Assessing Urban River Health: Phytoplankton as a Proxy for Resource Use Efficiency and Human Impact
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Physicochemical Parameters
2.3. Phytoplankton Sampling and Analysis
2.4. Phytoplankton Diversity Analysis
2.5. Resource Use Efficiency of Phytoplankton
- RUE—resource use efficiency of total phytoplankton biomass.
- RUEBac—resource use efficiency of Bacillariophyceae.
- RUEChl—resource use efficiency of Chlorophyceae.
- RUECyan—resource use efficiency of Cyanobacteria.
2.6. Data Processing
2.6.1. Two-Way ANOVA
2.6.2. Redundancy Analysis (RDA)
2.6.3. Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC)
2.6.4. GLM (Generalized Linear Model)
3. Results
3.1. Total Phosphorus as a Key Driver in RUE Assessment
3.2. Phytoplankton Biomass (Chl-a)
3.3. Seasonal and Spatial Phytoplankton Diversity and Functional Implications
3.4. Resource Use Efficiency
3.4.1. Seasonal Traits of RUE
3.4.2. Spatial Traits of RUE
3.4.3. Environmental Drivers of Resource Use Efficiency
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Resource use efficiency represented a valuable tool in identifying key ecological aspects apart from the evaluation of phytoplankton biomass per se.
- The chronic eutrophication conditions that characterized the ecosystems of the Colentina River led to an increase in phytoplankton biomass, also indicating blooming periods. RUE showed that high phosphorus values did not always lead to increased resource use efficiency, thus signaling a functional imbalance in stress periods (spring and summer).
- Group-level analyses showed that phytoplankton exhibited distinct seasonal ecological strategies, reflecting their different adaptability:
- 4.
- Spatial analyses revealed a decoupling between RUE and biomass in different ecosystems of the Colentina system, highlighting that the functional state of the ecosystem is determined by local conditions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Paul, M.J.; Meyer, J.L. Streams in the urban landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2001, 32, 333–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, D.B.; Hartley, D.; Jackson, R. Forest cover, impervious-surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2002, 38, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan, R.P. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 706–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson, C.; Reidy, C.A.; Dynesius, M.; Revenga, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 2005, 308, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.L.; Paul, M.J.; Taulbee, W.K. Impacts of urbanization on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36, 333–365. [Google Scholar]
- Mihaljević, M.; Stević, F.; Krizmanić, J.; Savić, Ž.; Tokodi, N.; Dulić, T.; Marinović, Z. Phytoplankton functional groups as indicators of the ecological status of urban lakes. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 454–464. [Google Scholar]
- Chislock, M.F.; Doster, E.; Zitomer, R.A.; Wilson, A.E. Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic ecosystems. Natl. Educ. Knowl. 2013, 4, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, C.S. The Ecology of Phytoplankton; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Padisák, J.; Crossetti, L.O.; Naselli-Flores, L. Use and misuse in the application of the phytoplankton functional classification: A critical review with updates. Hydrobiologia 2009, 621, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ptacnik, R.; Solimini, A.G.; Andersen, T.; Tamminen, T.; Brettum, P.; Lepisto, L.; Willen, E.; Rekolainen, S. Diversity predicts stability and resource use efficiency in natural phytoplankton communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 5134–5138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hodapp, D.; Hillebrand, H.; Striebel, M. “Unifying” the concept of resource use efficiency in ecology. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 6, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardinale, B.J. Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature 2011, 472, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bucak, T.; Trolle, D.; Andersen, H.E.; Refsgaard, J.C.; Thodsen, H.; Erdogan, S.H.; Ozen, A.; Beklioglu, M. Urbanization and nutrient enrichment drive changes in resource use efficiency and community structure of phytoplankton in urban lakes. Freshw. Biol. 2012, 57, 1370–1383. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Chen, H.; Abdullah Al, M.; Ndayishimiye, J.C.; Yang, J.R.; Isabwe, A.; Luo, A.; Yang, J. Urbanization reduces resource use efficiency of phytoplankton community by altering the environment and decreasing biodiversity. J. Environ. Sci. 2022, 112, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustapha, A.; Aris, A.Z.; Juahir, H.; Ramli, M.F.; Kura, N.U. River water quality assessment using environmentric techniques: Case study of Jakara River Basin. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 5630–5644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Yang, W.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Cui, B. Eutrophication drives resource use efficiency variations in freshwater plankton communities across river–lake continuum in China’s Poyang Lake Basin. Hydrobiologia 2025, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naeem, S.; Duffy, J.E.; Zavaleta, E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 2012, 336, 1401–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reid, A.J.; Carlson, A.K.; Creed, I.F.; Eliason, E.J.; Gell, P.A.; Johnson, P.T.J.; Kidd, K.A.; MacCormack, T.J.; Olden, J.D.; Ormerod, S.J.; et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 849–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litchman, E.; Klausmeier, C.A. Trait-based community ecology of phytoplankton. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2008, 39, 615–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinu, C.; Stanca, C.; Rîșnoveanu, G.; Cîmpeanu, S.M. Phytoplankton diversity and water quality assessment in urban lakes of Bucharest. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2017, 22, 12517–12527. [Google Scholar]
- Stanca, C.; Rîșnoveanu, G.; Dinu, C.; Cîmpeanu, S.M. Resource use efficiency of phytoplankton in relation to environmental gradients in urban lakes. Hydrobiologia 2019, 831, 131–146. [Google Scholar]
- Radu, M.; Stoiculescu, R.C. Landscape changes in Colentina River basin (between Buftea and the confluence with Dâmbovița) as reflected in cartographic documents (1791–2000). Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 4, 299–309. [Google Scholar]
- Cotoi, C.; Iorga, A.; Păduraru, R.; Georgescu, A.I. The lives and afterlives of the Dâmbovița: Between ghost and living river. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2025, 8, 1447–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krom, M.D. Spectrophotometric determination of ammonia: A study of a modified Berthelot reaction using salicylate and dichloroisocyanurate. Analyst 1980, 105, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tartari, G.; Mosello, R. Metodologie analitiche e controlli di qualità nel laboratorio chimico dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia. In Documenta Dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia; Verbania Pallanza: Verbania, Italy, 1997; Volume 60, pp. 1–160. [Google Scholar]
- Edler, L.; Elbrächter, M. The Utermöhl method for quantitative phytoplankton analysis. In Microscopic and Molecular Methods for Quantitative Phytoplankton Analysis; Karlson, B., Cusack, C., Bresnan, E., Eds.; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2010; pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar]
- Krammer, K.; Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae, Teil 2. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Krammer, K.; Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae, Teil 3. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Krammer, K.; Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae, Teil 4. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Krammer, K.; Lange-Bertalot, H. Naviculaceae I. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Komárek, J.; Anagnostidis, K. Cyanoprokaryota, Teil 1: Chroococcales. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Springer: Spektrum, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Komárek, J.; Anagnostidis, K. Cyanoprokaryota, Teil 2: Oscillatoriales. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Springer: Spektrum, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ettl, H. Chlorophyta I. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Ettl, H.; Gärtner, G. Chlorophyta II. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Catherine, A.; Escoffier, N.; Belhocine, A.; Nasri, A.B.; Hamlaoui, S.; Yéprémian, C.; Bernard, C.; Troussellier, M. On the use of the FluoroProbe(r), a phytoplankton quantification method based on fluorescence excitation spectra for large-scale surveys of lakes and reservoirs. Water Res. 2012, 46, 1771–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T. Paleontological Data Analysis; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Florescu, L.I.; Moldoveanu, M.M.; Catană, R.D.; Păceșilă, I.; Dumitrache, A.; Gavrilidis, A.A.; Iojă, C.I. Assessing the Effects of Phytoplankton Structure on Zooplankton Communities in Different Types of Urban Lakes. Diversity 2022, 14, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, T.; Wang, H.; Na, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Lu, X.; Fan, Y. Temperate urban wetland plankton community stability driven by environmental variables, biodiversity, and resource use efficiency: A case of Hulanhe Wetland. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1148580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)—Exploring possible interaction between factors. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2014, 39, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crawford, I.; Ruske, S.; Topping, D.O.; Gallagher, M.W. Evaluation of hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis methods for discrimination of primary biological aerosol. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 122, 4979–4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Walker, N.; Saveliev, A.A.; Smith, G.M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Addinsoft. XLSTAT Pro. Data Analysis and Statistical Solutions for Microsoft Excel; XLSTAT: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.; Ryan, P.D. Past: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Gerhard, M.; Smith, J.A.; Lee, K. Phytoplankton diversity enhances resource use efficiency through complementary nutrient uptake strategies under variable nutrient ratios. J. Ecol. 2024, 112, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ptacnik, R.; Solimini, A.G.; Andersen, T.; Tamminen, T.; Brettum, P.; Lepistö, L.; Willén, E.; Rekolainen, S. Phytoplankton diversity predicts resource use efficiency across freshwater and brackish systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 10854–10859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Cole, J.J.; Kitchell, J.F.; Pace, M.L. Impact of dissolved organic carbon, phosphorus, and grazing on phytoplankton biomass and production in experimental lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1998, 43, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, W.M.; Roberson, J. Phytoplankton growth regulation by dissolved P and mortality regulation by endogenous cell death over 35 years of P control in a mountain lake. J. Plankton Res. 2021, 44, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, B.; Laws, E.A. Nutrients and phytoplankton in a shallow, hypereutrophic urban lake: Prospects for restoration. Water 2017, 9, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, Z.Y.; Wang, H.; Deng, Y.; Hu, Z.; Zhong Tang, Y. Harmful algal blooms significantly reduce the resource use efficiency in a coastal plankton community. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 704, 135381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Xu, J.; Chen, F. Functional diversity promotes phytoplankton resource use efficiency. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 2345–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, E. Stoichiometric constraints on phytoplankton resource use efficiency in monocultures and mixtures. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2020, 65, 661–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, L.; Wang, Y. Groups and driving factors of cyanobacterial blooms in a subtropical reservoir. Water 2019, 11, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeek, L.; Gall, A.; Hillebrand, H.; Striebel, M. Warming and oligotrophication cause shifts in freshwater phytoplankton communities. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 24, 4532–4543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schwarz, R.; Forchhammer, K. Acclimation of unicellular cyanobacteria to macronutrient deficiency: Emergence of a complex network of cellular responses. Microbiology 2005, 151, 2503–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olli, K.; Klais, R.; Tamminen, T. Rehabilitating the cyanobacteria–niche partitioning, resource use efficiency and phytoplankton community structure during diazotrophic cyanobacterial blooms. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 1153–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbur, M.L.; Bratton, B.P.; Johnson, C.H. Bacteria can anticipate the seasons: Photoperiodism in cyanobacteria. Science 2024, 385, 1105–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Yu, Y.; Liu, J.; Guo, Y.; Yu, H.; Liu, M. The driving mechanism of phytoplankton resource utilization efficiency variation on the occurrence risk of cyanobacterial blooms. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, M.; Liu, J.; Chen, X.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, H. Effects of phytoplankton diversity on resource use efficiency in a eutrophic urban river of Northern China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1389220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brembu, T.; Mühlroth, A.; Alipanah, L.; Bones, A.M. The effects of phosphorus limitation on carbon metabolism in diatoms. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372, 20160406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovio-Fragoso, J.P.; de Jesús-Campos, D.; López-Elías, J.A.; Medina-Juárez, L.Á.; Fimbres-Olivarría, D.; Hayano-Kanashiro, C. Biochemical and molecular aspects of phosphorus limitation in diatoms and their relationship with biomolecule accumulation. Biology 2021, 10, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vilmi, A.; Karjalainen, S.M.; Landeiro, V.L.; Heino, J. Freshwater diatoms as environmental indicators: Evaluating the effects of eutrophication using species morphology and biological indices. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giri, T.; Goutam, U.; Arya, A.; Gautam, S. Effect of nutrients on diatom growth: A review. Trends Sci. 2022, 19, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellinger, B.J.; Van Mooy, B.A.; Cotner, J.B.; Wilhelm, S.W.; Trick, C.G. Phosphorus uptake and storage in phytoplankton: Mechanisms and ecological implications. J. Phycol. 2010, 46, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar]
- Litchman, E.; Klausmeier, C.A.; Schofield, O.M.; Falkowski, P.G. The role of functional traits and trade-offs in structuring phytoplankton communities: Scaling from cellular to ecosystem level. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 1170–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommer, U.; Adrian, R.; Baigun, C.; Elser, J.J.; Gaedke, U.; Ibelings, B.; Jeppesen, E.; Lürling, M.; Molinero, J.C.; Mooij, W.M.; et al. Beyond the plankton ecology group (PEG) model: Mechanisms driving plankton succession. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2012, 43, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutchinson, G.E. The paradox of the plankton. Am. Nat. 1961, 95, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, J.L.S. The seasonal succession of optimal diatom traits. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2019, 64, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finlay, B.J. Interspecific resource competition among nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria. Microb. Ecol. 2011, 63, 736–750. [Google Scholar]
- Andersen, I.M.; Williamson, T.J.; González, M.J.; Vanni, M.J. Nitrate, ammonium, and phosphorus drive seasonal nutrient limitation of chlorophytes, cyanobacteria, and diatoms in a hyper-eutrophic reservoir. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2019, 65, 962–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gren, Å.; Li, L.; Sun, X. Water depth and land use intensity indirectly determine phytoplankton functional diversity and regulate resource use efficiency at a multi lake scale. J. Ecol. 2022, 110, 1234–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, X.; Wei, Y. Urbanization reduces resource use efficiency of phytoplankton community by altering the environment and decreasing biodiversity. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 124, 107470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, C.; Zhu, M.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, B.; Zhu, G. Spatiotemporal dependency of resource use efficiency on phytoplankton diversity in Lake Taihu. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2022, 67, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantzouki, E.; Cerco, C.; Winder, M.; Klais, R. Phytoplankton functional responses to eutrophication and warming in freshwater ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 2018, 63, 1216–1230. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Li, X.; Chen, Y. Functional trait diversity improves phytoplankton resource use efficiency in eutrophic lakes. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 150, 109898. [Google Scholar]




| Min | Max | Median | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring | 7.58 | 125.20 | 58.63 | 60.08 ± 27.08 |
| Summer | 3.91 | 105.24 | 76.53 | 72.12 ± 26.02 |
| Autumn | 1.72 | 108.90 | 55.13 | 54.74 ± 32.78 |
| Colentina | 3.91 | 17.32 | 9.62 | 10.22 ± 5.02 |
| Crevedia | 1.72 | 97.33 | 70.84 | 69.25 ± 30.35 |
| Mogoșoaia | 39.69 | 108.90 | 89.18 | 79.31± 24.47 |
| Plumbuita | 3.42 | 91.21 | 58.39 | 54.16 ± 21.34 |
| Fundeni | 32.47 | 125.20 | 73.82 | 74.92 ± 22.23 |
| Cernica | 13.37 | 112.72 | 58.63 | 60.34 ± 30.39 |
| Cernica canal | 27.53 | 83.05 | 70.69 | 62.58 ± 20.07 |
| Min | Max | Median | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity Indices | ||||
| Species Richness (S) | ||||
| Spring | 9.00 | 29.00 | 17.00 | 18.17 ± 6.11 |
| Summer | 10.00 | 32.00 | 22.00 | 22.23 ± 5.85 |
| Autumn | 9.00 | 28.00 | 17.50 | 17.87 ± 5.63 |
| Colentina | 9.00 | 21.00 | 11.50 | 12.63 ± 3.74 |
| Crevedia | 9.00 | 28.00 | 15.00 | 15.25 ± 5.90 |
| Mogoșoaia | 14.00 | 31.00 | 21.00 | 21.11 ± 5.33 |
| Plumbuita | 11.00 | 30.00 | 19.00 | 19.61 ± 6.04 |
| Fundeni | 12.00 | 32.00 | 23.00 | 22.33 ± 5.91 |
| Cernica | 10.00 | 26.00 | 21.00 | 19.00 ± 6.10 |
| Cernica canal | 13.00 | 28.00 | 23.00 | 21.22 ± 4.74 |
| Shannon–Weiner (H′) | ||||
| Spring | 0.00 | 2.76 | 1.86 | 1.78 ± 0.70 |
| Summer | 0.99 | 2.63 | 2.21 | 2.19 ± 0.35 |
| Autumn | 0.95 | 2.70 | 1.86 | 1.85 ± 0.47 |
| Colentina | 0.99 | 2.47 | 1.84 | 1.75 ± 0.50 |
| Crevedia | 1.01 | 2.76 | 1.97 | 1.93 ± 0.49 |
| Mogoșoaia | 0.35 | 2.52 | 1.86 | 1.85 ± 0.56 |
| Plumbuita | 0.13 | 2.57 | 2.07 | 1.89 ± 0.65 |
| Fundeni | 1.17 | 2.63 | 2.27 | 2.12 ± 0.43 |
| Cernica | 1.57 | 2.62 | 2.01 | 2.13 ± 0.38 |
| Cernica canal | 1.68 | 2.70 | 2.22 | 2.11 ± 0.33 |
| Pielou’s evenness | ||||
| Spring | 0.05 | 0.87 | 0.72 | 0.63 ± 0.24 |
| Summer | 0.38 | 0.95 | 0.72 | 0.72 ± 0.10 |
| Autumn | 0.33 | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.66 ± 0.14 |
| Colentina | 0.38 | 0.95 | 0.75 | 0.70 ± 0.19 |
| Crevedia | 0.44 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.72 ± 0.12 |
| Mogoșoaia | 0.12 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.61 ± 0.17 |
| Plumbuita | 0.05 | 0.87 | 0.73 | 0.65 ± 0.22 |
| Fundeni | 0.39 | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.69 ± 0.12 |
| Cernica | 0.66 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.73 ± 0.06 |
| Cernica canal | 0.53 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.70 ± 0.09 |
| Statistic | RUE | Biomass | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring | Summer | Autumn | Spring | Summer | Autumn | |
| Total phytoplankton | 3.94 | 4.29 | 6.06 | 60.08 | 72.12 | 54.74 |
| Chlorophyceae | 2.96 | 3.50 | 4.94 | 28.18 | 38.22 | 28.03 |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.88 | 2.63 | 4.37 | 6.39 | 13.90 | 8.88 |
| Bacillariophyceae | 1.78 | 1.77 | 3.20 | 11.06 | 8.49 | 5.93 |
| Ecosystem Type | Season | Ecosystem Type * Season | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | F | p | F | P | F | P | F | P | |
| Chlorophyceae | 0.5 | 4.07 | <0.0001 | 8.54 | <0.0001 | 4.61 | 0.01 | 1.57 | 0.13 |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.55 | 5.11 | <0.0001 | 4.38 | 0 | 17.24 | <0.0001 | 1.7 | 0.1 |
| Bacillariophyceae | 0.37 | 2.44 | 0 | 3.98 | 0 | 3.39 | 0.04 | 1.54 | 0.14 |
| Total biomass | 0.66 | 7.95 | <0.0001 | 18.53 | <0.0001 | 6.13 | 0 | 2.85 | 0 |
| RUEChl | 0.55 | 5.03 | <0.0001 | 6.08 | <0.0001 | 14.06 | <0.0001 | 1.27 | 0.26 |
| RUECyan | 0.76 | 13.35 | <0.0001 | 3.47 | 0.01 | 78.05 | <0.0001 | 1.74 | 0.09 |
| RUEBac | 0.44 | 3.23 | 0 | 3.89 | 0 | 7.15 | 0 | 1.85 | 0.07 |
| RUE | 0.77 | 13.44 | <0.0001 | 8.67 | <0.0001 | 66.28 | <0.0001 | 2.43 | 0.02 |
| Total Biomass | Chlorophyceae | Bacillariophyceae | Cyanobacteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Pr > F | F | Pr > F | F | Pr > F | F | Pr > F | |
| S | 11.02 | 0.00 | 44.68 | <0.0001 | 4.93 | 0.03 | 64.26 | <0.0001 |
| H′ | 6.02 | 0.02 | 0.73 | 0.40 | 1.93 | 0.17 | 10.11 | 0.00 |
| J | 14.80 | 0.00 | 1.93 | 0.17 | 7.04 | 0.01 | 7.65 | 0.01 |
| Light | 42.18 | <0.0001 | 2.90 | 0.09 | 2.39 | 0.13 | 32.72 | <0.0001 |
| Depth (m) | 0.33 | 0.57 | 1.78 | 0.19 | 6.18 | 0.02 | 6.00 | 0.02 |
| Turbidity | 23.65 | <0.0001 | 3.12 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 5.94 | 0.02 |
| Temperature | 14.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.97 | 2.82 | 0.10 | 24.89 | <0.0001 |
| pH | 74.81 | <0.0001 | 13.79 | 0.00 | 1.79 | 0.18 | 20.32 | <0.0001 |
| Water flow | 0.89 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.22 | 0.64 | 0.35 | 0.55 |
| DO (%) | 4.07 | 0.05 | 1.83 | 0.18 | 3.34 | 0.07 | 26.55 | <0.0001 |
| ORP | 3.77 | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.58 | 0.06 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.35 |
| NH4 | 25.92 | <0.0001 | 19.17 | <0.0001 | 2.24 | 0.14 | 9.17 | 0.00 |
| NO3 | 28.63 | <0.0001 | 9.27 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.76 | 17.67 | <0.0001 |
| TP | 124.51 | <0.0001 | 21.81 | <0.0001 | 16.08 | 0.00 | 91.34 | <0.0001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Moldoveanu, M.M.; Florescu, L.I.; Dumitrache, C.A.; Catana, R.D. Assessing Urban River Health: Phytoplankton as a Proxy for Resource Use Efficiency and Human Impact. Phycology 2025, 5, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology5040072
Moldoveanu MM, Florescu LI, Dumitrache CA, Catana RD. Assessing Urban River Health: Phytoplankton as a Proxy for Resource Use Efficiency and Human Impact. Phycology. 2025; 5(4):72. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology5040072
Chicago/Turabian StyleMoldoveanu, Mirela M., Larisa I. Florescu, Cristina A. Dumitrache, and Rodica D. Catana. 2025. "Assessing Urban River Health: Phytoplankton as a Proxy for Resource Use Efficiency and Human Impact" Phycology 5, no. 4: 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology5040072
APA StyleMoldoveanu, M. M., Florescu, L. I., Dumitrache, C. A., & Catana, R. D. (2025). Assessing Urban River Health: Phytoplankton as a Proxy for Resource Use Efficiency and Human Impact. Phycology, 5(4), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/phycology5040072

