Hydrobiologia

, Volume 620, Issue 1, pp 63–76 | Cite as

Nutrient limitation of biofilm biomass and metabolism in the Upper Snake River basin, southeast Idaho, USA

  • Amy M. Marcarelli
  • Heather A. Bechtold
  • Amanda T. Rugenski
  • Richard S. Inouye
Primary research paper

Abstract

It is essential to know the nutrient limitation status of biofilms to understand how they may buffer uptake and export of nutrients from polluted watersheds. We tested the effects of nutrient additions on biofilm biomass (chlorophyll a, ash free dry mass (AFDM), and autotrophic index (AI, AFDM/chl a)) and metabolism via nutrient-diffusing substrate bioassays (control, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and N + P treatments) at 11 sites in the Upper Snake River basin (southeast Idaho, USA) that differed in the magnitude and extent of human-caused impacts. Water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved inorganic N concentrations all changed seasonally at the study sites, while turbidity and dissolved inorganic N and P also varied with impact level. Chl a and AI on control treatments suggested that the most heavily impacted sites supported more autotrophic biofilms than less-impacted sites, and that across all sites biofilms were more heterotrophic in autumn than in summer. Nutrient stimulation or suppression of biofilm biomass was observed for chl a in 59% of the experiments and for AFDM in 33%, and the most frequent response noted across all study sites was N limitation. P suppression of chl a was observed only at the most-impacted sites, while AFDM was never suppressed by nutrients. When nutrient additions did have significant effects on metabolism, they were driven by differences in biomass rather than by changes in metabolic rates. Our study demonstrated that biofilms in southeast Idaho rivers were primarily limited by N, but nutrient limitation was more frequent at sites with good water quality than at those with poor water quality. Additionally, heterotrophic and autotrophic biofilm components may respond differently to nutrient enrichment, and nutrient limitation of biofilm biomass should not be considered a surrogate for metabolism in these rivers.

Keywords

Eutrophic river Nutrient limitation Biofilm metabolism Nutrient loading Snake River 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the NSF-Idaho EPSCoR program (EPS 04-47689), the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (EPA X7-96009701), and, for Inouye, was completed in part while serving at the National Science Foundation. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Collaborators at the Idaho DEQ (G. Mladenka, M. Rowe, and A. Ray) provided valuable guidance, discussion, and field assistance for this project. The Shoshone-Bannock tribes graciously provided access to study sites on Fort Hall Reservation; we thank S. Matsaw and C. Tanaka for their assistance. C. Baxter, R. Clay, S. Matsaw, S. Mathies, M. Mineau, A. Ruiz, M. Thompson, and C. Waite provided field and/or lab assistance. J. Anderson provided cartographic services for Fig. 1. The chemistry and sonde data were collected as part of the Portneuf Basin Monitoring Program, and is supported by the Center for Ecological Research and Education at Idaho State University, the City of Pocatello, J. R. Simplot Company, the Portneuf Soil and Water Conservation District, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Three Rivers RC&D Council Inc., the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Rapid Creek Research Inc., and the Idaho Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Quality, and Fish and Game.

References

  1. American Public Health Association, 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, E. S. & G. E. Likens, 2002. Dissolved organic carbon enrichment alters nitrogen dynamics in a forest stream. Ecology 83: 1689–1700.Google Scholar
  3. Bernhardt, E. S. & G. E. Likens, 2004. Controls on periphyton biomass in heterotrophic streams. Freshwater Biology 49: 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernot, M. J. & W. K. Dodds, 2005. Nitrogen retention, removal, and saturation in lotic ecosystems. Ecosystems 8: 442–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, B. J. F., 2000. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: dissolved nutrient–chlorophyll relationships for benthic algae. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bott, T. L., J. T. Brock, C. S. Dunn, R. J. Naiman, R. W. Ovink & R. C. Petersen, 1985. Benthic community metabolism in four temperate stream systems: an inter-biome comparison and evaluation of the river continuum concept. Hydrobiologia 123: 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bott, T. L., J. T. Brock, A. Baattrup-Pederson, P. A. Chambers, W. K. Dodds, K. T. Himbeault, J. R. Lawrence, D. Planas, E. Snyder & G. M. Wolfaardt, 1997. An evaluation of techniques for measuring periphyton metabolism in chambers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 715–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brussard, C. P. D. & R. Riegman, 1998. Influence of bacteria on phytoplankton cell mortality with phosphorus or nitrogen as the algal-growth-limiting nutrient. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 14: 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, T., S. Wood, R. James, R. Rodriguez & G. M. Arcand, 1992. An evaluation of the concentration of orthophosphate in the Portneuf River, Idaho. Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science 28: 40–47.Google Scholar
  10. Danger, M., C. Oumarou, D. Benest & G. Lacroix, 2007. Bacteria can control stoichiometry and nutrient limitation of phytoplankton. Functional Ecology 21: 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies-Colley, R. J. & D. G. Smith, 2001. Turbidity, suspended sediment, and water clarity: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 1085–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, J. C., G. W. Minshall, C. T. Robinson & P. Landres, 2001. Monitoring wilderness stream ecosystems. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-70. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.Google Scholar
  13. Dodds, W. K. & E. B. Welch, 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Earl, S. E., H. M. Valett & J. R. Webster, 2006. Nitrogen saturation in stream ecosystems. Ecology 87: 3140–3151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edmondson, W. T. & J. T. Lehman, 1981. The effect of changes in the nutrient income on the condition of Lake Washington. Limnology and Oceanography 26: 1–29.Google Scholar
  16. Elser, J. J., E. R. Marzolf & C. R. Goldman, 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elser, J. J., M. E. S. Bracken, E. E. Cleland, D. S. Gruner, W. S. Harpole, H. Hillebrand, J. T. Ngai, E. W. Seabloom, J. B. Shurin & J. E. Smith, 2007. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135–1142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairchild, G. W., R. L. Lowe & W. B. Richardson, 1985. Algal periphyton growth on nutrient-diffusing substrates: an in situ bioassay. Ecology 66: 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fellows, C. S., H. M. Valett, C. N. Dahm, P. J. Mulholland & S. A. Thomas, 2006a. Coupling nutrient uptake and energy flow in headwater streams. Ecosystems 9: 788–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fellows, C. S., J. E. Clapcott, J. W. Udy, S. E. Bunn, B. D. Harch, M. J. Smith & P. M. Davies, 2006b. Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 572: 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Francoeur, S. N., 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Francoeur, S. N. & B. J. F. Biggs, 2006. Short-term effects of elevated velocity and sediment abrasion on benthic algal communities. Hydrobiologia 561: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibeau, G. G. & M. C. Miller, 1989. A micro-bioassay for epilithon using nutrient-diffusing artificial substrata. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 5: 171–176.Google Scholar
  24. Guasch, H., E. Martí & S. Sabater, 1995. Nutrient enrichment effects on biofilm metabolism in a Mediterranean stream. Freshwater Ecology 33: 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagen, E. M., J. R. Webster & E. F. Benfield, 2006. Are leaf breakdown rates a useful measure of stream integrity along an agricultural landuse gradient? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 330–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, R. O., S. Thomas & E. E. Gaiser, 2007. Measuring freshwater primary production and respiration. In Fahey, T. J. & A. K. Knapp (eds), Principles and Standards for Measuring Primary Production. Oxford University Press, New York: 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, W. R., M. G. Ryon & E. M. Schilling, 1995. Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers. Ecology 76: 1297–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. American Falls Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load Plan: Subbasin Assessment and Loading Analysis. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pocatello, ID.Google Scholar
  29. Lamberti, G. A. & V. H. Resh, 1983. Geothermal effects on stream benthos: separate influences of thermal and chemical components on periphyton and macroinvertebrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 1995–2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindeman, R. L., 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23: 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lock, M. A., T. E. Ford, M. A. J. Hullar, M. Kaufman, J. R. Vestal, G. S. Volk & R. M. Ventullo, 1990. Phosphorus limitation in an Arctic river biofilm – a whole ecosystem experiment. Water Research 24: 1545–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marcarelli, A. M. & W. A. Wurtsbaugh, 2006. Temperature and nutrients interact to control nitrogen fixation in oligotrophic streams: an experimental examination. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 2278–2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, J. L., B. J. Wallace & S. L. Eggert, 1998. Leaf litter as a source of dissolved organic carbon in streams. Ecosystems 1: 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, J. L., M. J. Paul & W. K. Taulbee, 2005. Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 602–612.Google Scholar
  35. Morin, A., W. Lamoureux & J. Busnarda, 1999. Empirical models predicting primary productivity from chlorophyll a and water temperature for stream periphyton and lake and ocean phytoplankton. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mosisch, T. D., S. E. Bunn, P. M. Davies & C. J. Marshall, 1999. Effects of shade and nutrient manipulation on periphyton growth in a subtropical stream. Aquatic Botany 64: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mulholland, P. J., C. S. Fellows, J. L. Tank, N. B. Grimm, J. R. Webster, S. K. Hamilton, E. Martí, L. Ashkenas, W. B. Bowden, W. K. Dodds, W. H. McDowell, M. J. Paul & B. J. Peterson, 2001. Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshwater Biology 46: 1503–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mulholland, P. J., S. A. Thomas, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster & J. Beaulieu, 2006. Effects of light on NO3 uptake in small forested streams: diurnal and day-to-day variations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyer, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosemond, A. D., P. J. Mulholland & J. W. Elwood, 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Royer, T. V., M. B. David & L. E. Gentry, 2006. Timing of riverine export of nitrate and phosphorus from agricultural watersheds in Illinois: implications for reducing nutrient loading to the Mississippi River. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 4126–4131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rugenski, A. T., A. M. Marcarelli, H. A. Bechtold & R. S. Inouye, 2008. Effects of temperature and concentration on nutrient release rates from nutrient diffusing substrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schindler, D. W., 1974. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: implications for lake management. Science 184: 897–899.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steinman, A. D., G. A. Lamberti & P. R. Leavitt, 2006. Biomass and pigments of benthic algae. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego: 357–379.Google Scholar
  45. Stoddard, J. L., 1994. Long-term changes in watershed retention of nitrogen. In Baker, L. A. (ed.), Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and Reservoirs. American Chemical Society, Washington DC: 223–284.Google Scholar
  46. Tank, J. L. & W. K. Dodds, 2003. Nutrient limitation of epilithic and epixylic biofilms in ten North American streams. Freshwater Biology 48: 1031–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tank, J. L. & J. R. Webster, 1998. Interaction of substrate and nutrient availability on wood biofilm processes in streams. Ecology 79: 2168–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  49. von Schiller, D., E. Martí, J. L. Riera & F. Sabater, 2007. Effects of nutrients and light on periphyton biomass and nitrogen uptake in Mediterranean streams with contrasting land uses. Freshwater Biology 52: 891–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wetzel, R. G. & G. E. Likens, 2000. Limnological Analyses. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Wilhelm, C. P., 2006. Assessing phosphorus inputs in the lower Portneuf River through measurement of macrophyte biomass. Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science 42: 32–40.Google Scholar
  52. Young, R. G. & A. D. Huryn, 1999. Effects of land use on stream metabolism and organic matter turnover. Ecological Applications 9: 1359–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy M. Marcarelli
    • 1
  • Heather A. Bechtold
    • 1
  • Amanda T. Rugenski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard S. Inouye
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Ecological Research and Education, Department of Biological SciencesIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  3. 3.Division of Environmental BiologyNational Science FoundationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations