Advertisement

Wetlands

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Evaluating Nutrient Reduction, Grazing and Barley Straw as Measures Against Algal Growth

  • Veronica Fervier
  • Pablo Urrutia-Cordero
  • Elena Piano
  • Francesca Bona
  • Kenneth M. Persson
  • Lars-Anders Hansson
Wetlands Restoration

Abstract

The aim of our study was to experimentally investigate whether it is possible to reduce nuisance growth of filamentous algae in freshwater ecosystems. We used an experimental set-up mimicking a shallow pond system and performed a field investigation in the eutrophic moat of Krapperup castle (Southern Sweden), which exemplifies an extremely impaired ecosystem with ample growth of filamentous green algae. The indoor experiment tested three treatments: I) reduced nutrient concentrations, II) invertebrate grazers and III) addition of barley straw, which may constitute measures against filamentous algal growth and thereby improve the quality of the ecosystem services provided by water bodies. Our results show a decrease in cyanobacteria and diatom abundances in all mesocosms as filamentous algae biomass increased, suggesting that the microalgae suffered from nutrient and light competition with filamentous algae. A tendency for lower filamentous algae final biomass, as well as coverage, was observed in the treatment where the concentration of nutrients was reduced. Grazers treatment showed a tendency to inhibit filamentous algae growth on artificial macrophytes towards the end of the experiment, suggesting that snails initially fed on their preferred food source (diatoms), until it was almost depleted and then started to feed on filamentous algae. Interestingly, the barley straw treatment was the only treatment promoting macrophytes growth and enhancing diatom biomass, but this did not affect filamentous algae biomass. However, the ratio between filamentous algae and macrophyte final biomasses was significantly lower in the straw treatment. In a broader context, it is likely that in a long-term perspective the positive effect of barley straw on macrophyte growth will promote a shift from dominance by filamentous algae to macrophytes as main primary producer. Moreover, our experiment shows that barley straw may be effective in reducing cyanobacterial growth, which may lead to improved water quality and thereby ecosystem services, such as supporting and cultural ecosystem services, since cyanobacteria may produce potent toxins and pose a serious risk to human and animal health. Altogether, our experimental results have important implications for the challenge of reversing nuisance filamentous algal blooms in highly eutrophic systems.

Keywords

Filamentous algae Eutrophication Freshwater Ponds Mesocosms Restoration Cyanobacteria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by The Royal Physiographic Society and the Sweden Water Research. The greenhouse and laboratories were made available by Department of Biology, Lund University.

Authors’ Contributions

VF, together with PUC and LAH conceived, planned, carried out the experiment, performed the samplings and wrote the manuscript. PUC performed the samplings in the study area in September 2016. EP performed the statistical data analysis. KMP and FB supervised the project. LAH was involved in planning, provided critical feedback, helped shape the research and was the main supervisor of the work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Supplementary material

13157_2019_1167_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 12 kb)

References

  1. Abdel-Raouf N, Al-Homaidan A, Ibraheem I (2012) Microalgae and wastewater treatment. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 19(3):257–275CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball AS, Williams M, Vincent D, Robinson J (2001) Algal growth control by a barley straw extract. Bioresource Technology 77:177–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett PRF, Littlejohn JW, Curnow J (1999) Long-term algal control in a reservoir using barley straw. Hydrobiologia 415:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs BJ, Price GM (1987) A survey of filamentous algal proliferations in New Zealand Rivers. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 21:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkinshaw N, Kemp E, Clarke S (2013) The ecology of grass-wrack pondweed Potamogeton Compressus. Natural England Commissioned ReportsNumber 130Google Scholar
  6. Boelee N, Temmink H, Janssen M, Buisman C, Wijffels R (2011) Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from municipal wastewater effluent using microalgal biofilms. Water Research 45(18):5925–5933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Boylan JD, Morris J (2003) Limited effects of barley straw on algae and zooplankton in a Midwestern pond. Lake and Reservoir Management 19:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brönmark C (1989) Interactions between epiphytes, macrophytes and freshwater snails: a review. Journal of Molluscan Studies 55:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brönmark C, Rundle SD, Erlandsson A (1991) Interactions between freshwater snails and tadpoles: competition and facilitation. Oecologia 87:8–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Caffrey J, Monahan C (1999) Filamentous algal control using barley straw. Hydrobiologia 415:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calow P, Calow LJ (1975) Cellulase activity and niche separation in freshwater gastropods. Nature 255:478–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter S, Caraco N, Correll D, Howarth R, Sharpley A, Smith V (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8(3):559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambers PA, Prepas EE, Bothwell ML, Hamilton HR (1989) Roots versus shoots in nutrient uptake by aquatic Macrophytes in flowing waters. Candian Journal Of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences 46:435–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheney C, Hough RA (1983) Factors controlling photosynthetic productivity in a population of Cladophorafracta (Chlorophyta). Ecology 64:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chislock MF, Doster E, Zitomer RA, Wilson AE (2013) Eutrophication: causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):10Google Scholar
  16. Colletti PJ, Blinn DW, Pickart A, Wagner VT (1987) Influence of different densities of the mayfly grazer Heptagenia Criddlei on lotic diatom communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 6:270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillon PJ, Rigler FH (1974) A test of simple nutrient budget model predicting the phosphorus concentration in Lake water. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31:1771–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Everall NC, Lees DR (1996) The use of barley straw to control general and blue-green algal growth in a Derbyshire reservoir. Water Research 30:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feminella JW, Hawkins CH (1995) Interactions between stream herbivores and Periphyton; a quantitative analysis of past experiments. Journal of North American Benthological Society 14:465–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferber LR, Levine SN, Lini A, Livingston GP (2004) Do cyanobacteria dominate in Eutrophic Lakes because they fix atmospheric nitrogen? Freshwater Bioogy. 49:690–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gao J-Q, Xiong Z-T, Zhang W-H, Deng X-W, Shang L-Y, Fu C-Y (2007) Removal efficiency of phosphorus in hypertrophic lake donghu water by common submerged macrophytes; resources and environment in the Yangtze Basin. School Of Resource And Environment, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  22. Geiger S, Henry E, Hayes P, Haggard K (2005) Barley straw – algae control literature analysisGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson MT, Welch IM, Barrett PRF, Ridge I (1990) Barley straw as an inhibitor of algal growth II: laboratory studies. Journal of Applied Phycology 2:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gregory SV (1983) Plant-herbivore interactions in stream systems. In: Barnes JR, Minshall GW (eds) Stream ecology: application and testing of general ecological theory. Plenum, New York, pp 159–189Google Scholar
  25. Hosper SH (1989) Biomanipulation, new perspective for restoring Shallow Lakes in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia Bulletin 23:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Houman Rajabi Islami HR, Filizadeh Y (2011) Use of barley straw to control nuisance freshwater algae. American Water Works Association (Awwa) 103:5–12Google Scholar
  27. Hutchinson GE (1975) A treatise on limnology, vol Iii. Limnological Botany. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacoby JM (1987) Alterations in Periphyton characteristics due to grazing in a Cascade foothill stream. Freshwater Biology 18:495–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeppesen E (1998) The ecology of Shallow Lakes—trophic interactions in the Pelagial. D.Sc. Dissertation. Ministry Of Environment And Energy, National Environmental Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeppesen E, Kristensen P, Jensen J, Sondergaard M, Mortensen E, Lauridsen T (1991) Recovery resilience following a reduction in external phosphorus loading of shallow eutrophic Danish lakes: duration, regulating factors and Methods for overcoming resilience. Istituto Italiano Di Idrobiologia 48:127–148Google Scholar
  31. Lamberti GA, Moore JW (1984) Aquatic insects as primary consumers. In: Resh VH, Rosenberg DM (eds) The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger, New York, pp 164–195Google Scholar
  32. Lidén A (2016) Safe drinking water in a changing environment: membrane filtration in a Swedish context. Lund University, Water Resources EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  33. Maberly SC, King L, Gibson CE, May L, Jones RI, Jordan MMD aC (2003) Linking nutrient limitation and water chemistry in Upland Lakes to catchment characteristics. Hydrobiologia 506:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin D, Ridge I (1999) The relative sensitivity of algae to decomposing barley straw. Journal of Applied Phycology 11:285–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meijer ML, Raat AJ, Doef RW (1989) Restoration by biomanipulation of Lake Bleiswijkse zoom the Netherlands first results. Hydrobiology Bulletin 23:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moss B (2001) The broads. The People’s wetland. The new naturalist. Harper Collins Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson C, Bennett D, Cardinale B (2013) Consistency and sensitivity of stream periphyton community structural and functional responses to nutrient enrichment. Ecological Applications 23(1):159–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Newman JR, Barrett PRF (1993) Control of Microcystis Aeruginosa by decomposing barley straw. Journal ofAquatic Plant Management 31:203–206Google Scholar
  39. Ozimek T, Gulati RD, Van Donk E (1990) Can Macrophytes be useful in biomanipulation of lakes? The Lake Zwemlust example. Hydrobiologia 200/201:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips GL, Eminson D, Moss B (1978) A mechanism to account for macrophyte decline in progressively eutrophicated freshwaters. Aquatic Botany 4:103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips G, Willby N, Moss B (2016) Submerged macrophyte decline in shallow lakes: what have we learnt in the last forty years? Aquatic Botany 135:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Power ME, Stewart AJ, Matthews WJ (1988) Grazer control of algae in an Ozark Mountain stream: effects of short-term exclusion. Ecology 69:1894–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pretty JN, Mason CF, Nedwell DB, Hine RE, Leaf S, Dils R (2003) Environmental costs of freshwater Eutrophication in England and Wales. Environmental Science & Technology 37:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prygiel E, Charriau A, Descamps R, Prygiel J, Ouddane B, Billon G (2014) Efficiency evaluation of an Algistatic treatment based on barley straw in a hypertrophicpond. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 22(1):1–13Google Scholar
  45. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  46. Ridge I, Pillinger JM (1996) Towards understanding the nature of algal inhibitors from barley straw. Hydrobiologia 340:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheffer M (1998) Ecology of Shallow Lakes. Chapman And Hall, London, p 357Google Scholar
  48. Scheffer M, Van Nes EH (2007) Shallow Lakes theory revisited: various alternative regimes driven by climate, nutrients, depth and Lake size. Hydrobiologia 584:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheffer M, Hosper SH, Meijer ML, Moss B, Jeppesen E (1993) Alternative equilibria in Shallow Lakes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:275–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schindler D (2006) Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography 51(1):356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skoog G (1978) Influence of natural food items on growth and egg production in brackish water populations of Lymnaea Peregra and Theodoxus Uviatilis (Mollusca). Oikos 31:340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith CS, Barko JW (1990) Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 28:55–64Google Scholar
  53. Søndergaard M (2007) Nutrient dynamics in lakes – with emphasis on phosphorus, sediment and Lake restorations. Doctor’s dissertation (Dsc). National Environmental Research Institute, University Of Aarhus, Denmark. 276 Pp.Google Scholar
  54. Spence DHN (1982) The zonation of plants in Freshwater Lakes. In: Macfadyen A, Ford ED (eds) Advances in ecological research. Academic Press, London, pp 37–126Google Scholar
  55. Steinman AD, Mcintire CD, Gregory SV, Lamberti GA, Ashkenas LR (1987a) Effects of herbivore type and density on taxonomic structure and physiognomy of algal assemblages in laboratory streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 6:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinman AD, Mcintire CD, Lowry RR (1987b) Effects of herbivore type and density on chemical composition of algal assemblages in laboratory streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 6:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stevenson RJ, Bothwell ML, Lowe RL (1996) Freshwater benthic systems. Academic Press; Eds. Algal Ecology, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  58. Timm RM, Moss B (1984) Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton populations by zooplankton grazing in the presence of Zooplanktivorus fish. In: a shallow wetland ecosystem. Limnology and Oceanography 29:472–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Underwood GJC, Thomas JD, Baker JH (1992) An experimental investigation of interactions in snail macrophyte-epiphyte systems. Oecologia 91:587–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Urrutia-Cordero P, Ekvall MK, Ratcovich J, Soares M, Wilken S, Zhang H, Hansson L-A (2017) Phytoplankton diversity loss along a gradient of future warming and brownification in freshwater mesocosms. Freshwater Biology 10:1111–13027Google Scholar
  61. Welch EB, Horner RR, Patmont CR (1989) Prediction of nuisance Periphytic biomass: a management approach. Water Research 23:401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welch IM, Barrett PRF, Gibson MT, Ridge I (1990) Barley straw as an inhibitor of algal growth in: studies in the Chesterfield Canal. Journal of Applied Phycology 2:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Welch EB, Quinn JM, Hickey CW (1992) Periphyton biomass related to point-source nutrient enrichment in seven New Zealand streams. Water Research 26:669–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xin L, Hong-Ying H, Ke G, Ying-Xue S (2010) Effects of different nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations on the growth, nutrient uptake, and lipid accumulation of a freshwater microalga Scenedesmus Sp. Bioresource Technology 101(14):5494–5500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veronica Fervier
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pablo Urrutia-Cordero
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Elena Piano
    • 2
  • Francesca Bona
    • 2
  • Kenneth M. Persson
    • 6
  • Lars-Anders Hansson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology/Aquatic EcologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Life Sciences and Systems BiologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Genetics/LimnologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity (HIFMB)OldenburgGermany
  5. 5.Institute for Chemistry and Biology of Marine Environments (ICBM)Carl-von-Ossietzky University OldenburgWilhelmshavenGermany
  6. 6.Division of Water Resources EngineeringLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations