Cited by 38Marine and coastal ecosystemsAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes

Phytoplankton and nutrient dynamics in a tidally dominated eutrophic estuary: daily variability and controls on bloom formation.

Open access
Morse, RE, Mulholland, MR, Egerton, TA, Marshall, HG·2014·Marine Ecology Progress Series

Abstract

To better understand nutrient dynamics and factors that promote the initiation of algal blooms, the Lafayette River, a tidal subestuary of Chesapeake Bay that experiences seasonal algal blooms, was sampled daily for a period of 54 d in the fall of 2005. Three phytoplankton blooms (chl a concentrations exceeding twice the average of monthly measurements from 2000 to 2009) occurred during this period: a mixed bloom of Akashiwo sanguinea and Gymnodinium sp., a monospecific Skeletonema costatum bloom, and a monospecific Gymnodinium sp. bloom. Over the sampling period, nutrient concentrations increased following precipitation events and were elevated between bloom periods but low during blooms. All measured forms of nitrogen (N) were positively correlated with dinoflagellate abundance with a lag time of 3 to 5 d, suggesting a possible triggering effect, although not by any single form of N. Concentrations of NO2--reached 10 µM between September and October, indicative of incomplete nitrification. Over a 24 h period, nutrient concentrations and chl a biomass varied by an order of magnitude (0.1 to 1 µM N and 4.5 to 45 µg chl a l-1, respectively) and were strongly linked to the tidal phase. In the highly eutrophic Lafayette River, when nutrient concentrations are high, phytoplankton blooms appear to be controlled by spring-neap tidal modulation and wind-driven mixing; however, picoplankton abundance does not appear to be linked to the spring-neap tidal cycle.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/meps10743

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morse, R., Mulholland, M., Egerton, T., & Marshall, H.
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Published
2014-04-29
Volume
503
Pages
59-74
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
OpenAlex
W2106009277
Cited by
38
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series (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 › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Keywords
phytoplankton blooms, nutrient dynamics, eutrophic estuary, tidal modulation, spring-neap cycle, wind-driven mixing, Akashiwo sanguinea, Gymnodinium, Skeletonema costatum, dinoflagellates, nitrogen forms, picoplankton, daily variability

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