4.0 Article

Temporal and spatial distribution of planktic cyanobacteria in Lake Kastoria, Greece, a shallow, urban lake

期刊

NORDIC JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 501-511

出版社

NORDIC JOURNAL OF BOTANY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-1051.2000.tb01594.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The temporal and spatial distribution of planktic cyanobacteria and some environmental parameters were studied in the shallow, urban Lake Kastoria, Greece from June 1996 to June 1997. Water temperature varied from 6-27 degreesC, pH from 7.5-8.9 and dissolved O-2 concentration from 0.7-12 mg m(-3) 10(-3). The mean annual Chl a concentration was 83 mg Chl a m(-3) indicative of the eutrophic-hypertrophic state of the lake. Cyanobacterial biomass ranged from 11-238 g FW m(-3), constituting about 90% of the total phytoplankton biomass throughout the year. Cyanobacterial biomass was non-uniformly distributed both vertically and horizontally from August to November 1996 and resulted mainly from the distribution of Microcystis. Seven cyanobacterial taxa were reported for the first time in Lake Kastoria. Six taxa were dominant: Microcystis aeruginosa, M. flos-aquae, M. novacekii, Limnothrix redekei, Anabaena sp. and Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii. The dominant cyanobacterial taxa can be grouped on the basis of their distribution patterns (1) Microcystis species: maximum biomass occurring at pH >8, temperature 12-17 degreesC, depth <0.2 m; (2) Anabaena sp, and Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii: maximum biomass at temperatures 23-26 C; (3) Limnothrix redekei: maximum biomass at temperatures 6-27 degreesC. Usually, non-uniform, vertical distributions of cyanobacterial biomass were associated with the formation of temperature, pH and O-2 gradients. L. redekei was considered to be a key lake organism since it contributed up to 59 % of the cyanobacterial biomass. Interestingly, three of the dominant cyanobacteria Microcystis aeruginosa, Anabaena sp. and Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii belong to genera that include toxin-producing species.

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

4.0
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