Sources of uncertainty in assessment of marine phytoplankton communities

Characterisation of phytoplankton communities is important for classification of the ecological status of marine waters. In order to design a monitoring programme, it is important to know what degree of variation in the measurements occur at each level (water body, station and sample), so that resources can be spent in a way that maximise the precision of the measured parameters. Seven European water bodies were sampled to assess the variation in pigment concentrations and population densities attributed to water body, station and sample levels. It was found that the main proportion of the variation between pigment measurements was explained by the variation between stations (12–91% of variation) followed by the variation between water bodies (0–89% of variation). For measurements of population density, the main proportion of the variation between densities of cells recorded was explained by the variation between the taxonomists counting the samples (61%), whilst the main proportion of the variation between numbers of taxa recorded was explained by the variation between water bodies (83%). When the cell density of the nine dominant classes were analysed separately, the main proportion of variation was explained at the water body level for all but two class.

[1]  H. Utermöhl.  Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik , 1958 .

[2]  P. Burkill,et al.  A comparison of fixatives for the estimation of abundance and biovolume of marine planktonic ciliate populations , 1994 .

[3]  P. Henriksen.  Reference conditions for phytoplankton at Danish Water Framework Directive intercalibration sites , 2009, Hydrobiologia.

[4]  R. D'adamo,et al.  Hydrological heterogeneity, nutrient dynamics and water quality of a non-tidal lentic ecosystem (Lesina Lagoon, Italy). , 2009 .

[5]  L. Peperzak,et al.  An objective procedure to remove observer-bias from phytoplankton time-series , 2010 .

[6]  Christoffer Boström,et al.  Empirical relationships linking distribution and abundance of marine vegetation to eutrophication , 2008 .

[7]  S. Menden‐Deuer,et al.  Effect of preservation on dinoflagellate and diatom cell volume, and consequences for carbon biomass predictions , 2001 .

[8]  Mar Ecol Prog,et al.  Improved HPLC method for the analysis of chlorophylls and carotenoids from marine phytoplankton , 2022 .

[9]  Peter Haase,et al.  First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results , 2010, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[10]  R. D'adamo,et al.  Spatial and temporal description of the dystrophic crisis in Lesina lagoon during summer 2008 , 2010 .

[11]  P. Sandra,et al.  Water Framework Directive Intercalibration Technical Report. Part 2: Lakes , 2009 .

[12]  Sven Erik Jørgensen,et al.  Impact of eutrophication and river management within a framework of ecosystem theories , 2003 .

[13]  Á. Borja,et al.  Transitional and coastal waters ecological status assessment: advances and challenges resulting from implementing the European Water Framework Directive , 2012, Hydrobiologia.

[14]  Juan Bald,et al.  Assessment of the phytoplankton ecological status in the Basque coast (northern Spain) according to the European Water Framework Directive , 2009 .

[15]  E. Paasche,et al.  The annual cycle of plankton diatom growth and silica production in the inner Oslofjord1 , 1980 .

[16]  R. Clarke,et al.  Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods – major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  P. Henriksen,et al.  Comparative study of Gymnodinium mikimotoi and Gymnodinium aureolum, comb. nov. (=Gyrodinium aureolum) based on morphology, pigment composition, and molecular data , 2000 .

[18]  João Carlos Marques,et al.  Hydrodynamics as a Major Factor Controlling the Occurrence of Green Macroalgal Blooms in a Eutrophic Estuary: A Case Study on the Influence of Precipitation and River Management , 2001 .

[19]  Ralph T. Clarke.  Estimating confidence of European WFD ecological status class and WISER Bioassessment Uncertainty Guidance Software (WISERBUGS) , 2012, Hydrobiologia.

[20]  S. Moncheva,et al.  Application of eutrophication indices for assessment of the Bulgarian Black Sea coastal ecosystem ecological quality. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[21]  I. Joint,et al.  Estimation of phytoplankton production from space: current status and future potential of satellite remote sensing. , 2000, Journal of experimental marine biology and ecology.

[22]  Á. Borja,et al.  Assessment and recovery of European water bodies: key messages from the WISER project , 2013, Hydrobiologia.

[23]  C. Duarte,et al.  Phytoplankton chlorophyll a distribution and water column stability in the central Atlantic Ocean , 1999 .

[24]  Tiit Kutser,et al.  Quantitative detection of chlorophyll in cyanobacterial blooms by satellite remote sensing , 2004 .

[25]  H. Paerl,et al.  Phytoplankton Photopigments as Indicators of Estuarine and Coastal Eutrophication , 2003 .

[26]  F. Pollehne,et al.  ALLOXANTHIN IN DINOPHYSIS NORVEGICA (DINOPHYSIALES, DINOPHYCEAE) FROM THE BALTIC SEA , 1998 .

[27]  P. Henriksen,et al.  PIGMENT COMPOSITION AND rbcL SEQUENCE DATA FROM THE SILICOFLAGELLATE DICTYOCHA SPECULUM: A HETEROKONT ALGA WITH PIGMENTS SIMILAR TO SOME HAPTOPH Y TES , 2001 .

[28]  K. Vuorio,et al.  Intercalibrations of freshwater phytoplankton analyses , 2007 .

[29]  Judith D. Singer,et al.  Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models , 1998 .

[30]  Gregory Camilli,et al.  Application of a Method of Estimating DIF for Polytomous Test Items , 1999 .