Hydrobiologia

, Volume 191, Issue 1, pp 165–171 | Cite as

Phytoplankton and zooplankton (Cladocera, Copepoda) relationship in the eutrophicated River Danube (Danubialia Hungarica, CXI)

  • Anna Bothár
  • Keve T. Kiss
Annual and seasonal cycles

Abstract

The seasonal variation in primary production, individual numbers, and biomass of phyto- and zooplankton was studied in the River Danube in 1981. The secondary production of two dominant zooplankton species (Bosmina longirostris and Acanthocyclops robustus) was also estimated. In the growing season (April–Sept.) individual numbers dry weights and chlorophyll a contents of phytoplankton ranged between 30–90 × 106 individuals, l−1, 3–12 mg l−1, and 50–170 µg l−1, respectively. Species of Thalassiosiraceae (Bacillariophyta) dominated in the phytoplankton with a subdominance of Chlorococcales in summer. Individual numbers and dry weights of crustacean zooplankton ranged between 1400–6500 individuals m−3, and 1.2–12 mg m−3, respectively. The daily mean gross primary production was 970 mg C m−3 d−1, and the net production was 660 mg C m−3 d−1. Acanthocyclops robustus populations produced 0.2 mg C m−3 d−1 as an average, and Bosmina longirostris populations 0.07 mg C m−3 d−1. The ‘ecological efficiency’ between phytoplankton and crustacean zooplankton was 0.03%.

Key words

River Danube phytoplankton zooplankton primary productivity secondary productivity ecological efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adalsteinsson, H., 1979. Zooplankton and its relation to available food in Lake Myvatn. Oikos 32: 162–194.Google Scholar
  2. Bothár, A., 1986. Population dynamics and estimation of production in Bosmina longirostris (O. F. Müller) in the River Danube. Hydrobiologia 140: 97–104.Google Scholar
  3. Bothár, A., 1987. The estimation of production and mortality of Bosmina longirostris (O. F. Müller) in the River Danube. Hydrobiologia 145: 285–291.Google Scholar
  4. Bothár, A., 1987. Produktionsschätzung von Acanthocyclops robustus (G. O. Sars) in der Donau. In D. Müller (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Kurzreferate. 26. Arbeitstagung der IAD, Passau: 339–343.Google Scholar
  5. Brook, A. J. & W. B. Woodward, 1956. Some observations on the effects of water inflow and outflow of the plankton of small lakes. J. anim. Ecol. 23: 101–114.Google Scholar
  6. Dvihally, S. T., 1975. Primary production of the Hungarian Danube. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 1717–1722.Google Scholar
  7. Dvihally, S. T., M. Ertl, K. T. Kiss, A. Schmidt & N. Stefková, 1982. Mit dem Sauerstoffhaushalt zusammenhängende Untersuchungen in der mittleren Donau. Wissenschaftliche Kurzreferate. 23. Arbeitstagung der IAD, Wien: 8–15.Google Scholar
  8. Ertl, M. & S. Juris, 1967. Measurements of primary production in the River Danube. Biologia (Bratislava) 22: 654–659.Google Scholar
  9. Felföldy, L., 1980. Biological water qualification. VIZDOK, Budapest, 263 pp. (in Hungarian).Google Scholar
  10. Flemer, D. A., 1970. Primary productivity of the north branch of the Raritan River, New Jersey. Hydrobiologia 35: 273–296.Google Scholar
  11. Gutelmacher, B. L., 1986. Metabolism of plankton. Nauka, Leningrad: 155 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  12. Hillbricht-Ilkowska, A., I. Sponiewska, T. Weglenska & A. Karabin, 1972. The seasonal variation of some ecological efficiencies and production rates in the plankton community of several Polish lakes of different trophy. In Z. Kajak & A. Hillbricht-Ilkowska (eds.), Productivity problems of freshwaters. Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw: 111–127.Google Scholar
  13. Hübel, H., 1971. Primarproduktion des Phytoplanktons. 14C-oder Radiokohlenstoffinethode. In G. Breitig & W. von Tümpling (eds.), Ausgewählte Methoden der Wasseruntersuchung, Bd II. Biologische, mikrobiologische und toxikologische Methoden, C., VEB G. Fisher Verl., Jena: 1–11.Google Scholar
  14. Hynes, H. B. N., 1979. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto: 541 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Javornický, P., 1966. Measurements of production and turnover of phytoplankton in four localities of Poland. Ekol. Pol. A 14: 203–214.Google Scholar
  16. Kiss, K. T., 1985. Changes of trophity conditions in the River Danube at Göd. Annls Univ. Scient. bpest. Rolando Eötvös, Sect. Biol. 24–26: 47–59.Google Scholar
  17. Kiss, K. T., 1987. Phytoplankton studies in the Szigetköz Section of the Danube during 1981–1982. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 78, Algol. Stud. 47: 247–273.Google Scholar
  18. Kothé, P., 1981. Bestimmung von Sauerstoffproduktion und SauerstofFverbrauch im Gewässer mit der Hell-Dunkelflaschenmethode, SPG und SVG. DIN 38412 Teil 13. DEV L 13.Google Scholar
  19. Kozlovsky, D. G., 1967. A critical evaluation of the trophic level concept. I. Ecological efficiencies. Ecology 49: 48–60.Google Scholar
  20. Kristiansen, J., 1971. Phytoplankton of two danish lakes with special reference to seasonal cycles of the nannoplankton. Mitt. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 253–265.Google Scholar
  21. Le Cren, E. D. & R. H. Lowe-McConnell (eds.), 1980. The functioning of freshwater ecosystems. International Biological Programme 22. Cambridge University Press, 588 pp.Google Scholar
  22. OECD, 1982. Eutrophication of waters, monitoring, assessment and control. OECD Publications Office, Paris, 154 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Parsons, T. R., 1982. Zooplanktonic production. In R. S. Barnes & K. H. Mann (eds.), Fundamentals of aquatic ecosystems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 46–66.Google Scholar
  24. Patil, C. S. & B. Y. M. Gouder, 1985. Ecological study of freshwater zooplankton of a subtropical pond (Karnataka State, India). Hydrobiologia 70: 259–267.Google Scholar
  25. Pederson, G. L., E. B. Welch & A. H. Litt, 1976. Plankton secondary productivity and biomass: their relation to lake trophic state. Hydrobiologia 50: 129–144.Google Scholar
  26. Reif, C. B., 1939. The effect of stream conditions on lake plankton. Trans. Am. microsc. Soc. 58: 398–403.Google Scholar
  27. Rigler, F. H. & J. A. Downing, 1984. The calculation of secondary productivity. In J. A. Downing & F. H. Rigler (eds.), A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. I.B.P. Handbook 17, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 19–58.Google Scholar
  28. Rodhe, W., 1969. Crystallization of eutrophication concepts in Northern Europe. In Eutrophication: causes, consequences, correctives, Nat. Acad. Sci. Washington: 50–64.Google Scholar
  29. Rosemarin, A. S., 1975. Comparison of primary productivity (14C) per unit biomass between phytoplankton and periphyton in the Ottawa River near Ottawa, Canada. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 1584–1592.Google Scholar
  30. Rzóska, J., 1978. On the nature of rivers. Dr W. Junk bv Publishers, The Hague: 67 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Slobodkin, L. B., 1960. Ecological energy relationships at the population level. Am. Nat. 94: 213–236.Google Scholar
  32. Tarasova, T. N., 1970. Primary production and organic substance destruction in the place of construction of the Cheboksary power station in 1966. Uchen. zap. Gork. Univ. Ser. Biol. 105: 32–36. (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Bothár
    • 1
  • Keve T. Kiss
    • 1
  1. 1.Hungarian Danube Research Station of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesGödHungary

Personalised recommendations