Environmental drivers of plankton communities in coastal waters: the central role of temperature revealed by co-occurrence networks

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-587186/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Environmental drivers of plankton communities in coastal waters: the central role of temperature revealed by co-occurrence networks

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-587186/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

To identify the environmental factors that drive plankton community composition and structure in coastal waters, a shallow northwestern Mediterranean lagoon was monitored from winter to spring in two contrasting years. The campaign was based on high-frequency recordings of hydrological and meteorological parameters and weekly samplings of nutrients and the plankton community. The collected data allowed the construction of correlation networks, which revealed that water temperature was the most important factor governing community composition, structure and succession at different trophic levels, suggesting its ubiquitous food web control. Temperature favoured phytoplanktonic flagellates (Cryptophyceae, Chrysophycea, and Chlorophyceae) and ciliates during winter and early spring. In contrast, it favoured diatoms, dinoflagellates, phytoplankton < 6 µm and aloricate Choreotrichida during spring. The secondary drivers were light, which influenced phytoplankton, and wind, which may regulate turbidity and the nutrient supply from land or sediment, thus affecting benthic species such as Nitzschia sp. and Uronema sp. or salinity-tolerant species such as Prorocentrum sp. The central role of temperature in structuring the co-occurrence network suggests that future global warming could deeply modify plankton communities in shallow coastal zones, affecting whole-food web functioning.

Marine and Freshwater Ecology

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Policy

Hydrology

plankton

coastal waters

environment

Environmental forcing factors play a central role in driving plankton community composition and dynamics in marine and freshwater ecosystems. At a global scale, along latitudinal gradients, species distribution and community composition depend on abiotic conditions, such as temperature, light, and nutrients¹. On the other hand, at the local level, food web structure is more affected by biotic processes such as predation, competition, population growth and behaviour², which are constrained by environmental conditions. However, in highly dynamic systems subject to intense environmental stressors, physico-chemical forcing factors may play a predominant role in shaping communities^3,4. Furthermore, the plankton community’s response to environmental forcing factors in these systems is challenging to determine, as these factors can be influenced by various elements and are often linked together⁵. For example, alongshore wind in coastal ecosystems triggers deep, cool and nutrient-rich water upwelling, thus influencing plankton communities^6,7. Consequently, the conjunction of wind direction and speed, column mixing, water temperature and nutrient concentration changes explains the plankton response during these events. Therefore, it is essential to study multiple environmental parameters together in particularly highly dynamic systems, as they can be tightly linked together.

Shallow coastal waters, including coastal lagoons, estuaries, seagrass beds, and coral reefs, are highly dynamic and often exposed to extreme environmental events. Community composition and structure in these zones are driven by environmental forcing factors, mainly because the zones occupy the interface between land and sea⁸. These factors influence plankton communities directly or indirectly. For instance, river runoff transports nutrients and terrigenous organic matter, influences water turbidity, and modulates phytoplankton and bacterial production^9,10. Seawater currents or tides recirculate nutrients, which provide critical elements for the food web and enrich local communities of offshore organisms^11–13. These water inputs and precipitation induce significant salinity variations that affect the plankton community^14,15. Moreover, the shallow depth of these coastal waters makes them particularly sensitive to the action of wind and temperature variations. This influences the stability of the whole water column (mixing and stratification) and indirectly alters community dynamics through sediment and nutrient resuspension and turbidity increases^16–18. Furthermore, coastal ecosystems exhibit relatively low inertia, and due to their shallow nature, environmental changes can be rapid^3,19. However, few studies have investigated the environmental drivers structuring the plankton community composition and structure in shallow coastal waters, preventing a deep understanding of plankton food web functioning.

Correlation analyses are used to build networks mapping the relationships between species^20–22. The analysis of these networks is practical for formulating hypotheses about the most critical mechanisms underlying community assembly. For example, it may suggest the prevalence of top-down forces or a shift from grazing chain-dominated food webs to systems where the microbial loop prevails²². In addition to being routinely applied to model planktonic food webs, network analysis is also a powerful tool for studying the effects of abiotic forcing factors on plankton food webs^23,24. It can, for example, shed light on the role of complex physico-chemical changes responsible for shifts in planktonic food webs triggered by environmental forcing, for example, anthropogenic hydrology alterations in natural coastal lagoons²⁴.

The present study’s objective was to investigate environmental drivers associated with changes in plankton community composition and structure in a highly dynamic system, Thau Lagoon, a shallow coastal lagoon along the northwestern Mediterranean coast. Correlation networks were constructed using organism abundances and environmental metrics in different seasons. Environmental multiparameter monitoring and weekly samplings for planktonic abundance quantification were carried out from winter to late spring during two consecutive years, 2015 and 2016. These two years were very distinct and presented different characteristics. While 2015 was a typical year in terms of climate, with a high thermic amplitude from winter to spring, 2016 was characterised by anomalously high water temperatures during winter, with the warmest winter ever recorded in southern France (http://www.meteofrance.fr/climat-passe-et-futur/bilans-climatiques/bilan-2016/hiver#:~:text=Sur%20l'ensemble%20de%20la,aequo%20(%2B%201.8%20%C2%B0C). These particular climatic characteristics of 2016 were already proposed as the reason for a shift towards the dominance of smaller phytoplankton in the community¹⁹. These conditions might also have favoured an increase in the number of biotic interactions among smaller organisms²², even if the links between environmental variables and plankton community composition were not explicitly investigated. Thus, the present study will, for the first time, quantitively link multiple environmental variables to plankton community composition and structure in a characteristic shallow coastal lagoon.

Temporal dynamics of planktonic organisms

Daily mean Chl a fluorescence was used as an index of phytoplankton biomass, allowing us to distinguish three phytoplankton bloom periods that occurred in winter, early spring and late spring in 2015 (Fig. 1; for details, see Trombetta et al., 2019). For 2016, only one long spring bloom was found. The dynamics of various planktonic groups in Thau Lagoon are shown in Fig. 1. These dynamics showed that phytoplankton < 6 µm, Bacillariophyceae, and auto/mixotrophic Dinophyceae mainly peaked during spring in both years. Cryptophyceae, Chrysophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and other phytoplankton groups mainly peaked during winter and early spring in both years. The abundance of viruses and bacteria slightly increased from winter and reached its highest level from early spring to late spring in both years. The abundance of heterotrophic nanoflagellates (HFs) was always high in 2015 and peaked in winter, early spring and late spring, while their abundance was low in winter 2016 and slightly increased to reach a maximum value in late spring. Aloricate ciliates and tintinnids exhibited differences between 2015 and 2016. Choreotrichida were the only taxa peaking during late spring of both years. Oligotrichidae, Prorodontida, Cyclotrichiida, Codonellidae, Metacylididae, Tintinnidae, and Codonellopsidae peaked in winter or early spring in 2015 but had low abundance during late spring. These groups, except Prostomatea and Metacylididae, peaked from spring to mid/late spring in 2016. The abundance of mesozooplankton larvae and heterotrophic Dinophyceae, analysed only in 2016, was low from winter to early spring and peaked towards the end of spring. Correspondent equivalent size diameter (ESD) class dynamics for 2015 and 2016 can be visualised in Supplementary Fig. 3. The temporal dynamics of each taxon for 2015 and 2016 can be visualised in Supplementary Fig. 4 (grouped by taxonomy) and Supplementary Fig. 5 (grouped by ESD).

Plankton community composition and environmental drivers

Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) illustrated the changes in plankton community composition along sampling dates, together with the ordination of environmental parameters (Fig. 2). A progressive transition in community composition occurred in both years from winter to spring, resulting in clear separation of the bloom and non-bloom periods. During both years, winter was characterised by low (air and water) temperatures, light (ultraviolet B radiation (UVBR) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)) and nutrients (NO₂⁻, NO₃⁻, PO₄³⁻ and SiO₂). Late winter and early spring (i.e., from late February to early April) displayed high wind speed and low humidity, while spring showed high light intensity and temperature. The non-bloom stages were associated with high nutrient concentrations (NO₂⁻, NO₃⁻, PO₄³⁻ and SiO₂, depending on the period), while low concentrations were found during blooms. Air and water temperature, PAR, UVBR, precipitation, depth, PO₄³⁻ and SiO₂ were significantly correlated with the nMDS axes in 2015 (Table 1). Air and water temperature, PAR, UVBR, salinity, PO₄³⁻ and NO₂⁻ were significantly correlated with the nMDS axes in 2016 (Table 1).

Table 1

**Environmental parameters on nMDS axes.** Bold values indicate significant correlations between environmental parameters and nMDS axes. Scores were calculated using a linear model including both axes.
		2015		2016
Type of variable	Variable	r²	p-value	r²	p-value
Hydrological	Water temperature	0.76	0.0001***	0.85	0.0001***
	Turbidity	0.10	0.4341	0.15	0.2058
	Salinity	0.27	0.0728	0.34	0.0145*
	Depth	0.44	0.0100**	0.25	0.0561
Meteorological	Air temperature	0.57	0.0008***	0.85	0.0001***
	PAR	0.44	0.0109*	0.42	0.0036**
	UVBR	0.42	0.0151*	0.57	0.0002***
	Wind speed	0.09	0.4646	0.12	0.2849
	Wind direction	0.05	0.6552	0.17	0.1558
	Pressure	0.06	0.5883	0.25	0.0594
	Humidity	0.13	0.3326	0.09	0.3744
	Precipitation	0.42	0.0081**	0.01	0.8872
Nutrient	PO₄³⁻	0.47	0.0054**	0.24	0.0441*
	NO₂⁻	0.04	0.7061	0.45	0.0026**
	NO₃⁻	0.22	0.1519	0.03	0.7130
	SiO₂	0.35	0.0281*	0.18	0.1245

Environmental and plankton community composition relationships

Table 1 and Fig. 3 show the strongest relationships between plankton groups and the most important environmental factors. Temperature was the factor most connected to taxonomic clusters, with seven and ten significant correlations in 2015 (Fig. 3A) and 2016 (Fig. 3B), respectively. These correlations involved all types of groups, from viruses to large zooplankton. During both years, temperature was associated with phytoplankton < 6 µm, Bacillariophyceae, Choreotrichida and Codonellidae. PAR and UVBR were correlated with different taxonomic groups but mainly with phytoplankton. During both years, PAR was correlated with auto/mixotrophic Dinophyceae, while UVBR was correlated with Bacillariophyceae and phytoplankton < 6 µm. In both years, the nutrients were correlated exclusively with heterotrophic groups, and SiO₂ was linked with Chlorophyceae in 2015 only.

Temperature was also the factor most connected to ESD clusters, with seven significant correlations in both 2015 and 2016 (Fig. 3C and 3D). In both years, it was associated with all phytoplankton ESD clusters (except the > 25 µm cluster in 2016). Temperature was also associated with large tintinnids (> 80 µm) and aloricate ciliates (28–50 µm) in 2015 and with tintinnids (< 45 µm and > 80 µm) in 2016. PAR and UVBR were also correlated with a large diversity of ESD clusters depending on the year.

Correlation networks of environmental factors and planktonic organisms

The number of significant correlations linking each environmental factor to planktonic taxa is summarised in Table 2. The correlation networks of the most connected environmental factors and planktonic organisms are shown in Fig. 4. The most connected environmental factors during the bloom were similar between years (Table 2). Water temperature had the highest number of edges in both the 2015 and 2016 bloom periods. Furthermore, the two light wavelengths (PAR and UVBR), salinity and SiO₂ concentration were among the most connected environmental factors in both years during blooms. During non-bloom periods, turbidity, PO₄³⁻ concentration and wind properties (direction in 2015 and speed in 2016) were among the most connected nodes found in both years. In the non-bloom period of 2015, pressure, depth and precipitation were among the most connected factors, while nutrient concentrations (SiO₂, NO₂⁻ and NO₃⁻) displayed the highest number of connections in the 2016 non-bloom period.

Table 2

**Number of edges between the environmental factors and the plankton taxa in the bloom and non-bloom correlation networks of 2015 and 2016.** Bold values emphasise the most correlated environmental factors for each period.
		Number of edges
		2015		2016
Type of variable	Variable	Non-bloom	Bloom	Non-bloom	Bloom
Meteorological	Air temperature	2	18	4	20
	PAR	4	7	5	9
	UVBR	4	11	3	11
	Wind speed	1	2	14	0
	Wind direction	5	1	3	5
	Pressure	5	8	1	2
	Humidity	0	1	5	3
	Precipitation	5	2	1	3
Hydrological	Water temperature	5	19	2	26
	Turbidity	6	3	10	3
	Salinity	3	12	3	5
	Depth	5	0	2	4
Nutrient	PO₄³⁻	6	3	10	1
	NO₂⁻	3	2	11	6
	NO₃⁻	3	0	11	4
	SiO₂	1	10	11	7

During blooms, correlation networks of both years showed the central position of temperature (Fig. 3B and 3D), which was connected to both autotrophs and heterotrophs. PAR and UVBR were also highly connected but mainly with heterotrophic organisms, especially aloricate ciliates and tintinnids, in the non-bloom periods of both years. During the bloom of 2015, the SiO₂ concentration was negatively linked to four phytoplankton taxa, including two Bacillariophyceae (Chaetoceros sp1. and Pseudo-nitzschia sp.) (Fig. 4B), while during the 2016 bloom, it showed negative relationships with metazoans (rotifers and Phoronidae larvae) and the aloricate ciliate Strombidium sp4. (Fig. 4D).

In the non-bloom correlation networks, wind direction (2015) and speed (2016) exhibited various relationships with diverse planktonic taxa (Fig. 3A and 3C). Cyanobacteria were correlated with these factors in both years. In the non-bloom of 2016, wind speed shared many neighbours with NO₃⁻, NO₂⁻ and PO₄³⁻, but the sign of these connections was the opposite of that for nutrients (Fig. 4C). Turbidity was among the most correlated parameters in the non-bloom periods of both years. During the non-bloom period of 2015 (Fig. 4A), turbidity was mostly connected to phytoplankton, while in the same period of 2016 (Fig. 4C), it was mainly linked to heterotrophs. Bacteria were positively correlated with turbidity in both years (HNA in 2015 and LNA in 2016). In the non-bloom period of 2015, water temperature, pressure and depth were closely and positively connected to common taxa, including phytoplankton, heterotrophic nanoflagellates and aloricate ciliates.

Spearman’s correlation networks between environmental parameters are shown in Supplementary Fig. 6.

Trombetta et al. (2019, 2020)^19,22 found that in Thau Lagoon, water temperature triggers phytoplankton blooms and suggested that interannual warming favours interactions among small organisms and trophic cascades. The findings of the present study suggest for the first time that water temperature, rising from winter to spring, is the most important environmental factor regulating the composition, succession (Figs. 2 and 3; Table 1) and species dynamics (Fig. 4; Table 2) of the whole planktonic food web in a shallow coastal lagoon. Such regulation encompasses various trophic levels, from phytoplankton, viruses and bacteria to heterotrophic nanoflagellates, ciliates and mesozooplankton. The presence of significant correlations between water temperature and organisms belonging to various trophic levels suggests extensive impacts on the entire plankton food web. Although these correlation-based results cannot describe causal mechanisms, they clarify the pervasive impact that temperature has on the structuring of the planktonic food web. Temperature affects organisms in several ways: directly, by acting on biotic processes such as growth and predation rates^25,26, or indirectly, through abiotic processes such as mixing and stratification²⁷.

Water temperature directly influences the metabolism of organisms. Specifically, it accelerates the metabolism and consequently the growth rates of organisms²⁵. In the present study, in most of the cases, water temperature was linked to taxa by positive correlations (Fig. 4), meaning that their abundance increased when water temperature increased. For instance, the phytoplankton species Chaetoceros spp. and Pseudo-nitzschia sp. mainly appeared during spring blooms of both years and were positively correlated with water temperature (Fig. 4). In Thau Lagoon and in Mediterranean coastal waters, Chaetoceros spp. and Pseudo-nitzschia sp. are the main Bacillariophyceae (diatom) components of spring phytoplankton communities, blooming between 12°C and 14°C and persisting at high abundance even when the water temperature rises above 20°C^19,28,29. On the other hand, the direct metabolic response is more complex than a simple rise in abundance driven by a temperature increase and might also be due to the thermal optimum of taxa and temporal thermal niches realised^30,31. In fact, water temperature influences the composition and succession of the plankton community from winter to spring (Fig. 2 and Table 1), including a large diversity of taxonomic and ESD clusters, for both heterotrophic and autotrophic groups (Fig. 3). The aloricate ciliates belonging to Choreotrichida and Codonellidae peaked on several dates from winter to spring (Fig. 1). During the 2016 bloom, the aloricate ciliates Leegardiella sp. and Tintinnopsis angulata exhibited a negative correlation with temperature, while Lohmaniella sp. and Tintinnopsis corniger displayed a positive connection with this factor. At low temperature, the abundance of Leegardiella sp. and T. angulata was high, while Lohmaniella sp. and T. corniger increased in abundance with increasing temperature, suggesting that they have different thermal niches. Furthermore, water temperature can have a direct effect on biotic interactions²⁶. There is evidence of the influence of temperature on biotic interactions of the planktonic food web, such as predation^32,33, competition^34,35, mutualism³⁶ and parasitism^37,38. In our case study, temperature modifications might have influenced organismal interactions and played an important role in the succession of the plankton community. The modification of grazing rates due to water temperature increases^25,39 was pointed out several times as a major actor modifying the plankton community composition in mesocosm experiments where the temperature was manipulated^33,40.

Water temperature also modifies the abiotic environment and has indirect effects on plankton. Water temperature variations regulate vertical water transport and induce mixing during cold events or stratification during heat events, even in shallow costal lagoons^3,41. As an example, Nitzschia sp., often classified as a benthic Bacillariophyceae⁴², was negatively correlated with water temperature during the 2015 bloom (Fig. 4B), suggesting that colder temperatures affecting the mixing of the water column might cause resuspension of Nitzschia sp., increasing its abundance. On the other hand, higher water temperatures could have strengthened the stratification by modifying the physical and chemical conditions of the water column (e.g., oxygen or nutrient depletion or changes in salinity or the daily light dose) and have triggered shifts in plankton assemblages^27,30.

Light was correlated significantly with the nMDS axis (Fig. 2), thus representing (after water temperature) one of the most important drivers of the structure of the entire plankton community. In Thau Lagoon, light was suggested as non-limiting for phytoplankton bloom initiation¹⁹. The present study suggested that light does not influence phytoplankton abundance (Fig. 4, low number of Spearman’s correlations between phytoplankton and light) but instead plays an important role in the composition and succession of the phytoplankton community (Fig. 3, high number of Mantel’s correlations between phytoplankton and light). Small phytoplankton cells are more efficient at utilising low light intensity; due to the smaller packaging effect, they are less penalised by self-shading^43,44 than larger phytoplankton. Consistent with these observations, smaller cells, such as those of Cryptophyceae, Chrysophyceae and Chlorophyceae, peaked during winter and early spring, when light intensity was lower. However, for cryptophytes, which are known to be mixotrophic, it cannot be excluded that their high abundance during the winter was due to a shift towards the heterotrophic mode due to the low light intensity available for photosynthesis, causing them to feed on bacteria⁴⁵. Larger cells, such as those of Bacillariophyceae and Dinophyceae, increased instead during late spring (Fig. 1). Phytoplankton succession can also be due to photoacclimation⁴⁶. The daily dose of incident light is generally high, and from winter to spring, it does not represent a limiting factor in shallow Mediterranean coastal sites¹⁹. Consequently, phytoplankton succession may be influenced by the capacity to acclimate to different light conditions through the production of photosynthetic or photoprotective accessory pigments rather than being limited by light availability.

The tight connection between light and water temperature may explain the relevance of light in correlations with heterotrophic taxa. The fact that water temperature, PAR and UVBR shared links with many nodes in common supports this hypothesis (Figs. 3 and 4). During the bloom of 2015, UVBR exhibited positive correlations with planktonic taxa, and more than half of these taxa were correlated with water temperature. Air anticyclones generally increase light and air temperature⁴⁷, consequently raising water temperature and affecting the plankton community. However, this cannot be the only explanation, as variables describing light conditions were sometimes far from water temperature in the correlation network and did not share any links with common taxa with this factor. UVBR affected the composition and taxon abundance dynamics of the plankton community in non-univocal way. The relationships with taxa varied in sign and changed according to species sensitivity and period. The positive correlations between prey taxa (lower trophic level) and UVBR may reflect harmful effects on predators. Such negative impacts of UVBR reduce predation pressure and result in positive effects on prey, as demonstrated previously^48,49. In contrast, UVBR could indirectly trigger positive effects on phytoplankton due to photochemically induced breakdown of dissolved organic matter, which releases nutrients and enhances phytoplankton growth⁵⁰.

The non-bloom periods during winter and early spring were characterised by high nutrient concentrations (Fig. 2). During both years, the concentrations of PO₄³⁻, NO₃⁻, NO₂⁻ and SiO₂ correlated well with various clusters (Fig. 3) and taxon abundances (Table 1 and Fig. 4). A previous study suggested that Thau Lagoon is a nitrogen- and phosphorous-limited system⁵¹ and that nutrients drive decadal phytoplankton community structure and composition⁵². Our results show that small opportunist phytoplankton species (phytoplankton < 6 µm, Cryptophyceae and Chrysophyceae) prevail during the non-bloom period in winter, when nutrient concentrations are high but water temperature and the daily light dose are low (Figs. 1 and 2). Low nutrient concentrations and high daily doses of light are instead associated with larger phytoplankton taxa, such as Bacillariophyceae and auto/mixotrophic Dinophyceae.

During 2016, viruses, bacteria, heterotrophic nanoflagellates and Cyclotrichia (aloricate ciliates 20–27 µm) were connected to NO₂⁻ (Fig. 3B and 3D). This result suggested enhanced activity of the microbial loop, as either the excretion of heterotrophic flagellates and Cyclotrichia or organic matter release due to viral lysis might have triggered bacterial nitrification. This process consists of bacteria using NH₄ to produce NO₂⁻ and then NO₃⁻, with rapid assimilation of the last compound by phytoplankton⁵³. 2016 was an unusually warm year¹⁹, and water temperature could also have accelerated nutrient remineralisation. The present results are in accordance with those of a previous study suggesting that the warm conditions of 2016 in Thau Lagoon favoured the co-occurrence of smaller taxa, including heterotrophic nanoflagellates, viruses and bacteria²².

Wind and turbidity were positively correlated (Supplementary Fig. 6) and were among the six environmental nodes most connected to plankton taxa (Figs. 4A and 4C). During the non-bloom periods, wind (direction in 2015 and speed in 2016) and turbidity were closely related to nutrient concentrations (Fig. 2). The nMDS results illustrated consistency between wind, turbidity and nutrients. They suggested that wind could have been responsible for sediment resuspension and inputs of nutrients from the sediment to the water column. Wind frequently influences the Thau Lagoon ecosystem by increasing turbidity and contributing to inputs of nutrients through resuspension^16,17. These processes were also described for other coastal ecosystems^18,54. The supply of nutrients from sediment resuspension is fairly constant and sufficient to ensure phytoplankton growth in Thau Lagoon^16,19. Here, sediment (and potentially nutrients) resuspension through wind seems to be more important during non-bloom periods in winter. However, weekly correlation analysis did not reveal any links between wind and nutrient concentrations (Supplementary Fig. 6)¹⁹. The absence of significant relationships between wind and nutrients may be due to the weekly samplings, which may be inadequate for studying nutrient dynamics in systems characterised by regular resuspension and phytoplankton uptake¹⁹. Moreover, multiple and simultaneous mechanisms, such as precipitation and discharge from rivers, may interact to change the concentration of nutrients in the lagoon. On the other hand, wind can influence the plankton community through resuspension of benthic organisms in the water column^55,56. The benthic Bacillariophyceae Nitzschia sp.⁴² and the benthic aloricate ciliate Uronema sp.⁵⁷ were positively correlated with wind speed in the non-bloom period of 2016, suggesting that their abundance increased because of wind resuspension.

Occasional links connecting depth and salinity to community composition (Figs. 2 and 3; Table 1) and taxon abundance (Fig. 4; Table 2) were observed. Depth and salinity displayed mutual positive correlations but did not match any particular period. In Thau Lagoon, the positive correlations with salinity and depth depend on seawater input through the main channel connecting the lagoon to the Mediterranean Sea. An increase in depth is generally associated with an increase in salinity due to marine water being pushed into the lagoon by southern winds. This mechanism could have two distinct effects on the plankton community composition. First, seawater input could have brought offshore taxa into the lagoon, directly modifying the food web. This phenomenon is common in marine lagoons or coastal waters subject to tides, and the composition of the plankton community depends on the balance between imports and exports^8,58. However, in coastal zones with low tides, such as Thau Lagoon, tidal water transport is limited and often masked by other forcing factors (i.e., wind, sea currents, river inputs, or topographical constraints such as channels and natural or artificial dykes)^59,60. The transport of plankton into the lagoon is due to currents or wind pushing marine water from the Mediterranean Sea rather than tidal action. Such factors increase depth (water level) and salinity in the lagoon. Second, salinity increases due to marine water transport could have influenced the plankton community through physiological effects. Salinity exposes sensitive organisms to osmotic stress and promotes the replacement of salinity-sensitive species by salinity-tolerant taxa⁶¹. Prorocentrum sp. is known to be a salinity-tolerant taxon^61,62 and was found to be positively correlated with salinity during the bloom period of 2016 (Fig. 4D). In estuaries and coastal ecosystems subject to constant changes, salinity is an important factor influencing plankton community structure^58,63. In terms of salinity, Thau Lagoon is relatively stable for a coastal site, and important variations are limited to strong rains, evaporation or water inputs^9,19. The mean water residence time at the study site is approximately 50 days⁶⁴, and the effect of salinity is therefore limited to occasional events.

The present paper highlighted that water temperature exerts stronger impacts than other environmental factors on the plankton community in a shallow coastal zone. This factor governed the composition, succession and structure of diverse plankton groups, species and trophic levels, suggesting its ubiquitous role in food web control. In such shallow systems moderated by water temperature, global warming and the increased frequency of extreme events such as heat waves could potentially deeply modify plankton communities, and as pointed out in the present study, it might potentially occur at every trophic level, thus affecting whole-food web functioning

Study site and monitoring design

Monitoring took place in Thau Lagoon (Supplementary Fig. 1), a productive marine lagoon located on the French coast of the northwestern Mediterranean Sea (43°24’00” N, 3°36’00” E). It is a 75 km² shallow lagoon with a mean depth of 4 m and a maximum depth of 10 m (excluding a 32-m-deep depression) and is connected to the Mediterranean Sea by two main channels. Thau Lagoon is a mesotrophic, phosphorus- and nitrogen-limited system⁵¹ with a turnover rate of 2% (50 days). Salinity ranges from 34 to 38 PSU, and high-amplitude temperature fluctuations occur throughout the year, ranging from 4°C in the winter to 30°C in the summer^19,65. The lagoon is frequently exposed to high wind speeds throughout the year^17,19. Thau Lagoon hosts economically important activities, mainly oyster farms representing 10% of French production.

The water column was monitored at the fixed station of the Coastal Mediterranean Thau Lagoon Observatory (43°24’53” N, 3°41’16” E)⁶⁶ at the Mediterranean platform for Marine Ecosystem Experimental Research (MEDIMEER) in Sète. The fixed monitoring station is located less than 50 m from the main channel connecting the lagoon to the Mediterranean Sea, where the water residence time is short (20 days)⁶⁴. The water depth at the monitoring station was 2.5-3 m, and samplings took place at a depth of 1 m. The monitoring lasted from winter to spring for two consecutive years, i.e., from January 8 to May 12, 2015, and from January 12 to June 14, 2016. The monitoring consisted of (1) high-frequency (every 15 min) recordings of meteorological, hydrological, and chlorophyll a (Chl a) fluorescence data using automated sensors and (2) weekly sampling using Niskin bottles or plankton nets (20 µm) to quantify nutrient concentrations, plankton diversity, and plankton abundances. Weekly sampling for nutrients and all organisms was carried out in the morning between 09 am and 10 am. Some of the data used in the present study were already published in previous manuscripts^19,22. Thus, details on acquisition methods can also be found in these manuscripts, as specified below.

Hydrological and meteorological data, including air and water temperature, wind speed and direction, PAR (400–700 nm), UVBR (280–320 nm), salinity and turbidity, as well as Chl a fluorescence and nutrient concentrations, including those of nitrite (NO₂⁻), nitrate (NO₃⁻), phosphate (PO₄³⁻) and silicon dioxide (SiO₂), are available in Trombetta et al. (2019)¹⁹. Phytoplankton abundance and diversity data are available in Trombetta et al. (2019, 2020)^19,22. Virioplankton, bacterial, heterotrophic nanoflagellate, aloricate ciliate, and tintinnid abundances and diversity data are available in Trombetta et al. (2020)²². The atmospheric pressure, humidity, precipitation, depth, large heterotrophic Dinophyceae, rotifer, mesozooplankton larva, and copepod data presented in this study were not published elsewhere.

Hydrological, meteorological, nutrient, and chlorophyll a measurements

Hydrological and meteorological data were recorded every 15 min (except precipitation). Depth was recorded every 15 min with an STPS sensor (NKE Instrumentation). Atmospheric pressure and humidity were recorded using a Professional Weather Station (METPAK PRO, Gill Instruments). Daily precipitation was retrieved from the Météo-France open access database (Données Publiques de Météo-France), referring to a meteorological station located 2 km away from the monitoring station. Supplementary Fig. 2 shows the dynamics of the environmental parameters. To investigate the effects of environmental parameters on weekly community composition, the mean of all environmental variables between 09 am and 10 am was calculated for days corresponding to the sampling dates.

Nutrient concentrations, i.e., those of PO₄³⁻, NO₂⁻, NO₃⁻ and SiO₂, were measured using an automated colorimeter (Seal Analytical) as described in Trombetta et al. (2019)¹⁹. Chl a fluorescence was measured at high frequency (15 min) using a WETLAB sensor, and the data and methodological details are available in Trombetta et al. (2019)¹⁹.

Plankton identification and abundance

The diversity and abundances of (1) viruses; (2) non-pigmented planktonic cells < 1 µm, including archaea, heterotrophic bacteria, and chemosynthetic bacteria (hereafter called “bacteria”); (3) phytoplankton; (4) HFs; (5) aloricate ciliates and tintinnids; (6) large heterotrophic Dinophyceae; and (7) metazooplankton were determined. For each of these groups (except large heterotrophic Dinophyceae and metazooplankton), the methods of abundance estimation were described in Trombetta et al. (2020)²². Large heterotrophic Dinophyceae and metazooplankton were sampled using a plankton net (20 µm) towed at the sampling site over 424 L and then fixed with stabilised formaldehyde (4% final concentration) in 110 mL glass bottles and stored in the dark at 4°C until analysis. Large zooplankton sampling took place in 2016 but not in 2015. Large heterotrophic Dinophyceae and metazooplankton taxon abundances were estimated using a binocular loop. Replicates of 2 to 5 mL were taken and placed into a Bogorov counting chamber. Zooplankton individuals were identified and counted under a stereo microscope (Olympus SZX7). Table 3 summarises all data used in this manuscript, with the methods used and if already published elsewhere.

Table 3

Summary of the data presented in the study, their acquisition frequency, used methods and references for already published datasets.
Category of data	Type of data	Type of instrument	References
Hydrological	Depth	Sensor: NKE STPS	Present study
	Salinity		¹⁹
	Water temperature		¹⁹
	Turbidity	Sensor: ECO FLNTU fluorometer (Wetlabs)	¹⁹
Meteorological	Precipitation	Météo-France open access database https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/	Present study
	Pressure	Sensor: Professional Weather Station (METAPAK PRO, Gill Instruments)	Present study
	Humidity		Present study
	Air temperature		¹⁹
	Wind speed		¹⁹
	Wind direction		¹⁹
	PAR (400–700 nm)	Light sensor: Skye Instruments	¹⁹
	UVBR (280–400 nm)	Light sensor: Skye Instruments	¹⁹
Biological	Chl a fluorescence	Sensor: ECO FLNTU fluorometer (Wetlabs)	¹⁹
Nutrients	Nutrient concentrations (NO₂⁻, NO₃⁻, PO₄³⁻, SiO₂)	Sampled with a Niskin bottle and analysed using an automated colorimeter (Seal Analytical)	¹⁹
Plankton abundance	Large heterotrophic Dinophyceae (2 taxa)	Sampled with a plankton net and analysed using a binocular loop	Present study
	Mesozooplankton (9 groups/taxa)		Present study
	Virioplankton (1 group)	Sampled with a Niskin bottle and analysed using an epifluorescence microscope (Olympus AX-70)	²²
	Heterotrophic nanoflagellates (4 groups)		²²
	Bacteria (2 groups)	Sampled with a Niskin bottle and analysed using a flow cytometer (FACSCalibur, Becton Dickinson)	²²
	Phytoplankton < 6 µm (4 groups)	Sampled with a Niskin bottle and analysed using optical microscopy (Olympus IX-70)	^19,22
	Phytoplankton > 6 µm (42 groups/taxa)		^19,22
	Ciliates (57 groups/taxa)		²²

Clustering of plankton

Planktonic groups/taxa/species were clustered on the basis of two descriptors: (1) ESD and (2) taxonomy. Clustering enabled statistical analysis of specific groups of interest and comparisons of their differential responses to the various environmental parameters.

First, planktonic groups/taxa/species were clustered into groups according to ESD. Such a clustering method was applied in a previous study, and the clusters identified and used below can be found in Trombetta et al. (2020)²².

Second, new clusters were made using group/taxon/species taxonomic membership. Bacteria with high nucleic acid (HNA) and low nucleic acid (LNA) were pooled into the ‘bacteria’ cluster. The different size classes of HFs were pooled into the ‘HF’ cluster. The two heterotrophic Dinophyceae species identified were pooled into the ‘heterotrophic Dinophyceae' cluster. Phytoplankton taxa were pooled into seven clusters according to taxonomy. The clusters were ‘Bacillariophyceae', ‘auto/mixotrophic Dinophyceae', ‘Crypotophyceae’, ‘Chrysophyceae’, ‘Chlorophyceae’, and ‘other phytoplankton’. This last phytoplankton cluster included the few taxa left, which belonged to different groups with only one or two representatives (i.e., Prymnesiophyceae, Prasinophyceae, and Euglenophyceae). Smaller phytoplankton groups identified with cytometry were pooled into a ‘phytoplankton < 6 µm’ cluster. Aloricate ciliates were pooled into five clusters according to order. The clusters were ‘Choreotrichida’, ‘Oligotrichida’, ‘Prorodontida’, ‘Cyclotrichiida’, and ‘other aloricate ciliates’. This last aloricate ciliate cluster included the few taxa left, which belonged to different groups with only one or two representatives (i.e., Oligohymenophorea, Ceramiales, unidentified spirotrich, and unidentified aloricate ciliates). Loricate ciliates (tintinnids) were pooled into six clusters according to family. The clusters were ‘Codonellidae’, ‘Metacyclididae’, ‘Tintinidae’, ‘Ptychocylididae’, ‘Codonellopsidae’ and ‘other tintinnids’. This last tintinnid cluster included the few taxa left, which belonged to different groups with only one or two representatives (i.e., Ascampbelliellidae and unidentified tintinnids). Metazooplankton were divided into three groups: ‘mesozooplankton larvae’, ‘rotifers’, and ‘copepods’.

Statistical analysis and network visualisation

The bloom and non-bloom periods in 2015 and 2016 were previously identified in Trombetta et al. (2019) based on daily mean Chl a fluorescence, an index of phytoplankton biomass. The authors found that different environmental variables were involved in Chl a dynamic depending on the period (bloom or non-bloom). Furthermore, Trombetta et al. (2020)²² considered the same periods and found different food web network structures depending on the period (bloom or non-bloom). Consequently, the same bloom and non-bloom dataset separation was used in the present study to investigate the environmental drivers associated with changes in plankton community composition and structure during these productive periods.

nMDS ordination was applied to classify planktonic taxa based on temporal and environmental similarities. Community composition from winter to spring, along the axis of dates, and during productive periods was investigated for the years 2015 and 2016. To determine which environmental factors drive plankton community assembly, the environmental variables were ordinated, and their correlation scores with nMDS axes were calculated using the envfit function in R (vegan package, version 2.4-2).

Mantel’s test was used to identify the significant correlations between environmental factors and plankton community composition according to each ESD and taxonomic cluster. This study aimed to identify the potential role of environmental variables in driving plankton community composition during the bloom and non-bloom periods in both years. Correlations were calculated between two matrices: (1) one of environmental parameters and (2) one of abundances for the ESD or taxonomic clusters. Mantel’s tests were performed on each environmental parameter and ESD/taxonomic cluster pair. Only environmental factors significantly correlated with the nMDS axes were used in Mantel’s test.

Spearman’s rank correlation was applied to identify significant mutual changes between environmental factors and the abundance of taxa in the bloom and non-bloom periods in both years. Correlation tests were carried out for each environmental parameter and taxon abundance pair. A Monte Carlo resampling procedure was applied, and 9,999 iterations were used to quantify the p-values.

Outcomes of Mantel’s and Spearman’s tests were visualised through networks to clarify the emergence of patterns at the scale of the entire plankton community. A network is a spatial representation of associations, marked by lines (called ‘edges’) linking two entities (called ‘nodes’). The nodes are the environmental factors, taxa, and ESD or taxonomic clusters, and the edges represent significant correlations (p-value < 0.05).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Benjamin Sembeil, Océane Schenkels, Ludovic Pancin, and Erika Gaudillère for helping during the sampling and/or analysing the samples. We would also like to acknowledge David Parin, who helped during two years of the monitoring performed at the Marine Station of the “Observatoire de Recherche Méditerranéen de l’Environnement” (OSU OREME) in Sète. The Microbex platform of MARBEC/Cemeb Labex provided microscopy and cytometry equipment. We would like to thank Justine Courboulès for drawing the sampling site map. This study was part of the Photo-Phyto project funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0018).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

FV and BM designed the study. FV, CR, SM and BM collected field samples. FV, BM, MS and TT performed the analyses. TT wrote the original draft. All authors contributed to manuscript revision as well as reading and approval of the final version.

Lalli, C. & Parsons, T. R. Biological Oceanography: An Introduction. (Elsevier, 1997).
Mackas, D. L., Denman, K. L. & Abbott, M. R. Plankton patchiness: biology in the physical vernacular. Bulletin of Marine Science 37, 652–674 (1985).
Kjerfve, B. & Magill, K. E. Geographic and hydrodynamic characteristics of shallow coastal lagoons. Marine Geology 88, 187–199 (1989).
Kjerfve, B. Chapter 1 Coastal Lagoons. in Elsevier Oceanography Series (ed. Kjerfve, B.) vol. 60 1–8 (Elsevier, 1994).
McManus, M. A. & Woodson, C. B. Plankton distribution and ocean dispersal. Journal of Experimental Biology 215, 1008–1016 (2012).
Carr, M.-E. Estimation of potential productivity in Eastern Boundary Currents using remote sensing. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 49, 59–80 (2001).
Chavez, F. P. & Messié, M. A comparison of Eastern Boundary Upwelling Ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography 83, 80–96 (2009).
Schubert, H. & Telesh, I. Estuaries and coastal lagoons. in Biological Oceanography of the Baltic Sea (eds. Snoeijs-Leijonmalm, P., Schubert, H. & Radziejewska, T.) 483–509 (Springer Netherlands, 2017). doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0668-2_13.
Pecqueur, D. et al. Dynamics of microbial planktonic food web components during a river flash flood in a Mediterranean coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 673, 13–27 (2011).
Deininger, A. et al. Simulated terrestrial runoff triggered a phytoplankton succession and changed seston stoichiometry in coastal lagoon mesocosms. Marine Environmental Research 119, 40–50 (2016).
Newton, A. & Mudge, S. M. Temperature and salinity regimes in a shallow, mesotidal lagoon, the Ria Formosa, Portugal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57, 73–85 (2003).
Huang, J., Gao, J. & Hörmann, G. Hydrodynamic-phytoplankton model for short-term forecasts of phytoplankton in Lake Taihu, China. Limnologica 42, 7–18 (2012).
Pérez-Ruzafa, A. et al. Connectivity between coastal lagoons and sea: Asymmetrical effects on assemblages’ and populations’ structure. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 216, 171–186 (2019).
Dube, A., Jayaraman, G. & Rani, R. Modelling the effects of variable salinity on the temporal distribution of plankton in shallow coastal lagoons. Journal of Hydro-environment Research 4, 199–209 (2010).
Pulina, S., Satta, C. T., Padedda, B. M., Sechi, N. & Lugliè, A. Seasonal variations of phytoplankton size structure in relation to environmental variables in three Mediterranean shallow coastal lagoons. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 212, 95–104 (2018).
Millet, B. & Cecchi, P. Wind-induced hydrodynamic control of the phytoplankton biomass in a lagoon ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37, 140–146 (1992).
Souchu, P. et al. Influence of shellfish farming activities on the biogeochemical composition of the water column in Thau lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series 218, 141–152 (2001).
Paphitis, D. & Collins, M. B. Sediment resuspension events within the (microtidal) coastal waters of Thermaikos Gulf, northern Greece. Continental Shelf Research 25, 2350–2365 (2005).
Trombetta, T. et al. Water temperature drives phytoplankton blooms in coastal waters. PLOS ONE 14, e0214933 (2019).
Faust, K. & Raes, J. Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nature Reviews Microbiology 10, 538–550 (2012).
Fuhrman, J. A., Cram, J. A. & Needham, D. M. Marine microbial community dynamics and their ecological interpretation. Nature Reviews Microbiology 13, 133–146 (2015).
Trombetta, T., Vidussi, F., Roques, C., Scotti, M. & Mostajir, B. Marine Microbial Food Web Networks During Phytoplankton Bloom and Non-bloom Periods: Warming Favors Smaller Organism Interactions and Intensifies Trophic Cascade. Front. Microbiol. 11, (2020).
Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Pronounced daily succession of phytoplankton, archaea and bacteria following a spring bloom. Nature Microbiology 1, 16005 (2016).
Hemraj, D. A., Hossain, A., Ye, Q., Qin, J. G. & Leterme, S. C. Anthropogenic shift of planktonic food web structure in a coastal lagoon by freshwater flow regulation. Scientific Reports 7, 44441 (2017).
Rose, J. M. & Caron, D. A. Does low temperature constrain the growth rates of heterotrophic protists? Evidence and implications for algal blooms in cold waters. Limnology and Oceanography 52, 886–895 (2007).
Kordas, R. L., Harley, C. D. G. & O’Connor, M. I. Community ecology in a warming world: The influence of temperature on interspecific interactions in marine systems. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 400, 218–226 (2011).
Jones, K. J. & Gowen, R. J. Influence of stratification and irradiance regime on summer phytoplankton composition in coastal and shelf seas of the British Isles. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 30, 557–567 (1990).
Bec, B., Husseini Ratrema, J., Collos, Y., Souchu, P. & Vaquer, A. Phytoplankton seasonal dynamics in a Mediterranean coastal lagoon: emphasis on the picoeukaryote community. Journal of plankton research 27, 881–894 (2005).
Bosak, S., Godrijan, J. & Šilović, T. Dynamics of the marine planktonic diatom family Chaetocerotaceae in a Mediterranean coastal zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 180, 69–81 (2016).
Wagner, C. & Adrian, R. Consequences of changes in thermal regime for plankton diversity and trait composition in a polymictic lake: a matter of temporal scale. Freshwater Biology 56, 1949–1961 (2011).
Rynearson, T. A., Flickinger, S. A. & Fontaine, D. N. Metabarcoding Reveals Temporal Patterns of Community Composition and Realized Thermal Niches of Thalassiosira Spp. (Bacillariophyceae) from the Narragansett Bay Long-Term Plankton Time Series. Biology 9, 19 (2020).
Delaney, M. P. Effects of temperature and turbulence on the predator-prey interactions between a heterotrophic flagellate and a marine bacterium. Microb Ecol 45, 218–225 (2003).
Peter, K. H. & Sommer, U. Phytoplankton Cell Size: Intra- and Interspecific Effects of Warming and Grazing. PLOS ONE 7, e49632 (2012).
Donk, E. van & Kilham, S. S. Temperature Effects on Silicon- and Phosphorus-Limited Growth and Competitive Interactions Among Three Diatoms1. Journal of Phycology 26, 40–50 (1990).
Stelzer, C.-P. Population growth in planktonic rotifers. Does temperature shift the competitive advantage for different species? in Rotifera VIII: A Comparative Approach (eds. Wurdak, E., Wallace, R. & Segers, H.) 349–353 (Springer Netherlands, 1998). doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4782-8_46.
Arandia-Gorostidi, N., Weber, P. K., Alonso-Sáez, L., Morán, X. A. G. & Mayali, X. Elevated temperature increases carbon and nitrogen fluxes between phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria through physical attachment. The ISME Journal 11, 641–650 (2017).
Peacock, E. E., Olson, R. J. & Sosik, H. M. Parasitic infection of the diatom Guinardia delicatula, a recurrent and ecologically important phenomenon on the New England Shelf. (2014) doi:10.3354/meps10784.
Käse, L. et al. Host-parasitoid associations in marine planktonic time series: Can metabarcoding help reveal them? PLOS ONE 16, e0244817 (2021).
Caron, D. A., Dennett, M. R., Lonsdale, D. J., Moran, D. M. & Shalapyonok, L. Microzooplankton herbivory in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 47, 3249–3272 (2000).
Vidussi, F. et al. Effects of experimental warming and increased ultraviolet B radiation on the Mediterranean plankton food web. Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 206–218 (2011).
Balas, L. & Özhan, E. Three-dimensional Modelling of Stratified Coastal Waters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 54, 75–87 (2002).
Dalu, T., Richoux, N. B. & Froneman, P. W. Distribution of benthic diatom communities in a permanently open temperate estuary in relation to physico-chemical variables. South African Journal of Botany 107, 31–38 (2016).
Kirk, J. T. O. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Ecosystems. (Cambridge University Press, 1994). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511623370.
Litchman, E., de Tezanos Pinto, P., Klausmeier, C. A., Thomas, M. K. & Yoshiyama, K. Linking traits to species diversity and community structure in phytoplankton. in Fifty years after the ‘“Homage to Santa Rosalia”’: Old and new paradigms on biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems (eds. Naselli-Flores, L. & Rossetti, G.) 15–28 (Springer Netherlands, 2010). doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9908-2_3.
Unrein, F., Gasol, J. M., Not, F., Forn, I. & Massana, R. Mixotrophic haptophytes are key bacterial grazers in oligotrophic coastal waters. The ISME Journal 8, 164–176 (2014).
Polimene, L. et al. Modelling a light-driven phytoplankton succession. J Plankton Res 36, 214–229 (2014).
Hatzaki, M. et al. Seasonal Aspects of an Objective Climatology of Anticyclones Affecting the Mediterranean. Journal of Climate 27, 9272–9289 (2014).
Mostajir, B. et al. Experimental test of the effect of ultraviolet-B radiation in a planktonic community. Limnology and Oceanography 44, 586–596 (1999).
Lacuna, D. G. & Uye, S.-I. Influence of mid-ultraviolet (UVB) radiation on the physiology of the marine planktonic copepod Acartia omorii and the potential role of photoreactivation. J Plankton Res 23, 143–156 (2001).
Halac, S. et al. An in situ enclosure experiment to test the solar UVB impact on plankton in a high-altitude mountain lake. I. Lack of effect on phytoplankton species composition and growth. J Plankton Res 19, 1671–1686 (1997).
Souchu, P. et al. Patterns in nutrient limitation and chlorophyll a along an anthropogenic eutrophication gradient in French Mediterranean coastal lagoons. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67, 743–753 (2010).
Derolez, V. et al. Two decades of oligotrophication: Evidence for a phytoplankton community shift in the coastal lagoon of Thau (Mediterranean Sea, France). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 241, 106810 (2020).
Yool, A., Martin, A. P., Fernández, C. & Clark, D. R. The significance of nitrification for oceanic new production. Nature 447, 999–1002 (2007).
Constantin, S., Constantinescu, Ștefan & Doxaran, D. Long-term analysis of turbidity patterns in Danube Delta coastal area based on MODIS satellite data. Journal of Marine Systems 170, 10–21 (2017).
Jorge, V. N. de & Beusekom, J. E. E. van. Wind- and tide-induced resuspension of sediment and microphytobenthos from tidal flats in the Ems estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 40, 776–778 (1995).
Ubertini, M. et al. Spatial Variability of Benthic-Pelagic Coupling in an Estuary Ecosystem: Consequences for Microphytobenthos Resuspension Phenomenon. PLOS ONE 7, e44155 (2012).
Madoni, P. Benthic ciliates in Adriatic Sea lagoons. European Journal of Protistology 42, 165–173 (2006).
Cruz, J. et al. Plankton community and copepod production in a temperate coastal lagoon: What is changing in a short temporal scale? Journal of Sea Research 157, 101858 (2020).
Audouin, J. Hydrologie de l’étang de Thau. Revue des Travaux de l’Institut des Pêches Maritimes 26, 5–104 (1962).
Byun, D. S., Wang, X. H. & Holloway, P. E. Tidal characteristic adjustment due to dyke and seawall construction in the Mokpo Coastal Zone, Korea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 59, 185–196 (2004).
Stefanidou, N., Genitsaris, S., Lopez-Bautista, J., Sommer, U. & Moustaka-Gouni, M. Unicellular Eukaryotic Community Response to Temperature and Salinity Variation in Mesocosm Experiments. Front. Microbiol. 9, (2018).
Xu, N. et al. Effects of temperature, salinity and irradiance on the growth of the harmful dinoflagellate Prorocentrum donghaiense Lu. Harmful Algae 9, 13–17 (2010).
Greenwald, G. M. & Hurlbert, S. H. Microcosm analysis of salinity effects on coastal lagoon plankton assemblages. in Saline Lakes V (ed. Hurlbert, S. H.) 307–335 (Springer Netherlands, 1993). doi:10.1007/978-94-011-2076-0_24.
Fiandrino, A., Giraud, A., Robin, S. & Pinatel, C. Validation d’une méthode d’estimation des volumes d’eau échangés entre la mer et les lagunes et définition d’indicateurs hydrodynamiques associés. (2012).
Pernet, F. et al. Marine diatoms sustain growth of bivalves in a Mediterranean lagoon. Journal of Sea Research 68, 20–32 (2012).
Mostajir, B., Mas, S., Parin, D. & Vidussi, F. High-Frequency physical, biogeochemical and meteorological data of Coastal Mediterranean Thau Lagoon Observatory. SEANOE (2018).
Données Publiques de Météo-France - Accueil. https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/.

No competing interests reported.

SupMat.docx

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
15 Jul, 2021
Reviews received at journal
12 Jul, 2021
Reviews received at journal
25 Jun, 2021
Reviewers agreed at journal
15 Jun, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
14 Jun, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
09 Jun, 2021
Editor invited by journal
09 Jun, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
08 Jun, 2021
First submitted to journal
03 Jun, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Environmental drivers of plankton communities in coastal waters: the central role of temperature revealed by co-occurrence networks

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Results

Discussion

Methods

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1