Overall diatom trends from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) to the Holocene
The five tephra layers were deposited in different time intervals characterised by different climatic conditions (Table 1), which is emphasised by the DCA plot for all diatom samples (Fig. S3) illustrating distinct clusterings of samples associated with each tephra.
T1 (2012 cal years BP) was deposited in a climate characterised by relative warmer temperature and higher precipitation than present as inferred from pollen analysis (Stebich et al. 2007; Stebich et al. 2015). This is consistent with the very high overall diatom concentrations, implying high diatom productivities and high nutrient status in SHLW during this period. There was likely a high dissolved nutrient supply due to enhanced groundwater discharge and high terrestrial productivity (Schettler et al. 2006a).
T2 (10,422cal years BP) occurred shortly after the onset of the Holocene (abrupt warming) (Stebich et al. 2007; Stebich et al. 2015). This period was dominated by Stephanodiscus minutulus(Fig. 5), a species with high P requirements (Van Dam et al. 1994; Interlandi et al. 1999; Reavie et al. 2000). Similar to T1, this also indicates a period of elevated lake nutrients from groundwater and terrestrial inputs.
The overall diatom concentration at the time of BT deposition (between 15,686 cal years BP) was lower compared to T1 and T2, suggesting lower lake productivity under cooler and possibly drier conditions (Stebich et al. 2007; Parplies et al. 2008; Stebich et al. 2009). Relatively high abundances of Cyclotella and Discostella species (Fig. 8) are seen and Cyclotella comensis fo. minima and Cyclotella rossii both occur under low productivity conditions (Scheffler and Morabito 2003; Saros and Anderson 2015; Ossyssek et al. 2020). Discostella stelligeroides is often found in eutrophic conditions but it has wide ecological tolerance (Genkal 2015).
T4 was deposited during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), most probably under the coldest conditions of the five tephras (Mingram et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2021). Similar to BT, this period shows low overall diatom production and was mainly dominated by Cyclotella comensis fo. minima and Cyclotella rossii but not Discostella stelligeroides (Fig. 7). This suggests even more oligotrophic lake conditions and low groundwater nutrient input as well as terrestrial biogenic productivity.
AT corresponds with the onset of the LGM and likely represented similar climate conditions to T4 (same minerogenic clastic varve type) but not as severe (Mingram et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2021). This is manifested once more by the low diatom concentrations and the dominance of Cyclotella comensis fo. minima (Fig. 8).
Aquatic responses to different tephra thickness
Consequences of very thick tephra deposition (T2 – 15–19cm thick)
For the very thick tephra T2, diatom concentrations show significant tephra-related changes relative to background fluctuations as indicated by the nMDS plot. The sample immediately post-T2 had a significantly different diatom concentration from background samples as well as the two following samples. From the diatom concentration stratigraphy, the immediately post-T2 sample contained negligible diatom concentrations resembling those ‘within-tephra’ samples. The decrease in diatom productivity post-T2 is manifested across all species but especially by Stephanodiscus minutulus as it was the dominant species in background samples (accounting > 50%). Stephanodiscus minutulus is a eutrophic species with high P requirements (Reavie et al. 2000; Interlandi et al. 1999). This may suggest a decrease of P in SHLW after T2 deposition due to a lake bottom tephra barrier limiting P-loading (Telford et al. 2004). T2 has a thickness of 15–19 cm and was deposited in the early Holocene, a period of increased temperature, precipitation and high terrestrial productivity. Nutrient conditions within the lake were probably relatively high. Therefore, a decrease in P input would have had a profound effect on diatom productivity, especially in a volcanic setting such as that of SHLW where the nutrient condition is highly dependent on groundwater influx (Telford et al. 2004; Schettler et al. 2006a). This is a highly probable scenario considering the thickness of T2 (18cm), which would have likely covered the entire lake bottom. Nevertheless, the effect of reduced P seems to be short-lived. Overall diatom concentrations, especially planktonic diatoms (mainly Stephanodiscus minutulus) started to increase in the next consecutive sample after the immediate post-tephra sample. In their study on the Holocene sequence of SHLW, based on geochemical proxy indicators, Schettler et al. (2006a) recorded a rise in bSiO2 flux rate after T2 and related this to increased diatom productivity due to the enhanced inflow of nutrients from eroded pumice tuff in the lake catchment. Our results imply that the release of nutrients from catchment pumice did not occur immediately after T2 but only started to inflow after 3–10 years.
It is assumed that T2 had a major burial impact owing to its thickness, destroying the diatom communities to an extent where the lake conditions turned to a state quasi-devoid of life. The sequential occurrences of Amphora, Gomphonema, Nitzschia and Sellaphora species after tephra deposition indicate the early recolonisation of diatoms in a harsh environment, as these benthic species were not present or only present in small percentages before the deposition of T2. In particular, Nitzschia species are highly motile and can avoid burial in the sediments (Lowe 2003; Kociolek 2011; Solak et al. 2019). Similarly, Sellaphora species also have an epipelic habitat and wide environmental tolerances (Van Dam et al. 1994; Wetzel et al. 2015).
Low concentrations of Stephanodiscus minutulus were found in the bottom-most ‘within-tephra’ sample, while several benthic species that were not present in any other samples were found in the top-most ‘within-tephra’ sample. The poor sorting of the material suggests that after the initial airfall a slump may have occurred with T2, in-washing tephra and sediments from the catchment and introducing benthic species into the lake centre where the core was taken. As such, T2 is probably composed of a mixture of airborne tephra material and in-washed/slump material. Another possible explanation is that the tephra boundaries were not determined accurately when the core was sliced into 1-cm thick samples. Accordingly, the species found in the topmost ‘within-tephra’ sample could represent early lake responses to tephra deposition, but they have been allocated into ‘within-tephra’ due to the ambiguous tephra boundaries (Payne and Egan 2019).
Chrysophyte cyst changes are in concordance with diatom changes. The decline in chrysophyte cyst concentration after T2 deposition suggests a decline in lake nutrients, especially Si (Fig. 5) (Douglas and Smol 1995; Pla and Anderson 2005). Chrysophyte cysts are highly silicified and have therefore high Si requirements. Si is also a limiting nutrient in SHLW supplied together with P through groundwater inflow (Schettler et al. 2006a). Thus, it is likely that the lake bottom tephra barrier also impeded Si diffusion into the water column.
Consequences of thick tephra depositions (T1 -7cm thick and T4- 6cm thick)
T1 and T4 have a similar thickness of 7 and 6 cm respectively, however they were deposited at different times under different local climate regimes (Table 1). T1 was deposited in the late Holocene with similar but more eutrophic conditions than T2 (early Holocene). T4 on the contrary was deposited during the LGM when climate conditions were the most unfavourable to diatom growth with especially low precipitation, temperature and groundwater nutrient flux (Stebich et al. 2007). Despite the similarity in tephras, the lake responded to tephra depositions in different ways due to differences in background climate and lake conditions.
Overall diatom production decreased after T1 deposition, likely due to the presence of a tephra barrier on the water-sediment interface, preventing P-loading from groundwater into the lake through a mechanism similar to what occurred with the very thick tephra, T2. Although Barker et al. (2000) suggested that only tephra layers with thicknesses > 10cm can significantly limit P diffusion, T1 was only 7cm in thickness but still had an effect. The eutrophic background conditions probably exacerbated diatoms’ responses to decreased P and furthermore, T1 was a basaltic tephra with very low SiO2 content. A decline in concentration was observed mainly for planktonic species as suggested by the decline in P/B ratio (Fig. 4). This was especially so for Discostella stelligeroides which is a species with small cell size and fast growth rate that can respond quickly to nutrient enrichment (Saros and Anderson 2015). This may also be true for its response to nutrient depletion. Asterionella formosa, a eutrophic species (Lund 1950), also showed the same decreasing trend. Eutrophic species have narrower environmental tolerances than oligo-mesotrophic species, therefore even small fluctuations in the nutrient status can induce large alterations in their population abundances (Passy 2008).
In contrast to T1, an abrupt increase in overall diatom concentration was observed for T4, especially in planktonic species as indicated by the increase in P/B ratio (Fig. 7). Major increases in concentration were seen in Cyclotella comensis fo. minima and Cyclotella rossii. The enhancement in the concentrations of small centric planktonic diatom species after deposition of T4 possibly indicates an increase of lake nutrients. This is because smaller- sized diatoms have faster growth rates and lower nutrient use efficiency, therefore their populations tend to increase under abundant nutrient conditions (Saros and Anderson 2015; Wentzky et al. 2020). While both Cyclotella species showed concentration increase, Cyclotella comensis fo. minima responded more abruptly due to its smaller cell size, it is also referred to as an ‘opportunistic’ species (Scheffler and Morabito 2003; Ossyssek et al. 2020). Generally, Cyclotella species are believed to be good at taking advantage of an input of Si to develop large populations in oligotrophic lakes. Therefore, the increase in Cyclotella potentially indicates that the lake SiO2 was elevated through the dissolution of tephra particles in the water column. T4 was deposited during the LGM when the climate conditions were the most unfavourable for diatoms to develop, with especially low precipitation, temperature and groundwater nutrient flux. The nutrient conditions in SHLW were possibly very low, thus even small increases in lake Si content could trigger ecosystem change. Additionally, if T4 had imposed a barrier effect for nutrient diffusion into the water column, this effect was not significant as the nutrient input was already low; the lake would not respond dramatically to any further decreases. The inference that the dissolution of SiO2 from tephra caused the increased diatom concentrations observed in SHLW seems more probable.
T1 possibly also had a burial effect on littoral habitats as suggested by an increase in ‘deep benthic’ taxa that can be found in epipsammic habitats (for example small Staurosirella, Staurosira and Pseudostaurosira) after T1 deposition. However, these taxa did not appear in the sample immediately post-tephra, the immediate onset of T1 probably created conditions too harsh for an epipsammic assemblage to develop. As time passed, harsh burial conditions eased which created habitats suitable for these species. These observations are almost identical to those reported by Egan (2016) from a lake in Washington, USA, where she also attributed them to habitat alterations and new species colonisation. Another potential impact of T1 was sustained water column turbidity. Discostella stelligeroides has very high light requirements for photosynthesis (Saros and Anderson 2015), and its concentration remained relatively low for > 30 years after T1. Although the effect of light limitation is believed to only last for days (Barker et al. 2000), we cannot rule out the possibility of prolonged in-wash of fine tephra material from the lake catchment (Christensen 2011). Since SHLW was in proximity to Jinlongdingzi volcano (the source of T1), tephra was probably deposited in huge quantity on SHLW’s catchment. Together with the wet and warm climate of this period, substantial amounts of terrestrial tephra could be weathered and washed into the lake for years after the eruption. The spring-summer peak precipitation in this region also coincides with intra-annual diatom bloom (Schettler et al. 2006b), introducing water turbidity that could have profoundly limited Discostella stelligeroides growth.
Chrysophyte cyst changes broadly echo the diatom-inferred changes both for T1 and T4. The D/C ratio decreased after T1 (Fig. 4). The D/C ratio can be used as an inference for lake trophic change, where a decrease in this ratio often reflects decrease in nutrients (Douglas and Smol 1995; Pla and Anderson 2005). This is because chrysophytes tend to thrive more in oligotrophic conditions due to their high capabilities for nutrient sequestering and storage (Lotter et al. 1998). On the contrary, they tend to get outcompeted by diatoms in eutrophic conditions owing to their lower growth rate (Duff et al. 1997). T4 on the contrary, showed increased chrysophyte cyst concentrations after T4 deposition and the D/C ratio also decreased as a result (Fig. 7). Chrysophyte cysts are highly silicified, therefore increasing Si would boost their growth. Furthermore, chrysophytes could be more sensitive to nutrient changes than diatoms (Lotter et al. 1998), meaning that they could take advantage of even small elevations in Si introduced by a basaltic tephra.
Micro-tephras (BT – 0.05cm thick and AT – 0.05cm thick)
No significant diatom or chrysophyte-inferred changes can be associated with the two micro-tephras BT and AT. From the nMDS plots of diatom concentrations in samples associated with BT and AT, the background samples show large fluctuations and the degree of change between background samples was as large if not larger than the change between the pre- and post-tephra samples. This is also illustrated by overall diatom concentration, P/B ratio and chrysophyte cyst concentration (Figs. 6 and 8).
BT for example, exhibited slight rises in overall diatom concentration (Fig. 6), especially by Discostella stelligeroides and some benthic diatoms after deposition. However, these concentrations were already increasing before the deposition of BT. BT may have been too small to induce any identifiable chemical or physical alterations on the lake system (Telford et al. 2004). Additionally, any changes induced by BT may have been confounded by the strong background in climate fluctuations during the period of BT deposition as it coincided with Heinrich event 1, an abrupt climatic reversal to cold and dry conditions during the last deglaciation (Hodell et al. 2017).
Another plausible explanation for the inability to attribute changes to tephras is the low confidence about which of the samples analysed for diatoms actually contain the BT layer and whether the immediately pre- and post-tephra samples truly constitute the correct pre- and post-tephra diatom assemblages. Since the thickness of BT was < 1cm, thinner than the sample resolution, it is impossible to distinguish the potentially immediate effect of BT as both the pre- and post-tephra diatom assemblages are all contained within one 1-cm thick sample. Additionally, the photograph of the core shows that there was a slight bending in the lamination, an artefact due to the coring/extruding (Fig. S2), further complicating sample slicing.
Impact durations and recovery
Apart from the two micro-tephras (BT and AT), none of the other tephras exhibited complete recovery back to their background conditions through the intervals investigated in this study. After T4 there was a tendency of shifting towards the background state, but diatom assemblages never returned completely back to their initial composition (Fig. S4). There are two possible explanations for this. Firstly, the tephra (especially the very thick ones) likely caused permanent/long-term alterations of the lake ontogeny (Telford et al. 2004). This could especially be the case for small maar lakes like SHLW with simple hydrogeology. Lake system equilibriums can be shifted easily into new equilibrium states by disturbances, resulting in chronic ecosystem change (Barker et al. 2000). Another plausible explanation for the lack of recovery could be the ongoing climate changes experienced at SHLW. As the tephras were altering the lake system, extraneous changes in climate and catchment conditions were also imposing influences on the lake conditions (Lotter et al. 1995; de Klerk et al. 2008). Accordingly, any recovery signals would simply be confounded and concealed.
Limitations and implications for future tephropalaeoecological studies
While this study demonstrated the potentials of using palaeolimnology and palaeocology as methods of examining the impacts of past volcanic eruptions, major limitations were also revealed. This section outlines areas of possible improvements and some proposed principles that could inform future tephropalaeocological research:
1) High sampling-resolution (ideally with an annual resolution). This was not possible in this study as the core had been pre-sampled at 1cm intervals, each comprising ~ 30–40 years of sediment. High sampling-resolution helps to distinguish volcanic-induced changes from background environmental fluctuations. Additionally, this would allow the capture of more subtle, complex and short-lived impacts arising from transient volcanic events, which could have been overlooked by lower sampling-resolutions.
2) Examination of species flux. This study presented diatom species concentration instead of species flux rate due to the lower reliability of the age-controls around tephra layers (poor quality of the laminations causing larger counting errors) that prevented the calculation of sediment accumulation rates that are necessary to compute diatom fluxes. Species flux is potentially more robust in illustrating changes in diatom assemblages as it takes into account differences in sedimentation rates.
3) Accurate documentation of tephra horizons and ‘true’ pre- and post-tephra layers. One major concern of this study was the inaccuracy in attributing which samples included the tephra boundaries due to the low sampling resolution that was adopted when the core was sliced. Diatoms were observed in some within-tephra samples while some non-tephra samples appeared to be diatom-barren. It is not sufficient to determine horizons based on chronology alone (Payne and Egan 2019), one needs to incorporate other examinations such as changes in stratigraphic profile and sediment physio-geochemistry in order to accurately determine different layers.
4) Use of statistical analysis. The nMDS analysis of this study served as a useful tool to help inform whether changes in diatom assemblages could be attributed to tephra depositions or not. It is difficult to establish causations in tephro-palaeoecological studies as other longer-term environmental fluctuations could occur at the same time. Statistical analysis provides a more objective mean of data interpretation (Payne and Egan 2019).