Metabolism and organic carbon fluxes in the tidal freshwater Hudson River

We summarize rates of metabolism and major sources and sinks of organic carbon in the 148-k long, tidally influenced, freshwater Hudson River. The river is strongly heterotrophic, with respiration exceeding gross primary production (GPP). The P:R ration averages 0.57 (defined as the ratio of GPP to total ecosystem respiration) if only the aquatic portion of the ecosystem is considered and 0.70 if the emergent marshes are also included. Gross primary production (GPP) by photoplankton averages approximately 300 g C m−2 yr−1 and is an order of magnitude greater than that by submersed macrophytes. However, the river is deep, well mixed, and turbid, and phytoplankton spend a majority of their time in the dark. As a result, respiration by living phytoplankton is extremely high and net primary production (NPP) by phytoplankton is estimated to be only some 6% of GPP. NPP by phytoplankton and submersed macrophytes are roughly equal (approximately 20 g C m−2 yr−1 each) when averaged over the river. Emergent marshes are quite productive, but probably less than 16 g C m−2 yr−1 enters the aquatic portion of the ecosystem from these marshes. Heterotrophic respiration and secondary production in the river are driven primarily by allochthonous inputs of organic matter from terrestrial sources. Rates of metabolism vary along the river, with depth being a critical controlling factor. The P:R ratio for the aquatic portion of the ecosystem varies from 1 in the mid-river to 0.2 in the deeper waters. NPP is actually negative in the downstream waters where average depths are greater since phytoplankton respiration exceeds GPP there; the positive rates of NPP occurring upriver support a downstream advection of phytoplankton to the deeper waters where this C is largely respired away by the algae themselves. This autotrophic respiration contributes significantly to oxygen depletion in the deeper waters of the Hudson. The tidally influenced freshwater Hudson largely fits the patterns predicted by the river continuum model for larger rivers. However, we suggest that the continuum model needs to more clearly distinguish between GPP and NPP and should include the importance of autotrophic respiration by phytoplankton that are advected along a river. The organic carbon budget for the tidally influenced freshwater Hudson is balanced to within a few percent. Respiration (54%) and downstream advection into the saline estuary (41%) are the major losses of organic carbon from the ecosystem. Allochthonous inputs from nonpoint sources on land (61%) and GPP by phytoplankton (28%) are the major sources to the system. Agricultural erosion is the major source of allochthonous inputs. Since agricultural land use increased dramatically in the last century, and has fallen in this century, the carbon cycle of the tidally influenced freshwater Hudson River has probably changed markedly over time. Before human disturbance, the Hudson was probably a less heterotrophic system and may even have been autotrophic, with gross primary production exceeding ecosystem respiration.

[1]  R. Howarth,et al.  Modeling water, sediment and organic carbon discharges in the Hudson-Mohawk basin: Coupling to terrestrial sources , 1996 .

[2]  M. Delong,et al.  The riverine productivity model: an heuristic view of carbon sources and organic processing in large river ecosystems , 1994 .

[3]  R. Howarth,et al.  Atmospheric oxygen exchange in the Hudson River: Dome measurements and comparison with other natural waters , 1993 .

[4]  B. L. Peierls,et al.  Can phytoplankton maintaina positive carbon balance in a turbid, freshwater, tidal estuary? , 1992 .

[5]  D. Wilbur,et al.  Carbon cycling in the Amazon River: Implications from the 13C compositions of particles and solutes , 1992 .

[6]  R. Howarth,et al.  Ecosystem respiration and organic carbon processing in a large, tidally influenced river: the Hudson River , 1992 .

[7]  B. L. Peierls,et al.  Phytoplankton primary production in the tidal, freshwater Hudson River, New York (USA) , 1991 .

[8]  M. Pace,et al.  Variability and transport of suspended sediment, particulate and dissolved organic carbon in the tidal freshwater Hudson River , 1991 .

[9]  M. Pace,et al.  Weak coupling of bacterial and algal production in a heterotrophic ecosystem: The Hudson River estuary , 1991 .

[10]  R. Howarth,et al.  Inputs of Sediment and Carbon to an Estuarine Ecosystem: Influence of Land Use. , 1991, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[11]  S. Kempe,et al.  Biogeochemistry of European rivers , 1991 .

[12]  B. Forsberg,et al.  Biogeochemistry of carbon in the Amazon River , 1990 .

[13]  David Keith Todd,et al.  The water encyclopedia , 1990 .

[14]  S. Kempe,et al.  Biogeochemistry of major World rivers , 1990 .

[15]  J. Stevenson Comparative ecology of submersed grass beds in freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments' , 1988 .

[16]  W. Lewis Primary Production in the Orinoco River , 1988 .

[17]  W. Odum COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF TIDAL FRESHWATER AND SALT MARSHES , 1988 .

[18]  Douglas A. Haith,et al.  GENERALIZED WATERSHED LOADING FUNCTIONS FOR STREAM FLOW NUTRIENTS , 1987 .

[19]  W. Kemp,et al.  Comparison of methods for measuring production by the submersed macrophyte, Potamogeton perfoliatus L.1,2 , 1986 .

[20]  M. John Sources and sinks for fine-grained sediment in the lower Hudson River , 1986 .

[21]  M. Moran,et al.  The Hudson River Ecosystem , 1986 .

[22]  Robert C. Petersen,et al.  Developments in Stream Ecosystem Theory , 1985 .

[23]  G. Minshall,et al.  INTERBIOME COMPARISON OF STREAM ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS , 1983 .

[24]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Organic carbon spiralling in stream ecosystems , 1982 .

[25]  M. Meybeck Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus transport by world rivers , 1982 .

[26]  Sandra Brown,et al.  Primary Productivity, Decomposition and Consumer Activity in Freshwater Wetlands , 1981 .

[27]  Damon G. Doumlele Primary production and seasonal aspects of emergent plants in a tidal freshwater marsh , 1981 .

[28]  John M. Melack,et al.  Transport of organic carbon in the world’s rivers , 1981 .

[29]  Scott W. Nixon,et al.  Between Coastal Marshes and Coastal Waters — A Review of Twenty Years of Speculation and Research on the Role of Salt Marshes in Estuarine Productivity and Water Chemistry , 1980 .

[30]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[31]  C. H. Pharo,et al.  Mineral Cycling in Southeastern Ecosystems. , 1978 .

[32]  D. Whigham,et al.  Biomass and primary production in freshwater tidal wetlands of the Middle Atlantic Coast , 1978 .

[33]  D. Whigham,et al.  Growth, mortality, and biomass partitioning in freshwater tidal wetland populations of wild rice (Zizania aquatica var aquatica) , 1977 .

[34]  D. Whigham,et al.  20. The Potential Use of Freshwater Tidal Marshes in the Management of Water Quality in the Delaware River , 1976 .

[35]  M. S. Adams,et al.  Seasonal Production of the Myriophyllum Component of the Littoral of Lake Wingra, Wisconsin , 1974 .

[36]  R. Whittaker Communities and Ecosystems , 1975 .