4.6 Article

Phytoplankton biomass response to nitrogen inputs: a method for WFD boundary setting applied to Danish coastal waters

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 633, 期 1, 页码 137-149

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-009-9867-9

关键词

Eutrophication; Chlorophyll; Total nitrogen; Nutrient enrichment; Ecosystem responses

资金

  1. National Danish Aquatic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
  2. Danish Environmental Protection Agency
  3. Thresholds Integrated Project
  4. Framework Program 6 of the European Commission [003933-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reference conditions and boundary values between Water Framework Directive status classes were estimated for phytoplankton biomass from empirical relationships relating: (1) nitrogen inputs from land to total nitrogen (TN) concentrations and (2) TN concentrations to chlorophyll a (chl a) concentrations. Different periods during the last > 100 years were used to characterise hypothesised ecological status, and a hind-casted time series was used to define boundary values for nitrogen inputs. Nitrogen levels in 35 coastal water bodies around Denmark were significantly related to inputs from land to various degrees (factor of 50) reflecting gradients from open coastal to freshwater-influenced estuaries. Significant differences in the relationship between chl a and TN across sites were found, suggesting that previous response models have been too simple and uncertain. Reference and boundary values for chl a, estimated with a relative uncertainty of 5-20%, varied substantially between sites, and the boundary value between good and moderate status was 6-81% higher than the reference condition with an average of 28%. Differences in bioavailability of nutrient sources and grazing pressure are important factors controlling site-specific phytoplankton biomass, and models for predicting phytoplankton responses to nutrient reductions must account for these. The boundary setting must be adaptive to incorporate improved quantitative knowledge and effects of shifting baselines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据