Spatial distribution of zooplankton communities between the Sphagnum mat and open water in a dystrophic lake

• Autorzy: Kuczynska-Kippen N
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The composition and dynamics of zooplankton (Rotifera, Crustacea) communities were studied in a dystrophic lake (Drawieński National Park, northern Poland). The investigated lake was a typical mid-forest lake of a small area (ca. 0.65 ha) but relatively deep (Zmax = 6.8m) and covered with a peat (Sphagnum sp.) mat. The study was made in the shallow part of the lake (Z = 0.5 m). Zooplankton was collected twice in August 2004, in triplicate subsamples, taken from three stations (1. under the peat mat, 2. the transitional zone between the peat mat and open water area and 3. open water zone) from two different sites within the same lake. The distance between sampling stations within a transect was ca. 1.5 m. The whole area under study was not greater than 10 m2. Therefore the results concern the very small-scale distribution of zooplankton. The aim of the study was to find out whether spatial segregation of the zooplankton community and the dominating species between the Sphagnum mat and open water zone as well as in the transitional zone between both zones takes place in a dystrophic lake and whether the moss mat can be considered as an anti-predator refuge. Both the species number and zooplankton densities differed between the stations along a transect, being the highest (40 zooplankton species and mean 150 ind l–1 for the whole zooplankton community) in the peat mat and lowest (12 species and 72 ind l–1) in the open water zone. Humic-water species constituted 24% of the species composition of rotifer and 14% of the crustacean community. Cladocerans prevailed numerically over rotifers. Dominating species – Bdelloidae, Keratella cochlearis Gosse, Polyarthra vulgaris (Carlin), Synchaeta pectinata Ehrenberg, Trichocerca insignis Carlin, Alonella excisa (Fischer), Ceriodaphnia quadrangula (O.F. Muller) – revealed a differentiated pattern of spatial distribution. The mean Shannon-Weaver biodiversity index of zooplankton was not notably high and amounted to 1.45. The highest values were found in the peat mat (mean – 1.76 for rotifers and 0.67 for crustaceans), while the lowest values were found in the open water (0.99 and 0.36 respectively). These results suggest that in the site connected with Sphagnum moss in a humic lake more diverse and abundant zooplankton occurs in relation to other habitats. The differences in zooplankton distribution between the peat mat and the open water zone of the dystrophic lake seems to be affected by biological interactions which relate to predator presence, both vertebrate and invertebrate, and competition between large cladocerans and smaller rotifers. Due to the dominance of larger forms of zooplankton it may be supposed that invertebrate predators may have a more pronounced effect. The habitat within the Sphagnum moss can be considered as a predictable refugium.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Poland; open water; peat bog; Crustacea; refuge; zooplankton; Rotifera; Sphagnum; Drawienski National Park; spatial distribution; dystrophic lake

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: 56
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.57-64,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Kuczynska-Kippen N

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznan, Poland

Bibliografia

• Blindow I., Hargeby A., Wagner B.M.A., Andersson G. 2000 – How important is the crustacean plankton for the maintenance of water clarity in shallow lakes with abundant submerged vegetation? – Freshwat. Biol. 44: 185–197.
• Błędzki L.A., Ellison A.M. 2003 – Diversity of rotifers from north-eastern U.S.A bogs with new species records for North America and New England – Hydrobiologia, 497: 53–62.
• Burks R.L., Lodge D.M., Jeppesen E., Lauridsen T.L. 2002 – Diel horizontal migration of zooplankton: costs and benefits of inhabiting littoral – Freshwat. Biol. 47: 343–365.
• Dodson S.I. 1974 – Zooplankton competition and predation: an experimental test of the size-efficiency hypothesis – Ecology, 55: 605–613.
• Duggan I.C., Green J.D., Thompson K., Shiel R.J. 2001 – The influence of macrophytes on the spatial distribution of littoral rotifers – Freshwat. Biol. 46: 777–786.
• Flossner D. 1972 – Kiemen- und Blattfusser, Branchiopoda, Fischlause, Branchiura – VEB Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena: 499 pp.
• Gilbert J.J. 1988 – Suppression of rotifer populations by Daphnia: A review of the evidence, the mechanisms, and the effects on zooplankton community structure – Limnol. Oceanogr. 33: 1286–1303.
• Hakanson L. 2002 – Lumbering operations, lake humification and consequences for the structure of the lake foodweb: A case study using the LakeWeb-model for Lake Stora Krontjarn, Sweden – Aquat. Sci. 64: 185–197.
• Hays G.C. 2003 – A review of the adaptive significance and ecosystem consequences of zooplankton vertical migrations – Hydrobiologia, 503: 163–170.
• Hehmann A., Krienitz L., Koschel R. 2001 – Long-term phytoplankton changes in an artificially divided, top-down manipulated humic lake – Hydrobiologia, 448: 83–96.
• Henrikson B.I. 1993 – Sphagnum mosses as a microhabitat for invertebrates in acidified lakes and the colour adaptation and substrate preference in Leucorrhinia dubia (Odonata, Anisoptera) – Ecography, 16/2: 143–153.
• Hessen D.O., Tranvik L.J. 1998 – Aquatic humic substances – Ecology and biogeochemistry. Springer, 348 pp.
• Horicka Z. 2005 – Cladocera in reservoirs of the Jizera Mountains (Czech Republic) during their acidiphication and recovery from acidiphication – VII International Symposium on Cladcera, Herzberg, Switzerland, September 3–9, 2005, pp. 18.
• Iglesias C., Goyenola G., Mazzeo N., Meerhoff M., Rodo E., Jeppesen E. 2007 – Horizontal dynamics of zooplankton in subtropical Lake Blanca (Uruguay) hosting multiple zooplankton predators and aquatic plant refuges – Hydrobiologia, 584: 179–189.
• Joniak T., Domek P. 2006 – Influence of humification on biodiversity of lake benthic macroinvertebrates – Acta Agroph. 7/2: 363–368.
• Kairesalo T., Tatrai I., Luokkanen E. 1998– Impacts of waterweed (Elodea canadensis Michx) on fish-plankton interactions in the lake littoral – Verh. int. Verein. theor. angew. Limnol. 26: 1846–1851.Karabin A., Ejsmont-Karabin J. 2005 – An evidence for vertical migrations of small rotifers – a case of rotifer community in a dystophic lake – Hydrobiologia, 546: 381–386.
• Krebs Ch.J. 2001 – Ecology. The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance – Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 3–734.
• Kuczyńska-Kippen N. 2003 – The distribution of rotifers (Rotifera) within a single Myriophyllum bed – Hydrobiologia, 506/1: 327–331.
• Kuczyńska–Kippen N., Klimaszyk P., Szeląg-Wasielewska E. 2006 – Diel changes in the plankton communities of the ecotone zone of a peat mat of the dystrophic lake „Głodne Jeziorko” (Drawieński National Park) – Acta Agroph. 7/2: 423–432.
• Kuczyńska-Kippen N. 2007 – Habitat choice in rotifera communities of three shallow lakes: impact of macrophyte substratum and season – Hydrobiologia, 593: 27–37.
• Kurbatova S.A. 2005 – Response of microcosm zooplankton to acidiphication – Biol. Bull. 32/1: 85–92.
• Ludgate B.G., Closs G.P. 2003 – Responses of fish communities to sustained removals of perch (Perca fluviatilis) – Sci. Conserv. 210, 38 pp.
• Makarewicz J.C., Likens G.E. 1975 – Niche analysis of a zooplankton community – Science, 190: 1000–1003.
• Margalef R. 1957 – Information theory in ecology – Gen. Syst. 3: 36–71.
• Nurminen K.L., Horppila J.A. 2002 – A diurnal study on the distribution of filter feeding zooplankton: Effect of emergent macrophytes, pH and lake trophy – Aquat. Sci. 64: 198–206.
• Pejler B., Bērziņš B. 1993 – On the ecology of Trichocercidae (Rotifera) – Hydrobiologia, 263: 55–59.
• Petr T. 2000 – Interactions between fish and aquatic macrophytes in inland waters. A review – FAO Fisheries Technical Papers, 185 pp.
• Radwan S., Bielańska-Grajner I., Ejsmont-Karabin J. 2004 – Wrotki Rotifera. Fauna słodkowodna Polski. (Rotifers Rotifera. Freshwater fauna of Poland) – Oficyna Wydawnicza Tercja, 447 pp. (in Polish).
• Raffaelli D., Hall S., Emes C., ManlyB. 2000 – Constraints on body size distributions: an experimental approach using a small-scale system – Oecologia, 122: 389–398.
• Stansfield J.H., Perrow M.R., Tench L.D., Jowitt A.J D., Taylor A.A.L. 1997 – Submerged macrophytes as refuges for grazing Cladocera against fish predation: observations on seasonal changes in relation to macrophyte cover and predation pressure – Hydrobiologia, 342/343: 229–240.
• Stoneburner D.L., Smock L.A. 1980 – Plankton communities of an acidic, polymictic, brown-water lake – Hydrobiologia, 69/1–2: 131–137.
• Tessier C., Cattaneo A., Pinel-Alloul B., Galanti G. 2004 – Biomass, composition and size structure of invertebrate communities associated to different types of aquatic vegetation during summer in Lago di Canada (Italy) – J. Limnol. 63/2: 190–198.
• Warfe D.M., Barmuta L.A. 2004 – Habitat structural complexity madiates the foraging success of multiple predator species – Oecologia, 141: 171–178.
• Węgleńska T., Ejsmont-Karabin J., Rybak J.I. 1997 – Biotic interactions of the zooplankton community of a shallow, humic lake – Hydrobiologia, 342/343: 185–195.