4.2 Article

Drivers of phytoplankton, bacterioplankton, and zooplankton carbon biomass in tropical hydroelectric reservoirs

Journal

LIMNOLOGICA
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages 1-10

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.limno.2014.04.004

Keywords

Plankton biomass; Carbon; Hydroelectric reservoirs; Driving forces; Tropical region

Categories

Funding

  1. FURNAS Centrais Eletricas S.A.
  2. National Council of Research and Development (CNPq), Brazil [309700/2013-2, 309180/2013-9]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies of carbon sources in plankton communities are important because carbon content has become the main currency used in functional studies of aquatic ecosystems. We evaluated the contribution to the total organic carboh pool from different plankton communities (phytoplankton, bacterioplankton, and zooplankton C-biota) and its drivers in eight tropical hydroelectric reservoirs with different trophic and hydrological status and different physical features. Our systems were separated into three groups based on trophic status and water residence time: (i) mesotrophic with low residence time (ML); (ii) mesotrophic with high residence time (MH); and (iii) eutrophic with low residence time (EL). Our hypothesis that reservoirs with low water residence times and low nutrient concentrations would show the lowest C-biota was supported. Phytoplankton carbon (C-phy) showed the highest concentrations in the EL, followed by MH and ML systems. The EL group also showed significantly higher zooplankton carbon (C-zoo). No significant difference was observed for bacteria carbon (C-bac) among the three system groups. In addition to trophic status and water residence time, regression analyses revealed that water temperature, light, pH, and dissolved organic carbon concentrations were the main drivers of plankton communities in these large tropical hydroelectric reservoirs. (C) 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available