Estuarine and catchment disturbance indicators and the response of the zooplankton biomass size frequency distribution

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Estuarine and catchment disturbance indicators and the response of the zooplankton biomass size frequency distribution"

Mabel Fleming
6 years ago
Views:

1 Estuarine and catchment disturbance indicators and the response of the zooplankton biomass size frequency distribution ICES/PICES 6ZPS 2016/W1 Iain Suthers, Emma Tang, Jason D. Everett, Jocelyn Dela Cruz and Darren Ryder Wednesday 11 May 2016, Bergen

2 UNSW Sydney Institute of Marine Science Equal partnership of 4 universities

Zooplankton biomass size 4.0 frequency distribution Log10 Normalised Biomass m -3 ~nauplii ~copepods ~krill 0.0-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.1 mg, 0.6 mm esd 3.0 2.0 1.0 Log10 biomass size bins (mg) 1.

3 Zooplankton biomass size 4.0 frequency distribution Log10 Normalised Biomass m -3 ~nauplii ~copepods ~krill mg, 0.6 mm esd Log10 biomass size bins (mg) 1.0 mg, 1.2 mm esd Coral Sea Great Barrier Reef1 Great Barrier Reef2 GBR-Lagoon Coral Sea (Suthers et al. 2004, L&O 2006, MEPS) 10 mg 3 mm esd Lagoon, unpubl The OPC -2.0 GBR Reefs, unpubl. -3.0

4 Dynamic! Entrainment from the inner shelf; The bump composed of juvenile krill E. similis And small salps T. democratica And many larval fish Mullaney & Suthers 2013, L&O Everett et al. 2011, JGR

5 Moore & Suthers 2006 JGR -1 slope NB In situ-opc suffered high co-incidence of diatoms <<100 µm (very flat slopes) Solution? We rinsed over 100 µm sieve and laboratory-opc Slopes -1.5 to -2.7!!

6 Estuary disturbance indices for SE Australia??

7 Estuary disturbance indices for SE Australia Over 50 indices! Chl-a, turbidity, %change in seagrass-mangroves, fish community, % clearing, population/km2, etc Disturbance Index DI = Total N flow / estimated historical TN (Roper et al. 2011) i.e. 1x historical? Double? Triple? (5 is bad) But a DI is static! Estuaries are dynamic, rainfall, seasonal Kuprika et al. (2012) Geometric Mean Size, Pareto intercept and slope, Continental Shelf Res. 36: 29-40

8 Ecosystem trophic level Ecosystem indicators 4 Zooplankton Fish community 3 Oysters? 2 1 Chl-a Periphyton & Epiphytes Seagrasses; Mangoves 0 Macronutrients N, P, Si Minutes Hours Days Weeks Months Years Time

9 Aims Comparison of NBSS between 2 estuaries Slope (linearity?) Weighted average size? Quantitative indices of water quality? Problems in estuaries detritus, seasonality Opportunities in estuaries citizen science

10 Method

11 Problem - detritus, faecal pellets Solution? mostly carbon; ~10% threshold WT110 = Watsons Taylor1 in October 2011

12 CH110 CH110-2 HR103 HR103 Each size category includes omnivores, but also vastly different rates

13 Log10 NB (m -3 ) Monthly changes in the Camden Haven River Jan12 Mar11 Apr11 May11 Jun11 Jul11 Aug11 Sept11 Oct11 Nov Log10 biomass size bin (mg) -1.0

14 -2; (0.01 mg 0.27 mm) Summer, 2 sites each Log10 normalised biomass concentration (m -3 )2.5 Log10 biomass size bin (mg) 0-1; (0.1 mg 0.58 mm) ; (1.0 mg 1.24 mm) Key points: Normalised biomass Log10 biomass (mg) Narrow size range mm ESD mg :. mostly linear (else Pareto) -1 slope

Log10 normalised biomass concentration (m -3 ) -0.5 pristine Camden Haven?? versus rural Hastings River (in summer): 2.5 2 1.

15 Log10 normalised biomass concentration (m -3 ) -0.5 pristine Camden Haven?? versus rural Hastings River (in summer): Stratified, anoxic bottom later 1-1 slope 0.5-2; (0.01 mg 0.27 mm) Log10 biomass size bin (mg) 0-1; (0.1 mg 0.58 mm) 0; (1.0 mg 1.24 mm)

16 Proposed indices of size spectra Slope = assimilation of nutrients Predation (Zhou & Huntley) Steeper slope, better water quality [Chlorophyll-a] : small biomass ratio Small ratio = good; Big ratio =eutrophic Or ~Geometric Mean Size? Big bugs = good; small bugs = less good

17 Hastings R. Camden Haven R.

18 Chl-a to small zooplankton ratio ouncil requested dynamic traffic light 10.0 CH-O v. poor HR-N poor CW-N HR-O HR-M fair CH-N CH-M 1.0 LI-M good QL-N HR-J LI-O WR-M WT-M QL-O MR-O WT-N CW-O v. good QL-M MR-N LI-N GL-N MR-M CH-J MR-J GL-O WR-J QL-J

19 Khappinghat (Lagoon, 1.3) Wallamba (R, 1.5) Myall Study sites Narrabeen Lake Manly Lagoon Durras Lake Clyde River Tuross River Wonboyn River 100 km

20 Slope Wonboyn p = 0.1 r 2 = Myall Narrabeen Clyde Durras Khappinghat Tuross Wallamba Illawarra Manly Rivers Lakes Lagoons Disturbance ranking

21 WAVGSIZE (mm) WAVGSIZE (mm) R= Disturbance index (=present TN load/ historical TN load) R=

22 Log10 Normalised Biomass m NSW estuaries -3-2 ~nauplii mg, 0.6 mm esd Coral Sea Suthers et al. 2004, 2006 Great Barrier Reef-1,2 ~copepods mg, 1.2 mm esd Bay of Fundy (unpubl) Salps+krill Frontal eddy Log10 biomass size bins (mg) East Australian Current Mullaney &Suthers 2013 GBR lagoon 1, 10 mg 3 mm esd ~krill 2 Estuaries? The planktonic size-based ecosystem! Summarised by the size frequency distribution speculate on production, predation See Jason Everett s poster

23 Conclusion & discussion points: In situ counters vs. net samples Coincidence from << 100 um particles Nets are better for estuarine samples Detritus and arbitrary <10% threshold? Difficulty of perfect flow meter data? Slope is independent of volume filtered Also Geometric Mean Size (GMS) Slope (assimilation, predation) and GMS, (small-biomass:chl-a ratio?) as useful indices

25 NBSSSLOPE 0 R= Disturbance index

30 Rivers, Lakes, Lagoon Geomorphology of estuaries (Roy et al. 2001) Wonboyn River Rivers frequently flushed (Roper et al. 2011) Lakes high dilution but less tide Lagoons smaller, shallower and lower dilution Narrabeen Lake Manly Lagoon

31 Estimated Normalised Biomass at 1.5 Estimated Normalised Biomass at High nutrients High production QL-J High nutrients Low production 2 1 Low nutrients Low nutrients High production CH-O Low production NBSS- slope 3 QL-M LI-M MR-N HR-N GL-N LI-N HR-O HR-M QL-N CW-N CH-N CH-J CH-M MR-J GL-O WR-M WT-M HR-J LI-O MR-M MR-O QL-O WR-J WT-N CW-O QL-J 2 QL-M GL-N CH-J WR-J GL-O MR-J LI-M WR-M WT-M CH-N CH-M 1 LI-NMR-N WT-N MR-O LI-O QL-N MR-M CW-O CW-N HR-J HR-M HR-O HR-N QL-O 0 CH-O Chlorophyll concentration

32 rank Score Chl : sm slope v good 5 <0.5 >1.75 good to to 1.75 fair to 3 1 to 1.25 poor 2 3 to to 1 v. poor 1 >5 <0.75 rank Range v good >4.2 to 5 good > fair > poor >1.8 to 2.6 v. poor <=1.8 Change this to GMS and slopes

33 Sample Locations & Variables 100µm net with 0.4m diameter towed for five minutes at 1m/s Traditional measurements Hastings Port Macquarie Camden Haven Temperature Salinity Turbidity Total Suspended Solids Chlorophyll-α Two replicates per site Sampling dates 27, 28 October , 12 November , 5 March , 19 March 2015 Additional data collected: Catchment Land Use (GIS) Streamflow recordings

35 Wilsons River Maria River Hastings River Lake Innes Lake Cathie FTB1 Queens Lake Tasman Sea FTB1 Camden Haven R Googles L Watsons Taylor

37 Cato Reef UML Derwent -all Myrmidon R-all Helix Reef - all Lagoon Suthers et al. 2006, MEPS Suthers et al. 2004, L&O

Plankton surveys Bay of Fundy: 95 103 105 First week of November 5 4 34 27 68 79 56 67 57 69 65 78 71 81 63 77 73 82 76 87 74 83 75 86 84 85 30 23 12 29 22 24 13 28 21 25 14 20 15 11 26 19 10 16 5 18

40 Plankton surveys Bay of Fundy: First week of November Bongo, 0.5 mm,~500 m 3 Zooplankton Atlantic Refr. Collection beautifully archived + 14 taxa abund. categ. 0, <10, <100, <1000, >1000 OPC 8 core stations x 27 years,

41 no. bugs per 100 m3 BoF-bugs5.xls, avg-data Comparison of 333 and 505 µm mesh Average with 333 um mesh ('72-74, '79-80) Average with 505 um mesh (all other years) geometic mean ESD (mm)

42 nomralised biomass Bay of Fundy, archive 5.0 (Small copepods) 4.5 Metridia, Centropages Other copepods Calanus y = (size bin) Amphipods, mysids, sm krill, herring, Sagitta slope 1.5 (0.9 mm) (3.3 mm) log10(biomass size bin - g)

43 coefficient of variation (%) Coefficient of Variation Effect of predation: 20 bof-bugs5.xls, avg-data BoF-bugs5.xls log10(mg)

44 nomralised biomass What is the expected biomass of fish? Of mm? 5.0 phytoplankton? 4.5 y = (size bin) slope (0.9 mm) (3.3 mm) log10(biomass size bin - g) mm?

45 Bottom-up forcing? Continuous Plankton Recorder

46 greenness index, PCI Phytoplankton Colour Index PCI is recorded as 0,1,2 and 6.5 Missing data from Is there a bottom-up effect on the biomass size distribution? If so, can we predict the missing years of chlorophyll from the NBSS? Jul-Nov avg

47 Intercept of NBSS Intercept of NBSS (1 mg) y = x R² = more phyto Less phyto CPR phytoplankton colour index (PCI, annual average - July-November)

48 Pseudocalanus spp Temora longicornis Calanus finmarchicus Calanus hyperboreus

49 NB LOG10_BM_ REGION$ Bay of Fundy NSW estuaries Cato Reef -UML Derwent Reef Helix Reef GBR Lagoon Cold Core eddy 06 EAC 06 Myrmidon Reef

51 normalised biomass m-3 LOPC NBSS from 142 to 1402 um esd Dec-12 Feb-13 Apr log10 size category (mg)

54 A bio-mechanical, size resolved model spawning growth 62 size classes 19 orders of magn. Phyto 1-17 Protozoan 9-21 Metazoan Complexity stabilises model Initial conditions? Coupled hydrogr Sensitivity: [DIN], protozoa biomass th th th Baird & Suthers 2007; 2010

57 NBSS-SLOPE 0 R= CHLRA

58 6 Smallest NB on Roper-DI 5 NB ROPERDI

60 BoF Coral Sea TSea04 E.EAC04 S.EAC04 S.Shelf04 N.EAC04 N.Shelf04 E.EAC06 CCeddy06 S.Shelf06 CCeddy08 CCeddy

State of phytoplankton and. zooplankton in the Estuary and northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence during Summary. DFO Science

State of phytoplankton and. zooplankton in the Estuary and northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence during Summary. DFO Science Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science Pêches et Océans Canada Sciences DFO Science Laurentian Region Stock Status Report C4-18 (2) State of phytoplankton and zooplankton in the Estuary and northwestern Gulf