Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Turbidity Maximum Entrapment of Phytoplankton in the Chesapeake Bay

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estuarine turbidity maxima (ETM) play an important role in zooplankton and larval fish productivity in many estuaries. Yet in many of these systems, little is known about the food web that supports this secondary production. To see if phytoplankton have the potential to be a component of the ETM food web in the Chesapeake Bay estuary a series of cruises were carried out to determine the biomass distribution and floral composition of phytoplankton in and around the ETM during the winter and spring using fluorometry, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and microscopy. Two distinct phytoplankton communities were observed along the salinity gradient. In lower salinity waters, biomass was low and the community was composed mostly of diatoms, while in more saline waters biomass was high and the community was composed mostly of mixotrophic dinoflagellates, which were often concentrated in a thin layer below the pycnocline. Phytoplankton biomass was always low in the ETM, but high concentrations of phytoplankton pigment degradation products and cellular remains were often observed suggesting that this was an area of high phytoplankton mortality and/or an area where phytoplankton derived particulate organic matter was being trapped. These results, along with a box model analysis, suggest that under certain hydrodynamic conditions phytoplankton derived organic matter can be trapped in ETM and potentially play a role in fueling secondary production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adolf, J.E., C.L.J. Yeager, W.D. Miller, M.E. Mallonee, and L.W. Harding. 2006. Environmental forcing of phytoplankton floral composition, biomass, and primary productivity in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67: 108–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arar, E.J., Collins, G.B., 1997. In Vitro Determination of chlorophyll a and pheophytin a in marine and freshwater algae by fluorescence. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

  • Beardsley, R.C., and W.C. Boicourt. 1981. On estuarine and continental shelf circulation in the Middle Atlantic Bight. In Evolution of physical oceanography, ed. B.A. Warren and C. Wunsch, 198–233. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, A., and I. Hense. 2004. Torn between extremes: The ups and downs of phytoplankton. Ocean Dynamics 54: 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-N., and L.P. Sanford. 2009. Axial wind effects on stratification and longitudinal salt transport in an idealized partially mixed estuary. Journal of Physical Oceanography 39: 1905–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-N., Sanford, L.P., Ralston, D.K., 2009. Lateral circulation and sediment transport driven by axial winds in an idealized, partially mixed estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research 114

  • Chu, D., 2004. EasyKrig3.0.

  • Cloern, J.E., A.E. Alpine, B.E. Cole, R.L.J. Wong, J.F. Arthur, and M.D. Ball. 1983. River discharge controls phytoplankton dynamics in the Northern San Francisco Bay Estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 16: 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloern, J.E., B.E. Cole, R.L.J. Wong, and A.E. Alpine. 1985. Temporal dynamics of estuarine phytoplankton: A case study of San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129: 153–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, W.B., Pritchard, D.W., 1975. Additional statisitics on the dimensions of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries: Cross-section widths and segment volumes per meter depth. Institute, C.B. (Ed.), Special seports. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

  • Danielsdottier, M.G., M.T. Brett, and G.B. Arhonditsis. 2007. Phytoplankton food quality control of plankton food web processes. Hydrobiologia 589: 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, V., B. Sautour, R. Galois, and P. Chardy. 2006. The paradox high zooplankton biomass–low vegetal particulate organic matter in high turbidity zones: What way for energy transfer? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 333: 202–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day Jr., J.W., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yáñez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, J.J., J.C. Dauvin, R.G. Ingram, and B. D'Aanglejan. 1989. Abundance of larval rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) in relation to the maximum turbidity zone and associated macroplanktonic fauna of the middle St. Lawrence Estuary. Estuaries 12: 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filardo, M.J., and W.M. Dunstan. 1985. Hydrodynamic control of phytoplankton in low salinity waters of the James River Estuary, Virginia, U.S.A. Estuarine Coastal And Shelf Science 21: 653–667.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T.R., L.W.J. Harding, D.W. Stanely, and L.G. Ward. 1988. Phytoplankton, nutrients, and turbidity in the Chesapeake, Delaware, and Hudson Estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 27: 61–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, D.J., and D.A. Caron. 2000. Sampling, preservation, enumeration and biomass of protozooplankton. In ICES zooplankton methodology manual, ed. R.P. Harris, H.-R. Skjoldal, J. Lenz, P.H. Wiebe, and M.E. Huntley, 193–221. London: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hagy, J.D., L.P. Sanford, and W.R. Boynton. 2000. Estimation of net physical transport and hydraulic residence times for a coastal plain estuary using box models. Estuaries 23: 328–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, L.W., B.W. Meeson, and T.R. Fisher. 1986. Phytoplankton production in two East Coast Estuaries: Photosynthesis-light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23: 773–806.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, L.W.J. 1994. Long-term trends in the distribution of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay: Roles of light, nutrients and streamflow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 104: 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heukelem, L.V., and C.S. Thomas. 2001. Computer-assisted high-performance liquid chromatography method development with applications to the isolation and analysis of phytoplankton pigments. Journal of Chromatography, A 910: 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J., D. Bronk, and J. Olney. 2008. Organic matter sources supporting lower food web production in the tidal freshwater portion of the York River Estuary, Virginia. Estuaries and Coasts 31: 898–911.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Irigoien, X., and J. Castel. 1997. Light limitation and distribution of chlorophyll pigments in a highly turbid estuary: The Gironde (SW France). Estuarine Coastal And Shelf Science 44: 507–517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Irigoien, X., B. Meyer, R. Harris, and D. Harbour. 2004. Using HPLC pigment analysis to investigate phytoplankton taxonomy: The importance of knowing your species. Helgoland Marine Research 58: 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M.S., H. Ueda, and M. Tanaka. 2005. Spatial distribution and trophic ecology of dominant copepods associated with turbidity maximum along the salinity gradient in a highly embayed estuarine system in Ariake Sea, Japan. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 316: 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, S.W. 1974. Profiles of photosynthetic pigments in the ocean using thin-layer chromatography. Marine Biology 26: 101–110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, S.W. 1980. Algal pigment systems. In Primary productivity in the sea, ed. P.G. Falkowski, 33–58. New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, S.W., and G.M. Hallegraeff. 1987. Chlorophyllase distribution in ten classes of phytoplankton: A problem for chlorophyll analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35: 293–304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H.J., J.Y. Park, J.H. Nho, M.O. Park, J.H. Ha, K.A. Seong, C. Jeng, C.N. Seong, K.Y. Lee, and W.H. Yih. 2005. Feeding by red-tide dinoflagellates on the cyanobacterium Synechococcus. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 41: 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, D.G., and M.R. Roman. 2004. Long-term trends in mesozooplankton abundance in Chesapeake Bay USA: Influence of freshwater input. Marine Ecology Progress Series 267: 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleppel, G.S. 1993. On the diets of calanoid copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 99: 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D.Y., D.P. Keller, B.C. Crump, and R.R. Hood. 2012. Community metabolism and energy transfer in the Chesapeake Bay estuarine turbidity maximum. Marine Ecology Progress Series 449: 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaire, E., G. Abril, R.D. Wit, and H. Etcheber. 2002. Distribution of phytoplankton pigments in nine European estuaries and implications for an estuarine typology. Biogeochemistry 59: 5–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewitus, A.J., D.L. White, R.G. Tymowski, M.E. Geesey, S.N. Hymel, and P.A. Noble. 2005. Adapting the CHEMTAX method for assessing phytoplankton taxonomic composition in southeastern US estuaries. Estuaries 28: 160–172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li, A., D.K. Stoecker, and J.E. Adolf. 1999. Feeding, pigmentation, photosynthesis and growth of the mixotrophic dinoflagellate Gyrodinium galatheanum. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 19: 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, A., D.K. Stoecker, D.W. Coats, and E.J. Adam. 1996. Ingestion of fluorescently labeled and phycoerythrin-containing prey by mixotrophic dinoflagellates. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 10: 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., L. Zhong, and W.C. Boicourt. 2005. Simulations of Chesapeake Bay estuary: Sensitivity to turbulence mixing parameterizations and comparisons with observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, C12004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda, W.J., J. Li, L. Liu, M.N. Winfree, and E.W. Baker. 1998. Chlorophyll-a degradation during cellular senescence and death. Organic Geochemistry 29: 1233–1251.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, M.D., D.J. Mackey, H.W. Higgins, and S.W. Wright. 1996. CHEMTAX — a program for estimating class abundances from chemical markers: application to HPLC measurements of phytoplankton. Marine Ecology Progress Series 144: 265–283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, H.G., L. Burchardt, and R.V. Lacouture. 2005. A review of phytoplankton composition within Chesapeake Bay and its tidal estuaries. Journal of Plankton Research 27: 1083–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, H.G., R.V. Lacouture, C. Buchanan, and J.M. Johnson. 2006. Phytoplankton assemblages associated with water quality and salinity regions in Chespeake Bay, USA. Estuarine Coastal And Shelf Science 69: 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, L., L.L. Schick, K.R. Hardy, and M.L. Estapa. 2009. Photodissolution and other photochemical changes upon irradiation of algal detritus. Limnology and Oceanography 54: 1688–1698.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, C., and W.M. Dunstan. 1990. Hydrodynamic trapping in the formation of the chlorophyll a peak in turbid, very low salinity waters of estuaries. Journal of Plankton Research 12: 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A.W., R.F.C. Mantoura, A.J. Bale, and R.J.M. Howland. 1978. Very low salinity regions of estuaries; important sites for chemical and biological reactions. Nature 274: 678–680.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muylaert, K., and K. Sabbe. 1999. Spring phytoplankton assemblages in and around the maximum turbidity zone of the estuaries of the Elbe (Germany), the Schelde (Belgium/The Netherlands) and the Gironde (France). Journal of Marine Systems 22: 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muylaert, K., K. Sabbe, and W. Vyverman. 2000. Spatial and temporal dynamics of phytoplankton communities in a freshwater tidal estuary (Schelde, Belgium). Estuarine Coastal And Shelf Science 50: 673–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muylaert, K., M. Tackx, and W. Vyverman. 2005. Phytoplankton growth rates in the freshwater tidal reaches of the Schelde estuary (Belgium) estimated using a simple light-limited primary production model. Hydrobiologia 540: 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J.R. 1993. Rates and possible mechanism of light-dependent degradation of pigments in detritus derived from phytoplankton. Journal of Marine Research 51: 155–179.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • North, E.W., S.-Y. Chao, L.P. Sanford, and R.R. Hood. 2004. The influence of wind and river pulses on an estuarine turbidity maximum: Numerical studies and field observations. Estuaries 27: 132–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, E.W., and E.D. Houde. 2001. Retention of white perch and stripped bass larvae: Biological–physical interactions in Chesapeake Bay Estuarine turbidity maximum. Estuaries 24: 756–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, E.W., and E.D. Houde. 2003. Linking ETM physics, zooplankton prey, and fish early-life histories to stripped bass Morone saxatilis and white perch M. americana recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 260: 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, M.J., 1976. Determination of the settling velocities of cohesive sands. Hydraulics Research Report No IT161.

  • Roman, M.R., D.V. Holliday, and L.P. Sanford. 2001. Temporal and spatial patterns of zooplankton in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213: 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, O.N., and J. Sharples. 2008. Swimming for survival: A role of phytoplankton motility in a stratified turbulent environment. Journal of Marine Systems 70: 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, L.P., S.E. Suttles, and J.P. Halka. 2001. Reconsidering the physics of the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine turbidity maximum. Estuaries 24: 655–669.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sarthou, G., K.R. Timmermans, S. Blane, and P. Tréguer. 2005. Growth physiology and fate of diatoms in the ocean: a review. Journal of Sea Research 53: 25–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J.R. 1968. Turbidity maximum of the northern Chesapeake Bay. Science 161: 1013–1015.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J.R., and D.W. Pritchard. 1986. Responses of Upper Chesapeake Bay to variations in discharge of the Susquehanna River. Estuaries 9: 236–249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sellner, K.G., R.V. Lacouture, and C.R. Parrish. 1988. Effects of increasing salinity on a cyanobacteria bloom in the Potomac River estuary. Journal of Plankton Research 10: 49–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sherr, E.B., and B.F. Sherr. 2002. Significance of predation by protists in aquatic microbial food webs. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 81: 293–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shoji, J., E.W. North, and E.D. Houde. 2005. The feeding ecology of Morone americana larvae in the Chesapeake Bay estuarine turbidity maximum: The influence of physical conditions and prey concentrations. Journal Of Fish Biology 66: 1328–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuman, F.R., and C.J. Lorenzen. 1975. Quantitative degradation of chlorophyll by a marine herbivore. Limnology and Oceanography 20: 580–586.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smayda, T.J. 1970. The suspension and sinking of phytoplankton in the sea. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 8: 353–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • SooHoo, J.B., and D.A. Kiefer. 1982a. Vertical distribution of phaeopigments: I A simple grazing and photooxidative scheme for small particles. Deep-Sea Research A. 29: 1539–1551.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SooHoo, J.B., and D.A. Kiefer. 1982b. Vertical distribution of phaeopigments: II Rates of production and kinetics of photooxidation. Deep-Sea Research A. 29: 1553–1563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stoecker, D.K., and D.E. Gustafson. 2002. Predicting grazing mortality of an estuarine dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria piscicida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 233: 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, D.C.O. 2002. Diatom aggregation in the sea: mechanisms and ecological implications. European Journal of Phycology 37: 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, M.A., and H.H. Seliger. 1989. Time scale variations of estuarine stratification parameters and impact on the food chains of the Chesapeake Bay. In Estuarine circulation, ed. B.J. Neilson, J. Brubaker, and A. Kuo. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uncles, R.J., A.E. Easton, M.L. Griffiths, C. Harris, R.J.M. Howland, I. Joint, R.S. King, A.W. Morris, and D.H. Plummer. 1998. Concentrations of suspended chlorophyll in the tidal Yorkshire Ouse and Humber Estuary. The Science of the Total Environment 210(211): 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, A.M., P.A. Thompson, and P.J. Harrison. 1992. Does energy control the sinking rates of marine diatoms. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 468–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., Roman, M.R., Kimmel, D., McGilliard, C., Boicourt, W., 2006. Spatial variability in planktonic biomass and hydrographic variables along an axial transect in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Geophysical Research 111.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the captain and crew of the R/V Hugh R. Sharp for their assistance on eight research cruises to the Chesapeake Bay ETM. We also thank everyone involved in the BITMAXII project for helpful discussions and their assistance collecting water samples on these cruises. Finally, we also thank Anne Thessen for doing the microscopic identification of phytoplankton in preserved samples, Larry Sanford and Y. Kim for allowing us to collect water samples during their DIPSTIC settling tube experiments, and Anne Gustafson for providing guidance on fluorometric chlorophyll analysis methods. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant OCE-0453905) and it represents UMCES contribution no. 4783.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel (GEOMAR), Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105, Kiel, Germany

    David P. Keller

  2. Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, P.O. Box 775, Cambridge, MD, 21613, USA

    Dong Y. Lee & Raleigh R. Hood

Authors
  1. David P. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dong Y. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raleigh R. Hood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David P. Keller.

Additional information

Communicated by Hans W. Paerl

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Table S1

Box model volume calculation data. The total volume of each box is the sum of the corresponding volume data compiled by Cronin and Pritchard (1975). The volumes of the surface and bottom portions of boxes 2 and 3 were computed from the volume data, which reported in 1 nautical mile by 1 m segments, and based on the average pycnocline depth (~7m) during the transects (i.e. for each Cheasapeake Bay segment the surface portion was the volume of the upper 7 m and the bottom portion was from 8 m to the bottom). (PDF 60 kb)

Figure S1

Contour plots of salinity (white dashed lines), turbidity, and the concentration of chlorophyll a, selected accessory pigments, and chlorophyll degradation products along the main channel of the upper Chesapeake Bay on Feb 23, 2007. CTD survey and water sampling station locations are indicated by the open circles. (PDF 391 kb)

Figure S2

Contour plots of salinity (white dashed lines), turbidity, and the concentration of chlorophyll a, selected accessory pigments, and chlorophyll degradation products along the main channel of the upper Chesapeake Bay on May 8, 2007. CTD survey and water sampling station locations are indicated by the open circles. (PDF 529 kb)

Figure S3

Contour plots of salinity (white dashed lines), turbidity, and the concentration of chlorophyll a, selected accessory pigments, and chlorophyll degradation products along the main channel of the upper Chesapeake Bay on January 26, 2008. CTD survey and water sampling station locations are indicated by the open circles. (PDF 546 kb)

Figure S4

Contour plots of salinity (white dashed lines), turbidity, and the concentration of chlorophyll a, selected accessory pigments, and chlorophyll degradation products along the main channel of the upper Chesapeake Bay on April 23, 2008. CTD survey and water sampling station locations are indicated by the open circles. (PDF 552 kb)

Figure S5

Box model sensitivity analysis results for Box 2 (bottom) Chl a flux sensitivity to variations in the sinking factor (X 2 ). Fluxes were calculated for each modeled transect with sinking factor intervals of 0.01 (i.e., 0.50, 0.51, 0.52, etc.). (PDF 68 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keller, D.P., Lee, D.Y. & Hood, R.R. Turbidity Maximum Entrapment of Phytoplankton in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 37, 279–298 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9692-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9692-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation