Long-term Changes in Community of Planktonic Algae of the Northeastern Black Sea (2005-2011)

Abstract

Phytoplankton dynamics in bays and open waters of the northeastern Black Sea was studied in 2005-2011. Species composition comprised 11 classes and 210 species including 19 potentially toxic species and 5 new records for the study area. The maximum species richness was found among dinoflagellates (96 species) and diatoms (78); other major taxonomic groups were represented by a small number of species (2 to 10). The highest abundance of planktonic algae was observed in the Novorossiysk port waters (5.1x105 cells/ L; 1.08 g/m3). Algal abundance and biomass in the bays of Anapa, Gelendzhik and Tuapse were 2 to 5 times less than in the bay of Novorossiysk. Smallcelled mesosaprobic species of diatoms (Skeletonema, Leptocylindrus, Thalassionema and Chaetoceros), euglenophyceans (Eutreptia lanowii), cyanobacteria (Lyngbya and Oscillatoria) and mixotrophic dinoflagellates (Gymnodinium, Heterocapsa, Gyrodinium and Prorocentrum) were found in the bays. Abundance and biomass in the open sea in front of the bays were 1.5-2 times higher than those observed within the bays. The minimum abundance and biomass were observed in the open sea (5.4x104 cells/L, 0.28 g/m3) and the Kerch Strait (9.8x104 cells/L, 0.186 g/m3). In these areas the most significant part of the population (34-40% of phytoplankton abundance) was composed of the nanoplanktonic prymnesiophycean Emiliania huxleyi, the large-celled diatoms Proboscia alata and Pseudosolenia calcar-avis and dinoflagellates of the genus Protoperidinium (up to 45% of phytoplankton biomass).

References
[1] Kreneva, S.V. (2002). Application of the principle of succession analysis to assess and predict the status of aquatic ecosystems. PhD Dissertation, Moscow.

[2] Chasovnikov, V. K., Yakushev, E. V., et al. (2011). Variability of nutrients in the Black sea coastal zone. Integrated studies of the Black sea, pp. 255-268.

[3] Sorokin, Y.I. (1979). To the method of concentrating of phytoplankton. Gidrobiol. Log. 2, pp. 71–76. (In Russian).

[4] Tsyban, A.V. (1980). A guide to the methods of biological analysis of sea water and bottom sediments. L: Gidrometeoizdat, 191 p. (In Russian).

[5] Sukhanova, I.N. (1983). The concentration of phytoplankton in the sample. In: ed Vinogradov M.E. Modern methods of quantitative assessment of marine plankton distribution. M: Nauka, pp. 97–105. (In Russian).

[6] Makarevich, P.R., Druzhkov, N.V. (1989). Guidelines for the analysis of quantitative and functional characteristics of the marine biocenoses of the Nordic Seas. Part 1. Phytoplankton. Zooplankton. Suspended organic matter. Marine Biological Institute, Kola Scientific Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Apatity, Murmansk, 50 p. (In Russian).

[7] Radchenko, G.I., Kapkov, V.I., Fedorov, V.D. (2010). Practice manual for the collection and for analysis of marine phytoplankton sampling. M: Moscow State University. 60 p. (In Russian).

[8] Bryantseva, J.V., Lyakh, A.M., Sergeeva, A.V. (2005). Calculation of volumes and surface areas of the Black Sea unicellular algae. National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Sevastopol. 25 p.

[9] Proshkina – Lavrenko, A.I. (1955). Plankton diatoms of the Black Sea. USSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 216 p. (In Russian).

[10] Dodge, J. D. (1982). Marine dinoflagellates of the British Isles. London: HMSO. 301 p.

[11] Tomas, C.R. (ed.). (1997). Identifying marine phytoplankton. San Diego, CA. Academic Press. Harcourt Brace Company. 821 p.

[12] Yasakova, O. N. (2011). New Species of Phytoplankton in the Northeastern Part of the Black Sea. Russian Journal of Biological Invasions, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 65–69.

[13] Yasakova, O. N. (2013). The Seasonal Dynamics of Potentially Toxic and Harmful Phytoplankton Species in Novorossiysk Bay (Black Sea). Russian Journal of Marine Biology, vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 107–115.

[14] Yamada, M., Tsuruta, A., Yoshida, Y. (1980). List of phytoplankton as eutrophic level indicator. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. vol. 46, no. 12. pp. 1435–1438.