Frederick J. Luckey | Geology Reports

USGS2017

The deep chlorophyll layer in Lake Ontario: Extent, mechanisms of formation, and abiotic predictors

Epilimnetic production has declined in Lake Ontario, but increased production in metalimnetic deep chlorophyll layers (DCLs) may compensate for these losses. We investigated the spatial and temporal extent of DCLs, the mechanisms driving DCL formation, and the use of physical variables for predicting the depth and concentration of the deep chlorophyll maximum (DCM) during April–September 2013. A DCL with DCM concentrations 2 to 3 times greater than those in the epilimnion was present when the euphotic depth extended below the epilimnion, which occurred primarily from late June through mid-August. In situ growth was important for DCL formation in June and July, but settling and photoadaptation likely also contributed to the later-season DCL. Supporting evidence includes: phytoplankton biovolume was 2.4 × greater in the DCL than in the epilimnion during July, the DCL phytoplankton community of July was different from that of May and the July epilimnion ( p = 0.004), and there were concurrences of DCM with maxima in fine particle concentration and dissolved oxygen saturation. Higher nutrient levels in the metalimnion may also be a necessary condition for DCL formation because July metalimnetic concentrations were 1.5 × (nitrate) and 3.5 × (silica) greater than in the epilimnion. Thermal structure variables including epilimnion depth, thermocline depth, and thermocline steepness were useful for predicting DCM depth; the inclusion of euphotic depth only marginally improved these predictions. However, euphotic depth was critical for predicting DCM concentrations. The DCL is a productive and predictable feature of the Lake Ontario ecosystem during the stratified period.

Lake Ontario↗

USGS2017

Nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macrobenthos

Lower trophic levels support the prey fish on which most sport fish depend. Therefore, understanding the production potential of lower trophic levels is integral to the management of Lake Ontario’s fishery resources. Lower trophic-level productivity differs among offshore and nearshore waters. In the offshore, there is concern about the ability of the lake to support Alewife (Table 1) production due to a perceived decline in productivity of phytoplankton and zooplankton whereas, in the nearshore, there is a concern about excessive attached algal production (e.g., Cladophora) associated with higher nutrient concentrations—the oligotrophication of the offshore and the eutrophication of the nearshore (Mills et al. 2003; Holeck et al. 2008; Dove 2009; Koops et al. 2015; Stewart et al. 2016). Even though the collapse of the Alewife population in Lake Huron in 2003 (and the associated decline in the Chinook Salmon fishery) may have been precipitated by a cold winter (Dunlop and Riley 2013), Alewife had not returned to high abundances in Lake Huron as of 2014 (Roseman et al. 2015). Failure of the Alewife population to recover from collapse has been attributed to declines in lower trophic-level production (Barbiero et al. 2011; Bunnell et al. 2014; but see He et al. 2015). In Lake Michigan, concerns of a similar Alewife collapse led to a decrease in the number of Chinook Salmon stocked. If lower trophic-level production declines in Lake Ontario, a similar management action could be considered. On the other hand, in Lake Erie, which supplies most of the water in Lake Ontario, eutrophication is increasing and so are harmful algal blooms. Thus, there is also a concern that nutrient levels and algal blooms could increase in Lake Ontario, especially in the nearshore. Solutions to the two processes of concern—eutrophication in the nearshore and oligotrophication in the offshore—may be mutually exclusive. In either circumstance, fisheries management needs information on the productivity of lower trophic levels in Lake Ontario. In this chapter, we review the status of lower trophic levels in Lake Ontario with special attention to the current (2008-2013) and previous (2003-2007) reporting periods. During the two reporting periods, three whole-lake surveys of lower trophic levels were conducted: the Lower Trophic Level Assessment (LOLA) in 2003 and 2008 (Makarewicz and Howell 2012; Munawar et al. 2015b) and the Cooperative Science and Management Initiative (CSMI) in 2013. Analyses of the CSMI data are ongoing. In addition to the three one-year sources of information on lower trophic levels, several multi-year sources of information are available, including data from the surveillance program conducted since 1965 by Environment Canada (EC) (Dove 2009), monitoring conducted since 1980 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) (Barbiero et al. 2014; Reavie et al. 2014), sampling for a Bioindex Program at two stations, one offshore and one in the Eastern Basin, assessments of Mysis diluviana (formerly Mysis relicta) conducted since 1980 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Johannsson et al. 1998, 2011) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), and monitoring conducted since 1995 by the Biomonitoring Program (BMP) on the New York side of the lake (Holeck et al. 2015b). The BMP is a collaboration of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Cornell University.

Special Publication↗

USGS2014

Lake Ontario zooplankton in 2003 and 2008: Community changes and vertical redistribution

Lake-wide zooplankton surveys are critical for documenting and understanding food web responses to ecosystem change. Surveys in 2003 and 2008 during the binational intensive field year in Lake Ontario found that offshore epilimnetic crustacean zooplankton declined by a factor of 12 (density) and factor of 5 (biomass) in the summer with smaller declines in the fall. These declines coincided with an increase in abundance of Bythotrephes and are likely the result of direct predation by, or behavioral responses to this invasive invertebrate predator. Whole water column zooplankton density also declined from 2003 to 2008 in the summer and fall (factor of 4), but biomass only declined in the fall (factor of 2). The decline in biomass was less than the decline in density because the average size of individual zooplankton increased. This was due to changes in the zooplankton community composition from a cyclopoid/bosminid dominated community in 2003 to a calanoid dominated community in 2008. The increase in calanoid copepods was primarily due to the larger species Limnocalanus macrurus and Leptodiaptomus sicilis . These cold water species were found in and below the thermocline associated with a deep chlorophyll layer. In 2008, most of the zooplankton biomass resided in or below the thermocline during the day. Increased importance of copepods in deeper, colder water may favor Cisco and Rainbow Smelt over Alewife because these species are better adapted to cold temperatures than Alewife.

Lake Ontario↗