, Volume 579, Issue 1, pp 393–399 | Cite as

Effect of watershed land use and lake age on zooplankton species richness

  • Stanley I. DodsonEmail author
  • William R. Everhart
  • Andrew K. Jandl
  • Sara J. Krauskopf
Short Research Note


Results of a field survey of southern Wisconsin shallow lakes suggested that watershed (catchment basin) land use has a significant and adverse effect on zooplankton species richness. Zooplankton communities in lakes with no riparian buffer zone, in agriculture-dominated watersheds, contained about half as many species as lakes in least-impact watersheds. In that study, the age of the lake was not taken into account. It is possible that agricultural lakes, often artificial, were so recently-constructed that they had not yet accumulated the equilibrium number of species characteristic of older lakes. In other words, it is possible that the interpretation of the results of the previous study is fatally flawed, if the results were an artifact of lake age, rather than an effect of land use. The major aim of this current study was to determine the ages of agricultural lakes and of lakes in least-impact watersheds, to test for an effect of lake age on zooplankton species richness, using the same sites from the previous study. We used an anova approach to test the null hypothesis that two factors, watershed land use and lake age, had no systematic effect on zooplankton species richness. We determined the age of 35 shallow lakes, using aerial photos, satellite images, and interviews of resource managers and land owners. We identified five artificial agricultural sites and five artificial sites in least-impact prairie watersheds. The artificial sites in this study ranged from 3 to 37 years in age, while natural lakes dated from the melting of the last glacier, about 9500 years ago. Our results suggest, that because artificial lake made up only about a third of the sites, and for the range of lake age and watershed land use, lake age did not have a significant effect on zooplankton species richness, while land use had a highly significant adverse effect. These results pose a larger question for future research. Namely, how quickly do newly-constructed lakes attain the equilibrium number of species seen in the previous study, and what is the quantitative relationship between lake age and zooplankton richness?


Shallow lake Land use Age effect Species richness Zooplankton Wisconsin 



R. Bohanan made this research project possible, by organizing the research group and using funding from the NSF Research Experiences for Teachers Supplement to NSF LTER grant # DEB-9632–853. We are grateful to the private land owners who gave us valuable information concerning lake age, and to members of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, especially R. Bautz, who shared their extensive experience of the biology and age of these lakes.


  1. Birch, S. & J. McCaskie, 1999. Shallow urban lakes: a challenge for lake management. Hydrobiologia 396: 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, A. R. & S. I. Dodson, 2003. Ethanol: A better short-term preservation technique for freshwater branchiopoda. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 1: 45–50.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L. R., C. Flavin, H. French, L. Starke & J. A. Abramovitz, et al. 2000. State of the World 2000. The Worldwatch Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Cáceres, C. E. & D. A. Soluk, 2002. Blowing in the wind: a field test of overland dispersal and colonization by aquatic invertebrates. Oecologia 131: 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin, F. S., E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviner, R. L. Naylor, P. M. Vitousek, H. L. Reynolds, D. U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O. E. Sala, S. E. Hobbie, M. C. Mack & S. Diaz, 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405(6783): 234–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6230): 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Declerck, S., J. Vandekerkhove, L. Johansson, K. Muylaert, J. M. Conde-Porcuna, K. Van der Gucht, C. Perez-Martinez, T. Lauridsen, K. Schwenk, G. Zwart, W. Rommens, J. Lopez-Ramos, E. Jeppesen, W. Vyverman, L. Brendonck & L. De Meester, 2005. Multi-group biodiversity in shallow lakes along gradients of phosphorus and water plant cover. Ecology 86: 1095–1915.Google Scholar
  8. Dodson, S. I., R. A. Lillie & S. Will-Wolf, 2005. Land use, water chemistry, aquatic vegetation, and zooplankton community structure of shallow lakes. Ecological Applications 15: 1191–1198.Google Scholar
  9. Foley, J. A., et al. 2005. Global Consequences of land use. Science 309: 570–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forbes, S. T., 1887. The lake as a microcosm. Bulletin of the Peoria (Illinois) Scientific Association. Reprinted in Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey 15: 537–550 (1925).Google Scholar
  11. Jenkins, D. G. & A. L. Buikema. 1998. Do similar communities develop in similar sites? A test with zooplankton structure and function. Ecological Monographs 68: 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffmann, M. D. & S. I. Dodson. 2005. Land Use, Primary Productivity, and Lake Area as Descriptors of Zooplankton Diversity. Ecology 86: 255–261.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, R. M., S. G. Paulsen & J. L. Stoddard, 2000. EMAP-Surface Waters: a multiassemblage, probability survey of ecological integrity in the USA . Hydrobiologia 422: 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaushal, S. S., P. M. Groffman, G. E. Likens, K. T. Belt, W. P. Stack, V. P. Kelly, L. E. Band & G. T. Fisher, 2005. Increased salinization of fresh water in the northeastern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 13517–13520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, L., 1965. The Physical Geography of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. USA. 608 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Naiman, R. J., J. J. Magnuson, D.M. McKnight & J.A. Stanford, 1995. The Freshwater Imperative. Island Press, Washington DC. (species).Google Scholar
  17. Nassauer, J. I., J. D. Allan, T. Johengen, S. E. Kosek & D. Infante, 2004. Exurban residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception. Urban Ecosystems 7: 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ramankutty, N., J. A. Foley, J. Norman & K. McSweeney. 2002.The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Global Ecology & Biogeography 11: 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheffer, M. & S. R. Carpenter, 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 648–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schell, J. M., C. J. Santos-Flores, B. M. Hunker, S. Kloehn, A. Michelson, R. A. Lillie & S. I Dodson, 2001. Zooplankton of small lakes and wetland ponds in Wisconson, USA. Hydrobiologia 445: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SYSTAT, 2000. Version 10. SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Vallentyne, J.R., 1974. The algal bowl: Lakes and men. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Misc. Spec. Publ. 22. Environment Canada. Ottawa. Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Vanni, M. J., K. K. Arend, M. T. Bremigan, D. B. Bunnell, J. E. Garvey, M. J. Gonzalez, W. H. Renwick, P. A. Soranno & R. A. Stein 2005. Linking landscapes and food webs: Effects of omnivorous fish and watersheds on reservoir ecosystems. BioScience 55: 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco & J. M. Melillo, 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wetzel, R. G., 1992. Clean Water – A Fading Resource. Hydrobiologia 243: 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanley I. Dodson
    • 1
    Email author
  • William R. Everhart
    • 2
  • Andrew K. Jandl
    • 2
  • Sara J. Krauskopf
    • 2
  1. 1.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Madison East High SchoolMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations