Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting the Chesapeake Bay Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2006, a phytoplankton index of biotic integrity (PIBI) was published for Chesapeake Bay Lacouture et al. (Estuaries 29(4):598–616, 2006). The PIBI was developed from data collected during the first 18 years (1985–2002) of the Chesapeake Bay Program long-term phytoplankton and water quality monitoring programs. Combinations of up to nine phytoplankton metrics were selected to characterize bay habitat health according to plankton community condition in spring and summer seasons across four salinity zones. The independent data available at the time for index validation was not sufficient to test the PIBI because they lacked critical index parameters (pheophytin and dissolved organic carbon) and reference samples for some seasons and salinity zones. An additional 8 years of monitoring data (2003–2010) are now available to validate the original index, reassess index performance and re-examine long-term trends in PIBI conditions in the Bay. The PIBI remains sensitive to changes in nutrient and light conditions. Evaluation of the PIBI results over the entire 1985–2010 time period shows no discernible trends in the overall health of Bay habitat based on phytoplankton community conditions. This lack of overall PIBI trend appears to be a combined response to declines in water clarity and improvements in dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved phosphorus conditions in the bay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alden, R. W., III, & Perry, E. S. (1997). Presenting measurements of status: report to the Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee’s data analysis workgroup. Annapolis, Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, T. S., Lambert, C., Santschi, P. H., Baskaran, M., & Guo, L. (1995). Plant pigments as biomarkers of high-molecular weight dissolved organic carbon. Limnology and Oceanography, 40, 422–428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boicourt, W. C. (1992). Influences of circulation processes on dissolved oxygen on the Chesapeake Bay. In D. E. Spinth, M. Leffler, & G. Mackieman (Eds.), Oxygen dynamics in Chesapeake Bay—a synthesis of recent results (pp. 7–59). College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, C., Lacouture, R. V., Marshall, H. G., Olson, M. M., & Johnson, J. M. (2005). Phytoplankton reference communities for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Estuaries, 28(1), 138–159.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, K. E., Johnson, J. M., & Buchanan, C. (2006). An index of biotic integrity based on the summer polyhaline zooplankton community of the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Environmental Research, 62(3), 165–180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2002). Retrieved http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf.

  • Conley, D. J., & Malone, T. C. (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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, M., Best, M., Coates, D., Bresnan, E., O’Boyle, S., Park, R., et al. (2007). Establishing boundary classes for the classification of UN marine waters using phytoplankton communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55, 91–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, K. K. (1973). Estuaries—a physical introduction. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edler, L. (1979). Recommendations on the methods for marine biological studies in the Baltic Seas, phytoplankton and chlorophyll. The Baltic Marine Biologists Working Group, 9(5), 6–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European communities, L327(22.12.2000), 72 pp.

  • Fisher, T. R., & Gustafson, A. B. (2003). Nutrient-addition bioassays in Chesapeake Bay to assess resources limiting algal growth. Progress report: August 1990–December 2002. Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program. Cambridge, MD: University of Maryland Horn Point Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., Gustafson, A. B., Sellner, K., Lacouture, R., Haas, L. W., Wetzel, R. L., et al. (1999). Spatial and temporal variation of resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology, 133(4), 763–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., Hagy, J. D., III, Boynton, W. R., & Williams, M. R. (2006). Cultural eutrophication in the Choptank and Patuxent estuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography, 51, 435–447.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, G. R., Bowman, A. B., Gerritsen, J., & Snyder, B. D. (2000). Estuarine and coastal marine waters: bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance. EPA 822-B-00-024. Washington, DC: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, L. W., Jr. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, H., Durselen, C.-D., Kikrschtel, D., Pollingher, U., & Zohary, T. (1999). Biovolume calculation for pelagic and benthic microalgae. Journal of Phycology, 35, 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R. W., & Cole, J. J. (1985). Molybdenum availability, nitrogen limitation, and phytoplankton growth in natural waters. Science, 229(4714), 653–655.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jasby, A. D., Cloern, J. E., & Powell, T. M. (1993). Organic carbon sources and sinks in San Francisco Bay: variability induced by river flow. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 95, 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W. M., Boynton, W. R., Adolf, J. E., Boesch, D. F., Boicourt, W. C., Brush, G., et al. (2005). Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 303, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovala, P. E., & Larrance, J. P. (1966). Computation of phytoplankton cell numbers, cell volume, cell surface area and plasma volume per litre, from microscopic counts. Special report (Vol. 38, pp. 1–91). Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacouture, R. V., Johnson, J. M., Buchanan, C., & Marshall, H. G. (2006). Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Estuaries, 29(4), 598–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llanso, R. J., Dauer, D. M., & Volstad, J. H. (2008). Assessing ecological integrity for impaired waters decisions in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 59, 48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lugoli, F., Gamendia, M., Lehtinen, S., Kauppila, P., Moncheva, S., Revilla, M., et al. (2012). Application of a new mult-metric phytoplankton index to the assessment of ecological status in marine and transitional waters. Ecological Indicators, 23, 338–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. C., Crocker, L. H., Pike, S. E., & Wendler, B. W. (1988). Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 48, 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Crego, B., Alcoverro, T., & Romero, J. (2010). Biotic indices for assessing the status of coastal waters: a review of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12, 1013–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J., Taylor, W. R., & Taft, J. L. (1977). Nitrogenous nutrition of the plankton in the Chesapeake Bay. 1. Nutrient availability and phytoplankton preferences. Limnology and Oceanography, 22, 996–1011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, G. W., McConnell, G. W., Hapeman, C. J., Sadeghi, A., Graff, C., Hively, W. D., et al. (2008). Water quality and conservation practice effects in the Choptank River watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(6), 461–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meon, B., & Kirchman, D. L. (2001). Dynamics and molecular composition of dissolved organic material during experimental phytoplankton blooms. Marine Chemistry, 75, 185–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. M. (2009). Development and evolution of a relative measure of condition for assessing the status of water quality and biological parameters tracked in the US/EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Long Term Monitoring Programs. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. ICPRB Report 09–4. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_47604.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2013.

  • Parsons, T. R., Takahashi, M., & Hargrave, B. (1984). Biological oceanographic processes (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. W., ed., (2007), Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey science for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and implications for environmental management. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1316, 63 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1316/html/toc.html. Accessed 17 April 2013.

  • Pinto, R., Patricio, J., Baeta, A., Fath, B. D., Neto, J. M., & Marques, J. C. (2008). Review and evaluation of estuarine biotic indices to assess benthic condition. Ecological Indicators, 9, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ptacnik, R., Solimini, A. G., & Brettum, P. (2009). Performance of a new phytoplankton composition metric along a eutrophication gradient in Nordic lakes. Hydrobiologia, 633, 75–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ranasinghe, J. A., Weisberg, S. B., Frithsend,J. B., Dauer, D. M., Schaffner, L. C. And Diaz, R. J. (1994). Chesapeake Bay benthic community restoration goals. US/EPA Chesapeake Program. CBP/TRS 107/94.

  • Ruhl, H. & Rybicki, N. B. (2010). Long-term reductions in anthropogenic nutrients link to improvements in Chesapeake Bay habitat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107(38): 16566–16570; http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16566.full.pdf+html. Accessed 17 April 2013.

  • Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IO, USA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spatharis, S., & Tsirtis, G. (2010). Ecological quality scales based on phytoplankton for the implementation of Water Framework Directive in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ecological Indicators, 10, 840–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J., & Liu, D. (2003). Geometric model for calculating cell biovolume and surface area for plankton. Journal of Plankton Research, 25, 1331–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tett, P., Carreira, C., Mills, D. K., van Leeusen, S., Foden, J., Bresnan, E., et al. (2008). Use of Phytoplankton Community Index to assess the health of coastal waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65(8), 1475–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983). Chesapeake Bay: a framework for action—appendices. Philidelphia, PA. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13262.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2013.

  • Vadrucci, M. R., Cabrini, M., & Basset, A. (2007). Biovolume determination of phytoplankton guilds in transitional water ecosystems of Mediterranean Ecoregion. Transitional Waters Bulletin, 2, 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, S. B., Ranasinghe, J. A., Dauer, D. M., Schaffner, J. B., Diaz, J. B., & Frithsen, J. B. (1997). An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 20, 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. R., Filoso, S., Longstaff, B. J., & Dennison, W. C. (2010). Long-term trends of water quality and biotic metrics in Chesapeake Bay: 1986 to 2008. Estuaries and Coast, 33, 1279–1299.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshiyama, K., & Sharp, J. (2006). Phytoplankton response to nutrient enrichment in an urbanized estuary: apparent inhibition of primary production by over eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography, 51(1, Part 2), 424–434.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Chesapeake Bay monitoring program staffs, principal investigators, and state resource managers—past and present—who made this analysis possible by their many years of data collection. Thanks to Mike Mallonee and Peter Tango for review of initial versions of this document. Funds from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program grant CB-96305701 and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin supported this effort. The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors, and not necessarily of the agencies for which they work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vistronix Incorporated, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 112, Annapolis, MD, 21403, USA

    Jacqueline M. Johnson

  2. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 30 West Gude Dr. Suite 450, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA

    Claire Buchanan

Authors
  1. Jacqueline M. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Buchanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacqueline M. Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, J.M., Buchanan, C. Revisiting the Chesapeake Bay Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity. Environ Monit Assess 186, 1431–1451 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3465-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3465-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation