Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 200, Issue 1, pp 187–203 | Cite as

Conditions for effective biomanipulation; conclusions derived from whole-lake experiments in Europe

  • Jürgen Benndorf
Part Four: Whole Lake Studies

Abstract

Since indirect effects, feedback mechanisms and time lag play an important role in top-down manipulated food webs, conclusions regarding the reliability of biomanipulation as a management tool should be derived only from whole-lake studies, the results of which were followed for at least three to five years. There are only a few experiments and applications of that type from which the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) Food web manipulation should be combined with resource limitation measures (nutrients or light) if a ‘biomanipulation-efficiency threshold of the phosphorus loading’ is exceeded. (2) The critical biomass of undesirable fish shows a very wide range of variation (20–1000 kg ha−1) and depends on several factors, like species and age of fish, total food assemblage, refugia etc. (3) The maximum possible stability of food web manipulation is probably achieved at a biomass of undesirable fish a little below the critical biomass rather than by extermination of these fish. (4) High piscivore diversity increases stability and reliability of food web manipulations. (5) Various techniques of food web manipulation should be combined, except poisoning the entire fish community.

Key words

food web manipulation whole-lake experiment long-term response phosphorus loading fish water quality management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, G., H. Berggren, G. Cronberg & C. Gelin, 1978. Effects of planktivorous and benthivorus fish on organisms and water chemistry in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 59: 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, G. & S. Diehl, 1988. The influence of cyprinid fish on phosphorus and plankton in eutrophic lakes. Nordic symposium ‘Ecological Lake Management’, August 29–31, Lahti, Finland.Google Scholar
  3. Barthelmes, D., 1988. Fish predation and resource reaction: Biomanipulation background data from fisheries research. Limnologica 19: 51–59.Google Scholar
  4. Benndorf, J., 1987. Food web manipulation without nutrient control: A useful strategy in lake restoration? Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 49: 237–248.Google Scholar
  5. Benndorf, J., 1988. Objectives and unsolved problems in ecotechnology and biomanipulation: A preface. Limnologica 19: 5–8.Google Scholar
  6. Benndorf, J., 1989. Food web manipulation as a tool in water quality management. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. — Aqua 38: 296–304.Google Scholar
  7. Benndorf, J. & M. Henning, 1989.Daphnia and toxic blooms ofMicrocystis aeruginosa in Bautzen reservoir. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 74: 233–248.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Benndorf, J. & U. Miersch, 1989. Phosphorus loading and efficiency of biomanipulation. 24th SIL-Congress, Munich, FRG, August 13–19, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Benndorf, J., H. Schultz, A. Benndorf, R. Unger, E. Penz, H. Kneschke, K. Kossatz, R. Dumke, U. Hornig, R. Kruspe & S. Reichel, 1988. Food web manipulation by enhancement of piscivorous fish stocks: Long-term effects in the hypertrophic Bautzen reservoir. Limnologica 19: 97–110.Google Scholar
  11. Björk, S., 1985. Lake restoration techniques. Proceedings of the International Congress ‘Lake pollution and recovery’, Rome, 15th–18th April 1985, 202–212.Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, S. R. (ed), 1988. Complex interactions in lake communities. Springer, N.Y., 283 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell & J. R. Hodgson, 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35: 634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craig, J. F., 1987. The biology of perch and related fish. Croom Helm, London & Sydney, 333 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Cryer, M., G. Peirson & C. R. Townsend, 1986. Reciprocal interactions between roach,Rutilus rutilus, and zooplankton in a small lake: Prey dynamics and fish growth and recruitment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31, 5: 1022–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeBernardi, R. & G. Giussani, 1978. Effect of mass fish mortality on zooplankton structure and dynamics in a small Italian lake. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 1045–1048.Google Scholar
  17. DeNie, H. W., 1987. Food, feeding periodicity and consumption of the eelAnguilla anguilla (L.) in the shallow eutrophic Tjeukemeer (The Netherlands). Arch. Hydrobiol. 109, 3: 421–443.Google Scholar
  18. Duncan, A., 1975. The importance of zooplankton in the ecology of reservoirs. Proceedings of a symposium ‘The Effects of Storage on Water Quality’ University of Reading, England, 24–26 March 1975, 247–272.Google Scholar
  19. Edmondson, W. T. & S. E. B. Abella, 1988. Unplanned biomanipulation in Lake Washington, Limnologica 19, 1: 73–79.Google Scholar
  20. Henrikson, L., H. G. Nyman, H. G. Oscarson & J. A. E. Stenson, 1980. Trophic changes without changes in external nutrient loading. Hydrobiologia 68: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hrbaček, J., O. Albertova, B. Desortova, V. Gottwaldova & J. Popovsky, 1986. Relation of the zooplankton biomass and share of large cladocerans to the concentration of total phosphorous, chlorophylla and transparency in Hubenov and Vrchlice Reservoirs. Limnologica 17: 301–308.Google Scholar
  22. Hrbaček, J., M. Dvořakova, V. Kořinek & L. Prochazkova, 1961. Demonstration of the effect of fish stock on the species composition and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  23. Hrbaček, J., Desortova & J. Popovsky, 1978. Influence of the fish stock on the phosphorus-chlorophyll ratio. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 1624–1628.Google Scholar
  24. Jeppesen, E., M. Sondergaard, E., Mortensen & O. Sortkjaer, 1988. Effects of a reduction in density of planktivorous fish on biological structure, processes and nutrient levels to shallow lakes. Nordic Symposium ‘Ecological Lake Management’, August 29–31, 1988, Lahti, Finland.Google Scholar
  25. Kasprzak, P., J. Benndorf, R. Koschel & F. Recknagel, 1988. Applicability of food-web manipulation in the restoration program of a hypertrophic stratified lake: Model studies for Lake Haussee (Feldberg, GDR). Limnologica 19: 87–95.Google Scholar
  26. Kerfoot, W. C. & A. Sih (ed.), 1987. Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover and London, 386 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Keto, J. & I. Sammalkorpi, 1988. The fading recovery of Lake Vesijärvi, Nordic Symposium ‘Ecological Lake management’, August 29–31, 1988, Lahti, Finland.Google Scholar
  28. Köhler, J., A. Köhler & J. Benndorf, 1989. Biomanipulation in Gräfenhain experimental water: Altered direct and indirect effects after five years (in German, with English summary, tables and Figures). Acta hydrochim. hydrobiol. 17: 633–646.Google Scholar
  29. Köpke, U., H. Schultz, R. Jarchow, U. Hornig & J. Penig, 1988. Analyse des Nahrungskonsums von Barschen (Perca fluviatilis) in der Talsperre Bautzen. Limnologica 19, 1: 37–43.Google Scholar
  30. Lammens, E.H.R.R., 1988. Trophic interactions in the hyper-trophic lake Tjeukemeer: Top-dow and bottom-up effects in relation to hydrology, predation and bioturbation during the period 1974–1985. Limnologica 19: 81–85.Google Scholar
  31. Lammens, E. H. R. R., J. Geursen & P. J. McGillavry, 1986. Diet shifts, feeding efficiency and coexistence of bream (Abramis brama), roach (Rutilus rutilus) and white bream (Blicca bjoerkna) in hypertrophic lakes. In: Lammens, E. H. R. R.: Interactions between fishes and the structure of fish communities in Dutch shallow, eutrophic lakes. Doctoral thesis, University of Wageningen, 50–64.Google Scholar
  32. Lammens, E. H. R. R., H. W. de Nie, J. Vijverberg & W. L. T. van Densen, 1985. Resource partitioning and niche shifts of bream (Abramis brama) and eel (Anguilla anguilla) mediated by predation of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) onDaphnia hyalina. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 42: 1342–1351.Google Scholar
  33. Lampe, R. & I. Schmidt, 1981. Sedimente und Gwässerzustand eines polytrophen Flachsees (Schmachter See/Binz). Acta hydrochim. hydrobiol. 9, 6: 665–672.Google Scholar
  34. Lampert, W., 1987. Vertical migration of freshwater zooplankton: indirect effects of vertebrate predators on algal communities. In: Kerfoot, W. C. and Sih, A. (ed.): Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities, University Press of New England, Hanover and London, 291–299.Google Scholar
  35. Leah, R. T., B. Moss & D. E. Forrest, 1980. The role of predation in causing major changes in the limnology of a hypereutrophic lake. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 65: 223–247.Google Scholar
  36. McQueen, D. J. & J. R. Post, 1986. Enclosure experiments: The effects of planktivorous fish. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference and International Symposium on Applied Lake and Water shed Management, Nov. 13–16, 1985, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin,; 313–318.Google Scholar
  37. McQueen, D. J. & J. R. Post, 1988. Limnocorral studies of cascading trophic interactions. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 23: 739–747.Google Scholar
  38. McQueen, D. J., J. R. Post & E. L. Mills, 1986. Trophic relationships in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 43: 1571–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meijer, M. L., A. J. P. Raat & R. W. Doef, 1989. Restoration by biomanipulation of Lake Bleiswijkse Zoom (The Netherlands) First results. Hydrobiol. Bull. 23: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mills, E. L. & J. L. Forney, 1983. Impact onDaphnia pulex of predation by young perch in Oneida Lake, New York. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 112: 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oskam, G., 1978. Light and Zooplankton as algae regulating factors in eutrophic Biesbosch reservoirs. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 1612–1618.Google Scholar
  42. Pihu, E. & A. Mäemets, 1982. The management of fisheries in Lake Vörsjärv. Hydrobiologia 86: 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Popova, O. A., 1978. The role of predaceous fish in ecosystem. In: S. D. Gerking (ed.), Ecology of freshwater fish production. Wiley, N.Y., 215–249.Google Scholar
  44. Riemann, B., 1988. Ecological consequences of manual removal of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and bream (Abramis brama) in eutrophic lakes. Nordic Symposium ‘Ecological Lake Management’, August 29-31, 1988, Lahti, Finland.Google Scholar
  45. Schultz, H., 1983. Untersuchungen über die Größe und Struktur des Fischbestandes sowie den Nahrungskonsum ausgewählter Fischarten in zwei Stauseen unterschiedlichen Trophiegrades. Doctoral thesis, Dresden Univ. Technol., 141 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Schultz, H., 1988. An acoustic fish stock assessment in the Bautzen resqervoir. Limnologica 19: 61–70.Google Scholar
  47. Shapiro, J., V. Lamarra & M. Lynch, 1975. Biomanipulation: an ecosystem approach to lake restoration. In: Brezonik, P.L. & J.L. Fox (Ed.) 1975: Water Quality Management through Biological Control. Report No. ENV-07-75-1, University of Florida, Gainesville (1975), 85–96.Google Scholar
  48. Steel, J. A., 1975. The management of Thames valley reservoirs. Preceedings of a symposium ‘The Effects of Storage on Water Quality’. University of Reading, England, 24–26 March 1975, 371–419.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Straškraba, M., 1979. Mathematische Simulation der Produktionsdynamik in Gewässern und deren Anwendung auf die Produktionssteuerung in Talsperren. Z. Wasserund Abwasserforsch. 12: 56–64.Google Scholar
  51. Van Densen, W. L. T. & M. P. Grimm, 1988. Possibilities for stock enhancement of pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) in order to increase predation on planktivores. Limnologica 19, 1: 45–49.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vijverberg, J. & W. L. T. van Densen, 1984. The role of the fish in the food web of Tjeukemeer. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 891–896.Google Scholar
  54. Wright, D. I. & J. Shapiro, 1884. Nutrient reduction by biomanipulation: An unexpected phenomenon, and its possible cause. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 518–524.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Benndorf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Water Sciences, Laboratory of HydrobiologyDresden University of TechnologyDresden

Personalised recommendations