AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)

Published online 8 August 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.719

Seasonality of hydrographic variables in a coastal lagoon:

Mar Chiquita, Argentina

JORGE MARCOVECCHIO1,*, HUGO FREIJE2, SILVIA DE MARCO3, ANDREA GAVIO3,

LAURA FERRER4, SANTIAGO ANDRADE5, ORNELA BELTRAME3 and RAÚL ASTEASUAIN1
1
Marine Chemistry Laboratory, Instituto Argentino de Oceanografı´a (IADO), Florida 4000 Edificio E-1,
C.C. 804, 8000 Bahı´a Blanca, Argentina
2
Chemistry Department, Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Av. Alem 1253, 8000 Bahı´a Blanca, Argentina
3
Facultad Cs. Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (UNMdP), Funes 3350,
7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina
4
Chemistry Department, Universidad de las Islas Baleares (UIB), Carretera de Valldemossa km 7.5,
07122 Palma de Mallorca,España
5
Ecology Department, Centre for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, C.C. 114-D, Santiago, Chile

ABSTRACT
1. The concentration and distribution of several hydrographical variables from Mar Chiquita
coastal lagoon, Argentina, were measured monthly over a year in order to quantify their seasonal
variations. Temperature, salinity, inorganic nutrient concentrations (nitrate, nitrite, phosphate,
silicate) in the water column, and photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a and phaeopigments) in
suspended particulate matter (SPM), were measured using internationally standardized analytical
methods.
2. Agricultural use of land surrounding the coastal lagoon has been shown to be the main nutrient
source, owing to the use of fertilizers for farming and the consequent leaching of the soils by
freshwater runoff.
3. Two different hydrographical areas were identified within the coastal lagoon, one showing
marine influence and the other dominated by inland influence (due to catchment and freshwater
inputs), both with different characteristics and ecological behaviour.
4. The frequent occurrence of phytoplankton blooms has also been identified within the coastal
lagoon. There was significant biological production (in terms of chlorophyll a) within the lagoon
throughout the year. The lagoon appears to function as a transitional system, opportunistically
benefiting from extra nutrient inputs which, together with other environmental conditions, results in
a continuous food supply, useful to both marine and estuarine organisms. Consequently the system
is important for numerous fish and shellfish species as a nursery area.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: coastal lagoon; physicochemical parameters; nutrients; pigments; seasonal variation

*Correspondence to: J. Marcovecchio, Marine Chemistry Laboratory, Instituto Argentino de Oceanografı́a, Florida 4000, Edificio
E-1, C.C. 804, 8000 Bahı́a Blanca, Argentina. E-mail: jorgemar@criba.edu.ar

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 25 March 2004
Accepted 10 April 2005
336 J. MARCOVECCHIO ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

An understanding of the hydrographical structure of marine, estuarine, and riverine ecosystems is necessary
in order to characterize them and understand their ecological importance (Burton, 1976). Furthermore,
accurate estimates of nutrient transport rates from land to sea are important requirements for quantitative
coastal-zone management (Uncles et al., 1998). Estuaries function as important sinks and transformers of
nutrients transported from land to sea (Jordan et al., 1991). Coastal lagoons are special environments,
because of their ecological characteristics, and account for 15% of the world’s littoral zone. Their
productivity makes them part of the most productive ecosystems in the biosphere (SCOR/IABO/Unesco,
1982).
Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon is unique within the coastal system of Buenos Aires Province (Argentina),
and has been the subject of a number of geological, climatic and biological studies (Olivier et al., 1972a,
1972b; Lanfredi et al., 1981; Fasano et al., 1982; Iribarne, 2001). Although limited information on both
hydrographical and physicochemical characteristics of this environment has been reported (Lena and
L’Hoste, 1975; Anger et al., 1994; Freije et al., 1996; Marcovecchio et al., 1997), data on seasonal variations
of hydrographical parameters have not been previously published.
The ecological importance of such types of systems as birds’ nesting, feeding and resting sites, and fish
nursery areas, highlights the need for the most comprehensive understanding of the behaviour of the full
range of environmental parameters to ensure that management can be most effective from a conservation
point of view. The aim of this study is to analyse the magnitude, distribution and seasonal variations of
temperature, salinity, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, silicate, phaeopigments and chlorophyll a in Mar Chiquita
coastal lagoon. This environmental characterization will contribute to an increased understanding of the
role of the lagoon within the coastal zone, which is relevant for both monitoring and conservation of this
ecosystem.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study area
Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon is located between 378 330 and 378 430 S, and 578 150 and 578 300 W, on the
Atlantic coast of Buenos Aires Province, 32 km north-east of Mar del Plata City, Argentina (Figure 1), and
has recently been declared a Biosphere Reserve under the Unesco Man and the Biosphere Programme
(MAB). The lagoon has an area of
60 km2, with a tributary basin of 10 000 km2. Its shape is irregular,
and its bottom topography very smooth, reaching a maximum depth of 1.50 m (Lanfredi et al., 1981), and
at no time throughout the year is there any vertical stratification of the water column. The lagoon is
connected to the sea through an elongated inlet channel of approximately 6 km length and more than 200 m
width. Freshwater influence is more significant than that of sea water and its main input is the continental
drainage, which collects rainwater from a large basin, including the Tandilia orographic system.
The area of Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon receives an average rainfall of about 900 mm yr1. Even though
the greatest rainfall has been historically recorded during summer (December to March), during the year in
which this study was undertaken very significant rains occurred during spring, particularly in October,
when it was double the historical mean (Table 1). The weather was characterized by severe storms with
strong winds and hail; such torrential rainfall has been recorded at this time of the year in the past (i.e. from
October to December; Olivier et al., 1972a).
The role of the phreatic reservoir that regulates not only the lagoon water level but also the standard
meteorological conditions of the area has been recognized, such that an increase in water level within the
reservoir regulates not only the depth of the lagoon but also the surface of the water mirror, and

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
 COASTAL LAGOON HYDROGRAPHIC VARIABLES 337

A. Chico

37˚30'

A. Grande

A. Dulce

37˚40' A. de los Huesos

South Atlantic Ocean

5
4

A. Vivoratá 3
2
1

A. de los Cueros

MAR CHIQUITA COASTAL LAGOON

2 0 2 4 km

57˚30' 57˚15'
Figure 1. Geographical location of Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon, and its corresponding sampling stations.

Table 1. Monthly precipitation record for the area of Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon (values in millimetres)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual average
1901–1980 average 88 78 112 98 77 88 64 44 61 60 75 114 959
Year of the study 110 67 90 76 80 41 56 55 54 110 81 99 919

consequently the rainfall within the area (Fasano et al., 1982). Thus, the phreatic reservoir acts as a climatic
regulator: an increase in the area of the lagoon is coincident with a significant increase in precipitation in
the region (Fasano et al., 1982).

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
338 J. MARCOVECCHIO ET AL.

Sampling and data analysis

Six sampling stations were located along the coastal lagoon, which were representative of the differing
conditions in the lagoon (Figure 1). The key characteristics of each sampling station were:
* Station 1 is located within the lagoon, just at the outlet of the coastal lagoon to the ocean.
* Station 2 is close to the freshwater discharge of Cangrejo Creek.
* Station 3 is close to a large bridge, which crosses the coastal lagoon. It is not just a geographical accident,
but also a physical barrier, which functions as sediment trap, making it difficult for tidal penetration to
the inner area of the lagoon.
* Station 4 is close to a large wetland area dominated by burrowing crabs.
* Station 5 is close to a major livestock farming area.
* Station 6 is in an area important for sport fishing.
Sampling surveys were conducted on a monthly basis, from September 1998 to August 1999 with samples
collected at depth of 0.5 m.
The spatial and seasonal variations of eight hydrographical parameters (temperature, salinity, nitrate,
nitrite, phosphate and silicate in water; chlorophyll a and phaeopigments content in suspended particulate
matter) were evaluated at Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon.
In situ water temperature and salinity were measured using a 5516-10 Cole Parmer water analyser,
previously calibrated against traditional standardized methods (Grasshoff et al., 1983). Water samples were
obtained, using pre-washed polycarbonate Van Dorn sampling bottles, in order to determine nutrient and
pigment concentrations. Sub-samples for nutrient determination were filtered and stored in plastic bottles
at 208C, whilst those for pigments were vacuum-filtered through Whatmann GF-C glass fibre filters and
were stored in a freezer (208C) until subsequent laboratory analysis. Inorganic nutrients were determined
using methodologies reported by Treguer and Le Corre (1975) for nitrate, by Grasshoff (1983) for nitrite,
by Eberlein and Kattner (1987) for phosphate, and by Technicon1 (1973) for silicate. Determinations were
carried out using a Technicon A-II four-channel autoanalyser. Concentrations of chlorophyll a and
phaeopigments in suspended particulate matter were measured according to Lorenzen and Jeffrey (1980).
Analyses were performed using a Shimadzu 210-A UV-VIS spectrophotometer. Calibration curves and
blanks were built up using analytical grade reagents.

RESULTS

Temperature
Water temperature was the same at the six sampling stations and showed a common temporal variation
throughout the year (Figure 2(a)). It followed the typical sinusoidal curve characteristic of estuarine
environments (Arnason, 1971). Seasonal temperature changes were significant (Table 2). The lowest values
were recorded in August (winter) at all sampling stations. During spring (September to December)
temperature increased sharply, with a continuous increase occurring during summer followed by a rapid
decrease in water temperature from late February through May (Figure 2(a)).

Salinity
The salinity data showed two different patterns: (1) salinity recorded at stations 1, 2 and 3 corresponded to
the coastal marine environment; (2) salinity values measured at stations 4, 5 and 6 corresponded with
oligohaline waters, suggesting large influences due to freshwater inputs (Figure 2(b); Table 2). The salinity
distributions were largely dependent on environmental factors, such as meteorological conditions and
hydrographic circulation. In mid-spring, salinity dramatically decreased from 26 in September to 19.3

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
 COASTAL LAGOON HYDROGRAPHIC VARIABLES 339

40

35
30

temperature ( ˚C )
25

20
15

10
5

JUL
JAN

JUN
SEP

FEB

APR
OCT

NOV

DEC

MAR

MAY

AUG
STA.1 STA.2 STA.3
(a) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

35

30

25
salinity ( p.s.u.)

20

15

10

0
JUL
JAN
SEP

FEB

JUN
OCT

DEC

APR
NOV

MAR

MAY

AUG

STA.1 STA.2 STA.3

(b) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

Figure 2. Distribution of temperature (a) and salinity (b) in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon.

Table 2. Range of values of the recorded variables within Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon during the study period

Variables Spring Summer Autumn Winter Comments

Temperature (8C) 21.9–25.9 26.4–33.4 20.0–25.6 7.9–11.7
Salinity (psu) 11.1–26.9 22.4–27.0 23.7–25.3 27.15–28.75 External zone
1.3–9.9 1.1–8.35 1.9–8.65 1.15–11.35 Internal zone
Nitrate (mmol L1) 0.35–52.4 0.01–0.89 0.42–38.98 0.65–19.53
Nitrite (mmol L1) 0.2–2.17 0.15–0.65 0.18–1.6 0.16–1.85
Phosphate (mmol L1) 0.41–2.24 0.45–1.59 0.45–1.25 0.35–1.52
Silicate (mmol L1) 68.3–438.18 3.05–285.71 36.57–312.38 12.31–275.37
Chlorophyll a (mg L1) 5.48–60.4 4.69–51.34 4.47–44.8 1.15–34.74
Phaeopigments (mg L1) 0.06–26.96 0.78–40.16 0.1–14.19 0.15–13.79

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
340 J. MARCOVECCHIO ET AL.

(station 1), 19.6 (station 2) and 11.1 (station 3) during October, the latter in association with a storm event.
Probably as a result of the storm, salinity significantly increased at stations 4 and 5, an event linked to the
redistribution and unusually strong intrusion of marine water from station 3. Salinity values recorded
during summer in the marine area of the lagoon fluctuated widely. This variation is linked to the
characteristic short and abundant summer rainfall season (Figure 2(b)). The particular salinity decrease
detected in the inner area (stations 4, 5 and 6) during December (summer) is related to a high input of fresh
water and its retention within the lagoon.

Nutrients
Nitrate and nitrite
The nitrogen nutrients, nitrate and nitrite, showed similar temporal patterns of variation (Figures 3(a) and
(b)). A sharp increase of nitrate concentrations was observed during spring (Table 2), with a marked
concentration peak in autumn. Spring nitrite concentrations also showed a significant increase (close to
200–250%) during October, and presumably linked to the above-mentioned meteorological event (Figure
3(b)). During late spring and summer (November–February), nitrate was completely depleted, while during
autumn the regeneration processes of both nitrogen nutrients took place and a significant increase in their
concentrations was observed (Table 2; Figure 3(a)).

Phosphate
Phosphate levels in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon were similar throughout the year except when perturbed
by external events (Table 2, Figure 4(a)). Significantly higher levels (between 1.53 and 3.22 mmol P-PO4 L1;
Figure 4(a)) occurred only in October (spring), which coincided with a storm event.

Silicate
Silicate showed great variability, related to its origin in land sources and its strong dependence on
environmental conditions (i.e. meteorological events, hydrographic circulation). Silicate concentrations
increased from early to late spring (September and October). Station 6 showed the highest concentration
detected during this season (450 mmol Si-SiO3 L1). High concentrations recorded during October (Figure
4(b)) were probably related to the storm that supplied the lagoon with significant amounts of land-derived
material. Concentrations decreased towards summer, when values were intermediate at the inner stations
(although again the highest silicate level was recorded at station 6) and showed almost total depletion at the
outer stations (stations 1, 2 and 3). Silicate concentrations were intermediate during autumn, and showed
an increasing gradient towards the inner stations (Figure 4(b)). Values recorded during winter showed a
wide range of variation (12.31–275.37 mmol Si-SiO3 L1), which remained until August, when a sharp
increase was again detected at station 6, reaching 280 mmol Si-SiO3 L1.

Chlorophyll a and phaeopigments

During spring, values of chlorophyll a varied from 5.48 mg L1 to 60.40 mg L1. Between September and
October there was a mean increase in value, and then a decrease in November, with the exception of station
1 which increased significantly to 60.4 mg L1 during that month (Figure 5(a)). This value was the highest
detected over the entire period of study. During summer, levels of chlorophyll a oscillated between 10.03
and 33.65 mg L1, and mean values decreased towards late summer (February). Station 1 was the exception,
maintaining a high concentration of chlorophyll a throughout.
The chlorophyll a concentrations decreased from autumn (10 mg L1) to winter (almost 0.1 mg L1) within
the inner area (at stations 4, 5 and 6), whereas concentrations remained high within the marine area

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
 COASTAL LAGOON HYDROGRAPHIC VARIABLES 341

60

50

N-NO3 (µmoles.L-1)
40

30

20

10

0
SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG
STA.1 STA.2 STA.3 STA.4
(a) STA.5 STA.6

2.5

2
N-NO2 (µmoles. L-1)

1.5

0.5

0
SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

STA.1 STA.2 STA.3

(b) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

Figure 3. Distribution of nitrate (a) and nitrite (b) in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon.

(20–30 mg L1 at stations 1, 2 and 3; Table 2; Figures 5(a) and (b)) before finally decreasing sharply in
August (late winter). Although exhibiting a wide variation, chlorophyll a remained high during the whole
study period, with minimum values significantly higher than maxima detected in the adjacent marine area
(Carreto et al., 1995).

DISCUSSION

Distributions of temperature and salinity indicate that this coastal lagoon has special conditions, which
represent significant advantages to development of the early stages of numerous fish and shellfish species
(Olivier et al., 1972b), in comparison with those in the adjacent coastal marine environment (Carreto, 1969;
Carreto et al., 1995). Whereas temperature variation followed a typical sinusoidal distribution curve
(Olivier et al., 1972a; Fasano et al., 1982) similar to that for other estuarine environments (e.g. Nixon,

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
342 J. MARCOVECCHIO ET AL.

3.5

P-PO4 (µmoles.L-1)
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG
STA.1 STA.2 STA.3
(a) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

500
450
400
Si-SiO3 (µmoles.L-1)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

STA.1 STA.2 STA.3

(b) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

Figure 4. Distribution of phosphate (a) and silicate (b) in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon.

1980), temperature values at Mar Chiquita were significantly higher than those in the adjacent marine
environment. The reduced depth of the system as well as the weak water movements due to limited tidal
influence contributed to these higher temperatures. Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon water temperatures
reported here showed a pattern similar to those previously reported by Olivier et al. (1972a) and Fasano
et al. (1982), although present values were significantly higher.
Salinity values in both marine and oligohaline areas of Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon were similar to those
previously reported by other authors, e.g. Olivier et al. (1972a), Lena and L’Hoste (1975), or Fasano et al.
(1982), although they have not suggested a division of the coastal lagoon into two areas, which is proposed
as a result of the present study. Moreover, conditions related to hypersalinity within the inner area, as
commented by Fasano et al. (1982), were not detected during this study.
Two sub-systems of this coastal lagoon can be delimited from the salinity distribution patterns. First, a
marine sub-system, which includes station 1, station 2 and station 3 (Figure 1), which seems to function

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
 COASTAL LAGOON HYDROGRAPHIC VARIABLES 343

70

60

chlorophyll a (µg.L-1)
50

40

30

20

10

0
SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG
STA.1 STA.2 STA.3
(a) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

45
40
phaeopigments (µg.L-1)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

STA.1 STA.2 STA.3

(b) STA.4 STA.5 STA.6

Figure 5. Distribution of chlorophyll a (a) and phaeopigments (b) in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon.

under a tidal regime regulation and shows salinity values of a typical marine coastal lagoon, in agreement
with previous reports (Olivier et al., 1972a; Lena and L’Hoste, 1975; Fasano et al., 1982). Second, an
oligohaline sub-system that includes station 4, station 5 and station 6 (Figure 1) and which depends on
freshwater inputs. However, unusual rainfalls } such as that recorded in October (Table 1) } may modify
the whole salinity distribution, reducing that of the marine system to 11 (Figure 2(b)) owing to freshwater
dilution, and simultaneously increasing that of the oligohaline system to 9.9 (Figure 2(b)), owing to the
increased land derived input through streams and runoff (Liss, 1976). This kind of salinity gradient is not
permanent within the coastal lagoon, and in fact the most usual salinity distribution is that described in the
first step: marine values in the outer area and freshwater ones in the inner, with an extremely reduced (or
even non-existent) gradient. These kinds of salinity modification processes have an inertial turnover time
requiring almost a month and half in order to return to normal levels (Figure 2(b)).
The neighbouring terrestrial system proved to be the main source of inorganic nutrients to Mar Chiquita
coastal lagoon. Our results showed that the highest nutrient concentrations were associated to storm events,

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
344 J. MARCOVECCHIO ET AL.

which resulted in excessive nitrogen enriched freshwater runoff to the coastal lagoon. This pattern has been
described for many estuarine environments (Gao Sengquan et al., 1993; Jarvie et al., 1998). Most of the
land surrounding Mar Chiquita is used for both arable and cattle farming, providing the major source of
inorganic nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus). Throughout the year, the highest concentra-
tions of nitrate, nitrite and phosphate were recorded in the oligohaline area, mainly in its inner zone (i.e.
station 6) (Figures 1, 3(a), 3(b) and 4(a)). To some extent, this suggests that nitrate, phosphate and silicate
concentrations were closely related to the rainfall event, causing soil leaching and surface runoff, and the
consequent loss of soil fertilizers (Gao Sengquan et al., 1993).
Mar Chiquita silicate levels measured during this study were in close agreement with global mean values
(Meybeck, 1979, 1982), whilst concentrations of dissolved nitrate and phosphate were significantly higher
than global mean values (Gao Sengquan et al., 1993). Unfortunately, information on nutrient distributions
in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon is scarce and relatively few papers include nitrate and nitrite data. However,
nutrient levels reported in this paper agree with previous measurements (Freije et al., 1996; Marcovecchio
et al., 1997).
Variations of nutrient concentrations were shown to be closely related to the corresponding
phytoplankton biological cycle; for example, the dramatic decrease of nitrate during summer agreed
closely with a generalized, high phytoplankton growth in most of the coastal lagoon. Correspondingly, a
significant increase of nitrate in early autumn was simultaneous with the drop-off in chlorophyll a
concentrations (Figures 3(a), 5(a) and 5(b)). Similar patterns, not only in distribution, but also in variation
of the corresponding levels, have been observed for the other nutrients (nitrite, phosphate and silicate).
General patterns of silicate distribution within station 1 coincided not only with extremely high chlorophyll
a but also with diatom-dominated phytoplankton assemblages within the marine area of the lagoon (De
Marco, pers. comm.). A similar relationship with the phytoplankton cycle has been identified (Figures 3(b),
4(a), 4(b), 5(a) and 5(b)). Although this kind of ecological relationship has been previously reported for
other estuaries (Cloern et al., 1985; Anderson, 1986), it is the first time it has been identified for this
environment. It is important to note that in temperate estuaries, such as Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon,
temperature seems to play a secondary role on the influence of primary production (Gieskes and Kraay,
1975; Cadée and Hegeman, 1986), which is basically dependent on nutrient availability and light supply
(Fichez et al., 1992).
Considering the N:P ratios from Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon, the magnitude of variation was strongly
dependent on time and space, ranging from 1 to 30 for different stations and seasons. It was much higher
than the variation of the Redfield ratio for marine systems (N:P=15–16; Redfield, 1958). One possible
reason for this was the particularly high nitrate content and large N:P ratio in Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon,
which was the result of wide-ranging utilization of nitrogenous fertilizers within the adjacent agricultural
area. D’Elia et al. (1986) have reported that the N:P ratio in estuaries, unlike those in the ocean (Redfield,
1958), may vary widely with time and space, and may greatly deviate from the ratio of N:P in
phytoplankton; moreover, very low values in summer may be the result of a nitrogen limitation, related to a
corresponding phytoplankton bloom.
Distribution patterns in chlorophyll a as an indicator of the phytoplankton cycle at Mar Chiquita
coastal lagoon suggested two different patterns of behaviour: (1) station 1 demonstrated a complete
synchronicity with the corresponding marine phytoplankton of the neighbouring coastal system, and (2)
other areas of the coastal lagoon (station 2 to station 6; Figure 1), exhibited their own biological
rhythm. Thus, at station 1 the main phytoplankton bloom occurred during late spring, with chlorophyll a
concentrations higher than those usually reported for the associated coastal marine system (e.g. Carreto,
1969; Carreto et al., 1995) and a secondary bloom occurred during late summer } early autumn
(Figure 5(a)), as described by other authors (e.g. Sellner, 1983; Pennock, 1987) for coastal
marine environments. In addition, at the same station, phaeopigments correlated with, but lagged,
chlorophyll a, with a temporal shift close to 1.5–2 months (Figure 5(b)). This may be explained by the

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
 COASTAL LAGOON HYDROGRAPHIC VARIABLES 345

fact that phaeopigments were produced by chlorophyll degradation and increased their concentration
when chlorophyll was decaying. Phaeopigments provided an indication of phytoplankton degradation
products as a result of grazing and other mortality. Generally, there was a strong and essentially linear
correlation between phaeopigment and chlorophyll a (Uncles et al., 1998). Both phaeopigment and
chlorophyll a concentrations and distributions agree with previous data (Freije et al., 1996; Marcovecchio
et al., 1997).
When the other areas of the coastal lagoon were analysed in relation to their photosynthetic pigment
contents, two kinds of behaviour were observed, which had similar temporal distribution pattern but
different pigment concentrations: (1) stations 2 and 3, which showed high chlorophyll a content throughout
the year, but with phytoplankton blooms during later spring, summer and early winter, and (2) stations 4, 5
and 6, which had the same distribution patterns but lower chlorophyll a concentrations than those of
stations 2 and 3 (Figures 1 and 5(a)).
Thus, Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon seems to function as a transitional environment, which receives a
large amount of inorganic nutrient from neighbouring terrestrial ecosystems throughout the year. This has
allowed the coastal lagoon to develop its own biological rhythm, which can be influenced by the coastal
marine system close to the lagoon outlet. Within the internal areas, phytoplankton blooms have been
regulated not only by nutrient availability, but also by meteorological conditions. It is possible that most of
these phytoplankton blooms have diatom predominance, considering that most of the silicates, which are
introduced into the system from land sources, are quickly consumed, particularly within the region near the
outlet of the lagoon. Their concentrations have been maintained throughout the year, with the exception of
unusual meteorological events. This particular condition of Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon during most of
the year (i.e. high nutrient availability, reduced depth, calm conditions within the water body, restricted
water circulation and homogeneity in the water column) drives biological production at a higher rate than
in the adjacent coastal marine environment. This particular characteristic deserves to be given ecological
consideration, because it represents a significant food source for zooplankton, fish larvae and other filter-
feeders, which seem to be available all year. Mar Chiquita coastal lagoon has been recently declared a
Biosphere Reserve by Unesco within the Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB), because of its ecological
importance, making its conservation of critical importance. Our results showed that this coastal lagoon
maintains a high biological production level during the whole year, owing to the very high availability of
inorganic nutrients and associated environmental conditions (shallow waters system, hydrographic
characteristics, etc.). Furthermore, most of the surrounding lands are intensively used for agriculture
purposes, resulting in erosion and sediment transport through streams, and large discharges of fertilizers-
derived nutrients that could significantly affect the coastal lagoon through siltation and eutrophication. The
siltation rate is increasing and the coastal lagoon depth is significantly lower than that described 30 years
ago (Olivier et al., 1972a, 1972b; Reta et al., 2001). Evidence of eutrophication has not yet been recorded,
but the necessary conditions (i.e. high input of nutrients, shallow system and reduced circulation) are
present. The lack of an integrated management programme (IMP) for this coastal lagoon is of considerable
concern; it is suggested that the results included in this paper as well as the processes identified and
described here would be useful in the development of a suitable IMP to help ensure the protection and
management of this Biosphere Reserve.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was financed by CONICET/ANPCYT (Grant no. PICT-0244-97) and UNMdP (Grant nos 15/E-041 and
15/E-087). Dr A. Nofal kindly allowed us to use his farming facilities to get samples at Station 5.
Professor Reginald Uncles (NERC Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences, Plymouth Marine Laboratory,
Plymouth, UK) has kindly provided valuable comments improving this manuscript.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
346 J. MARCOVECCHIO ET AL.

REFERENCES

Anderson GF. 1986. Silica, diatoms, and freshwater productivity maximum in Atlantic coastal plain estuaries,
Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 22: 183–197.
Anger K, Spivak E, Bas C, Ismael D, Luppi T. 1994. Hatching rhythms and dispersion of decapod crustacean larvae in
a brackish coastal lagoon in Argentina. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 48: 445–466.
Arnason G. 1971. Estuary modelling. In Man’s Impact on Terrestrial and Oceanic Ecosystems, Matthews WH, Smith
FE, Goldberg ED (eds). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 430–447.
Burton JD. 1976. Basic properties and processes in estuarine chemistry. In Estuarine Chemistry, Burton JD, Liss PS
(eds). Academic Press: London; 1–36.
Cadée GC, Hegeman J. 1986. Seasonal and annual variation in Phaeocystis pouchetii (Haptophyceae) in
the westernmost inlet of the Wadden Sea during the 1973 to 1985 period. Netherland Journal of Sea Research 20:
29–36.
Carreto JI. 1969. Variaciones de la biomasa fitoplanctónica en aguas costeras de Mar del Plata. CARPAS Documentos
Ocasionales 11: 1–15.
Carreto JI, Lutz V, Carignan M, Cucchi Colleoni A, De Marco S. 1995. Hydrography and chlorophyll a in a transect
from the coast to the shelf-break in the Argentinian Sea. Continental Shelf Research 15(2–3): 315–336.
Cloern JE, Cole BE, Wong RLJ, Alpine AE. 1985. Temporal dynamics of estuarine phytoplankton: a case study of San
Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129: 153–176.
D’Elia CF, Sanders JG, Boynton WR. 1986. Nutrient enrichment studies in a coastal plain estuary: phytoplankton
growth in large-scale, continuous cultures. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 397–406.
Eberlein K, Kattner G. 1987. Automatic method for the determination of ortho-phosphate and total dissolved
phosphorus in the marine environment. Fresenius Zeitung of Analytical Chemistry 326: 354–357.
Fasano JL, Hernández MA, Isla FI, Schnack EJ. 1982. Aspectos evolutivos y ambientales de la laguna Mar Chiquita
(provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina). Oceanologica Acta No SP: 285–292.
Fichez R, Jickells TD, Edmunds HM. 1992. Algal blooms in high turbidity, a result of the conflicting consequences of
turbulence on nutrient cycling in a shallow water estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences 35: 577–592.
Freije RH, Asteasuain R, Rusansky C, Ferrer L, Andrade S, De Marco S, Pozzobon V, Marcovecchio J. 1996. Spatial
and temporal distribution of inorganic micronutrients in Mar Chiquita Coastal Lagoon (Argentina). In Pollution
Processes in Coastal Environments, Marcovecchio J (ed.). Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata: Mar del Plata;
133–138.
Gao Sengquan, Yu Guohui, Wang Yuhen. 1993. Distributional features and fluxes of dissolved nitrogen, phosphorus
and silicon in the Hangzhou Bay. Marine Chemistry 43: 65–81.
Gieskes WWC, Kraay GW. 1975. The phytoplankton spring bloom in Dutch coastal waters of the North Sea.
Netherland Journal of Sea Research 9: 166–196.
Grasshoff K. 1983. Determination of nutrients. III. Determination of nitrite. In Methods in Seawater Analysis (2nd
edn), Grasshoff K, Erhardt M, Kremling K (eds). Verlag-Chemie: Berlin, Germany; 134–137.
Grasshoff K, Erhardt M, Kremling K (eds). 1983. Methods in Seawater Analysis (2nd edn). Verlag-Chemie: Berlin,
Germany.
Iribarne O (ed.). 2001. Reserva de Biosfera Mar Chiquita. Caracterı´sticas fı´sicas, biológicas y ecológicas. Universidad
Nacional de Mar del Plata, Editorial Martı́n: Mar del Plata.
Jarvie HP, Whitton BA, Neal C. 1998. Nitrogen and phosphorus in east coast British rivers: speciation, sources and
biological significance. The Science of the Total Environment 210–211: 79–109.
Jordan TE, Correl DL, Miklas J, Weller DE. 1991. Nutrients and chlorophyll at the interface of a watershed and an
estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 36(2): 251–267.
Lanfredi NW, Balestrini CF, Mazio CA, Schmidt SA. 1981. Tidal sandbanks in Mar Chiquita Coastal Lagoon,
Argentina. Journal of Coastal Research 3(4): 515–520.
Lena H, L’Hoste SG. 1975. Foraminı́feros de aguas salobres (Mar Chiquita, Argentina). Revista Española de
Micropaleontologı´a 7(3): 539–548.
Liss PS. 1976. Conservative and non-conservative behavior of dissolved constituents during estuarine mixing. In
Estuarine Chemistry, Burton JD, Liss PS (eds). Academic Press: London; 93–130.
Lorenzen CS, Jeffrey SW. 1980. Determination of chlorophyll in seawater (report of intercalibration tests). Unesco,
Paris, Technical Papers on Marine Science 35: 1–20.
Marcovecchio JE, De Marco S, Pozzobon V, Gavio A, Asteasuain R, Rusansky C, Ferrer L, Andrade S, Freije H.
1997. The role of estuaries as buffer zones to the littoral marine environment: the case of Mar Chiquita Coastal
Lagoon, in Argentina. In Proceedings of the VII Congresso Latinoamericano sobre Ciencias do Mar, Vol. 2, Martins
Paiva A, Weber R (eds). USP: Sâo Paulo, Brazil; 128–130.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)
 COASTAL LAGOON HYDROGRAPHIC VARIABLES 347

Meybeck M. 1979. Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans. Revue
d’Geographie Physique et Geologie Dynamique 21: 215–246.
Meybeck M. 1982. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus transport by world rivers. American Journal of Sciences 282:
402–450.
Nixon SW. 1980. Between coastal marshes and coastal waters } a review of twenty years of speculation and research
on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water chemistry. Estuarine and Wetland Processes, Hamilton
P, MacDonald K (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 438–525.
Olivier SR, Escofet A, Penchaszadeh P, Orensanz JM. 1972a. Estudios ecológicos de la región estuarial de Mar
Chiquita (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Las comunidades bentónicas. Anales de la Sociedad Cientı´fica Argentina 93:
237–262.
Olivier SR, Escofet A, Penchaszadeh P, Orensanz JM. 1972b. Estudios ecológicos de la región estuarial de Mar
Chiquita (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Relaciones tróficas interespecı́ficas. Anales de la Sociedad Cientı´fica Argentina
94: 89–104.
Pennock JR. 1987. Temporal and spatial variability in phytoplankton ammonium and nitrate uptake in the Delaware
estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 24: 841–857.
Redfield AC. 1958. The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. American Journal of Sciences 46:
205–221.
Reta R, Martos P, Perillo GME, Piccolo MC, Ferrante A. 2001. Caracterı́sticas hidrográficas del estuario de la laguna
Mar Chiquita. In Reserva de Biosfera Mar Chiquita. Caracterı´sticas fı´sicas, biológicas y ecológicas, Iribarne O. (ed.).
Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata: Mar del Plata; 31–52.
SCOR/IABO/Unesco. 1982. International Symposium on Coastal Lagoons, Bordeaux, France. Technical Documents on
Marine Sciences 43: 1–36.
Sellner KG. 1983. Plankton productivity and biomass in a tributary of the upper Chesapeake Bay. 1. Importance of
size-fractionated phytoplankton productivity biomass and species composition in carbon export. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 17: 197–296.
Technicon1. 1973. Silicates in water and seawater. Industrial Method 186-72 W/B.
Treguer P, Le Corre P. 1975. Analyse des sels nutritifs sur Autoanalyzer II: nitrates + nitrites. Manuel d’analyse des
Sels Nutritifs dans l’Eau de Mer, Universitè de Bretagne Occidentale: Brest Cedex, France; 1–109.
Uncles RJ, Howland RJM, Easton AE, Griffiths ML, Harris C, King RS, Morris AW, Plummer DH, Woodward EMS.
1998. Concentrations of dissolved nutrients in the tidal Yorkshire Ouse and Humber Estuary. The Science of the Total
Environment 210–211: 377–388.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 16: 335–347 (2006)