Assessing Physicochemical Parameters, Phytoplankton, and
Zooplankton near Port Royal.
Name: Javel Noble
ID Number: 620106365
Course Code: Biol 3407
Course Name: Oceanography
Title:
Assessing physicochemical parameters, phytoplankton, and zooplankton near Port Royal.
Aim/Objectives:
1. Assessment of water quality and substrate type at a range of stations.
2. Comparison of different equipment and techniques used in the assessment.
3. Assessment of phytoplankton biomass and size distribution at a range of stations.
4. Assessment of zooplankton total abundance and species composition in different water
masses.
Introduction:
All organisms depend on water for survival thus the quality of the water is important. Water
quality parameters are divided into three main groups physical, chemical and biological
properties. Physical parameters include temperature and light, while chemical parameters include
salinity, pH, DO and ORP and biological parameters involve plankton. It is important to assess
the physicochemical properties of water as they play a vital role in the growth of aquatic
organisms. It also reflects the biotic and abiotic status of the ecosystem. Planktons are
microorganisms that can be further divided into two main groups phytoplankton and
zooplankton. Phytoplankton is also known as microalgae and is similar to land-based plants in
that they contain chlorophyll and require sunlight to live and grow. Most are buoyant and float in
the upper part of the ocean where sunlight penetrates the water. Phytoplankton is important in the
aquatic ecosystem as they provide food for a wide range of sea creatures that are in turn food for
larger animals. They also act as indicators of environmental change due to their quick response
to changes in the environment. Phytoplankton is classified into five groups: Bacillariophyceae
(Diatoms), Dinophyceae (Dinoflagellates), Chryophyceae (Silicoflagellates), Haptophyceae
(Coccolithophores) and Cyanophyceae (Blue-green algae). Diatoms are indicative of acceptable
water quality that is a low level of nutrient loading and good water clarity. Cyanobacteria, on the
other hand, indicate less acceptable waters as most of them are either toxic or inedible. They
thrive in nutrient-enriched eutrophic conditions. Dinoflagellates too may indicate eutrophic
waters as some species may cause large tidal blooms if there are high levels of nutrients in the
water. Zooplankton is a type of heterotrophic plankton that ranges from microscopic organisms
to large animals. They can be further subdivided into holoplankton which remains permanent
members of plankton and meroplankton which are temporary in a larval and young stage.
Zooplankton community is an important element of the aquatic food chain, unlike phytoplankton
they are not only found at the surface but throughout the water column. They are highly sensitive
to change in the environment and it is reflected through their environmental distribution, changes
in species composition abundance and body size distribution. Copepods and Cladocera are
indicators of eutrophic waters while Calanoida occurs in oligotrophic waters and Cyclopoida in
Meso-eutrophic
Methods: Physico and Phytoplankton
Field Method
• The equipment was checked off and loaded unto the boats.
• Upon reaching each sample site, the boat was anchored to determine the position. The
GPS and compass bearings were taken and recorded.
• The depth was determined using a plumb line with an attached weight graduated line and
an echo sounder.
• A Secchi disk was used to determine light transparency. The depth where it disappeared
on decent and reappeared on the ascent was recorded. The light intensity was determined
using a light meter.
• A Niskin bottle was used to collect the water samples and poured into two labeled sample
bottles (true replicates).
• The Niskin bottle was lowered at depth 1m and 5m for Gun Cay, Harbour shoal Beacon,
Curry's Gate Beacon, and 1m only for Hunts Bay.
• A grab sampler was used to collect sediment samples at each site. Observations were
made and recorded.
• The surface current was determined using the lagrangian method with mushroom drifters.
• Wind speed was measured using an anemometer and was recorded by the scribe.
• The temperature, pH, salinity, DO and ORP of the water at each sample site were all
recorded using a YSI through the water column. The readings were recorded at 0 and 1m
intervals for a total of 5m depth.
Laboratory Method
• Ten Nalgene size fractioning towers were set up as demonstrated by the demonstrator.
• The towers were stacked starting with the smallest size at the bottom. A 0.7 micro-meter
filter paper was placed on top of the closure.
• A second stack was attached after checking if the O-ring was present. Then a 2.7 micro-
meter filter paper was placed on top of the closure.
• The third stack was attached and a 20 micro-meter filter paper was placed on top of the
closure.
• The fourth and final stack was attached to completing the Nalgene tower.
• The complete Nalgene tower was then attached to a manifold PVC pipe connected to a
pressure pump to help speed up the filtering process
• The water samples collected from each sample site were poured into their respective
tower and was left for a few minutes for the filtering process to be completed.
• The three filter papers from each tower were removed and placed in labeled test tubes
• 6m of 90% Acetone was added to each test tube to extract the chlorophyll from the
phytoplankton collected.
• The test tubes were stored at 25 degrees for 24 hrs.
• A fluorometer was used to determine phytoplankton biomass based on the amount of
chlorophyll A that was present.
• The position at sea was determined by using the triangulation method where the compass
bearings recorded and a map was used to find the latitude and longitude coordinates.
Methods: Zooplankton
Field Method
• The equipment was checked and loaded onto the boats. One boat a plankton net for haul
and the other had a plankton net with a flow meter for the tow.
• Once arrived at the first sample site the boat responsible for haul was anchored.
• The net was detangled and attached to a meter wench. Weight was attached to the net to
help it sink.
• The net was then lowered to a depth of 5m and then wheeled back up 1m/s.
• The cod-end was retrieved first then the net. Once back in the boat the weight was
removed.
• The sample collected in the cod end was poured into its respective labeled sample bottle
containing 10ml of full strength formalin away from the windows of the cod end.
• The inside of the cod end and its windows were rinsed with seawater to get any
remaining zooplankton that may still be trapped inside and was poured in the same
sample bottles.
• This process was repeated for the other sample stations except for Hunt's Bay.
• For the boat responsible for the tow, once in position the net is detangled and attached to
a rope.
• The flow meter readings were recorded before the net was placed into the water.
• The cod-end was lowered first then the net along with the flow meter.
• The net was slowly and steadily lengthen using the rope but held in a firm grip to control
the direction of the net as the boat moves at a steady speed.
• The rope was held firmly at an angle and lengthen or shorten when necessary so the hoop
does not break the surface or sink too far below the surface (must be right below the
surface).
• A 1min and 30sec the net was pulled quickly back to the boat and was pulled out of the
water at the 2min mark.
• The flow meter reading was recorded after the tow was recorded.
• The sample was poured into its respective labeled sample bottle with 10 ml of full
strength formalin away from the windows of the cod end.
• The inside of the cod end and its windows were rinsed with seawater to get any
remaining zooplankton that may still be trapped inside and was poured into the same
sample bottle.
• This process was repeated for the other three site stations.
Laboratory Method
• The samples collected were strained/filtered using a plankton strainer into a 1liter beaker.
• The strainer is tilt to one side and the sample is poured into the corner of the strainer.
• The filtrate is then backwashed into a smaller beaker using distilled seawater.
• More filtered seawater is added to the beaker until it is at the 180 ml mark.
• 20 ml of formalin is added to the solution to bring the sample to 200 ml making it a 10%
solution sample.
• More formalin is added to the solution to further preserve the zooplankton.
• To identify the zooplankton from the original samples, the sample was agitated and 25 ml
was poured into a beaker and then onto a bogorov tray.
• For each zooplankton sample, the identification and counting of as many species were
done with the aid of drawings and taxonomic guides.
• A species list for the sample stations and the total number of zooplankton and their
representative taxa was created.
• The numbers m^-3 for each species in the area was determined by dividing the number of
each species in each sample by the volume filtered.
Results:
Figure 1: Temperature readings for each sample station. The highest temperature recorded was at
Hunt’s Bay 32.35 oC and the lowest temperature was recorded at Harbour Shoal 30.22 oC. The
overall trend observed was temperature starts to decrease between 2-3m depths.
Line graph showing the comparison between Temperature (oC) reading at different depths for each site
location
Figure 2: Salinity readings for each site station. The highest salinity level was recorded was 35.63 o/oo at
Harbour Shoal and lowest 28.12 o/oo at Hunt’s Bay. The general trend observed is that salinity is almost
constant for all stations except for Hunt’s Bay.
Line graph showing the comparison between Salinity (o/oo) readings at different depths for each site
location
Figure 3: D.O readings for each site station. The highest D.O recorded was 6.04 mg/L at Curry’s Gate and
the lowest recorded was 2.86 mg/L at Hunt’s Bay. The general trend observed was a steady decrease in
D.O as depth increases except for Harbour Shoal.
Line graph showing the comparison between D.O(mg/L) readings at different depths for each site
location
Figure 4: pH readings for each site station. The highest pH recorded was 8.47 at Curry's Gate and
the lowest 2.78 at Hunt’s bay. The trend observed except for Hunt’s Bay was a slight fluctuation
in values, for Hunt’s bay there is a steady decrease in pH as depths increases.
Line graph showing the comparison between pH readings at different depths for each site location
Figure 5: ORP readings for each site station. The highest ORP reading recorded was 418.5 at
Gun Cay and lowest 296 at Curry’s Gate. The general trend observed was that ORP increases as
depth increases.
Line graph showing the comparison between ORP readings at different depths for each site location
Figure 6: Mean total and size-fractionated chlorophyll A biomass for each site station. Chlorophyll A
biomass recorded the lowest value at Gun Cay and highest at Hunt's Bay. Biomass increases as the
distance between land decrease.
Stacked bar graph showing mean total and size-fractionated chlorophyll A biomass for each site location
Figure 7: Percentage of size-fractionated chlorophyll A biomass for each site station. Net plankton was
dominant for all site stations followed by nanoplankton then picoplankton.
Stacked bar graph showing the percentage of size-fractionated chlorophyll a biomass
Table showing the comparison between GPS and Triangulation Co-ordinates for each site location
Site Stations GPS Triangulation
Gun Cay N17o 55' 43.2" W760 50' 9.3" -
Harbour Shoal N17o56'5"W76o50'54" N170 55' 48" W760 51' 3"
Curry's Gate N 170 56' 6" W 76050' 5.4" N170 57' 6" W 760 50' 37"
Hunt's Bay N 170 56' 37.3" W 760 50' 38.1" -
Table 1: Comparison between GPS and Triangulation readings for each site station.
Table showing the comparison between Plumb line depth and Echo depth for each site location
Site Stations Plumb Line/m Echo Depth/m
Gun Cay 6.4 7.5
Harbour Shoal - 9.5
Curry's Gate 8 6.6
Hunt's Bay 3.75 3
Table 2: Comparison of depth measured by the plumb line and echo sounder for each site location.
Table showing the extinction coefficient for each site location
Site Station EXTINCTION COEFFICIENT (Secchi /m)
Gun Cay 0.412
Harbour Shoal 0.644
Curry's Gate 0.322
Hunt's Bay 0.453
Table 3: Comparison of extinction coefficient obtained by Secchi disk for each site location. Harbour
Shoal recorded the highest value of 0.644m while Curry’s Gate recorded the lowest at 0.322m.
Table showing the comparison in sediments observed at each site station
Site Station Sediments
Gun Cay Fine sediment
Harbour Shoal -
Curry's Gate Krill, Shell fragments and Sand
Hunt's Bay Silty, Creamy, Grey, Odour, No animals
Table 4: Comparison of sediment observation for each site location.
Figure 8: Numbers/m^3 Evadne and Penilia for each site location. Numbers/m^3 increases as the
distance between shore decreases. Curry's Gate recorded the highest number/m^3 for both haul and
tow.
Bar graph showing order Cladocera: Evadne and Penilia/m^3 for each site location
Figure 9: Lucifer laxoni/m^3 for each site location. The highest value recorded was in Harbour Shoal tow
9 at 709.013/m^3 and lowest at Gun Cay tow 4 at 0/m^3.
Bar graph showing the number of Lucifer laxoni/m^3 for each site location
Figure 10: Total number of zooplankton/m^3 for each site location. Highest value recorded in Hunt’s
Bay tow 20 at 11373/m^3 and lowest at Gun Cay tow 5 at 104/m^3.
Bar graph showing the total number of zooplankton/m^3 for each site location.
Figure 11: Total zooplankton richness for each site location. Highest richness was recorded at Curry’s
Gate tow 14 at 31 species and lowest at Hunt’s bay tow 18 with 2 species.
Bar graph showing total zooplankton richness for each site location.
Discussion:
Temperature is one of the most important factors affecting water quality as it can also affect
other parameters. It was expected that temperature would decrease as depth increases, as seen in
fig. 1 all the site stations followed that trend except in Hunt’s Bay. A reason for this may be
because of its turbidity, the more suspended particles there is the more heat they will absorb.
Salinity just like temperature can affect other parameters. As expected, salinity was constant
around 30 o/oo except for Hunt’s Bay. According to fig. 2 Hunt’s bay had the lowest salinity
readings which were no surprise since Hunt’s Bay receives freshwater input from both the Rio
Cobre river and Sandy Gully (Webber and Webber 1998). Regarding fig. 3, Curry’s Gate had the
highest D.O reading in its surface water. As a result, we can assume that Curry’s Gate has a large
population of phytoplankton photosynthesizing in its surface waters. It was expected that Hunt’s
Bay would have the highest D.O because it receives an inflow of nutrients from Sandy Bay and
other studies stated it had, however, it had a drastic decrease in D.O, a reason for this decrease
may be a link to the inflow of nutrients from Sandy Gully. The excessive nutrients inputs in
water are known to cause algal blooms but also increases decomposition, which is one of the
main factors contributing to oxygen depletion. For pH, it was expected to have constant readings
across all site stations because of the carbonate buffering system but fig. 4 showed otherwise.
Except for Hunt’s Bay the other three site stations had a fluctuation in values, this may be
because of systematic error. Hunt’s Bay had the most acidic water of all four site stations, this is
a result of agricultural runoff from Rio Cobre and Sandy Gully. In terms of sediments, according
to table 4 only Curry’s Gate showed the presence of shell fragments. According to fig. 6
phytoplankton biomass increases as it gets closer to the shoreline. Based on previous studies
(Lue et al. 2014) variation in net plankton is due to temperature, pH and D.O, in nanoplankton is
distance and temperature and picoplankton is D.O and salinity. Based on fig 7 Net plankton are
the dominant group for all site stations for both surface and deep waters followed by
nanoplankton then picoplankton. Having high net plankton means there is an influx of nutrients
hence the waters are eutrophic. According to fig. 11, the richness of zooplankton increased for
both haul and tow across all site stations this is because as the distance between shore decreases
there is an increase in nutrients in the water. More nutrients availability promotes growth in the
zooplankton population. Fig 10 showed that the number of zooplankton increases for both haul
and tow for each site location. Once again this is because of the availability of excess nutrients in
the water. It was expected the significant difference of the values for hauls and tows would be
high however there was just a slight difference. Replicates of both haul and tow were not the
same. This is a result of patchiness, where for the first sample the net may have passed through a
patch of zooplankton and for the replicate there were none. Also, ocean currents can be a factor
as zooplanktons are light can be easily swept away by the currents.
Conclusion:
Based on the data obtained it can be concluded that the water quality across all site stations is
eutrophic.
Sources of error:
Some of the sources of error for these laboratory exercises include observational error when
doing compass bearing which is reflected in the triangulation method. Also when reading the
flow meter. Systematic error when using the YSI to measure parameters. Also, the splitting and
counting of zooplankton in the lab.
References:
Lue, Kristoffer, Mona Webber, Dale Webber, and Hugh Small. 2014. "The Planktonic
Communities Of The Jamaican South-East Coast; A Comparison Of Harbor, Shelf And Oceanic
Area". Rev. Biol. Trop. 62 (32): 259-272.
https://ourvle.mona.uwi.edu/pluginfile.php/160993/mod_resource/content/1/Planktonic%20com
munities%20of%20the%20Jamaican%20South%20East%20Shelf.pdf.
Webber, Dale, and Mona Webber. 1998. "THE WATER QUALITY OF KINGSTON HARBOUR:
EVALUATING THE USE OF THE PLANKTONIC COMMUNITY AND TRADITIONAL WATER
QUALITY INDICES". The Gordon And Breach Science 14: 357-374.
https://ourvle.mona.uwi.edu/pluginfile.php/160990/mod_resource/content/1/Water%20Quality%20of%20
Kingston%20Harbour%20.pdf.
Webber, Dale, Mona Webber, Emma Ranston, Francine Dunbar, and Rose-Marie Simmonds.
2003. "Changes In Water Quality And Plankton Of Kingston Harbour, Jamaica After 20 Years
Of Continued Eutrophication". Bulletin Of Marine Science 73 (2): 361-378.
https://ourvle.mona.uwi.edu/pluginfile.php/160991/mod_resource/content/1/Changes%20in%20
water%20quality%20and%20plankton%20in%20Kingston%20harbour.pdf.
