Spatial dynamics of rotifers in a large lowland river, the Elbe, Germany: How important are retentive shoreline habitats for the plankton community?
- 151 Downloads
The longitudinal dynamics of Rotifers in the Potamal region of the River Elbe between Dresden, km 46, and Geesthacht, km 583, was investigated on a Lagrangian survey in 2000 which included transversal sampling (left bank, main channel, right bank) and sampling of five major tributaries and backwaters to evaluate lateral impacts on the zooplankton community. A simple model of longitudinal development for the dominant species Trichocerca pusilla was calculated, based on the results of an in situ incubation in Dresden and on literature data and compared with the dynamics observed on the Lagrangian survey. To characterize the influence of groyne fields on the main channel zooplankton community, an additional lateral sampling was conducted in August 2000 at Havelberg, km 423. Zooplankton community was clearly dominated by rotifers. A distinct downstream-directed increase of rotifers was observed. Longitudinal development of rotifers could be explained predominantly by reproduction during downstream transport.
KeywordsPotamoplankton Large river Retentive shoreline habitat Transport Growth rates
We wish to thank U. Wörner, M. Steenbuck, S. Cummerow, A. Kakuschke (Hamburg) and S. Bühring (Bremen) for assistance in the field and laboratory, as well as J. Weiss (Jena) for analyzing phytoplankton samples. The authors greatly acknowledge the help of T. Hildebrandt (Hamburg) and M. Scholten (Berlin) for statistical assistance. We are also indebted to R. Eidner (BfG Berlin) for calculation of water transport time (QSIM, BfG Koblenz) and the ARGE Elbe for discharge and water temperature data. Thanks are due to A. Schlums (Potsdam) for linguistic improvements and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. The present study was supported by the federal BMBF-project TP0339606 “Stoffdynamik”of the research project “Elbe Ökologie”.
- ARGE Elbe Wassergütedaten 1999, 2000. http//www.arge-elbe.de.Google Scholar
- Desertovà, B., A. Prange & P. Punčochàř, 1996. Chlorophyll a concentrations along the River Elbe. Archives of Hydrobiology, Suppl. 113, Large Rivers, 10: 203–210.Google Scholar
- Guhr, H., U. Dreyer & D. Spott, 1996. Changes in the water quality and macrozoobenthos in the River Elbe since 1989. Archives of Hydrobiology, Suppl. 113, Large Rivers 10: 1–4, 293–298.Google Scholar
- Hein, T., G. Baranyi, C. Heiler, C. Holarek, P. Riedler & F. Schiemer, 1999. Hydrology as a major factor determining plankton development in two floodplain segments and the river Danube, Austria. Archives of Hydrobiology, Suppl. 115 (3), Large Rivers, 3: 439–452.Google Scholar
- Karrasch, B., M. Mehrens, Y. Rosenlöcher & K. Peters, 2001. The dynamics of phytoplankton, bacteria and heterotrophic flagellates at two banks near Magdeburg in the River Elbe (Germany). Limnologica 31: 93–107.Google Scholar
- Kirk, K. L., 1991. Inorganic particles alter competition in grazing plankton: the role of selektive feeding. Ecology 71: 1741–1755.Google Scholar
- Koste, W., 1978. Die Rädertiere Mitteleuropas. Begründet von Max Voigt. Gebrüder Bornträger Verlagsbuchhandlung Berlin, Stuttgart. Textband 1-8 and 1-673, Tafelband 1-234.Google Scholar
- Meister, A., 1994. Untersuchungen zum Plankton der Elbe und ihrer größeren Nebenflüsse. Limnologica 24(2): 153–214.Google Scholar
- Nusch, E. A., 1980. Comparison of different methods for chlorophyll and phaeopigment determination. Archives of Hydrobiology, Ergebnisse der Limnologie 14: 14–36.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, C. S., P. A. Carling & K. J. Beven, 1991. Flow in river channels: New insights into hydraulic retention. Archives of Hydrobiology 121(2): 171–179.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, C. S. & M. S. Glaister, 1993. Spatial and temporal changes in phytoplankton abundance in the upper and middle reaches of the River Severn. Archives of Hydrobiology, Suppl. 101, Large Rivers 9: 1–22.Google Scholar
- Schiemer, F., H. Keckeis, W. Reckendorfer & G. Winkler, 2001. The “inshore retention concept” and its significance for large rivers. Archives of Hydrobiology, Suppl. 135, Large Rivers 2–4: 509–516.Google Scholar
- Sukhodolov, A., C. Engelhardt, H. Bungartz & A. Krüger, 2001. Flow structure in groyne fields: Case study on the River Elbe. Jahresforschungsbericht 2000 des IGB, Heft, Vol. 13, 27–34.Google Scholar
- Thorp, J. H., A. R. Black, K. H. Haag & J. D. Wehr, 1994. Zooplankton assemblages in the Ohio River: Seasonal, tributary and navigation dam effects. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 51: 1634–1643.Google Scholar
- Utermöhl, H., 1958. Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitteilungen der International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 9: 1–38.Google Scholar
- Zankai, N, 1989. Horizontal distribution of rotifer plankton along a trophic gradient in Lake Balaton: Changes in community structure and abundance during the past 20 years. Archives of Hydrobiology 115(1): 111–123.Google Scholar