Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 134–148 | Cite as

Scientific Bases for Numerical Chlorophyll Criteria in Chesapeake Bay

  • L. W. HardingJr.
  • R. A. Batiuk
  • T. R. Fisher
  • C. L. Gallegos
  • T. C. Malone
  • W. D. Miller
  • M. R. Mulholland
  • H. W. Paerl
  • E. S. Perry
  • P. Tango
Article

Abstract

In coastal ecosystems with long flushing times (weeks to months) relative to phytoplankton growth rates (hours to days), chlorophyll a (chl-a) integrates nutrient loading, making it a pivotal indicator with broad implications for ecosystem function and water-quality management. However, numerical chl-a criteria that capture the linkage between chl-a and ecosystem impairments associated with eutrophication (e.g., hypoxia, water clarity and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, toxic algal blooms) have seldom been developed despite the vulnerability of these ecosystems to anthropogenic nutrient loading. Increases in fertilizer use, animal wastes, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed since World War II have led to increases in nutrient loading and chl-a. We describe the development of numerical chl-a criteria based on long-term research and monitoring of the bay. Baseline chl-a concentrations were derived using statistical models for historical data from the 1960s and 1970s, including terms to account for the effects of climate variability. This approach produced numerical chl-a criteria presented as geometric means and 90th percentile thresholds to be used as goals and compliance limits, respectively. We present scientific bases for these criteria that consider specific ecosystem impairments linked to increased chl-a, including low dissolved oxygen (DO), reduced water clarity, and toxic algal blooms. These multiple lines of evidence support numerical chl-a criteria consisting of seasonal mean chl-a across salinity zones ranging from 1.4 to 15 mg m−3 as restoration goals and corresponding thresholds ranging from 4.3 to 45 mg m−3 as compliance limits. Attainment of these goals and limits for chl-a is a precondition for attaining desired levels of DO, water clarity, and toxic phytoplankton prior to rapid human expansion in the watershed and associated increases of nutrient loading.

Keywords

Phytoplankton Chlorophyll Water quality criteria Estuaries Chesapeake Bay 

Supplementary material

12237_2013_9656_MOESM1_ESM.doc (243 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 243 kb)
12237_2013_9656_MOESM2_ESM.tif (2.6 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 2702 kb)

References

  1. Acker, J.G., L.W. Harding, G. Leptoukh, T. Zhu, and S. Shen. 2005. Remotely-sensed chl a at the Chesapeake Bay mouth is correlated with annual freshwater flow to Chesapeake Bay. Geophysical Research Letters 32: L05601. doi:10.1029/2004GL021852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adolf, J.E., C.L. Yeager, W.D. Miller, M.E. Mallonee, and L.W. Harding Jr. 2006. Environmental forcing of phytoplankton floral composition, biomass, and primary productivity in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67: 108–122.Google Scholar
  3. Batiuk, R.A., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, W.C. Dennison, J.C. Stevenson, L.W. Staver, V. Carter, N. Rybicki, R.E. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Bieber and P. Heasly. 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: a technical synthesis. USEPA-CBP 68-WO-0043. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  4. Boynton, W.R., J.H. Garber, R. Summers, and W.M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18: 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks and J. Woerner. 2007. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the Nation’s estuaries: a decade of change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. Silver Spring: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 328 p.Google Scholar
  6. Carstensen, J., M. Sanchez-Camacho, C.M. Duarte, D. Krause-Jensen, and N. Marba. 2011. Connecting the dots: responses of coastal ecosystems to changing nutrient concentrations. Environmental Science and Technology 45: 9122–9132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, V., N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, and M. Naylor. 2000. Light requirements for SAV survival and growth. In Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation water quality and habitat-based requirements and restoration targets: a second technical synthesis, ed. R.A. Batiuk, P. Bergstrom, W.M. Kemp, E.W. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C.L. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D.J. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg, 4–15. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.Google Scholar
  8. Chorus, I. and J. Bartram. (Eds.) 1999. Toxic cyanobacteria in water: a guide to their public health consequences, monitoring and management. London: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  9. Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. Bergstrom, and R. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duarte, C.M., D.J. Conley, J. Carstensen, and M. Sanchez-Camacho. 2009. Return to Neverland: shifting baselines affect eutrophication restoration targets. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, T.R., A.B. Gustafson\, K. Sellner, R. Lacouture, L.W. Haas, R. Magnien, R. Karrh, and B. Michael. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation in resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 133: 763–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher, T.R., J.D. Hagy III, W.R. Boynton, and M.R. Williams. 2006. Cultural eutrophication in the Choptank and Patuxent estuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, T.R., L.W. Harding Jr., D.W. Stanley, and L.G. Ward. 1988. Phytoplankton, nutrients, and turbidity in the Chesapeake, Delaware, and Hudson estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 27: 61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher, T.R., E.R. Peele, J.W. Ammerman, and L.W. Harding Jr. 1992. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 82: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgeorge, R.B., S.A. Clark, and C.W. Kevil. 1994. Routes of intoxication. In Detection methods for cyanobacterial toxins, ed. G.A. Codd, T.M. Jeffries, C.W. Keevil, and E. Potter, 69–74. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallegos, C.L. 1994. Refining habitat requirements of submersed aquatic vegetation: role of optical models. Estuaries 17: 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallegos, C.L. 2001. Calculating optical water quality targets to restore and protect submersed aquatic vegetation: overcoming problems in partitioning the diffuse attenuation coefficient for photosynthetically active radiation. Estuaries 24: 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagy III, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Wood, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950–2001: long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries and Coasts 27: 634–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding Jr., L.W., and E.S. Perry. 1997. Long-term increase of phytoplankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay, 1950–1994. Marine Ecology Progress Series 157: 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harding Jr., L.W., A. Magnuson, and M.E. Mallonee. 2005. SeaWiFS retrievals of chlorophyll in Chesapeake Bay and the mid-Atlantic bight. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 62: 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harding Jr., L.W., B.W. Meeson, and T.R. Fisher Jr. 1986. Phytoplankton production in two east coast estuaries: photosynthesis-light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23: 773–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, G. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E. Koch, J. Landwehr, K. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, and D. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 263–377.Google Scholar
  23. Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding Jr., E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, R.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirk, J.T.O., R.W. Spinrad, K.L. Carder, and M.J. Perry. 1994. The relationship between the inherent and the apparent optical properties of surface waters and its dependence on the shape of the volume scattering function. In Ocean optics, 40–58. Oxford: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lellis-Dibble, K.A., K.E. McGlynn and T.E. Bigford. 2008. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries: economic value as an incentive to protect and restore estuarine habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-90Google Scholar
  26. Magnuson, A., L.W. Harding Jr., M.E. Mallonee, and J.E. Adolf. 2004. Bio-optical model for Chesapeake Bay and the Middle Atlantic Bight. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 61: 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malone, T.C. 1992. Effects of water column processes on dissolved oxygen: nutrients, phytoplankton and zooplankton. In Oxygen dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: a synthesis of research, ed. D. Smith, M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan, 61–112. College Park: University of Maryland Sea Grant.Google Scholar
  28. Malone, T.C., D.J. Conley, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, and L.W. Harding Jr. 1996. Scales of nutrient limited phytoplankton productivity in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19: 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malone, T.C., L.H. Crocker, S.E. Pike, and B.W. Wendler. 1988. Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marshall, H.G., L. Burchardt, and R. Lacouture. 2005. A review of phytoplankton composition within Chesapeake Bay and its tidal estuaries. Journal of Plankton Research 27: 1083–1102.Google Scholar
  31. Marshall, H.G., M.F. Lane, K.K. Nesius, and L. Burchardt. 2009. Assessment and significance of phytoplankton species composition within Chesapeake Bay and Virginia tributaries through a long-term monitoring program. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 150: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, W.D., and L.W. Harding Jr. 2007. Climate forcing of the spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 331: 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, W.D., D.G. Kimmel, and L.W. Harding Jr. 2006. Predicting spring discharge of the Susquehanna River from a winter synoptic climatology for the eastern United States. Water Resources Research 42: W05414. doi:10.1029/2005WR004270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mobley, C.D. 1994. Light and water. Radiative transfer in natural waters. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  35. Morse, R.E., J. Shen, J.L. Blanco-Garcia, W.S. Hunley, S. Fentress, M. Wiggins, and M.R. Mulholland. 2011. Environmental and physical controls on the formation and transport of blooms of the dinoflagellate Cochlodinium polykrikoides Margalef in lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1006–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulholland, M.R., R.E. Morse, G.E. Boneillo, P.W. Bernhardt, K.C. Filippino, L.A. Procise, J.L. Blanco-Garcia, H.G. Marshall, T.A. Egerton, W.S. Hunley, K.A. Moore, D.L. Berry, and C.J. Gobler. 2009. Understanding causes and impacts of the dinoflagellate, Cochlodinium polykrikoides, blooms in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 734–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NHMRC. 2005. Guidelines for managing risk in recreational waters. Canberra: Australian government National Health and Medical Research Council. 207 p.Google Scholar
  38. Paerl, H.W., L.M. Valdes, M.F. Piehler, and M.E. Lebo. 2004. Solving problems resulting from solutions: the evolution of a dual nutrient management strategy for the eutrophying Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 3068–3073.Google Scholar
  39. Roesler, C.S., M.J. Perry, and K.L. Carder. 1989. Modeling in situ phytoplankton absorption from total absorption spectra in productive inland marine waters. Limnology and Oceanography 34: 1510–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 111: 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAS Institute, Inc. 1993. SAS/ETS user's guide, version 6, 2nd ed. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  42. S-Plus 7.0.6 for Windows. 2005. Seattle: Insightful Corporation.Google Scholar
  43. Schaeffer, B.A., J.D. Hagy, R.N. Conmy, J.C. Lehrter, and R.P. Stumpf. 2012. An approach to developing numeric water quality criteria for coastal waters using the SeaWiFS satellite data record. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 916–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schofield, O., T. Bergmann, M.J. Oliver, A. Irwin, G. Kirkpatrick, W.P. Bissett, M.A. Moline and C. Orrico. 2004. Inversion of spectral absorption in the optically complex coastal waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: C12S04, 11–12. doi:10.1029/2003JC002071.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, D.E., M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan (eds.). 1992. Oxygen dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: a synthesis of research. College Park: University of Maryland Sea Grant. 234 p.Google Scholar
  46. Tango, P., and W. Butler. 2008. Cyanotoxins in tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay. Northeastern Naturalist 15: 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  48. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 2007 addendum. EPA 903-R-07-003 CBP/TRS 285/07. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  49. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007b. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 2007 chlorophyll criteria addendum. EPA 903-R-07-005 CBP/TRS 288/07. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  50. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 2008 Technical support for criteria assessment protocols addendum. EPA 903-R-08-001 CBP/TRS 290/08. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  51. Wood, S.N. 2006. Generalized additive models (an introduction with R). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. 392 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. W. HardingJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. A. Batiuk
    • 3
  • T. R. Fisher
    • 1
  • C. L. Gallegos
    • 4
  • T. C. Malone
    • 1
  • W. D. Miller
    • 5
  • M. R. Mulholland
    • 6
  • H. W. Paerl
    • 7
  • E. S. Perry
    • 8
  • P. Tango
    • 9
  1. 1.Horn Point LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Chesapeake Bay Program OfficeU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAnnapolisUSA
  4. 4.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Naval Research LaboratoryWashingtonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric ScienceOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  7. 7.Institute of Marine SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillMorehead CityUSA
  8. 8.HuntingtownUSA
  9. 9.Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations