{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02290448343079922, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006335282651072124, 'mean_word_length': 5.316923076923077, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Stimulation of epiphyton growth by lacustrine groundwater discharge to an oligo-mesotrophic hard-water lake

Periphyton is a major contributor to aquatic primary production and often competes with phytoplankton and submerged macrophytes for resources. In nutrient-limited environments, mobilization of sediment nutrients by groundwater can significantly affect periphyton (including epiphyton) development in shallow littoral zones and may affect other lake primary producers. We hypothesized that epiphyton growth in the littoral zone of temperate oligomesotrophic hard-water lakes could be stimulated by nutrient (especially P) supply via lacustrine groundwater discharge (LGD). We compared the dry mass, chlorophyll a (chl a), and nutrient content of epiphyton grown on artificial substrates at different sites in a groundwater-fed lake and in experimental chambers with and without LGD. During the spring–summer periods, epiphyton accumulated more biomass, especially algae, in littoral LGD sites and in experimental chambers with LGD compared to controls without LGD. Epiphyton chl a accumulation reached up to 46 mg chl a/m2 after 4 wk when exposed to LGD, compared to a maximum of 23 mg chl a/m2 at control (C) sites. In the field survey, differences in epiphyton biomass between LGD and C sites were most pronounced at the end of summer, when epilimnetic P concentrations were lowest and epiphyton C∶P ratios indicated P limitation. Groundwater-borne P may have facilitated epiphyton growth on macrophytes and periphyton growth on littoral sediments. Epiphyton stored up to 35 mg P/m2 in 4 wk (which corresponds to 13% of the total P content of the littoral waters), preventing its use by phytoplankton, and possibly contributing to the stabilization of a clear-water state. However, promotion of epiphyton growth by LGD may have contributed to an observed decline in macrophyte abundance caused by epiphyton shading and a decreased resilience of small charophytes to drag forces in shallow littoral areas of the studied lake in recent decades.