. Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 15: 232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pennak, R. W., 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca. Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Reynolds, C. S., 1984. Phytoplankton periodicity—the interactions of form, function and environmental variability. Freshwater Biology 14: 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reynolds, C. S. 1997. Vegetation Processes in the Pelagic: A Model for Ecosystem Theory. International Ecology Institute.Google Scholar
  42. Scheffer, M., 1989. Alternative stable states in eutrophic freshwater systems. A minimal model. Hydrobiological Bulletin 23: 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schindler, D. W., E. J. Fee & T. Ruszczynski, 1978. Phosphorus input and its consequences for phytoplankton standing crop and production in Experimental Lakes Area and in similar lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35: 190–196.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, V. H., 1998. Cultural eutrophication of inland, estuarine, and coastal waters. In Pace, M. L. & P. M. Groffman (eds), Successes, Limitations and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science. Springer-Verlag: 7–49.Google Scholar
  45. Sommer, U., 1985. Comparison between steady-state and non-steady state competition—experiments with natural phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 30: 335–346.Google Scholar
  46. Sommer, U., 1989. Nutrient status and nutrient competition of phytoplankton in a shallow, hypertrophic lake. Limnology and Oceanography 34: 1162–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sommer, U., 1993. Disturbance-diversity relationships in two lakes of similar nutrient chemistry but contrasting disturbance R\regimes. Hydrobiologia 249: 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soranno, P. A., S. L. Hubler, S. R. Carpenter & R. C. Lathrop, 1996. Phosphorus loads to surface waters: a simple model to account for spatial pattern of land use. Ecological Applications 6: 865–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steele, J. H. 1985. A comparison of terrestrial and marine ecological systems. Nature, London 313: 355-358.Google Scholar
  50. Tilman, D., 1977. Resource competition between planktonic algae—experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58: 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vitousek, P. M., J. D. Aber, R. W. Howarth, G. E. Likens, P. A. Matson, D. W. Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger & D. G. Tilman, 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applications 7: 737–750.Google Scholar
  52. Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations