4.8 Article

Interannual variation in diatom bloom dynamics: Roles of hydrology, nutrient limitation, sinking, and whole lake manipulation

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 2551-2562

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.03.027

关键词

P-limitation; destratification; growth rates; nutrient bioassay; silica; alkaline phosphatase; cyanobacteria; lake management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spring development of diatoms in Ford Lake, Michigan, USA was markedly different in 2004 from 2005 and 2006. In 2004, diatom biovolume surpassed 15 mm(3)l(-1) but in 2005 and 2006 maximum biovolume was less than 5 mm(3)l(-1). Soluble reactive silica (SRSi) in 2004 fell below 5 mu M whereas in 2005 and 2006, SRSi remained above 30 mu M. Taxonomic composition was similar among years and consisted mainly of Asterionella, Cyclotella, Fragilaria, Aulacoseira, and Synedra. Bioassay experiments in 2005 demonstrated that P rather than Si was the element most limiting biomass development. However, P supply rate did not account for the differences among years. Model simulations of Si uptake, washout rates, and sinking implicated hydrologic differences among years as the cause of differential success by diatom populations in April of each year. Bioassay experiments performed after overturn demonstrated that diatoms could grow well in unamended lake water, but they did not flourish in the lake; model simulations implicated sinking losses as the reason. In summer 2006, we performed a selective withdrawal of hypolimnetic water from the outlet dam and weakened density stratification. An Aulucoseira bloom resulted in early to mid-August, depleting SRSi to less than 30 mu M. The lake, which had been acting as a P source, changed to a P sink during the bloom, and cyanobacteria did not develop as they had in all previous years. Stoichiometric calculations indicate that the net SRSi uptake and the net DP uptake during the induced bloom were consistent with diatom production. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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