240 likes | 258 Views
Study on effects of climate change on phytoplankton composition in Cannonsville Reservoir, examining biomass changes using innovative modeling methods.
E N D
Upstate Freshwater Institute • Climate Change Effects on Phytoplankton Composition in Cannonsville Reservoir • Hampus Markensten1, Donald C Pierson2, Emmet M. Owens1, Aavudai Anandhi3, Elliot M. Schneiderman2, Mark S. Zion2 and Steven W. Effler1 • Email: hm@upstatefreshwater.org • 1) Upstate Freshwater Institute • Syracuse, USA • 2) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) • NYC, USA • 3) Hunter College, Program in Earth and Environmental Sciences City Univ of New York, USA NYWEA 2009
Cannonsville reservoir • Third largest reservoir serving New York City with drinking water. • Mesotrophic with a retention time of 2.6 years and a storage capacity of 373*106 m3 of water (98.5 billion gallons).
Background • Future climate with warmer temperature and changed precipitation pattern increase reservoir water temperatures and affects the nutrient export from the watershed to the reservoirs. • Phytoplankton grows faster in warmer temperature and can obtain larger biomass with more nutrients. • What biological responses in the water reservoirs can be expected in the future?
Objectives • Evaluate the effect on the total phytoplankton biomass and the functional groups from climate change. Method • Model phytoplankton functional groups using a dynamic mass balance water quality model.
Model description PROTECH (Phytoplankton RespOnses To Environmental CHange) What makes algae grow? Light Nutrients Temperature Algae Source: Alex Elliot
1-D mass balance model using a phytoplankton biologydescripotion based on PROTECH-model (phytoplankton response to environmental change) developed by Colin Reynolds in UK. • Phytoplankton can respond to changes in nutrient, light and temperature byvertical movementsto reach the most favorable depth. • Phytoplanktongrowth ratesare calculated fromsize and volumerelationships that affect nutrient uptake, light harvesting, and temperature dependence. • Eight functional groups of phytoplankton are simulated that differ in theirsurface area/volume, capability tofix nitrogen, use silicaand buoyancy regulation.
Overview of the hybrid 1D model including phytoplankton functional groups
Size and Shape Influences • Growth • Temperature adaptation • Light absorption • Grazing • Passive movement (up or down)
What is different in PROTECH? • Morphological relationships describe growth: r20 Reynolds (1989)
Temperature-sensitivity of growth rate (rθ) as a function of s/v (Reynolds in Sommer 1989)
Light effect on phytoplankton growth (Reynolds in Sommer 1989)
(Reynolds in Sommer 1989) Light saturated growth Ik αr=0.257(M*s/v)0.236 αr Light intensity Ik=rθ /αr
Phytoplankton Functional Groups • Large Filamentous Diatoms – Aulacoseira • Small Diatoms – Stephanodiscus • Small Flagellates – Cryptomonas, Rhodomonas • Large Flagellates – Ceratium • Large Buoyant Colonial Cyanobacteria – Microcystis • Large Buoyant N fixing Cyanobacteria – Anabaena, Aphanizomenon
Main results Air temperature (Co), summary of 9 future (+65yr) scenarios.
Water temperature (Co), Epilimnion Combined watershed and temperature effects Only temperature effect Only watershed effect
SRP (µg l-1), Epilimnion Combined watershed and temperature effects Only temperature effect Only watershed effect
Chlorophyll a (µg l-1), Epilimnion Combined watershed and temperature effects Only temperature effect Only watershed effect
Large Buoyant Nitrogen fixers (µg Chl a l-1) , Epilimnion Combined watershed and temperature effects Only temperature effect Only watershed effect
Large Filamentous Diatoms (µg Chl a l-1) , Epilimnion Combined watershed and temperature effects Only temperature effect Only watershed effect
Epilimnion Base simulation Future simulation (ECHAM A1B +65yr)
Conclusions • Climate may affect phytoplankton, either via in-lake changes in temperature and stratification, or due to altered processes at the catchment level, such as precipitation and temperature driven rates of nutrient export and water discharge. • This study demonstrates that in Cannonsville Reservoir, there is only a slight projected increase in total phytoplankton biomass. • Cyanobacteria biomass projected increase is largely attributable to changes in timing of nutrient export from the catchment. • Diatom biomass stay unchanged in the future scenarios except for a pronounced increase in spring attributed to both temperature- and watershed effects.