Advertisement

Spring phytoplankton dynamics in a shallow eutrophic lake

  • Mechthild Schmitt
  • Brigitte NixdorfEmail author
Chapter
  • 345 Downloads
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 143)

Abstract

In contrast to other eutrophic shallow lakes in the Scharmützelsee region, a delayed onset of the phytoplankton succession in Lake Melangsee during spring was regularly observed. Biomasses were opposed to the carrying capacity of the lake (calculated from total-P, total-N and underwater light), indicating further regulating factors in spring. This phase was characterised by high Secchi depths, rising flushing and enhanced oxygen concentrations at the lake bottom. Although silicate concentrations decreased in spring, a typical pelagic diatom or cyanobacterial bloom did not develop. Therefore, we frame the hypothesis that a combination of abiotic factors such as increased losses in spring due to higher flushing and a better light supply suppresses pelagic growth and favours benthic diatoms, which outcompete pelagic diatoms for silicate. The vertical oxygen distribution in this period indicates a shift from pelagic primary production to benthic growth. Considering primary production, flushing, under water light supply and nutrients we tried to find the reasons for the depression of phytoplankton growth during spring.

Key words

shallow eutrophic lakes phytoplankton spring bloom carrying capacity primary production loss processes flushing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Behrendt, H. & B. Nixdorf, 1993. The carbon balance of phytoplankton production and loss processes based on in situ measurements in a shallow lake. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 78: 439–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deneke, R. & B. Nixdorf. On the occurrence of clear water phases on relation to shallowness and trophic state. Hydrobiologia 408/409: 251–262.Google Scholar
  3. Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser-and Schlam- muntersuchung, 1986–1998. Verlag Chemie GmbH Weinheim.Google Scholar
  4. Foy, R. H., Gibson, C. E. & R. V. Smith, 1976. The influence of daylength, light intensity and temperature on the growth rates of planktonic blue-green algae. Br. Phycol. J. 11: 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huszar, V. L & C. S. Reynolds, 1997. Phytoplankton periodicity and sequences of dominance in an Amazonian flood-plain lake (Lago Batata, Para, Brazil): responses to gradual environmental change. Hydrobiologia 346: 169–181.Google Scholar
  6. Köhler, J., H. Behrendt & S. Hoeg. Long-term response of phytoplankton to reduced nutrient load in the flushed lake Müggelsee (Spree system, Germany). Arch. Hydrobiol. (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Nicklisch, A. & J. G. Kohl, 1989. The influence of light on the primary production of two planktic blue-green algae. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. 33, 451–455.Google Scholar
  8. Nixdorf, B., 1994. Polymixis of a shallow lake (Großer Miiggelsee, Berlin) and its influence on seasonal phytoplankton dynamics. Hydrobiologia 275 /276: 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nixdorf, B. & R. Deneke, 1997. Why ‘very shallow’ lakes are more successful opposing reduced nutrient loads. Hydrobiologia 342 /343: 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reynolds, C. S., 1984. The ecology of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge Univ. Press: 384 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Reynolds, C. S. & J. W. G. Lund, 1988. The phytoplankton of an enriched, soft-water lake subject to intermittent hydraulic flushing (Grasmere, English Lake District). Freshwat. Biol. 19: 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reynolds, C. S., 1997. Vegetation Processes in the Pelagic: A Model for Ecosystem Theory. Excellence in Ecology, 9; Ecology Institute Oldendorf, Germany: 371 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Rucker, J., 1998. Chlorophyll, Phytoplanktonentwicklung and Primärproduktion im Scharmützelsee 1993–1997. In Schmitt, M. & Nixdorf, B. (eds), Gewässerreport Nr. 4, BTUC-AR: 5 /98: 70–81.Google Scholar
  14. Scheffer, M., 1998: Ecology of shallow lakes. Chapman & Hall, London: 346 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Sommer, U., Z. M. Gliwicz, W. Lampert & A. Duncan, 1986. The PEG-model of seasonal succession in planktonic events in fresh waters. Arch. Hydrobiol. 106: 433–471.Google Scholar
  16. Sommer, U., 1991. The application of the droop-model of nutrient limitation to natural phytoplankton. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 24: 791–794.Google Scholar
  17. Sommer, U., 1993. Disturbance-diversity relationships in two lakes of similar nutrient chemistry but contrasting disturbance regimes. Hydrobiologia 249: 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tilzer, M. M., 1984. Estimation of phytoplankton loss rates from daily photosynthetic rates and observed biomass changes in Lake Constance. J. Plankton Res. 6: 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Utermöhl, H., 1958. Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplanktonmethodik. Mitt. int. Ver. Limnol. 9: 1–38.Google Scholar
  20. Van Liere, L. & L. R. Mur, 1980. Occurrence of Oscillatoria agardhii and some related species, a survey. In Barica, J. & L. R. Mur (eds), Hypertrophic Ecosystems. Dr. W. Junk Publ., The Hague: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vollenweider, R. A. (ed.), 1974. A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments. IBP Handbook Vol. 12. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Publ., Oxford: 225 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Water ConservationBrandenburg Technical University CottbusBad SaarowGermany

Personalised recommendations