Long-term changes in phytoplankton and macrophyte communities in an eutrophic shallow reservoir and prospects for its restoration

Alexander Rusanov; Irina Trifonova; Natalia Ignatyeva; Oksana Pavlova

doi:10.1515/ohs-2020-0016

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Long-term changes in phytoplankton and macrophyte communities in an eutrophic shallow reservoir and prospects for its restoration

Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies

Volume 49 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

By: Alexander Rusanov, Irina Trifonova, Natalia Ignatyeva and Oksana Pavlova

Open Access

|Jun 2020

Figures & Tables

Map of the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir; 1, 2 and 3 are the sampling locations

Changes in the water quality parameters during the sampling years (1980, 2002, 2016 and 2018) in the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir

Table 1

Means (and ranges) of the water quality parameters in the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir in different years (1980, 2002, 2016 and 2018). The comparison of the means among different years was carried out using ANOVA with the Tukey–Kramer test. The Tukey–Kramer test results are indicated by superscripts.

Parameter	1980	2002	2016	2018	F	p
Σ ions (mg l⁻¹)	57	67	68	71	1.82	0.171
Σ ions (mg l⁻¹)	(37–84)	(64–71)	(47–98)	(55–85)	1.82	0.171
HCO₃⁻ (mg l⁻¹)	16^ab	12^a	22^ab	27^b	7.22	< 0.01
HCO₃⁻ (mg l⁻¹)	(10–23)	(9–15)	(14–32)	(18–41)	7.22	< 0.01
Secchi depth (m)	0.76^a	0.34^b	0.36^b	0.44^b	8.14	< 0.001
Secchi depth (m)	(1.00–0.60)	(0.50–0.18)	(0.50–0.15)	(0.75–0.15)	8.14	< 0.001
Color (Pt-Co)	130^a	128^a	178^b	107^a	10.05	< 0.0001
Color (Pt-Co)	(103–152)	(112–144)	(121–240)	(77–140)	10.05	< 0.0001
pH	7.8^a	8.6^a	6.8^b	7.0^b	14.48	< 0.0001
pH	(7.2–8.8)	(7.3–9.8)	(6.7–7.0)	(6.1–8.1)	14.48	< 0.0001
TP (μg l⁻¹)	73^a	163^b	96^a	106^a	7.85	< 0.001
TP (μg l⁻¹)	(32–158)	(94–233)	(49–150)	(42–170)	7.85	< 0.001
PO₄-P (μg l⁻¹)	10^a	31^b	43^b	51^b	25.83	< 0.0001
PO₄-P (μg l⁻¹)	(4–38)	(19–52)	(13–77)	(26–80)	25.83	< 0.0001
TN (mg l⁻¹)	1.18^a	0.72^b	0.62^b	0.70^b	19.10	< 0.0001
TN (mg l⁻¹)	(0.82–1.54)	(0.45–0.86)	(0.44–0.92)	(0.39–0.95)	19.10	< 0.0001

[i] Letters a and b indicate years with significantly different means.

Changes in the total phytoplankton biomass, chlorophyll a, and relative biomass of diatoms and cyanobacteria during the sampling years (1980, 2002, 2016 and 2018) in the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir

Table 2

Means (and ranges) of phytoplankton biomass (B), chlorophyll a (Chl a) and relative biomass of diatoms (% Diatom) and cyanobacteria (% Cyanobacteria) in the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir in different years (1980, 2002, 2016 and 2018). The comparison of the means among different years was calculated using ANOVA with the Tukey–Kramer test. The Tukey–Kramer test results are indicated by superscripts.

Parameter	1980	2002	2016	2018	F	p
B (mg l⁻¹)	6.8^a	61.0^b	17.6^c	23.1^c	18.02	< 0.0001
B (mg l⁻¹)	(0.3–19.8)	(15.8–99.6)	(3.9–35.6)	(7.0–49.8)	18.02	< 0.0001
Chl a (μg l⁻¹)	16.6^a	84.7^b	43.6^ab	66.6^b	6.87	< 0.001
Chl a (μg l⁻¹)	(0.7–27.2)	(20.5–174.9)	(8.4–122.9)	(27.4–157.6)	6.87	< 0.001
% Diatom	55.8^a	15.7^b	75.6^a	59.7^a	19.30	< 0.0001
% Diatom	(21.2–95.5)	(2.1–58.6)	(20.7–94.0)	(32.5–88.6)	19.30	< 0.0001
% Cyanobacteria	14.5^aс	75.9^b	2.4^с	26.2^a	23.94	< 0.0001
% Cyanobacteria	(0–46.2)	(26.9–96.4)	(0.3–6.7)	(1.2–62.1)	23.94	< 0.0001

[i] Letters a and b and c indicate years with significantly different means.

Relationships between phytoplankton biomass (a) and chlorophyll a (b) and total phosphorus (TP)

Relationship between relative biomass of cyanobacteria and the N/P ratio

Map of the spatial distribution of aquatic vegetation, including emergent helophytes (1) and floating-leaved plants (2) in the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir in 2016

Table 3

Contribution of different species of helophytes, floating-leaved and submerged plants to the total plant coverage and the area of the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir in 1980 and 2016

Ecological groups and species	Area, ha		% of plant cover		% of reservoir area
Ecological groups and species	1980*	2016	1980*	2016	1980*	2016
Helophytes
Phragmites australis	53.4	26.1	33.9	34.4	5.03	2.30
Scirpus lacustris	42.5	16.2	27.0	21.3	4.00	1.50
Carex spp.	0.3	9.5	0.2	12.5	0.03	0.90
Equisetum fluviatile	24.6	4.7	15.6	6.2	2.32	0.40
Typha latifolia	(+)	1.2	(+)	1.6	(+)	0.10
Sparganium erectum + S. emersum + Butomus umbellatus	5.6	3.6	3.6	4.7	0.53	0.30
Total:	126.4	61.3	80.4	80.8	11.91	5.50
Floating-leaved plants
Nuphar lutea	3.0	6.7	1.9	8.8	0.29	0.62
N. pumila	0.1	(+)	0.1	(+)	0.01	(+)
Potamogeton natans	3.4	3.2	2.2	4.2	0.32	0.30
Persicaria amphibia	6.3	2.4	4.0	3.2	0.60	0.22
Sparganium gramineum	0.1	0.7	0.1	0.9	0.01	0.07
Nymphaea candida	3.6	0.1	2.3	0.1	0.34	0.01
Mixed beds	11.9	0.9	7.6	1.2	1.13	0.08
Total:	28.4	14.0	18.1	18.4	2.70	1.30
Submerged plants
P. perfoliatus	2.5	0.6	1.6	0.8	0.20	0.10
Total:	157.3	75.9	100.0	100.0	14.81	6.80

[i] * data of Katanskaya (1984); (+) – found sporadically

Table 4

Contribution of ecological groups of aquatic plants to the total aboveground biomass in the Sestroretskiy Razliv reservoir in 1980 and 2016

Ecological group	Aboveground biomass
	1980*		2016
	10³ kg	%	10³ kg	%
Helophytes	872.6	93.95	654.9	95.72
Floating-leaved plants	55.6	5.99	29.0	4.24
Submerged plants	0.6	0.06	0.2	0.03
Total	928.8	100	684.2	100

[i] * data of Katanskaya (1984)

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ohs-2020-0016 | Journal eISSN: 1897-3191 | Journal ISSN: 1730-413X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 168 - 183

Submitted on: Nov 5, 2019

Accepted on: Jan 14, 2020

Published on: Jun 18, 2020

Published by: University of Gdańsk

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

alternative stable states,

Related subjects:

© 2020 Alexander Rusanov, Irina Trifonova, Natalia Ignatyeva, Oksana Pavlova, published by University of Gdańsk
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 49 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Long-term changes in phytoplankton and macrophyte communities in an eutrophic shallow reservoir and prospects for its restoration

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Figure 3

Table 2

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Table 3

Table 4

Paradigm

My account