4.7 Article

Summer changes in cyanobacterial bloom composition and microcystin concentration in eutrophic Czech reservoirs

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 236-243

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tox.20176

Keywords

reservoirs; cyanobacteria; microcystins; bloom; Microcystis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In mid-July and August 2003 and 2004, 18 reservoirs in the Czech Republic were sampled for phytoplankton species composition and concentration of intracellular microcystins (MCs). As a consequence of high nutrient loading, most of the reservoirs experienced cyanobacterial blooms of various intensities, with the prevalence of cyanobacteria increasing markedly in August, along with a conspicuous shift in species composition toward dominance of Microcystis spp. Microcystins were detected in 90% of the samples, and their amount also increased considerably in August, reflecting the cyanobacterial biomass. In Microcystis-dominated samples, a significantly higher amount of MCs (p < 0.001) occurred than in samples in which other taxa prevailed. Microcystins were positively correlated with chlorophyll a and cyanobacterial biovolume (p < 0.05, R-2 = 0.61 and 0.66, respectively), with the strongest correlation found for Microcystis spp. biovolume (p < 0.001, R-2 = 0.87). This taxon was the most important producer of MCs in Czech reservoirs. The main structural variants of MCs were MC-LR, MC-RR, and MC-YR. This study's data also indicate that the relative share of MC variants (MC-LR and MC-RR) varies considerably with time, most likely as a consequence of different species and strain compositions during the summer. This study clearly demonstrates a high prevalence of MC-producing cyanobacteria in Czech reservoirs. Therefore, regular monitoring of these reservoirs is highly desirable in an effort to minimize potential health risks to the human population. (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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