4.7 Article

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) in Daya Bay, China: An in situ study of primary production and environmental impacts

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 58, Issue 9, Pages 1310-1318

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.030

Keywords

HAB; Primary production; Chlorophyll a; Phytoplankton; Anthropogenic impact; Daya Bay

Funding

  1. Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [40531006, U0633007, 40676092]
  2. Creative Group Program [KZCX2YW213]
  3. Knowledge Innovation Program (SCSIO) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. CAS International Partnership Project for the Innovational Group Tropical Marine Ecological Process Studies
  5. LMB-LAMB-LMM and the Key Laboratory Open Fund of Fishery Ecology Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, China [2005-7]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A month-long investigation of phytoplankton biomass and primary production (PP) was carried out during a harmful algal bloom (HAB) in Daya Bay, China, in 2003. During the bloom, the phytoplankton community was dominated by Scrippsiella trochoidea and Chattonella marina. The phytoplankton biomass (Chi a) and PP reached peak levels of 519.21 mg m(-3) and 734.0 mgC m(-3) h(-1), respectively. Micro-phytoplankton was the key contributor to Chi a and PP in a cage-culture area and in the adjacent HAB-affected waters, with percentages of up to 82.91% and 84.94%, respectively. The HAB had complicated relationships with hydrological and meteorological factors in Daya Bay. However, the water around the cage-culture area always showed statistically greater phytoplankton biomass and nutrient loadings than in adjacent waters, suggesting that this was the trigger area of the bloom. The spatial and temporal distribution of diverse HABs in Daya Bay, their ecological characteristics, and their environmental impacts are also discussed in this paper. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available