| Literature DB >> 27846322 |
Yi-Ming Kuo1, Hwa-Lung Yu2, Wen-Hui Kuan3, Mei-Hwa Kuo4, Hsing-Juh Lin5,6.
Abstract
In upstream reaches, epilithic algae are one of the major primary producers and their biomass may alter the energy flow of food webs in stream ecosystems. However, the overgrowth of epilithic algae may deteriorate water quality. In this study, the effects of environmental variables on epilithic algal biomass were examined at 5 monitoring sites in mountain streams of the Wuling basin of subtropical Taiwan over a 5-year period (2006-2011) by using a generalized additive model (GAM). Epilithic algal biomass and some variables observed at pristine sites obviously differed from those at the channelized stream with intensive agricultural activity. The results of the optimal GAM showed that water temperature, turbidity, current velocity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and ammonium-N (NH4-N) were the main factors explaining seasonal variations of epilithic algal biomass in the streams. The change points of smoothing curves for velocity, DO, NH4-N, pH, turbidity, and water temperature were approximately 0.40 m s-1, 8.0 mg L-1, 0.01 mg L-1, 8.5, 0.60 NTU, and 15°C, respectively. When aforementioned variables were greater than relevant change points, epilithic algal biomass was increased with pH and water temperature, and decreased with water velocity, DO, turbidity, and NH4-N. These change points may serve as a framework for managing the growth of epilithic algae. Understanding the relationship between environmental variables and epilithic algal biomass can provide a useful approach for maintaining the functioning in stream ecosystems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27846322 PMCID: PMC5112985 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Monitoring sites in the upstream reaches of the Dajia River in the Shei-Pa National Park in Wuling, Taiwan.
Agricultural areas were shown in dark grey.
Comparison of site characteristics in the upstream watershed of the Dajia River.
Locations of study sites are shown in Fig 1. Sites 2 and 3 are located in CCW Stream.
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | Site 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation (m) | 1900 | 1790 | 1742 | 1776 | 1770 |
| Channel slope (m km-1) | 41.6 | 128 | 132 | 140 | 68 |
| Channel width (m) | 3–4 | 30–35 | 23–30 | <10 | 10–15 |
| Channel condition | Natural | Natural | Natural | Natural | Channelized |
| Surrounding land use(refer to Tsai et al., 2013) | Pristine forest | Moderate agricultural activity, some natural riparian forest | Pristine forest | Pristine forest | Intensive agricultural activity, no natural riparian vegetation |
| Stream attribute (length/area) | TW Stream (13.8 km/41.6 km2) | CCW Stream (15.3 km/76 km2) | KS Stream (10.6 km/40 km2) | YS Stream (11.4 km/31 km2) | |
Mean and coefficient of variation (CV) of variables for each site.
Units of the last 7 variables are mg L-1.
| Variables | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | Site 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | CV | Mean | CV | Mean | CV | Mean | CV | Mean | CV | |
| Chl-a (mg m-2) | 9.70 | 99.0 | 8.43 | 132.2 | 13.14 | 108.1 | 9.30 | 127.7 | 78.80 | 107.3 |
| Velocity (m s-1) | 0.70 | 83.8 | 0.606 | 69.6 | 0.77 | 79.6 | 0.60 | 68.7 | 0.57 | 112.4 |
| Canopy cover(%) | 42.2 | 15.4 | 75.39 | 23.5 | 38.5 | 11.7 | 79.0 | 9.38 | 47.0 | 12.0 |
| Turbidity (NTU) | 0.72 | 144.8 | 1.693 | 121.6 | 1.24 | 140.1 | 1.63 | 125.0 | 5.63 | 189.1 |
| Temperature (°C) | 11.42 | 23.7 | 12.36 | 24.5 | 13.33 | 18.9 | 12.45 | 24.2 | 16.16 | 23.8 |
| EC (μS cm-1) | 176.1 | 46.3 | 194.5 | 22.5 | 218.2 | 18.7 | 194.6 | 22.1 | 289.1 | 14.7 |
| pH | 8.03 | 9.4 | 7.96 | 7.40 | 8.12 | 6.5 | 7.97 | 7.3 | 8.70 | 5.3 |
| Aquatic insect (No. m-2) | 214.5 | 110.4 | 199.7 | 120.8 | 221.6 | 107.5 | 199.7 | 120.8 | 81.67 | 130.8 |
| DO | 8.95 | 11.5 | 8.72 | 12.97 | 8.60 | 10.1 | 8.70 | 12.8 | 8.26 | 16.6 |
| SiO2 | 3.116 | 50.1 | 4.419 | 63.4 | 3.734 | 58.2 | 4.345 | 63.9 | 3.766 | 78.3 |
| PO43- | 0.004 | 150.0 | 0.075 | 140.3 | 0.042 | 158.8 | 0.072 | 176.6 | 0.004 | 148.0 |
| NH4-N | 0.011 | 170.3 | 0.011 | 166.3 | 0.015 | 176.5 | 0.009 | 181.1 | 0.019 | 180.5 |
| NO3-N | 0.225 | 92.0 | 0.200 | 86.5 | 0.317 | 73.2 | 0.206 | 83.8 | 1.475 | 46.7 |
| SO4 2- | 22.70 | 23.2 | 28.33 | 26.1 | 28.93 | 22.8 | 28.40 | 25.6 | 37.26 | 24.1 |
| TOC | 0.710 | 43.3 | 0.812 | 46.7 | 0.778 | 39.3 | 0.815 | 45.7 | 1.082 | 37.0 |
Fig 2Seasonal variations in the Chl-a concentration for bimonthly observations at the 5 sites during 2006–2011.
Y-axis in the right is only for Site 5.
Fig 3Seasonal variations in abiotic and biotic variables for bimonthly observations at the 5 sites during 2006–2011.
The numerical outputs (parametric coefficients and approximate significance of smooth terms) of the optimal GAM model.
| Nominal variables | Parametric coefficients | |||
| Estimate | Standard errors | Pr(>| | ||
| Intercept | 2.234 | 0.054 | 41.28 | <2e-16 *** |
| factor( | 1.705 | 0.155 | 10.97 | <2e-16 *** |
| Smoothers | Approximate significance of smooth terms | |||
| edf | Ref.df | Chi Square | ||
| s(Velocity) | 2.656 | 3.181 | 39.54 | 2.37e-08 *** ****** |
| s(pH) | 4.000 | 4.000 | 94.35 | < 2e-16 *** |
| s(DO) | 2.192 | 2.815 | 55.73 | 8.56e-12 *** |
| s(Temperature) | 1.998 | 2.000 | 59.93 | 9.70e-14 *** |
| s(NH4) | 2.806 | 2.961 | 20.05 | 1.02e-05 *** |
| s(Turbidity):factor( | 2.992 | 3.000 | 56.78 | 6.51e-11 *** |
| s(Turbidity):factor( | 3.000 | 3.000 | 84.99 | < 2e-16 *** |
$edf: estimated degree of freedom; Ref.df: estimated degree of freedom for reference
#Significant code: ***: 0.001.
Fig 4Smooth function for each critical environmental factor on Chl-a concentration.
Numbers in brackets in the captions of the Y-axis are the edf of the smooth curves. Solid lines represent smoothers and dotted lines represent 95% confidence intervals.