Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 521, Issue 1–3, pp 141–147 | Cite as

The phytoplankton of Lake Atnsjøen, Norway – a long-term investigation

  • Pål Brettum
  • Gunnar Halvorsen
Article

Abstract

Quantitative samples were collected from Lake Atnsjøen five times per year in the growth seasons 1990–2000. The samples were analysed for variation in the phytoplankton composition, and the total volume and volume of the main groups of algae were calculated. Lake Atnsjøen is a large, deep and unregulated lake with a surface area of 4.8 km2 and a maximum depth of 80.2 m. It is a nutrient-poor, oligotrophic lake with a maximum phytoplankton volume varying between 125–393 mm3/m3 in the years 1990–2000. The phytoplankton community is dominated by species of the groups Chrysophyceae and Cryptophyceae. The chrysophytes dominate the phytoplankton in the early part of the growth season (May–June) while the cryptophytes increase throughout the season and dominate in the autumn. Among the chrysophytes different species of chrysomonads were most frequent together with common species of the genus Dinobryon like D. borgei, D. cylindricum var. alpinum and D. crenulatum. A total of 22 species or taxa of chrysophytes were recorded in the samples. Common among the cryptomonads were several species of the genus Cryptomonas. Most important quantitatively, however, were Rhodomonas lacustris and Katablepharis ovalis. The succesion of the phytoplankton throughout the growth season was similar from year to year in quantitative as well as qualitative terms, but some changes were recorded after the great flood in 1995. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) shows a slight, but significant, phytoplankton community change over the succeeding years.

phytoplankton oligotrophy long-term species composition biovolume seasonal variations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brettum, P., 1972. The Phytoplankton of Lake Øvre Heimdalsvatn, central South Norway. Norw. J. Bot. 19: 79–90.Google Scholar
  2. Brettum, P., 1989. Alger som indikator på vannkvalitet i norske innsjøer. Planteplankton. (Algae as indicator of water quality in Norwegian lakes. Phytoplankton). Report from Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) no.2344, 111 p. (In Norwegian but an unpublished version in English is available on request).Google Scholar
  3. De Bernardi, R., G. Giussani, M. Manca & D. Ruggiu, 1988. Longterm dynamics of plankton communities in Lago Maggiore (N. Italy). Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 23: 729–733.Google Scholar
  4. Elliott, J. M., 1990. The need for long-term investigations in ecology and contribution of the Freshwater Biological Association. Freshwat. Biol. 23: 1–5.Google Scholar
  5. Fagernæs, K., 1989. Artssammensetning og sesongvariasjoner i fytoplanktonet i Atnsjøen 1987. (Species composition and succesion of phytoplankton in lake Atnsjøen 1987). (English summary). Report from NTNF (Norwegian Research Council). MK 20.13100. 16 p + appendix.Google Scholar
  6. Gophen, M., S. Serruya & S. Therelkeld, 1990. Long term patterns in nutrients, phytoplankton and zooplankton of Lake Kinneret and future predictions for ecosystem structure. Arch. Hydrobiol. 118: 449–460.Google Scholar
  7. Hessen, D. O., B. A. Faafeng & T. Andersen, 1995. Replacement of herbivore zooplankton species along gradients of ecosystem productivity and fish predation pressure. Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 52: 733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holtan, H., P. Brettum, B. Hals & G. Holtan, 1982. Glåma i Hedmark. Delrapport om innsjøer. Undersøkelser i tidsrommet 1978-1980. Report from Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) no. 1397 96 p. (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
  9. Lund, J. W. G., C. Kipling & E. D. Le Cren, 1958. The inverted microscope method of estimating algal numbers, and the statistical basis of estimation by counting. Hydrobiologia 11: 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCune, B., 1997. Influence of noisy environmental data on canonical correspodence analysis. Ecology. 78: 2617–2623.Google Scholar
  11. Nordli, P. Ø. & Auen Grimnes, A., 2003. The climate of Atndalen. This volumeGoogle Scholar
  12. Olrik, K., P. Blomqvist, P. Brettum, G. Cronberg & P. Eloranta, 1998. Methods for Quantitative Assessment of Phytoplankton in Freshwaters, part I. Report from Naturvårdsverket, Sweden, no. 4860, 86 p.Google Scholar
  13. Palmer, M. W., 1993. Putting things into even better order; the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74: 2215–2230.Google Scholar
  14. Rott, E., 1981. Some results from phytoplankton counting intercalibrations. Schweiz Z. Hydrol. 43: 34–62.Google Scholar
  15. Tangen, K. & P. Brettum, 1978. Phytoplankton and pelagic primary productivity in Øvre Heimdalsvatn. Holarct. Ecol. 1: 128–147.Google Scholar
  16. Ter Braak, C. J. F., 1986. Canonical Correspondence Analysis: A new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.Google Scholar
  17. Tvede, A. T., 2003. Hydrology of the Lake Atnasjøen and River Atna. This volumeGoogle Scholar
  18. Utermöhl, H., 1958. Zur Vervollkommung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt. Int. Ver. Limnol. 9: 1–38.Google Scholar
  19. Venrick, E. L., 1978. How many cells to count? In Sournia, A. (ed.), Phytoplankton manual. UNESCO Monogr. Oceanogr. Methodol. 6. Paris: 167–180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pål Brettum
    • 1
  • Gunnar Halvorsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Water ResearchOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations