Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Water Quality Binning Method to Infer Phytoplankton Community Structure and Function

  • Management Applications
  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 June 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Aspects of phytoplankton community structure (e.g., taxonomic composition, biomass) and function (e.g., light adaptation, net oxygen production, exudation) can be inferred with a binning method that uses water transparency (Secchi depth), dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and ortho-phosphate to classify phytoplankton habitat conditions in the surface mixed layer. The method creates six habitat categories, forming a disturbance scale from turbid, nutrient-enriched waters (“degraded”) to clear waters with bloom-limiting nutrient concentrations (“reference”). Across this disturbance scale, estuarine phytoplankton exhibit strong differences in chlorophyll a, count-based biomass, trophic mode, average cell size, photopigment cell content, taxonomic dominance, and the frequency of algal blooms. Differences in ambient dissolved oxygen and dissolved organic carbon are also observed. Two alternate states are apparent, separated primarily by water transparency, or clarity. Water transparency determines cellular light-adaptation and the potential for photosynthesis and growth; nutrient concentrations determine how much of that potential can be realized if and when light becomes available. In Chesapeake Bay, Secchi depth thresholds separating the two states are 0.7–0.9 m in shallow, well-mixed, low salinity waters and 1.2–2.1 m in deeper, stratified, higher salinity waters. The water quality binning method offers a conceptual framework that can be used to infer the overall state of a phytoplankton population more accurately than chlorophyll a alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 June 2020

    In the original article there is an error in Fig. 5.

References

  • Agusti, Susana, and Carlos M. Duarte. 2013. Phytoplankton lysis predicts dissolved organic carbon release in marine plankton communities. Biogeosciences 10: 1259–1264.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • American Public Health Association (APHA). 1986. Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater, 19thedition. Method 5310 D. Washington, D. C.: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation.

  • Baird, Daniel, and Robert E. Ulanowicz. 1989. The seasonal dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 59 (4): 329–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batiuk, Richard A., Robert J. Orth, Kenneth A. Moore, William C. Dennison, J. Court Stevenson, Lorie W. Staver, Virginia Carter, Nancy B. Rybicki, R. Edward Hickman, Stan Kollar, Steven Bieber, and Patsy Heasly. 1992. Submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: A technical synthesis. Chesapeake Bay Program, CBP/TRS 83/92.

  • Batiuk, Richard A., Peter Bergstrom, Michael Kemp, Evamaria Koch, Laura Murray, J. Court Stevenson, Rick Bartleson, Virginia Carter, Nancy B. Rybicki, Jurate M. Landwehr, Charles Gallegos, Lee Karrh, Michael Naylor, David Wilcox, Kenneth A. Moore, Steve Ailstock, and Mirta Teichberg. 2000. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation water quality and habitat-based requirements and restoration targets: A second technical synthesis. Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 903-R-00-014.

  • Billington, Neil. 1991. A comparison of three methods of measuring phytoplankton biomass on a daily and seasonal basis. Hydrobiologia 226 (1): 1–15.

  • Bosch, H.F., and R. Rowland Taylor. 1972. Diurnal vertical migration of an estuarine cladoceran, Podon polyphemoides, in the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 19 (2): 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Claire. 2015. Balanced, indigenous, desirable phytoplankton populations in Virginia tidal waters. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River, Report 15–3. www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ICP15-3_Buchanan.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Buchanan, Claire, and Jeffrey A. Schloss. 1983. Spatial distributions and hypothetical grazing pressures of zooplankton in the tidal, freshwater Potomac River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2 (2): 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Claire, Richard V. Lacouture, Harold G. Marshall, Marcia M. Olson, and Jacqueline M. Johnson. 2005. Phytoplankton reference communities for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Estuaries 28 (1): 138–159.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Kent E., Jacqueline M. Johnson, and Claire Buchanan. 2006. An index of biotic integrity based on the summer polyhaline zooplankton community of the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Environmental Research 62 (3): 165–180.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cerco, Carl F., and Mark R. Noel. 2004. Process-based primary production modeling in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 282: 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerco, Carl F., and Mark R. Noel. 2017. The 2017 Chesapeake Bay water quality and sediment transport model: A report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program. Draft. U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/2017_WQSTM_Documentation_DRAFT_5-10-17.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Cerco, Carl F., Sung-Chan Kim, and Mark R. Noel. 2010. The 2010 Chesapeake Bay eutrophication model, a report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program and the U. S. Army Engineer Baltimore District. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publications/title/the_2010_chesapeake_bay_eutrophication_model1. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). 2015. Bathymetry of the Chesapeake Bay. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=fc8636d63c4042168f6d82ecf62da5b2. Accessed 7 August 2019.

  • Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Data Integrity Workgroup. 2017. Methods and quality assurance for Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring programs. CBP/TRS-319-17. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/CBPMethodsManualMay2017.pdf Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Christensen, Villy, Alasdair Beattie, Claire Buchanan, Hongguang Ma, Steven J. D. Martell, Robert J. Latour, Dave Preikshot, Madeline B. Sigrist, James H. Uphoff, Carl J. Walters, Robert J. Wood, and Howard Townsend. 2009. Fisheries ecosystem model of the Chesapeake Bay: Methodology, parameterization, and model explanation. U.S. Dept. Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-106. https://origin-apps-pifsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/library/pubs/tech/NOAA_TM_NMFS_F-SPO_106.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Cuker, Benjamin E., and Michael A. Watson. 2002. Diel vertical migration of zooplankton in contrasting habitats of the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 25 (2): 296–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE). 2014. District of Columbia Water Quality Standards. District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Section 1104.8. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/dcwqs-2014.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2020.

  • Falkowski, Paul G., and Julie LaRoche. 1991. Acclimation to spectral irradiance in algae. Journal of Phycology 27 (1): 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Chunlei, and Robert A. Warner. 2014. Characterization of water reflectance spectra variability: Implications for hyperspectral remote sensing in estuarine waters. Marine Sciences 4 (1): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Thomas R., and Anne B. Gustafson. 2005. Nutrient-addition bioassays in Chesapeake Bay to assess resources limiting algal growth. Final interpretive report: August 1990 – May 2005. Report prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program, by University of Maryland Horn Point Laboratory, Cambridge, Maryland.

  • Fisher, Thomas R., James D. Hagy, and Emma Rochelle-Newall. 1998. Dissolved and particulate organic carbon in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 21 (2): 215–229.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Thomas R., Anne B. Gustafson, Kevin Sellner, Richard Lacouture, Lawrence W. Haas, Robert L. Wetzel, Magnien Robert, D. Everitt, Bruce Michaels, and Renee Karrh. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation of resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 133: 763–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, Gordon E., and D.F. Westlake. 1953. The importance of extracellular products of algae in freshwater. International Society of Limnology, Proceedings 12 (1): 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallegos, Charles L., P. Jeremy Werdell, and Charles R. McClain. 2011. Long-term changes in light scattering in Chesapeake Bay inferred from Secchi depth, light attenuation, and remote sensing measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans 116: C00H08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, George R., Michael L. Bowman, Jeroen Gerritsen, and Blaine D. Snyder. 2000. Estuarine and coastal marine waters: bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance. EPA 822-B-00-024. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.

  • Glibert, Patricia M. 2016. Margalef revisited: A new phytoplankton mandala incorporating twelve dimensions, including nutritional physiology. Harmful Algae 55: 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Lawrence W., Michael E. Mallonee, Elgin S. Perry, W. David Miller, Jason E. Adolf, Charles L. Gallegos, and Hans W. Pearl. 2019. Long-term trends, current status, and transitions of water quality in Chesapeake Bay. Scientific Reports 9: 6709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, Helmut, Claus-Dieter Dürselen, David Kikrschtel, Utsa Pollingher, and Tamar Zohary. 1999. Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. Journal of Phycology 35: 403–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Joint Commission (IJC). 2012. 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. https://www.ijc.org/en/who/mission/glwqa. Accessed 8 January 2020.

  • Johnson, Jacqueline M., and Claire Buchanan. 2013. Revisiting the Chesapeake Bay Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186: 1431–1451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasprzak, Peter J., Judit Padisak, Rainer Koschel, Lothar Krienitz, and Frank Gervais. 2008. Chlorophyll a concentration across a trophic gradient of lakes: An estimator of phytoplankton biomass? Limnologica - Ecology and Management of Inland Waters 38 (3–4): 327–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keisman, Jennifer, Carl Friedrichs, Richard Batiuk, Joel Blomquist, Jeffrey Cornwell, Charles Gallegos, Slava Lyubchich, Kenneth Moore, Rebecca Murphy, Robert Orth, Lawrence Sanford, Peter Tango, Jeremy Testa, Mark Trice, and Qian Zhang. 2019. Understanding and explaining 30 years of water clarity trends in the Chesapeake Bay’s tidal waters. Science and technical advisory committee publication number 19–004, Edgewater. Maryland. http://www.chesapeake.org/pubs/411_Keisman2019.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2019.

  • Kemp, W., E. Michael, M. Smith, M. Marvin-DiPasquale, and Walter R. Boynton. 1997. Organic carbon balance and net ecosystem metabolism in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 150: 229–248.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W. Michael, Walter R. Boynton, Jason E. Adolf, Donald F. Boesch, William C. Boicourt, Grace Brush, Jeffrey C. Cornwell, Thomas R. Fisher, Patricia M. Glibert, James D. Hagy, Lawrence W. Harding, Edward D. Houde, David G. Kimmel, W. David Miller, Roger I.E. Newell, Michael R. Roman, Erik M. Smith, and John Court Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, John T.O. 2011. Light and photosynthesis in aquatic ecosystems. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press.

  • Kruskopf, Mikaela, and Kevin J. Flynn. 2006. Chlorophyll content and fluorescence responses cannot be used to gauge reliably phytoplankton biomass, nutrient status or growth rate. New Phytologist 169: 525–536.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lacouture, Richard V. 2001. Quality assurance documentation plan for the phytoplankton component of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program. Report prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources by the Academy of Natural Sciences Estuarine Research Center.

  • Lacouture, Richard V., Jacqueline M. Johnson, Claire Buchanan, and Harold G. Marshall. 2006. Phytoplankton index of biotic integrity for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Estuaries 29 (4): 598–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippson, Alice J., Michael S. Haire, A. Frederick Holland, Fred Jacobs, Jorgen Jensen, R. Lynn Moran-Johnson, Tibor T. Polgar, and William A. Richkus. 1981. Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary. Power Plant Siting Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland.

  • Magnien, Robert E., Robert M. Summers, and Kevin G. Sellner. 1992. External nutrient sources, internal nutrient pools, and phytoplankton production in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15 (4): 497–516.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, Thomas C., Hugh W. Ducklow, Emily R. Peele, and Sharon E. Pike. 1991. Picoplankton carbon flux in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 78: 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Harold G. 1994. Chesapeake Bay phytoplankton: I. composition. Proceedings of Biological Society of Washington 107: 573–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Harold G., and Raymond W. Alden. 1990. A comparison of phytoplankton assemblages and environmental relationships in three estuarine rivers of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 13: 287–300.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Harold G., and Todd A. Egerton. 2009. Phytoplankton blooms: Their occurrence and composition within Virginia’s tidal tributaries. Virginia Journal of Science 60: 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Harold G., and Richard V. Lacouture. 1986. Seasonal patterns of growth and composition for phytoplankton in the lower Chesapeake Bay and tributaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23: 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Harold G., Richard V. Lacouture, Claire Buchanan, and Jacqueline M. Johnson. 2006. Phytoplankton assemblages associated with water quality and salinity regions in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Crego, Begoña, Teresa Alcoverro, and Javier Romero. 2010. Biotic indices for assessing the status of coastal waters: A review of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 12 (5): 1013–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullin, M.M., P.R. Sloan, and R.W. Eppley. 1966. Relationship between carbon content, cell volume, and area in phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 11: 307–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Washington, D. C: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1807 Accessed 19 July 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Marcia M. 1987. Zooplankton. In Ecological studies in the middle reach of Chesapeake Bay, Volume 23, ed. K.L. Heck, 240–253. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Marcia M. 2009. Relative status indicator: Development and evolution of a relative measure of condition for assessing the status of water quality and biological parameters tracked in the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program long term monitoring programs. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Report 09–4. www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ICPRB09-41.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Rochelle-Newall, Emma J., and Thomas R. Fisher. 2002. Chromophoric dissolved organic matter and dissolved organic carbon in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Chemistry 77 (1): 23–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, Michael R., Dale V. Holliday, and Lawrence P. Sanford. 2001. Temporal and spatial patterns of zooplankton in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213: 215–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFWB). 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html. Accessed 8 January 2020.

  • Sellner, Kevin G., David C. Brownlee, Marie H. Bundy, Stella G. Brownlee, and K.R. Braun. 1993. Zooplankton grazing in a Potomac River cyanobacteria bloom. Estuaries 16 (4): 859–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathmann, Richard R. 1967. Estimating the organic carbon content of phytoplankton from cell volume or plasma volume. Limnology and Oceanography 112: 411–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Jun, and Dongyan Liu. 2003. Geometric model for calculating cell biovolume and surface area for plankton. Journal of Plankton Research 25: 1331–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). 2017. Charting the course: The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay. August 2017 Revision. http://www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/192_tbep_ccmp_2017-web.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2020.

  • Testa, Jeremy M., Rebecca R. Murphy, Damian C. Brady, and William M. Kemp. 2018. Nutrient- and climate-induced shifts in the phenology of linked biogeochemical cycles in a temperate estuary. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00114 Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Thornton, Daniel C.O. 2014. Dissolved organic matter (DOM) release by phytoplankton in the contemporary and future ocean. European Journal of Phycology 49 (1): 20–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015. National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, EPA 841-R-15-006. https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/ncca. Accessed 24 July 2019.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. Method 415.1. Office of Research and Development, USEPA-600/4–79-020.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Methods for the determination of inorganic substances in environmental samples. Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-93/100.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Methods for the Determination of Chemical Substances in Marine and Estuarine Environmental Matrices, 2ndedition. Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-97/072.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Chesapeake Bay Introduction to an Ecosystem. Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 903-R-00-001, CBP|TRS 232/00.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 903-R-03-002.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Guide to using Chesapeake bay program water quality monitoring data. Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 903-R-12-001, CBP|TRS 304|12. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/3676/wq_data_userguide_10feb12_mod.pdf Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • Vadrucci, Maria R., Marina Cabrini, and Alberto Basset. 2007. Biovolume determination of phytoplankton guilds in transitional water ecosystems of Mediterranean Ecoregion. Transitional Waters Bulletin 2: 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virginia Code Commission (Virginia). 2019. 9VAC25–260. Water Quality Standards (amending 9VAC25-260-310). The Register of Regulations volume 35, issue 11. http://register.dls.virginia.gov/vol35/iss11/v35i11.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2019.

  • Wetzel, Robert G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and river ecosystems. 3rd ed. London: Elsevier, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White House. 2009. Executive order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and restoration, section 203 final coordinated implementation strategy. Executive Office of the President. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/05/15/E9-11547/chesapeake-bay-protection-and-restoration. Accessed 19 July 2019.

  • White, Harris H., Jeff S. Heaton, and Kathleen B. Schmitz. 1979. Vertical migration of Centropages typicus (copepoda) in Chesapeake Bay, with some thoughts on migration studies. Estuaries 2 (1): 61–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Jiangtao, Raleigh R. Hood, and Shenn-Yu Chao. 2005. A simple empirical optical model for simulating light attenuation variability in a partially mixed estuary. Estuaries 28 (4): 572–580.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This analysis was supported at various times by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and United States Environmental Protection Agency through the Clean Water Act Section 106 and Chesapeake Bay Section 117 programs. Staffs of the Maryland and Virginia tidal monitoring programs and the Chesapeake Bay Program Data Center are gratefully acknowledged. The author also thanks the constructive critiques of several anonymous reviewers. This paper is dedicated to Jacqueline M. Johnson (1965–2017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 30 West Gude Drive, Suite 450, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA

    Claire Buchanan

Authors
  1. Claire Buchanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Buchanan.

Additional information

Communicated by Bongkeun Song

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 827 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buchanan, C. A Water Quality Binning Method to Infer Phytoplankton Community Structure and Function. Estuaries and Coasts 43, 661–679 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00714-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00714-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation