4.3 Article

The effect of a flood pulse on the water column of western Lake Superior, USA

Journal

JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH
Volume 40, Issue 2, Pages 455-462

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2014.03.015

Keywords

Flood; Nutrients; Chlorophyll; Lake Superior; PAR

Funding

  1. NOAA office of Sea Grant
  2. United States Department of Commerce [NA100AR4170069]
  3. EVCAA Office of the University of Minnesota Duluth
  4. U.S. IOOS Office for the development and operation of the Great Lakes Observing System
  5. Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystem Research
  6. Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On June 19 and 20, 2012, western Lake Superior was impacted by a mega-rain event that raised lake levels by 8 to 10 cm. Within the flood plume on June 21, 2012, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations were elevated, with measurements of 87 mg/L, >100 mu g/L, and 5.8 mu g/L, respectively. Despite the initially high phosphorus loadings, little impact was seen on water column particulate chlorophyll content, which remained in the range 0.7-1.9 mu g/L, in the weeks to months following the flood. Both total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus levels tracked those of total suspended solids, returning to background levels within two weeks. However, the availability of photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) was impacted for a month after the flood event, due mainly to colored dissolved organic matter that remained in the surface layer of the stratified lake water column. It appears that the mismatch in timing of nutrient and light availability acted as a check on phytoplankton biomass production in the flood-impacted portion of the lake. (C) 2014 International Association for Great Lakes Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available