Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Bases for Numerical Chlorophyll Criteria in Chesapeake Bay

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In coastal ecosystems with long flushing times (weeks to months) relative to phytoplankton growth rates (hours to days), chlorophyll a (chl-a) integrates nutrient loading, making it a pivotal indicator with broad implications for ecosystem function and water-quality management. However, numerical chl-a criteria that capture the linkage between chl-a and ecosystem impairments associated with eutrophication (e.g., hypoxia, water clarity and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, toxic algal blooms) have seldom been developed despite the vulnerability of these ecosystems to anthropogenic nutrient loading. Increases in fertilizer use, animal wastes, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed since World War II have led to increases in nutrient loading and chl-a. We describe the development of numerical chl-a criteria based on long-term research and monitoring of the bay. Baseline chl-a concentrations were derived using statistical models for historical data from the 1960s and 1970s, including terms to account for the effects of climate variability. This approach produced numerical chl-a criteria presented as geometric means and 90th percentile thresholds to be used as goals and compliance limits, respectively. We present scientific bases for these criteria that consider specific ecosystem impairments linked to increased chl-a, including low dissolved oxygen (DO), reduced water clarity, and toxic algal blooms. These multiple lines of evidence support numerical chl-a criteria consisting of seasonal mean chl-a across salinity zones ranging from 1.4 to 15 mg m−3 as restoration goals and corresponding thresholds ranging from 4.3 to 45 mg m−3 as compliance limits. Attainment of these goals and limits for chl-a is a precondition for attaining desired levels of DO, water clarity, and toxic phytoplankton prior to rapid human expansion in the watershed and associated increases of nutrient loading.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acker, J.G., L.W. Harding, G. Leptoukh, T. Zhu, and S. Shen. 2005. Remotely-sensed chl a at the Chesapeake Bay mouth is correlated with annual freshwater flow to Chesapeake Bay. Geophysical Research Letters 32: L05601. doi:10.1029/2004GL021852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adolf, J.E., C.L. Yeager, W.D. Miller, M.E. Mallonee, and L.W. Harding Jr. 2006. Environmental forcing of phytoplankton floral composition, biomass, and primary productivity in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67: 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batiuk, R.A., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, W.C. Dennison, J.C. Stevenson, L.W. Staver, V. Carter, N. Rybicki, R.E. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Bieber and P. Heasly. 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: a technical synthesis. USEPA-CBP 68-WO-0043. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency.

  • Boynton, W.R., J.H. Garber, R. Summers, and W.M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18: 285–314.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks and J. Woerner. 2007. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the Nation’s estuaries: a decade of change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. Silver Spring: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 328 p.

  • Carstensen, J., M. Sanchez-Camacho, C.M. Duarte, D. Krause-Jensen, and N. Marba. 2011. Connecting the dots: responses of coastal ecosystems to changing nutrient concentrations. Environmental Science and Technology 45: 9122–9132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, V., N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, and M. Naylor. 2000. Light requirements for SAV survival and growth. In Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation water quality and habitat-based requirements and restoration targets: a second technical synthesis, ed. R.A. Batiuk, P. Bergstrom, W.M. Kemp, E.W. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C.L. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D.J. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg, 4–15. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorus, I. and J. Bartram. (Eds.) 1999. Toxic cyanobacteria in water: a guide to their public health consequences, monitoring and management. London: World Health Organization.

  • Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P. Bergstrom, and R. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43: 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, C.M., D.J. Conley, J. Carstensen, and M. Sanchez-Camacho. 2009. Return to Neverland: shifting baselines affect eutrophication restoration targets. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 29–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T.R., A.B. Gustafson\, K. Sellner, R. Lacouture, L.W. Haas, R. Magnien, R. Karrh, and B. Michael. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation in resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 133: 763–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T.R., J.D. Hagy III, W.R. Boynton, and M.R. Williams. 2006. Cultural eutrophication in the Choptank and Patuxent estuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 435–447.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T.R., L.W. Harding Jr., D.W. Stanley, and L.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, and L.W. Harding Jr. 1992. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 82: 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgeorge, R.B., S.A. Clark, and C.W. Kevil. 1994. Routes of intoxication. In Detection methods for cyanobacterial toxins, ed. G.A. Codd, T.M. Jeffries, C.W. Keevil, and E. Potter, 69–74. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gallegos, C.L. 1994. Refining habitat requirements of submersed aquatic vegetation: role of optical models. Estuaries 17: 198–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallegos, C.L. 2001. Calculating optical water quality targets to restore and protect submersed aquatic vegetation: overcoming problems in partitioning the diffuse attenuation coefficient for photosynthetically active radiation. Estuaries 24: 381–397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hagy III, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Wood, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950–2001: long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries and Coasts 27: 634–658.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harding Jr., L.W., and E.S. Perry. 1997. Long-term increase of phytoplankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay, 1950–1994. Marine Ecology Progress Series 157: 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding Jr., L.W., A. Magnuson, and M.E. Mallonee. 2005. SeaWiFS retrievals of chlorophyll in Chesapeake Bay and the mid-Atlantic bight. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 62: 75–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harding Jr., L.W., B.W. Meeson, and T.R. Fisher Jr. 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 

  • Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, G. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E. Koch, J. Landwehr, K. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, and D. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 263–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding Jr., E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, R.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, J.T.O., R.W. Spinrad, K.L. Carder, and M.J. Perry. 1994. The relationship between the inherent and the apparent optical properties of surface waters and its dependence on the shape of the volume scattering function. In Ocean optics, 40–58. Oxford: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lellis-Dibble, K.A., K.E. McGlynn and T.E. Bigford. 2008. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries: economic value as an incentive to protect and restore estuarine habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-90

  • Magnuson, A., L.W. Harding Jr., M.E. Mallonee, and J.E. Adolf. 2004. Bio-optical model for Chesapeake Bay and the Middle Atlantic Bight. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 61: 403–424.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T.C. 1992. Effects of water column processes on dissolved oxygen: nutrients, phytoplankton and zooplankton. In Oxygen dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: a synthesis of research, ed. D. Smith, M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan, 61–112. College Park: University of Maryland Sea Grant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T.C., D.J. Conley, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, and L.W. Harding Jr. 1996. Scales of nutrient limited phytoplankton productivity in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19: 371–385.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T.C., L.H. Crocker, S.E. Pike, and B.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 

  • Marshall, H.G., L. Burchardt, and R. Lacouture. 2005. A review of phytoplankton composition within Chesapeake Bay and its tidal estuaries. Journal of Plankton Research 27: 1083–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, H.G., M.F. Lane, K.K. Nesius, and L. Burchardt. 2009. Assessment and significance of phytoplankton species composition within Chesapeake Bay and Virginia tributaries through a long-term monitoring program. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 150: 143–155.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W.D., and L.W. Harding Jr. 2007. Climate forcing of the spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 331: 11–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W.D., D.G. Kimmel, and L.W. Harding Jr. 2006. Predicting spring discharge of the Susquehanna River from a winter synoptic climatology for the eastern United States. Water Resources Research 42: W05414. doi:10.1029/2005WR004270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobley, C.D. 1994. Light and water. Radiative transfer in natural waters. San Diego: Academic.

  • Morse, R.E., J. Shen, J.L. Blanco-Garcia, W.S. Hunley, S. Fentress, M. Wiggins, and M.R. Mulholland. 2011. Environmental and physical controls on the formation and transport of blooms of the dinoflagellate Cochlodinium polykrikoides Margalef in lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1006–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, M.R., R.E. Morse, G.E. Boneillo, P.W. Bernhardt, K.C. Filippino, L.A. Procise, J.L. Blanco-Garcia, H.G. Marshall, T.A. Egerton, W.S. Hunley, K.A. Moore, D.L. Berry, and C.J. Gobler. 2009. Understanding causes and impacts of the dinoflagellate, Cochlodinium polykrikoides, blooms in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 734–747.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NHMRC. 2005. Guidelines for managing risk in recreational waters. Canberra: Australian government National Health and Medical Research Council. 207 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paerl, H.W., L.M. Valdes, M.F. Piehler, and M.E. Lebo. 2004. Solving problems resulting from solutions: the evolution of a dual nutrient management strategy for the eutrophying Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 3068–3073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesler, C.S., M.J. Perry, and K.L. Carder. 1989. Modeling in situ phytoplankton absorption from total absorption spectra in productive inland marine waters. Limnology and Oceanography 34: 1510–1523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 111: 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc. 1993. SAS/ETS user's guide, version 6, 2nd ed. Cary: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • S-Plus 7.0.6 for Windows. 2005. Seattle: Insightful Corporation.

  • Schaeffer, B.A., J.D. Hagy, R.N. Conmy, J.C. Lehrter, and R.P. Stumpf. 2012. An approach to developing numeric water quality criteria for coastal waters using the SeaWiFS satellite data record. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 916–922.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, O., T. Bergmann, M.J. Oliver, A. Irwin, G. Kirkpatrick, W.P. Bissett, M.A. Moline and C. Orrico. 2004. Inversion of spectral absorption in the optically complex coastal waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: C12S04, 11–12. doi:10.1029/2003JC002071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.E., M. Leffler, and G. Mackiernan (eds.). 1992. Oxygen dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: a synthesis of research. College Park: University of Maryland Sea Grant. 234 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tango, P., and W. Butler. 2008. Cyanotoxins in tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay. Northeastern Naturalist 15: 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 2007 addendum. EPA 903-R-07-003 CBP/TRS 285/07. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007b. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 2007 chlorophyll criteria addendum. EPA 903-R-07-005 CBP/TRS 288/07. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 2008 Technical support for criteria assessment protocols addendum. EPA 903-R-08-001 CBP/TRS 290/08. Annapolis: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

  • Wood, S.N. 2006. Generalized additive models (an introduction with R). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. 392 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

LWH was supported by the NSF Biological Oceanography Program and the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. TRF was supported by the NASA Land-Use Land-Cover Change Program and the NSF Ecosystems Science Programs. MRM was supported by the NSF Ecological and Evolutionary Physiology Program and the Virginia Environmental Endowment. HWP was supported by the NSF Biological Oceanography Program and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, ModMon and FerryMon Projects.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 2020 Horns Point Road, Box 775, Cambridge, MD, 21613, USA

    L. W. Harding Jr., T. R. Fisher & T. C. Malone

  2. Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    L. W. Harding Jr.

  3. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 410 Severn Avenue, Annapolis, MD, 21403, USA

    R. A. Batiuk

  4. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, PO Box 28, Edgewater, MD, 21037, USA

    C. L. Gallegos

  5. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, 4555 Overlook Ave., SW, Washington, DC, 20375, USA

    W. D. Miller

  6. Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Science, Old Dominion University, 4600 Elkhorn Ave., Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    M. R. Mulholland

  7. Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC, 28557, USA

    H. W. Paerl

  8. 2000 Kings Landing Road, Huntingtown, MD, 20639, USA

    E. S. Perry

  9. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD, 21401, USA

    P. Tango

Authors
  1. L. W. Harding Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. A. Batiuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. R. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. L. Gallegos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. C. Malone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. W. D. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. R. Mulholland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H. W. Paerl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. S. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. P. Tango
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. W. Harding Jr..

Electronic Supplementary Materials

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 243 kb)

Fig. S1

a–f GMs and 90th percentile thresholds of surface chl-a under low-, mid-, and high-flow conditions for 1960s and 1970s historical reference periods by salinity zone. Asterisks over data bars identify GMs for the 1960s to highlight surface chl-a values that we are presenting as goals. (JPEG 68 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIFF 2702 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harding, L.W., Batiuk, R.A., Fisher, T.R. et al. Scientific Bases for Numerical Chlorophyll Criteria in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 37, 134–148 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9656-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9656-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation