Structural adaptions of phytoplankton assemblages along two contrasting reservoirs
- 15 Downloads
Differences in limnological and hydrological conditions between storage and run-of-river reservoirs caused variations in phytoplankton assemblages along the two types of reservoirs. Instead of exploring variations in phytoplankton assemblages along one type of reservoir, this study identified similarities and differences in phytoplankton assemblages along two types of reservoirs. Phytoplankton assemblages from Xiaowan (storage reservoir) and Manwan (run-of-river reservoir) reservoirs in the Lancang River, China were used as case study. Taxonomic approach and functional group method were used to compare phytoplankton assemblages at sampling sites located in impounded areas of reservoirs, free-flowing areas directly below reservoirs, and free-flowing intermediate areas between the two contrasting reservoirs. With the reduction of reservoir disturbance, phytoplankton assemblages in free-flowing intermediate areas between reservoirs will recover to rich and diverse. Because of the inoculation and dispersion of phytoplankton from the upstream reservoir, dominant functional groups at the sampling sites located in impounded areas of reservoirs and free-flowing areas directly below reservoirs were mainly represented by groups that prefer long water residence times. The functional group TB (Nitzschia lorenziana) and W2 (Strombomonas ensifera) could be used as useful indicators to determine hydrological conditions due to their strong sensitivity to water residence times. Results of the linear redundancy analysis demonstrated that phytoplankton assemblages were mainly affected by DO and flow. These results should aid river managers in acquiring better insight into the effect of cascade reservoirs on the biomass and structure of phytoplankton in the aquatic ecosystem.
KeywordsPhytoplankton Storage reservoir Run-of-river reservoir Functional groups Lancang River
This study was supported and funded by Key Special Project of the National Key Research and Development Program (Grant number 2016YFC0402309), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 51609008); and the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (Grant number 2016CFA092).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work. There is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled.
- Borics G, Varbiro G, Grigorszky I et al (2007) A new evaluation technique of potamo-plankton for the assessment of the ecological status of rivers. Archiv für Hydrobiologie. Supplement Large rivers 17: 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1127/lr/17/2007/466
- Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Vander Zanden MJ (2011) State of the world's freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological changes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:75–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021810-094524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nogueira MG, Perbiche-Neves G, Naliato DAO (2012) Limnology of two contrasting hydroelectric reservoirs (storage and run-of-river) in Southeast Brazil. In: Hydropower-Practice and Application, InTech, pp 167–184Google Scholar
- Perbiche-Neves G, Nogueira MG (2013) Reservoir design and operation: effects on aquatic biota-a case study of planktonic copepods. Hydrobiologia 707(1):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1425-1
- Poff NL, Hart DD (2002) How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal: an ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers via dam removal. BioScience 52(8):659–668. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052%5B0659:HDVAWI%5D2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reinfelder JR (2011) Carbon concentrating mechanisms in eukaryotic marine phytoplankton. Annu Rev Mar Sci 3:291–315. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120709-142720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reynolds CS (2000) Hydroecology of river plankton: the role of variability in channel flow. Hydrol Process 14(16–17):3119–3132. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14:16/17%3C3119::AID-HYP137%3E3.0.CO;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reynolds CS (2006) The ecology of phytoplankton. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Reynolds CS, Huszar V, Kruk C et al (2002) Towards a functional classification of the freshwater phytoplankton. J Plankton Res 24(5):417–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/24.5.417
- Reynolds CS, Maberly SC, Parker JE et al (2012) Forty years of monitoring water quality in Grasmere (English Lake District): separating the effects of enrichment by treated sewage and hydraulic flushing on phytoplankton ecology. Freshw Biol 57(2):384–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02687.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- State Environmental Protection Agency, China (2002) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing In ChineseGoogle Scholar
- Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Wang DM, Wang MX, Luo SY (1991) The handbook of aquatic organism monitoring. Southeast. University Press, Nanjing In ChineseGoogle Scholar