Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

External nutrient sources, internal nutrient pools, and phytoplankton production in Chesapeake Bay

  • Published:
Estuaries Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

External nutrient loadings, internal nutrient pools, and phytoplankton production were examined for three major subsystems of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary—the upper Mainstem, the Patuxent Estuary, and the 01 Potomac Estuary—during 1985–1989. The atomic nitrogen to phosphorus ratios (TN:TP) of total loads to the 01 Mainstem, Patuxent, and the Potomac were 51, 29 and 35, respectively. Most of these loads entered at the head of the estuaries from riverine sources and major wastewater treatment plants. Approximately 7–16% for the nitrogen load entered the head of each estuary as particulate matter in contrast to 48–69% for phosphorus. This difference is hypothesized to favor a greater loss of phosphorus than nitrogen through sedimentation and burial. This process could be important in driving estuarine nitrogen to phosphorus ratios above those of inputs. Water column TN: TP ratios in the tidal fresh, oligohaline, and mesohaline salinity zones of each estuary ranged from 56 to 82 in the Mainstem, 27 to 48 in the Patuxent, and 72 to 126 in the Potomac. A major storm event in the Potomac watershed was shown to greatly increase the particulate fraction of nitrogen and phosphorus and lower the TN:TP in the river-borne loads. The load during the month that contained this storm (November 1985) accounted for 11% of the nitrogen and 31% of the phosphorus that was delivered to the estuary by the Potomac River during the entire 60-month period examined here. Within the Mainstem estuary, salinity dilution plots revealed strong net sources of ammonium and phosphate in the oligohaline to upper mesohaline region, indicating that these areas were sites of considerable internal recycling of nutrients to surface waters. The sedimentation of particulate nutrient loads in the upper reaches of the estuary is probably a major source of these recycled nutrients. A net sink of nitrate was indicated during summer. A combination of inputs and these internal recycling processes caused dissolved inorganic N to P ratios to approach 16:1 in the mesohaline zone of the Mainstem during late summer; this ratio was much higher at other times and in the lower salinity zones. Phytoplankton biomass in the mesohaline Mainstem reached a peak in spring and was relatively constant throughout the other seasons. Productivity was highest in spring and summer, accounting for approximately 33% and 44%, respectively, of the total annual productivity in this region. In the Patuxent and Potomac, the TN:TP ratios of external loads documented here are 2–4 times higher than those observed over the previous two decades. These changes are attributed to point-source phosphorus controls and the likelihood that nitrogen-rich nonpoint source inputs, including contributions from the atmosphere, have increased. These higher N:P ratios relative to Redfield proportions (16:1) now suggest a greater overall potential for phosphorus-limitation rather than nitrogen-limitation of phytoplankton in the areas studied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Aspilla, I., H. Agemian, andA. S. Y. Chau. 1976. A semiautomated method for the determination of inorganic, organic and total phosphate in sediments.Analyst 101:187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berounsky, V. M. andS. W. Nixon. 1990. Temperature and the annual cycle of nitrification in waters of Narragansett Bay.Limnology and Oceanography 35:1610–1617.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beulac, M. N. andK. H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of land use nutrient export relationships.Water Resources Bulletin 18:1013–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, R. B. 1970. Sources and distribution of suspended sediment in northern Chesapeake Bay.Marine Geology 9:187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton, W. R., J. Garber, W. M. Kemp, J. M. Barnes, Sr.,L. L. Matteson, J. L. Watts, S. Stammerjohn, andF. M. Rohland. 1990. Maryland Department of the Environment Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program, Ecosystem Processes Component, Level I Data Report No. 7. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boynton, W. R. andW. M. Kemp. 1985. Nutrient regeneration and oxygen consumption by sediments along an estuarine salinity gradient.Marine Ecology Progress Series 23:45–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton, W. R., W. M. Kemp, andC. W. Keefe. 1982. A comparative analysis of nutrients and other factors influencing estuarine phytoplankton production, p. 69–88.In V. S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, A., C. C. Sarabun, andD. C. Dubbel. 1985. Estuarine internal wave stability and breaking.EOS 66:1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, G. S. 1989. Rates and patterns of estuarine sediment accumulation.Limnology and Oceanography 34:1235–1246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, T. A., D. L. Caulder, E. J. Gilroy, L. Zynjuk, andR. M. Summers. 1992. The validity of a simple statistical model for estimating fluvial constituent loads: An empirical study involving nurient loads entering Chesapeake Bay.Water Resources Research 28:2353–2363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, W. B. 1971. Volumetric, areal, and tidal statistics of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary and its tributaries. Chesapeake Bay Institute Report 71-2. 135 p.

  • D’Elia, C. F., J. G. Sanders, andW. R. Boynton. 1986. Nutrient enrichment studies in a coastal plain estuary: Phytoplankton growth in large-scale continuous cultures.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:397–406.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Domotor, D. K., M. S. Haire, N. N. Panday, andR. M. Summers. 1989. Patuxent Estuary Water Quality Assessment: Special Emphasis 1983–1987. Technical Report No. 104. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubbel, D. C., A. Brandt, andC. C. Sarabun. 1985. Internal wave activity in the Chesapeake Bay.EOS 66:1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, J. W., S. C. Wofsy, M. B. McElroy, andW. A. Kaplan. 1981. Nitrification and production of N2O in the Potomac: Evidence for variability, p. 447–464.In B. J. Neilson and L. E. Cronin (eds.), Estuaries and Nutrients. Humana Press, Clifton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. C. andM. Oppenheimer. 1991. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and the Chesapeake Bay Estuary.Ambio 20: 102–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., L. W. Harding, D. W. Stanley, andL. G. Ward. 1988. Phytoplankton, nutrients, and turbidity in the Chesapeake, Delaware, and Hudson estuaries.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 27:61–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., E. R. Peele, J. W. Ammerman, andL. W. Harding, Jr. 1992. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay.Marine Ecology Progress Series 82:51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froelich, P. N. 1988. Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and estuaries: A primer on the phosphate buffer mechanism.Limnology and Oceanography 33:649–668.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, E. D., V. Hodge, M. Koide, J. Griffen, E. Gamble, O. P. Bricker, G. Matisoff, G. R. Holdren, Jr., andR. Braun. 1978. A pollution history of Chesapeake Bay.Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 42:1413–1425.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich, D. M., W. C. Boicourt, P. Hamilton, andD. W. Pritchard. 1987. Wind-induced destratification in Chesapeake Bay.Journal of Physical Oceanography 17:2232–2240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, L. W., Jr.,B. W. Meeson, andT. R. Fisher. 1986. Phytoplankton production in two East Coast estuaries: Photosynthesis—Light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware bays.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23:773–806.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heckey, R. E. andP. Kilham. 1988. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton n freshwater and marine environments: A review of recent evidence on the effects of enrichment.Limnology and Oceanogrophy 33:796–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R. W. 1988. Nutrient limitation of net primary production in marine ecosystems.Annual Reviews of Ecology 19:89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, N. A. 1981. Sources of nutrients and the scale of eutrophication problems in estuaries, p. 83–110.In B. J. Neilson and L. E. Cronin (eds.), Estuaries and Nutrients. Humana Press, Clifton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, C. W., W. R. Boynton, andW. M. Kemp. 1981. A review of phytoplankton processes in estuarine environments. University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies. Ref. 81-193. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland. 4p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W. M. andW. R. Boynton. 1984. Spatial and temporal coupling of nutrient inputs to estuarine primary production: The role of particulate transport and decomposition.Bulletin of Marine Science 35:522–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W. M., P. Sampou, J. Caffrey, M. Mayer, K. Henriksen, andW. R. Boynton. 1990. Ammonium recycling versus denitrification in Chesapeake Bay sediments.Limnology and Oceanography 35:1545–1563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D. J. 1982. Water quality of the three major tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers, January 1979–April 1981. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations 82-32. 64 p.

  • Legg, P., D. Flora, D. Domotor, andN. N. Panday. 1990. Maryland point source nutrient loadings to the upper Chesapeake Bay, 1984–1989. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland. 40 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liss, P. S. 1976. Conservative and non-conservative behavior of dissolved constituents during estuarine mixing, p. 93–130.In J. D. Burton and P. S. Liss (eds.), Estuarine Chemistry, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loder, T. andR. Reichard. 1981. The dynamics of conservative mixing in estuaries.Estuaries 4:64–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnien, R. E., D. K. Austin, andB. D. Michael. 1992. Maryland Department of the Environment Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program, Chemical/Physical Properties Component, Level I Data Report (1984–1991). Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland. 89 p. plus appendices.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnien, R. E. andM. S. Haire. 1989. Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring program: An estuarine water quality information system, p. 387–398.In R. C. Ward, J. C. Loftis, and G. B. McBride (eds.), Proceedings, International Systems. Information Series No. 61, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. Fort Collins, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. C., L. H. Crocker, S. E. Pike, andB. W. Wendler. 1988. Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary.Marine Ecology Progress Series 48:235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J., W. R. Taylor, andJ. L. Taft. 1977. Nitrogenous nutrition of the plankton in Chesapeake Bay. 1. Nutrient availability and phytoplankton preference.Limnology and Oceanography 22:996–1011.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1988. Potomac and Anacostia rivers water quality data report, 1982–1986. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1989. Potomac and Anacostia rivers water quality data report, 1987. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1991. Potomac and Anacostia rivers water quality data report, 1988–1989. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. 1990. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, summary compendium document, summaries of science/technology reports, 1–28. Washington, D.C.

  • Newcombe, C. L. andA. G. Lang. 1939. The distribution of phosphates in the Chesapeake Bay.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 81:393–420.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, S. W. 1981. Remineralization and nutrient cycling in coastal marine ecosystems, p. 111–138.In B. J. Neilson and L. E. Cronin (eds.), Estuaries and Nutrients. Humana Press, Clifton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, S. W. 1987. Chesapeake Bay nutrient budgets—A reassessment.Biogeochemistry 4:77–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Officer, C. B., D. R. Lynch, G. H. Setlock, andG. R. Helz. 1984. Recent sedimentation rates in Chesapeake Bay, p. 131–158.In V. S. Kennedy (ed.), The Estuary as a Filter. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, J. R. 1987. Temporal and spatial variability in phytoplankton ammonium and nitrate uptake in the Delaware Estuary.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 24:841–857.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabun, C. C., C. J. Vogt, andA. Brandt. 1985. Internal waves on an estuarine front.EOS 66:1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J. R. 1968. Turbidity maximum of the northern Chesapeake Bay.Science 6:1013–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J. R. andH. H. Carter. 1976. Suspended sediment budget for Chesapeake Bay, p. 48–62.In M. Wiley (ed.), Estuarine Processes, Vol. II. Circulation, Sediments and Transfer of Material in the Estuary. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J. R. andD. W. Pritchard. 1986. Responses of upper Chesapeake Bay to variations in discharge of the Susquehanna River.Estuaries 9:236–249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seitzinger, S. P. 1988. Denitrification in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: Ecological and geochemical significance.Limnology and Oceanography 33:702–724.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, J. H., C. H. Culberson, andT. M. Church. 1982. The chemistry of the Delaware estuary. General considerations.Limnology and Oceanography 27:1015–1028.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, N. S. 1988. Nitrogen cycling between sediment and the shallow-water column in the transition zone of the Potomac River and Estuary.EStuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 26:483–497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smullen, T. J., J. Taft, and J. Macknis. 1982. Nutrient and sediment loads to the tidal Chesapeake Bay system,In E. G. Macalaster, D. A. Barker, and M. Kasper (eds.), Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia.

  • Strickland, J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons. 1972. A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis. Bull. 167,Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 310 p.

  • Stumm, W. andJ. J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft, J. L. andW. R. Taylor. 1976. Phosphorus distribution in the Chesapeake Bay.Chesapeake Science 17:67–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, M. A. 1984. Dye tracing of a subsurface chlorophyll maximum of a red-tide dinoflagellate to surface frontal regions.Marine Biology 78:285–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, M. A. andH. H. Seliger. 1978. Annual subsurface transport of a red tide dinoflagellate to its bottom area: Water circulation patterns and organism distributions in the Chesapeake Bay.Limnology and Oceanography 23:227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. USEPA-600/4-79-020.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 635 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 186 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program: Volume I. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Land Use for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 49 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy Progress Report, Chesapeake Bay Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 79 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zynjur, L. D., R. M. Summers, and T. A. Cohn. In press. Estimation of nutrient and suspended sediment loads entering the Chesapeake Bay from the fall-line of the Susquehanna, Potomac, Patuxent, and Chaptank rivers, 1978–1990. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report. 69 p. plus appendices.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maryland Department of the Environment, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Administration, 2500 Broening Highway, 21224, Baltimore, Maryland

    Robert E. Magnien & Robert M. Summers

  2. Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory, 20612, Benedict, Maryland

    Kevin G. Sellner

Authors
  1. Robert E. Magnien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert M. Summers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin G. Sellner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Magnien, R.E., Summers, R.M. & Sellner, K.G. External nutrient sources, internal nutrient pools, and phytoplankton production in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15, 497–516 (1992). https://doi.org/10.2307/1352393

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1352393

Keywords

Search

Navigation