Cited by 19Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsMarine and coastal ecosystemsSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

Changes in Deposition of Phytoplankton Constituents in a Ca2+Polluted Lake

Effler, Steven W., Brooks, Carol M. Matthews, Driscoll, Charles T.·2001·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Systematic reductions in the deposition rate of organic C, N, P, and chlorophyll (Chl) are documented for Ca2+ polluted, culturally eutrophic, Onondaga Lake, NY, based on analyses of weekly sediment trap collections over the May-October interval for 10 years of the 1980-1992 period. Inputs of both nutrient-rich domestic waste and industrial salt waste (including Ca2+) decreased over this period. Constituent ratios of the collected sediment indicate phytoplankton biomass was the dominant source of the deposited organic C, N, and Chl. Substantial decreases in downward fluxes of these constituents occurred starting in 1987: 37, 42, 25, and 54%, on average, for organic C, N, P, and Chl, respectively. These reductions were driven primarily by the decreases in the lake's salinity and Ca2+ concentration, that resulted from the closure of a soda ash manufacturing facility (1986), rather than decreases in water column P concentrations from reductions in domestic waste loading. Three different mechanisms for the decreased deposition, related to the reductions in salinity and Ca2+ concentration, are considered: (i) decrease in coating of phytoplankton with CaCO3 precipitate, (ii) increased grazing of phytoplankton by large cladocerans, and (iii) decreases in coagulation of phytoplankton. The greater loss of phytoplankton biomass through deposition, driven by salt waste inputs from the industry, exacerbated the lake's problem of high primary production. This response is consistent with e…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es001677p

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Effler, S. W., Brooks, C. M. M., & Driscoll, C. T.
Affiliations
  • Upstate Freshwater Institute (US)
  • Syracuse University (US)
Corresponding author
Effler, Steven W.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2001-06-23
Volume
35
Issue
15
Pages
3082-3088
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1990431340
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and coastal ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
Onondaga Lake, sediment traps, organic carbon flux, nutrient fluxes, salinity reduction, calcium carbonate precipitation, eutrophic lakes, primary production
MeSH terms
Animals, Calcium, Carbon, Chlorophyll, Crustacea, Environmental Monitoring, Eutrophication, Industry, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Phytoplankton, Population Dynamics, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Pollutants, Biomass, Geologic Sediments, Food Chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review