, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 209–218 | Cite as

Periphyton nutrient content, biomass and algal community on artificial substrate: response to experimental nutrient enrichment and the effect of its interruption in a tropical reservoir

  • Suele Aparecida Mendes Santos
  • Thiago Rodrigues dos Santos
  • Mariana S. R. Furtado
  • Raoul Henry
  • Carla Ferragut
Research paper


Periphyton plays an important functional role in the retention of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems, especially phosphorus. We evaluated the effects of enrichment with N and P and the effect after 20 days of no additional N and P on periphyton on artificial substratum in open-bottom mesocosms. The aim was to jointly evaluate periphyton, phytoplankton and zooplankton in the presence of macrophytes. Experimental conditions simulated natural conditions and nutrient addition was based on the maximum concentration recorded in mesotrophic reservoir. Our hypothesis is that the periphyton is sensitive to the effects of N and P enrichment and its interruption, despite the positive response of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Two treatments were designed using open-bottom mesocosms (n = 3): control (no nutrient addition); NP+ (combined phosphorus and nitrogen addition). Sampling for the measurement of biotic and abiotic variables was performed, with 10 days of continuous enrichment, on the 3rd, 6th and 11th, and 20 days after enrichment had ended (31st day). Periphyton chlorophyll a, dry mass and algal density increased significantly with the addition of N and P and decreased 20 days after the interruption of the enrichment. The highest periphyton P content was found in the NP+ treatment. The enrichment had a positive effect on Chrysophyceae (Chromulina spp.) and rotifer (Polyarthra spp.) density and the interruption of enrichment favored Bacillariophyceae (Gomphonema sp.) and rotifers (Gastropus stylifer). Phytoplankton responded positively to enrichment. Along with the high macrophyte coverage over the experimental period, we evidenced the positive effect enrichment had on phytoplankton biomass and zooplankton abundance. Therefore, periphyton on artificial substrate was sensitive to effects of N and P enrichment and its interruption, responding promptly to changes in nutrient availability in a scenario of high competition and grazing.


Macrophyte coverage Phytoplankton chlorophyll a Periphyton N and P content Zooplankton 



The authors thank the PIBIC Institutional Program — CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for a fellowship given to SAMS. The authors also thank Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for doctoral grants for TRS (2013/03130-2) and financial support (2009/52253-4). The authors are very grateful to the students and technicians involved in laboratory work and in the field.


  1. Andersen JM (1976) An ignition method for determination of total phosphorus in lake sediments. Water Res 10:329–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA, AWWA, WEF (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicudo DC, Forti MC, Bicudo CEM (2002) Parque Estadual das Fontes do Ipiranga: unidade de conservação ameaçada pela urbanização de São Paulo. Editora Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  4. Casartelli MR, Ferragut C (2015) Influence of seasonality and rooted aquatic macrophyte on periphytic algal community on artificial substratum in a shallow tropical reservoir. Int Rev Hydrobiol 100:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattaneo A, Amireault MC (1992) How artificial are artificial substrata for periphyton? J N Am Benthol Soc 11:244–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fanta SE, Hill WR, Smith TB, Roberts BJ (2010) Applying the light: nutrient hypothesis to stream periphyton. Freshw Biol 55:931–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferragut C, Bicudo DC (2012) Effect of N and P enrichment on successional sequence of the periphytic algae community in a tropical oligotrophic reservoir. Limnology 13:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferragut C, Rodello AF, Bicudo CEM (2010) Seasonal variability of periphyton nutrient status and biomass on artificial and natural substrates in a tropical mesotrophic reservoir. Acta Limnol Bras 22(4):397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fonseca BM, Bicudo CEM (2011) Phytoplankton seasonal and vertical variations in a tropical shallow reservoir with abundant macrophytes (Ninfeias Pond, Brazil). Hydrobiologia 665:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frost PC, Cherrier CT, Larson JH, Bridgham S, Lamberti GA (2007) Effects of dissolved organic matter and ultraviolet radiation on the accrual, stoichiometry and algal taxonomy of stream periphyton. Freshwater Biol 52(2):319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaiser EE, Scinto LJ, Richards JH, Jayachandran K, Childers DL, Trexler JC, Jones RD (2004) Phosphorus in periphyton mats provides the best metric for detecting low-level P enrichment in an oligotrophic wetland. Water Res 38:507–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaiser EE, Childers DL, Jones RD, Richards JH, Scinto LJ, Trexler JC (2006) Periphyton responses to eutrophication in the Florida Everglades: cross-system patterns of structural and compositional change. Limnol Oceanogr 51:617–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Genkai-Kato M, Vadeboncoeur Y, Liboriussen L, Jeppesen E (2012) Benthic–planktonic coupling, regime shifts, and whole‐lake primary production in shallow lakes. Ecology 93(3):619–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software packagefor education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electronica 4:1–9Google Scholar
  15. Happey-Wood CM (1988) Ecology of freshwater planktonic green algae. In: Sandgren CD (ed) Growth and reproductive strategies of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 175–226Google Scholar
  16. Havens KE, East TL, Rodusky AJ, Sharfstein B (1999) Littoral periphyton responses to nitrogen and phosphorus: an experimental study in a subtropical lake. Aquat Bot 63:267–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Havens KE, Hauxwell J, Tyler AC, Thomas S, Mc Glathery KJ, Cebrian J, Valiela I, Steinman AD, Hwang SJ (2001) Complex interactions between autotrophs in shallow marine and freshwater ecosystems: implications for community responses to nutrient stress. Environ Pollut 113:95–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillebrand H, Kahlert M (2001) Effect of grazing and nutrient supply on periphyton biomass and nutrient stoichiometry in habitats of different productivity. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1881–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hwang SJ, Havens KE, Steinman AD (1998) Phosphorus kinetics of planktonic and benthic assemblages in a shallow subtropical lake. Freshw Biol 40:729–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones JI, Moss B, Eaton JW, Young JO (2000) Do submerged aquatic plants influence periphyton community composition for the benefit of invertebrate mutualists? Freshw Biol 43:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones JI, Young JO, Eaton JW, Moss B (2002) The influence of nutrient loading, dissolved inorganic carbon and higher trophic levels on the interaction between submerged plants and periphyton. J Ecol 90:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liess A, Lange K, Schulz F, Piggott JJ, Matthaei CD, Townsend CR (2009) Light, nutrients and grazing interact to determine diatom species richness via changes to productivity, nutrient state and grazer activity. J Ecol 97:326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund JWG, Kipling C, Le-Cren ED (1958) The inverted microscope method of estimating algal number and the statistical basis of estimating by counting. Hydrobiologia 11:143–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mackereth FJH, Heron J, Talling JF (1978) Water analysis: some revised methods for limnologists. Titus Wilson and Son Ltda, KendallGoogle Scholar
  25. McCormick PV, Stevenson RJ (1998) Periphyton as a tool for ecological assessment and management in the Florida Everglades. J Phycol 34(5):726–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Obertegger U, Flaim G (2015) Community assembly of rotifers based on morphological traits. Hydrobiologia 753:31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olsen S, Chan F, Li W, Zhao S, Søndergaard M, Jeppesen E (2015) Strong impact of nitrogen loading on submerged macrophytes and algae: a long-term mesocosm experiment in a shallow Chinese lake. Freshw Biol 60:1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson CG, Stevenson RJ (1992) Resistance and resilience of lotic algal communities: importance of disturbance timing and current. Ecology 73(4):1445–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pompêo MLM, Moschini-Carlos V (2003) Macrófitas aquáticas e perifíton: aspectos ecológicos e metodológicos. Rima/Fapesp, São CarlosGoogle Scholar
  30. Rasband W (2008) ImageJ. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  31. Rober AR, Stevenson RJ, Wyatt KH (2015) The role of light availability and herbivory on algal responses to nutrient enrichment in a riparian wetland, Alaska. J Phycol 51:528–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Romo S, Miracle MR, Villena MJ, Rueda J, Ferriol C, Vicente E (2004) Mesocosm experiments on nutrient and fish effects on shallow lake food webs in a Mediterranean climate. Freshw Biol 49:1593–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandgren CD (1988) The ecology of chrysophyte flagellates: their growth and perennation strategies as freshwater phytoplankton. In: Sandgren CD (ed) Growth and reproductive strategies of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–104Google Scholar
  34. Sand-Jensen K, Borum J (1991) Interactions among phytoplankton periphyton and macrophytes in temperate freshwaters and estuaries. Aquat Bot 41:137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santos TR (2017) Dinâmica da comunidade de algas planctônicas, perifíticas e metafíticas em reservatório tropical raso: um estudo observacional e experimental. Doctoral thesis. Instituto de Botânica, SMA, São Paulo, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  36. Sartory DP, Grobbelaar JU (1984) Extraction of chlorophyll a from freshwater phytoplankton for spectrophotometric analysis. Hydrobiologia 114:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sekar R, Venugopalan VP, Nair KVK, Rao VNR (2002) Nutrients dynamics and successional changes in a lentic freshwater biofilm. Freshw Biol 47:1893–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Solorzano L (1969) Determination of ammonia in natural waters by the phenolhypochlorite method. Limnol Oceanogr 14(5):799–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Souza ML, Pellegrini BG, Ferragut C (2015) Periphytic algal community structure in relation to seasonal variation and macrophyte richness in a shallow tropical reservoir. Hydrobiologia 755(1):183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevenson RJ (1996) An introduction to algal ecology in freshwater benthic habitats. In: Stevenson RJ, Bothwell ML, Lowe RL (eds) Algal ecology: freshwater benthic ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stevenson RJ (1997) Scale-dependent determinants and consequences of benthic algal heterogeneity. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:248–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stevenson RJ, Smol JP (2003) Use of algae in environmental assessments. In: Wehr JD, Sheath RG (eds) Freshwater algae of North America ecology and classification. Elsevier Science (USA), San Diego, pp 775–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1960) A manual of seawater analysis. Bull Fish Res Board Can 125:1–185Google Scholar
  44. Utermöhl H (1958) Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt Intern Verein Limnol 9:1–38Google Scholar
  45. Vadeboncoeur Y, Steinman AD (2002) Periphyton function in lake ecosystems. Sci World J 2:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vadeboncoeur Y, Kalff J, Christoffersen K, Jeppesen E (2006) Substratum as a driver of variation in periphyton chlorophyll and productivity in lakes. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Virro T (1995) The genus Polyarthra in Lake Peipsi. Hydrobiologia 313(314):351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang Z, Cao Y, Jeppesen E, Wei L (2016) The response of Vallisneria spinulosa (Hydrocharitaceae) and plankton to pulse addition of inorganic nitrogen with different loading patterns. Hydrobiologia 767:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Limnology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Botânica, Núcleo de Pesquisas em EcologiaSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Campus de Botucatu’Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESPBotucatuBrazil

Personalised recommendations