Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 468, Issue 1–3, pp 107–121 | Cite as

Determining trophic state in Lake Whatcom, Washington (USA), a soft water lake exhibiting seasonal nitrogen limitation

  • R. Matthews
  • M. Hilles
  • G. Pelletier
Article

Abstract

We evaluated an eleven year data set to assess trophic state and nutrient limitation in Lake Whatcom, an oligotrophic, soft water, chain lake located in the Puget Sound lowlands of Washington (U.S.A.). Although total phosphorus (TP) and soluble reactive phosphate (SRP) concentrations were relatively low throughout the lake, there were significant differences between the northern basin (Site 1) and the other sampling sites (Sites 2–4). Nonparametric correlation coefficients (Kendall's τβ) were highest between chlorophyll (CHL), Secchi depth (SD), total nitrogen (TN), and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). Late summer algal biomass correlated best with DIN and TP. Trophic State Indices based on TP, TN, CHL and SD revealed that although algal growth was most likely phosphorus limited throughout the year, the northern basin of the lake may have developed nitrogen co-limitation during late summer and fall. During this period, N/P ratios were often less than 20, and in 1998 the epilimnetic DIN concentrations dropped below 20 μg l−1 while DIN/TP ratios fell below 4. Reviews of the literature suggest that while co-limitation by phosphorus and nitrogen is fairly common in unproductive lakes, the patterns seen in Lake Whatcom were more similar to those reported for eutrophic lakes experiencing secondary nitrogen limitation resulting from excess phosphorus loading.

lake trophic state nitrogen limitation N/P ratios 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldridge, F. J., E. J. Philips & C. L. Schelske, 1995. The use of nutrient enrichment bioassays to test for spatial and temporal distribution of limiting factors affecting phytoplankton dynamics in Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 45: 177–190.Google Scholar
  2. APHA, 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edn. American Public Health Association, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. Axler, R. P., C. Rose & C. A. Tikkanen, 1994. Phytoplankton nutrient deficiency as related to atmospheric nitrogen deposition in northern Minnesota acid-sensitive lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 51: 1281–1296.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, R. E., 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22: 361–369.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, R. E., 1980. Using trophic state indices to examine the dynamics of eutrophication. In International Symposium on Inland Waters and Lake Restoration, EPA 440/5‐81‐010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, R. E., 1983. Discussion, 'Using Differences Among Carlson's Trophic State Index Values in Regional Water Quality Assessment,' by Richard A. Osgood. Water Res. Bull. 19: 307–308.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, R. E., 1991. Expanding the trophic state concept to identify non-nutrient limited lakes and reservoirs. In Taggart, J. (ed.), Enhancing the States' Lake Management Program. NE Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  8. Dodds, W. K., K. R. Johnson & J. C. Priscu, 1989. Simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus deficiency in natural phytoplankton assemblages: theory, empirical evidence, and implications for lake management. Lake Reservoir Management, 5: 21–26.Google Scholar
  9. Ebina, J., T. Tsutsui & T. Shiai, 1983. Simultaneous determination of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in water using persulfate oxidation. Wat. Res. 17: 1721–1726.Google Scholar
  10. Elser, J. J., E. R. Marzolf & C. R. Goldman, 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of north America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1468–1477.Google Scholar
  11. EPA, 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes EPA‐600/4‐79‐020, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, C. R., A. D. Jassby& S. H. Hackley, 1993. Decadal, interannual, and seasonal variability in enrichment bioassays at Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada, U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 50: 1489–1496.Google Scholar
  13. Havens, K. E., 1995. Secondary nitrogen limitation in a subtropical lake impacted by non-point source agricultural pollution. Environ. Poll. 89: 241–246.Google Scholar
  14. Helsel, D. R. & R. M. Hirsch, 1992. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Jansson, M., P. Blomqvist, A. Jonsson & A-K. Bergström, 1996. Nutrient limitation of bacterioplankton, autotrophic and mixotrophic phytoplankton, and heterotrophic nanoflagellates in Lake örträsket. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41: 1552–1559.Google Scholar
  16. Kratzer, C. R. & P. L. Brezonik, 1981. A Carlson-type trophic state index for nitrogen in Florida Lakes. Water Res. Bull. 17: 713–715.Google Scholar
  17. Liang, C-W., 1994. Impact of Soil and Phosphorus Enrichment on Lake Whatcom Periphytic Algae. M.S. Thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.Google Scholar
  18. Lighthart, B., G. Kraft & C. Flora, 1972. The Limnology of Lake Whatcom. Tech. Rep. 15., Institute for Freshwater Studies, Western Washington State College.Google Scholar
  19. Lind, O. T., 1985. Handbook of Common Methods in Limnology, 2nd edn. Kendall/Hall Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Matthews, R. A., G. B. Matthews & W. J. Ehinger, 1991. Classification and ordination of limnological data: a comparison of analytical tools. Ecol. Modelling 53: 167–187.Google Scholar
  21. Matthews, R. A., M. Hilles & G. B. Matthews, 1999. Lake Whatcom monitoring project, 1997‐1998 Final Report. Institute for Watershed Studies, Western Washington University, Bellingham WA.Google Scholar
  22. Matthews, R. A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R. J. Mitchell & G. B. Matthews, 2001. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project, 1999‐2000 Final Report. Institute for Watershed Studies, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.Google Scholar
  23. McDonald, K., 1994. Nutrient Limitation of Phytoplankton in Lake Whatcom. M.S. Thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.Google Scholar
  24. Morris, D. P. & W.L. Lewis, 1988. Phytoplankton nutrient limitation in Colorado mountain lakes. Freshwater Biol. 20: 315–327.Google Scholar
  25. Pelletier, G., 1998. Dissolved oxygen in Lake Whatcom. Trend in the depletion of hypolimnetic oxygen in basin I, 1983‐1997. Report #98‐313, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.Google Scholar
  26. Schelske, C. L., 1984. In situ and natural phytoplankton assemblage bioassays. In Shulbert, L. E. (ed.), Algae as Ecological Indicators. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Suttle, C. & P. Harrison, 1988. Ammonium and phosphate uptake rates, N:P supply ratios, and evidence for N and P limitation in some oligotrophic lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33: 186–202.Google Scholar
  28. Thomann, R. V. & J. A. Mueller, 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  29. Vincent, W. F., W. Wurtsbaugh, C. L. Vincent & P. J. Richerson, 1984. Seasonal dynamics of nutrient limitation in a tropical high-altitude Lake (Lake Titicaca, Peru-Bolivia): application of physiological bioassays. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 540–552.Google Scholar
  30. Vrede, K., T. Vrede, A. Isaksson & K. Karlsson, 1999. Effects of nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon) and zooplankton on bacterioplankton and phytoplankton — A seasonal study. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44(7): 1616–1624.Google Scholar
  31. Wetzel, R., 1983. Limnology, 2nd edn. Saunders College Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Zimba, P. V., 1998. The use of nutrient enrichment bioassays to test for limiting factors affecting epiphytic growth in Lake Okeechobee, Florida: confirmation of nitrogen and silica limitation. Arch. Hydrobiol. 141: 459–468.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Matthews
    • 1
  • M. Hilles
    • 1
  • G. Pelletier
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Watershed Studies, Huxley College of Environmental StudiesWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamU.S.A.
  2. 2.Washington State Department of EcologyOlympiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations