Hydrobiologia

, Volume 171, Issue 3, pp 201–214 | Cite as

The occurrence and significance of Cladocera (Crustacea) in some streams of Central Indiana, U.S.A.

  • Peter B. Vila
Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Although Cladocera are collected often in large rivers, their importance in streams has been under-estimated. This paper summarizes the results of a preliminary study of the benthic Cladocera in the streams of three watersheds in South Central Indiana. Seventeen sites were sampled with respect to species of benthic Cladocera present, their relative abundance, population size, and population dynamics.

Cladocera were present in all streams and sites in the three watersheds. Nineteen species were collected: 13 species from the family Chydoridae, 3 Daphniidae, 2 Macrothricidae, and 1 Bosminidae. Just four species — Alona circumfimbriata, Chydorus brevilabris, Pleuroxus denticulatus, and Macrothrix laticornis — made up 68–96% of the numbers at all sites.

Density of Cladocera ranged from 3–5200 m−2 and they reproduced and maintained populations in the streams sampled. Numbers were generally high in October and early November and decreased to near zero in late December and January. The most important factor appearing to affect population sizes was discharge. Numbers at almost all sites decreased significantly after a rainfall increased discharge.

A Principal Components and clustering analysis grouped sites with similar physical parameters in a continuum of low to high order. Sites with low numbers of Cladocera were generally shallow, narrow, and had a loose unconsolidated substrate. Sites with high population numbers were generally deep, wide, and had a stable substrate that accumulated detritus.

