More about measuring biomass …

The previous post showed how the proportions of green algae and diatoms changed as the total quantity of algae in the River Ehen waxed and waned over the course of a year.   The BenthoTorch, however, also measures “blue-green algae” and so let’s look at how this group changes in order to complete the picture.

Before starting, though, we need to consider one of the major flaws of the BenthoTorch: its algorithms purport to evaluate the quantities of three major groups of algae yet, in my posts about the River Ehen I have also talked about a fourth group, the red algae, or Rhodophyta (most recently in “The only way is up …”).  Having pointed a BenthoTorch at numerous stones with thick growths of Audouinella,we can report that Rhodophyta seem to be bundled in with the blue-green alga signal, which is no great surprise given the similarity in their pigments.  It is, however, one of a number of examples of the need to interpret any BenthoTorch results with your brain fully engaged, and not just to treat outputs at face value. Similar questions need to be asked of the Xanthophyta and Chrysophyta, though the latter tend not to be common in UK streams.

cyanos_in_Ehen

Relationship between the proportion of “blue-green algae” (Cyanobacteria and Rhodophyta) and the total quantity of benthic algae (expressed as chlorophyll concentration) in the River Ehen (c.) and Croasdale Beck (d.).  The blue lines show quantile regression fits at p = 0.8, 0.5 and 0.2.  

In contrast to the green algae and diatoms, the Cyanobacteria/Rhodophyta signal shows a strong negative relationship as biomass increases though, again, there is enough scatter in this relationship to make it necessary to approach this graph with caution.  I suspect, for example, that the data points on the upper right side of the data cloud represents samples rich in Audouinella, which tends to occur in winter when biomass, generally, is much greater.   On the other hand, Croasdale Beck, in particular, has a lot of encrusting Chamaesiphon fuscus colonies which are pretty much perennial (see “a bigger splash …”) but whose relative importance in the BenthoTorch output will be greatest when the other two groups of algae are sparse.   I suspect that encrusting members of this genus are favoured by conditions that do not allow a high biomass of other algae to develop, as these will reduce the amount of light that the Chamaesiphonreceives.

Thicker biofilms in the River Ehen often have some narrow Phormidium-type filaments as well as small bundles of nitrogen-fixing Calothrix, but the overall proportion is generally low relative to the mass of diatoms and green algae that predominate.    But that is not really telling us the whole story.  I finished my previous post with a graph showing how the variation in biomass increases as the biomass increases.  The heterogeneity of stream algal communities, however, cannot be captured fully at the spatial scale at which the BenthoTorch works: there is a patchiness that is apparent to the naked eye: one of our sites has distinct mats of Phormidium autumnale towards one margin, and dense Lemaneagrowths in the fastest-flowing sections, largely attached to unmovable boulders, which makes biomass measurement very difficult. I’ve also written about distinct growths of Tolypothrix and its epiphytes (see “River Ehen … again”), another alga which forms discrete colonies at a few locations. I try to collect a random sample of stones from a site but there are constraints, including accessibility, especially when the river rises above base flow.   In the River Ehen we also have to take care not to disturb any mussels whilst removing stones.

Whilst our sampling cannot really be described as “random” I do think that there is sufficient consistency in the patterns we see for the results to be meaningful. We could spend a lot more time finessing the sampling design yet for little extra scientific gain.   I prefer to think of these measurements as one part of a complex jigsaw that is slowly revealing the interactions between the constituents of the dynamic ecosystem of the River Ehen.   The important thing is to not place too much faith in any single strand of evidence, and to have enough awareness of the broader biology of the stream to read beyond the face value indications.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.