Literature DB >> 22035560

Nutrient and light limitation of periphyton in the River Thames: implications for catchment management.

M J Bowes1, N L Ings, S J McCall, A Warwick, C Barrett, H D Wickham, S A Harman, L K Armstrong, P M Scarlett, C Roberts, K Lehmann, A C Singer.   

Abstract

Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations in the River Thames, south east England, have significantly decreased from an annual maximum of 2100 μg l(-1) in 1997 to 344 in 2010, primarily due to the introduction of phosphorus (P) removal at sewage treatment works within the catchment. However, despite this improvement in water quality, phytoplankton biomass in the River Thames has greatly increased in recent years, with peak chlorophyll concentrations increasing from 87 μg l(-1) in the period 1997 to 2002, to 328 μg l(-1) in 2009. A series of within-river flume mesocosm experiments were performed to determine the effect of changing nutrient concentrations and light levels on periphyton biomass accrual. Nutrient enrichment experiments showed that phosphorus, nitrogen and silicon were not limiting or co-limiting periphyton growth in the Thames at the time of the experiment (August-September 2010). Decreasing ambient SRP concentration from 225 μg l(-1) to 173 μg l(-1) had no effect on periphyton biomass accrual rate or diatom assemblage. Phosphorus limitation became apparent at 83 μg SRP l(-1), at which point a 25% reduction in periphyton biomass was observed. Diatom assemblage significantly changed when the SRP concentration was reduced to 30 μg l(-1). Such stringent phosphorus targets are costly and difficult to achieve for the River Thames, due to the high population density and intensive agriculture within the Thames basin. Reducing light levels by shading reduced the periphyton accrual rate by 50%. Providing shading along the River Thames by planting riparian tree cover could be an effective measure to reduce the risk of excessive algal growth. If the ecology of the Thames is to reach the WFD's "good ecological status", then both SRP concentration reductions (probably to below 100 μg l(-1)) and increased shading will be required. Crown
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22035560     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  8 in total

1.  In situ variations and relationships of water quality index with periphyton function and diversity metrics in Baiyangdian Lake of China.

Authors:  Jinxia Yan; Jingling Liu; Muyuan Ma
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  A Tale of Two Rivers: Can the Restoration Lessons of River Thames (Southern UK) Be Transferred to River Hindon (Northern India)?

Authors:  Vasker Sharma; Himanshu Joshi; Michael J Bowes
Journal:  Water Air Soil Pollut       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 2.520

3.  Understanding plant community responses to combinations of biotic and abiotic factors in different phases of the plant growth cycle.

Authors:  Kevin A Wood; Richard A Stillman; Ralph T Clarke; Francis Daunt; Matthew T O'Hare
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Heavy metal accumulation by periphyton is related to eutrophication in the Hai River Basin, Northern China.

Authors:  Wenzhong Tang; Jingguo Cui; Baoqing Shan; Chao Wang; Wenqiang Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Nutrient Exposure Alters Microbial Composition, Structure, and Mercury Methylating Activity in Periphyton in a Contaminated Watershed.

Authors:  Alyssa A Carrell; Grace E Schwartz; Melissa A Cregger; Caitlin M Gionfriddo; Dwayne A Elias; Regina L Wilpiszeski; Dawn M Klingeman; Ann M Wymore; Katherine A Muller; Scott C Brooks
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 5.640

6.  16S rRNA assessment of the influence of shading on early-successional biofilms in experimental streams.

Authors:  Katja Lehmann; Andrew Singer; Michael J Bowes; Nicola L Ings; Dawn Field; Thomas Bell
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Ecol       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 4.194

Review 7.  Responses of Aquatic Plants to Eutrophication in Rivers: A Revised Conceptual Model.

Authors:  Matthew T O'Hare; Annette Baattrup-Pedersen; Inga Baumgarte; Anna Freeman; Iain D M Gunn; Attila N Lázár; Raeannon Sinclair; Andrew J Wade; Michael J Bowes
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 5.753

8.  Nutrient criteria for surface waters under the European Water Framework Directive: Current state-of-the-art, challenges and future outlook.

Authors:  Sandra Poikane; Martyn G Kelly; Fuensanta Salas Herrero; Jo-Anne Pitt; Helen P Jarvie; Ulrich Claussen; Wera Leujak; Anne Lyche Solheim; Heliana Teixeira; Geoff Phillips
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 7.963

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.