Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

邮发代号 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering  2018, Vol. 12 Issue (6): 13   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-018-1062-7
  本期目录
Distribution of phytoplankton community and its influence factors in an urban river network, East China
Ling Sun1,2(), Hui Wang1(), Yuanqing Kan3, Shiliang Wang1,4
1. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China
3. Tianjin Academy of Environmental Sciences, Tianjin 300191, China
4. School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China
 全文: PDF(462 KB)   HTML
Abstract

Effects of urban river conditions on phytoplankton community were investigated.

Nitrate utilization and hydrodynamic condition affected phytoplankton distribution.

A winter bloom was induced by abundant ammonia, total phosphorus and organic matters.

The diatoms and euglenoids dominated in an urban beheaded river ecosystem.

To reveal the distribution characteristics of phytoplankton and the main influence factors under different conditions in the urban rivers, the investigations were conducted during autumn and winter 2014 in Changzhou City, East China. 178 taxa of phytoplankton belonging to 28 functional assemblages were identified. In autumn, the phytoplankton community compositions have high similarity for enhanced hydrological connectivity. The chlorophytes and diatoms (prevailing functional groups C, F, J, P), together with euglenoids (W1), showed high proportions of biomass in the main rivers and connected rivers. It was related to the well mixed eutrophic conditions. The phytoplankton community exhibited spatiotemporal heterogeneity in winter. Affected by the low water level and temperature, the free-living phytoflagellates (X2) replaced groups F and J in the main rivers. Phytoplankton productivity was the highest in the Tongji River. Chlorophytes Dictyosphaerium ehrenbergianum and Chlamydobotrys stellata had an overwhelming superiority during the winter bloom. They were significantly correlated with ammonium, total phosphorus and biochemical oxygen demand. Affected by tail water supply, the diatoms (MP) and euglenoids (W1) dominated in a beheaded river. The multivariate analyses based on the phytoplankton functional groups helped to evaluate the relationships and variations between the urban rivers. The redundancy analysis (RDA) results showed that nitrate nitrogen, water temperature, total nitrogen and total suspended solids were the main influence factors on the phytoplankton community. Except MP, the prevailing groups all showed significant negative correlations with nitrate nitrogen. Availability and utilization of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and hydrodynamic conditions affected the phytoplankton distribution.

Key wordsPhytoplankton composition    Spatiotemporal distribution    Functional groups    Nitrate nitrogen    Winter bloom
收稿日期: 2017-12-22      出版日期: 2018-08-19
Corresponding Author(s): Ling Sun,Hui Wang   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2018, 12(6): 13.
Ling Sun, Hui Wang, Yuanqing Kan, Shiliang Wang. Distribution of phytoplankton community and its influence factors in an urban river network, East China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(6): 13.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/CN/10.1007/s11783-018-1062-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/CN/Y2018/V12/I6/13
Fig.1  
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Autumn
T (°C) 21.3±4.2 21.2±3.9 21.3±3.9 21.5±4.2 20.6±3.7 22.5±3.2
pH 7.54±0.19 7.62±0.23 7.58±0.24 7.35±0.22 7.42±0.16 6.95±0.11
DO (mg?L1) 5.92±0.70 6.30±1.18 5.38±1.24 3.91±1.78 2.67±1.28 3.14±1.60
BOD (mg?L1) 2.03±0.08 2.33±0.55 2.03±0.10 2.44±0.48 3.81±2.81 3.22±1.02
COD (mg?L1) 9.68±3.13 14.52±14.04 10.40±2.96 16.83±8.70 19.97±6.94 20.74±10.22
AN (mg?L1) 0.30±0.18 0.23±0.12 0.44±0.36 0.92±0.91 4.50±4.67 1.40±1.20
NN (mg?L1) 2.03±0.53 1.70±0.06 2.14±1.27 2.40±0.92 0.74±0.61 9.24±2.76
TN (mg?L1) 4.00±3.75 3.00±1.79 4.26±2.33 4.13±1.44 6.01±4.50 11.41±2.02
TP (mg?L1) 0.17±0.06 0.14±0.01 0.16±0.04 0.16±0.06 0.32±0.28 0.24±0.08
SS (mg?L1) 16.0±5.7 21.8±4.4 17.4±4.3 9.4±3.7 4.0±0.5 4.0±0.5
SD (cm) 18.3±6.8 17.5±5.2 13.9±2.2 23.8±3.8 23.3±2.5 56.1±40.8
Chl a (µg?L1) 7.3±1.0 7.4±2.9 8.3±1.9 8.7±5.1 46.9±27.3 5.6±3.8
Winter
T(°C) 10.5±1.6 8.6±0.5 9.2±0.9 8.6±0.5 8.2±0.5 13.5±1.0
pH 7.25±0.23
7.42±0.17
7.43±0.11
7.65±0.16 7.88±0.23 6.98±0.10
DO (mg?L1) 6.53±1.94 5.15±2.22 5.93±1.89 7.92±1.44 5.61±2.92 4.43±1.97
BOD (mg?L1) 3.57±1.37 4.30±2.09 4.63±1.66 4.21±1.67 14.84±6.03 3.60±2.30
COD (mg?L1) 17.23±4.88 17.18±4.61 18.06±5.23 20.09±5.73 60.88±19.93 19.74±5.36
AN (mg?L1) 1.94±1.32 2.32±0.76 2.30±0.91 1.57±0.33 14.94±7.42 1.42±1.53
NN (mg?L1) 7.26±2.25 2.63±0.92 3.99±2.54 4.23±1.04 0.88±0.90 10.80±3.42
TN (mg?L1) 9.84±2.56 5.53±1.77 6.96±3.06 6.42±1.36 16.98±7.04 13.39±2.29
TP (mg?L1) 0.23±0.07 0.18±0.04 0.21±0.06 0.18±0.02 1.29±0.74 0.22±0.11
SS (mg?L1) 5.3±1.4 7.3±2.9 6.8±2.7 5.9±1.8 6.9±1.6 4.0±0.5
SD (cm) 35.0±12.2 23.3±13.7 20.6±5.8 25.0±6.0 25.0±1.0 125.6±50.5
Chl a (µg?L1) 5.5±2.3 8.9±5.0 10.1±7.5 49.6±32.0 250.5±98.4 4.6±1.4
Tab.1  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
T pH DO BOD COD NN AN TN TP SS SD
B –.388* –.427* –.613*** –.370*
C .497** –.622*** –.419*
D –.446** –.655***
F –.404* –.751*** .370* .384*
J –.408* –.693*** –.422*
MP .385* .480**
P –.381* –.381* –.556** .368* –.461**
S1 .371* –.501** –.533**
W1 –.422*
X1 –.439** –.592*** .420* .354*
X2 –.626*** .643*** .520** .591*** –.488** .711***
Tab.2  
1 Abonyi A, Leitão M, Stanković I, Borics G, Várbíró G, Padisák J (2014). A large river (River Loire, France) survey to compare phytoplankton functional approaches: Do they display river zones in similar ways? Ecological Indicators, 46(6): 11–22
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.038
2 APHA AWWA, WEF (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC
3 Arvola L, Tulonen T (1998). Effects of allochthonous dissolved organic matter and inorganic nutrients on the growth of bacteria and algae from a highly humic lake. Environment International, 24(5-6): 509–520
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(98)00045-2
4 Borics G, Görgényi J, Grigorszky I, László-Nagy Z, Tóthmérész B, Krasznai E, Várbíró G (2014). The role of phytoplankton diversity metrics in shallow lake and river quality assessment. Ecological Indicators, 45(1): 28–36
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.03.011
5 Chen J C, Meng S L, Hu G D, Qu J H, Wu W, Fan L M, Song C (2010). Water quality evaluation by phytoplankton community structure indices and physical-chemical indices in the lower reach of the Yangtze River in autumn. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 19(Suppl 2): 34–39 (in Chinese)
6 Chen L L, Zou H, Zhuang Y, Zhang H J (2014). Phytoplankton community characteristics and ecological assessement of water quality in Xiaoxi Port. Research of Environmental Sciences, 27(9): 1016–1023 (in Chinese)
https://doi.org/10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2014.09.10
7 Conforti V, Alberghina J, Urda E G (1995). Structural changes and dynamics of the phytoplankton along a highly polluted lowland river of Argentina. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health, 4(1): 59–75
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00043344
8 Demeter S, Janda T, Kovács L, Mende D, Wiessner W (1995). Effects of in vivo CO2-depletion on electron transport and photoinhibition in the green algae, Chlamydobotrys stellata and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1229(2): 166–174
https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(94)00200-O
9 Devercelli M, O’Farrell I (2013). Factors affecting the structure and maintenance of phytoplankton functional groups in a nutrient rich lowland river. Limnologica, 43(2): 67–78
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2012.05.001
10 Echevin V, Aumont O, Ledesma J, Flores G (2008). The seasonal cycle of surface chlorophyll in the Peruvian upwelling system: A modelling Study. Progress in Oceanography, 79(2-4): 167–176
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2008.10.026
11 Furnas M J (1983). Nitrogen dynamics in lower Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. I. Uptake by size-fractionated phytoplankton populations. Journal of Plankton Research, 5(5): 657–676
https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/5.5.657
12 Hilligsøe K M, Richardson K, Bendtsen J, Sørensen L L, Nielsen T G, Lyngsgaard M M (2011). Linking phytoplankton community size composition with temperature, plankton food web structure and sea-air CO2 flux. Deep-sea Research. Part I, Oceanographic Research Papers, 58(8): 826–838
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2011.06.004
13 Hu H J, Wei Y X (2006). The freshwater algae of China—Systematics, taxonomy and ecology. Beijing: Science Press(in Chinese)
14 Huang X F, Cheng W M, Cai Q M (1999). Survey, observation and analysis of lake ecology. Beijing: China Standards Press(in Chinese)
15 Jiang Z, Liu J, Chen J, Chen Q, Yan X, Xuan J, Zeng J (2014). Responses of summer phytoplankton community to drastic environmental changes in the Changjiang (Yangtze River) estuary during the past 50 years. Water Research, 54(5): 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.032 pmid: 24531075
16 Kovács L, Wiessner W, Kis M, Nagy F, Mende D, Demeter S (2000). Short- and long-term redox regulation of photosynthetic light energy distribution and photosystem stoichiometry by acetate metabolism in the green alga, Chlamydobotrys stellata. Photosynthesis Research, 65(3): 231–247
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010650532693 pmid: 16228490
17 Kruk C, Huszar V L M, Peeters E T H M, Bonilla S, Costa L, Lürling M, Reynolds C S, Scheffer M (2010). A morphological classification capturing functional variation in phytoplankton. Freshwater Biology, 55(3): 614–627
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02298.x
18 Liang X Q, Nie Z Y, He M M, Guo R, Zhu C Y, Chen Y X, Stephan K (2013). Application of 15N- 18O double stable isotope tracer technique in an agricultural nonpoint polluted river of the Yangtze Delta Region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 20(10): 6972–6979
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1352-8 pmid: 23224503
19 Lugoli F, Garmendia M, Lehtinen S, Kauppila P, Moncheva S, Revilla M, Roselli L, Slabakova N, Valencia V, Dromph K M, Basset A (2012). Application of a new multi-metric phytoplankton index to the assessment of ecological status in marine and transitional waters. Ecological Indicators, 23(4): 338–355
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.030
20 Lv J, Wu H J, Chen M Q (2011). Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on phytoplankton composition and biomass in 15 subtropical, urban shallow lakes in Wuhan, China. Limnologica, 41(1): 48–56
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2010.03.003
21 Maguer J, L’Helguen S, Waeles M, Morin P, Riso R, Caradec J (2009). Size-fractionated phytoplankton biomass and nitrogen uptake in response to high nutrient load in the North Biscay Bay in spring. Continental Shelf Research, 29(8): 1103–1110
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2008.11.012
22 Ning D L, Huang Y, Pan R S, Wang F Y, Wang H (2014). Effect of eco-remediation using planted floating bed system on nutrients and heavy metals in urban river water and sediment: A field study in China. Science of the Total Environmental, 485–486(1): 596–603
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.103
23 Padisák J, Crossetti L O, Naselli-Flores L (2009). Use and misuse in the application of the phytoplankton functional classification: A critical review with updates. Hydrobiologia, 621(1): 1–19
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9645-0
24 Palmer C M (1969). A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution. Journal of Phycology, 5(1): 78–82
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1969.tb02581.x pmid: 27097257
25 Reynolds C S, Descy J P (1996). The production, biomass and structure of phytoplankton in large rivers. Archiv Für Hydrobiologie Supplement, 113(1-4): 161–187
https://doi.org/10.1127/Ir/10/1996/161
26 Reynolds C S, Huszar V, Kruk C, Naselli-Flores L, Melo S (2002). Towards a functional classification of the freshwater phytoplankton. Journal of Plankton Research, 24(5): 417–428
https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/24.5.417
27 Rodrigues L C, Pivato B M, Vieira L C G, Bovo-Scomparin V M, Bortolini J C, Pineda A, Train S (2018). Use of phytoplankton functional groups as a model of spatial and temporal patterns in reservoirs: A case study in a reservoir of central Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 805(1): 147–161
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3289-x
28 Salmaso N, Zignin A (2010). At the extreme of physical gradients: phytoplankton in highly flushed, large rivers. Hydrobiologia, 639(1): 21–36
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-0018-0
29 Smith V H (2003). Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: A global problem. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 10(2): 126–139
https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2002.12.142 pmid: 12729046
30 Song DJ, Li ZH, Hua C, Yu WY, Hua L, Zhang Y, Huang C, Yu J (2009). Community structure of phytoplankton in Zhenjiang Branch, Yangtze River. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 37(12): 48–50, 53 (in Chinese)
https://doi.org/10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2009.12.015
31 Tian Y Q, Huang B Q, Yu C C, Chen N W, Hong H S (2014). Dynamics of phytoplankton communities in the Jiangdong Reservoir of Jiulong River, Fujian, South China. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 32(2): 255–265
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00343-014-3158-7
32 Xiao L J, Wang T, Hu R, Han B P, Wang S, Qian X, Padisák J (2011). Succession of phytoplankton functional groups regulated by monsoonal hydrology in a large canyon-shaped reservoir. Water Research, 45(16): 5099–5109
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.07.012 pmid: 21831406
33 Yang J, Lv H, Yang J, Liu L M, Yu X Q, Chen H H (2016). Decline in water level boosts cyanobacteria dominance in subtropical reservoirs. Science of the Total Environment, 557–558: 445–452
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.094
34 Zhang J, Wei Z, Jia H F, Huang X (2017). Factors influencing water quality indices in a typical urban river originated with reclaimed water. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 11(4): 73–82
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0943-5
35 Zhu K, Bi Y, Hu Z (2013). Responses of phytoplankton functional groups to the hydrologic regime in the Daning River, a tributary of Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Science of the Total Environment, 450-451(0): 169–177
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.101 pmid: 23474263
36 Zhu W, Wan L, Zhao L (2010). Effect of nutrient level on phytoplankton community structure in different water bodies. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 22(1): 32–39
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(09)60071-1 pmid: 20397384
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed