4.7 Article

The response of phytoplankton community to anthropogenic pressure gradient in the coastal waters of the eastern Adriatic Sea

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 56, Issue -, Pages 106-115

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.018

Keywords

Water quality assessment; Chlorophyll a; Phytoplankton; Diversity; WFD; MSFD

Funding

  1. Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports [001-0010501-0848, 001-0013077-0845]
  2. Croatian water management company Hrvatske vode

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to test the response of phytoplankton to anthropogenic pressure, data of chlorophyll a concentration, phytoplankton abundance, and composition are analyzed in relation to anthropogenic pressure gradient and environmental variables such as temperature, salinity and nutrients. Investigated sites encompassed wide tropic range according to a prelimihary determination of anthropogenic pressure, quantified through the LUSI index. Statistical analyses indicated nitrates and silicates as proxies of freshwater influence, and phytoplankton single metrics such as concentrations of chlorophyll a and abundances as indicators of anthropogenic pressure. Boundary values for different water quality classes for coastal waters under indirect freshwater influence (Type II) are obtained according to gradient between concentration of chlorophyll a and pressure index (LUSI), which empirically fit to exponential equation. The response of phytoplankton diversity was not linear, as the highest diversity was observed in the area with intermediate disturbance level. CCA analysis identified Skeletonema marina, Scrippsiella trochoidea, Guinardia flaccida, Leptocylindrus spp., Prorocentrum spp., Proboscia alata, Eutreptiella spp., and Pseudonitzschia spp. as local eutrophication indicators, whose abundances increased with nutrients loads. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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