Key words

cladocera chydoridae meiofauna streams 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armitage, P. D. & M. H. Capper, 1976. The numbers, biomass and transport downstream of microcrustaceans and Hydra from Cow Green Reservoir (Upper Teesdale). Freshwat. Biol. 6: 425–432.Google Scholar
  2. Badowen, M. F. & O. Ravera, 1972. Weight, size and chemical composition of some freshwater zooplankters. Daphnia hylinia (leydig). Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 645–649.Google Scholar
  3. Berrie, A. D., 1972. The occurrence and composition of seston in the River Thames and the role of detritus as an energy source for secondary production in the river. Mem. Ist. Idrobiol. Ital. (Suppl.) 29: 473–483.Google Scholar
  4. Bottrell, H. H., 1975. Generation time, length of life, instar duration and frequency of molting, and their relationships to temperature in eight species of Cladocera from the River Thames, Reading. Oecologia 19: 129–140.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. V. & K. B. Brown, 1984. Distribution of insects within riffles of streams. Freshwat. Invertebr. Biol. 3: 2–11.Google Scholar
  6. Chandler, D. C., 1937. Fate of typical lake plankton in streams. Ecol. Monogr. 7: 445–479.Google Scholar
  7. Clifford, H. F., 1966. The ecology of invertebrates in an intermittent stream. Invest. Indiana Lakes and Streams. 7: 57–98.Google Scholar
  8. Clifford, H. F., 1972a. A years study of the drifting organisms in a brown water stream of Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 50: 975–983.Google Scholar
  9. Clifford, H. F., 1972b. Drift of invertebrates in an intermittent stream draining marshy terrain of west-central Alberta. Can. J. Zool. 50: 985–991.Google Scholar
  10. Cushing, C. E., 1963. Filter-feeding insect distribution and planktonic food in the Montreal River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 92: 216–219.Google Scholar
  11. des Cilleuls, J., 1928. Revue generale des etudes sur le plancton des grandes fleuves ou rivieres. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 20: 174–206.Google Scholar
  12. Dumont, H. J., 1983. Discovery of groundwater inhabiting Chydoridae (Crustacea: Cladocera), with the description of two new species. Hydrobiologia 106: 97–106.Google Scholar
  13. Flössner, D., 1972. Krebstiere, Crustacea: Kiemen- und Blattfusser, Branchiopoda; Fishchlause, Branchiura. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 60 Teil, 501 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Frey, D. G., 1974. Reassignment of Alonella fitzpatricki and A. leei Chien, 1970 (Cladocera, Chydoridae). Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc. 93: 162–170.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, D. G., 1982a. Contrasting strategies of gamogenesis in northern and southern populations of Cladocera. Ecology 63: 223–241.Google Scholar
  16. Frey, D. G., 1982b. Questions concerning cosmopolitanism in Cladocera. Arch. Hydrobiol. 93: 484–502.Google Scholar
  17. Fryer, G., 1968. Evolution and adaptive radiation in the Chydoridae (Crustacea: Cladocera): a study in comparative functional morphology and ecology. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B269: 137–274.Google Scholar
  18. Fryer, G. & D. G. Frey, 1981. Two-egged ephippia in the chydorid Cladocera. Freshwat. Biol. 11: 391–394.Google Scholar
  19. Green, J., 1962. Zooplankton of the River Sokoto. The Crustacea. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 138: 415–453.Google Scholar
  20. Ham, F., 1982. The Crustacea of some chalk streams in southern England. Hydrobiologia 97: 193–201.Google Scholar
  21. Hynes, H. B. N., 1961. The invertebrate fauna of a Welsh mountain stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 344–388.Google Scholar
  22. Hynes, H. B. N., 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, 555 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Illies, J., 1958. Die Barbenregion mitteleuropaischer Fliessgewasser. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 13: 834–844.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, J. R. E., 1950. A further ecological study of the food of the common insects of the main-stream. J. Anim. Ecol. 19: 159–174.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, W. H., 1958. Cladocera of Oklahoma. Trans. Am. Micros. Soc. 77: 243–257.Google Scholar
  26. Kofoid, C. A., 1903. The plankton of the Illinois River, 1894–1899, with introductory notes upon the hydrography of the Illinois River and its basin. Part I. Quantitative investigations and general results. Bull. Ill. State Lab. Nat. Hist. 6: 95–629.Google Scholar
  27. Kofoid, C. A., 1908. The plankton of the Illinois River. 1894–1899, with introductory notes upon the hydrography of the Illinois River and its basin. Part II. Constituent organisms and their seasonal distribution. Bull. Ill. State Lab. Nat. Hist. 8: 1–354.Google Scholar
  28. Margalef, R., 1983. Limnologia. Ediciones Omega, Barcelona, 1010 p.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, T. W. Jr. & P. P. Yevich, 1967. The use of Phloxine B and rose bengal stains to facilitate sorting benthic samples. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 86: 221–223.Google Scholar
  30. Moghraby, A. I. el., 1977. A study on diapause of zooplankton in a tropical river-The Blue Nile. Freshwat. Biol. 7: 207–212.Google Scholar
  31. Morgan, N. C., 1980. Secondary production. In E. D. LeCren & R. H. Lowe-McConnel (eds). The functioning of freshwater ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England: 247–340.Google Scholar
  32. O'Doherty, E. C., 1985. Stream dwelling copepods: Their life history and ecological significance. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30: 554–564.Google Scholar
  33. Orloci, I., 1978. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers. 451 p.Google Scholar
  34. Oswood, M. W., 1979. Abundance patterns of filter-feeding caddisflies and seston in a Montana (USA) outlet. Hydrobiologia 63: 177–183.Google Scholar
  35. Paggi, J. C. & S. J. Paggi, 1974. Primeros estudios sobre el zooplankton de las aguas loticas del Parana Medio. Physis Seccion B. 33: 91–114.Google Scholar
  36. Parker, C. R. & J. R. Voshell Jr., 1983. Production of filterfeeding Trichoptera in an impounded and free flowing river. Can. J. Zool. 61: 70–87.Google Scholar
  37. Pennak, R. W., 1943. Limnological variables in a Colorado stream. Am. Midl. Nat. 29: 186–199.Google Scholar
  38. Pennak, R. W., 1946. The dynamics of freshwater plankton populations. Ecol. Monogr. 16: 339–356.Google Scholar
  39. Prophet, C. W., 1957. Seasonal variations and abundances of Cladocera and Copepoda and some physical-chemical conditions of the Fall and Verdigris Rivers in Wilson and Montgomery Counties, Kansas. The Emporia State Research Studies 5: 5–29.Google Scholar
  40. Prophet, C. W., T. F. Andrews & C. E. Goulden, 1959. Annotated checklist of the Cladocera and Copepoda of Lyon county, Kansas. S. West Nat. 4: 185–194.Google Scholar
  41. Retallack, J. T. & W. F. Clifford, 1980. Periodicity of Crustacea in a saline Prairie Stream of Alberta, Canada. Am. Mid. Nat. 103: 123–132.Google Scholar
  42. Shiel, R. J., 1979. Synecology of the Rotifera of the River Murray, South Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 30: 255–263.Google Scholar
  43. Slack, K. V., 1955. A study of the factors affecting stream productivity by the comparative method. Invest. Indiana Lakes and Streams. 4: 3–47.Google Scholar
  44. Strayer, D. L., 1985a. Benthic microinvertebrates. In G. E. Likens (ed), An ecosystem approach to aquatic ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York: 228–234.Google Scholar
  45. Strayer, D. L., 1985b. The benthic micrometazoans of Minor Lake, New Hampshire. Arch. Hydrobiol./Suppl. 72: 287–426.Google Scholar
  46. Ward, J. V., 1975. Downstream fate of zooplankton from a hypolimnial release mountain reservoir. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 1798–1804.Google Scholar
  47. White, D. S. & K. H. Haag, 1977. Foods and feeding habits of the spotted sucker Minytrema melanops (Rafinesque). Am. Mid. Nat. 98(1): 137–146.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, W. D., 1981. Running water ecology in Australia. In Perspectives in Running Water Ecology. Lock, M. A. Williams, D. D. (eds). Plenum Press, New York: 367–392.Google Scholar
  49. Wright, J. F., P. D. Hiley, D. A. Cooling, A. C. Cameron, M. E. Wigham, & A. D. Berrie, 1984. The invertebrate fauna of a small stream in Berkshire, England, and the effect of intermittent flow. Arch. Hydrobiol. 2: 176–199.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Vila
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations