Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:21:51.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variations in abundance and diversity of phytoplankton in the surface waters of the Golden Horn Estuary (Sea of Marmara)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2018

Fuat Dursun  and
Seyfettin Tas
Fuat Dursun
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Sciences and Management, Istanbul University, 34134 Vefa, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey
Seyfettin Tas*
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Sciences and Management, Istanbul University, 34134 Vefa, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: S. Tas, Institute of Marine Sciences and Management, Istanbul University, 34134 Vefa, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey email: stas@istanbul.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The abundance pattern and species diversity of phytoplankton in the surface waters of the Golden Horn Estuary were investigated between August 2011 and July 2012 in relation to environmental factors. Seventy-eight phytoplankton taxa (38 diatoms, 30 dinoflagellates and 10 phytoflagellates) belonging to eight taxonomic classes were identified in bottle and net samples. Phytoplankton abundance increased in spring and summer (from March to August) and reached its highest (10,429 × 103 cells L−1) during the bloom of Heterosigma akashiwo (Raphidophyceae) in the middle and upper estuary in late May. In general, phytoplankton abundance was higher in the middle estuary indicating more suitable conditions for phytoplankton growth, while species richness and diversity was higher in the lower estuary. The most abundant species were Skeletonema marinoi and Thalassiosira sp. among diatoms; Scrippsiella trochoidea among dinoflagellates; Plagioselmis prolonga and Heterosigma akashiwo among phytoflagellates. Diatoms were more abundant in the lower and middle estuary, while dinoflagellates and phytoflagellates in the upper estuary. The main factors causing the spatio-temporal variation of phytoplankton in the study area were temperature, salinity, water transparency and nutrients. Water transparency in the upper estuary is mostly influenced by organic and inorganic matter carried by two streams. As a result, this area should be considered a potential risk area for future algal blooms.

Keywords

Phytoplanktondiversitywater qualityGolden Horn EstuarySea of Marmara
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 279 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2018 

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

REFERENCES

APHA (1999) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edition. Washington, DC: APHA.Google Scholar
Barbosa, A.B., Domingues, R.B. and Galvão, H.M. (2010) Environmental forcing of phytoplankton in a Mediterranean estuary (Guadiana Estuary, south-western Iberia): a decadal study of anthropogenic and climatic influences. Estuaries and Coasts 33, 324–341.Google Scholar
Burić, Z., Cetinić, I., Viličić, D., Mihalić, K.C., Carić, M. and Olujić, G. (2007) Spatial and temporal distribution of phytoplankton in a highly stratified estuary (Zrmanja, Adriatic Sea). Marine Ecology 28, 169–177.Google Scholar
Cetinić, I., Viličić, D., Burić, Z. and Olujić, G. (2006) Phytoplankton seasonality in a highly stratified karstic estuary (Krka, Adriatic Sea). Hydrobiologia 555, 31–40.Google Scholar
Cloern, J.E. (1987) Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Continental Shelf Research 7, 1367–1387.Google Scholar
Cloern, J.E. (1999) The relative importance of light and nutrient limitation of phytoplankton growth: a simple index of coastal ecosystem sensitivity to nutrient enrichment. Aquatic Ecology 33, 3–16.Google Scholar
Domingues, R.B., Barbosa, A.B., Sommer, U. and Galvão, H.M. (2011) Ammonium, nitrate and phytoplankton interactions in a freshwater tidal estuarine zone: potential effects of cultural eutrophication. Aquatic Sciences 73, 331–343.Google Scholar
Domingues, R.B., Barbosa, A.B., Sommer, U. and Galvão, H.M. (2012) Phytoplankton composition, growth and production in the Guadiana estuary (SW Iberia): unraveling changes induced after dam construction. Science of the Total Environment 416, 300–313.Google Scholar
Dursun, F., Taş, S. and Koray, T. (2016) Spring bloom of the raphidophycean Heterosigma akashiwo in the Golden Horn Estuary at the northeast of Sea of Marmara. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 33, 201.Google Scholar
Dursun, F., Unlu, S., Tas, S. and Yurdun, T. (2017) Domoic acid variations in response to environmental conditions in an eutrophic estuary, Golden Horn (Turkey). Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17, 653–662.Google Scholar
Hoppenrath, M., Elbrächter, M. and Drebes, G. (2009) Marine phytoplankton. Selected microphytoplankton species from the North Sea around Helgoland and Sylt. Stuttgart: Schweitzerbarth Verlag. 264 pp.Google Scholar
Jasprica, N., Carić, M., Kršinić, F., Kapetanović, T., Batistić, M. and Njire, J. (2012) Planktonic diatoms and their environment in the lower Neretva River estuary (Eastern Adriatic Sea, NE Mediterranean). Nova Hedwigia Beihefte 141, 405–430.Google Scholar
Lopes, C.B., Lillebø, A.I., Dias, J.M., Pereira, E., Vale, C. and Duarte, A.C. (2007) Nutrient dynamics and seasonal succession of phytoplankton assemblages in a Southern European Estuary: Ria de Aveiro, Portugal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71, 480–490.Google Scholar
Mallin, M.A., Cahoon, L.B., McIver, M.R., Parsons, D.C. and Christopher Shank, G. (1999) Alternation of factors limiting phytoplankton production in the cape fear river Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 22, 825–836.Google Scholar
Olli, K., Heiskanen, A.S. and Seppälä, J. (1996) Development and fate of Eutreptiella gymnastica bloom in nutrient-enriched enclosures in the coastal Baltic Sea. Journal of Plankton Research 18, l587–1604.Google Scholar
Özsoy, E., Oğuz, T., Latif, M.A., Ünlüata, Ü., Sur, H.İ. and Beşiktepe, Ş. (1988) Oceanography of Turkish straits-second annual report. Erdemli, İçel: The Middle East Technical University, Institute of Marine Sciences.Google Scholar
Paerl, H.W., Valdes-Weaver, L.M., Joyner, A.R. and Winkelmann, V. (2007) Phytoplankton indicators of ecological change in the eutrophying Pamlico Sound system, North Carolina. Ecological Applications 17, 88–101.Google Scholar
Parsons, T.R., Maita, Y. and Lalli, C.M. (1984) A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V.H., Tilman, G.D. and Nekola, J.C. (1999) Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 100, 179–196.Google Scholar
Sur, H.I., Okuş, E., Sarikaya, H.Z., Altiok, H., Eroğlu, V. and Öztürk, I. (2002) Rehabilitation and water quality monitoring in the Golden Horn. Water Science and Technology 46, 29–36.Google Scholar
Tas, S. (2015) A prolonged red tide of Heterocapsa triquetra (Ehrenberg) F. Stein (Dinophyceae) and phytoplankton succession in a eutrophic estuary in Turkey. Mediterranean Marine Science 16, 621–627.Google Scholar
Tas, S. (2017) Planktonic diatom composition and environmental conditions in the Golden Horn Estuary (Sea of Marmara, Turkey). Fundamental and Applied Limnology/Archiv für Hydrobiologie 189, 153–166.Google Scholar
Tas, S. and Okus, E. (2003) The effects of pollution on the distribution of phytoplankton in the surface water of the Golden Horn. Turkish Journal of Marine Sciences 9, 163–176.Google Scholar
Tas, S. and Okuş, E. (2011) A review on the bloom dynamics of a harmful dinoflagellate Prorocentrum minimum (Pavillard) Schiller in the Golden Horn Estuary. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11, 673–681.Google Scholar
Tas, S., Dursun, F., Aksu, A. and Balkis, N. (2016) Presence of the diatom genus Pseudo-nitzschia and particulate domoic acid in the Golden Horn Estuary (Sea of Marmara, Turkey). Diatom Research 31, 339–349.Google Scholar
Tas, S. and Lundholm, N. (2016) Temporal and spatial variability of the potentially toxic Pseudo-nitzschia spp. in a eutrophic estuary (Sea of Marmara). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 97, 1483–1494.Google Scholar
Tas, S., Okuş, E. and Aslan-Yılmaz, A. (2006) The blooms of a cyanobacterium, Microcystis cf. aeruginosa in a severely polluted estuary, the Golden Horn, Turkey. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68, 593–599.Google Scholar
Tas, S., Yilmaz, I. and Okus, E. (2009) Phytoplankton as an indicator of improving water quality in the Golden Horn Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 32, 1205–1224.Google Scholar
Tas, S. and Yilmaz, I.N. (2015) Potentially harmful microalgae and algal blooms in a eutrophic estuary in the Sea of Marmara (Turkey). Mediterranean Marine Science 16, 432–443.Google Scholar
Throndsen, N.J. (1978) Preservation and storage. In Sournia, A. (ed) Phytoplankton manual. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 69–74.Google Scholar
Trigueros, J.M. and Orive, E. (2001) Seasonal variations of diatoms and dinoflagellates in a shallow, temperate estuary, with emphasis on neritic assemblages. Hydrobiologia 444, 119–133.Google Scholar
Utermöhl, H. (1958) Zur Vervollkommung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt int Ver Theor Angew Limnologie 9, 1–38.Google Scholar
Uysal, Z. (1987) Fate and distribution of plankton around the Bosphorus, The Golden Horn, North-eastern Marmara and the Bay of İzmit. MSc thesis. The Middle East Technical University, Erdemli, İçel, Turkey.Google Scholar
Uysal, Z. and Unsal, M. (1996) Spatial distribution of net diatoms along adjacent water masses of different origin. Turkish Journal of Botany 20, 519–527.Google Scholar
Yüksek, A., Okuş, E., Yilmaz, İ.N., Aslan-Yilmaz, A. and Taş, S. (2006) Changes in biodiversity of the extremely polluted Golden Horn Estuary following the improvements in water quality. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 1209–1218.Google Scholar