Hydrobiologia

, Volume 317, Issue 2, pp 163–176 | Cite as

Predator-induced bottom-up effects in oligotrophic systems

  • Alicia Pérez-Fuentetaja
  • Donald J. McQueen
  • Charles W. Ramcharan
Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Five treatments (replication n=2) were applied to mesocosms in an oligotrophic lake (TP=6–10 µg 1∼-1) to assess the effects of fish on planktonic communities. The treatments were: (1) high fish (30 kg ha−1Lepomis auritus, Linnaeus), (2) low fish (10 kg ha−1), (3) high removal of zooplankton, (4) low removal of zooplankton and (5) control. Total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, zooplankton biomass, and species richness decreased from high fish > low fish > control > low removal > high removal treatments. The fish treatments were dominated by crustacean zooplankton, while rotifers outnumbered the other zooplankters in the removal treatments. Calculations of zooplankton grazing rates suggested that clearance rates seldom exceeded 2% of the enclosure volume d−1 and were unlikely to have had much influence on phytoplankton biomass. Calculations from a phosphorus bioenergetics model revealed that when fish were present, their excretion rates were higher than the rates ascribed to zooplankton. Diet analysis showed that the fish derived most of their energy from the benthos and periphyton, and that fish excretion and egestion made significant contributions to the very oligotrophic pelagic phosphorus pool. In the absence of fish, zooplankton excretion was highest in the control treatments and lowest in the zooplankton removal treatments. Our results suggest that in oligotrophic systems, planktivorous fish can be significant sources of phosphorus and that fish and zooplankton induced nutrient cycling have significant impacts on planktonic community structure.

Key words

trophic cascade aquatic communities food webs phosphorus cycling 
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. APRA (American Public Health Association), 1985. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 16th edn. APHA, AWWA, WPCF Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Balcer, M. D., N. L. Korda & S. I. Dodson, 1984. Zooplankton of the Great Lakes: a guide to the identification and ecology of the common crustacean species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
  3. Bogdan, K. G., J. G. Gilbert & P. L. Starkweather, 1980. In situ clearance rates of planktonic rotifers. Hydrobiologia 73: 73–77.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, J. L. & S. I. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of zooplankton. Science 150: 28–35.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, S. R. (ed.), 1988. Complex interactions in lake communities. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. R. & J. F. Kitchell (ededs), 1993. The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell & J. R. Hodgson, 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35: 634–638.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell, J. R. Hodgson, P. A. Cochran, J. J. Elser, M. M. Elser, D. M. Lodge, D. K. Kretchmer, X. He & C. N. von Ende, 1987. Regulation of lake primary productivity by food web structure. Ecology 68: 1863–1876.Google Scholar
  9. Chow-Fraser, P, 1986. An empirical model to predict in situ grazing rates of Leptodiaptomus minutus Lilljeborg on small algal particles. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 43: 1065–1070.Google Scholar
  10. Chow-Fraser, P. & R. Knoechel, 1985. Factors regulating in situ filtering rates of Cladocera. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 42: 567–576.Google Scholar
  11. Edmondson, W. T. (ed.), 1959. Freshwater biology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Elliot, J. M. & L. Persson, 1978. The estimation of daily rates of food consumption for fish. J. anim. Ecol. 47: 977–991.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, D. T. & W. D. Taylor, 1987. Short-term effects of zooplankton manipulations on phosphate uptaKe. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 44: 1038–1044.Google Scholar
  14. Heady, H. F., 1942. Littoral vegetation on the lakes of the Huntington Forest. Roosevelt Wildlife Bull. 8. 33 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Hewett, S. W. & B. L. Johnson, 1992. Fish bioenergetics model 2: an upgrade of a generalized bioenergetics model of fish growth for microcomputers. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison.Google Scholar
  16. Kerfoot, W. C. & A. Sih (eds), 1987. Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover. 386 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Kitchell, J. F., J. F. Koonce, R. V. O'Neill, H. H. Shugart Jr., J. J. Magnuson & R. S. Booth, 1974. Model of fish Biomass dynamics. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 103: 786–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knoechel, R. & L. B. Holtby, 1986. Construction and validation of a body-length-based model for the prediction of cladoceran community filtering rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31: 1–16.Google Scholar
  19. Kraft, C. E., 1992. Estimates of phosphorus cycling by fish using a bioenergetics approach. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 49: 1–9.Google Scholar
  20. Lehman, J. T., 1980. Release and cycling of nutrients between planktonic algae and herbivores. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25: 620–632.Google Scholar
  21. Lorenzen, C. J., 1967. Determination of chlorophyll and pheopigments: spectrophotometric equations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 12: 343–346.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, M. & J. Shapiro, 1981. Predation, enrichment, and phytoplankton community structure. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26: 86–102.Google Scholar
  23. Mazumder, A., D. J. McQueen, W. D. Taylor & D. R. S. Lean, 1988. Effects of fertilization and planktivorous fish (yellow perch) predation on size distribution of particulate phosphorus and assimilated phosphate: Large enclosure experiments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33: 421–430.Google Scholar
  24. McCauley, E. & F. Briand, 1979. Zooplankton grazing and phytoplankton species richness: field tests of the predation hypothesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 243–252.Google Scholar
  25. McCauley, E. & J. Kalff, 1987. Effect of changes in zooplankton on orthophosphate dynamics of natural phytoplankton communities. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 44: 176–182.Google Scholar
  26. McQueen, D. J., R. France & C. E. Kraft, 1992. Confounded impacts of planktivorous fish on freshwater biomanipulations. Arch. Hydrobiol. 125: 1–24.Google Scholar
  27. McQueen, D. J., J. R. Post & E. L. Mills, 1986. Trophic interactions in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 43: 1571–1581.Google Scholar
  28. Meijer, M. L. M. W. de Haan, A. W. Breukelaar & H. Buiteveld, 1990. Is reduction of the benthivorous fish an important cause of high transparency following biomanipulation in shallow lakes? Hydrobiologia 200/201 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 61): 303–315.Google Scholar
  29. Meredith, M. P. & S. V. Stehman, 1991. Repeated measures experiments in forestry: focus on analysis of response curves. Can. J. For. Res. 21: 957–965.Google Scholar
  30. Mills, E. L. & J. L. Confer, 1986. Computer processing of zooplankton/application in fisheries. Fisheries 11: 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakashima, B. S. & W. C. Legget, 1980. The role of fishes in the regulation of phosphorus availability in lakes. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37: 1540–1549.Google Scholar
  32. Pace, M. L. & E. Funke, 1991. Regulation of planktonic microbial communities by nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 72: 904–914.Google Scholar
  33. Pace, M. L., G. B. McManus & S. E. G. Findlay, 1990. Planktonic community structure determines the fate of bacterial production in a temperate lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35: 795–808.Google Scholar
  34. Pennak, R. W., 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Protozoa to Mollusca, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Persson, L., G. Andersson, S. F. Hamrin & L. Johansson, 1988. Predator regulation and primary production along the productivity gradient of temperate lake ecosystems. In S. R. Carpenter (ed.), Complex interactions in lake communities, Springer-Verlag, New York: 45–46.Google Scholar
  36. Peters, R. H. & J. A. Downing, 1984. Empirical analysis of zooplankton filtering and feeding rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 763–778.Google Scholar
  37. Reynolds, C. S., 1984. The ecology of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge, 384 pp.Google Scholar
  38. SAS Institute Inc., 1990. SAS user's guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  39. Scavia, D. & G. A. Laird, 1987. Bacterioplankton in Lake Michigan: Dynamics, controls, and significance to carbon flux. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32: 1017–1032.Google Scholar
  40. Scavia, D., D. A. Laird & G. L. Fahnenstiel, 1986. Production of planktonic bacteria in Lake Michigan. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31: 612–626.Google Scholar
  41. Seaburg, K. G. & J. B. Moyle, 1964. Feeding habits of the warmwater fishes. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 93: 280–285.Google Scholar
  42. Shapiro, J. & D. I. Wright, 1984. Lake restoration by biomanipulation. Round Lake, Minnesota: the first two years. Freshwat. Biol. 14: 371–383.Google Scholar
  43. Simberloff, D., 1972. Properties of the rarefaction diversity measurement. Am. Nat. 106: 414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, W. D. & D. R. S. Lean, 1991. Phosphorus pool sizes and fluxes in the epilimnion of a mesotrophic lake. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 48: 1293–1301.Google Scholar
  45. Vanni, M. J., 1987. Indirect effect of predators on age-structured prey populations: planktivorous fish and zooplankton. In W. C. Kerfoot & A. Sih (eds), Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities, University Press of New England, Hanover: 149–160.Google Scholar
  46. Vanni, M. J. & D. L. Findlay, 1990. Trophic cascades and phytoplankton community structure. Ecology 71: 921–937.Google Scholar
  47. Wetzel, R. G. & G. E. Likens, 1991. Limnological analyses, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Zaret, T. M., 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Pérez-Fuentetaja
    • 1
  • Donald J. McQueen
    • 2
  • Charles W. Ramcharan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyState University of New York, College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuse, New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations