Skip to main content

Phytoplankton abundance and contributions to suspended particulate matter in the Ohio, Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers

Aquatic Sciences volume 73, pages 419–436 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Main channel habitats of the Ohio, Missouri, and Upper Mississippi Rivers were surveyed during the summers of 2004, 2005 and 2006 using a probability-based sampling design to characterize inter-annual and inter-river variation in suspended chlorophyll a (CHLa) and related variables. Large (fivefold) differences in CHLa were observed with highest concentrations in the Upper Mississippi (32.3 ± 1.8 μg L−1), intermediate values in the Missouri (19.7 ± 1.1 μg L−1) and lowest concentrations in the Ohio (6.8 ± 0.5 μg L−1). Inter-annual variation was small in comparison to inter-river differences suggesting that basin-specific factors exert greater control over river-wide CHLa than regional-scale processes influencing climate and discharge. The rivers were characterized by variable but generally low light conditions as indicated by depth-averaged underwater irradiance <4 E m−2 day−1 and high ratios of channel depth to euphotic depth (>3). Despite poor light conditions, regression analyses revealed that TP was the best single predictor of CHLa (R 2 = 0.40), though models incorporating both light and TP performed better (R 2 = 0.60). Light and nutrient conditions varied widely within rivers and were inversely related, suggesting that riverine phytoplankton may experience shifts in resource limitation during transport. Inferred grazing and sedimentation losses were large yet CHLa concentrations did not decline downriver indicating that growth and loss processes were closely coupled. The contribution by algae to suspended particulate organic matter in these rivers (mean = 41%) was similar to that of lakes (39%) but lower relative to reservoirs (61%).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Aber JD, Freuder R (2000) Variation among solar radiation data sets for the eastern US and its effects on predictions of forest production and water yield. Climate Res 15:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya K, Jack JD, Bukaveckas PA (2005) Dietary effects on life history traits of riverine Bosmina. Freshw Biol 50:965–975

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya K, Bukaveckas PA, Jack JD, Kyle M, Elser JJ (2006) Consumer growth linked to diet and RNA-P stoichiometry: response of Bosmina to variation in riverine food resources. Limnol Oceanogr 51:1859–1869

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adolf JE, Yeager CLJ, Miller WD, Mallonee ME, Harding LW (2006) Environmental forcing of phytoplankton floral composition, biomass and primary productivity in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 67:108–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ameziane T, Dauta A, Le Cohu L (2003) Origin and transport of phytoplankton in a large river: the Garonne. France Arch Hydrobiol 156:385–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angradi TR (2006) Environmental monitoring and assessment program: great river ecosystems, field operations manual. EPA/620/R-06/002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW, Jicha TM, Hill BH, Pearson MS, Taylor DL, Schweiger EW, Shepard L, Batterman AL, Batterman SL, Moffett MF, Elonen CM, Anderson LE (2009) A bioassessment approach for mid-continent great rivers: the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio (USA). Environ Monit Assess 152:425–442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Arar EJ, Collins GB (1997) In vitro determination of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a in marine and freshwater algae by fluorescence. National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • Aufdenkampe A, Hedges JI, Richey JE, Krusche AV, Llerena CA (2001) Sorptive fractionation of dissolved organic nitrogen and amino acids onto fine sediments within the Amazon Basin. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1921–1935

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Banse K (1977) Determining the carbon-to-chlorophyll ratio of natural phytoplankton. Mar Biol 41:199–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Basu BK, Pick FR (1997) Phytoplankton and zooplankton development in a lowland temperate river. J Plankton Res 19:237–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benke AC, Cushing CE (2005) Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergfeld T, Scherwass A, Ackermann B, Arndt H, Schöl A (2009) Comparison of the components of the planktonic food web in three large rivers (Rhine, Moselle and Saar). River Res Appl 25:1232–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi TS, Wysocki LA, Stewart M, Filley TR, McKee BA (2007) Temporal variability in terrestrially derived sources of particulate organic carbon in the lower Mississippi River and its upper tributaries. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71:4425–4437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch DF (2002) Challenges and opportunities for science in reducing nutrient over-enrichment of coastal ecosystems. Estuaries 25:886–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolgrien DW, Angradi T, Schweiger EW, Kelly JR (2005) Contemplating the assessment of great river ecosystems. Environ Monit Assess 103:5–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bormans M, Webster IT (1999) Modeling the spatial and temporal variability in diatoms in the River Murray. J Plankton Res 21:581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett MT, Muller-Navarra DC, Ballantyne AP, Ravet JL, Goldman CR (2006) Daphnia fatty acid composition reflects that of their diet. Limnol Oceanogr 51:2428–2437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bukaveckas PA, Shaw W (1998) Phytoplankton responses to nutrient and grazer manipulations among northeastern lakes of varying pH. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:958–966

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bukaveckas PA, Guelda DL, Jack JD, Koch R, Sellers T, Shostell J (2005) Effects of point source loadings, sub-basin inputs and longitudinal variation in material retention on C, N and P delivery from the Ohio River basin. Ecosystems 8:825–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Canuel EA (2001) Relations between river flow, primary production and fatty acid composition of particulate organic matter in San Francisco and Chesapeake Bays: a multivariate approach. Org Geochem 32:563–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Strayer DL (2006) Top–down control from the bottom: Regulation of eutrophication in a large river by benthic grazing. Limnol Oceanogr 51:664–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Cole JJ, Hodgson JR, Kitchell JF, Pace ML, Bade D, Cottingham KL, Essington TE, Houser JN, Schindler DE (2001) Trophic cascades, nutrients, and lake productivity: experimental enrichment of lakes with contrasting food webs. Ecol Monogr 71:163–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang J, Shiah F-K, Gong G-C, Chiang KP (2003) Cross-shelf variation in carbon-to-chlorophyll a ratios in the East China Sea, summer 1998. Deep Sea Res Part II 50:1237–1247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cloern JE (2001) Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication model. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 210:223–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cloern JE, Grenz C, Vidergar-Lucas L (1995) An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyll:carbon ratio—the conversion factor between productivity and growth rate. Limnol Oceanogr 40:1313–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delong MD (2010) Food webs and the Upper Mississippi River: contributions to our understanding of ecosystem function in large rivers. Hydrobiologia 640:89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delong MD, Thorp JH (2006) Significance of instream autotrophs in trophic dynamics of the Upper Mississippi River. Oecologia 147:76–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds WK, Smith VH, Lohman K (2002) Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to benthic algal biomass in temperate streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:865–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle MW, Ensign SH (2009) Alternative reference frames in river system science. Bioscience 59:499–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan S, Bianchi TS (2006) Seasonal changes in the abundance and composition of plant pigments in particulate organic carbon in the lower Mississippi and Pearl Rivers. Estuar Coasts 29:427–442

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elser JJ, Chrzanowski TH, Sterner RW, Mills KH (1998) Stoichiometric constraints on food-web dynamics: a whole-lake experiment on the Canadian Shield. Ecosystems 1:120–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elser JJ, Frost P, Kyle M, Urabe J, Andersen T (2002) Effects of light and nutrients on plankton stoichiometry and biomass in a P-limited lake. Hydrobiologia 481:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari I, Farabegoli A, Mazzoni R (1989) Abundance and diversity of planktonic rotifers in the Po River. Hydrobiologia 186(187):201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher TR, Gustafson AB, Radcliffe GM, Sundberg KL, Stevenson JC (2003) A long-term record of photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) and total solar energy at 38.6N and 78.2W. Estuaries 26:1450–1460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Galat DL, Berry CR, Peters EJ, White RG (2005) Missouri River basin. In: Benke AC, Cushing CE (eds) Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Giblin S, Hoff K, Fischer J, Dukerschein JT (2010) Evaluation of light penetration on navigation pools 8 and 13 of the Upper Mississippi River. In: US Geological Survey Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Technical Report 2010–T001

  • Gosselain V, Descy JP, Viroux L, Joaquim-Justo C, Hammer A, Metens A, Schweitzer S (1998a) Grazing by large river zooplankton: a key to summer potamoplankton decline? The case of the Meuse and Moselle rivers in 1994 and 1995. Hydrobiologia 369:199–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosselain V, Viroux L, Descy JP (1998b) Can a community of small-bodied grazers control phytoplankton in rivers? Freshw Biol 39:9–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorovich IA, Angradi TR, Stepian CA (2008) Occurrence of the Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) and the zerbra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Upper Mississippi River system. J Freshw Ecol 23:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guelda DL, Koch RW, Jack JD, Bukaveckas PA (2005) Experimental evidence for density-dependent effects and the importance of algal production in determining population growth rates of riverine zooplankton. River Res Appl 21:595–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwen WL, Fellows CS, Westhorpe DP, Rees GN, Mitrovic SM, Taylor B, Baldwin DS, Silvester E, Croome R (2009) Longitudinal trends in river functioning: patterns of nutrient and carbon processing in three Australian rivers. River Res Appl. doi:10.1002/rra.1321

  • Hamilton DP, Schladow SG (1997) Prediction of water quality in lakes and reservoirs.1. Model description. Ecol Model 96:91–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Havel JE, Medley KA, Dickerson KD, Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW, Bukaveckas PA, Jicha TM (2009) Effect of main-stem dams on zooplankton communities of the Missouri River (USA). Hydrobiologia 628:121–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill WR, Fanta SE, Roberts BJ (2009) Quantifying phosphorus and light effects on stream algae. Limnol Oceanogr 54:368–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill BH, Elonen CM, Jicha TM, Bolgrien DW, Moffett MF (2010) Sediment microbial enzyme activity as an indicator of nutrient limitation in the great rivers of the Upper Mississippi River basin. Biogeochemistry 97:195–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Houser JN, Bierman DW, Burdis RM, Soeken-Gittinger LA (2010) Longitudinal trends and discontinuities in nutrients, chlorophyll, and suspended solids in the Upper Mississippi River: implications for transport, processing, and export by large rivers. Hydrobiologia 651:127–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Idso SB, Gilbert RG (1974) On the universality of the Poole and Atkins Secchi disk–light extinction equation. J Appl Ecol 11:399–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James WF, Larson CE (2008) Phosphorus dynamics and loading in the turbid Minnesota River (USA): controls and recycling potential. Biogeochemistry 90:75–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jassby AD, Cloern JE, Powell TM (1993) Organic carbon sources and sinks in San Francisco Bay: freshwater induced variability. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 95:39–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones RH, Flynn KJ (2005) Nutritional status and diet composition affect the value of diatoms as copepod prey. Science 307:1457–1459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Julian JP, Doyle MW, Stanley EH (2008) Empirical modeling of light availability in rivers. J Geophys Res 113:G03022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy JT, Whalen SC (2008) Seasonality and controls of phytoplankton productivity in the middle Cape Fear River, USA. Hydrobiologia 598:203–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knoll LB, Vanni MJ, Renwick WH (2003) Phytoplankton primary production and photosynthetic parameters in reservoirs along a gradient of watershed land use. Limnol Oceanogr 48:608–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch RW, Guelda DL, Bukaveckas PA (2004) Phytoplankton growth in the Ohio, Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, USA: inter-site differences in light and nutrient limitation. Aquat Ecol 38:17–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lair N (2006) A review of regulation mechanisms of metazoan plankton in riverine ecosystems: aquatic habitat versus biota. River Res Appl 22:567–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane SL, Flanagan S, Wilde FD (2003) Selection of equipment for water sampling (ver. 2.0). In: Wilde FD et al (eds) US Geological survey techniques of water-resources investigations, book 9, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data, chap. A2, vol 9. pp 101, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska

  • Lavaud J, Strzepek RF, Kroth PG (2007) Photoprotection capacity differs among diatoms: possible consequences on the spatial distribution of diatoms related to fluctuations in the underwater light climate. Limnol Oceanogr 52:1188–1194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis WM (1988) Primary production in the Orinoco River. Ecology 69:679–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lionard M, Muylaert K, Tackx M, Vyverman W (2008) Evaluation of the performance of HPLC-CHEMTAX analysis for determining phytoplankton biomass and composition in a turbid estuary (Schelde, Belgium). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 76:809–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas LV, Thompson JK, Brown LR (2009) Why are diverse relationships observed between phytoplankton biomass and transport time? Limnol Oceanogr 54:381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malzahn AM, Aberle N, Clemmesen C, Boersma M (2007) Nutrient limitation of primary producers affects planktivorous fish condition. Limnol Oceanogr 52:2062–2071

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer LM, Schick LL, Allison MA (2008) Input of nutritionally rich organic matter from the Mississippi River to the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Estuar Coasts 31:1052–1062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCallister SL, Bauer JE, Canuel EA (2006) Bioreactivity of estuarine dissolved organic matter: a combined geochemical and microbiological approach. Limnol Oceanogr 51:94–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrovic SM, Howden CG, Bowling LC, Buckney RT (2003) Unusual allometry between in situ growth of freshwater phytoplankton under static and fluctuating light environments: possible implications for dominance. J Plankton Res 25:517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver RL, Merrick CJ (2006) Partitioning of river metabolism identifies phytoplankton as a major contributor in the regulated Murray River (Australia). Freshw Biol 51:1131–1148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pace ML, Cole JJ (2000) Effects of whole-lake manipulations of nutrient loading and food web structure on planktonic respiration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:487–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putland JN, Iverson RL (2007) Phytoplankton biomass in a subtropical estuary: Distribution, size composition, and carbon:chlorophyll ratios. Estuar Coasts 30:878–885

