Hydrobiological Bulletin

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 19–34 | Cite as

Food web manipulation in Lake Zwemlust: Positive and negative effects during the first two years

  • E. Van Donk
  • R. D. Gulati
  • M. P. Grimm
  • M. P. Grimm


The hypertrophic Lake Zwemlust, a small water body used as a swimming pool, was characterized by algal blooms in summer, reducing the Secchi disk transparency to less than 0.3 m. Since in The Netherlands a Secchi disk transparency of ≥1 m is obligatory for swimming waters, corrective measures were called for to improve the light climate of the lake. In March, 1987, as an experiment, the lake was drained by pumping out the water to facilitate fish elimination. Planktivorous and benthivorous fish species, which were predominant, were removed by seine- and electro-fishing. After the lake had refilled by seepage it was restocked by a new simple fish community comprising pike (Esox lucius) and rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus) only. Stacks of willow twigs (Salix) and macrophytes (roots ofNuphar lutea and ‘seedlings’ ofChara globularis) were introduced into the lake as spawning grounds and refuges for the pike against cannibalism and as shelter for the zooplankton. The effects of this food web manipulation on the light climate, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, macrophytes, macrofauna and on the nutrient concentrations were monitored during 1987 and 1988. In summer 1987, despite of high nutrient concentrations, the phytoplankton density was low, due to control by zooplankton, causing a Secchi disk transparency of ≥2.5 m, the maximum depth. Chlorophyll-a concentrations were low (<5 μg Chl.l−1), blooms of cyanobacteria did not occur and a shift from rotifers to cladocerans took place. In 1988, however, also some negative effects were noticed. Macrophytes and filamentous green algae reached a much higher biomass (50–60% cover of the lake bottom) than in 1987; some species, growing through the entire water column, interfered with the lake's recreational use. Associated with the macro-vegetation and possibly with the absence of larger cyprinids, the diet of which also comprises snails, a large scale development of the snail population, among themLymnaea peregra var.ovata took place. This species is known to act as an intermediate host of the bird-parasitizing trematodeTrichobilharzia ocellata, the cercariae of which cause an itching sensation at the spot of penetration of the human skin, accompanied by rash (schistosome dermatitis or swimmers' itch); in July, 1988, about 40% of the bathers complained about this itching. A positive effect of the macrophytes and filamentous green algae was the high uptake of nitrogen, resulting in a low nitrogen concentration in the lake and growth limitation of the phytoplankton population by nitrogen in the summer of 1988. In 1988 the cladocerans were abundant in April only; and unlike in 1987, in the summer of 1988 there was a shift from cladocerans to rotifers. Therefore, only in early spring (April) zooplankton grazing controlled phytoplankton growth and in summer nitrogen limitation was the major controlling factor, keeping chlorophyll-a concentrations low.


biomanipulation lake restoration eutrophication food web phytoplankton zooplankton schistosome dermatitis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANDERSSON, G., H. BERGGREN, G. CRONBERG and C. GELIN, 1978. Effect of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on organisms and water chemistry in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia, 59: 9–15.Google Scholar
  2. BAARDA, K. and J. KAMPEN, 1988. Length-weight relationships of the main freshwater fish species in The Netherlands. Intern report OVB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  3. BENNDORF, J., 1987. Food web manipulation without nutrient control: A useful strategy in lake restoration? Schweiz. Z. Hydrol., 49: 237–248.Google Scholar
  4. BENNDORF, J., 1988. Objectives and unsolved problems in ecotechnology and biomanipulation: A preface. Limnologica (Berlin), 19: 5–8.Google Scholar
  5. BENNDORF, J., H. SCHULTZ, A. BENNDORF, R. UNGER, E. PENZ, H. KNESCHKE, K. KOSSATZ, R. DUMKE, U. HORNIG, R. KNISPE and S. REICHEL, 1988. Food web manipulation by enhancement of piscivorous fish stocks: long-term effects in the hypertrophic Bautzen Reservoir. Limnologica (Berlin), 19: 97–110.Google Scholar
  6. BJÖRK, S., 1985. Lake restoration techniques. In: Proceedings International congress ‘Lakes Pollution and Recovery’, Rome: 281–292.Google Scholar
  7. CARPENTER, S., J.F. KITCHELL and F.R. HODGSON, 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. Bioscience, 35: 634–639.Google Scholar
  8. DE BERNARDI, R. and G. GIUSSANI, 1975. Population dynamics of three cladocerans of Lago Maggiore related to the predation pressure by a planktiphagous fish. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 19: 2906–2912.Google Scholar
  9. DE BERNARDI, R., G. GIUSSANI and 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
  10. EDMONDSON, W.T. and S.E.B. ABELLA, 1988. Unplanned biomanipulation in Lake Washington. Limnologica (Berlin), 19: 73–79.Google Scholar
  11. ERASMUS, D.A., 1972. The biology of trematodes. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  12. GOLTERMAN, H.L., 1969. Methods for chemical analysis of freshwater. I.B.P. Handbook, No. 8, Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. 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 0+ pike biomass. Fish. Management, 12: 61–77.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. GRIMM, M.P., 1984. Pike. In: Biology, population dynamics and management of pike, pike-perch and bream. Intern report OVB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, 87 pp. (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  16. GRIMM, M.P., 1989. Northern pike (Esox lucius L.) and aquatic vegetation, tools in the management of fisheries and water quality in shallow waters. Hydrobiol. Bull., 23: 59–65.Google Scholar
  17. GULATI, R.D., 1983. Zooplankton and its grazing as indicators of trophic status in Dutch lakes. Environm. Monit. Assess., 3: 343–354.Google Scholar
  18. GULATI, R.D., 1989. Structure and feeding activity of zooplankton community in Lake Zwemlust, in the two years after biomanipulation. Hydrobiol. Bull. 23: 35–48.Google Scholar
  19. GULATI, R.D., K. SIEWERTSEN and 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
  20. HENRIKSON, L., H.G. NYMAN, H.G. OSCARSON and J.A. STENSON, 1980. Trophic changes without changes in the external nutrient loading. Hydrobiologia, 68: 257–263.Google Scholar
  21. HOEFFLER, D.F., 1974. Cercarial dermatitis, its etiology, epidemiology and clinical aspects. Arch. Environ. Health, 29: 225–229.Google Scholar
  22. HRBÁCEK, J., M. DVORAKOVA, V. KORINEK and L. PROCHÁZKÓVA, 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., Internat. Verein. Limnol., 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  23. LAMMENS, E.H.R.R., 1986. Interactions between fishes and structure of fish communities in Dutch shallow eutrophic lakes. Thesis of the University of Agriculture, Wageningen, 100 p.Google Scholar
  24. LAMPERT, W., 1988. The relation between zooplankton biomass and grazing: A review. Limnologica (Berlin), 19: 11–20.Google Scholar
  25. LAZARRO, X., 1987. A review of planktivorous fishes: Their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities and impacts. Hydrobiologia, 146: 97–167.Google Scholar
  26. LEAH, R.T., B. MOSS and D.E. FORREST, 1980. The role of predation in causing major changes in the limonology of a hyper-eutrophic lake. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol., 65: 223–247.Google Scholar
  27. LE COSQUINO DE BUSSY, I.J., 1968. Algiciden. Onderzoek over diuron als bestrijdingsmiddel van algen in de zwemvijver ‘Zwemlust’, Nieuwersluis, IG-TNO report, nr. A48 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  28. LYNCH, M. and J. SHAPIRO, 1981. Predation, enrichment and phytoplankton community structure. Limnol. Oceanogr., 26: 86–102.Google Scholar
  29. McQUEEN, D.J., J.R. POST and E.L. MILLS, 1986. Trophic relationships in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 43 1571–1581.Google Scholar
  30. MEIJER, M.-L., A.J.P. RAAT and R.W. DOEF, 1989. Restoration by biomanipulation of Lake Bleiswijkse Zoom (The Netherlands): First results. Hydrobiol. Bull., 23: 49–57.Google Scholar
  31. REINERTSEN, H. and Y. OLSON, 1984. Effects of fish elimination on the phytoplankton community of a eutrophic lake. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., 22: 649–657.Google Scholar
  32. RICKER, W.E., 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. (191): 382 pp.Google Scholar
  33. SHAPIRO, J. and D.I. WRIGHT, 1984. Lake restoration by biomanipulation: Round Lake, Minnesota, the first two years. Freshwat. Biol., 14: 371–383.Google Scholar
  34. SOKAL, R.R. and F.J. ROHLF, 1969. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W.M. Freeman and Comp., San Francisco.Google Scholar
  35. STENSON, J.A.E., T. BOHLIN, L. HENRIKSON, B.I. NILSSON, H.G. NYMAN, H.G. OSCARSON and P. LARSSON, 1978. Effects of fish removal from a small lake. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., 20: 794–801.Google Scholar
  36. VAN DONK, E. and C. COLLÉ, 1988. Schistosome dermatitis, a possible complication of food-web manipulation in swimming waters (in Dutch; English summary). H2O, 24: 696–699.Google Scholar
  37. VAN DONK, E., R.D. GULATI and M.P. GRIMM, 1989. Restoration by biomanipulation in a small hypertrophic lake: first-year results. Proceedings ‘Trophic relationships in inland waters’, Tihany, Hungary (Sept. 1987), Developments in Hydrobiology (in press).Google Scholar
  38. VAN DONK, E., F.J. SLIM and M.P. GRIMM, 1988a. Biomanipulation as a restoration method for Lake Zwemlust, first results (in Dutch; English summary). H2O, 13: 338–343.Google Scholar
  39. VAN DONK, E., A. VEEN and J. RINGELBERG, 1988b. Natural community bioassays to determine the abiotic factors that control phytoplankton growth and succession. Freshwater Biology, 20: 199–210.Google Scholar
  40. VAN LIERE, E., L. VAN BALLEGOOYEN, W.A. DE KLOET, K. SIEWERTSEN, P. KOUWENHOVEN and T. ALDENBERG, 1986. Primary production in the various parts of the Loosdrecht Lakes. Hydrobiol. Bull., 20: 77–85.Google Scholar
  41. WINBERG, al., 1971. Symbols, units and conversion factors of freshwater productivity. IBP, London, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  42. ZARET, T.M., 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haver and London. 187 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Netherlands Hydrobiological Society 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Van Donk
    • 1
  • R. D. Gulati
    • 2
  • M. P. Grimm
    • 3
  • M. P. Grimm
    • 4
  1. 1.Provincial Waterboard of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Vijverhof LaboratoryLimnological InstituteNieuwersluisThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Organization for Improvement of the Inland FisheriesNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Witteveen & Bos, Consulting EngineersDeventerThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations