Harmful Algal Blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Events

Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays of Maryland, USA, are not a new phenomenon, but may be increasing in frequency and diversity. Outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae) were observed during 1997 in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries, while in 1998, Pfiesteria-related...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Estuaries 2001-12, Vol.24 (6), p.875-883
Hauptverfasser: Glibert, Patricia M., Magnien, Robert, Lomas, Michael W., Alexander, Jeffrey, Fan, Chunlei, Haramoto, Erin, Trice, Mark, Kana, Todd M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 883
container_issue 6
container_start_page 875
container_title Estuaries
container_volume 24
creator Glibert, Patricia M.
Magnien, Robert
Lomas, Michael W.
Alexander, Jeffrey
Fan, Chunlei
Haramoto, Erin
Trice, Mark
Kana, Todd M.
description Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays of Maryland, USA, are not a new phenomenon, but may be increasing in frequency and diversity. Outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae) were observed during 1997 in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries, while in 1998, Pfiesteria-related events were not found but massive blooms of Prorocentrum minimum (Dinophyceae) occurred. In 1999, Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae) developed in the coastal bays in early summer in sufficient densities to cause a brown tide. In 1997, toxic Pfiesteria was responsible for fish kills at relatively low cell densities. In 1998 and 1999, the blooms of P. minimum and A. anophagefferens were not toxic, but reached sufficiently high densities to have ecological consequences. These years differed in the amount and timing of rainfall events and resulting nutrient loading from the largely agricultural watershed. Nutrient loading to the eastern tributaries of Chesapeake Bay has been increasing over the past decade. Much of this nutrient delivery is in organic form. The sites of the Pfiesteria outbreaks ranked among those with the highest organic loading of all sites monitored bay-wide. The availability of dissolved organic carbon and phosphorus were also higher at sites experiencing A. anophagefferens blooms than at those without blooms. The ability to supplement photosynthesis with grazing or organic substrates and to use a diversity of organic nutrients may play a role in the development and maintenance of these species. For P. minimum and A. anophagefferens, urea is used preferentially over nitrate. Pfiesteria is a grazer, but also has the ability to take up nutrients directly. The timing of nutrient delivery may also be of critical importance in determining the success of certain species.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/1353178
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_968175397</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1353178</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1353178</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-4afbbd2574844d2bf8de1712a717bfc42cb82be568e4d4798b30885617863ff13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS0EEkuL-AIcLCTgsike_ze3ZVUoUisO0HPkJDbNksSLJ4vUb4_TrlTUA5fxSO_nN34eQl4BO-OCmQ8glABjn5AVKOUqbpR9SlYMNKuskOY5eYG4Ywyc0WZF8MLnMR4Guhl--oF-GlIakfYTnW8C3d4E9PvgfwXqp45uk8d5gfwt0hTplc-3QxHW9Pr75mORx73PPaZpEcE5s16qXd9dLp2j53_CNOMpeRb9gOHl8Twh15_Pf2wvqstvX75uN5dVKwWbK-lj03RcGWml7HgTbRfAAPcGTBNbydvG8iYobYPspHG2EcxapUt4LWIEcULe3_vuc_p9CDjXY49tGMqbQzpg7bQFo4QzhXz3XxI0CODaFfDNI3CXDnkqKWoHmkthhHmY2-aEmEOs97kfy2fVwOplR_VxR4V8e7Tz2PohZj-1PT7gQoGSauFe33M7nFP-V7-z-Qv7LpRF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>916243737</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Harmful Algal Blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Events</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Glibert, Patricia M. ; Magnien, Robert ; Lomas, Michael W. ; Alexander, Jeffrey ; Fan, Chunlei ; Haramoto, Erin ; Trice, Mark ; Kana, Todd M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Glibert, Patricia M. ; Magnien, Robert ; Lomas, Michael W. ; Alexander, Jeffrey ; Fan, Chunlei ; Haramoto, Erin ; Trice, Mark ; Kana, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><description>Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays of Maryland, USA, are not a new phenomenon, but may be increasing in frequency and diversity. Outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae) were observed during 1997 in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries, while in 1998, Pfiesteria-related events were not found but massive blooms of Prorocentrum minimum (Dinophyceae) occurred. In 1999, Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae) developed in the coastal bays in early summer in sufficient densities to cause a brown tide. In 1997, toxic Pfiesteria was responsible for fish kills at relatively low cell densities. In 1998 and 1999, the blooms of P. minimum and A. anophagefferens were not toxic, but reached sufficiently high densities to have ecological consequences. These years differed in the amount and timing of rainfall events and resulting nutrient loading from the largely agricultural watershed. Nutrient loading to the eastern tributaries of Chesapeake Bay has been increasing over the past decade. Much of this nutrient delivery is in organic form. The sites of the Pfiesteria outbreaks ranked among those with the highest organic loading of all sites monitored bay-wide. The availability of dissolved organic carbon and phosphorus were also higher at sites experiencing A. anophagefferens blooms than at those without blooms. The ability to supplement photosynthesis with grazing or organic substrates and to use a diversity of organic nutrients may play a role in the development and maintenance of these species. For P. minimum and A. anophagefferens, urea is used preferentially over nitrate. Pfiesteria is a grazer, but also has the ability to take up nutrients directly. The timing of nutrient delivery may also be of critical importance in determining the success of certain species.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0160-8347</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1559-2723</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-2758</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-2731</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1353178</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ESTUDO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lawrence, KS: Estuarine Research Federation</publisher><subject>Agricultural watersheds ; Algae ; Algal blooms ; Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Aquatic ecosystems ; Aureococcus anophagefferens ; Bays ; Biological and medical sciences ; Brackish water ecosystems ; Brown tides ; Chlorophylls ; Diatoms ; Dinophyceae ; Dissolved organic carbon ; Dissolved organic phosphorus ; Ecological effects ; Estuaries ; Eutrophication ; Fish ; Freshwater fishes ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Marine ecology ; Mass mortality ; Nitrogen ; Nutrient loading ; Nutrients ; Ocean tides ; Organic foods ; Organic loading ; Outbreaks ; Pelagophyceae ; Pfiesteria ; Pfiesteria piscicida ; Phosphorus ; Photosynthesis ; Phytoplankton ; Plankton blooms ; Prorocentrum minimum ; Rainfall ; Substrates ; Synecology ; Tributaries ; Urea ; USA, Maryland, Chesapeake Bay ; Watersheds</subject><ispartof>Estuaries, 2001-12, Vol.24 (6), p.875-883</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2001 Estuarine Research Federation</rights><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Estuarine Research Federation 2001.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-4afbbd2574844d2bf8de1712a717bfc42cb82be568e4d4798b30885617863ff13</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1353178$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1353178$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,57995,58228</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=13515458$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Glibert, Patricia M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnien, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomas, Michael W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexander, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, Chunlei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haramoto, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trice, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kana, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><title>Harmful Algal Blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Events</title><title>Estuaries</title><description>Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays of Maryland, USA, are not a new phenomenon, but may be increasing in frequency and diversity. Outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae) were observed during 1997 in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries, while in 1998, Pfiesteria-related events were not found but massive blooms of Prorocentrum minimum (Dinophyceae) occurred. In 1999, Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae) developed in the coastal bays in early summer in sufficient densities to cause a brown tide. In 1997, toxic Pfiesteria was responsible for fish kills at relatively low cell densities. In 1998 and 1999, the blooms of P. minimum and A. anophagefferens were not toxic, but reached sufficiently high densities to have ecological consequences. These years differed in the amount and timing of rainfall events and resulting nutrient loading from the largely agricultural watershed. Nutrient loading to the eastern tributaries of Chesapeake Bay has been increasing over the past decade. Much of this nutrient delivery is in organic form. The sites of the Pfiesteria outbreaks ranked among those with the highest organic loading of all sites monitored bay-wide. The availability of dissolved organic carbon and phosphorus were also higher at sites experiencing A. anophagefferens blooms than at those without blooms. The ability to supplement photosynthesis with grazing or organic substrates and to use a diversity of organic nutrients may play a role in the development and maintenance of these species. For P. minimum and A. anophagefferens, urea is used preferentially over nitrate. Pfiesteria is a grazer, but also has the ability to take up nutrients directly. The timing of nutrient delivery may also be of critical importance in determining the success of certain species.</description><subject>Agricultural watersheds</subject><subject>Algae</subject><subject>Algal blooms</subject><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>Aureococcus anophagefferens</subject><subject>Bays</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Brackish water ecosystems</subject><subject>Brown tides</subject><subject>Chlorophylls</subject><subject>Diatoms</subject><subject>Dinophyceae</subject><subject>Dissolved organic carbon</subject><subject>Dissolved organic phosphorus</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Estuaries</subject><subject>Eutrophication</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Freshwater fishes</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Marine ecology</subject><subject>Mass mortality</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>Nutrient loading</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>Ocean tides</subject><subject>Organic foods</subject><subject>Organic loading</subject><subject>Outbreaks</subject><subject>Pelagophyceae</subject><subject>Pfiesteria</subject><subject>Pfiesteria piscicida</subject><subject>Phosphorus</subject><subject>Photosynthesis</subject><subject>Phytoplankton</subject><subject>Plankton blooms</subject><subject>Prorocentrum minimum</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Substrates</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>Tributaries</subject><subject>Urea</subject><subject>USA, Maryland, Chesapeake Bay</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><issn>0160-8347</issn><issn>1559-2723</issn><issn>1559-2758</issn><issn>1559-2731</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS0EEkuL-AIcLCTgsike_ze3ZVUoUisO0HPkJDbNksSLJ4vUb4_TrlTUA5fxSO_nN34eQl4BO-OCmQ8glABjn5AVKOUqbpR9SlYMNKuskOY5eYG4Ywyc0WZF8MLnMR4Guhl--oF-GlIakfYTnW8C3d4E9PvgfwXqp45uk8d5gfwt0hTplc-3QxHW9Pr75mORx73PPaZpEcE5s16qXd9dLp2j53_CNOMpeRb9gOHl8Twh15_Pf2wvqstvX75uN5dVKwWbK-lj03RcGWml7HgTbRfAAPcGTBNbydvG8iYobYPspHG2EcxapUt4LWIEcULe3_vuc_p9CDjXY49tGMqbQzpg7bQFo4QzhXz3XxI0CODaFfDNI3CXDnkqKWoHmkthhHmY2-aEmEOs97kfy2fVwOplR_VxR4V8e7Tz2PohZj-1PT7gQoGSauFe33M7nFP-V7-z-Qv7LpRF</recordid><startdate>20011201</startdate><enddate>20011201</enddate><creator>Glibert, Patricia M.</creator><creator>Magnien, Robert</creator><creator>Lomas, Michael W.</creator><creator>Alexander, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Fan, Chunlei</creator><creator>Haramoto, Erin</creator><creator>Trice, Mark</creator><creator>Kana, Todd M.</creator><general>Estuarine Research Federation</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>H97</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20011201</creationdate><title>Harmful Algal Blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Events</title><author>Glibert, Patricia M. ; Magnien, Robert ; Lomas, Michael W. ; Alexander, Jeffrey ; Fan, Chunlei ; Haramoto, Erin ; Trice, Mark ; Kana, Todd M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-4afbbd2574844d2bf8de1712a717bfc42cb82be568e4d4798b30885617863ff13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Agricultural watersheds</topic><topic>Algae</topic><topic>Algal blooms</topic><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>Aureococcus anophagefferens</topic><topic>Bays</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Brackish water ecosystems</topic><topic>Brown tides</topic><topic>Chlorophylls</topic><topic>Diatoms</topic><topic>Dinophyceae</topic><topic>Dissolved organic carbon</topic><topic>Dissolved organic phosphorus</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Estuaries</topic><topic>Eutrophication</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Freshwater fishes</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Marine ecology</topic><topic>Mass mortality</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>Nutrient loading</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>Ocean tides</topic><topic>Organic foods</topic><topic>Organic loading</topic><topic>Outbreaks</topic><topic>Pelagophyceae</topic><topic>Pfiesteria</topic><topic>Pfiesteria piscicida</topic><topic>Phosphorus</topic><topic>Photosynthesis</topic><topic>Phytoplankton</topic><topic>Plankton blooms</topic><topic>Prorocentrum minimum</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Substrates</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>Tributaries</topic><topic>Urea</topic><topic>USA, Maryland, Chesapeake Bay</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Glibert, Patricia M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnien, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomas, Michael W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexander, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, Chunlei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haramoto, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trice, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kana, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><jtitle>Estuaries</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Glibert, Patricia M.</au><au>Magnien, Robert</au><au>Lomas, Michael W.</au><au>Alexander, Jeffrey</au><au>Fan, Chunlei</au><au>Haramoto, Erin</au><au>Trice, Mark</au><au>Kana, Todd M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Harmful Algal Blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Events</atitle><jtitle>Estuaries</jtitle><date>2001-12-01</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>875</spage><epage>883</epage><pages>875-883</pages><issn>0160-8347</issn><issn>1559-2723</issn><eissn>1559-2758</eissn><eissn>1559-2731</eissn><coden>ESTUDO</coden><abstract>Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays of Maryland, USA, are not a new phenomenon, but may be increasing in frequency and diversity. Outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae) were observed during 1997 in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries, while in 1998, Pfiesteria-related events were not found but massive blooms of Prorocentrum minimum (Dinophyceae) occurred. In 1999, Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae) developed in the coastal bays in early summer in sufficient densities to cause a brown tide. In 1997, toxic Pfiesteria was responsible for fish kills at relatively low cell densities. In 1998 and 1999, the blooms of P. minimum and A. anophagefferens were not toxic, but reached sufficiently high densities to have ecological consequences. These years differed in the amount and timing of rainfall events and resulting nutrient loading from the largely agricultural watershed. Nutrient loading to the eastern tributaries of Chesapeake Bay has been increasing over the past decade. Much of this nutrient delivery is in organic form. The sites of the Pfiesteria outbreaks ranked among those with the highest organic loading of all sites monitored bay-wide. The availability of dissolved organic carbon and phosphorus were also higher at sites experiencing A. anophagefferens blooms than at those without blooms. The ability to supplement photosynthesis with grazing or organic substrates and to use a diversity of organic nutrients may play a role in the development and maintenance of these species. For P. minimum and A. anophagefferens, urea is used preferentially over nitrate. Pfiesteria is a grazer, but also has the ability to take up nutrients directly. The timing of nutrient delivery may also be of critical importance in determining the success of certain species.</abstract><cop>Lawrence, KS</cop><pub>Estuarine Research Federation</pub><doi>10.2307/1353178</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0160-8347
ispartof Estuaries, 2001-12, Vol.24 (6), p.875-883
issn 0160-8347
1559-2723
1559-2758
1559-2731
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_968175397
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Agricultural watersheds
Algae
Algal blooms
Animal and plant ecology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Aquatic ecosystems
Aureococcus anophagefferens
Bays
Biological and medical sciences
Brackish water ecosystems
Brown tides
Chlorophylls
Diatoms
Dinophyceae
Dissolved organic carbon
Dissolved organic phosphorus
Ecological effects
Estuaries
Eutrophication
Fish
Freshwater fishes
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Marine ecology
Mass mortality
Nitrogen
Nutrient loading
Nutrients
Ocean tides
Organic foods
Organic loading
Outbreaks
Pelagophyceae
Pfiesteria
Pfiesteria piscicida
Phosphorus
Photosynthesis
Phytoplankton
Plankton blooms
Prorocentrum minimum
Rainfall
Substrates
Synecology
Tributaries
Urea
USA, Maryland, Chesapeake Bay
Watersheds
title Harmful Algal Blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 Events
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T15%3A42%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Harmful%20Algal%20Blooms%20in%20the%20Chesapeake%20and%20Coastal%20Bays%20of%20Maryland,%20USA:%20Comparison%20of%201997,%201998,%20and%201999%20Events&rft.jtitle=Estuaries&rft.au=Glibert,%20Patricia%20M.&rft.date=2001-12-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=875&rft.epage=883&rft.pages=875-883&rft.issn=0160-8347&rft.eissn=1559-2758&rft.coden=ESTUDO&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1353178&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1353178%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=916243737&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1353178&rfr_iscdi=true