Oecologia

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 334–340 | Cite as

The role of taste in food selection by freshwater zooplankton

  • William R. DeMott
Original Papers

Summary

Laboratory experiments with flavored and untreated polystyrene spheres revealed major differences in taste discrimination among diverse taxa of freshwater zooplankton. Copepods showed the strongest responses to flavor treatments. Both nauplii and copepodites of calanoid (Diaptomus) and cyclopoid (Cyclops) copepods selected flavored spheres over untreated ones. Moreover, a small cyclopoid, Tropocyclops, actively fed on an alga (Chlamydomonas) but did not ingest untreated spheres of the same size. Taste tests with cladocerans verified an overall tendency to ingest inert particles but also demonstrated important differences between families. Daphnids (4 species), Chydorus (Chydoridae) and Diaphanosoma (Sididae) did not respond to flavor treatments, while 2 species of bosminids selectively ingested flavored spheres. Daphnia also fed nonselectively in mixtures of algae and untreated spheres while Bosmina preferred algae over untreated spheres. Different species of rotifers exhibited 3 distinct responses to the flavor treatments: 1) Brachionus fed nonselectively, 2) Filinia fed preferentially on flavored 6 μm spheres, and 3) Polyarthra, Keratella, Synchaeta, and Noltholca infrequently ingested any spheres.

Recent advances in our understanding of the feeding mechanisms of zooplankton help to explain why some taxa feed selectively on flavored particles while others do not. The ability of certain taxa to use taste to discriminate between high and low quality food particles has important implications for competition between zooplankton species and for interactions between planktonic grazers and their food resources.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bangs LB (1984) Uniform latex particles. Seragen, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleiwas AH, Stokes PM (1985) Collection of large and small food particles by Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 30:1090–1092Google Scholar
  3. Bogdan KG, Gilbert JJ (1984) Body size and food size in freshwater zooplankton. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:6427–6431Google Scholar
  4. Bold HC, Wynne MJ (1978) Introduction to the algae: Structure and reproduction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd CM (1976) Selection of particle sizes by filter-feeding copepods: A plea for reason. Limnol Oceanogr 21:175–180Google Scholar
  6. Burns CW (1968a) The relationship between body size of filter-feeding Cladocera and the maximum size of particle ingested. Limnol Oceanogr 13:675–678Google Scholar
  7. Burns CW (1968b) Direct observations of mechanisms regulating feeding behavior of Daphnia in lakewater. Int Rev ges Hydrobiol 53:83–100Google Scholar
  8. Chesson J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 65:1297–1304Google Scholar
  9. Chesson PL (1984) Variable predators and switching behavior. Theoret Pop Biol 26:1–26Google Scholar
  10. DeMott WR (1982) Feeding selectivities and relative ingestion rates of Daphnia and Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 27:518–527Google Scholar
  11. DeMott WR (1985) Relations between filter mesh-size, feeding mode, and capture efficiency for cladocerans feeding on ultrafine particles. Arch Hydrobiol Beih 2:125–134Google Scholar
  12. DeMott WR, Kerfoot WC (1982) Competition among cladocerans: nature of the interaction between Bosmina and Daphnia. Ecology 63:1949–1966Google Scholar
  13. Donaghay PL, Small LF (1979) Food selection capabilities of the estuarine copepod Acartia clausi. Mar Biol 52:137–146Google Scholar
  14. Edmondson WT, Litt AH (1982) Daphnia in Lake Washington. Limnol Oceanogr 27:272–293Google Scholar
  15. Fernandez F (1979) Particle selection in the nauplius of Calanus pacificus. J Plankton Res 1:313–328Google Scholar
  16. Friedman MM, Strickler JR (1975) Chemoreceptors and feeding in calanoid copepods (Arthropoda: Crustacea). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 72:4185–4188Google Scholar
  17. Fryer G (1957a) The food of some freshwater cyclopoid copepods and its ecological significance. J Anim Ecol 26:263–286Google Scholar
  18. Fryer G (1957b) The feeding mechanisms of some freshwater cyclopoid copepods. Proc Zool Soc London 129:1–25Google Scholar
  19. Gerritsen J, Porter KG (1982) The role of surface chemistry in filter feeding by zooplankton. Science 216:225–227Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert JJ, Bogdan KG (1984) Rotifer grazing: in situ studies on selectivity and rates. In: Meyers DG, Strickler JR (eds) Trophic interactions within aquatic ecosystems. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 97–133Google Scholar
  21. Gliwcz ZM (1969) Studies on the feeding of pelagic zooplankton in lakes with varying trophy. Ekol Pol A 17:663–708Google Scholar
  22. Gliwcz ZM (1977) Food size selection and seasonal succession of filter feeding zooplankton in an eutrophic lake. Ekol Pol 25:179–225Google Scholar
  23. Gliwcz ZM (1980) Filtering rates, food size selection, and feeding rates in cladocerans — another aspect of interspecific competition in filter-feeding zooplankton. In: Kerfoot WC (ed) Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover London, pp 282–291Google Scholar
  24. Haney JF, Trout MA (1985) Size selective grazing by zooplankton in Lake Titicaca. Arch Hydrobiol Beih 21:147–160Google Scholar
  25. Hechemy KE, Michaelson EE (1984a) Latex particle assays in laboratory medicine. Part I. Laboratory Management 22 (6):27–39Google Scholar
  26. Hechemy KE, Michaelson EE (1984b) Latex particle assays in laboratory medicine. Part II. Laboratory Management 22(7):26–35Google Scholar
  27. Hrabáček J, Dvořákova M, Kořínek V, Procházkóva L (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 14:192–195Google Scholar
  28. Hughs RN (1980) Optimal foraging in the marine context. Oceanogr Mar Biol A Rev 18:428–449Google Scholar
  29. Huntley ME, Barthel K-G, Star JL (1983) Particle rejection by Calanus pacificus: discrimination between similarly sized particles. Mar Biol 74:151–160Google Scholar
  30. Hurlburt SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211Google Scholar
  31. Jacobs J (1974) Quantitative measurement of food selection. A modification of the foraging ratio and Ivlev's electivity index. Oecologia (Berlin) 14:413–417Google Scholar
  32. Kerfoot WC (1978) Combat between predatory copepods and their prey: Cyclops, Epischura, and Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 23:1089–1102Google Scholar
  33. Kerfoot WC, DeMott WR, DeAngelis DL (1985) Interactions among cladocerans: food limitation and exploitative competition. Arch Hydrobiol Beih 21:431–451Google Scholar
  34. Koehl MAR (1984) Mechanisms of particle capture by copepods at low Reynolds numbers: possible modes of selective feeding. In: Meyers DG, Strickler JR (eds) Trophic interactions within aquatic ecosystems. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 135–166Google Scholar
  35. Lehman JT (1976) The filter feeder as an optimal forager, and the predicted shapes of feeding curves. Limnol Oceanogr 21:501–516Google Scholar
  36. Makarewicz JC, Likens GE (1975) Niche analysis of a zooplankton community. Science 190:1000–1003Google Scholar
  37. Meise CJ, Munns WR, Hairston NG (1985) An analysis of the feeding behavior of Daphnia pulex. Limnol Oceanogr 30:862–870Google Scholar
  38. Peters RH (1984) Methods for the study of feeding, filtering and assimilation by zooplankton. In: Downing JA, Rigler FH (eds) A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters, second edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford London Edinburgh Boston Melbourne, pp 336–412Google Scholar
  39. Porter KG (1973) Selective grazing and differential digestion of algae by zooplankton. Nature 244:179–180Google Scholar
  40. Porter KG (1975) Viable gut passage of gelatinous green algae ingested by Daphnia. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 19:2840–2850Google Scholar
  41. Porter KG (1977) The plant-animal interface in freshwater ecosystems. Am Sci 65:159–170Google Scholar
  42. Porter KG, McDonough R (1984) The energetic cost of response to blue-green algal filaments by cladocerans. Limnol Oceanogr 29:365–369Google Scholar
  43. Poulet SA, Marsot P (1978) Chemosensory grazing by marine calanoid copepods (Arthropoda: Crustacea). Science 200:1403–1405Google Scholar
  44. Price HJ, Paffenhöfer GA (1984) Effects of feeding experience in the copepod Eucalanus pileatus: a cinematographic study. Mar Biol 84:35–40Google Scholar
  45. Rassoulzadegan F, Fenaux L, Strathmann RR (1984) Effect of flavor and size on selection of food by suspension-feeding plutei. Limnol Oceanogr 29:357–361Google Scholar
  46. Richman S, Dodson SI (1983) The effect of food quality on feeding and respiration by Daphnia and Diaptomus. Limnol Oceanogr 28:948–956Google Scholar
  47. Schoenberg SA, Maccubbin AE (1985) Relative feeding rates on free and particle-bound bacteria by freshwater macrozooplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 30:1084–1089Google Scholar
  48. Starkweather PL, Gilbert JJ, Frost TM (1979) Bacterial feeding by Brachionus calyciflorus: Clearance and ingestion rates, behavior, and population dynamics. Oecologia (Berlin) 44:26–30Google Scholar
  49. Teshima S, Kanazawa A, Sakamoto M (1981) Attempt to culture rotifers with microencapsulated diets. bull Japan Soc Sci Fish 47:1575–1578Google Scholar
  50. Vanderploeg HA, Paffenhöfer GA (1985) Modes of algal capture by the freshwater copepod Diaptomus sicilis and their relation to food-size selection. Limnol Oecanogr 30:871–885Google Scholar
  51. Vanderploeg HA, Scavia D (1979) Two electivity indices for feeding with special reference to zooplankton grazing. J Fish Res Board Can 36:362–365Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. DeMott
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations