Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 7–16 | Cite as

Significance of nanoplankton in the Chesapeake Bay estuary and problems associated with the measurement of nanoplankton productivity

  • J. J. McCarthy
  • W. Rowland Taylor
  • M. E. Loftus
Article

Abstract

Over a 2-year program of monthly cruises covering the entire Chesapeake Bay (USA), the phytoplankters which passed 35 μm mesh were responsible for 89.6% of the phytoplankton productivity. On a single summer cruise, the <35 μm phytoplankton fraction was responsible for 93.4% of the chlorophyll a and 100% of the primary productivity. The <10 μm fraction was responsible for 81.3% of the chlorophyll a and 94% of the productivity. The difference in biomass in the <35 μm and the <10 μm fractions was significant (P=0.025), but no significant difference in the productivity could be demonstrated. Laboratory experiments demonstrated that recently assimilated carbon can be lost with gravity screening. Considering both this and the effect of herbivorous zooplankters enclosed in productivity incubations, a prescreening rather than postscreening technique is recommended for studying nanoplankton productivity.

Keywords

Biomass Chlorophyll Phytoplankton Laboratory Experiment Phytoplankton Productivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson, G. C.: Fractionation of phytoplankton communities off the Washington and Oregon coasts. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10, 477–480 (1965).Google Scholar
  2. Carpenter, J. H.: The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler dissolved oxygen method. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10, 141–143 (1965).Google Scholar
  3. —, D. W. Pritchard and R. C. Whaley: Observations of eutrophication and nutrient cycles in some coastal plain estuaries. In: Eutrophication: causes, consequences, correctives, pp 210–221. Washington: National Academy of Sciences 1969.Google Scholar
  4. Cowles, R. P.: A biological study of the offshore waters of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. Bur. Fish., Wash. 46, 277–381 (1930).Google Scholar
  5. Eppley, R. W.: Temperature and phytoplankton growth in the sea. Fish. Bull. U.S. 70, 1068–1085 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. Findenegg, I.: Relationship between standing crop and primary productivity. In: Primary productivity in aquatic environments, pp 271–289. Ed. by C. R. Goldman. Berkeley: University of California Press 1965.Google Scholar
  7. Flemer, D. A.: Primary production in the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 11, 117–129 (1970).Google Scholar
  8. — and J. Olmon: Daylight incubator estimates of primary production in the mouth of the Patuxent River, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 12, 105–110 (1971).Google Scholar
  9. Gelin, C.: Primary production and chlorophyll a content of nanoplankton in a eutrophic lake. Oikos 22, 230–234 (1971).Google Scholar
  10. Gilmartin, M.: The primary production of a British Columbia fjord. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 21, 505–538 (1964).Google Scholar
  11. Holmes, R. W.: Surface chlorophyll-a, surface primary production, and zooplankton volumes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 144, 109–116 (1958).Google Scholar
  12. — and G. C. Anderson: Size fractionation of C14 labeled natural phytoplankton communities. In: Symposium on marine microbiology, pp 241–250. Ed. by C. C. Oppenheimer. Springfield: C. C. Thomas 1963.Google Scholar
  13. Holm-Hansen, O.: Determination of particulate organic nitrogen. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13, 175–178 (1968).Google Scholar
  14. Kalff, J.: Phytoplankton abundance and primary production rates in two arctic ponds. Ecology 48, 558–565 (1967a).Google Scholar
  15. —: Phytoplankton dynamics in an aretic lake. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 24, 1861–1871 (1967b).Google Scholar
  16. —: Netplankton and nanoplankton production and biomass in a north temperate zone lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17, 712–720 (1972).Google Scholar
  17. Loftus, M. E. and J. H. Carpenter: A fluorometric method for determining chlorophyll a, b, and c. J. mar. Res. 29, 319–338 (1971).Google Scholar
  18. —, D. V. Subba Rao and H. H. Seliger: Growth and dissipation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. I. Response to a large pulse of rainfall. Chesapeake Sci. 13, 282–299 (1972).Google Scholar
  19. Lohmann, H.: Neue Untersuchungen über den Reichtum des. Meeres an Plankton und über die Brauchbarkeit der verschiedenen Fangmethoden. Helgoländer wiss. Meeresunters. 7, 1–86 (1903).Google Scholar
  20. Malone, T. C.: The relative importance of nanoplankton and netplankton as primary producers in the California Current System. Fish. Bull. U.S. 69, 799–820 (1971a).Google Scholar
  21. —: The relative importance of netplankton and nannoplankton as primary producers in neritic and oceanic tropical waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16, 633–639 (1971b).Google Scholar
  22. —: Diurnal rhythms in netplankton and nannoplankton assimilation ratios. Mar. Biol. 10, 285–289 (1971c).Google Scholar
  23. Marshall, H. G.: Diurnal distribution of phytoplankton from a single station at the mouth of the James River. Ohio J. Sci. 66, 253–255 (1966a).Google Scholar
  24. —: The distribution of phytoplankton along a 140 mile transect in the Chesapeake Bay. Va J. Sci. 17, 105–119 (1966b).Google Scholar
  25. Patten, B. C., R. A. Mulford and J. E. Warinner: An annual phytoplankton cycle in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 4, 1–20 (1963).Google Scholar
  26. Rodhe, W.: The primary production in lakes: some results and restrictions of the C14 method. Rapp. P.-v. Réun Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 144, 122–128 (1958).Google Scholar
  27. —, R. A. Vollenweider and A. Nauwerck: The primary production and standing crop of phytoplankton. In: Perspectives in marine biology, pp 299–328. Ed. by A. A. Buzzati-Traverso. Berkeley: University of California Press 1958.Google Scholar
  28. Saijo, Y. and K. Takesue: Further studies on the size distribution of photosynthesizing phytoplankton in the Indian Ocean. J. oceanogr. Soc. Japan 20, 264–271 (1965).Google Scholar
  29. Schiemer, E. W. and D. W. Pritchard: An induction conductivity temperature indicator. Tech. Rep. Chesapeake Bay Inst. 25 (Ref. 61-4), 1–75 (1961).Google Scholar
  30. Steemann-Nielsen, E.: The use of radioactive carbon (C14) for measuring organic production in the sea. J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 18, 117–140 (1952).Google Scholar
  31. — and E. A. Jensen: Primary oceanic production. The autotrophic production of organic matter in the ocean. Galathea Rep. 1, 49–136 (1957).Google Scholar
  32. Strickland, J. D. H.: Production of organic matter in the primary stages of the marine food chain. In: Chemical oceanography, Vol. 1. pp 477–610. Ed. by J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow. New York: Academic Press 1965.Google Scholar
  33. Tate, M. W. and R. C. Clelland: Nonparametric and shortcut statistics in the social, biological, and medical sciences, 171 pp. Danville, Illinois: Interstate 1957.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, W. R.: Inorganic nutrient requirements for marine phytoplankton organisms. Occ. Publs Narragansett mar. Lab., Univ. Rhode Isl. 2, 17–24 (1964).Google Scholar
  35. Teixeira, C.: Relative rates of photosynthesis and standing stock of net phytoplankton and nanoplankton. Bolm Inst. Oceanogr., S Paulo 13, 53–60 (1963).Google Scholar
  36. Thomas, J. P.: Release of dissolved organic matter from natural populations of marine phytoplankton. Mar. Biol. 11, 311–323 (1971).Google Scholar
  37. Watt, W. D.: Measuring the primary production rates of individual phytoplankton species in natural mixed populations. Deep Sea Res. 18, 329–339 (1971).Google Scholar
  38. Whaley, R. C., J. H. Carpenter and R. L. Baker: Nutrient data summary 1964, 1965, 1966: Upper Chesapeake Bay (Smith Point to Turkey Point), Potomac, South, Severn, Magothy, Back, Chester, and Miles Rivers, and Eastern Bay. Spec. Rep. Chesapeake Bay Inst. 12 (Ref. 66-4), 1–77 (1966).Google Scholar
  39. Williams, P. J. LeB., T. Berman and O. Holm-Hansen: Potential sources of error in the measurement of low rates of planktonic photosynthesis and excretion. Nature New Biol. 236, 91–92 (1972).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolfe, J. J., B. Cunningham, N. F. Wilkerson and J. T. Barnes: An investigation of the microplankton of Chesapeake Bay. J. Elisha Mitchell scient. Soc. 42, 25–54 (1926).Google Scholar
  41. Yentsch, C. A. and J. H. Ryther: Relative significance of the net plankton and nannoplankton in the waters of Vineyard Sound. J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 24, 231–238 (1959).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. J. McCarthy
    • 1
  • W. Rowland Taylor
    • 1
  • M. E. Loftus
    • 2
  1. 1.Chesapeake Bay InstituteThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations