DOCSLIB.ORG

"A Trophic State Index for Lakes," Robert E. Carlson, Univ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
\ A trophic state index for lakes1 THIS WATERIALI.tA r Be PROTecTED BYCOPYRIGHTI.A~ Robert E. Carlson . (T;T~:- "1?t 1.8.COD£) Limno IOglCal Research2 Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455 Abstract A numerical trophic state index for lakes has been developed that incorporates most lakes in a scale of 0 to 100. Each major division (10, 20, 30, etc.) represents a doubling in algal biomass. The index number can be calculated from any of several parameters, including Secchi disk transparency, chlorophyll, and total phosphorus. My purpose here is to present a new ap- sometimes circumvented by classifying proach to the trophic classificationof lakes. lakes that show characteristics of both oli- This new approach was developed because gotrophy and eutrophy as mesotrophic. of frustration in communicatingto the pub- Two or three ill-defined trophic states lic both the current nature or status of lakes cannot meet contemporary demands for a and their future condition after restoration sensitive, unambiguous classification sys- when the traditional trophic classification tem. The addition of other trophic states, system is used. The system presented here, such as ultra-oligotrophic, meso-eutrophic, termed a trophic state index (TSI), in- etc., could increase the discrimination of the volves new methods both of defining index, but at present these additional divi- trophic status and of determining that status sions are no better defined than the first in lakes. three and may actually add to the confu- All trophic classification is based on the sion by giving a false sense of accuracy and division of the trophic continuum, however sensitivity. this is defined, into a series of classes I acknowledgethe advice and encourage- termed trophic states. Traditional systems ment of J. Shapiro in developing this index divide the continuum into three classes: and in preparing the manuscript. I also oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. thank C. Hedman and R. Armstrong for ad- There is often no clear delineation of these vice and H. Wright for help in manuscript .. divisions. Determinations of trophic state preparation. are made from examination of several di- verse criteria, such as shape of the oxygen Cu"ent approaches curve, species composition of the bottom The large number of criteria that have fauna or of the phytoplankton, concentra- been used to determine trophic status has tions of nutrients, and various measures of contributed to the contention that the biomass or production. Although each trophic concept is multidimensional, in- changes from oligotrophy to eutrophy, the volvingaspects of nutrient loading, nutrient changes do not occur at sharply defined concentration, productivity, faunal and places, nor do they all occur at the same floral quantity and quality, and even lake place or at the same rate. Somelakes may morphometry. As such, trophic status be considered oligotrophic by one criterion could not be evaluated by examining one or and eutrophic by another; this problem is two parameters. Such reasoning may have fostered multiparameter indices (e.g. Bre- 1Contribution 141 from the Limnological Re- search Center, University of Minnesota. This work zonik and Shannon 1971; Michalski and was supported in part by Environmental Protec- Conroy 1972). A multiparameter index is t I tion Agency training grant U910028. limited in its usefulnessbecause of the num- I · Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio ber of parameters that must be measured. 44242. In addition, the linear relationship assumed UMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY 361 MARCH 1977, v. 22(2) 362 Carlson between the parameters in some of these I chose algal biomass as the key descrip_ indices does not hold as evidence presented tor for such an index largely because algal below indicates. bloomsare of concern to the public. An in- Alternatives to the multidimensional dex that is particularly sensitive to such trophic concept have been based on a sin- concern would facilitate communicationbe- gle criterion, such as the rate of supply of tween the limnologistand the public. either organic matter (Rodhe 1969) or nu- Values for algal biomass itself are diffi- trients (Beeton and Edmondson 1972) into cult to use in the index because biomassis a lake. Indices based on a single criterion a poorly defined term, usually in turn esti- potentially could be both unambiguous and mated by one or more parameters such as sensitive to change. However, there is cur- dry or wet weight, cell volume, particulate rently no consensus as to what should be carbon, chlorophyll, or Secchi disk trans- the single criterion of trophic status, and parency. I constructed the index using the it is doubtful that an index based on a sin- range of possible values for Secchi disk gle parameter would be widely accepted. transparency. In addition to having values easily transformed into a convenient scale, Basisfor a new index Secchi disk transparency is one of the sim- The ideal trophic state index (TSI) plest and most often made limnological should incorporate the best of both the measurements. Its values are easily under- above approaches, retaining the expression stood and appreciated. of the diverse aspects of trophic state found The relationship between algal biomass in multiparanleter indices yet still having and Secchi disk transparency is expressed the simplicity of a single parameter index. by the equation for vertical extinction of This can be done if the commonly used light in water trophic criteria are interrelated. The evi- dence is that such is the case. Vollenweider I"= Ioe-(k-+kt>.8, (1) (1969, 1976), Kirchner and Dillon (1975), whereIe= light intensityat the depth at and Larsen and Mercier (unpublished) which the Secchi disk disappears, 10=in- have developed empirical equations to pre- tensityof light strikingthe water surface, dict phosphorus concentration in lakes kw= coefficientfor attenuationof lightby from knowledge of phosphorus loading. water and dissolved substances, kb =coef- Sakamoto (1966) and Dillon and Rigler ficient for attenuation of light by particu- 1 (1974) have shown a relationship between late matter, and z depth at which the vernal phosphorus concentration and algal = .1 biomass,measured as chlorophylla concen- Secchi disk disappears. The term k'b can tration. Lasenby (1975) used Secchi disk be rewritten as aC, where a has the dimen- transparency to predict areal hypolimnetic sions of m2 mg-1 and C is the concentration oxygen deficits. If many of the commonly of particulate matter (mg m-B). Equation i used trophic criteria could be related by a 1 can then be rewritten as series of predictive equations, it would no longer be necessaryto measure all possible trophic parameters to determine trophic status. A single trophic criterion, e.g. algal and rearranged to form the linear equation biomass,nutrient concentration,or nutrient loading, could be the basis for an index from which other trophic criteria could be (~)(ln ~:) = kw+ aC. (3) estimated or predicted by means of the es- III is about 10% of 10 (Hutchinson 1957; tablished relationships. Alternatively, mea- Tyler 1968) and can be considered to be a surements of any of the trophic criteria constant. Alpha may vary depending on could be used to determine trophic status. the size and on the light-absorption and Co Trophic state index 363 100 o o . 100 120 o , , , , " . ", . ;> o 0 100 E o f 10 o " o '5. oo , PI 80 o , is . E . , - .'0' CI I . E .~"''''.. ., - , , , , nil 60 0 , , = .. , , s:>. .. a. 0.. 0L. f". 0' 0 o 0 s: 40 'f · u ... o .. 20-1 . Ie.. 0.1 1 10 100 . Secchi Disk Transparency em) .<: ... 0. "'. ......-.. ... _8. 2 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Secch i Disk Transparency (meters) Fig. 1. Relationship between Secchi disk transparency and near-surface concentrations of chloro- phyll a. Insert: log-log transformation of same data. Dashed line indicates slope of 1.0. light-scattering properties of the particles, ency is inverselyproportional to the sum of but intuitively one would expect the value, the absorbance of light by water and dis- which is the reciprocal of the amount of solved substances (k",) and the concentra- particulate matter per square meter in the tion of particulate matter (C). In many water column above the Secchi disk, not lakes studied, k",is apparently small in re- to vary as a function of algal concentration, lation to C, and hyperbolic curves are ob- and for this discussion it is considered a tained when Secchi disk transparency is constant plotted against parameters related to algal According to Eq. 3, Secchi disk transpar- biomass, such as chlorophyll a (Fig. 1). 364 Carlson Constructionof the index At the same time it retains the original I defined trophic states for the index meaning of the nomenclatural trophic sys- using each doubling of algal biomass as the tem by using major divisions (10, 20, 30, criterion for the division between each etc.) that roughly correspond to existing state, i.e. each time the concentration of concepts of trophic groupings. algal biomass doubles from some base Adc1ltion of other parameters value, a new trophic state will be recog- nized. Because of the reciprocal relation- The regression of Secchi disk against ship between biomass concentration and chlorophylla and total phosphorus was cal- Secchi disk transparency, each doubling in culated from data readily available. The biomass would result in halving transpar- number of data points and the number of ency. By transforming Secchi disk values parameters used can be expanded. The to the logarithm to the base 2, each bio- data used came from Shapiro and Pfann- mass doubling would be represented by a kuch (unpublished), Schelskeet al. (1972), whole integer at Secchi disk values of 1 Powers et al. (1972), Lawson (1972), Me- m, 2 m, 4 m, 8 m, etc. gard (unpublished), and Carlson (1975). I felt that the zero point on the scale Chlorophyll a (Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity
    Network of Conservation Educators & Practitioners Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity Author(s): Nathaniel P. Hitt, Lisa K. Bonneau, Kunjuraman V. Jayachandran, and Michael P. Marchetti Source: Lessons in Conservation, Vol. 5, pp. 5-16 Published by: Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History Stable URL: ncep.amnh.org/linc/ This article is featured in Lessons in Conservation, the official journal of the Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). NCEP is a collaborative project of the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC) and a number of institutions and individuals around the world. Lessons in Conservation is designed to introduce NCEP teaching and learning resources (or “modules”) to a broad audience. NCEP modules are designed for undergraduate and professional level education. These modules—and many more on a variety of conservation topics—are available for free download at our website, ncep.amnh.org. To learn more about NCEP, visit our website: ncep.amnh.org. All reproduction or distribution must provide full citation of the original work and provide a copyright notice as follows: “Copyright 2015, by the authors of the material and the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the American Museum of Natural History. All rights reserved.” Illustrations obtained from the American Museum of Natural History’s library: images.library.amnh.org/digital/ SYNTHESIS 5 Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity Nathaniel P. Hitt1, Lisa K. Bonneau2, Kunjuraman V. Jayachandran3, and Michael P. Marchetti4 1U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center, USA, 2Metropolitan Community College-Blue River, USA, 3Kerala Agricultural University, India, 4School of Science, St.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Global Estimates of Marine Primary Production from Ocean Color
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Deep-Sea Research II 53 (2006) 741–770 www.elsevier.com/locate/dsr2 A comparison of global estimates of marine primary production from ocean color Mary-Elena Carra,Ã, Marjorie A.M. Friedrichsb,bb, Marjorie Schmeltza, Maki Noguchi Aitac, David Antoined, Kevin R. Arrigoe, Ichio Asanumaf, Olivier Aumontg, Richard Barberh, Michael Behrenfeldi, Robert Bidigarej, Erik T. Buitenhuisk, Janet Campbelll, Aurea Ciottim, Heidi Dierssenn, Mark Dowello, John Dunnep, Wayne Esaiasq, Bernard Gentilid, Watson Greggq, Steve Groomr, Nicolas Hoepffnero, Joji Ishizakas, Takahiko Kamedat, Corinne Le Que´re´k,u, Steven Lohrenzv, John Marraw, Fre´de´ric Me´lino, Keith Moorex, Andre´Moreld, Tasha E. Reddye, John Ryany, Michele Scardiz, Tim Smythr, Kevin Turpieq, Gavin Tilstoner, Kirk Watersaa, Yasuhiro Yamanakac aJet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA 91101-8099, USA bCenter for Coastal Physical Oceanography, Old Dominion University, Crittenton Hall, 768 West 52nd Street, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA cEcosystem Change Research Program, Frontier Research Center for Global Change, 3173-25,Showa-machi, Yokohama 236-0001, Japan dLaboratoire d’Oce´anographie de Villefranche, 06238, Villefranche sur Mer, France eDepartment of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2215, USA fTokyo University of Information Sciences 1200-1, Yato, Wakaba, Chiba 265-8501, Japan gLaboratoire d’Oce´anographie Dynamique et de Climatologie, Univ Paris 06, MNHN, IRD,CNRS, Paris F-75252 05, France hDuke University
    [Show full text]
  • Pond and Lake Ecosystems a Pond Or Lake Ecosystem Includes Biotic
    Pond and Lake Ecosystems A pond or lake ecosystem includes biotic (living) plants, animals and micro-organisms, as well as abiotic (nonliving) physical and chemical interactions. Pond and lake ecosystems are a prime example of lentic ecosystems. Lentic refers to stationary or relatively still water, from the Latin lentus, which means sluggish. A typical lake has distinct zones of biological communities linked to the physical structure of the lake. (Figure below) The littoral zone is the near shore area where sunlight penetrates all the way to the sediment and allows aquatic plants (macrophytes) to grow. Light levels of about 1% or less of surface values usually define this depth. The 1% light level also defines the euphotic zone of the lake, which is the layer from the surface down to the depth where light levels become too low for photosynthesizers. In most lakes, the sunlit euphotic zone occurs within the epilimnion. However, in unusually transparent lakes, photosynthesis may occur well below the thermocline into the perennially cold hypolimnion. For example, in western Lake Superior near Duluth, MN, summertime algal photosynthesis and growth can persist to depths of at least 25 meters, while the mixed layer, or epilimnion, only extends down to about 10 meters. Ultra-oligotrophic Lake Tahoe, CA/NV, is so transparent that algal growth historically extended to over 100 meters, though its mixed layer only extends to about 10 meters in summer. Unfortunately, inadequate management of the Lake Tahoe basin since about 1960 has led to a significant loss of transparency due to increased algal growth and increased sediment inputs from stream and shoreline erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.014 Handout PRODUCTIVITY: the “METABOLISM” of ECOSYSTEMS
    7.014 Handout PRODUCTIVITY: THE “METABOLISM” OF ECOSYSTEMS Ecologists use the term “productivity” to refer to the process through which an assemblage of organisms (e.g. a trophic level or ecosystem assimilates carbon. Primary producers (autotrophs) do this through photosynthesis; Secondary producers (heterotrophs) do it through the assimilation of the organic carbon in their food. Remember that all organic carbon in the food web is ultimately derived from primary production. DEFINITIONS Primary Productivity: Rate of conversion of CO2 to organic carbon (photosynthesis) per unit surface area of the earth, expressed either in terns of weight of carbon, or the equivalent calories e.g., g C m-2 year-1 Kcal m-2 year-1 Primary Production: Same as primary productivity, but usually expressed for a whole ecosystem e.g., tons year-1 for a lake, cornfield, forest, etc. NET vs. GROSS: For plants: Some of the organic carbon generated in plants through photosynthesis (using solar energy) is oxidized back to CO2 (releasing energy) through the respiration of the plants – RA. Gross Primary Production: (GPP) = Total amount of CO2 reduced to organic carbon by the plants per unit time Autotrophic Respiration: (RA) = Total amount of organic carbon that is respired (oxidized to CO2) by plants per unit time Net Primary Production (NPP) = GPP – RA The amount of organic carbon produced by plants that is not consumed by their own respiration. It is the increase in the plant biomass in the absence of herbivores. For an entire ecosystem: Some of the NPP of the plants is consumed (and respired) by herbivores and decomposers and oxidized back to CO2 (RH).
    [Show full text]
  • Bacterial Production and Respiration
    Organic matter production % 0 Dissolved Particulate 5 > Organic Organic Matter Matter Heterotrophic Bacterial Grazing Growth ~1-10% of net organic DOM does not matter What happens to the 90-99% of sink, but can be production is physically exported to organic matter production that does deep sea not get exported as particles? transported Export •Labile DOC turnover over time scales of hours to days. •Semi-labile DOC turnover on time scales of weeks to months. •Refractory DOC cycles over on time scales ranging from decadal to multi- decadal…perhaps longer •So what consumes labile and semi-labile DOC? How much carbon passes through the microbial loop? Phytoplankton Heterotrophic bacteria ?? Dissolved organic Herbivores ?? matter Higher trophic levels Protozoa (zooplankton, fish, etc.) ?? • Very difficult to directly measure the flux of carbon from primary producers into the microbial loop. – The microbial loop is mostly run on labile (recently produced organic matter) - - very low concentrations (nM) turning over rapidly against a high background pool (µM). – Unclear exactly which types of organic compounds support bacterial growth. Bacterial Production •Step 1: Determine how much carbon is consumed by bacteria for production of new biomass. •Bacterial production (BP) is the rate that bacterial biomass is created. It represents the amount of Heterotrophic material that is transformed from a nonliving pool bacteria (DOC) to a living pool (bacterial biomass). •Mathematically P = µB ?? µ = specific growth rate (time-1) B = bacterial biomass (mg C L-1) P= bacterial production (mg C L-1 d-1) Dissolved organic •Note that µ = P/B matter •Thus, P has units of mg C L-1 d-1 Bacterial production provides one measurement of carbon flow into the microbial loop How doe we measure bacterial production? Production (∆ biomass/time) (mg C L-1 d-1) • 3H-thymidine • 3H or 14C-leucine Note: these are NOT direct measures of biomass production (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Services Generated by Fish Populations
    AR-211 Ecological Economics 29 (1999) 253 –268 ANALYSIS Ecosystem services generated by fish populations Cecilia M. Holmlund *, Monica Hammer Natural Resources Management, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, S-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden Abstract In this paper, we review the role of fish populations in generating ecosystem services based on documented ecological functions and human demands of fish. The ongoing overexploitation of global fish resources concerns our societies, not only in terms of decreasing fish populations important for consumption and recreational activities. Rather, a number of ecosystem services generated by fish populations are also at risk, with consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and ultimately human welfare. Examples are provided from marine and freshwater ecosystems, in various parts of the world, and include all life-stages of fish. Ecosystem services are here defined as fundamental services for maintaining ecosystem functioning and resilience, or demand-derived services based on human values. To secure the generation of ecosystem services from fish populations, management approaches need to address the fact that fish are embedded in ecosystems and that substitutions for declining populations and habitat losses, such as fish stocking and nature reserves, rarely replace losses of all services. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ecosystem services; Fish populations; Fisheries management; Biodiversity 1. Introduction 15 000 are marine and nearly 10 000 are freshwa­ ter (Nelson, 1994). Global capture fisheries har­ Fish constitute one of the major protein sources vested 101 million tonnes of fish including 27 for humans around the world. There are to date million tonnes of bycatch in 1995, and 11 million some 25 000 different known fish species of which tonnes were produced in aquaculture the same year (FAO, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Lakes and Ponds Guidebook
    Florida Lakes and Ponds Guidebook Florida has thousands of lakes and ponds that provide opportunities for recreation and valuable habitat for a wide diversity of plants and animals. However, over the years, many citizens of Florida have observed a decline in the health of their lakes and ponds. By choosing to read this guide you are taking the first step towards protecting your lake or pond. This manual is a starting point for concerned citizens who wish to learn about lake ecology and ways they can protect the future of their lake or pond. Photography provided courtesy of Pinellas County Communications Department u The first two chapters will help you understand the basic concepts of watersheds and the ecology of lakes and ponds. It covers the importance of a watershed approach to lake and pond protection and the ecology and cycles within a lake system. The following chapters address the main causes of reduced water quality and outline ways that you, as a concerned citizen, can adopt a proactive role in preventing further degradation to our waterbodies. The last section provides guidance for people who wish to go one step further and begin or join a lake association, apply for a grant or obtain additional education publications. Words in italics are defined in the glossary in the back of the book. By taking action today, we can protect our lakes and ponds for tomorrow. 1 Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1: Understanding Watersheds 1.1 Watershed Information Chapter 2: Lake Basics 2.1 The Hydrologic Cycle 2.2 Thermal Stratification
    [Show full text]
  • Moe Pond Limnology and Fisii Population Biology: an Ecosystem Approach
    MOE POND LIMNOLOGY AND FISII POPULATION BIOLOGY: AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH C. Mead McCoy, C. P.Madenjian, J. V. Adall1s, W. N. I-Iannan, D. M. Warner, M. F. Albright, and L. P. Sohacki BIOLOGICAL FIELD STArrION COOPERSTOWN, NEW YORK Occasional Paper No. 33 January 2000 STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT ONEONTA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the members of my graduate committee: Willard Harman, Leonard Sohacki and Bruce Dayton for their comments in the preparation of this manuscript; and for the patience and understanding they exhibited w~lile I was their student. ·1 want to also thank Matthew Albright for his skills in quantitative analyses of total phosphorous and nitrite/nitrate-N conducted on water samples collected from Moe Pond during this study. I thank David Ramsey for his friendship and assistance in discussing chlorophyll a methodology. To all the SUNY Oneonta BFS interns who lent-a-hand during the Moe Pond field work of 1994 and 1995, I thank you for your efforts and trust that the spine wounds suffered were not in vain. To all those at USGS Great Lakes Science Center who supported my efforts through encouragement and facilities - Jerrine Nichols, Douglas Wilcox, Bruce Manny, James Hickey and Nancy Milton, I thank all of you. Also to Donald Schloesser, with whom I share an office, I would like to thank you for your many helpful suggestions concerning the estimation of primary production in aquatic systems. In particular, I wish to express my appreciation to Charles Madenjian and Jean Adams for their combined quantitative prowess, insight and direction in data analyses and their friendship.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Loop' in Stratified Systems
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 59: 1-17, 1990 Published January 11 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1 A steady-state analysis of the 'microbial loop' in stratified systems Arnold H. Taylor, Ian Joint Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PLl 3DH, United Kingdom ABSTRACT. Steady state solutions are presented for a simple model of the surface mixed layer, which contains the components of the 'microbial loop', namely phytoplankton, picophytoplankton, bacterio- plankton, microzooplankton, dissolved organic carbon, detritus, nitrate and ammonia. This system is assumed to be in equilibrium with the larger grazers present at any time, which are represented as an external mortality function. The model also allows for dissolved organic nitrogen consumption by bacteria, and self-grazing and mixotrophy of the microzooplankton. The model steady states are always stable. The solution shows a number of general properties; for example, biomass of each individual component depends only on total nitrogen concentration below the mixed layer, not whether the nitrogen is in the form of nitrate or ammonia. Standing stocks and production rates from the model are compared with summer observations from the Celtic Sea and Porcupine Sea Bight. The agreement is good and suggests that the system is often not far from equilibrium. A sensitivity analysis of the model is included. The effect of varying the mixing across the pycnocline is investigated; more intense mixing results in the large phytoplankton population increasing at the expense of picophytoplankton, micro- zooplankton and DOC. The change from phytoplankton to picophytoplankton dominance at low mixing occurs even though the same physiological parameters are used for both size fractions.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationships Between Net Primary Production, Water Transparency, Chlorophyll A, and Total Phosphorus in Oak Lake, Brookings County, South Dakota
    Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 92 (2013) 67 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION, WATER TRANSPARENCY, CHLOROPHYLL A, AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN OAK LAKE, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA Lyntausha C. Kuehl and Nels H. Troelstrup, Jr.* Department of Natural Resource Management South Dakota State University Brookings, SD 57007 *Corresponding author email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Lake trophic state is of primary concern for water resource managers and is used as a measure of water quality and classification for beneficial uses. Secchi transparency, total phosphorus and chlorophyll a are surrogate measurements used in the calculation of trophic state indices (TSI) which classify waters as oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic or hypereutrophic. Yet the relationships between these surrogate measurements and direct measures of lake productivity vary regionally and may be influenced by external factors such as non-algal tur- bidity. Prairie pothole basins, common throughout eastern South Dakota and southwestern Minnesota, are shallow glacial lakes subject to frequent winds and sediment resuspension. Light-dark oxygen bottle methodology was employed to evaluate vertical planktonic production within an eastern South Dakota pothole basin. Secchi transparency, total phosphorus and planktonic chlorophyll a were also measured from each of three basin sites at biweekly intervals throughout the 2012 growing season. Secchi transparencies ranged between 0.13 and 0.25 meters, corresponding to an average TSISD value of 84.4 (hypereutrophy). Total phosphorus concentrations ranged between 178 and 858 ug/L, corresponding to an average TSITP of 86.7 (hypereutrophy). Chlorophyll a values corresponded to an average TSIChla value of 69.4 (transitional between eutrophy and hypereutro- phy) and vertical production profiles yielded areal net primary productivity val- ues averaging 288.3 mg C∙m-2∙d-1 (mesotrophy).
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Control Changes with Season and Nutrient Loading in Lakes
    UC Irvine UC Irvine Previously Published Works Title Trophic control changes with season and nutrient loading in lakes. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/90c25815 Journal Ecology letters, 23(8) ISSN 1461-023X Authors Rogers, Tanya L Munch, Stephan B Stewart, Simon D et al. Publication Date 2020-08-01 DOI 10.1111/ele.13532 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Ecology Letters, (2020) 23: 1287–1297 doi: 10.1111/ele.13532 LETTER Trophic control changes with season and nutrient loading in lakes Abstract Tanya L. Rogers,1 Experiments have revealed much about top-down and bottom-up control in ecosystems, but Stephan B. Munch,1 manipulative experiments are limited in spatial and temporal scale. To obtain a more nuanced Simon D. Stewart,2 understanding of trophic control over large scales, we explored long-term time-series data from 13 Eric P. Palkovacs,3 globally distributed lakes and used empirical dynamic modelling to quantify interaction strengths Alfredo Giron-Nava,4 between zooplankton and phytoplankton over time within and across lakes. Across all lakes, top- Shin-ichiro S. Matsuzaki5 and down effects were associated with nutrients, switching from negative in mesotrophic lakes to posi- 3,6 tive in oligotrophic lakes. This result suggests that zooplankton nutrient recycling exceeds grazing Celia C. Symons * pressure in nutrient-limited systems. Within individual lakes, results were consistent with a ‘sea- The peer review history for this arti- sonal reset’ hypothesis in which top-down and bottom-up interactions varied seasonally and were cle is available at https://publons.c both strongest at the beginning of the growing season.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Water Quality of Lake Hawassa Ethiopia—Trophic State and Suitability for Anthropogenic Uses—Applying Common Water Quality Indices
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Assessing the Water Quality of Lake Hawassa Ethiopia—Trophic State and Suitability for Anthropogenic Uses—Applying Common Water Quality Indices Semaria Moga Lencha 1,2,* , Jens Tränckner 1 and Mihret Dananto 2 1 Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, 18051 Rostock, Germany; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Biosystems and Water Resource Engineering, Institute of Technology, Hawassa University, Hawassa P.O. Box 05, Ethiopia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +491-521-121-2094 Abstract: The rapid growth of urbanization, industrialization and poor wastewater management practices have led to an intense water quality impediment in Lake Hawassa Watershed. This study has intended to engage the different water quality indices to categorize the suitability of the water quality of Lake Hawassa Watershed for anthropogenic uses and identify the trophic state of Lake Hawassa. Analysis of physicochemical water quality parameters at selected sites and periods was conducted throughout May 2020 to January 2021 to assess the present status of the Lake Watershed. In total, 19 monitoring sites and 21 physicochemical parameters were selected and analyzed in a laboratory. The Canadian council of ministries of the environment (CCME WQI) and weighted Citation: Lencha, S.M.; Tränckner, J.; arithmetic (WA WQI) water quality indices have been used to cluster the water quality of Lake Dananto, M. Assessing the Water Hawassa Watershed and the Carlson trophic state index (TSI) has been employed to identify the Quality of Lake Hawassa Ethiopia— trophic state of Lake Hawassa. The water quality is generally categorized as unsuitable for drinking, Trophic State and Suitability for aquatic life and recreational purposes and it is excellent to unsuitable for irrigation depending on Anthropogenic Uses—Applying the sampling location and the applied indices.
    [Show full text]