Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 146, Issue 1–3, pp 171–181 | Cite as

Effects of water quality and hydrologic drivers on periphyton colonization on Sparganium erectum in two Turkish lakes with different mixing regimes

  • Meriç Albay
  • Reyhan Akçaalan
Article

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to determine and compare the environmental factors controlling vertical colonisation of periphyton on Sparganium erectum in a shallow eutrophic turbid lake, Manyas Lake, and an oligo-mesotrophic deep lake, Sapanca Lake, Turkey during the July 1997–November 1998. To investigate the effect of the environmental factors on periphyton colonization on S. erectum, the stem was cut above the rhizomes and subdivided into three equal sections. Multivariate statistical analyses have been applied to clarify relationships between environmental variables and periphyton colonization on S. erectum. Results indicated that physical disturbance and trophic level of the lakes influenced the colonization of the periphyton. Among the measured parameters, low light intensity, total suspended solids, temperature and water level fluctuation were observed as driving factors in Manyas Lake whereas nutrient deficiency was found as key factor in Sapanca Lake. The zonation of the periphyton, density, composition and dominant/subdominant taxa were significantly different in these lakes. However, Oedogonium sp., Mougeotia sp., Cylindrocapsa sp., Cladophora glomerata (Linn.), Aulacoseira italica (Ehr.) Simonsen, Melosira varians C. Agardh, Navicula tripunctata (O.F. Müller) Bory and Fragilaria ulna (Nitzsch) Lange-Bertalot were found as dominant species at all sections of S. erectum both in Manyas Lake and Sapanca Lake. It can be thought that these species have a broad range of tolerance to several physical, chemical and hydrologic disturbances. This is the first study to introduce how much the water quality and hydrologic drivers have affected vertical colonization of periphyton on S. erectum in two lakes with different mixing regimes.

Keywords

Periphyton colonization Biomonitoring Manyas lake Sapanca lake Sparganium erectum Water quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ács, É., & Kiss, K. T. (1991). Investigation of periphytic algae in the Danube at Göd (1669 river km, Hungary). Algological Studies, 62, 47–67.Google Scholar
  2. Ács, É., Kiss, K. T., Szabó, K., & Makk, J. (2000). Short-term colonization sequence of periphyton on glass slides in a large river (River Danube, near Budapest). Algological Studies, 100, 135–156.Google Scholar
  3. Albay, M., & Akçaalan, R. (2003). Comparative study of periphyton colonisation on common reed (Phragmites australis) and artificial substrate in shallow lake, Manyas, Turkey. Hydrobiologia, 506–509, 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albay, M., Akçaalan, R., Tüfekçi, H., Metcalf, J. S., Beattie, K. A., & Codd, G. A. (2003). Depth profiles of cyanobacterial hepatotoxins (microcystins) in three Turkish freshwater lakes. Hydrobiologia, 505, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balik, S. (1989). Determination of present state of Manyas Lake and Bird Paradise and look for the way of solution. Projet Number: 1987/050 139p (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, B. J. F. (1989). Biomonitoring of organic pollution using periphyton, South Branch, Canterbury, New Zealand. New-Zealand Journal Marine Freshwater Research, 23, 263–274.Google Scholar
  7. Buczkó, K., & Ács, E. (1998). Comparison of succession of reed periphyton in a degraded and in an undisturbed part of shallow lake (Lake Velencei, Hungary, Central Europa). Verh Internat Verein Theor Ang Limnol, 26, 1674–1676.Google Scholar
  8. Cardinale, B. J., Nelson, K., & Palmer, M. A. (2000). Linking species diversity to the functioning of ecosystems; on the importance of environmental context. Oixos, 91, 175–183.Google Scholar
  9. Cattaneo, A. (1987). Periphyton in lakes of different Trophy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44, 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cederwall, H., & Elmgren, R. (1990). Biological effects of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea, particularly in the coastal zone. Ambio, 19, 109–112.Google Scholar
  11. Çelik, K. (2006). Spatial and seasonal variations in chlorophyll-nutrient relationships in the shallow hypertrophic Lake Manyas, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 117(1–3), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danilov, R. A., & Ekelund, N. G. A. (2001). Comparison of usefulness of three types of artificial substrata (glass, wood and plastic) when studying settlement patterns of periphyton in lakes of different trophic status. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 45, 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erkakan, F. (1997). Manyas Lake watery areas administration plan project. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Environment, General Directorate of Environmental Protection, Ankara. TUBITAK Project Number: 94K100010.Google Scholar
  14. Flynn, N. J., Snook, D. L., Wade, A. J., & Jarvie, H. P. (2002). Macrophyte and periphyton dynamics in a UK Cretaceous chalk stream: The River Kennet, a tributary of the Thames.. The Science of the Total Environment, 282–283, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaiser, E. E., Scinto, L. J., Richards, J. H., Jayachandran, K., Childers, D. L., Trexler, J. C., et al. (2004). Phosphorus in periphyton mats provides the best metric for detecting low-depth P enrichment in an oligotrophic wetland. Water Research, 38, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, W. R., Ryon, M. G., & Schilling, E. M. (1995). Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: Response by primary producers and consumers. Ecology, 76, 1297–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiss, M. K., Lakatos, G., Borics, G., Gido, Z., & Deak, C. (2003). Littoral macrophyte-periphyton complexes in two Hungarian shallow waters. Hydrobiologia, 506–509, 541–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marker, A. F. H., & Collett, G. D. (1997). The spatial and temporal characteristics of algae in the River Great Ouse. II. The epiphytic algal flora. Regulated Rivers, 13, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meulemans, J. T. (1998). Seasonal changes in biomass and production of periphyton growing upon reed in Lake Maarsseveen I. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 112, 21–42.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, M. C., De Oliveria, P., & Gibeau, G. (1992). Epilithic diatom community response to years of PO4- fertilization: Kuparuk River, Alaska (68°N Latitude). Hydrobiologia, 240, 103–119.Google Scholar
  21. Müller, U. (1994). Seasonal development of epiphytic algae on Phragmites australis (CAV.) TRIN. Ex STEN. In a eutrophic lake. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 129(3), 273–292.Google Scholar
  22. Müller, U. (1996). Production rates of epiphytic algae in a eutrophic lake. Hydrobiologia, 330, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nusch, E. (1980). Comparison of different methods for chlorophyll and phaeopigment determination. Arch Hydrobiol Beih, 14, 14–36.Google Scholar
  24. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1982). Eutrophication of waters: monitoring, assessment, and control. Technical Report, Environmental Directorate. OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  25. Pringle, C. M. (1990). Nutrient spatial heterogeneity: effects on community structure, physiognomy, and diversity of stream algae. Ecology, 71, 905–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rychkova, M. A. (1989). Role of water mass dynamics in formation of epiphyte algae communities in a lake. Hydrobiological Journal, 25(3), 7–9.Google Scholar
  27. Scheffer, M. (1998). Ecology of shallow lakes. p. 357. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Sheldon, R. B., & Boylen, C. W. (1975). Factors affecting the contribution by epiphytic algae to the primary productivity of an oligotrophic freshwater lake. Applied Microbiology, 30(4), 657–667.Google Scholar
  29. Sommer, U. (1993). Disturbance–diversity relationship in two lakes of similar nutrient chemistry but contrasting disturbance regimes. Hydrobiologia, 249, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strand, J. A., & Weisner, S. E. B. (1996). Wave exposure related growth of epiphyton: Implications for the distribution of submerged macrophytes in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia, 325(2), 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szabó, K., Ács, É., Pápista, É., Kiss, K. T., Barreto, S., & Makk, J. (2001). Periphyton and phytoplankton in the Soroksár-Danube in Hungary. I. Periphytic algae on reed stems. Acta Botanica Hungarica, 43(1–2), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ter Braak, C. J. F., & Smilauer, P. (2002). CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: Software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Tuğrul, S., & Morkoç, E. (1991). Determination of limnological characteristics of the Sapanca Lake. DOĞA, Tr. J. Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 15, 265–282.Google Scholar
  34. Utermöhl, H. (1958). Zur Vervollkommung der quantitativen phytoplankton-methodik. Mitteil. Verh Internat Verein Theor Ang Limnol, 9, 39.Google Scholar
  35. Vis, C., Hudon, C., Cattaneo, A., & Pinel-Alloul, B. (1998). Periphyton as an indicator of water quality in the St Lawrence River (Quebec, Canada). Environmental Pollution, 101, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wellnitz, T. A., & Ward, J. W. (1998). Does light intensity modify the effect mayfly grazers have on periphyton? Freshwater Biology, 39, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Worm, B., Lotze, H. K., Boström, C., Engkvist, R., Labanauskas, V., & Sommer, U. (1999). Marine diversity shift link to interactions among grazers, nutrients and propagule banks. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 185, 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of FisheriesIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations