, Volume 191, Issue 1, pp 285–295 | Cite as

Restoration by biomanipulation in a small hypertrophic lake: first-year results

  • E. Van Donk
  • R. D. Gulati
  • M. P. Grimm
Short-term changes and pilot-scale operations


Biomanipulation was carried out in order to improve the water quality of the small hypertrophic Lake Zwemlust (1.5 ha; mean depth 1.5 m). In March 1987 the lake was drained to facilitate the elimination of fish. Fish populations were dominated by planktivorous and benthivorous species (total stock c. 1500 kg) and were collected by seine- and electro-fishing. The lake was subsequently re-stocked with 1500 northern pike fingerlings (Esox lucius L.) and a low density of adult rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus). The offspring of the rudd served as food for the predator pike. Stacks of Salix twigs, roots of Nuphar lutea and plantlets of Chara globularis were brought in as refuge and spawning grounds for the pike, as well as shelter for the zooplankton.

The impact of this biomanipulation on the light penetration, phytoplankton density, macrophytes, zooplankton and fish communities and on nutrient concentrations was monitored from March 1987 onwards. This paper presents the results in the first year after biomanipulation.

The abundance of phytoplankton in the first summer (1987) after this biomanipulation was very low, and consequently accompanied by increase of Secchi-disc transparency and drastic decline of chlorophyll a concentration.

The submerged vegetation remained scarce, with only 5 % of the bottom covered by macrophytes at the end of the season.

Zooplankters became more abundant and there was a shift from rotifers to cladocerans, comprised mainly of Daphnia and Bosmina species, the former including at least 3 species.

The offspring of the stocked rudd was present in the lake from the end of August 1987. Only 19% of the stocked pike survived the first year.

Bioassays and experiments with zooplankton community grazing showed that the grazing pressure imposed by the zooplankton community was able to keep chlorophyll a concentrations and algal abundance to low levels, even in the presence of very high concentrations of inorganic N and P. The total nutrient level increased after biomanipulation, probably due to increased release from the sediment by bioturbation, the biomass of chironomids being high.

At the end of 1987 Lake Zwemlust was still in an unstable stage. A new fish population dominated by piscivores, intended to control the planktivorous and benthivorous fish, and the submerged macrophytes did not yet stabilize.

Key words

biomanipulation lake restoration phytoplankton zooplankton grazing fish 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, G., H. Berggren, G. Cronberg & C. Gelin, 1978. Effect of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on organisms and water chemistry in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 59: 9–15.Google Scholar
  2. Benndorf, J., H. Kneschke, K. Kossatz & E. Penz, 1984. Manipulation of the pelagic food web by stocking with predacious fishes. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 69: 407–428.Google Scholar
  3. Björk, S., 1985. Lake restoration techniques. In: Proceedings of the International congress ‘Lakes Pollution and Recovery’ April 1985, Rome.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, J. L. & S. I. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28–35.Google Scholar
  5. De Bernardi, R. & G. Giussani, 1975. Population dynamics of three cladocerans of Lago Maggiore related to the predation pressure by a planktiphagous fish. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 2906–2912.Google Scholar
  6. De Bernardi, R., G. Giussani & E. Lasso Pedretti, 1982. Select feeding of zooplankton with special reference to blue-green algae in enclosure experiments. Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobiol. 40: 113–128.Google Scholar
  7. Gallepp, G. W., J. F. Kitchell & S. M. Bartel, 1978. Phosphorus release from lake sediments as affected by chironomids. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 458–465.Google Scholar
  8. Golterman, H. L., 1969. Methods for chemical analysis of freshwater. I.B.P. Handbook, No. 8. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Grimm, M. P., 1981. The composition of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) populations in four shallow waters in The Netherlands, with special reference to factors influencing o+ pike biomass. Fish. Management 12: 61–77.Google Scholar
  10. Grimm, M. P., 1983. Regulation of biomasses of small (<41 cm) northern pike (Esox lucius L.) with special reference to the contribution of individuals stocked as fingerlings (4–6 cm). Fish. Management 14: 115–135.Google Scholar
  11. Gulati, R. D., 1983. Zooplankton and its grazing as indicators of trophic status in Dutch lakes. Envir. Monit. Assess. 3: 343–354.Google Scholar
  12. Gulati, R. D., K. Siewertsen & G. Postma, 1982. The zooplankton: its community structure, food and feeding, and role in the ecosystem of Lake Vechten. Hydrobiologia 95: 127–163.Google Scholar
  13. Henrikson, L., H. G. Nyman, H. G. Oscarson & J. A. Stenson, 1980. Trophic changes without changes in the external nutrient loading. Hydrobiologia 68: 257–263.Google Scholar
  14. Hosper, S. H., M.-L. Meijer & E. Jagtman, 1987. Biomanipulation a new perspective for restoring lakes in The Netherlands (in Dutch, English summary), H2O (20) 12: 274–279.Google Scholar
  15. Hrbáček, J., M. Dvořáková, V. Kořínek & L. Procházková, 1961. Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of the metabolism of the whole plankton association. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  16. Koksvik, J. I. & K. Aagaard, 1984. Effects of rotenone treatment on the benthic fauna of a small eutrophic lake. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 658–665.Google Scholar
  17. Lammens, E. H. R. R., 1986. Interactions between fishes and structure of fish communities in Dutch shallow eutrophic lakes. Thesis, University of Agriculture, Wageningen 100 p.Google Scholar
  18. Lazarro, X., 1987. A review of planktivorous fishes: their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities, and impacts. Hydrobiologia 146: 97–167.Google Scholar
  19. Leah, R. T., B. Moss & D. E. Forrest, 1980. The role of predation in causing major changes in the limnology of a hyper-eutrophic lake. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 65: 223–247.Google Scholar
  20. Le Cosquino de Bussy, L. J., 1968. Algiciden. Onderzoek over diuron als bestrijdingsmiddel van algen in de zwemvijver ‘Zwemlust’, Nieuwersluis, IG-TNO report, nr. A48.Google Scholar
  21. Lynch, M. & J. Shapiro, 1981. Predation, enrichment and phytoplankton community structure. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26: 86–102.Google Scholar
  22. McQueen, D. J., J. R. Post & E. L. Mills, 1986. Trophic relationships in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 43: 1571–1581.Google Scholar
  23. Reinertsen, H. & Y. Olson, 1984. Effects of fish elimination on the phytoplankton community of a eutrophic lake. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 649–657.Google Scholar
  24. Shapiro, J., 1980a. The need for more biology in lake restoration. In: Lake Restoration. Proceedings of a National Conference, 22–24 August 1978. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 444/5–79–001, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  25. Shapiro, J., 1980b. The importance of trophic-level interactions to the abundance and species composition of algae in lakes. In: Hypertrophic ecosystems (Eds. J. Barica & L. R. Mur). Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  26. Shapiro, J., B. Forsberg, V. Lamarra, G. Lindmark, M. Lynch, E. Smeltzer & G. Zoto, 1982. Experiments and experiences in biomanipulation: studies of ways to reduce algal abundance and eliminate bluegreens. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-600/3-82-096. Also Limnological Research Center Interim Report no. 19.Google Scholar
  27. Shapiro, J., V. Lamarra & M. Lynch, 1975. Biomanipulation: an ecosystem approach to lake restoration. In: Water quality management through biological control. (Eds. P. L. Brezonik & J. L. Fox). Rep. no. ENV-07–75–1, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  28. Shapiro, J. & D. I. Wright, 1984. Lake restoration by biomanipulation: Round Lake, Minnesota, the first two years. Freshwat. Biol. 14: 371–383.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Van Liere, E., 1986. Loosdrecht lakes, origin, eutrophication, restoration and research programme. Hydrobiol. Bull., Amsterdam 20: 9–15.Google Scholar
  31. Van Liere, E., L. van Ballegooyen, W. A. de Kloet, K. Siewertsen, P. Kouwenhoven & T. Aldenberg, 1986. Primary production in the various parts of the Loosdrecht Lakes. Hydrobiol. Bull., Amsterdam 20: 77–85.Google Scholar
  32. Winberg, G. G. et al., 1971. Symbols, units and conversion factors of freshwater productivity. IBP, London, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Zaret, T. M., 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 187 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Van Donk
    • 1
  • R. D. Gulati
    • 2
  • M. P. Grimm
    • 3
  1. 1.Provincial Waterboard of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Limnological Institute ‘Vijverhof’ LaboratoryNieuwersluisThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Organization for the Improvement of the Inland FisheriesNieuwegeinThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations