Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 

### 699 In the continental United States, estuaries comprise more than 80% of the coastline along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico and more than 10% of the Pacific coast. These fragile habitats, which are among this nation’s most important natural resources, are experiencing declining water quality and eutrophication ( 1–4). In a recent comprehensive survey of the trophic status of estuaries in the continental United States, Bricker et al. ( 3

) concluded that 84 estuaries, representing 65% of the total estuarine surface area, were presently showing signs of moderate to high eutrophic conditions (Table 1). Rapidly growing and diversifying anthropogenicinputs associated with agriculture, aquaculture, urbanization, coastal development, and industrial expansion are a primary cause of the decline in the quality of natural habitats in these sensitive waters ( 1,5,6 ). Within the past three decades, many of our estuarine and coastal waters have changed from balanced and productive ecosystems to ones experiencing sudden trophic changes,biogeochemical alterations, and a deterioration in habitat quality. Nuisance and sometimes harmful phytoplankton blooms, accompanied by oxygen depletion, toxicity, fish kills, and shellfish mortality, are becoming more common (2,3). The purpose of this general overview is to furnish a working definition for estuarine eutrophication and to outline some key ecological features associated with the underlying processes. Although a comprehensive review of all the facets of eutrophication are well beyond the scope of this concise overview, we have incorporated many key concepts and have supplied a few selected examples to illustrate different aspects of estuarine eutrophication. Our overall goal is to provide readers with a broad working knowledge of eutrophication processes in the context of environmental health issues. 

### A Definition of Eutrophication

The terms eutrophic, mesotrophic, and oligotrophic are adjectives commonly used to describe the overall state of fertility or “trophic status” of aquatic ecosystems. These three broad categories delineate a gradient that rangesfrom nutrient-poor, low-biomass systems (oligotrophic) to nutrient-rich, high-biomass habitats (eutrophic). The term eutrophication, in contrast, describes a process rather than a trophic state. Nixon ( 1) proposed that eutrophication be defined as “an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter to an ecosystem.” This definition has gained wide acceptance and maybe the most frequently used quantitative measure of eutrophication. Organic matter (OM) is composed of many heterogenous chemical compounds. The prevailing chemical element in OM is carbon (C), and therefore OM is most easily quantified in terms of units of C. Hence, OM concentrations may be expressed as particulate organic carbon (POC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) with units of μmol CL –1 , or alternatively g Cm–3 . Rates of eutrophication are subsequently expressed in units of C per area (or volume) per unit time. Although this working definition ofeutrophication is simple, the actual quantification of rates is a formidable task and the concentrations of many of the constituents may be unknown for most ecosystems. In estuaries, OM occurs in both particulate (POM; plant debris, detritus, phytoplankton) and dissolved forms (DOM; humics, mucopolysaccharides, peptides, lipids). Thedistinction between POM and DOM is arbitrary and depends on the methods used to separate the two fractions (e.g., filtration, ultrafiltration, centrifugation, dialysis). Colloids and large proteins, for example, may be included in either fraction depending on the separation methodology. Measuring these components requires specialized analyticaltechniques such as C–H–N elemental analysis, dissolved organic carbon analysis, and ultrafiltration. In addition, the rates of supply of different forms of OM are highly variablein natural ecosystems and are strongly influenced by the land use characteristics of the watershed (rural, agricultural, urban, etc.), hydrology, and climatology ( 6–8 ). Sources of OM can come from two major pathways ( 1,6 ). Allochthonous OM originates outside the estuary and is transported into the estuary either from watershed runoff and riverine inflow (usually the primary source) orfrom coastal waters through tidal inlets (usually less important). Autochthonous OM is generated within the system, mostly through photosynthesis by primary producers or by benthic regeneration of OM. In estuarine habitats, the dominant primary producers are phytoplankton, benthic microalgae, epiphytes,seagrasses, and other submerged aquatic vegetation. Primary productivity, measured by Eutrophication is a process that can be defined as an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter (OM) to an ecosystem. We provide a general overview of the major features driving estuarine eutrophication and outline some of the consequences of that process. The main chemical constituent of OM is carbon (C), and therefore rates of eutrophication are expressed in units of C per area per unit time. OM occurs in both particulate and dissolved forms. Allochthonous OM originates outside the estuary, whereas autochthonous OM is generated within the system, mostly by primary producers or by benthic regeneration of OM. The supply rates of limiting nutrients regulate phytoplankton productivity that contributes to inputs of autochthonous OM. The trophic status of an estuary is often based on eutrophication rates and can be categorized as oligotrophic (<100 g C m –2 y–1 ), mesotrophic (100–300 g C m –2 y–1 ), eutrophic (300–500 g C m –2 y–1 ), or hypertrophic (>500 g C m –2 y –1 ). Ecosystem responses to eutrophication depend on both export rates (flushing, microbially mediated losses through respiration, and denitrification) and recycling/regeneration rates within the estuary. The mitigation of the effects of eutrophication involves the regulation of inorganic nutrient (primarily N and P) inputs into receiving waters. Appropriately scaled and parameterized nutrient and hydrologic controls are the only realistic options for controlling phytoplankton blooms, algal toxicity, and other symptoms of eutrophication in estuarine ecosystems. Key words : biogeochemistry, coastal, estuary, eutrophic, management, microbial, phytoplankton, zooplankton. — Environ Health Perspect 109(suppl 5):699–706 (2001). http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/suppl-5/699-706pinckney/abstract.html

This article is based on a presentation at the CDC National Conference on Pfiesteria : From Biology to Public Health held 18–20 October 2000 in Stone Mountain, Georgia, USA.

Address correspondence to J.L. Pinckney, MS 3146, Dept. of Oceanography, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-3146 USA. Telephone: (979) 458-1028. Fax: (979) 845-6331. E-mail: pinckney@ocean.tamu.edu

We thank S.E. Lumsden and E.B. Örnòlfsdòttir for their comments on previous drafts of this manuscript. Funding for portions of this research were provided by Texas Institute of Oceanography, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, National Science Foundation, North Carolina Sea Grant, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The U.S. government has the right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this article.

Received 8 January 2001; accepted 28 June 2001. 

## The Role of Nutrient Loading and Eutrophication in Estuarine Ecology

**James L. Pinckney, 1**  **Hans W. Paerl, 2**  **Patricia Tester, 3**  **and Tammi L. Richardson 1** 

**1 Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA;**  **2 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North**  **Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, North Carolina, USA; 3**  **National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, North Carolina, USA** **Pinckney et al.**



### 700 VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 • Environmental Health Perspectives either 14 CO 2 uptake or O 2 evolution methods for determining photosynthetic rates, is fairly well known for many estuaries. For a few select estuaries, rates of photosynthesis and estimates of primary production have been recorded routinely for several decades and offer useful databases for assessing long-term trends in trophic state. Using the known (or estimated) annual organic C supply (in units of g C m–2

y –1 ), the trophic status of an estuary can be categorized as oligotrophic (<100), mesotrophic(100–300), eutrophic (300–500), or hypertrophic (>500) ( 1). By definition, this annual estimate should include both allochthonous and autochthonous OM inputs. However, in practice, most estuaries are classified solely on estimates of the autochthonous primary production of phytoplankton.



### DOC and POC

Dissolved organic carbon, the major component in DOM, is one of the largest organic carbon pools on earth and plays a central role in the biogeochemistry in estuarine, coastal, and oceanic environments ( 7 ). This broad class of compounds, although present in high concentrations in most estuaries, is usuallynot considered in most OM budget calculations; nonetheless, it is a large source of OM for estuaries. In Gulf of Mexico estuaries, for example, DOC fluxes range from 10 to more than 300 kilotons C y –1 (Table 2) ( 8 ). DOC is a mixture of a range of sizes of organic molecules, that are usually characterized by size or weight. A significant fraction of theDOC in estuarine waters is composed of colloidal or macromolecular OM ( 9–11), which plays an important role in the carbon cycle, trace metal scavenging ( 12), and biogeochemical processes ( 13–15 ). DOM sources in coastal systems include production throughphytoplankton exudates (mucopolysaccharides) or phytodetritus ( 16–18 ), inefficient zooplankton feeding ( 19), fecal pellet decomposition, sedimentary inputs through benthic exchange ( 20 ), urban/agricultural runoff ( 16 ),and sewage inputs. The pool of organic substances is dynamic. Some DOC can be rapidly recycled by bacteria ( 21 ), whereas other compounds undergo photochemical degradation into more labile, low molecular weight DOC that can be used directly by some phytoplankton ( 22 ). POC suspended in the water column ofestuaries is composed mainly of bacteria, phytoplankton, small zooplankton (ciliates, rotifers, and other microheterotrophs), fecalmaterial (feces and pseudofeces), and decaying plant material (detritus) ( 23–25). Although larger invertebrates and fish are also a form of POC, these animals are excludedeither by sample collection or filtration techniques and are usually not considered in estimates of POC. Likewise, surface sediments contain many of the components listed above that are delivered by deposition processes. Phytoplankton POC is a major source of OM in sediments. Under phytoplankton bloom conditions, the growth rate of phytoplankton species and biomass accumulation exceeds thegrazing and export rates. Under these conditions, large amounts of phytoplankton C can be deposited onto the sediment ( 24 ). Macrophytes, such as the saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina, seagrasses, and seaweeds can also contribute large amounts of POC and POM in the form of detritus ( 23–25). Sharp chemical gradients and redox conditions in the sediments foster high rates of microbial activity and biogeochemical cycling ( 26 ). Aerobic decomposition processes consume oxygen at the sediment–water interface. When oxygenconsumption exceeds the rate of replenishment (by diffusion or mixing processes), the bottom water may become anoxic. In shallowestuaries, wind-induced waves or tidal currents may resuspend the deposited POC aswell as the various dissolved organic and inorganic degradation products. Resuspension events can elevate nutrient concentrations in the water column, reduce the amount of light available for photosynthesis, and decrease the dissolved O 2 concentrations due to aerobic decomposition of the particulate matter ( 20 ). However, strong mixing events can rapidlyoxygenate (within hours) the entire water column and effectively remove all traces of anoxia (except for mortalities incurred during the anoxic event). 

### Causes of Eutrophication

The ultimate cause of estuarine eutrophication is an increase in organic matter loading. This loading is accomplished by either (or both) an increase in the inputs of allochthonous C from the watershed or by increased phytoplankton and macrophyte primary production withinthe estuary. In the strictest sense of the definition, all estuaries undergo eutrophication periodically (27 ). Chronic and episodic changes inhydrodynamics, geomorphology, and climate—including catastrophic events such as hurricanes, floods, landslides, volcanism, and earthquakes—are all features that influence OM input rates. By their very nature, estuarine ecosystems have evolved over time to buffer themselves, and in some cases capitalize on, these pulsing events ( 27). However, the ecological context of eutrophication involves time and space scales that transcend ephemeral and seasonal events. Annual to decadal scales often are used to assess the long-term changes in OM loading as well as the ecosystem responses to increased loading rates. Although many factors influence estuarine and coastal primary productivity, the rates ofsupply of nutrients are fundamentally important in regulating this process. In estuarine ecosystems, nitrogen (N) is commonly the most limiting nutrient for phytoplankton production ( 1,28 ). Biologically available N can occur in many dissolved organic (DON) and inorganic (DIN) nitrogen forms. Allochthonous N that enters from outside the estuary is commonly referred to as new N because it represents additional N that can beused for phytoplankton growth and production. In contrast, autochthonous or regenerated N is nitrogen that is captured and then recycled in the estuary.In N-limited systems, ambient N concentrations govern phytoplankton growth rates and primary productivity ( 29 ). Nutrient acquisition is a major factor determining theoutcome of competitive interactions and phytoplankton community composition (i.e., the species that make up the community) ( 30 ).Nutrient uptake and assimilation by phytoplankton varies between species and N source ( 31,32 ). Uptake rates are influenced by the nutritional state and N-starved individuals may take up N at higher rates ( 33,34 ). In some species, ammonium inhibits nitrate and/or urea uptake ( 35–37 ). An additional source of N available to phytoplankton is in

Table 2. Estimates of dissolved organic carbon concentrations and inputs into selected Gulf of Mexico estuaries. a

River/Estuary DOC concentration (μM C) Annual DOC input ( × 10 10 g C/year)

Nueces/Corpus Christi, TX 560–630 0.5–0.6 San Antonio–Guadalupe, TX 330–480 0.1–0.2 Lavaca Bay, TX 830 3 Colorado, TX 650 2 Galveston Bay, TX 420–480 6.7 Sabine–Neches, TX 530 8.7 Lake Pontchartrain, LA 425–485 2.3 Mobile Bay, AL 424 ± 105 31.7 ± 7 Barataria, LA 558 4–28 Mississippi River, LA 270–330 170–209

a Data compiled from Guo et al. ( 8 ). Table 1. Broad characterization of the trophic status of U.S. estuaries and the relative proportion of the total estuarine surface area represented by each category. a

Eutrophic Number of Total estuarine condition estuaries surface area (%)

High 44 40
Moderate 40 25
Low 38 35
Total 122 100

a Data compiled from Bricker et al ( 3 ).**Estuarine eutrophicaton**

the form of low molecular weight DON such as urea and amino acids ( 38 ). Nitrogen formulations can also regulate the cell-size distribution of phytoplankton communities. The larger species may have the capacity for more internal storage of nutrients and become dominant in fluctuating nutrient regimes ( 39,40 ). In general, smaller species have a higher preference for NH 4 + uptake over
NO 3 – than larger phytoplankton species ( 41). The implication is that long-term changes inthe sources and concentrations of N compounds in N-limited systems may alter both the species composition of the phytoplankton community and the relative size distribution of phytoplankton cells. Therefore, prolonged eutrophication can have cascading effects onthe composition of the phytoplankton community, food web relationships, and biogeochemical cycling of impacted ecosystems.Although N is the primary limiting nutrient in most estuaries, other nutrients may beimportant, especially as regulators of phytoplankton community composition. In some estuaries, phosphate (PO 4

- –3 ) can also be limiting or colimiting during winter months or when N concentrations are elevated ( 42,43 ). Occasionally, silicate (Si), which is an essential nutrient for diatoms, is a limiting nutrient for diatom growth in some systems ( 43–45 ). The Redfield ratio is used frequently to infer the potential limiting nutrient. A stoichiometric molar ratio of 16 N:1 P is accepted as the “ideal” ratio for phytoplankton growth. Higher values of the Redfield ratio are interpreted as indicative of P limitation and, conversely, low ratios suggest N limitation. However, direct application of this principle is problematic for estuarine systems. Measurements of nutrient concentrations to infer limiting nutrients neglect the importance of nutrient cycling rates. Rapid regeneration of nutrients and shortturnover times, which are a known characteristic of estuaries, can mask the “true” nutrient availability and hence limitation. Furthermore,measures of water column nutrient concentrations represent what is available for use by phytoplankton. Large amounts of N and other nutrients may be sequestered and stored inbiomass (i.e., POM) and therefore not considered when budgets are constructed. Nutrientaddition and dilution bioassays, in which natural samples are incubated under variousnutrient concentrations, allow the phytoplankton to function as bioindicators to signal which nutrient(s) is limiting ( 46,47 ). Thisexperimental approach offers a direct and reliable assessment of the identity and relative proportions of limiting nutrients. 

### Nutrient Input Sources

Nutrient input sources can be broadly grouped into two categories. Point sources include inputs derived from sewage outfalls, wastewater treatment plants, industrial wastewater, and stormwater drains. Nonpoint sources of nutrients are primarily watershed runoff (riverine inputs), groundwater, and atmospheric deposition (rainfall and dryfall). Although the nutrient concentrations from localized, identifiable point sources are easily regulated, more diffuse nonpoint sources are difficult to control. In addition, numerous surveys have shown nonpoint source loading to be a dominant source of new N and other nutrient inputs in many estuarine watersheds, especially those dominated by agricultural activities ( 1,44 ). Nonpoint nutrient sourcesare therefore of major concern for most estuaries. Vegetated buffer zones, located alongthe margin of rivers and estuaries, are frequently employed as effective management practices to control nonpoint source nutrient inputs derived from watershed runoff. Estuarine eutrophication is driven generally by nonpoint sources of nutrients ( 48). A regional-scale analysis of fluxes of N from theNorth Atlantic coast demonstrated that nonpoint sources of N exceeded sewage inputs (or point sources) for all regions in both Europe and North America ( 49). Overall sewage contributed only 12% of the flux of N fromNorth America. Non-point sources also dominated P inputs to surface waters of the United States ( 50,51). Because of the effort to control P pollution, nonpoint sources of P have grown in relative importance since 1980 ( 52–54 ). For the Mississippi River, sewage and industrial point sources contribute an estimated 10% ( 49 ) to 20% ( 55 ) of the total N flux (organic and inorganic) and 40% of the total P flux ( 55 ). One quarter of the N and P inputs into the Chesapeake Bay come from wastewater treatment plants and other point sources ( 56,57 ). For heavily populated watersheds with relatively small surface areas, wastewater can be a major source of N to an estuary ( 58 ). Even insome estuaries fed by larger watersheds, wastewater can be the largest source of N if thewatershed is heavily polluted. Wastewater contributes approximately 60% of the N inputs to the Long Island Sound, New York, largely due to sewage from New York City ( 59 ). A rapidly emerging source of nutrients to estuarine and coastal waters is atmospheric deposition in the form of rain (wet) and fine particulates (dry) ( 60,61 ). This source provides diverse organic and inorganic chemical species in both dissolved and particulate forms. Atmospherically deposited nitrogen (ADN) is a dynamic mixture of biologically available dissolved inorganic (NO 3 – , NO 2 –

, NH 4 + ; DIN) and organic compounds (amino acids, organonitrates, urea; DON) ( 62–65 ). The combustion of fossil fuels and emissions of agricultural and industrial N-containing compounds into the atmosphere (as gases,aerosols, and fine particulates) is a highly significant and growing percentage of total N inputs into estuarine and coastal ecosystems ( 6,60,61). Current estimates of the percentage of total (i.e., natural + anthropogenic) new N inputs attributed to direct ADN range from 10 to 50%, depending on location and relative sources ( 6,61,63 ). For many estuaries, ADN is the single most abundant new Nsource and warrants scrutiny as a key modulator of eutrophication processes.Although nutrient concentrations are usually the most common factor limiting primary production in estuaries, physical factors mayalso play a role. In systems with a high concentration of suspended particulates, light penetration may be a principal limiting or colimiting regulator ( 66,67) because the rate of photosynthesis is a function of both light quantity (irradiance) and spectral distribution (light quality) ( 68 ). Irradiance levels and light exposure of phytoplankton are likewise determined by the vertical mixing rate of the water column ( 69 ). 

### Nutrient Loading

Eutrophication of most estuaries is linked to the rate at which nutrients (and OM) are added to the system (Figure 1). Nutrient loading is a generic term for which the definition varies depending on the context in which it is used. In a broad sense, loading is the rate of supply of

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 

### 701 Phytoplankton Inputs

DOM POM Nutrients Consumers

Nutrient regeneration Nutrient recycling

Oxygen dynamics POM deposition Export

DOM POM Nutrients

Figure 1. Major estuarine processes related to estuarine eutrophication. DOM and POM refer to dissolved and particulate organic matter, respectively.**Pinckney et al.**



### 702 VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 • Environmental Health Perspectives a particular entity to receiving waters; it is expressed frequently as a rate (e.g., tons N y –1 ). Ecosystem responses depend on several critical physical–chemical characteristics and processes. Estuary size (surface area), depth, volume, flushing rate, water residence time, tidal exchange, vertical mixing, and stratification areall factors that affect the transport, transformation, retention, and export of nutrients.Although there are many methods for calculating loading, the simplest approach is to multiply the nutrient concentration (g N m–3 ) by the river discharge rate (m3 s–1 ), groundwater flow rate (m 3 s–1 ), or rainfall amounts (cm

m–2). The accuracy of loading rate estimationsis therefore related to the accuracy of measurements of two variables: flow rate and entityconcentration. Nutrient loading rates, calculated on an annual basis, can be highly variable from year to year (Table 3). The frequency ofthe measurements becomes especially important during episodic events that add large volumes of water to the system (rainstorms, hurricanes). During these events, nutrient and OM loading over just a few days can exceed the total loading for an entire year (Figures 2,3). Although concentrations of OM or nutrients may be low because of dilution by large volumes of water, the actual loading rates may be very high because of the total volume of water flowing into the estuary. Unfortunately,during extreme weather events, remote instrumentation (for measuring discharge rates) is frequently damaged and field collections ofwater samples for chemical analyses are postponed because of personnel safety concerns. Therefore, some of the largest loading events are frequently missed, or approximated with low accuracy, during such periods. The impact of nutrient loading will depend on how quickly the inputs are transferred through the estuary. The accumulation of OMand nutrients in the system can be viewed conceptually as the difference between inputs and outputs (export) (Figure 1). Nutrients and OMcan be exported from the estuary by tidal flushing or through microbial processes that convert the combined form into an elemental form (regeneration). The combined forms of N can be converted to N 2 through coupled nitrification–denitrification (a microbially mediatedprocess). Ammonium, a primary decomposition product from OM, is first transformed by microbes to nitrite (NO 2 –) and then nitrate (NO 3 –) under oxic conditions (nitrification). Under anoxic conditions, NO 3 – and NO 2 – can be further transformed to nitrogen gas (N2) by denitrification. A recent survey of 14 coastal marine systems showed that denitrification rates were highly variable but may remove from 3 to 100% of the total dissolved inorganic N loading ( 70). Denitrification is one of the primary pathways by which excess N can be removed from an estuary. The export rate of OM is also a function of the residence time of water in the estuary. The hydraulic residence time of an estuary— which is the time required to replace theequivalent amount of freshwater in the estuary by freshwater inputs—varies depending on many factors, including freshwater input, circulation, and bathymetry. Mathematically, this phenomenon is treated as a mass-balance calculation in which input volume is assumed to equal output volume. A variety of methods have been used to calculate residence times (in units of time) and flushing rates (in units of volume per unit of time) ( 71,72 ). One ofthe simplest, but also among the least accurate, is the freshwater fraction method, basedon the ratio of freshwater content of the estuary and the freshwater inflow rate ( 73 ). Another common approach, the tidal prism method ( 74 ), is based on the volume of water that enters the estuary over a tidal cycle and the volume of freshwater entering over the same period. Residence times for Gulf of Mexico estuaries range from 1 to 350 days, depending on the estuary ( 73 ). Regeneration and recycling processeswithin the estuary are important determinants of system responses and recovery from increased OM and nutrient loading. The increase in primary production associatedwith eutrophication will increase the concentrations of OM by two main mechanisms:secretion of mucopolysaccharides by phytoplankton, especially under conditions ofstress, and bacterial degradation of phytoplankton-derived DOM and subsequent release of DOM and nutrients. DOM (e.g., glucose, urea, amino acids) may contain many of the inorganic nutrients required for the growth and metabolism of heterotrophic bacteria in aquatic systems ( 75–77 ). The uptake of NH 4 + , in particular, by heterotrophic bacteria is often significant ( 78 ). The bacterial community may compete with the phytoplankton for available inorganic nutrients and, in the presence of mixotrophic

Table 3. Estimated total annual inputs from riverine sources to the Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina (1994–1998). a

Year Constituent 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average

Particulate carbon (metric tons C) 2,492 4,137 5,228 1,842 2,564 3,253 Particulate nitrogen (metric tons N) 336 425 571 257 270 372 Nitrate ( NO 3 – ) (metric tons N) 575 1,515 1,946 1,363 1,940 1,468 Ammonium (metric tons N) 94 159 389 87 133 172 Total DIN (metric tons N) 669 1,674 2,335 1,450 2,073 1,640 Phosphate (PO 4 –3 ) 126 155 169 58 132 128

a Data compiled from Paerl et al. ( 63 ).

1,200

900

600

300

0 Internal

External

Discharge

10-year meanHurricane FranHurricane Fran

600

450

300

150

0 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct

Month (1994–1996)Discharge (m3/sec) OM loading (metric tons C/day)

Figure 2. Discharge and organic matter loadings for the Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina (1994–1996). Internal: autochthonous OM loading (primarily phytoplankton productivity); external: allochthonous sources of OM (riverine inputs). Note the large increase in external OM loading and concurrent high discharge after Hurricane Fran. Following that event, the major source of OM loading switches from internal sources to external sources. Graph redrawn from Paerl et al. ( 63 ).**Estuarine eutrophicaton**

algae and/or heterotrophic flagellates ( 79 ), for the available DOM. Another important process in nutrient regeneration and recycling involves trophic pathways. In contrast to the “bottom-up” regulation of phytoplankton biomass andproductivity by nutrients and physical features described above, herbivores and omnivores can exert “top-down” controls on phytoplankton and other primary producers. Inorganic N (mostly as NH 4 + ) is a product ofgrazing by microzooplankton such as heterotrophic flagellates (nanoflagellates and ciliates) ( 80,81) as well as by larger zooplankton and benthic invertebrates. Grazing of bacteria by protozoa may be responsible for a significant fraction of the regeneration of NH 4 + in marine systems ( 78 ). Goldman et al. ( 82 ) estimate that the amount of N regenerated by heterotrophic grazing of bacteria (i.e., themicrobial loop) is about 10–50% of the bacterial N ingested. Therefore the microbial loop can play an integral role in mediating ecosystem responses to eutrophication. Zooplankton grazers and benthic filter feeders may consume significant amounts ofphytoplankton biomass and primary productivity in some estuaries. For example, Li and Smayda ( 83) reported that, over long time periods (1973–1990), the phytoplankton biomass in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, was controlled by zooplankton grazing. Similarly, Lewitus et al. ( 84 ) found that microzooplankton grazing during the summer months in the North Inlet Estuary, SouthCarolina, was an important regulator of phytoplankton biomass. In Fourleague Bay, Louisiana, Dagg ( 85 ) estimated zooplankton grazing rates that were nearly equal to the phytoplankton standing stock in this estuary.Therefore, the standing stock of phytoplankton in the estuary can be conceptualized as theproduct of a dynamic balance between bottom-up and top-down control mechanisms. 

### Consequences of Eutrophication
The cascading effects of anthropogenic new Ninputs on estuarine surface waters are conceptualized and summarized in Figure 4. Nitrogen inputs, as well as P, Fe, Si, and other potential rate-limiting nutrients, stimulatephytoplankton growth and modulate community composition. Although primary consumers recycle a portion of phytoplankton C and N, bloom events triggered by new N loading may result in the delivery (deposition) of phytoplankton C to the benthos. Microbial degradation promotes bottom water anoxia, which in turn facilitates sediment nutrient release. Sediment nutrient release events may further stimulate algal blooms, leading to a positive feedback loop that perpetuates blooms and eutrophication. This scenario isparticularly relevant in estuaries that have relatively long residence times (months to years), where feedback reactions can be important for sustaining phytoplankton blooms throughout the optimal growth season in the spring and summer. Relatively long residence time and nutrient-sensitive estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and Maryland, the Pamlico Sound in North Carolina, FloridaBay, and Texas lagoonal systems are susceptible to the detrimental effects of high OM loading and nutrient input. The continued addition of new N and OM, especially overperiods of years to decades, sustains and intensifies the eutrophication cycle in estuaries. As long as OM and nutrient inputs exceed losses, the estuary will experience eutrophication.In some estuaries, phytoplankton C loading, especially following blooms, can produce large-scale bottom water hypoxia (<2 mg O 2 L

–1 ) and anoxia (no detectable dissolved O 2). This phenomenon has been well documented in many estuaries including the Neuse River in North Carolina ( 63,86 ) and Chesapeake Bay ( 87,88 ). Bottom-water hypoxia/anoxia results from the interaction of excessive C loading with several nonbiological variables, including freshwater discharge, vertical stratification,establishment of a salt wedge, and meteorological conditions (primarily wind) ( 74,89 ).

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 

### 703 Figure 3. River discharge and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN; nitrite, nitrate, ammonium) for the Neuse River Estuary (1994–1998). Note that loading rates exhibit a regular seasonal pattern with large DIN loadings that occur during high river discharge. Graph redrawn from Pearl et al. ( 63 ). 600

400

200

0Discharge (m3/sec)DIN loading (metric tons N/day) 25

20

15

10

5

0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Month 10-year mean Daily discharge

Figure 4. Relationships among nutrient inputs, phytoplankton responses, and oxygen dynamics. Nutrient inputs

Phytoplankton

community

Form of limiting nutrient

(NO 3 –, NH 4 + , DON) Nutrient ratios

Grazed phytoplankton species W ater column carbon recycling Decreased O 2depletion potentials Oxic conditions

Hypoxia Anoxia Physical controls -Mixing -Stratification Increased O 2depletion potentials Carbon deposition (POC) Nuisance/toxic phytoplankton species

-Dinoflagellates -Cyanobacteria

Nutrient regeneration Decomposition of POM**Pinckney et al.**



### 704 VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 • Environmental Health Perspectives Hypoxic and anoxic conditions can persist for weeks and cover large areas in estuaries that have relatively long water residence (weeks tomonths), low flushing rates, and persistent vertical stratification ( 63 ). High NH 4 + concentrations usually arise from anoxic conditions ( 90 ). The anoxic conditions inhibit nitrification and the NH 4 + released from the sediments cannot be nitrified to NO 3 – . Benthic release of PO 4 –3 is also enhanced under low dissolved oxygen concentrations ( 90 ). Thus, persistent anoxic conditions may result in elevated ammoniumconcentrations which are used by phytoplankton that capitalize on the readily available

NH 4 + . If these conditions continue, phytoplankton blooms may develop. The tight coupling between anoxia and phytoplankton blooms makes it difficult to assign cause andeffect relationships without careful consideration of the hydrological, chemical, and biological conditions initiating and controlling these events. Assessments of conditions during and following bloom events often provide little insight into causative factors ( 91,92 ). Phytoplankton C loading can have a direct impact on the oxygen dynamics of estuaries. However, nutrient and OM inputs can also play a role in determining the predominant species within phytoplankton communities. The alteration of nutrient concentrations andratios may change the phytoplankton community composition significantly, with subsequent cascading impacts at higher trophic levels of the food web (Figure 4) ( 93). In estuarine and coastal waters, phytoplankton areexposed to a range of N compounds in varying ratios and supply rates, depending on location relative to N inputs. Previous work has shown that phytoplankton species exhibit different growth responses to N sources ( 94 ). In particular, nitrate (NO 3 –) and ammonium (NH 4 + ) uptake rates vary spatially and seasonally, suggesting differential community responses to the N sources ( 95). Thesespecies-specific responses may play an important role in structuring natural phytoplankton communities ( 41 ) and subsequent biogeochemical alterations (e.g., C and N cycles). Phytoplankton-mediated assimilation and fate of inorganic nutrients and organic matter(both POM and DOM) are significant components of nutrient transformations in estuarine systems ( 90,96,97 ). Microalgal species composition and abundance are intimatelylinked to higher trophic levels through preferential grazing by herbivores (zooplankton, suspension feeders, deposit feeders) ( 98–101). The implication for food webs is that some phytoplankton blooms may be ungrazed and deposited in surficial sediments, providinglabile carbon substrates for benthic respiration, hypoxia, and anoxia following large blooms. Changes in the phytoplankton species that support primary consumers and predators may result in the loss of available food for these consumers. The loss of the type (phytoplankton species) and abundance offood resources could result in the displacement of motile species such as fish and crabs to other, more suitable habitats. Species that cannot search for food in other areas (e.g., oysters, clams, benthic infauna, zooplankton, etc.) may suffer reduced reproductive fitness and significant mortalities due to starvation. Many important commercial and recreationalfisheries are among groups that may be negatively impacted ( 1,2,48 ). The development of harmful algal blooms(HABs) is a possible consequence of eutrophication ( 2 ). Limiting nutrients, such as N, P,and Si, foster the growth of most photosynthetic phytoplankton species, and therefore high nutrient concentrations may produce algal blooms ( 28,42,45,48 ). Some of these blooms may be composed of toxic species (2 ).Perhaps a more interesting aspect of eutrophication is that DOM, in addition to dissolved inorganic nutrients, may foster the growth of HAB species. Several studies have shown that OM can stimulate the growth of marine dinoflagellates ( 81,102–104). Inputs of terrestrially derived DOM, particularly humic substances, have been implicated as important factors in blooms of Gymnodinium breve off Florida ( 105 ) and Alexandrium tamarense in the St. Lawrence Estuary in Canada ( 106 ). Blooms of toxin-producing Gymnodinium

catenatum in southeast Tasmanian waters appear to be preceded by a rainfall “trigger” ( 107 ) with an associated influx of DOM from land runoff. Doblin et al. ( 108 ) showed that both the growth rate and biomass of G. catenatum increased when cultures were supplemented with a combination of humic acid and naturally collected DOM. They concluded the effect was manifested as a result of an indirect effect of DOM on micronutrient availability (Se) and/or N and P. Rates of uptake of DON compounds by the brown tide organism Aureococcus anophagefferens off Long Island exceed rates of NH 4 + uptake ( 109 ). Blooms of a similar species (Aureoumbra lagunensis ) are prevalent in some Texas estuaries ( 110 ). Dinoflagellates ( G. breve and G. sanguineum ) are among the major HAB formers in the Gulf of Mexico ( 111). The heterotrophic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida Steidinger & Burkholder and related Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates reportedly use organic compounds ( 112,113 ), but the primary mode of nutrition for the nontoxic flagellated zoospore stage seems to be other phytoplankton species ( 113,114 ). Even if shifts in phytoplankton community composition do not result in HABs, they can still have cascading effects that ultimately result in major changes in the trophodynamics and food webs in essential nursery habitats. Economically important resources such as fisheries, recreation, and tourism could be impacted negatively and irreparably by these ecosystem alterations ( 1,2,48 ). Another major group of toxic/nuisance phytoplankton that occurs in estuaries iscyanobacteria. Growing frequencies and geographic expansion of toxic cyanobacterialblooms appears to be a worldwide phenomenon ( 4,115 ). The combined effect of increased water residence time and growing pollutant inputs has led to longer exposure periods of opportunistic microorganisms togrowth-promoting conditions. Bloomforming cyanobacteria are often superiorcompetitors under these conditions and frequently thrive in nutrient-enriched waters ( 116 ). For non–N 2 -fixing genera such as Microcystis, Oscillatoria, or Lyngbya, both N and P are important. Phosphate alone can stimulate the growth of N 2 -fixing genera such

as Anabaeana, Anabaenopsis, Aphanizomenon, Cylindrospermopsis ) ( 117–119 ). Riverine and estuarine waters in the southeastern United States tend to exhibit nutrient-enriched,N-limited (low N:P ratios) conditions, favoring cyanobacterial (especially N2 -fixing genera) dominance ( 120 ). Many cyanobacterial bloom formers also prefer OM-enriched conditions ( 117 ), including OM originating from urban wastewater, agricultural runoff, forest humics, and soil erosion products ( 118 ). Substantialindividuality exists among cyanobacterial nuisance taxa in terms of their abilities to exploit these environmental variables. 

### Eutrophication Management

Although OM is the currency used to measure eutrophication, the mitigation of the effects ofeutrophication involves the regulation of inorganic nutrient (primarily N and P) inputs into receiving waters. These nutrients may be delivered to the estuary as dissolved inorganic ions or bound to OM and later released as the OM is decomposed by microbial processes. Without question, excessive nutrient inputs lead to estuarine eutrophication. There is little doubt that increases in supply rates and changes in chemical forms and ratios of growth limiting nutrients play roles in regional and global expansion of blooms. While nutrient enrichment can be invoked for at least partially driving HAB expansion, extrapolating specific local examples to other estuaries, as well as regional coastal scales isoften confounded by the complicated interplay of physical, chemical, and biotic controls on bloom dynamics. Invariably, even nearbyestuaries do not exhibit identical physical (residence time, stratification, advection), chemical (specific nutrient supply and cycling rates), and biological (community composition, microbial associations, grazing) characteristics. Therefore ecosystem sensitivity and response**Estuarine eutrophicaton**

to enhanced nutrient loading may manifest itself quite differently in such systems, often leading to contrasting trophic states, degrees of ecosystem resiliency to change, desirability of habitats, and resources.From a water quality management perspective, understanding the mechanistic linkages in space and time between man-made alterations of hydrologic and nutrient regimes in the watershed is of critical importance for identifying growth- and bloom-regulatingfactors that may be used for developing shortand long-term control strategies to slow eutrophication ( 121,122). The first stepinvolves the identification of relevant phytoplankton taxa, characterizing environmental controls on their growth and toxin-producingcharacteristics, and incorporating this information in hydrodynamic and nutrient loading budgets depicting ecosystem physical chemical variability and extremes ( 88,89, 123,124 ). When these features are known, we can begin to develop realistic and effective management alternatives aimed at controlling algal bloom development and expansion.Arguably, appropriately scaled and parameterized nutrient and hydrologic controls are the only realistic options for controlling bloom, toxicity problems, and eutrophication in estuarine ecosystems.

R EFERENCES AND N OTES

1. Nixon SW. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41:199–219 (1995).

2. ECOHAB. The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms. A National Research Agenda. Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1995.

3. Bricker SB, Clement CG, Pirhalla DE, Orlando SP, Farrow DRG. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment. Silver Spring, MD:National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 1999.

4. Sellner K. Physiology, ecology, and toxic properties of marine cyanobacterial blooms. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1089–1104 (1997). 5. D’Elia CF, Sander JG, Boynton WR. Nutrient enrichment studies in a coastal plain estuary: phytoplankton growth in large scale, continuous cultures. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:397–406 (1986).

6. Paerl HW. Coastal eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: importance of atmospheric deposition and groundwater as “new” nitrogen and other nutrient sources. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1154–1165 (1997).7. Farrington JW. Marine organic geochemistry: review and challenges for the future. Workshop in Honolulu, HI, USA, 8-12 January 1990. Foreword. Mar Chem 39:1–4 (1992).

8. Guo L, Santschi PH, Bianchi TS. Dissolved organic matter in estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1999;269–299.

9. Whitehouse BG, Macdonald RW, Iseki K, Yunker MB, McLaughlin FA. Organic carbon and colloids in the MacKenzie River and Beaufort Sea. Mar Chem 26:371–378 (1989). 10. Martin J-M, Dai M-H, Cauwet G. Significance of colloids in the biogeochemical cycling of organic carbon and trace metals in a coastal environment - example of the Venice Lagoon (Italy). Limnol Oceanogr 40:119–131 (1995).

11. Guo L, Santschi PH. Composition and cycling of colloids in marine environments. Rev Geophys 35:17–40 (1997). 12. Wen L-S, Shiller A, Santschi PH, Gill G. Trace element behavior in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1999;303–346.

13. Sigelo AC, Means JC. Organic and inorganic components in estuarine colloids: implications for sorption and transport of pollutants. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 112:123–147 (1990). 14. Guo L, Santschi PH. Isotopic and elemental characterization of colloidal organic matter from the Chesapeake Bay and Galveston Bay. Mar Chem 59:1–15 (1997).

15. Santschi PH, Guo L, Means JC, Ravichandran M. Naturalorganic matter binding of trace metal and trace organic contaminants in estuaries. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1999;347–380.

16. Buffle J. Complexation Reactions in Aquatic Systems: An Analytical Approach. New York:Ellis Horwood, 1990. 17. Bianchi TS, Lambert C, Santschi PH, Baskaran M, Guo L. Plant pigments as biomarkers of high-molecular-weight dissolved organic carbon. Limnol Oceanogr 40:422–428 (1995).

18. Packard T, Chen W, Blasco D, Savenkoff C, Vezina AF, Tian R, St-Armand L, Roy SO, Lovejoy C, Klein B, et al. Dissolved organic carbon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Deep-Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr 47:435–459 (2000). 19. Strom SL, Benner R, Ziegler S, Dagg MJ. Planktonic grazers area potentially important source of marine dissolved organic carbon. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1364–1374 (1997). 20. Twilley RR, Cowan J, Miller-Way T, Montagna PA, Mortazavi B.
Benthic nutrient fluxes in selected estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1999;163–209. 21. Amon RMW, Benner R. Rapid cycling of high-molecular weight dissolved organic matter in the ocean. Nature 369:549–552 (1994).22. Kieber D, McDaniel J, Mopper K. Photochemical source of biological substrates in seawater: implications for carbon cycling. Nature 341:637–639 (1989).

23. Cifuentes LA, Coffin RB, Morin J, Bianchi TS, Eldridge PM. Particulate organic matter in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries - Implications for net heterotrophy. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1999;239–267. 24. Fisher TR, Hagy JD, Rochelle-Newall E. Dissolved and particulate organic carbon in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 21:215–229 (1998).25. Bianchi TS, Argyrou ME. Temporal and spatial dynamics of particulate organic carbon in the Lake Pontchartrain Estuary, Southeast Louisiana, USA. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 45:557–569 (1997).

26. Paerl HW, Pinckney JL. A mini-review of microbial consortia: their roles in aquatic production and biogeochemical cycling. Microb Ecol 31:225–247 (1996).

27. Odum WE, Odum EP, Odum HT. Nature’s pulsing paradigm. Estuaries 18:547–555 (1995).

28. Ryther JH, Dunstan WM. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and eutrophication in the coastal marine environment. Science 171:1008–1112 (1971). 29. Goldman J, McCarthy J, Peavy D. Growth rate influence on the chemical composition of phytoplankton in oceanic waters. Nature 279:210–215 (1979). 30. Huisman J, Weissing J. Competition for nutrients and light in a mixed water column: a theoretical analysis. Am Nat 146:536–564 (1995).

31. Eppley R, Rogers J, McCarthy J. Half-saturation constants for uptake of nitrate and ammonium by marine phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 14:912–920 (1969).

32. Dortch Q, Conway H. Interactions between nitrate and ammonium uptake: variation with growth rate, nitrogen source, and species. Mar Biol 79:151–164 (1984).

33. McCarthy J. The kinetics of nutrient utilization. Can Bull Fish Aquat Sci 210:211–233 (1981).

34. Syrett P. Nitrogen metabolism in microalgae. Can Bull Fish Aquat Sci 210:182–210 (1981).35. Eppley R, Coatsworth J, Solorzano L. Studies on nitrate reductase in marine phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 14:194–205 (1969).

36. Molloy C, Syrett P. Interrelationships between uptake of urea and uptake of ammonium by microalgae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 118:85–95 (1988).

37. Dortch Q. The interaction between ammonium and nitrate uptake in phytoplankton. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 61:183–201 (1990).

38. Bronk D, Glibert P. Application of 15 N tracer method to the study of dissolved organic nitrogen uptake during spring and summer in Chesapeake Bay. Mar Biol 115:501–508 (1993). 39. Margalef R. Life-forms of phytoplankton as survival alternatives in an unstable environment. Oceanol Acta 1:493–509 (1978). 40. Turpin DH, Harrison PJ. Limiting nutrient patchiness and its role in phytoplankton ecology. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 39:151–166 (1979).41. Stolte W, McCollin T, Noordeloos A, Riegman R. Effect of nitrogen source on the size distribution within marine phytoplankton populations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 184:83–97 (1994). 42. Fisher TR, Peele ER, Ammerman JW, Harding LW. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 82:51–63 (1992).

43. Conley DJ. Biogeochemical nutrient cycles and nutrient management strategies. Hydrobiologia 410:87–96 (2000). 44. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Justi ́ c D, Dortch Q, Wiseman WJ, SenGupta BK. Gulf of Mexico biological system responses to nutrient changes in the Mississippi River. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC:Island Press, 2000;241–268.

45. Justi ́c D, Rabalais NN, Turner RE. Stoichiometric nutrient balance and origin of coastal eutrophication. Mar Pollut Bull 30:41–46 (1995).46. Pinckney JL, Paerl HW, Harrington MB. Responses of the phytoplankton community growth rate to nutrient pulses in variable estuarine environments. J Phycol 35:1455–1463 (1999).47. Pinckney JL, Paerl HW, Haugen E, Tester PA. Responses of phytoplankton and Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellate zoospores to nutrient enrichment in the Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192:65–78 (2000).

48. National Research Council. Sustaining Our Water Resources. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1993.

49. Howarth RW, Billen G, Swaney D, Townsend A, Jaworski N, Lajtha K, Downing JA, Elmgren R, Caraco N, Jordan T, et al. Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine N & P fluxes for thedrainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: natural and human influences. Biogeochemistry 35:75–139 (1996).

50. Sharpley AN, Rekolainen S. Phosphorus in agriculture and its environmental implications. In: Phosphorus Loss from Soil to Water (Tunney H, Carton OT, Brookes PC, Johnston AE, eds). Cambridge:CAB International, 1997;1–54.

51. Carpentier CL, Boesch DJ, Batie SS. Using spatial information to reduce costs of controlling nonpoint source pollution. Agric Res Econ Rev 27:72–84 (1998). 52. Jaworski NA. Retrospective study of the water quality issues of the upper Potomac Estuary. Aquat Sci 3:11–40 (1990).

53. Sharpley AN, Chapra AC, Wedepohl R, Sims JT, Daniel TC, Reddy KR. Managing agricultural phosphorus for protection of surface waters: issues and options. J Environ Qual 23:437–451 (1994).

54. Litke DW. Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and their Effects on Water Quality. Water Resources Investigations Report 99–4007. Denver, CO:U.S. Geological Survey, 1999. 55. Goolsby DA, Battaglin WA, Aulenbach BT Hooper RP. Nitrogen flux and sources in the Mississippi River Basin. Sci Total Environ 248:75–86 (2000).56. Boynton WR, Garber JH, Summers R, Kemp WM. Inputs, transformations and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18:285–314 (1995). 57. Nixon S, Ammerman JW, Atkinson LP, Berounsky VM, Billen G, Boicourt WC, Boynton WR, Church TM, DiToro DM, Elmgren R, et al. The fate of nitrogen phosphorus at the land-sea margin of the North Atlantic Ocean. Biogeochemistry 35:141–180 (1996).

58. Nixon SM, Pilson MEQ. Nitrogen in estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems. In: Nitrogen in the Marine Environment, (Carpenter EJ, Capone DG, eds). New York:Academic Press,
1983;565–648.

59. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). A Total MaximumDaily Load Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound, Hartford, Connecticut. Unpublished report. 60. Duce RA. The impact of atmospheric nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron species on marine biological productivity. In: The Role of Air-Sea Exchange in Geochemical Cycling (Buat-Menard P, ed). Norwell, MA:D. Reidel, 1986;497–529.

61. Paerl HW. Coastal eutrophication in relation to atmospheric nitrogen deposition: current perspectives. Ophelia 41:237–259 (1995).

62. Timperley MH, Vigor-Brown RJ, Kawashima M, Ishigami M. Organic nitrogen compounds in atmospheric precipitation: their chemistry and availability to phytoplankton. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:1171–1177 (1985).

63. Duce RA, Liss PS, Merrill JT, Atlas EL, Buat-Menard P, Hicks BB, Miller JM, Prospero JM, Arimoto R, Church TM, et al. The atmospheric input of trace species to the world ocean. Global Biogeochem Cycles 5:193–259 (1991). 64. Mopper K, Zika RG. Free amino acids in marine rains: evidence for oxidation and potential role in nitrogen cycling. Nature 325:246–249 (1987).

65. Paerl HW, Pinckney JL, Fear JM, Peierls BL. Ecosystem responses to internal and watershed organic matter loading: consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 

### 705**Pinckney et al.**



### 706 VOLUME 109 | SUPPLEMENT 5 | October 2001 • Environmental Health Perspectives Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 166:17–25 (1998). 66. Cloern JE. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Cont Shelf Res 7:1367–1382 (1987).67. Cloern JE. The relative importance of light and nutrient limitation of phytoplankton growth: a simple index of coastal ecosystem sensitivity to nutrient enrichment. Aquat Ecol 33:3–16 (1999).

68. Kirk JTO. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Ecosystems. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994.

69. Cullen JJ, Lewis MR. The kinetics of algal photoadaptation in the context of vertical mixing. J Plankton Res 10:1039–1063 (1988).70. Seitzinger SP. Scaling up: site-specific measurements to globalscale estimates of denitrification. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC:Island Press, 2000;211–240. 71. Lowery TA. Difference equation-based estuarine flushing model application to U.S. Gulf of Mexico estuaries. J Coast Res 14:185–195 (1998). 72. Jay DA, Geyer WR, Montgomery DR. An ecological perspective on estuarine classification. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000;149–176.

73. Solis RS, Powell GL. Hydrography, mixing characteristics, and
residence times of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons,
1999;29–61. 74. Officer CB. Physical Oceanography of Estuaries (and Associated Coastal Waters). New York:Wiley, 1976. 75. Azam F, Fenchel T, Field GJ, Gray JS, Meyer-Reil LA, Thingstad F. The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 10:257–263 (1983).

76. Azam F, Smith DC, Steward GF, Hagstrom A. Bacteria-organic matter coupling and its significance for oceanic carbon cycling. Microb Ecol 28:167–179 (1993). 77. Kirchman DL, Suzuki Y, Garside C, Ducklow HW. High turnover rates of dissolved organic carbon during a spring phytoplankton bloom. Nature 352:612–614 (1991). 78. Wheeler PA, Kirchman DL. Utilization of inorganic and organic nitrogen by bacteria in marine systems. Limnol Oceanogr 31:998–1009 (1986). 79. Sherr EB. Direct use of high molecular weight polysaccharide by heterotrophic flagellates. Nature 335:348–351 (1988).80. Caron DA, Goldman JC. Dynamics of protistan carbon and nutrient cycling. J Protozool 35:247–249 (1988).

81. Carlsson P, Granéli E. Utilization of dissolved organic matter (DOM) by phytoplankton, including harmful species. In: Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms (Anderson DM, Cembella AD, Hallegraeff GM, eds). Berlin:Springer-Verlag,
1998;509–524.

82. Goldman JC, Caron DA, Anderson OK. Nutrient cycling in a microflagellate food chain. I: Nitrogen dynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 24:231–242 (1985).

83. Li Y, Smayda TJ. Temporal variability of chlorophyll in Narragansett Bay, 1973-1990. ICES J Mar Sci 55:661–667 (1998).

84. Lewitus AJ, Koepfler ET, Morris JT. Seasonal variation in theregulation of phytoplankton by nitrogen and grazing in a saltmarsh estuary. Limnol Oceanogr 43:636–646 (1998).85. Dagg MJ. Ingestion of phytoplankton by the micro- and mesozooplankton communities in a productive subtropical estuary. J Plankton Res 17:845–857 (1995). 86. Matson EA, Brinson MM, Cahoon DD, Davis GJ. Biogeochemistry of the Sediments of the Pamlico and Neuse River Estuaries, NC. Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 291 UNC WRRI. Raleigh, NC:Water Resources Research

Institute.

87. Cooper SR, Brush GS. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia. Science 254:992–996 (1991).

88. Cerco C. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication model. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC:Island Press, 2000;

363–404. 89. Lowery TA. Modelling estuarine eutrophication in the context of hypoxia, nitrogen loadings, stratification and nutrient ratios. J Environ Manag 52:289–305 (1998). 90. Malone T, Conley DA, Fisher T, Glibert P, Harding L, Sellner K. Scales of nutrient-limited phytoplankton productivity in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19:371–385 (1996).

91. Pinckney JL, Millie DF, Vinyard BT, Paerl HW. Environmental controls of bloom dynamics in the Neuse River Estuary (North Carolina, USA). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:2491–2501 (1997). 92. Pinckney JL, Paerl HW, Harrington MB, Howe KE. Annual cycles of phytoplankton community structure and bloom dynamics in the Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina. Mar Biol 131:371–381 (1998).

93

. McClelland JW, Valiela I. Changes in food web structure under the influence of increased anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to estuaries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 168:259–271 (1998). 94. Collos Y. A linear model of external interactions during uptake of different forms of inorganic nitrogen by microalgae. J Plankton Res 11:521–533 (1989). 95. Boyer JN, Stanley DW, Christian RR. Dynamics of NH 4 + and NO 3 – uptake in the water column of the Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Estuaries 17:361–371 (1994). 96. Glibert P, Conley D, Fisher T, Harding L, Malone T. Dynamics of the 1990 winter/spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 122:27–43 (1995). 97. Cloern J. Phytoplankton bloom dynamics in coastal ecosystems:a review with some general lessons from sustained investigation of San Francisco Bay, California. Rev Geophys 34:127–168 (1996).

98. Baird D, Ulanowicz R. The seasonal dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 59:329–364 (1989).

99. Sellner K, Brownlee D, Bundy M, Brownlee S, Braun K. Zooplankton grazing in a Potomac River cyanobacterial bloom. Estuaries 16:859–872 (1993). 100. Mallin M, Paerl HW. Planktonic trophic transfer in an estuary: seasonal, diel, and community structure effects. Ecology 75:2168–2184 (1994). 101. Brett M, Goldman C. A meta-analysis of the freshwater trophic cascade. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:7723–7726 (1996). 102. Sweeney BM. Gymnodinium splendens, a marine dinoflagellate requiring vitamin B 12 . Am J Bot 41:821–824 (1954).

103. Prakash A, Rashid MA. Influence of humic substances on the growth of marine phytoplankton: dinoflagellates. Limnol Oceanogr 13:598–606 (1968).

104. Doig MT, Martin DF. The effect of naturally occurring organic substances on the growth of a red tide organism. Water Res 8:601–606 (1974). 105. Ingle RM, Martin DF. Prediction of the Florida red tide by means of the iron index. Environ Lett 1:69–74 (1971). 106. Therriault JC, Painchaud J, Levasseur M. Factors controlling the
occurrence of Protogonyaulax tamarensis and shellfish toxicity in the St. Lawrence Estuary: freshwater runoff and the stability of the water column. In: Toxic Dinoflagellates (Anderson DM, White AM, Baden DG , eds). New York:Elsevier, 1985;141–146. 107. Hallegraeff GM, McCausland MA, Brown RK. Early warning of toxic dinoflagellate blooms of Gymnodinium catenatum in southern Tasman waters. J Plankton Res 17:1163–1176 (1995). 108. Doblin MA, Blackburn SI, Hallegraeff GM. Growth and biomass stimulation of the toxic dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum (Graham) by dissolved organic substances. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 236:33–47 (1999). 109. Berg GM, Glibert PM, Lomas MW, Burford MA. Organic nitrogen uptake and growth by the chrysophyte Aureococcus anophagefferens during a brown tide event. Mar Biol 129:377–387 (1997).

110. DeYoe H, Stockwell D, Bidigare R, Latasa M, Johnson P, Hargraves P, Suttle C. Description and characterization of the algal species Aureoumbra lagunensis gen. et sp. nov. and referral of Aureoumbra and Aureococcus to the Pelagophyceae. J Phycol 33:1042–1048 (1997). 111. Steidinger K, Vargo G, Tester P, Tomas C. Bloom dynamics and physiology of Gymnodinium breve with emphasis on the Gulf of Mexico. NATO ASI Ser Ser G Ecol Sci 41:133–153 (1998). 112. Burkholder J, Noga E, Hobbs C, Glasgow H. New ‘phantom’ dinoflagellate is the causative agent of major estuarine fish kills. Nature 358:407–410 (1992).

113. Burkholder JM, Glasgow HB. Interactions of a toxic estuarine dinoflagellate with microbial predators and prey. Arch Protistenkd 145:177–188 (1995).

114. Burkholder J, Glasgow H, Hobbs C. Fish kills linked to a toxic ambush-predator dinoflagellate: distribution and environmental conditions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 124:43–61 (1995).

115. WHO. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: a Guide to their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring, and Management (Chorus I, Bartram J, eds). London:World Health Organization, 1998.116. Vincent WF. Dominance of bloom forming cyanobacteria (bluegreen algae). N Z J Mar Freshw Res 21:361–542 (1987). 117. Fogg GE. The physiology of an algal nuisance. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 173:175–189 (1969).

118. Paerl HW. Nuisance phytoplankton blooms in coastal, estuarine, and inland waters. Limnol Oceanogr 33:823–847 (1988).119. Paerl HW, Millie DF. Physiological ecology of toxic cyanobacteria. Phycologia 35:160–167 (1996).120. Smith VH. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and nitrogen fixation in lacustrine and estuarine ecosystems. Limnol Oceanogr 35:1852–1859 (1990). 121. Fisher TR, Correll D, Costanza R, Hollibaugh JT, Hopkinson CS, Howarth RW, Rabalais NN, Richey JE, Vörösmarty CJ, Wiegert R. Synthesizing drainage basin inputs to coastal systems. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC:Island Press, 2000;81–101. 122. Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR. Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico estuaries: Implications for management. In: Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries (Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons,
1999;407–421.

123. Hofmann EE. Modeling for estuarine synthesis. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC:Island Press, 2000;

129–148.

124. Geyer WR, Morris JT, Prahl FG, Jay DA. Interaction between physical processes and ecosystem structure. In: Estuarine Science (Hobbie JE, ed). Washington, DC:Island Press, 2000;

177–209.