, Volume 279, Issue 1, pp 457–466 | Cite as

Responses to food web manipulation in a shallow waterfowl lake

  • Mark A. Hanson
  • Malcolm G. Butler


We evaluated effects of fish removal from a large, shallow lake that historically was an important feeding area for migrating diving ducks. In the decade before fish removal, turbidity was high, submerged macrophytes and benthic macroinvertebrates were not abundant, and waterfowl use was negligible. Zooplankton and benthic macroinvertebrates increased during the first three post-treatment years. Water clarity improved initially in response to cladoceran grazing, allowing expansion of submerged macrophytes. Subsequent increases in water transparency may have been related to decreased sediment resuspension and lower algal biomass owing to allelopathic inhibition or nutrient competition from submerged macrophytes. Use by migrating diving ducks increased dramatically, apparently owing to changes in macroinvertebrate and plant foods.

Key words

Waterfowl zooplankton macroinvertebrates macrophytes water clarity canvasbacks lesser scaup 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afton, A. D. & R. H. Hier, 1991. Diets of Lesser Scaup breeding in Manitoba. J. Field Ornithol. 62: 325–334.Google Scholar
  2. Afton, A. D., R. H. Hier & S. L. Paulus, 1991. Lesser scaup diets during migration and winter in the Mississippi flyway. Can. J. Zool. 69: 328–333.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. M., 1950. Some aquatic vegetation changes following fish removal. J. Wildl. Manage. 14: 206–209.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. & L. G. Raasveldt, 1974. Gammarus predation and the possible effects of Gammarus and Chaohorus feeding on the zooplankton composition in some small lakes and ponds in western Canada. Can. Wild. Serv. Occ. Pap. No. 18, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Balls, H., B. Moss & K. Irvine, 1989. The loss of submerged plants with eutrophication. I. Experimental design, water chemistry, aquatic plant and phytoplankton biomass in experiments carried out in ponds in the Norfolk Broads. Freshwat. Biol. 22: 71–78.Google Scholar
  6. Bartonek, J. C. & J. J. Hickey, 1969. Food habits of canvasbacks, redheads, and lesser scaup in Manitoba. Condor 71: 280–290.Google Scholar
  7. Buck, D. H., M. A. Whitcare & C. F. Thoits III, 1960. Some experiments in the baiting of carp. J. Wildl. Manage. 24: 357–364.Google Scholar
  8. Cahoon, W. G., 1953. Commercial carp removal at Lake Mattamuskeet, North Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage. 17: 312–317.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, S. R. & J. F. Kitchell, 1988. Consumer control of lake productivity. BioScience 38: 764–769.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, W. E., 1965. Dynamics and productivity of a natural population of a fresh-water amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Ecol. Monogr. 31: 221–238.Google Scholar
  11. Crivelli, A. J., 1983. The destruction of aquatic vegetation by carp. Hydrobiologia 106: 37–41.Google Scholar
  12. Crowder, L. & W. Cooper, 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802–1813.Google Scholar
  13. DesGranges, J. & J. Rodrigue, 1986. Influence of acidity and competition with fish on the development of ducklings in Quebec. Water, Air, and Soil Poll. 30: 743–750.Google Scholar
  14. Dvorak, J. & E. Best, 1982. Macro-invertebrate communities associated with the macrophytes of Lake Vechten: structural and functional relationships.Google Scholar
  15. Eadie, J. & A. Keast, 1982. Do goldeneye and perch compete for food? Oecologia 55: 225–230.Google Scholar
  16. Elser, J. J. & S. R. Carpenter, 1988. Predation-driven dynamics of zooplankton and phytoplankton communities in a whole-lake experiment. Oecologia 76: 148–154.Google Scholar
  17. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, 312 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Eriksson, M. O., 1978. Lake selection by goldeneye ducklings in relation to the abundance of food. Wildfowl 29: 81–85.Google Scholar
  19. Eriksson, M. O., 1979. Competition between freshwater fish and goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula) for common prey. Oecologia 41: 99–107.Google Scholar
  20. Giles, N., M. Street & R. M. Wright, 1990. Diet composition and prey preference of tench, Tinca (L.), common bream, Abramis brama (L.), perch, Perca fluviatilis L. and roach, Rutilus in two contrasting gravel pit lakes: potential trophic overlap with wildfowl. J. Fish Biol. 37: 945–957.Google Scholar
  21. Haney, J. F. & D. F. Hall, 1973. Sugar-coated Daphnia: a preservation technique for Cladocera. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18: 331–333.Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, M. A. & M. G. Butler, 1987. Lake Christina: Reclaiming prime waterfowl habitat. Minn. Vol. 50: 10–15.Google Scholar
  23. Hanson, M. A. & M. G. Butler, 1990. Early responses of plankton and turbidity to biomanipulation in a shallow prairie lake. Hydrobiologia 200/201 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 61): 317–327.Google Scholar
  24. Hanson, M. A., M. G. Butler, J. L. Richardson & J. L. Arndt, 1990. Indirect effects of fish predation on calcite supersaturation, precipitation, and turbidity in a shallow prairie lake. Freshwat. Biol. 24: 547–556.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Hargeby, A. 1990. Macrophyte associated invertebrates and the effect of habitat permanence. Oikos 57: 338–346.Google Scholar
  27. Hill, D. A., R. Wright & M. Street, 1987. Survival of mallard ducklings Anas platyrhynchos and competition with fish for invertebrates in a flooded gravel quarry in England. Ibis 129: 159–167.Google Scholar
  28. Hohman, W. L., 1985. Feeding ecology of Ring-necked Ducks in northwestern Minnesota. J. Wild. Mgmt. 49: 546–557.Google Scholar
  29. Howe, J. F. & R. A. Carlson, 1969. Game lake survey instruction manual. Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish, Section of Technical Services, 37 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Hrbáček, J., M. Dvorakova, V. Korniek & L. Prochazkova, 1961. Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  31. Hunter, M. L., J. J. Jones, K. E. Gibbs & J. R. Moring, 1986. Duckling responses to lake acidification: Do black ducks and fish compete? Oikos 47: 26–32.Google Scholar
  32. Irvine, K., B. Moss & H. Balls, 1989. The loss of submerged plants with eutrophication II. Relationships between fish and zooplankton in a set of experimental ponds, and conclusions. Freshwat. Biol. 22: 89–107.Google Scholar
  33. Kahl, R., 1991. Restoration of canvasback migrational staging habitat in Wisconsin. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. Tech. Bull. No. 172. 47 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Kelso, J. R., 1973. Seasonal energy changes in walleye and their diet in West Blue Lake, Manitoba. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102: 363–368.Google Scholar
  35. Krecker, F., 1939. A comparative study of the animal population of certain submerged aquatic plants. Ecology 20: 553–562.Google Scholar
  36. Krull, J., 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate associations and waterfowl. J. Wild. Mgmt. 34: 707–718.Google Scholar
  37. Li., S. & G. G. Ayles, 1981. An investigation of feeding habits of walleye (stizostedion vitreum) in constructed earthen ponds in the Canadian Prairies. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. aquat. Sci. No. 1040. 10 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Lind, O, 197. Handbook of common methods in limnology. The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 199 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Lines, K. & T. Carlson, 1988. Lake Christina reclamation project, MNDNR division of fish and wildlife completion report, 14 pp. (unpublished)Google Scholar
  40. Lovvorn, J. R., 1989. Distributional responses of canvasback ducks to weather and habitat change. J. appl. Ecol. 26: 113–130.Google Scholar
  41. Mathias, J. A. & M. Papst, 1981. Growth, survival and distribution of Gammarus lacustris (Crustacea-Amphipoda) stocked into ponds. Can. Fish. Marine Serv. Tech. Rep. No. 989.Google Scholar
  42. McQueen, D. J., 1990. Managing lake community structure: Where do we go from here? Freshwat. Biol. 23: 613–620.Google Scholar
  43. Meijer, M. L., A. J. Raat & R. W. Doff., 1989. Restoration by biomanipulation of Lake Bleiswijkse Zoom (The Netherlands): First results. Hydrobiol. Bull. 23: 49–57.Google Scholar
  44. Meijer,M. A.,M. W. deHaan, 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
  45. Ordal, N., 1966. Lake Christina. Naturalist 17: 20–23.Google Scholar
  46. Perhsson, O., 1984. Relationships of food to spatial and temporal breeding strategies of mallards in Sweden. J. Wild. Mgmt. 48: 322–339.Google Scholar
  47. Perhsson, O., 1991. Egg and clutch size in the mallard as related to food quality. Can. J. Zool. 69: 156–162.Google Scholar
  48. Peterka, J. J. & L. J. Brooks, 1989. Biology of Gammarus lacustris in the Devils Lake chain. Report No. A-1175 to the North Dakota Game and Fish Dept. Div. of Fish, 79 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Phillips, G. L., D. Eminson & B. Moss, 1978. A mechanism to account for macrophyte decline in progressively eutrophicated freshwaters. Aquat. Bot. 4: 103–126.Google Scholar
  50. Price, C., W. Tonn & C. Paszkowski, 1991. Intraspecific patterns of resource use by fathead minnows in a small boreal lake. Can. J. Zool. 69: 2109–2115.Google Scholar
  51. Ricker, W. E. & J. Gottschalk, 1940. An experiment in removing coarse fish from a lake. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 70: 382–390.Google Scholar
  52. Robel, R. J., 1962. The relationship of carp to waterfowl food plants on a western marsh. Utah Dept. of Game and Fish Informational Bulletin 62-4, 103 pp.Google Scholar
  53. Rogers, J. P. & L. J. Korschgen, 1966. Foods of lesser scaups on breeding, migration, and wintering areas. J. Wildl. Manage. 30: 258–264.Google Scholar
  54. Sas Institute, 1988. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 6 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina. 1028 pp.Google Scholar
  55. Shapiro, J. & D. J. Wright, 1984. Lake restoration by biomanipulation: Round Lake, Minnesota, the first two years. Freshwat. Biol. 14: 371–383.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, J. D., 1946. The canvasback in Minnesota. Auk 63: 73–81.Google Scholar
  57. Spencer, C. N. & D. L. King, 1984. Role of fish in regulation of plant and animal communities in eutrophic ponds. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 41: 1851–1855.Google Scholar
  58. Strickland, J. D. & T. R. Parsons, 1972. A practical handbook of seawater analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. BD. Can. Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 310 pp.Google Scholar
  59. Swanson, G. & H. Duebbert, 1989. Wetland habitats of waterfowl in the prairie pothole region. In A. Van der Valk (ed.), Northern prairie wetlands. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, (IA): 228–267.Google Scholar
  60. Swanson, G., 1978, A plankton sampling device for shallow wetlands. J. Wildl. Manage. 42: 670–672.Google Scholar
  61. Van Donk, E., R. D. Gulati & M. P. Grimm, 1989. Food web manipulation in Lake Zwemlust: positive and negative effects during the first two years. Hydrobiol. Bull. 23: 19–34.Google Scholar
  62. Van Donk, E., R. D. Gulati & M. P. Grimm, 1990. Restoration by biomanipulation in a small hypertrophic lake: first-year results. Hydrobiologia 191 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 53): 285–295.Google Scholar
  63. Vanni, M., C. Leucke, J. F. Kitchell & J. J. Magnuson, 1990. Effects of planktivorous fish mass mortality on the plankton community of Lake Mendota, Wisconsin: implications for biomanipulation. Hydrobiologia 200/201 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 61): 329–336.Google Scholar
  64. Weier, J. L. & D. F. Starr, 1950. The use of rotenone to remove rough fish for the purpose of improving migratory waterfowl refuge areas. J. Wildl. Manage. 14: 203–205.Google Scholar
  65. Winfield, I., D. Winfield & C. Tobin, 1990. Interactions between Roach, Rutilus, and waterfowl populations of Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland. Envir. Biol. Fishes 33: 207–214.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Hanson
    • 1
  • Malcolm G. Butler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations