Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Periphytic biomass in a downriver riffle of the Grand River in Southern Ontario, Canada was measured with concrete‐block glass slide samplers from May to December 1971. Average rate of accumulation of periphyton on glass slides was 266.2 mg/m2/day ash‐free weight, 120.9 mg/m2/day carbon, 20.4 mg/m2/day nitrogen, or 1.11 mg/m2/day chlorophyll a and on concrete blocks was 590.0 mg/m2/day ash‐free weight, 202.9 mg/m2/day carbon, 22.8 mg/m2/day nitrogen, or 2.95 mg/m2/day chlorophyll a. The standing biomass of periphyton on glass slides varied from a maximum of 21.6 g/m2 between May 28 and July 15 to a minimum of 0.7 g/m2 in December with an average of 8.6 g/m2. The biomass on concrete blocks ranged from a high of 132.5 g/m2 in August to a low of 29.9 g/m2 in October with a mean of 66.1 g/m2. The well established periphyton on concrete blocks towards the end of the study period was similar to that from native rocks with respect to biomass, carbon and nitrogen contents, and ratios of biomass to chlorophyll a. This suggests that concrete blocks are a better substrate than glass slides for measuring riverbed periphyton. By comparing biomass of periphyton on slides and on concrete blocks, the average rate of loss of periphyton from concrete blocks was estimated to be 2.9 g/m2/day, representing 63% of the mean total accumulation rate of the periphyton. The magnitude of the estimated total loss and the high standing biomass of the periphyton on concrete blocks manifest the importance of the periphyton as a source of organic matter in the river.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liaw et al. (1978) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: