Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T06:36:07.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Primary Production and Its Regulation in the Tidal-Freshwater Hudson River

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

Jonathan J. Cole
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Nina F. Caraco
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Jeffrey S. Levinton
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Get access

Summary

abstract Photosynthesis is the main process by which new organic matter is synthesized. In many aquatic ecosystems, phytoplankton are the major photosynthetic organisms and are responsible for most of the organic C input. In the tidal-freshwater Hudson, primary production by phytoplankton is maintained at relatively low values by a combination of high turbidity and deep mixing (which lowers light availability), advective losses downstream and consumption by grazers. Limitation by nitrogen or phosphorus, the most common plant limiting nutrients, is not an important regulatory factor in the tidal-freshwater Hudson. Respiration by the phytoplankton themselves is the major fate of phytoplankton-derived organic matter (gross primary production), leaving relatively small amounts available to higher trophic levels. Thus, small increases in grazing pressure could have large impacts on phytoplankton. Phytoplankton biomass and gross primary production were dramatically reduced by the 1992 invasion of the zebra mussel, and phytoplankton have not yet recovered to pre-invasion levels. We estimate that phytoplankton gross primary production was 331 g C m−2 y−1 in the years prior to the zebra mussel invasion and 82 g C m−2 y−1 in the years following. This is from about one-half to one-eighth as large as the input of terrestrial organic C from the watershed.

Introduction

Primary production is the formation of organic compounds from inorganic building blocks. The energy required to synthesize these organic products may come from sunlight (photosynthesis); from chemical reactions, (chemosynthesis, e.g. ammonia or sulfide oxidation); or a mixture of the two as in some types of an oxygenic bacterial photosynthesis (Brock, 1979).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alpine, A. E., and Cloern, J. E. 1988, Phytoplankton growth rates in a light-limited environment, San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 44:167–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. L., and Baker, K. K. 1979. Effects of temperature and current discharge on the concentration and photosynthetic activity of the phytoplankton in the upper Mississippi River. Freshwater Biology. 9:191–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banse, K. 1976. Rates of growth, respiration and photosynthesis of unicellular algae as related to cell size: A review. Journal of Phycology. 12:135–40Google Scholar
Beardall, J., and Raven, J. A. 1990. Pathways and mechanisms of respiration in microalgae. Marine Microbial Food Webs. 4:7–30Google Scholar
Bianchi, T., Findlay, S., and Dawson, R. 1993. Organic matter sources in the water column and sediments of the Hudson River Estuary: the use of plant pigments as tracers. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 36:359–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnetto, C. A. 1983. Fitoplancton y produccion primaria del Parana Medio. Ecosur. 10:79–102Google Scholar
Brock, T. D. 1979. Biology of microorganisms, 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 802 ppGoogle Scholar
Cadee, G. C. 1986. Increased phytoplankton primary production in the Marsdiep Area (Western Dutch Wadden Sea). Netherlands Journal of Sea Research. 20:285–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadee, G. C., and Hegman, J. 1974. Primary production of phytoplankton in the Dutch Waddeen Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research. 8:240–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, N. F., Cole, J. J., Raymond, P. A., Strayer, D. L., Pace, M. L., Findlay, S., and Fischer, D. T. 1997. Zebra mussel invasion in a large turbid river: Phytoplankton response to increased grazing. Ecology. 78:602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, N. F., Lampman, G. G., Cole, J. J., Limburg, K. E., Pace, M. L., and Fischer, D. 1998. Microbial assimilation of DIN in a nitrogen rich estuary: implications for food quality and isotope studies. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 167: 59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, N. F., Cole, J. J., Findlay, S. E. G., Fischer, D., Lampman, G. G., Pace, M. L., and Strayer, D. L. 2000. Dissolved oxygen declines in the Hudson River associated with the invasion of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Environmental Science and Technology. 34:1204–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloern, J. E. 1984. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in south San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 9:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloern, J. E. 1987. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Continental Shelf Research. 7:1367–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloern, J. E., Cole, B. E., Wong, R. L. G., and Alpine, A. E. 1985. Temporal dynamics of estuarine phytoplankton: A case study of San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiology. 129:153–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, B. E., and Cloern, J. E. 1984. Significance of biomass and light availability to phytoplankton productivity in San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 17:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. J., Caraco, N. F., and Peierls, B. 1992. Can phytoplankton maintain a positive balance in a turbid, freshwater, tidal estuary?. Limnology and Oceanography. 37:1608–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. J., and Caraco, N. F. 2001. Carbon in catchments: Connecting terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic metabolism. Marine and Freshwater Research. 52:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cote, B., and Platt, T. 1983. Day to day variations in the spring-summer photosynthetic parameters of coastal marine phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography. 28:320–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertl, M. 1985. The effects of the hydrological regime on primary production in the main stream and the side arms of the River Danube. Archive für Hydrobiolia Supplement. 68:139–48Google Scholar
Falkowski, P. G., Dubinsky, Z., and Santostefano, G. 1985. Light-enhanced dark respiration in phytoplankton. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung Limnologie. 22:2830–33Google Scholar
Findlay, S. E. G., Sinsabaugh, R. L., Fischer, D. T., and Franchini, P. 1998. Sources of dissolved organic carbon supporting planktonic bacterial production in the tidal-freshwater Hudson River. Ecosystems. 1:227–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, T. R., Carlson, P. A., and Barber, R. T. 1982. Carbon and nitrogen primary productivity in three North Carolina estuaries. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 15:621–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, T. R., Peele, E. R., Ammerman, J. W., and Harding, L. W. Jr. 1992. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 82:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemer, D. A. 1970. Primary production in the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science. 11:117–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, R. W., Powell, G. L., and Kalke, R. D. 1986. Ecological effects from the balance between new and recycled nitrogen in Texas coastal waters. Estuaries. 9:284–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S. W., Heffner, R. L., Packard, A. T., Eldridge, P. M., Eldridge, J. C., Schumacher, G. J., Eichorn, K. L., Currie, J. H., Richards, J. N., and Boody, O. C. I. 1976. Notes on phytoplankton distribution in the Hudson River Estuary. Hudson River Ecology: Fourth Symposium. Hudson River Environmental Society, Consolidated Edison Auditorium, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. E., Small, L. F., and Lara-Lara, R. 1984. Water column primary production in the Columbia River Estuary. Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Astoria, OregonGoogle Scholar
Furnas, B. E., Hitchcock, G. L., and Smayda, T. J. 1976. Nutrient-phytoplankton relationships in Narragansett Bay during the summer bloom, in Wiley, M. (ed). Estuarine Process, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, pp. 118–133Google Scholar
Garside, C., Malone, T. C., Roels, O. A., and Sharfstein, B. A. 1976. An evaluation of sewage derived nutrients and their influence on the Hudson River Estuary and New York Bight. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 4:281–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geider, R. J., and Osborne, B. A. 1989. Respiration and microalgal growth: a review of the quantitative relationship between dark respiration and growth. New Phytologist. 112:327–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmartin, M. 1964. The primary production of a British Columbia fjord. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 21:505–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopinathan, C. P., Nair, R., and Nair, A. K. K. 1984. Quantitative ecology of phytoplankton in the Cochlin Backwater. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 31:325–36Google Scholar
Haines, E. B., and Dunstant, W. M. 1975. The distribution and relation of particulate organic material and primary productivity in the Georgia Bight. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 3:431–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, L. W. Jr., Meeson, B. W., and Fisher, T. R. 1986. Phytoplankton production in two east coast estuaries: Photosynthesis light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 23:773–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, M., and Findlay, S. 1994. Photosynthesis-irradiance relationships for three species of submersed macrophytes in the tidal freshwater Hudson River. Estuaries. 17:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, R. W. 1988. Nutrient limitation of primary production in marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 19:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, R. W., Schneider, R., and Swaney, D. 1996. Metabolism and organic carbon fluxes in the tidal freshwater Hudson River. Estuaries. 19:848–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, R. W., Marino, R., Swaney, D. P., and Boyer, E. W. (this volume). Wastewater and watershed influences on primary productivity and oxygen dynamics in the lower Hudson River estuary. In: Levinton, J. S. and Waldman, J. R. (eds.). The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press
Howells, G. P., and Weaver, S. 1969. Studies on phytoplankton at Indian Point, in Howells, G. P. and Lauer, G. J. (eds.), Hudson River Ecology: Proceeding of a symposium. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, pp. 231–61Google Scholar
IES (Institute of Ecosystem Studies), Environmental Monitoring Program. 2001. Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, NY 12545, www.ecostudies.org
Iqbal, M. 1983. An Introduction to Solar Radiation. New York: Academic Press, 153 ppGoogle Scholar
Keller, A. 1988. Estimating phytoplankton productivity from light availability and biomass in the MERL mesocosms and Narragansett Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 45:159–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, T., Williams, S., and Kotlash, A. 2000. Autotrophic picoplankton in a regulated coastal river in New South Wales. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 122:79–88Google Scholar
Kuparinen, J. 1987. Production and respiration of overall plankton and ultraplankton communities at the entrance to the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea. Marine Biology. 93:591–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampman, G. G., Caraco, N. F., and Cole, J. J. 1999. Spatial and temporal patterns of nutrient concentration and export in the tidal Hudson River. Estuaries. 22:285–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laws, E. A. 1975. The importance of respiration losses in controlling the size distribution of marine phytoplankton. Ecology. 56:419–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levasseur, M., Therriault, J. C., and Legendre, L. 1984. Hierarchical control of phytoplankton succession by physical factors. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 19:211–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, T. C. 1975. Phytoplankton productivity in the apex of the New York Bight: Environmental regulation of productivity/chlorophyll a. Limnology and Oceanography Special Symposium. 260–71Google Scholar
Malone, T. C. 1977. Environmental regulation of phytoplankton productivity in the lower Hudson Estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 5:157–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, H. 1988. Seasonal phytoplankton composition and concentration patterns within the Hudson River. Technical Report 018/86b/011. Hudson River Foundation. New York, NY
Pace, M. L., and Lonsdale, D. J. (this volume). Ecology of the Hudson River Zooplankton Community. In Levinton, J. S. and Waldman, J. R. (eds.). The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press
Pennock, J. R., and Sharp, J. H. 1986. Phytoplankton production in the Delaware estuary: Temporal and spatial variability. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 34:143–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. H., and Festa, J. F. 1984. Numerical simulation of phytoplankton productivity in partially mixed estuaries. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 19:563–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. M., and Day, J. W. Jr. 1987. Effects of river discharge and vertical circulation on aquatic primary production in a turbid Louisiana estuary. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research. 21:231–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J. A., and Beardall, J. 1981. Respiration and photorespiration. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 210:55–82Google Scholar
Raymond, P. A., and Bauer, J. E. 2001. Riverine export of aged organic matter to the North Atlantic Ocean. Nature (London) 409:497–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raymond, P. A., Caraco, N. F., and Cole, J. J. 1997. CO2 concentration and atmospheric flux in the Hudson River. Estuaries. 20:381–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, F., and Cole, J. J. 1999. Regulation of bacterial growth efficiency in a large turbid estuary. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 20:31–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, B. D. 1978. Phytoplankton distribution and light attenuation in Port Hacking Estuary. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 29: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P. J., and Purdie, D. A. 2001. Phytoplankton photosynthesis-irradiance parameters in the near-shore UK coastal waters of the North Sea: temporal variation and environmental control. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 216:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehata, S. A., and Bader, S. A. 1985. Effect of Nile River water-quality on algal distribution at Cairo, Egypt. Environment International. 11:465–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinada, F., and Karim, A. G. A. 1984. A Quantitative study of the phytoplankton in the Blue and White Niles at Khartoum. Hydrobiologia. 110:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirois, D. L., and Frederick, S. W. 1978. Phytoplankton and primary production in the lower Hudson River Estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 7:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. E., Stevenson, R. J.Caraco, N. F., and Cole, J. J. 1998. Changes in phytoplankton community structure during the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion of the Hudson River (New York). Journal of Plankton Research. 20:1567–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockner, J. G., and Cliff, D. D. 1979. Phytoplankton ecology of Vancouver Harbor. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 36:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, S., and Ganf, G. 1981. The influence of previous light history on the respiration of four species of freshwater phytoplankton. Archive für Hydrobiolia Supplement. 91:435–62Google Scholar
Strayer, D. L. (this volume). Alien species in the Hudson River. In: Levinton, J. S. and Waldman, J. R. (eds.). The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press
Strayer, D. L., Caraco, N. F., Cole, J. J., Findlay, S., and Pace, M. L. 1999. Transformation of freshwater ecosystems by bivalves: a case study of zebra mussels in the Hudson River. Bioscience. 49:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaney, D., Howarth, R. W., and Butler, T. J. 1999. A novel approach for estimating ecosystem production and respiration in estuaries: Application to the oligohaline and mesohaline Hudson River. Limnology and Oceanography. 44 (6):1522–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R. E., Woo, S. W., and Jitts, H. R. 1979. Phytoplankton production in a turbid, temperate salt marsh estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 9:603–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. J. le B., Raine, C. T., and Bryan, J. R. 1979. Agreement between the carbon-14 and oxygen methods of measuring phytoplankton production: reassessment of the photosynthetic quotient. Oceanologica Acta. 2:411–416Google Scholar
Williams, P. J. le B., and Robertson, J. E. 1991. Overall planktonic oxygen and carbon dioxide metabolism: the problem of reconciling observations and calculations of photosynthetic quotients. Journal of Plankton Research. 13:153–69Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×