, Volume 215, Issue 1, pp 21–29 | Cite as

Summer zooplankton dynamics in the limnetic and littoral zones of a humic acid lake

  • Karl E. Havens


The limnetic and littoral zooplankton were studied during summer 1989 in Triangle Lake, a humic acid (pH 4.9) bog lake in Ohio, USA. The limnetic zooplankton showed low species richness and biomass, and dominance by the rotifers Kellicottia bostoniensis and Polyarthra vulgaris. In the littoral, species richness and biomass were markedly higher, and the crustaceans Alona guttata, Ceriodaphnia quadrangula, Chydorus sphaericus, Simocephalus serrulatus and Tropocyclops prasinus, and the rotifer Ascomorpha ecaudis were the dominants. The extreme rotifer dominance and lack of cladocerans in the limnetic zone were likely the result of Chaoborus predation. A pronounced mid-summer decline in cladoceran biomass in the littoral was likely due to predation by T. prasinus and Utricularia (bladderwort).

Key words

zooplankton dynamics humic lakes limnetic littoral invertebrate predation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arvola, L., K. Salonen, I. Bergstrom, A. Heinanen & A. Ojala, 1986. Effects of experimental acidification on phyto-, bacterio, and zooplankton in enclosures of a highly humic lake. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 71: 737–758.Google Scholar
  2. Blouin, A. C., P. A. lane, T. M. Collins & J. J. Kerekes, 1984. Comparison of plankton-water chemistry relationships in three acid stressed lakes in Nova Scotia, Canada. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 69: 819–841.Google Scholar
  3. Chimney, M. J., R. W. Winner & S. K. Seiklop, 1981. Prey utilization by Chaoborus punctipennis in a small, eutrophic reservoir. Hydrobiol. 85: 193–199.Google Scholar
  4. Cotner, J. B., 1984. Significance of dissolved phosphorus in an acid bog lake. M. S. Thesis, Kent State University, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Cronberg, G., 1988. Mass development of the flagellate Gonyostomum semen in Swedish forest lakes — an effect of acidification? Hydrobiol. 161: 217–236.Google Scholar
  6. DeCosta, J., 1975. The crustacean plankton of an acid reservoir. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 1805–1813.Google Scholar
  7. Dodson, S.I., 1989. Predator-induced reaction norms. Biosci. 39: 447–452.Google Scholar
  8. Edmondson, W. T. (ed.), 1959. Fresh-water biology. John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Fedorenko, A. Y., 1975. Feeding characteristics and predation impact of Chaoborus larvae in a small lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 250–258.Google Scholar
  10. Gannon, J. E. & R. S. Stemberger, 1978. Zooplankton (especially crustaceans and rotifers) as indicators of water quality. Trans. am. Micro. Soc. 97: 16–35.Google Scholar
  11. Hanazato, T. & M. Yasuno, 1989. Zooplankton community structure driven by vertebrate and invertebrate predators. Oecol. 81: 450–458.Google Scholar
  12. Havens, K. E., 1989. Seasonal succession in the plankton of a naturally acidic, highly humic lake in Northeastern Ohio, U.S.A. J. Plankton Res. 11: 1321–1327.Google Scholar
  13. Havens, K. E., 1990. Chaoborus predation and zooplankton community structure in a rotifer-dominated lake. In H. J. Dumont, J. G. Tundisi & K. Roche (eds), Intrazooplankton Predation. Developments in Hydrobiology 60. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: 215–226. Reprinted from Hydrobiologia 198.Google Scholar
  14. Havens, K. E. & J. DeCosta, 1985. An analysis of selective herbivory in an acid lake and its importance in controlling phytoplankton community structure. J. Plankton Res. 7: 207–222.Google Scholar
  15. Havens, K. E. & J. DeCosta, 1987. Freshwater plankton community succession during experimental acidification. Arch. Hydrobiol. 111: 37–65.Google Scholar
  16. Havens, K. E. & R. T. Heath, 1989. Acid and aluminum effects on freshwater zooplankton: an in situ mesocosm study. Envir. Pollut. 62: 195–211.Google Scholar
  17. Hessen, D. 0., 1989. Factors determining the nutritive status and production of zooplankton in a humic lake. J. Plankton. Res. 11: 649–664.Google Scholar
  18. Hessen, D. 0., T. Andersen & A. Lyche, 1989. Differential grazing and resource utilization of zooplankton in a humic lake. Arch. Hydrobiol. 114: 321–347.Google Scholar
  19. Hongve, D., O. Lovstad & K. Bjorndalen, 1987. Gonyostomum semen — a new nuisance to bathers in Norwegian lakes. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 23: 430–434.Google Scholar
  20. Lane, P. A., 1978. Role of invertebrate predation in structuring zooplankton communities. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 480–485.Google Scholar
  21. Lim, R. P. & C. H. Fernando. 1978. Production of Cladocera inhabiting the vegetated littoral of Pinehurst Lake, Ontario, Canada. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 225–231.Google Scholar
  22. Lowndes, A. G., 1952. Hydrogen ion concentration and the distribution of freshwater entomostraca. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 5: 58–65.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, M. V. & J. J. Gilbert, 1987. Age-specific Chaoborus predation on rotifer prey. Freshwat. Biol. 17: 223–236.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council of Canada, 1981. Acidification in the Canadian aquatic environment. NRCC Rept., Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Neill, W. E. & A. Peacock, 1980. Breaking the bottleneck: interactions of nutrients and invertebrate predators in oligotrophic lakes. In W.C. Kerfoot (ed.), Ecology and evolution of zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, N.H., USA.Google Scholar
  26. Prepas, E., 1978. Sugar-frosted Daphnia: an improved fixation technique for Cladocera. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23: 557–559.Google Scholar
  27. Pope, G. F., J. C. H. Carter & G. Power, 1973. The influence of fish on the distribution of Chaoborus spp. and density of larvae in the Matamek River System, Quebec. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 102: 707–714.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, K. G., 1977. The plant-animal interface in freshwater ecosystems. Amer. Sci. 65: 159–170.Google Scholar
  29. Rask, M., A. Heinanen, K. Salonen, L. Arvola, I. Bergstrom, M. Liukkonen & O. Ojala, 1986. The limnology of a small, naturally acidic, highly humic forest lake. Arch. Hydrobiol. 106: 351–371.Google Scholar
  30. Salonen, K. & T. Hammar, 1986. Importance of dissolved organic matter in the nutrition of plankton in fresh waters. Oecol. (Berl) 68: 246–253.Google Scholar
  31. Stemberger, R. S. & J. J. Gilbert, 1987. Defenses of planktonic rotifers against predators. In W.C. Kerfoot & Sih (eds), Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of new England, Hanover, N.H., USA.Google Scholar
  32. Stenson, J. A. E., T. Bohlin, L. Henrikson, B. I. Nilsson, H. G. Nyman, H. G. Oscarson & P. Larsson, 1978. Effects of fish removal from a small lake. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 794–801.Google Scholar
  33. Stoneburner, D. L. & L. A. Smock, 1980. Plankton communities of an acidic, polymictic brownwater lake. Hydrobiologia 69: 131–138.Google Scholar
  34. Straskraba, M., 1963. Share of the littoral region in the productivity of the fishponds in southern Bohemia. Ros. CSAV rada MPV 73: 1–64.Google Scholar
  35. Torke, B. G., 1974. An illustrated guide to the indentification of planktonic Crustacea of Lake Michigan with notes on their ecology. Spec. Rept. 17, Center for Great Lakes Research, Univ. Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Vinyard, G. L. & R. A. Menger, 1980. Chaoborus americanus predation on various zooplankters: functional response and behavioral observations. Oecol. (Berl) 45: 90–93.Google Scholar
  37. Williamson, C. E., 1983. Invertebrate predation on planktonic rotifers. Hydrobiol. 104: 385–396.Google Scholar
  38. Yan, N. D. & R. Strus, 1980. Crustacean zooplankton communities of acidic, metal-contaminated lakes near Sudbury, Ontario. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37: 2282–2293.Google Scholar
  39. Yan, N. D., R. W. Nero, W. Keller & D. C. Lasenby, 1985. Are Chaoborus larvae more abundant in acidified than in non-acidified lakes in Central Canada? Holarct. Ecol. 8: 93–99.Google Scholar
  40. Yan, N. D., W. Keller, H. J. Maclsaac & L. J. McEachern. 1990. Control of zooplankton community structure in an acidified lake (Swan Lake, Canada) by the invertebrate predator Chaoborus. Ecol. Applic., In press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl E. Havens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences and Water Resources Research InstituteKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations