Repply to: Brito, A.C., Brotas, V., Caetano, M., Coutinho, T.P., Bordalo, A.A., Icely, J., Neto, J.M., Serôdio, J., Moita, T. (2012) "Defining phytoplankton class boundaries in Portuguese transitional waters: an evaluation of the ecological quality status according to the Water Framework Directive" [Ecological Indicators 19, 5-14]

We write to comment on the recently published paper “Defining phytoplankton class boundaries in Portuguese transitional waters: an evaluation of the ecological quality status according to the Water Framework Directive” (Brito et al., 2012). This paper presents an integrated methodology to analyse the ecological quality status of several Portuguese transitional waters, using phytoplanktonrelated metrics. One of the systems analysed, the Guadiana estuary in southern Portugal, is considered the most problematic estuary, with its upstream water bodies classified as Poor in terms of ecological status. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and we would like to raise awareness to some methodological constraints that, in our opinion, are the basis of such deceptive conclusions and should therefore not be neglected when using phytoplankton to assess the ecological status of natural waters.

Grazing impact of microzooplankton upon phytoplankton

Alterations of freshwater flow regimes and increasing eutrophication can lead to alterations in phytoplankton biomass, composition, and growth in estuaries and adjacent coastal waters. Since phytoplankton is the first trophic level of most aquatic foodwebs, these changes can be propagated to other biological compartments, eventually impacting water quality and ecosystem services. However, phytoplankton responses to environmental changes in abiotic variables (e.g., light, nutrients) are additionally controlled by mortality or removal processes (e.g., grazing, horizontal advection and viral lysis). Grazing exerted by microzooplankton, usually dominated by phagotrophic protists, is considered the most relevant phytoplankton mortality factor in most aquatic systems (see Calbet, Landry 2004). In fact, grazing impact of microzooplankton can prevent phytoplankton accumulation in marine systems despite an overall increase in phytoplankton replication rate. By consequence, microzooplankton grazing may minimize problems associated to increased eutrophication and, ultimately, prevent the occurrence of harmful phytoplankton blooms. Thus, microzooplankton grazing on phytoplankton constitutes a key biological process required to understand and predict relationships between hydrological and biological processes in aquatic ecosystems and to use ecosystem properties to improve water quality and enhance ecosystem services, general principles of the Ecohydrology Concept (Zalewski 2000).

Effects of nutrient and light enrichment on phytoplankton growth

Alterations of freshwater flow regimes and increasing eutrophication lead to alterations in light availability and nutrient loading into adjacent estuaries and coastal areas. Phytoplankton community respond to these changes in many ways. Harmful phytoplankton blooms, for instance, may be a consequence of changes in nutrient supply, as well as the replacement of some phytoplankton species (like diatoms, that contribute for the development of large fish and shellfish populations) by ohers (like cyanobacteria, that may be toxic and represent an undesirable food source for higher trophic levels). Nutrient and light enrichment experiments allow us to understand and predict the effects of eutrophication on the growth of phytoplankton. This is a fundamental tool in water management issues, since it enables the prediction of changes in the phytoplankton community that may be harmful to the whole ecosystem, and the design of mitigation strategies (Zalewski 2000).