How length of light exposure shapes the development of riverine algal biomass in temperate rivers?
The impact of cumulative daily solar radiation (CDSR) on the biomass of river phytoplankton (Chl-a) in the growing season was studied using a large dataset of rivers in the Carpathian Basin. The amount of solar radiation was cumulated over the range of 1–60 days. The CDSR–Chl-a relationship could be described by linear regression and appeared to be significant for almost all watercourses with the exception of rivers with short water residence time. To determine the most relevant time period of CDSR impacting phytoplankton biomass, the slopes of regressions were plotted against the accumulating number of days of light exposure (1–60). Two characteristic shapes were obtained: unimodal for rhithral rivers with hard substrate and steady increase for lowland potamal rivers with fine substrate. In both cases, there is an increasing tendency in the slope values with water residence time (WRT). It was demonstrated that CDSR has a pronounced impact on river phytoplankton biomass even in cases when WRT was shorter than the cumulated solar radiation period. These results indicate that development of phytoplankton within the river channel is a complex process in which meroplankton dynamics may have significant impacts. Our results have two implications: First, CDSR cannot be neglected in predictive modelling of riverine phytoplankton biomass. Second, climate models forecast increased drought with subsequently increased CDSR in several regions globally, which may trigger a rise in phytoplankton biomass in light-limited rivers with high nutrient concentrations.
KeywordsCumulative daily solar radiation Phytoplankton Residence time
Authors are financially supported by the GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00019 Project and by the MTA Postdoctoral Research Program (PD-019/2016). Partial support was provided by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH K-120595).
- Birge, E. A., 1916. The work of the wind in warming a lake. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 18: 341–391.Google Scholar
- Bolgovics, Á., G. Várbíró, É. Ács, Z. Trábert, K. T. Kiss, V. Pozderka, J. Görgényi, P. Boda, B. A. Lukács, Z. Nagy-László, A. Abonyi & G. Borics, 2017. Phytoplankton of rhithral rivers: its origin, diversity and possible use for quality-assessment. Ecological Indicators 81: 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bukaveckas, P. A., A. MacDonald, A. Aufdenkampe, J. H. Chick, J. E. Havel, R. Schultz, T. R. Angradi, D. W. Bolgrien, T. M. Jicha & D. Taylor, 2011. Phytoplankton abundance and contributions to suspended particulate matter in the Ohio, Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Aquatic Sciences 73: 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dokulil, M. T. & U. Donabaum, 2014. Phytoplankton of the Danube river: composition and long-term dynamics. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 7: 147–152.Google Scholar
- Graf, W., B. Csányi, P. Leitner, M. Paunovic, G. Chiriac, I. Stubauer, T. Ofenböck & F. Wagner, 2008. Macroinvertebrate. In: I. Liška, F. Wagner, J. Slobodnik, Joint Danube Survey 2—Final Scientific Report, ICPDR—International Commission for The Protection of The Danube River, Vienna, 41–47.Google Scholar
- Kirk, J. T., 1985. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 401.Google Scholar
- MSZ ISO 10260:1993 Water quality. Measurement of biochemical parameters. Spectrometric determination of the chlorophyll-a concentration.Google Scholar
- Platts, W.S., 1983. Vegetation requirements for fisheries habitats. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT, 157.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, C. S., 1984. The Ecology of Freshwater Phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Reynolds.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, C. S. & J. P. Descy, 1996. The production, biomass and structure of phytoplankton in large rivers. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement Large Rivers 113: 161–187.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, C. S., A. Elliott & T. Irish, 2004. Modelling the dynamics of phytoplankton with the needs of the end user in mind. In Freshwater Forum 23: 38–47.Google Scholar
- R Core Team, 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
- Sommer, U., Z. M. Gliwicz, W. Lampert & A. Duncan, 1986. The PEG-model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 106: 433–471.Google Scholar
- Szász, G. 1997. Meteorológia—Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 267–280.Google Scholar
- Talling, J. F., 1971. The underwater light climate as a controlling factor in the production ecology of freshwater phytoplankton. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 19: 214–243.Google Scholar
- Várbíró, G., É. Ács, G. Borics, K. Érces, G. Fehér, I. Grigorszky, T. Japport, G. Kocsis, E. Krasznai, K. Nagy, Z. Nagy-László & Z. Pilinszky, 2007. Use of Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) for characterization of riverine phytoplankton associations in Hungary. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 17: 383–394.Google Scholar