Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-16T03:05:49.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phytoplankton biomass, light attenuation and mixing in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

T. G. McMahon ,
R. C. T. Raine ,
T. Fast ,
L. Kies  and
J. W. Patching
T. G. McMahon
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University College, Galway, Ireland
R. C. T. Raine
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University College, Galway, Ireland
T. Fast
Affiliation:
Institut fur Allgemeine Botanik, Ohnhorststrasse 18, D-2000 Hamburg, Germany
L. Kies
Affiliation:
Institut fur Allgemeine Botanik, Ohnhorststrasse 18, D-2000 Hamburg, Germany
J. W. Patching
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University College, Galway, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Distributions of suspended matter, light attenuation and chlorophyll a were measured in the Shannon Estuary over the period 1988–1990. Light attenuation was found to be highly correlated with levels of suspended matter, and the availability of underwater irradiance was found to be the dominant influence on phytoplankton biomass and chlorophyll levels over most of the estuary. Though levels of suspended matter, and hence light attenuation, were highest in the upper estuary, depths of mixing were relatively shallow resulting in less light limitation of phytoplankton growth than elsewhere. Turbidity maxima in the upper estuary were associated with chlorophyll maxima, the magnitude of which appeared to be related to river discharge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , August 1992 , pp. 709 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1992

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

Aff, 1976. The Lower Shannon Pollution Investigation. A report to the Limerick, Clare and Tipperary (N.R.) Regional Development Organisation. An Foras Forbatha, WR/C 25. 3 volumes.Google Scholar
Bannister, T.T., 1974. Production equations in terms of chlorophyll concentration, quantum yield, and upper limit to production. Limnology and Oceanography, 19,1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloern, J.E., 1987. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Continental Shelf Research, 7, 1367–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloern, J.E., Alpine, A.E., Cole, B.E., Wong, R.L.J., Arthur, J.F. & Ball, M.D., 1983. River discharge controls phytoplankton dynamics in the northern San Francisco Bay Estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 16, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloern, J.E., Powell, T.M. & Huzzey, L.M., 1989. Spatial and temporal variability in South San Francisco Bay (USA). II. Temporal changes in salinity, suspended sediments, and phytoplankton biomass and productivity over tidal time scales. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 28, 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, B.E. & Cloern, J.E., 1984. Significance of biomass and light availability to phytoplankton productivity in San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 17, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colijn, F., 1982. Light absorption in the waters of the Ems-Dollard Estuary and its consequences for the growth of phytoplankton and microphytobenthos. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 15, 196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duwe, K., 1991. Comparison of dynamical factors between the Shannon and Elbe Estuary. In Biogeochemical cycles in two major European Estuaries: the Shanelbe Project (ed. H., Kauschet al.), pp. 9–23. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Dyer, K.R., 1973. Estuaries: a physical introduction. London: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Filardo, M.J. & Dunstan, W.M., 1985. Hydrodynamic control of phytoplankton in low salinity waters of the lames River Estuary, Virginia, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 21, 653–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joint, I.R. & Pomroy, A.J., 1981. Primary production in a turbid estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 13, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, J.T.O., 1983. Light and photosynthesis in aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, T.G., 1991. A review of some of the available literature on the Shannon Estuary. In Biogeochemical cycles in two major European Estuaries: the Shanelbe Project (ed. H., Kauschet al.), pp. 159–229. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Morris, A.W., Bale, A.J. & Howland, R.J.M., 1982. Chemical variability in the Tamar Estuary, south-west England. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 14, 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, A.W., Mantoura, R.F.C., Bale, A.J. & Howland, R.J.M., 1978. Very low salinity regions of estuaries: important sites for chemical and biological reactions. Nature, London, 274, 678–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennock, J.R., 1985. Chlorophyll distributions in the Delaware Estuary: regulation by light limitation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 21, 711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubel, J.R. & Carter, H.H., 1984. The estuary as a filter for fine-grained suspended sediment. In The estuary as a filter (ed. V.S., Kennedy), pp. 81–105. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, M., Subba, Rao D.V. & Couture, R., 1981. Phytoplankton temporal distributions in estuaries. Oceanologica Acta, 4, 239–246.Google Scholar
Strickland, J.D.H. & Parsons, T.R., 1972. A practical handbook of seawater analysis. Bulletin. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, no. 167, 2nd ed. 310 pp.Google Scholar
Sverdrup, H.U., 1953. On conditions for the vernal blooming of phytoplankton. journal du Conseil Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 18, 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wofsy, S.C., 1983. A simple model to predict extinction coefficients and phytoplankton biomass in eutrophic waters. Limnology and Oceanography, 28, 1144–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar