Cited by 131Marine and coastal ecosystemsAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsMarine Biology and Ecology Research

A review of phytoplankton composition within Chesapeake Bay and its tidal estuaries

Marshall, Harold G., Burchardt, Lubomira, Lacouture, Richard·2005·Journal of Plankton Research

Abstract

Based on a continuous 20-year data base of monthly sampling in Chesapeake Bay and tidal regions of its major tributaries, 1454 phytoplankton taxa have been identified in these waters. They represent a diverse assemblage of species with a dominant diatom flora throughout the year, in addition to large seasonal representation by chlorophytes, cyanobacteria, cryptophytes and dinoflagellates. Included among this flora were 34 potential harmful or toxin producing species. The phytoplankton compositions associated with the seasonal successional patterns are discussed, in addition to characterizing the dominant floral relationships, with comparison to early composition records within the Bay. Several of the present day most common taxa were similar to those reported in sediment cores from the Bay dating to periods prior to European settlement. Comparison with collections made ∼8 decades ago (1916–1922) within Chesapeake Bay indicated several of the same dominant flora remain dominant today; however, their cell concentrations are now significantly greater along with an increased diversity of species compared with these earlier studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/plankt/fbi079

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Since the 1990s there has been an increase in M. polykrikoides bloom occurrence and intensity throughout Virginia waters with a geographic expansion from the York River primarily southwards to the James River and to a lesser degree northwards to the Rappahannock River.

    “Since the 1990s there has been an increase in bloom occurrence and intensity throughout Virginia waters (Marshall, 1996;Marshall et al., 2005) with a geographic expansion of the blooms from the York River, primarily southwards to the James River (Marshall and Egerton, 2009a), and to a lesser degree northwards to the Rappahannock River (Marshall and Egerton, 2009b).”
  • Since the mid-2000s there has been an increase in Karlodinium veneficum bloom occurrence and intensity.

    “Since the mid-2000s there has been an increase in bloom occurrence and intensity, though fish kills remain sporadic”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marshall, H. G., Burchardt, L., & Lacouture, R.
Affiliations
Old Dominion University (US)
Corresponding author
Marshall, Harold G.
Venue
Journal of Plankton Research
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1083-1102
ISSN
  • 0142-7873 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3774
OpenAlex
W2128592659
Cited by
131
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Plankton Research (publishedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and coastal ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Biology and Ecology Research
Keywords
phytoplankton community structure, Chesapeake Bay, tidal estuary, diatoms, Chlorophyta, cyanobacteria, cryptophytes, dinoflagellates, harmful algae, seasonal succession, long-term trends, pre-European settlement, plankton diversity

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