Search for: All records

Phytoplankton photosynthetic physiology can be investigated through single-turnover variable chlorophyll fluorescence (ST-ChlF) approaches, which carry unique potential to autonomously collect data at high spatial and temporal resolution. Over the past decades, significant progress has been made in the development and application of ST-ChlF methods in aquatic ecosystems, and in the interpretation of the resulting observations. At the same time, however, an increasing number of sensor types, sampling protocols, and data processing algorithms have created confusion and uncertainty among potential users, with a growing divergence of practice among different research groups. In this review, we assist the existing and upcoming user community by providing an overview of current approaches and consensus recommendations for the use of ST-ChlF measurements to examine in-situ phytoplankton productivity and photo-physiology. We argue that a consistency of practice and adherence to basic operational and quality control standards is critical to ensuring data inter-comparability. Large datasets of inter-comparable and globally coherent ST-ChlF observations hold the potential to reveal large-scale patterns and trends in phytoplankton photo-physiology, photosynthetic rates and bottom-up controls on primary productivity. As such, they hold great potential to provide invaluable physiological observations on the scales relevant for the development and validation of ecosystem models and remote sensing algorithms. 

The Savannah River Basin (SRB), a highly stressed southeastern river in United States is a conservation priority for State, Federal government, and nongovernment organizations. A four‐stage sustainable development tool was developed in this study using meta‐analysis and the drivers–pressures–state–impacts–responses (DPSIR) framework. Through the synthesis of ~150 references in the SRB this study addressed three research questions: (1) What were the drivers, pressures, state, impacts, and responses (components of DRSIR framework) in SRB (2) Can these components be grouped together from various studies in SRB (3) Can causal chain/loops be developed, and will they be useful for policy and decision making? First in the Stage 1, the state of the SRB was represented (S component of DPSIR), in Stage 2, the drivers–pressures–impacts–responses (DPIR components of DPSIR) were represented, in the third stage (Stage 3) the common units characterizing each DPSIR component were identified. Finally, in Stage 4, the causal chains/loops were developed and organized into scientific research at a level appropriate for building better understanding about SRB and helping stakeholders and policy makers in managing basin sustainability challenges. Although the tool was applied to SRB, the methodology is applicable to other river basins and ecosystems.