Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 559, Issue 1, pp 203–212 | Cite as

The Influence of the Spatial Structure of Hydromacrophytes and Differentiating Habitat on the Structure of Rotifer and Cladoceran Communities

  • Natalia Maria Kuczyńska-Kippen
  • Barbara Nagengast
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

Research on the similarity of zooplankton in various stands of water vegetation, including rushes (Typha angustifolia), nymphaeids (Nymphaea alba) and submerged macrophytes (Charahispida, C. tomentosa, Myriophyllumverticillatum and Utricularia vulgaris) was carried out on the shallow Wielkowiejskie lake (Poland). The analysis of the similarity of the Rotifera community revealed the strongest relationship between the Myriophyllum and Chara tomentosa beds, with C. hispida attaching them. A second pair of habitats was represented by Typha and Nymphaea stands. Cladocerans revealed the greatest similarity between both zones of Chara. Additionally, two more pairs of habitats were distinguished – Typha and Nymphaea and also Utricularia and Myriophyllum. In most cases, the Shannon-Weaver values were high among macrophyte stations. Forward stepwise regression revealed that the length of Nymphaea stems was a single negative predictor determining the Cladocera densities. The water lily stand possessed the richest pelagic community of zooplankton and had the highest cladoceran diversity index. In accordance with CCA-ordination, out of the environmental variables, the macrophyte stem length and the concentration of Ptot were the strongest predictors in determining the distribution of particular species of the zooplankton community. Mainly pelagic species displayed preferences towards physical parameters of habitat, which is manifested in their greater affinity to a denser spatial structure of macrophyte substratum. The similarity of zooplankton communities in Wielkowiejskie lake was based on the characteristic architecture of particular macrophyte species, where the plant length was the strongest predictor. Moreover, the character of the zooplankton communities was also influenced by the concentrations of chlorophyll ‘a’ and the chemical variables, with the strongest impact of Ptot, of periphyton received from a particular macrophyte habitat and from water filling the spaces between plant stems.

Keywords

habitat similarity macrophytes phosphorus concentration plant length spatial distribution zooplankton 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Basu, B. K., Kalff, J., Pinel-Alloul, B. 2000The influence of macrophyte beds on plankton communities and their export from fluvial lakes in the St Lawrence RiverFreshwater Biology45373382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carvalho, L. 1994Top–down control of phytoplankton in a shallow hypertrophic lake Little Mere (England)Hydrobiologia2765363Google Scholar
  3. Conde-Porcuna, J. M. 2000Relative importance of competition with Daphnia (Cladocera) and nutrient limitation on Anuraeopsis (Rotifera) population dynamics in a laboratory studyFreshwater Biology44423430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cyr, H., Downing, J. A. 1988Empirical relationships of phytomacrofaunal abundance to plant biomass and macrophyte bed characteristicsCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences45976984Google Scholar
  5. Ejsmont-Karabin, J. 1983Ammonia nitrogen and inorganic phosphorus excretion by the planktonic rotifersHydrobiologia104231236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gons, H. J. 1982Structure and functional characteristics of epiphyton and epipelon in relation to their distribution in Lake Vechten (The Netherlands)Hydrobiologia9579114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson M. J., M. R. Perrow, D. J. Hoare & B. James, 2002. Habitat preference of littoral macroinvertebrates in different submerged macrophyte architecture and risk-sensitive behaviour in the presence of underyearling perch (Perca fluviatilis L.). Proceedings: International Conference on Limnology of Shallow Lakes, Balatonfüred, Hungry 91.Google Scholar
  8. Jeppesen, E., Jensen, J. P, Søndergaard, M., Lauridsen, T., Pedersen, L. J., Jensen, L. 1997Top–down control in freshwater lakes: the role of nutrient state, submerged macrophytes and water depthHydrobiologia342/343151164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kowalczewski, A., Pieczyńska, E. 1976AlgaePieczyńska, W. E. eds. Selected Problems of Lake Littoral EcologyUniversity of WarsawWarszawa5568Google Scholar
  10. Kuczyńska-Kippen, N. & B. Nagengast, 2001. The spatial distribution of zooplankton in the littoral zone of Wielkowiejskie Lake, Poland. Proceedings: Symposium for European Freshwater Sciences, Toulouse.Google Scholar
  11. Lauridsen, T. L., Pedersen, L. J., Jeppesen, E., Søndergaard, M. 1996The importance of macrophyte bed size for cladoceran composition and horizontal migration in a shallow lakeJournal of Plankton Research1822832294Google Scholar
  12. Margalef, R. 1957Information theory in ecologyGenetic System33671Google Scholar
  13. Moore, B. C., Funk, W. H., Anderson, E. 1994Water quality, fishery and biologic characteristic in a shallow, eutrophic lake with dense macrophyte populationsLake Reservoir Management8175188Google Scholar
  14. Pieczyńska, E. 1988Rola makrofitow w ksztaltowaniu trofii jezior. (Effect of macrophytes on lake trophy)Wiadomosci ekologiczne34375404Google Scholar
  15. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1991Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanismThe American Naturalist137528Google Scholar
  16. Scheffer, M., 2001. Ecology of Shallow Lakes. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Sokal, R. R., Rohlf, F. J. 1995Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics and Biological ResearchW.H. Freeman and CompanyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Sokal, R. R. 1961Distance as a measure of taxonomic similaritySystematic Zoology107179Google Scholar
  19. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastwater, 1992. American Public Health Association, New York, 1137 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Strickland, J. D. & T. R. Parsons, 1972. A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis, 2nd edn. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 167.Google Scholar
  21. Ter Braak, C. J. F. & P. Šmilauer, 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and User’s Guide to CANOCO for Windows. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, USA, 353 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Donk, E., Grimm, M. P., Gulati, R. D., Klein Breteler, J.G.P. 1990Whole-lake food-web manipulation as a mean to study community interactions in a small ecosystemHydrobiologia200–201275290Google Scholar
  23. Wickham, S. A., Gilbert, J. J. 1990Relative vulnerability of natural rotifer and ciliate communities to cladocerans: laboratory and field experimentsFreshwater Biology267786Google Scholar
  24. Williamson, C.E. 1987Predator–pray interactions between omnivorous diaptomid copepods and rotifers: the role of prey morphology and behaviourLimnology and Oceanography31393402Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia Maria Kuczyńska-Kippen
    • 1
  • Barbara Nagengast
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Water ProtectionAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations