Abstract
Relative contributions by macrophytes, epiphyton and phytoplankton to total primary production was estimated in a large (∼300 km2) widening of the St. Lawrence River (Canada), over a 2-year period with contrasting flows and water levels. Spatially-explicit estimates of whole-system production were obtained by combining field measurements with remotely sensed data and empirical models using GIS. Primary production and relative contributions of each producer type differed markedly between open-water and wetland habitats. Spatial differences within each habitat arose from interactions between physical factors including light, water depth, water transit times and wind stress. At the whole-system level, annual primary production represented 105 gC m−2 y−1, divided roughly equally among phytoplankton (34%), submerged macrophytes (27%), emergent macrophytes (23%) and epiphyton (16%). A 10% decrease in annual flows and 1-m decline in water levels between 2000 and 2001 resulted in a 50% loss of marsh habitat, a 60% increase in phytoplankton production in the open-water zone, and in the appearance of conspicuous filamentous algal mats. Low water levels induced substantial shifts in the spatial configuration and relative importance of primary producers although total river primary production remained stable between years.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th edn. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association. 1220 p
Bayley PB. 1989. Aquatic environments in the Amazon Basin, with an analysis of carbon sources, fish production, and yield. In: Dodge DP, Ed. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol 106. pp 385–98
Blais AM. 2000. La balance production-respiration des grandes rivières. M.Sc. thesis. Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Boudreau P, Leclerc M, Fortin GR. 1994. Modélisation hydrodynamique du lac Saint-Pierre, fleuve Saint-Laurent: l’influence de la végétation aquatique. Can J Civil Eng 21:471–89
Carignan R, Blais AM, Vis C. 1998. Measurement of primary production and community respiration in oligotrophic lakes using the Winkler method. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1078–84
Cattaneo A, Kalff J. 1979. Primary production of algae growing on natural and artificial aquatic plants: a study of interactions between epiphytes and their substrate. Limnol Oceanogr 24:1031–7
Cole JJ, Caraco NF, Peierls B. 1991. Phytoplankton primary production in the tidal freshwater Hudson River, New York (USA). Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 24:1715–9
Delong MD, Thorp JH. 2005. Significance of instream autotrophs in trophic dynamics of the Upper Mississppi River. Oecologia 147:76–85
Descy JP, Everbecq E, Smitz JS. 1988. Primary production in the River Meuse (Belgium). Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 23:1287–93
Dickerman JA, Stewart AJ, Wetzel RG. 1986. Estimates of net annual aboveground production: sensitivity of sampling frequency. Ecology 67:650–9
Fee EJ. 1990. Computer programs for calculating in situ phytoplankton photosynthesis. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1740
French TD, Chambers P. 1997. Reducing flows in the Nechako River (British Colombia, Canada): potential response of macrophyte communities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:2247–2254
Hart EA, Lovvorn JR. 2003. Algal vs. macrophyte inputs to food webs of inland saline wetlands. Ecology 84:3317–26
Havens KE, Hauxwell J, Tyler AC, Thomas S, McGlathery KJ, Cebrian J, Valiela I, Steinman AD, Hwang S-J. 2001. Complex interactions between autotrophs in shallow marine and freshwater ecosystems: implications for community responses to nutrient stress. Environ Pollut 113:95–107
Havens KE, Sharfstein B, Brady MA, East TL, Harwell MC, Maki RP, Rodusky AJ. 2004. Recovery of submerged plants from high water stress in a large subtropical lake in Florida, USA. Aquat Bot 78:67–82
Hudon C. 1997. Impact of water level fluctuations on St. Lawrence River aquatic vegetation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:2853–65
Hudon C. 2000. Phytoplankton assemblages in the St. Lawrence River, downstream of its confluence with the Ottawa River, Quebec, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57(Suppl 1):16–30
Hudon C, Lalonde S, Gagnon P. 2000. Ranking the effects of site exposure, plant growth form, water depth, and transparency on aquatic plant biomass. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57(Suppl 1):31–42
Jones RC. 1984. Application of a primary production model to epiphytic algae in a shallow, eutrophic lake. Ecology 65:1895–903
Lewis WM, Hamilton SK, Rodriguez MA, Saunders JF, Lasi MA. 2001. Foodweb analysis of the Orinico floodplain based on production estimates and stable isotope data. J North Am Benthol Soc 20:241–54
Manly BFJ. 1998. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. 2nd edn. London: Chapman & Hall. 424 p
Norkko A, Bonsdorff E, 1996. Population responses of coastal zoobenthos to stress induced by drifting algal mats. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 140:141–51
Nusch EA. 1980. Comparison of different methods for chlorophyll and phaeopigment determination. Arch Hydrobiol Ergeb Limnol 14:14–36
Platt T, Sathyendranath S. 1991. Biological production models as elements of coupled, atmosphere-ocean models for climate research. J Geophys Res 96:2585–92
Power ME. 1990. Benthic turfs vs. floating mats of algae in river food webs. Oikos 58:67–79
Reynolds CS, Descy JP. 1996. The production, biomass and structure of phytoplankton in large rivers. Archi Hydrobiol 113Suppl:161–87
Sand-Jensen K, Borum J. 1991. Interactions among phytoplankton, periphyton, and macrophytes in temperate freshwaters and estuaries. Aquat Bot 41:137–75
Sellers T, Bukaveckas PA. 2003. Phytoplankton production in a large, regulated river: a modeling and mass balance assessment. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1476–87
Suren AM, Biggs BJF, Kilroy C, Bergey L. 2003. Benthic community dynamics during summer low-flows in two rivers of contrasting enrichment 1. Periphyton. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 37:53–70
Thorp JH, Delong MD. 1994. The riverine productivity model: an heuristic view of carbon sources and organic processing in large river ecosystems. Oikos 70:305–8
Turner MA, Howell ET, Summerby M, Hesslein RH, Findlay DL, Jackson MB. 1991. Changes in epilithon and epiphytes associated with experimental acidification of a lake to pH 5. Limnol Oceanogr 36:1390–405
Vadeboncoeur Y, Steinman AD. 2002. Periphyton function in lake ecosystems. Sci World J 2:1449–68
Vadeboncoeur Y, Lodge DM, Carpenter SR. 2001. Whole-lake fertilization effects on distribution of primary production between benthic and pelagic habitats. Ecology 82:1065–77
Valiela I, McClelland J, Hauxwell J, Behr PJ, Hersh D, Foreman K. 1997. Macroalgal blooms in shallow estuaries: Controls and ecophysiological and ecosystem consequences. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1105–118
Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–7
Vis C. 2004. Importance relative des producteurs primaires sur la production globale du lac Saint-Pierre, un grand lac fluvial du Saint-Laurent. Ph.D. thesis. Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Vis C, Hudon C, Carignan R. 2006. Influence of the vertical structure of macrophyte stands on epiphyte community metabolism. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1014–26
Westlake DF. 1965. Some basic data for the investigations of the productivity of aquatic macrophytes. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia. 18(Suppl):229–48
Westlake DF, Adams MS, Blindloss ME, Ganf GG, Gerloff GC, Hammer UT, Javornick? P, Koonce JF, Marker AFH, McCracken MD, Moss B, Nauwerck A, Pyrina IL, Steel JAP, Tilzer M, Walters CJ. 1980. Primary production. In: LeCren ED, Lowe-McConnell, Eds. The functioning of freshwater ecosystems. International Biosphere Programme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 141–246
Wetzel RG. 2001. Limnology. 3rd edn. San Diego: Academic Press. 1006 p
Wetzel RG, Ward AK. 1996. Primary production. In: Petts G, Calow P, Eds. River Biota: diversity and dynamics selected extracts from the rivers handbook. Oxford: Blackwell Science. pp 168–83
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to A.M. Blais, M. Hugues, D. Poulin, L. Robichaud, J.-P. Amyot, and the pourvoirie Gladu for their invaluable help in the field and laboratory. We would like to thank S. Tomlinson from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for providing water level data, G. Létourneau from the St. Lawrence Centre (Environment Canada), for providing the satellite images, and M. Bélanger (Université de Montréal) for his help with GIS-based work. We thank R.G. Wetzel, A. Cattaneo, and H. Sarakinos for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript. This study was supported by Environment Canada (St. Lawrence Centre), a NSERC research grant to R.C. and NSERC and FCAR scholarships to C.V.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vis, C., Hudon, C., Carignan, R. et al. Spatial Analysis of Production by Macrophytes, Phytoplankton and Epiphyton in a Large River System under Different Water-Level Conditions. Ecosystems 10, 293–310 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9021-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9021-3