Estuaries

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 371–385 | Cite as

Scales of nutrient-limited phytoplankton productivity in Chesapeake Bay

  • Thomas C. Malone
  • Daniel J. Conley
  • Thomas R. Fisher
  • Patricia M. Glibert
  • Lawrence W. Harding
  • Kevin G. Sellner
Article

Abstract

The scales on which phytoplankton biomass vary in response to variable nutrient inputs depend on the nutrient status of the plankton community and on the capacity of consumers to respond to increases in phytoplankton productivity. Overenrichment and associated declines in water quality occur when phytoplankton growth rate becomes nutrient-saturated, the production and consumption of phytoplankton biomass become uncoupled in time and space, and phytoplankton biomass becomes high and varies on scales longer than phytoplankton generation times. In Chesapeake Bay, phytoplankton growth rates appear to be limited by dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) during spring when biomass reaches its annual maximum and by dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) during summer when phytoplankton growth rates are highest. However, despite high inputs of DIN and dissolved silicate (DSi) relative to DIP (molar ratios of N∶P and Si∶P>100), seasonal accumulations of phytoplankton biomass within the salt-intruded-reach of the bay appear to be limited by riverine DIN supply while the magnitude of the spring diatom bloom is governed by DSi supply. Seasonal imbalances between biomass production and consumption lead to massive accumulations of phytoplankton biomass (often>1,000 mg Chl-a m−2) during spring, to spring-summer oxygen depletion (summer bottom water <20% saturation), and to exceptionally high levels of annual phytoplankton production (>400 g m−2 yr−1). Nitrogen-dependent seasonal accumulations of phytoplankton biomass and annual production occur as a consequence of differences in the rates and pathways of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling within the bay and underscore the importance of controlling nitrogen inputs to the mesohaline and lower reaches of the bay.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Boicourt, W. C. 1992. Influences of circulation processes on dissolved oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay, p. 7–60. In D. E. Smith, M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan (eds.), Oxygen Dynamics in the Chesapeake Bay: A Synthesis of Research. Maryland Sea Grant College. College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  2. Boynton, W. R., W. M. Kemp, and C. W. Keefe. 1982. A comparative analysis of nutrients and other factors influencing estuarine phytoplankton production. p. 69–90. In V. S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Boynton, W. R., J. H. Garber, R. Summers, and W. M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18:285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caperon, J. S., S. A. Cattell, and G. Krasnick. 1971. Phytoplankton kinetics in a subtropical estuary: Eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography 16:599–607.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, B. E. and J. E. Cloern 1984. Significance of biomass and light availability to phytoplankton productivity in San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 17:15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conley, D. J. and T. C. Malone. 1992. Annual cycle of dissolved silicate in Chesapeake Bay: Implications for the production and fate of phytoplankton biomass. Marine Ecology Progress Series 81:121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conley, D. J., C. L. Schelske, and E. F. Stoermer. 1993. Modification of the biogeochemical cycle of silica with eutrophication. Marine Ecology Progress Series 101:179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D'elia, C. F., D. M. Nelson, and W. R. Boynton. 1983. Chesapeake Bay nutrient and phytoplankton dynamics: III. The annual cycle of dissolved silicon. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 47:1945–1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Droop, M. R. 1974. The nutrient status of algal cells in continuous culture. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 54:825–855.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, T. R., A. B. Gustafson, K. G. Sellner, and R. B. Lacouture. 1992a. Nutrient bioassays in Chesapeake Bay to assess nutrients limiting algal growth. Progress report to the Maryland Department of Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, T. R., L. W. Harding, D. W. Stanley, and L. G. Ward. 1988. Phytoplankton, nutrients, and turbidity in the Chesapeake, Delaware, and Hudson estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 27:61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher, T. R., E. R. Peele, J. W. Ammerman, and L. W. Harding. 1992b. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 82:51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glibert, P. M., D. J. Conley, T. R. Fisher, L. W. Harding, and T. C. Malone. 1995. Dynamics of the 1990 winter/spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 122: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldman, J. C. and P. M. Glibert. 1983. Kinetics of inorganic nitrogen uptake by phytoplankton, p. 233–274. In E. J. Carpenter and D. Capone (eds.), Nitrogen in the Marine Environment, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Goldman, J. C., J. J. Mccarthy, and D. G. Peavey. 1979. Growth rate influence on the chemical composition of phytoplankton in oceanic waters. Nature 279:210–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldman, J. C. and J. H. Ryther. 1976. Temperature-influenced species competition in mass cultures of marine phytoplankton. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 18:1125–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harding, L. H. 1994. Long-term trends in the distribution of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay: roles of light, nutrients and streamflow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 104:267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harding, L. W., B. W. Meeson, and T. R. Fisher. 1986. Phytoplankton production in two East Coast estuaries: Photosynthesis-light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23:773–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hecky, R. E. and P. Kilham. 1988. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in freshwater and marine environments: A review of recent evidence on the effects of enrichment. Limnology and Oceanography 33:796–822.Google Scholar
  20. Hobbie, J. E. and J. J. Cole. 1984. Response of a detrital food web to eutrophication. Bulletin of Marine Science 35:357–363.Google Scholar
  21. Howarth, R. W. 1988. Nutrient limitation of net primary production in marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology 19:89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemp, W. M. and W. B. Boynton. 1992. Benthic-pelagic interactions: Nutrient and oxygen dynamics, p. 149–221. In D. E. Smith, M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan (eds.), Oxygen Dynamics in the Chesapeake Bay: A Synthesis of Research Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. Kemp, W. M., P. A. Sampou, J. Caffrey, M. Mayer, K. Henriksen, and W. R. Boynton. 1990. Ammonium recycling versus denitrification in Chesapeake Bay sediments. Limnology and Oceanography 35:1545–1563.Google Scholar
  24. Lean, D. R. S., A. A. Abbott, and F. R. Pick 1987. Phosphorus deficiency of Lake Ontario phytoplankton. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 44:2069–2076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Magnien, R. E., R. M. Summers, and K. G. Sellner. 1992. External sources, internal nutrient pools, and phytoplankton production in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15:497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malone, T. C. 1992. Effects of water column processes on dissolved oxygen, nutrients, phytoplankton, and zooplankton, p. 61–112. In D. E. Smith, M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan (eds.), Oxygen Dynamics in the Chesapeake Bay: A Synthesis of Research. Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  27. Malone, T. C., W. Boynton, T. Horton, and C. Stevenson. 1993. Nutrient loadings to surface waters: Chesapeake Bay case study, p. 8–38. In M. F. Uman (ed.), Keeping Pace with Science and Engineering, United States National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. Malone, T. C., L. H. Crocker, S. E. Pike, and B. W. Windler. 1988. Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48:235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malone, T. C., H. W. Ducklow, E. R. Peele, and S. E. Pike. 1991. Picoplankton carbon flux in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 78:11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malone, T. C., W. M. Kemp, H. W. Ducklow, W. R. Boynton, J. H. Tuttle, and R. B. Jonas. 1986. Lateral variations in the production and fate of phytoplankton in a partially stratified estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 32:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malone, T. C. and P. J. Neale. 1981. Parameters of light-dependent photosynthesis for phytoplankton size fractions in temperate estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Biology 61:289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nalewajko, C. and D. R. S. Lean. 1980. Phosphorus, p. 235–258. In I. Morris (ed.), The Physiological Ecology of Phytoplankton. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Nixon, S. W., C. Oviatt, J. Frithsen, and B. Sullivan 1986. Nutrients and the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems. Journal of the Limnological Society of South Africa 12:43–71.Google Scholar
  34. Officer, C. B., R. B. Biggs, J. L. Taft, L. E. Cronin, M. Tyler, and W. R. Boynton. 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: Origin, development, and significance. Science 223:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Officer, C. B. and J. H. Ryther. 1977. Secondary sewage treatment versus ocean outfalls: An assessment. Science 197:1056–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Redfield, A. C., B. H. Ketchum, and F. A. Richards. 1963. The influence of organisms on the composition of sea-water, p. 26–77. In M. N. Hill (ed.), The Sea. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Sellner, K. B. and M. E. Kachur. 1987. Phytoplankton: Relationships between phytoplankton, nutrients, oxygen flux, and secondary producers, p. 12–37. In K. L. Heck (ed.), Ecological Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Sheldon, R. W., A. Prakash, and W. H. Sutcliffe. 1972. The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnology and Oceanography 17:327–340.Google Scholar
  39. Taft, J. L. and W. R. Taylor. 1976. Phosphorus dynamics in some coastal plain estuaries, p. 79–89. In M. Wiley (ed.), Estuarine Processes, Volume I. Uses, Stresses, and Adaptation to the Estuary. Academic Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Tyler, M. A. and H. H. Seliger. 1978. Annual subsurface transport of a red tide dinoflagellate to its bloom area: Water circulation patterns and organism distributions in Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 23:227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Program. Progress Report of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation. Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  42. Van Valkenburg, S. D., J. K. Jones, and D. R. Heinle. 1978. A comparison by size classes of the volume of detritus versus phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 6:569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verity, P. G. 1987. Factors driving changes in the pelagic trophic structure of estuaries with implications for the Chesapeake Bay, p. 35–56. In M. P. Lynch and E. C. Krome (eds.). Perspectives on the Chesapeake Bay: Advances in Estuarine Science. Publ. No. 127. Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  44. White, J. R. and M. R. Roman. 1992. Seasonal study of grazing by metazoan zooplankton in the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 86:251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas C. Malone
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Conley
    • 1
  • Thomas R. Fisher
    • 1
  • Patricia M. Glibert
    • 1
  • Lawrence W. Harding
    • 1
  • Kevin G. Sellner
    • 2
  1. 1.Horn Point Environmental Laboratory Center for Environmental and Estuarine StudiesUniversity of Maryland SystemCambridge
  2. 2.Benedict Estuarine Research LaboratoryThe Academy of Natural SciencesBenedict

Personalised recommendations