Estuaries

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 408–421 | Cite as

A comparative analysis of eutrophication patterns in a temperate coastal lagoon

  • W. R. Boynton
  • L. Murray
  • J. D. Hagy
  • C. Stokes
  • W. M. Kemp
Article

Abstract

The coastal bays and lagoons of Maryland extend the full length of the state's Atlantic coast and compose a substantial ecosystem at the land-sea margin that is characterized by shallow depth, a well-mixed water column, slow exchange with the coastal ocean, and minimal freshwater input from the land. For at least 25 years, various types of measurements have been made intermittently in these systems, but almost no effort has been made to determine if water quality or habitat conditions have changed over the years or if distinctive spatial gradients in these features have developed in response to changing land uses. The purpose of this work was to examine this fragmented database and determine if such patterns have emerged and how they may be related to land uses. Turbidity, dissolved inorganic phosphate, algal biomass, and primary production rates in most areas of the coastal bays followed a regular seasonal pattern, which was well correlated with water temperature. Nitrate concentrations were low (<5 μM), and only modestly higher in tributary creeks (<20 μM). Additionally, there was little indication of the spring bloom typical of river-dominated systems. There does appear to be a strong spatial gradient in water quality conditions (more eutrophic in the upper bays, especially in tributary creeks). Comparisons of water quality data collected between 1970 and 1991 indicate little temporal change in most areas and some small improvements in a few areas, probably related to decreases in point-source discharges. Seagrass communities were once extensive in these systems but at present are restricted to the eastern portion of the lower bays where water clarity is sufficient to support plant survival. Even in these areas, seagrass densities have recently decreased. Examination of diel dissolved oxygen data collected in the summer indicates progressively larger diel excursions from lower to upper bays and from open bays to tributary subsystems; however, hypoxic conditions (<2 mg 1−1) were rarely observed in any location. Nitrogen input data (point, surface runoff, groundwater and atmospheric deposition to surface waters) were assembled for seven regions of the coastal bay system; annual loading rates ranged from 2.4 g N m−2 yr−1 to 39.7 g N m−2 yr−1. Compared with a sampling of loading rates to other coastal systems, those to the upper and lower bays were low while those to tributaries were moderate to high. Regression analysis indicated significant relationships between annual nitrogen loading rates and average annual total nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations in the water column. Similar analyses also indicated significant relationships between chlorophyll a and the magnitude of diel dissolved oxygen changes in the water column. It is concluded that these simple models, which could be improved with a well-designed monitoring program, could be used as quantitative management tools to relate habitat conditions to nutrient loading rates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson, R. R. 1970. The submerged vegetation of Chincoteague Bay, In Assateague Ecological Studies, Part I: Environmental Information. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  2. Andriot, J. L. 1980. Population abstracts of the United States. Worcester County. Andriot Associates, McLean, Virginia.Google Scholar
  3. Boynton, W. R. 1973. Phytoplankton production in Chincoteague Bay, Maryland-Virginia. M.S. Thesis. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Boynton, W. R. (ed.). 1993. Maryland's Coastal Bays: An Assessment of Aquatic Organisms, Pollutant Loadings and Management Options. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland. Ref. No. [UMCEES] CBL 93-053.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cerco, C. F., C. S. Fang, and A. Rosenbaum. 1978. Intensive hydrographical and water quality survey of the Chincoteague/Sinepuxent/Asawoman Bay systems, Volume III. Non-point source pollution studies in the Chincoteague Bay system. Special Scientific Report No. 86. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  8. Cushing, E. M., I. M. Kantrowitz, and K. R. Taylor. 1973. Water resources of the Delmarva peninsula. USGS Professional Paper 882. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  9. Day, J. W., Jr., C. A. S. Hall, W. M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Dennison, W. C. 1987. Effects of light on seagrass photosynthesis and depth distribution. Aquatic Botany 27:15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennison, W. C., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, J. C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. W. Bergstrom, and R. A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation: Habitat requirments as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43:86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, C. S., J. P. Jacobson, A. Rosenbaum, and P. V. Hyer. 1977a. Intensive hydrographical and water quality survey of the Chincoteague/Sinepuxent/Assawoman Bays, Vol. II. Data report: Intensive hydrographical and water quality. Special Scientific Report No. 82. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  13. Fang, C. S., A. Rosenbaum, J. P. Jacobson, and P. V. Hyer. 1977b. Intensive hydrographical and water quality survey of the Chincoteague/Sinepuxent/Assawoman Bays, Vol. I. Study program. Special Scientific Report No. 82. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, D. C. and M. Oppenheimer. 1991. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Ambio 20:102–108.Google Scholar
  15. Hargrave, B. T. 1973. Coupling carbon flow through some pelagic and benthic communities. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:1317–1326.Google Scholar
  16. Izumi, H., A. Hattori, and C. P. McRoy. 1982. Ammonium regeneration and assimilation in eelgrass (Zostera Marina) beds. Marine Biology 66:59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobs, F., J. Bowers, S. Souza, B. Krinsky, and J. Seibel. 1993. Diagnostic assessments of terrestrial pollutant loadings, p. 2–3. In W. R. Boynton (ed.), Maryland's Coastal Bays: An Assessment of Aquatic Organisms, Pollutant Loadings and Management Options. Part 2. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland. Ref. No. [UMCEES] CBL 93-053.Google Scholar
  18. Kemp, W. M., W. R. Boynton, R. R. Twilley, J. C. Stevenson, and J. C. Means. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society Journal 17:78–89.Google Scholar
  19. Kemp, W. M., P. A. Sampou, J. C. Caffrey, M. Mayer, K. Henriksen, and W. R. Boynton. 1990. Ammonium recycling versus denitrification in Chesapeake Bay sediments. Limnology and Oceanography 35:1545–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kemp, W. M., P. A. Sampou, J. Carber, J. Tuttle, and W. R. Boynton. 1992. Seasonal depletion of oxygen from bottom waters of Chesapeake Bay: Roles of benthic and planktonic respiration and physical exchange processes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 85:137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kjerfve, B. 1986. Comparative oceanography of coastal lagoons, p. 63–81. In V. S. Kennedy (eds.), Estuarine Variability. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Lankford, R. R. 1977. Coastal lagoons of Mexico: Their origin and classification, p. 182–213. In M. Wiley (ed.), Estuarine Processes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Larsson, U., R. Elmgren, and F. Wulff. 1985. Eutrophication and the Baltic Sea: Causes and consequences. Ambio 14:9–14.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, V. and S. Olsen. 1985. Eutrophication and management inititatives for the control of nutrient inputs to Rhode Island costal lagoons. Estuaries 8:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Magnien, R. E., D. K. Austin, and B. D. Michael. 1990. Chemical/physical properties component. Level I Data Report. December, 1990. Maryland Department of the Environmental. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program. Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  26. Malone, T. C., W. M. Kemp, H. W. Ducklow, W. R. Boynton, J. H. Tuttle, and R. B. Jonas, 1986. Lateral variation in the production and fate of phytoplankton in a partially stratified estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 32:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 1985. St. Martin River-Bishopville Prong-Shingle Landing Prong-Assawoman Bay-Isle of Wight Bay complex. QA/QC water quality data status summary report. Water Management Administration/Division of Technical Analysis. Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  28. Mee, L. D., 1978. Coastal lagoons, p. 441–490. In J. P. Riley and R. Chester (eds.), Chemical Oceanography. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  29. National Park Service. 1991. Assateague Island National Sea-shore water quality monitoring 1987–1990. Data summary report. Water Resources Division and Assateague Island National Seashore. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR 91/06. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  30. Nixon, S. W., 1982. Nutrient dynamics, primary production and fisheries yields of lagoons. Oceanologica Acta 357–371.Google Scholar
  31. Nixon, S. W., C. A. 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
  32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1980–1991. Climatological Data, Maryland and Delaware. Volumes 84–95. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Orth, R. J., A. A. Frisch, J. F. Nowak, and K. A. Moore, 1989. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay—1987. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  35. Orth, R. J., J. F. Nowak, A. A. Frisch, K. P. Kiley, and J. R. Whiting. 1991. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay—1990. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  36. Orth, R. J., J. Simons, J. Capelli, V. Carter, A. Frisch, L. Hindman, S. Hodges, K. Moore, and N. Rybicki, 1986. Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries and Chincoteague Bay—1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  37. Paerl, H. W., J. Rudek, and M. A. Mallin, 1990. Stimulation of phytoplankton production in coastal waters by natural rain-fall inputs: Nutritional and trophic implications. Marine Biology 107:247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pritchard, D. W., 1960. Salt balance and exchange rate for Chincoteague Bay. Chesapeake Science 1:48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinn, H., J. P. Tolson, C. J. Klein, S. P. Orlando, and C. Alexander. 1989. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters—Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges: Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay, Summary Report. Strategic, Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  40. Sand-Jensen, K., and M. Søndergaard, 1981. Phytoplankton and epiphyte development and their shading effect on submerged macrophytes in lakes of different nutrient status. Internationale Revue des Gesamten Hydrobiologie 66:529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, S. V., J. T. Hollibaugh, S. J. Dollar, and S. Vink, 1991. Tomales Bay metabolism: C-N-P stoichiometry and ecosystem heterotrophy at the land-sea interface. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 33:223–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smullen, J. T., J. L. Taft, and J. Macknis, 1982. Nutrient and sediment loads to the tidal Chesapeake Bay system, p. 147–258. In Chesapeake Bay Program. Technical Studies: A Synthesis. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  43. Stevenson, J. C., L. W. Staver, and K. W. Staver, 1993. Water quality associated with survival of submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16:346–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strickland, J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons. 1972. A practical hand-book of seawater analysis. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 167. (second edition).Google Scholar
  45. Turner, R. E., W. W. Schoeder, and W. J. Wiseman, 1987. The role of stratification in the deoxygenation of Mobile Bay and adjacent shelf bottom waters. Estuaries 10:13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vollenweider, R. A., 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Memorie dell' Instituto Italiano di Idrobiologia Dott Marco de Marchi 33:53–83.Google Scholar
  47. Ward, L. G., W. M. Kemp, and W. R. Boynton, 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass communities on suspended sediment dynamics in an estuarine embayment. Marine Geology 59:85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wulff, F., A. Stigebrandt, and L. Rahm, 1990. Nutrient dynamics of the Baltic. Ambio 19:126–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. R. Boynton
    • 1
  • L. Murray
    • 2
  • J. D. Hagy
    • 1
  • C. Stokes
    • 2
  • W. M. Kemp
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland SystemSolomons
  2. 2.Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies Horn Point Environmental LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland SystemCambridge

Personalised recommendations