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds CS, Descy JP (1996) The production, biomass and structure of phytoplankton in large rivers. Arch Hydrobiol Large Rivers 10(suppl 113):161–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds CS, Glaister MS (1993) Spatial and temporal changes in phytoplankton abundance in the upper and middle reaches of the River Severn. Arch Hydrobiol 101:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DC, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Aufdenkampe AK (2009) Temporal dynamics of seston: a recurring nighttime peak and seasonal shifts in composition in a stream ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 54:344–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roditi HA, Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Strayer DL (1996) Filtration of Hudson River water by the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Estuaries 19:824–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmaso N, Braioni MG (2008) Factors controlling the seasonal development and distribution of the phytoplankton community in the lowland course of a large river in Northern Italy (River Adige). Aquat Ecol 42:533–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger EW, Bolgrien DW, Angradi TR, Kelly JR (2005) Environmental monitoring and assessment of a great river ecosystem: the upper Missouri River pilot. Environ Monit Assess 103:21–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sellers T, Bukaveckas PA (2003) Phytoplankton production in a large, regulated river: a modeling and mass balance assessment. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1476–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluss TD, Cobbs GA, Thorp JH (2008) Impact of turbulence on riverine zooplankton: a mesocosm experiment. Freshw Biol 53:1999–2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VH (2003) Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: a global problem. Environ Sci Pollut Res 10:126–139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Søballe DM, Fischer J (2004) Long term resource monitoring program procedures: water quality monitoring. US Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, LTRMP 2004-T001-1 (Ref.95-P002-5)

  • Søballe DM, Kimmel BL (1987) A large-scale comparison of factors influencing phytoplankton abundance in rivers, lakes, and impoundments. Ecology 68:1943–1954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobczak WV, Cloern JE, Jassby AD, Cole BE, Schraga TS, Arnsberg A (2005) Detritus fuels ecosystem metabolism but not metazoan food webs in San Francisco Estuary’s freshwater delta. Estuaries 28:124–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks RE, Nelson JC, Yin Y (1998) Naturalization of the flood regime in regulated rivers. Bioscience 48:706–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staehr PA, Sand-Jensen K (2007) Temporal dynamics and regulation of lake metabolism. Limnol Oceanogr 52:108–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL, Pace ML, Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Findlay SEG (2008) Hydrology and grazing jointly control a large-river food web. Ecology 89:12–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sutula M, Bianchi TS, McKee BA (2004) Effect of seasonal sediment storage in the lower Mississippi Riveron the flux of reactive particulate phosphorus to the Gulf of Mexico. Limnol Oceanogr 49:2223–2235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verity PG (2002) A decade of change in the Skidaway River Estuary. II. Particulate organic carbon, nitrogen and chlorophyll a. Estuaries 25:961–975

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner H, Jakob T, Wilhelm C (2006) Balancing the energy flow from captured light to biomass under fluctuating light conditions. New Phytol 169:95–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wahl DH, Goodrich J, Nannini MA, Dettmers JM, Soluk DA (2008) Exploring riverine zooplankton in three habitats of the Illinois River ecosystem: where do they come from? Limnol Oceanogr 53:2583–2593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalen SC, Benson PM (2007) Influence of nutrient reduction, light and light-nutrient interactions on phytoplankton biomass, primary production and community composition in the Neuse River, USA. Arch Hydrobiol 168:257–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurista PM, Johnston K, Rice G, Kipphut GW, White DS (2001) Particulate organic carbon patterns in a mainstem reservoir, Kentucky Lake, USA. Lake Reserv Manag 17:330–340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the EMAP GRE field crews for their dedication in the collection of these data. PAB is also grateful to the organizer, Jeff Houser, and participants of the 2010 meeting of the Mississippi River Research Consortium for their many positive comments on this study. PAB was supported as a Fulbright Scholar at the Klaipeda University Coastal Research and Planning Institute during completion of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 West Cary Street, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA

    Paul A. Bukaveckas & Amy MacDonald

  2. Stroud Water Research Center, 970 Spencer Road, Avondale, PA, 19311, USA

    Anthony Aufdenkampe

  3. Illinois Natural History Survey, National Great Rivers Research and Education Center, East Alton, IL, 62012, USA

    John H. Chick

  4. Department of Biology, Missouri State University, 901 South National Avenue, Springfield, MO, 65897, USA

    John E. Havel

  5. Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Richard Schultz

  6. Mid-Continent Ecology Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, MN, 55804, USA

    Ted R. Angradi, David W. Bolgrien, Terri M. Jicha & Debra Taylor

Authors
  1. Paul A. Bukaveckas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Aufdenkampe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John H. Chick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John E. Havel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ted R. Angradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David W. Bolgrien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Terri M. Jicha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Debra Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul A. Bukaveckas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bukaveckas, P.A., MacDonald, A., Aufdenkampe, A. et al. Phytoplankton abundance and contributions to suspended particulate matter in the Ohio, Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Aquat Sci 73, 419–436 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0190-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0190-y

Keywords

  • Ecosystems
  • Rivers
  • Phytoplankton
  • Chlorophyll
  • Suspended particulate matter