, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 49–58 | Cite as

Fish-zooplankton interactions and their effects on water quality of a tropical Brazilian reservoir

  • M. S. Arcifa
  • T. G. Northcote
  • O. Froehlich


The influence of zooplanktivorous fishes on the plankton community and water quality of Americana Reservoir, Brazil was studied experimentally in 4 floating enclosures during the dry seasons (July–September) of 1982 and 1983. Two enclosures were stocked with adult fish (Astyanax bimaculatus in 1982;A. fasciatus in 1983) at near maximal densities measured in the reservoir upper surface waters (35 m−2) and two were fish-free during each experiment lasting about one month. Marked differences were evident between the fish and fish-free enclosures after a 2–3 week period in each experiment, particularly with respect to water transparency, phytoplankton biomass, and zooplankton abundance as well as species and size composition. By the end of each experiment water transparencies were lower and phytoplankton biomass higher in the fish enclosures compared to those without fish. Also at that time Rotifera were the prominent zooplankters in the fish enclosures and Cladocera in the fish-free ones. Larger or more conspicuous species of Cladocera asDaphnia gessneri, D. ambigua, andMoina micrura were present in the fish-free enclosures but not in the fish enclosures. The interactions between fish predation, zooplankton grazing, phytoplankton biomass and water quality conditions are discussed in relation to eutrophication of a tropical aquatic ecosystem.


fish zooplankton eutrophication biological control tropical reservoir 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, G., H. Berggren, G. Cronberg & C. Gelin, 1978. Effects of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on organisms and water chemistry in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 59: 9–15.Google Scholar
  2. Arcifa, M. S., 1984. Zooplankton composition of ten reservoirs in southern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 113: 137–145.Google Scholar
  3. Arcifa, M. S., M. A. J. Carvalho, S. M. F. Gianesella-Galvão, G. Y. Shimizu, C. G. Froehlich & R. M. C. Castro, 1981. Limnology of ten reservoirs in southern Brazil. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 21: 1048–1053.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, J. L. & S. I. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28–35.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson, A. J. D., J. M. Thompson & C. S. Reynolds, 1982. Structure and dynamics of zooplankton communities maintained in closed systems, with special reference to algal food supply. J. Plankton Res. 4: 523–543.Google Scholar
  6. Gliwicz, Z. M. & A. Prejs, 1977. Can planktivorous fish keep in check planktonic crustacean populations? A test of the size-efficiency hypothesis in typical Polish lakes. Ekol. pol. 25: 567–591.Google Scholar
  7. Golterman, H. L., 1969. Methods for chemical analysis of fresh waters. IBP Handbook No. 8, Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford and Edinburgh, 172 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Grasshoff, F., 1976. Methods of seawater analysis, Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 317 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, D. J., S. T. Threlkeld, C. W. Burns & P. H. Crowley, 1976. The size-efficiency hypothesis and the size structure of zooplankton communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 7: 177–208.Google Scholar
  10. Hrbáček, J., M. Dvořakova, V. Kořínek & L. Procházkóva, 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
  11. Langeland, A. & P. Larsson, 1980. The significance of the predator food chain in lake metabolism. Prog. Wat. Tech. 12: 181–187.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Lynch, M. & J. Shapiro, 1981. Predation, enrichment, and phytoplankton community structure. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26: 86–102.Google Scholar
  14. Nilsson, N.-A., 1978. The role of size-biased predation in competition and interactive segregation in fish. In S. D. Gerking (ed.) Ecology of freshwater fish production. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford: 303–325.Google Scholar
  15. Northcote, T. G., M. S. Arcifa & O. Froehlich, 1985. Effects of impoundment and drawdown on the fish community of a South American river. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 2704–2711.Google Scholar
  16. Peters, R. H. & J. A. Downing, 1984. Empirical analysis of zooplankton filtering and feeding rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 763–784.Google Scholar
  17. Reynolds, C. S., J. M. Thompson, A. J. D. Ferguson & S. W. Wiseman, 1982. Loss processes in the population dynamics of phytoplankton maintained in closed systems. J. Plankton Res. 4: 561–600.Google Scholar
  18. Schoenberg, S. A. & R. E. Carlson, 1984. Direct and indirect effects of zooplankton grazing on phytoplankton in a hypereutrophic lake. Oikos 42: 291–302.Google Scholar
  19. Shapiro, J., 1979. The need for more biology in lake restoration, in: Lake Restoration, Proceedings of a national conference, Aug. 22–24, 1978. Minneapolis, Minnesota. EPA 440/5–79–001. U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.Google Scholar
  20. Shapiro, J., 1980. The importance of trophic-level interactions to the abundance and species composition of algae in lakes. In J. Barica and L. R. Mur (eds), Hypertrophic Ecosystems, Developments in Hydrobiology, Vol. 2, Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers — The Hague, The Netherlands: 105–116.Google Scholar
  21. Timms, R. M. & B. Moss, 1984. Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton populations by zooplankton grazing, in the presence of zooplanktivorous fish, in a shallow wetland ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 472–486.Google Scholar
  22. Zaret, T. M., 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 187 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. S. Arcifa
    • 1
  • T. G. Northcote
    • 2
  • O. Froehlich
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia, F.F.C.L.Universidade de São PauloRibeirão PretoBrasil
  2. 2.Institute of Animal Resource EcologyThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Departamento de ZoologiaUnicamp, Campinas SPBrasil

Personalised recommendations