Fatimah Md Yusoff & Nursuhayati Abu Seman

Institute of Bioscience/Dept. of Aquaculture

Universiti Putra Malaysia

National Seminar `Ecosystem Management of

Lakes and Wetlands’

5th – 6th February 2013

Contents Introduction

Phytoplankton

Lake ecosystem

Characteristics & types of trophic indicator

Putrajaya phytoplankton

Management implications

Conclusions

Phytoplankton - Microalgae

Gobally ~ 40,000 species, of which ~

25,000 are freshwater

Total organic carbon produced through

their photosynthesis is ~ 7x that of

higher plants.

the nitrogen-fixing algae (blue-greens)

can fix about 170,000,000 tonnes N/yr.

Botryococcus blooms

• Minute size; 0.2-2µm (picoplankton) to

2-20µm (nanoplankton) to microplankon (>50µm).

• Main algae include: Cyanobacteria (blue-green),

Chlorophyta (green), Bacillariophyta (diatoms), Pyrrophyta

(dinoflagellates), Chrysophyta,Cryptophyta & Euglenophyta.

Why is phytoplankton important? Produces oxygen – needs of aquatic

life

Algae are the basis of most aquatic

food webs

• Algae help to ‘purify’ water by absorbing nutrients & heavy metals

• Aquaculture – live feed

• Industries - foods, nutraceuticals,

pharmaceuticals, biofuels.

Algae can be valuable indicators of environmental quality:

Sensitive to changes in pH, nutrient or temperature.

Monitor species composition & density - identify

changes in water quality.

Trophic State of Lakes

Oligotrophic

Unproductive lakes, low N & P); low poductivity; very

clear waters, high hypolimnetic O2, high species diversity.

Mesotrophic

Intermediate level of productivity; clear water lakes with

submerged aquatic plants & medium levels of nutrients.

Eutrophic

Productive with high nutrient supply, high productivity;

Algae blooms – fish kills

Hypereutrophic

very nutrient-rich and productive lakes (eg. >100 ug

P/L) – severe algal blooms; low transparency.(< 1m)

Trophic class Chl a P SD Trophic

index

Oligotrophic 0-2.6 0-12 >4 <30—40

Mesotrophic 2.6-20 12-24 2 - 4 40—50

Eutrophic 20-56 24-96 0.5 - 2 50—70

Hypereutrophic 56-155+ 96-

384+

<0.25 -

0.5+ 70—100+

Lake Trophic State Classification

Table 1: Relationships between chlorophyll (Chl µg L-1), phosphorus (P µg L-1),

Secchi depth (SD, m) and trophic class (Carlson & Simpson 1996)

Eutrophication Ecosystem response to the addition of nutrients,

especially such as N & P.

Can be natural or artificial (cultural eutrophication)

Natural – natural nutrient deposition – slow

Artificial – anthrophogenic – fast & persistent organic pollution

Nuisance phytoplankton blooms

Sources of Eutrophy

NO3

PO4

NH3

Organic P

Organic N Partially treated sewage

Domestic & commercial Centres

Industrial areas

Farms (fertilisers,

wastes)

Oligotrophic lake Eutrophic lake

Anthropogenic activities

Consequences of eutrophication Increased growth/blooms of nuisance microalgae

some algal species excrete large amt mucilage – foams

toxins - HABs

Decrease of dissolved oxygen – anoxic condition

Increased of toxic compounds – ammonia, nitrite, sulphide,

Water quality deterioration – affect potable water

Decrease of aesthetic value – affect tourism

Fish kill – high mortality

Decrease biodiversity - disappearance of commercially important

species

Indicators of Trophic Status

Water Dominant Algae Other common

algae

Oligotrophic Slightly acidic Desmids,

Staurodesmus,

Diatoms:

Rhizosolenia,

Tabellaria

Oligotrophic

Neutral to

slightly

alkaline;

nutrient poor

Diatoms: Cyclotella*,

Tabellaria;

Chrysophytes,

Diatoms;

Dinobryon;

Cryptophytes

Oligotrophic

Neutral to

slightly

alkaline;

productive at

certain

seasons

Chrysophytes:

Dinobryon*,

Mallomonas

Diatoms

* Common in Putrajaya waters Dinobryon

Cyclotella ocellata

3 – 5 u diameter

Indicators of Trophic Status

Water Dominant Algae Other common

algae

Mesotrophic Neutral to

slightly

alkaline

Dinoflagellates Mixed

Mesotrophic

Neutral to

slightly acidic

Putrajaya lake –

Green algae,

Scenedesmus,

Staurastrum

Putrajaya lake,

Scenedesmus

Eutrophic

Usually

alkaline,

enriched

tropical lakes

Blue-green algae:

Oscillatoria,

Anabaena

Euglenophytes if

organically

polluted

# of phytoplankton genera and species in

Putrajaya lake and wetland (Oct 2006 – Dec 2012)

Phytoplankton groups No. genera

detected

No. species

detected

Chlorophyta (Green algae) 43 108

Bacillariophyta (Diatoms) 24 41

Euglenophyta (Euglenoids) 6 18

Cyanobacteria (Blue-green

algae)

9 15

Pyrrhophyta (Dinoflagellates) 2 7

Chrysophyta (Chrysophytes) 2 3

Cryptophyta (Cryptophytes) 1 2

Total 87 194

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan

.07

Feb

.07

Ma

r.07

Ap

r.07

Ma

y.0

7Ju

ne

.07

July

.07

Au

g.0

7Se

pt.

07

Oc

t.07

No

v.0

7D

ec

.07

Jan

.08

Feb

.08

Ma

r.08

Ap

r.08

Ma

y.0

8Ju

ne

.08

July

.08

Au

g.0

8Se

pt.

08

Jan

.09

Feb

.09

Ma

r.09

Ap

r.09

Ma

y.0

9Ju

ne

.09

July

.09

Au

g.0

9Se

pt.

09

Oc

t.09

No

v.0

9D

ec

.09

Jan

.10

Feb

.10

Ma

r.10

Ap

r.10

Ma

y.1

0Ju

ne

.10

July

.10

Au

g.1

0Se

pt.

10

Oc

t.10

No

v.1

0D

ec

.10

Ma

r.11

Jun

e.1

1Se

pt.

11

De

c.1

1M

ar.

12

Jun

e.1

2O

ct.

12

De

c.1

2

Sampling Months

No

. o

f Sp

ec

ies

(To

tal)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No

. o

f sp

ec

ies

(We

tla

nd

vs

Lak

e)

Total Wetland Lake

# Phytoplankton species number wetland vs lake from Jan 2007 – Dec. 2012.

In 2007 – 2010: wetland has lower species #

2010-2011: higher no. than the lake

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Oc

t. 0

6N

ov

. 0

6D

ec

. 0

6Ja

n. 0

7Fe

b. 0

7M

ar.

07

Ap

r. 0

7M

ay 0

7Ju

ne

. 0

7Ju

ly. 0

7A

ug

. 0

7Se

pt.

07

Oc

t. 0

7N

ov

. 0

7D

ec

. 0

7Ja

n. 0

8Fe

b. 0

8M

ar.

08

Ap

r.0

8M

ay 0

8Ju

ne

.08

Ju

ly.0

8A

ug

.08

Se

pt.

08

Ja

n.0

9Fe

b.0

9M

ar.

09

Ap

r.0

9M

ay 0

9Ju

ne

.09

Ju

ly.0

9A

ug

.09

Se

pt.

09

Oc

t.0

9N

ov

.09

De

c.0

9Ja

n.1

0Fe

b.1

0M

ar.

10

Ap

r.1

0M

ay.1

0Ju

ne

.10

Ju

ly.1

0A

ug

.10

Se

pt.

10

Oc

t.1

0N

ov

.10

De

c.1

0M

ar.

11

Ju

ne

.11

Se

pt.

11

De

c.1

1M

ar.

12

Ju

ne

.12

Oc

t.1

2

De

c.1

2

Sampling Months

H' a

nd

H' m

ax

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

J'

H’ H’ max J'

Shannon-Weiner’s diversity indices (H’, H’ max and J’)

BGA dominance in June 2012

Phytoplankton Density Trend in Putrajaya

Wetland & Lake

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500Ja

n.0

7Fe

b.0

7M

ar.

07

Ap

r.07

Ma

y.0

7Ju

n.0

7Ju

l.07

Au

g.0

7Se

pt.

07

Oc

t.07

No

v.0

7D

ec

.07

Jan

.08

Feb

.08

Ma

r.08

Ap

r.08

Ma

y.0

8Ju

n.0

8Ju

l.08

Au

g.0

8Se

pt.

08

Jan

.09

Feb

.09

Ma

r.09

Ap

r.09

Ma

y.0

9Ju

n.0

9Ju

l.09

Au

g.0

9Se

pt.

09

Oc

t.09

No

v.0

9D

ec

.09

Jan

.10

Feb

.10

Ma

r.10

Ap

r.10

Ma

y.1

0Ju

n.1

0Ju

l.10

Au

g.1

0Se

pt.

10

Oc

t.10

No

v.1

0D

ec

.10

Ma

r.11

Jun

.11

Se

pt.

11

De

c.1

1M

ar.

12

Jun

.12

Oc

t.12

De

c.1

2

Sampling Stations

Tota

l M

ea

n D

en

sity

(c

ells

/ml)

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0

Me

an

De

nsi

ty W

etla

nd

vs

Lak

e (

ce

lls/m

l)

All stations Wetland Lake

Lake always has higher density compared to the wetland

Phytoplankton density in the lake flcutuated drastically, sometime

with peaks close to eutrophic values

Phytoplankton densities at PLg2 2006 - 2012 PLg22,548.013,168.0

2,173.7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500O

ct.

06

No

v.0

6D

ec

.06

Ja

n.0

7Fe

b.0

7M

ar.

07

Ap

r.07

Ma

y 0

7Ju

ne

.07

Ju

ly.0

7A

ug

.07

Se

pt.

07

Oc

t.07

No

v.0

7D

ec

.07

Ja

n.0

8Fe

b.0

8M

ar.

08

Ap

r.08

Ma

y 0

8Ju

ne

.08

Ju

ly.0

8A

ug

.08

Se

pt.

08

Ja

n.0

9Fe

b.0

9M

ar.

09

Ap

r.09

Ma

y 0

9Ju

ne

.09

Ju

ly.0

9A

ug

.09

Se

pt.

09

Oc

t.09

No

v.0

9D

ec

.09

Ja

n.1

0Fe

b.1

0M

ar.

10

Ap

r.10

Ma

y.1

0Ju

ne

.10

Ju

ly.1

0A

ug

.10

Se

pt.

10

Oc

t.10

No

v.1

0D

ec

.10

Ma

r.11

Ju

ne

.11

Se

pt.

11

De

c.1

1M

ar.

12

Ju

ne

.12

Oc

t.12

De

c.1

2

Sampling Months

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/

ml)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta PyrrophytaChrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

3197.6

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0Ja

n.0

7Fe

b.0

7M

ar.

07

Ap

r.07

Ma

y 0

7Ju

ne

.07

July

.07

Au

g.0

7Se

pt.

07

Oc

t.07

No

v.0

7D

ec

.07

Jan

.08

Feb

.08

Ma

r.08

Ap

r.08

Ma

y 0

8Ju

ne

.08

July

.08

Au

g.0

8Se

pt.

o8

Jan

.09

Feb

.09

Ma

r.09

Ap

r.09

Ma

y 0

9Ju

ne

.09

July

.09

Au

g.0

9Se

pt.

09

Oc

t.09

No

v.0

9D

ec

.09

Jan

.10

Feb

.10

Ma

r.10

Ap

r.10

Ma

y.1

0Ju

ne

.10

July

.10

Au

g.1

0Se

pt.

10

Oc

t.10

No

v.1

0D

ec

.10

Ma

r.11

Jun

e.1

1Se

pt.

11

De

c.1

1M

ar.

12

Jun

e.1

2O

ct.

12

De

c.1

2

Sampling Months

Me

an

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/m

l)

Diatoms Green algae Blue-green algae Dinoflagellates

Chrysophytes Cryptophytes Euglenoids

• L (Low): < 100 cells/ml: Oligotrophic

• C (Comparable): 100 – 1,000 cells/ml – Oligo-mesotrophic

• H (high): > 1,000 cells/ml - mesotrophic

• E (eutrophic): >10,000 cells/ml (mainly blue-green algae)

Abundance of different phytoplankton

groups: 2007 - 2012

BGA Peak

Phytoplankton groups % in Putrajaya Lake and

Wetland 2007 - 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

.07

Feb

.07

Ma

r.07

Ap

r.07

Ma

y 0

7Ju

ne

.07

July

.07

Au

g.0

7Se

pt.

07

Oc

t.07

No

v.0

7D

ec

.07

Jan

.08

Feb

.08

Ma

r.08

Ap

r.08

Ma

y 0

8Ju

ne

.08

July

.08

Au

g.0

8Se

pt.

08

Jan

.09

Feb

.09

Ma

r.09

Ap

r.09

Ma

y 0

9Ju

ne

.09

July

.09

Au

g.0

9Se

pt.

09

Oc

t.09

No

v.0

9D

ec

.09

Jan

.10

Feb

.10

Ma

r.10

Ap

r.10

Ma

y.1

0Ju

ne

.10

July

.10

Au

g.1

0Se

pt.

10

Oc

t.10

No

v.1

0D

ec

.10

Ma

r.11

Jun

e.1

1Se

pt.

11

De

c.1

1M

ar.

12

Jun

e.1

2O

ct.

12

De

c.1

2

Sampling Months

Ph

yto

pla

nk

ton

po

pu

latio

n (

%)

Diatoms Green algae Blue-green algae DinoflagellatesChrysophytes Cryptophytes Euglenoids

2195.0

cells/mL

2060.0

cells/mL

0

100

200

300

400

500

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

Sampling Station

Ph

yto

pla

nkto

n D

en

sity

(ce

lls/m

L)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta PyrrhophytaChrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

Phytoplankton abundance at diff. stations

Higher abundance in the lake stations

117.0 232.0 225.5 170.0 430.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

Sampling Station

Den

sity

(ce

lls/

mL

)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta PyrrhophytaChrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

2007 2008

144.0100.070.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

Sampling Station

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/m

l)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta Pyrrhophyta

Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/m

l)

Sampling Station

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta Pyrrhophyta

Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

2010

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

Sampling Stations

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/m

l)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta Pyrrophyta

Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

Phytoplankton abundance at diff. stations

Increasing abundance

of blue-greens &

euglenoids in 2012

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

Sampling Station

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/m

l)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta Pyrrhophyta

Chrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

2011

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

UE1 UW1 LE1 CW PLb1 PLc2 PLe1 PLd2 PLf5 PLg2

Sampling Stations

De

nsi

ty (

ce

lls/m

l)

Bacillariophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta PyrrophytaChrysophyta Cryptophyta Euglenophyta

Dec. 2012

June 2012

Dominance of BGA

We

tla

nd

4

We

tla

nd

2

La

ke

5

La

ke

6

La

ke

4

La

ke

1

La

ke

3

We

tla

nd

3

We

tla

nd

1

La

ke

2

Stations

100

95

90

85

80

75

Sim

ila

rity

Transform: Log(X+1)

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

(a)

2007

La

ke

3

La

ke

4

La

ke

5

La

ke

6

We

tla

nd

1

We

tla

nd

3

La

ke

1

La

ke

2

We

tla

nd

2

We

tla

nd

4

Stations

100

90

80

70

60

Sim

ila

rity

Transform: Log(X+1)

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

(b)

2008

La

ke

1

La

ke

2

La

ke

3

La

ke

5

La

ke

4

La

ke

6

We

tla

nd

1

We

tla

nd

3

We

tla

nd

2

We

tla

nd

4

Stations

100

90

80

70

60

Sim

ila

rity

Transform: Log(X+1)

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

(c)

2009

Lake Wetland

Dendrograms of

different stations based

on phytoplankton

density

Cluster Analysis of Phytoplankton Abundance

La

ke

1

La

ke

2

La

ke

3

La

ke

5

La

ke

4

La

ke

6

We

tla

nd

3

We

tla

nd

1

We

tla

nd

2

We

tla

nd

4

Stations

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

Sim

ila

rity

Transform: Log(X+1)

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

(d)

2010

La

ke

3

La

ke

5

La

ke

4

La

ke

6

La

ke

1

La

ke

2

We

tla

nd

3

We

tla

nd

2

We

tla

nd

1

We

tla

nd

4

Stations

100

95

90

85

Sim

ila

rity

Transform: Log(X+1)

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

(e)

2011

La

ke

4

La

ke

6

La

ke

5

La

ke

2

La

ke

1

La

ke

3

We

tla

nd

1

We

tla

nd

2

We

tla

nd

3

We

tla

nd

4

Stations

100

95

90

85

80

Sim

ila

rity

Transform: Log(X+1)

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

(f)

2012

Lake Wetland

Lake Lake

Wetland

Wetland

Cluster Analysis of Phytoplankton Abundance

Trophic : Oligotrophic ...............mesotrophic………….eutrophic

Phytoplankton as indicator of trophic status in Putrajaya

Lake & Wetlands

Nutrient: Deficient….................adequate……………………high

Clarity: clear………………………………………..………..turbid

Diatoms: Cyclotella……………Melosira…………………..…….

………………………Fragilaria………………..

Chlorophyta:………Scenedesmus, Staurastrum……………..

Cyanobacteria: .……Merismopedia………Anabaena, Microsystis

Dinoflagellates:…… Peridinium, Ceratium………………………

Chrysophytes: Dinobryon, Mallomonas…………………………

Cryptophytes:..............Cryptomonas.........................................

Euglenoids: ………………………………….…………. Euglena

…………………………………...........................Phacus

Increasing density of green algae, cells/ml

Phytoplankton species composition shifts with changing

water quality:

Clean water species: Diatoms, chrysophytes

Eutrophic species: Blue-green algae, euglenoids

Phytoplankton density responses to changes in nutrients:

< 1000 cells; oligo-mesotrophic

> 10,000 cells/ml: eutrophic

Phytoplankton & Management

Phytoplankton & Management

Euglenoid blooms - Indicator

of organic pollution

UN 6

Threats of eutrophication:

Nutrients from the upstream of the

wetlands & the area surrounding the

lake.

Phytoplankton community

responses by shifts in species

composition & abundance of

indicator species

Wetland area was less affected

due to filtering effects by the

macrophytes:

More oligotrophic indicator species

lower phytoplankton densities than the lake

Less drastic density fluctuations

Conclusions

• 194 species of phytoplankton from 87 genera

• The no. of species underwent drastic fluctuations in the early

years, but seemed to stabilize in 2009-2010.

• Drastic fluctuations in 2011 & 2012 could be due to long

sampling intervals

• Species diversity decreased in 2012 due to dominance of

blue-green algae – eutrophication indicator.

• In the wetland – more oligotrophic species

• In the lake – more mesotrophic species

• In 2012 – lake area was dominated by eutrophic species

• In 2012 - Euglenoid was domant in the upper wetland area.

• Phytoplankton density increased over the years, especially in

the lake area:

– Density in wetland area is in the oligotrophic level

– In the lake – mesotrophic level: > 1000 cells/ml

Conclusions

Ecosystem is slowly changing towards mesotrophic and eutrophic

Effective management of nutrient loadings

Surrounding land area: housing, commercial centre

Headwaters: UPM, MARDI, Agriculture lands, Golf course, Hospital, Hotels

Artificial wetland is very effectively in reducing pollution from the headwaters

Wetland belt around the lake perimeter

Application of in-lake ecotechnology

Increase oxygen level at sediment-water interphase

Nutrient sequestration

Eutrophic Mesotrophy Hyper-eutrohic Oligotrophy

Euglena blooms

Yes ?

? ?

Blue-green algae blooms

Putrajaya Lake