Advertisement

Oceanology

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 219–230 | Cite as

Phytoplankton of the Peter the Great Bay and its remote sensing problem

  • A. I. AleksaninEmail author
  • V. Kim
  • T. Yu. Orlova
  • I. V. Stonik
  • O. G. Shevchenko
Marine Biology

Abstract

The problem of recognition of algal genera based on the remote sensing data requires the analysis of the algae biomass’s distribution. This study provides the analysis of the algae spatial and temporal variations in the Peter the Great Bay. While 116 algal genera were observed, only a few genera have dominated. Usually, the dominant genus contributed about 60% of the sample’s biomass (the minimal value is 20% usually) and 4 dominant genera contributed about 90% of the total phytoplankton biomass. The effective scattering crosssection of the algae in the samples is very changeable and this feature looks promising for the recognition problem. It was found that the spatial and temporal variations of the algal biomass are significant, but the percentage characteristics of a few dominant genera are relatively stable with no significant dependence on a region and a biomass value. The algae’s composition analysis has demonstrated that the same algal genera are propagated in different parts of the Bay. For a given region and month, the set of algae dominated that constitutes about 90% of the monthly biomass is rather small (not more than 10 genera usually). Most of the alga genera (∼75%) do not ever reach a mono domination state (more than 50% of the sample’s biomass).

Keywords

Biomass Phytoplankton Algal Biomass Harmful Algal Bloom Cosc 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. I. Aleksanin, T. Yu. Orlova, E. V. Fomin, and O. G. Shevchenko, “Prospects for Determining the Species Composition of Phytoplankton According to the MODIS Radiometer Data,” Sovr. Probl. Distants. Zondir. Zemli Kosm. 2(5), 22–29 (2008).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. V. Konovalova, “Seasonal Characteristics of Phytoplankton in the Amur Bay, Sea of Japan,” Okeanologiya 12(1), 123–128 (1972).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. V. Konovalova, T. Yu. Orlova, and L. A. Pautova, Atlas of Phytoplankton of the Sea of Japan (Nauka, Leningrad, 1989) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Yu. Orlova, I. V. Stonik, and O. G. Shevchenko, “Flora of Planktonic Microalgae of Amursky Bay, Sea of Japan,” Biol. Morya 35(1), 60–78 (2009).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. I. Semina, Phytoplankton of the Pacific Ocean (Nauka, Moscow, 1974) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. K. Simakova, T. Yu. Orlova, and M. S. Selina, “’Red Tide’ Caused by the Flagellate Algae Chattonella sp. (Raphidophyceae) in the Amur Bay, Sea of Japan,” Biol. Morya 16(5), 77–78 (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. V. Stonik, “Potentially Toxic Dinoflagellate Algae Prorocentrum minimum in the Amur Bay, Sea of Japan,” Biol. Morya 20(6), 419–425 (1994).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. V. Stonik and M. S. Selina, “Phytoplankton as an Indicator of the Trophic Level of Water of the Peter the Great Bay, Sea of Japan,” Biol. Morya 21(6), 403–406 (1995).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. V. Stonik, T. Yu. Orlova, and O. G. Shevchenko, “Morphology and Ecology of the Species of the Genus Pseudo-nitzschia (Bacillariophyta) from Peter the Great Bay, Sea of Japan,” Biol. Morya 27(6), 362–366 (2001).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. N. Sukhanova, “Concentration of Phytoplankton in the Sample,” in Modern Methods of Quantifying the Distribution of Marine Plankton (Nauka, Moscow, 1983), pp. 97–105 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Andersen, “Design and Implementation of Some Harmful Algal Monitoring Systems,” IOC Technical series, UNESCO, No. 44 (1996).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. R. Anderson, D. A. Siegel, R. M. Kudela, M. A. Brzezinski, “Empirical Models of Toxigenic Pseudo-nitzschia Blooms: Potential Use as a Remote Detection Tool in the Santa Barbara Channel,” Harmful Algae 8(3), 478–492 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Babin, J. J. Cullen, C. S. Roesler, et al., “New Approaches and Technologies for Observing Hamful Algal Blooms,” Oceanography 18(2), 210–227 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. S. Bates and V. L. Trainer, “The Ecology of Harmful Diatoms,” in Ecology of Harmful Algae, Ed. by E. Graneli and J. Turner (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2006), pp. 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Z. Buric, D. Vilicic, K. C. Mihalic, et al., “Pseudonitzschia Blooms in the Zrmanja River Estuary (Eastern Adriatic Sea),” Diatom Res. 23, 51–63 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. P. Cannizzaro, K. L. Carder, F. R. Chen, et al., “A Novel Technique for Detection of the Toxic Dinaflagellate, Karenia brevis, in the Gulf of Mexico from Remotely Sensed Ocean Color Data,” Cont. Shelf Res. 28, 137–158 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Colijn, “Changes in Plankton Communities: When, Where and Why,” ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 195, 193–212 (1992).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. M. Hallegraeff, “Harmful Algal Blooms: A Global Overview,” in Manual of Harmful Marine Microalgae (UNESCO-Publishing, Paris, 2003), pp. 1–793.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. R. Hasle and G. A. Fryxell, “Diatoms: Cleaning and Mounting for Light and Electron Microscopy,” Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 89, 469–474 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Kendall, F. Carder, R. Chen, et al., Case 2 Chlorophyll-a. Modis Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, University of South Florida (2003), Vol. 19.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Koike, Y. Horie, T. Suzuki, et al., “Protoceratium reticulatum in Northern Japan: Environmental Factors Associated with Seasonal Occurrence and Related Contamination of Yessotoxin in Scallops,” J. Plankton Res. 28(1), 103–112 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. S. Lee, T. Igarashi, S. Fraga, et al., “Determination of Diarrhetic Shellfish Toxins in Various Dinoflagellate Species,” J. Appl. Phycol., No. 1, 147–152 (1989).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Yu. Orlova, N. V. Zhukova, and I. V. Stonik, “Bloom-Forming Diatom Pseudo-nitzschia pungens in Amurskii bay (the Sea of Japan): Morphology, Ecology and Biochemistry,” in Harmful and Toxic Algal Blooms, Ed. by T. Yasumoto, et al. (UNESCO, 1996), pp. 147–150.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Yu. Orlova, I. V. Stonik, N. A. Aizdaicher, et al., “Toxicity, Morphology and Distribution of Pseudonitzschia calliantha, P. multistriata and P. multiseries (Bacillariophyta) from the Northwestern Sea of Japan,” Botanica Marina 51, 297–306 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. S. Roesler, S. M. Etheridge, and G. C. Pitcher, “Application of an Ocean Color Algal Taxa Detection Model to Red Tides in the Southern Benguela,” in Harmful Algae 2002, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Institute of Oceanography, and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Ed. by K. A. Steidinger, et al. (UNESCO, 2004), pp. 303–305.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Shutler, P. I. Miller, S. B. Groom, and J. Aiken, “Automatic Near-Real Time Mapping of MERIS Data as Input to a Phytoplankton Classifier,” in Proceedings of the MERIS (a) ATSR Workshop (2005), (CD-Rom), Meris-(a) ATSR Workshop, 26–30 Sep. 2005, Frascati, Italy (2005).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Yamada and A. Tsuruta, “A List of Phytoplankton as Eutrophic Level Indicator,” Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 46(12), 1435–1438 (1980a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Yamada, A. Tsuruta, and Y. Yoshida, “Classification of Eutrophic Levels in Several Marine Regions,” Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 46(12), 1439–1444 (1980b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. I. Aleksanin
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • V. Kim
    • 1
  • T. Yu. Orlova
    • 2
  • I. V. Stonik
    • 2
  • O. G. Shevchenko
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Automation and Control Processes, Far Eastern BranchRussian Academy of SciencesVladivostokRussia
  2. 2.Zhirmunsky Institute of Marine Biology, Far Eastern BranchRussian Academy of SciencesVladivostokRussia
  3. 3.Far Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussia

Personalised recommendations