Hydrobiologia

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 257–264 | Cite as

An assessment of the meiobenthos from nine mountain lakes in Western Canada

  • R. Stewart Anderson
  • Anne-Marie De Henau
Article
Received:

Abstract

The numbers and biomass of meiobenthic invertebrates of nine representative mountain lakes were assessed relative to the macrobenthic invertebrates retained on 0.425 mm mesh. The meiobenthos accounted for an average of % MathType!MTEF!2!1!+-% feaafiart1ev1aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn% hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr% 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9% vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x% fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaWaaSGaaeaaca% aIXaaabaGaaG4maaaaaaa!3777!\[{\raise0.7ex\hbox{$1$} \!\mathord{\left/{\vphantom {1 3}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace}\!\lower0.7ex\hbox{$3$}}\]of the total biomass and 97% of total numbers retained on 0.045 mm mesh. In general surveys in these lakes, the use of 0.250 mm mesh instead of 0.425 mm mesh would be unlikely to improve estimates of total numbers and biomass enough to justify the additional effort needed. Accepting the meiobenthic turnover rate to be three to five times that of the macrobenthos, meiobenthic production is probably close to or much higher than the macrobenthic production in these lakes.

Keywords

Meiobenthos mountain lakes numbers biomass sieving efficiency amphipods 
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. Andronikova, I. N., Drabkova, B. G., Kuzmenko, K. N., Michailova, N. F. & Stravinskaya, E. A. 1972. Biological productivity of the main communities of the Red Lake. Proc. IBP-UNESCO Symp. Prod. Probs. Freshw., Warszawa-Krakow, Poland 1972: 57–71.Google Scholar
  2. Bottrell, H. H., Duncan, A., Glivicz, Z. M., Grygierek, E., Herzig, A., Hillbricht-Ilkowska, A., Kurasawa, H., Larsson, P. & Weglenska, T. 1976. A review of some problems in zooplankton production studies. Norw. J. Zool. 24: 419–456.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen, R. A., St. Onge, J. M., Colton, J. B., Jr. & Price, C. A. 1972. Density-gradient centrifugation as an aid to sorting planktonic organisms. I. Gradient materials. Mar. Biol. 14: 242–247.Google Scholar
  4. Bretschko, G.. 1973. Benthos production of a high-mountain lake: Nematoda. Verh. internat. Verein. Limnol. 18: 1421–1428.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, G. A. 1955. An ecological study of the microbenthic fauna of two Minnesota lakes. Amer. Midl. Nat. 53: 213–230.Google Scholar
  6. Elmgren, R. 1973. Methods of sampling sublittoral soft bottom meiofauna. Oikos, Suppl. 15: 112–120.Google Scholar
  7. Gerlach, S. A. 1971. On the importance of marine meiofauna for benthos communities. Oecologia (Berl.) 6: 176–190.Google Scholar
  8. Holopainen, I. J. & Paasivirta, L. 1977. Abundance and biomass of the meiozoobenthos in the oligotrophic and mesohumic Lake Pääjärvi, southern Finland. Ann. Zool. Fennici 14: 124–134.Google Scholar
  9. Jonasson, P. M. 1955. The efficiency of sieving techniques for sampling freshwater bottom fauna. Oikos 6: 183–207.Google Scholar
  10. Jonasson, P. M. & Thorhauge, F. 1972. Life cycle of Potamothrix hammoniensis (Tubificidae) in the profundal of a eutrophic lake. Oikos 23: 151–158.Google Scholar
  11. Kajak, Z. 1967. Uwagi w sprawie metod badania produkcji bentosu. Ekologia Polska Seria B 13: 173–195.Google Scholar
  12. Kajak, Z. & Dusoge, K. 1967. Influence of artificially increased abundance of Chironomus plumosus on the benthos. Bull. de l'Acad. Polonaise des Sci. Cl. II. 15: 27–33.Google Scholar
  13. Mason, W. T., Jr., Lewis, P. A. & Hudson, P. L. 1975. The influence of sieve mesh size selectivity on benthic invertebrate indices of eutrophication. Verh. internat. Verein. Limnol. 19: 1550–1561.Google Scholar
  14. McIntyre, A. D. 1964. Meiobenthos of sub-littoral muds. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U. K. 44: 665–674.Google Scholar
  15. McIntyre, A. D. 1969. Ecology of marine meiobenthos. Biol. Review 44: 245–290.Google Scholar
  16. Milbrink, G. 1969. Microgradients at the mud-water interface. Inst. Freshw. Res., Drottingholm, Rep. 49: 129–148.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, G. M. 1939. A limnological investigation of the microscopic benthic fauna of Douglas Lake, Michigan. Ecol. Monogr. 9: 537–582.Google Scholar
  18. Neave, F. 1926. Reports of the Jaspet Park lakes investigations, 1925–26. IV. Aquatic insects. Can. Biol. Fish., Fish. Res. Board Can., N. Ser. 4: 185–195.Google Scholar
  19. Pennak, R. W. 1940. Ecology of the microscopic Metazoa inhabiting the sandy beaches of some Wisconsin lakes. Ecol. Monogr. 10: 537–615.Google Scholar
  20. Särkkä, J. & Paasivirta, L. 1972. Vertical distribution and abundance of the macro- and meiofauna in the profundal sediments of Lake Päijänne, Finland, Ann. Zool. Fennici 9: 1–9.Google Scholar
  21. Sibert, J. R. 1979. Detritus and juvenile salmon production in the Nanaimo Estuary: II. Meiofauna available as food to juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36: 497–503.Google Scholar
  22. Stanczykowska, A. 1967. Comparison of the zoomicrobenthos occurring in the profundal of several lakes in northern Poland. Bull. de l'Acad. Polonaise des Sci. 15: 349–353.Google Scholar
  23. Winberg, G. G. 1971. Methods for the estimation of production of aquatic animals (translated from Russian by A. Duncan). Academic Press, London. 175 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Stewart Anderson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne-Marie De Henau
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Canadian Wildlife ServiceEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Instituut van DierkundeGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations