The processes in tropical floodplain lakes enable maintaining phytoplankton nutrient requirements over a hydrological year. The nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon compounds play an essential role in phytoplankton growth. However, the way that nutrients and phytoplankton interact and how this relationship varies seasonally in tropical freshwater ecosystems is not clear. In this study, we evaluate the relationship between phytoplankton–nutrients over the hydrological cycle in Amazonian floodplain lakes and verify if this relationship influences the biomass of cyanobacteria. We also check what factors linked to nutrients act in structuring phytoplankton community. Using the phytoplankton functional approach, we verified how their ability to respond to hydrological and environmental variations reflects the ecological conditions and investigated how these interactions work. The results show that the Amazonian floodplain lakes could maintain long-term nutrient enrichment status. The nutrients input conduces to cyanobacteria dominance, that allied to other factors, play an essential role in supporting the stability of the phytoplankton–nutrients relationship over the hydrological cycle.

Amazonian aquatic environments are complex, and their interaction promotes heterogeneous environments that in turn make it difficult to describe the development of patterns. Amazonian floodplain lakes have different environmental and biological responses in similar water periods due to the interannual variation. We evaluated if the interannual variations in the physical–chemical structure and the phytoplankton community promote environmentally and biologically contrasted conditions between similar hydrological periods. Phytoplankton community structure has differences between periods, but these differences do not necessarily promote dissimilarities. Most of the phytoplankton species belong to the same functional groups. The compositions of species and functional groups between sample units inside lakes are variable and may or may not have significant differences in dissimilarity, but both periods are equally heterogeneous. Beta diversity has shown that the replacement of species and functional groups causes a high level of variation between sites, which maintain a high heterogeneity between periods. These variations have different responses for different scales turning the interpretation of patterns for these environments a problematic task. Hence, scale and interannual variability are factors that need to be carefully considered when setting standards to describe the ecological dynamics of floodplain lakes in the Amazonian system.

Many trophic indices have been constructed for temperate aquatic environments, but few have proved reliable for tropical environments. Indices constructed on the basis of nutrients may not be effective for describing the trophic state because the fractions of nitrogen and phosphorus differ in their potential to predict the nutrient limitation in tropical aquatic environments. We developed an index based on the phytoplankton Reynolds functional groups for an Amazonian floodplain lake from samples collected during 2 contrasting hydrological periods (rising and flushing) and compared it with the index initially proposed by Carlson in 1977 and further adapted to tropical environments by Toledo in 1990. The functional group and Carlson indices matched only 37% and 56% of the sample units collected during the rising and flushing periods, respectively. Our study confirms the difficulty of assessing trophic states using only phosphorus and chlorophyll a in tropical floodplain lakes. In this environment (1) nitrogen may significantly limit phytoplankton growth and (2) complex phytoplankton–nutrient relationships occur during the hydrological cycle that cannot be accounted for through a simple phosphorus and chlorophyll a formula.

Aim This study aimed to answer: (i) can phytoplankton communities be used as surrogate of zooplankton communities?; (ii) can we use ecological approaches like functional groups (FG) or morphofunctional classification (MBFG) as surrogate for phytoplankton species?; (iii) can we use substitute groups (cladocera, copepod, rotifer or testate amoebae) as surrogate for zooplankton species?; (iv) are the environmental variables’ ordination standards concordant with the ordering patterns of phytoplankton and zooplankton species?; and (v) for both communities, is the spatial pattern of ordination maintained using density data or presence/absence of individuals or lower taxonomic resolutions? Methods The study was conducted in 25 water bodies that supply central-pivot irrigation in the Federal District - Brazil (Rio Preto Basin), in October 2012. We evaluated some physical and chemical variables as well as phytoplankton and zooplankton samples. To evaluate correlation among biological groups, numerical and higher taxonomic resolutions, we performed some Mantel and Procrustes analyses. Results Evaluating the use of substitute groups, comparisons between phytoplankton and zooplankton, FG and MBFG classifications and almost all the comparisons between zooplankton groups suggested concordant patterns. However, the values of r were low, all below 0.70. Biological analyses with phytoplankton and zooplankton can be performed using presence/absence of individuals without significant loss of information, except for MBFG classification and copepods. Data may also be used at genus or family level for copepods and testate amoebae and only data at genus level for cladocerans and rotifers. Different results were found concerning taxonomic resolution for phytoplankton considering that, while being significant, the r value was less than 0.70. Conclusions For environmental monitoring purposes, it is important to sample both phytoplankton and zooplankton communities because one is not surrogate of the other one, in the same way as phytoplankton density and their functional and morphofunctional approaches. On the other hand, to simplify the environmental monitoring, it is possible to adopt presence/absence species data instead of abundance data for both zooplankton and phytoplankton communities, except for copepods and morphofunctional approach. It is also possible to adopt genera level for zooplankton community and family level for copepods and testate amoebae.