Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 307–322 | Cite as

Can biotic resistance be utilized to reduce establishment rates of non-indigenous species in constructed waters?

  • Claire M. Taylor
  • Ian C. DugganEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms that facilitate establishment of non-indigenous species is imperative for devising techniques to reduce invasion rates. Passively dispersing non-indigenous organisms, including zooplankton, seemingly invade constructed waters (e.g., ornamental ponds, dams and reservoirs) at faster rates than natural lakes. A common attribute of these invaded water bodies is their relatively young age, leading to the assertion that low biotic resistance may lead to their higher vulnerability. Our aim was to determine if seeding of young water bodies with sediments containing diapausing stages of native zooplankton could accelerate community development, leading to greater biotic resistance to the establishment of new species. Twenty outdoor tanks were filled with water (1,400 L) and nutrients added to attain eutrophic conditions. Ten treatment tanks had sediments added, sourced from local water bodies. In the remaining ten, sediments were autoclaved, and received zooplankton via natural dispersal only. In an initial 12 month monitoring period, species richness increased at a greater rate in the treatment tanks (at 12 months average standing richness per tank = 3.8, accumulated richness = 8.2) than control tanks (2.6 and 5.0, P < 0.05). Treatment tanks developed assemblages with greater proportions of species adapted to pelagic conditions, such as planktonic cladocerans and copepods, while control tanks generally comprised of smaller, littoral dwelling, rotifers. Analysis of similarities indicated community composition differed between the control and treatment groups at 12 months (P < 0.01). Two copepod, four rotifer and one cladoceran species were intentionally added to tanks at 12 months. In the 3 month post-introduction period, five of these species established populations in the control tanks, while only two species established in the treatment tanks. The calanoid copepod Skistodiaptomus pallidus, for example, a non-indigenous species confined to constructed waters in New Zealand, established exclusively in tanks where native calanoid copepod species were absent (primarily control tanks). Our study suggests that biotic resistance could play an important role in reducing the establishment rate of non-indigenous zooplankton. It also provides evidence that seeding constructed water bodies with sediments containing diapausing eggs of native species may provide an effective management tool to reduce establishment rates of non-indigenous zooplankton.

Keywords

Exotic species Dams Reservoirs Managerial tool Zooplankton 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided to ICD by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Grant (contract UOW0702). We thank J. Brys for aid with sampling, E. Coleman and S. Parkes for help with experimental set up, and I. Hogg for comments on an early draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. Alfonso G, Belmonte G (2008) Expanding distribution of Boeckella triarticulata (Thomson, 1883) (Copepoda: Calanoida: Centropagidae) in Southern Italy. Aquat Invasions 3:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balvert SF, Duggan IC, Hogg ID (2009) Zooplankton seasonal dynamics in a recently filled mine pit lake: the effect of non-indigenous Daphnia establishment. Aquat Ecol 43:403–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks CM, Duggan IC (2009) Lake construction has facilitated calanoid copepod invasions in New Zealand. Divers Distrib 15:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett AJ, Finlay K, Beisner B (2007) Functional diversity of crustacean zooplankton communities: towards a trait-based classification. Freshw Biol 52:796–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cáceres CE, Soluk DA (2002) Blowing in the wind: a field test of overland dispersal and colonization by aquatic invertebrates. Oecologica 131:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  7. DeMott WR (1986) The role of taste in food selection by freshwater zooplankton. Oecologica 69:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duggan IC, Green JD, Burger DF (2006) First New Zealand records of three non-indigenous zooplankton species: Skistodiaptomus pallidus, Sinodiaptomus valkanovi and Daphnia dentifera. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 40:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dzialowski AR (2010) Experimental effect of consumer identity on the invasion success of a non-native cladoceran. Hydrobiologia 652:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ejsmont-Karabin J (1995) Rotifer occurrence in relation to age, depth and trophic state of quarry lakes. Hydrobiologia 313(314):21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrari I, Rossetti G (2006) New records of the centropagid Boeckella triarticulata (Thomson, 1883) (Copepoda: Calanoida) in Northern Italy: evidence of a successful invasion? Aquat Invasions 1:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frisch D, Green AJ (2007) Copepods come in first: rapid colonization of new temporary ponds. Fund Appl Limnol 168:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert JJ (1988) Suppression of rotifer populations by Daphnia: a review of the evidence, the mechanisms, and the effects on zooplankton community structure. Limnol Oceanogr 33:1286–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gyllström M, Hansson L-A (2004) Dormancy in freshwater zooplankton: induction, termination and the importance of benthic-pelagic coupling. Aquat Sci 66:274–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Havel JE, Mabee WR, Jones JR (1995) Invasion of the exotic cladoceran Daphnia lumholtzi into North American reservoirs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Havel JE, Lee CE, vander Zanden MJ (2005) Do reservoirs facilitate invasions into landscapes? Bioscience 55:518–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hebert PD, Crease TJ (1980) Clonal Coexistence in Daphnia pulex (Leydig): another planktonic paradox. Science 207:1363–1365Google Scholar
  19. Hutchinson GE (1967) A treatise on limnology, vol 11. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenkins DG, Buikema AL (1998) Do similar communities develop in similar sites: a test with zooplankton structure and function. Ecol Monogr 68:421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins DG, Underwood MO (1998) Zooplankton may not disperse readily in wind, rain, or waterfowl. Hydrobiologia 387(388):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson PT, Olden JD, Vander Zanden MJ (2008) Dam invaders: impoundments facilitate biological invasions into freshwaters. Front Ecol Environ 6:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennedy TA, Naeem S, Howe KM, Knops JMH, Tilman D, Reich P (2002) Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacIsaac HJ, Gilbert JJ (1991) Discrimination between exploitative and interference competition between Keratella cochlearis and Cladocera. Ecology 72:924–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Makino W, Knox MA, Duggan IC (2010) Invasion, genetic variation and species identity of the calanoid copepod Sinodiaptomus valkanovi. Freshw Biol 55:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maly EJ, Maly MP (1997) Predation, competition, and co-occurrences of Boeckella and Calamoecia (Copepoda: Calanoida) in Western Australia. Hydrobiologia 354:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nandini S, Sarma SS, Bocanegra H (2002) Effect of four species of cladocerans (Crustacea) on the population growth of Brachionus patulus (Rotifera). Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 30:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shurin JB (2000) Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance, and the structure of pond zooplankton communities. Ecology 81:3074–3086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomsen MA, D’Antonio CM, Suttle KB, Sousa WP (2006) Ecological resistance, seed density, and their interactions determine patterns of invasion in a California coastal grassland. Ecol Lett 9:160–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vanni M (1986) Competition in zooplankton communities: suppression of small species by Daphnia pulex. Limnol Oceanogr 31:1039–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and Biodiversity ResearchThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations