Skip to main content
Log in

The production of Ephemeroptera in running waters

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Live weight was calculated for the larvae of Ephemeroptera and other zoobenthos on many localities in the catchment area of the Morava River. At monthly sampling the year-round production of the larvae was derived and the results tabulated for individual stretches in g m−2 year−1. The communities were classified also saprobiologically and the effect of saprobity on the production of mayflies in the individual zones was presented in the second table. Mayflies are considered very important for fish production in running waters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht, M. L. 1959. Die quantitative Untersuchung der Bodenfauna fliessender Gewässer. Z. Fischerei 8 (N.F.): 481–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badcock, R. M. 1954. Studies of the Benthic Fauna in Tributaries of the Kävlinge River, Southern Sweden. Ann. Rep. 35: 21–37, Inst. Freshw. Res. Drottningholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, K. 1948. Biological Studies on the River Susaa. Fol. Limnol. Scand. No. 4: 1–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, W. K. & Wuychek, J. C. 1971. Caloric Equivalents for Investigations in Ecological Energetics. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. No. 18: 1–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, W. T. 1974. Secondary production. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20: 229–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flössner, D. 1976. Biomase und Production des Makrobenthos der mittleren Saale. Limnologica (Berlin) 10 (1): 123–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frič, A. 1972. Obratlovci země české. Archiv pro přírodovědecké prozkoumání Čech. 2, odd. 4, No. 18: 1–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, A. L. 1969. On estimating annual production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14: 771–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helan, J. et al. 1973. Production Conditions in the Trout Brooks of the Beskydy Mountains. Folia Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Purkynianae Brunensis, Biol. 38, 14 (4): 1–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, H. B. N. & Coleman, M. V. 1968. A simple method of assessing the annual production of stream benthos. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13: 569–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illies, J. 1956. Seeausflus-Biozönosen lappländischer Waldbäche. Entomol. Ts. Agr. 77: 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illies, J. & Botosaneanu, L. 1963. Problémes et méthodes de la classification et de la zonation écologique des eaux courantes, considerées surtout du point de vue faunistique. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. No. 12: 1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keffermüller, M. & Machel, M. 1967. Baetis tracheatus, sp. n. (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Badania fizjograficzne nad Polska zachodnia 22 (1): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubíček, F. 1969. The use of a drycell centrifuge for the determination of biomass. Biológia 24 (3): 245–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peňáz, M. et al. 1968. Influence of the Vír River Valley Reservoir of the Hydrobiological and Ichthyological Conditions in the River Svratka. Acta sci. nat. Brno 2 (1): 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichodskaja, F. G. et al. 1975. Kormovaja cennost nekotorych bespozvonočnych rek Prikarpatja. Samoočiščenie, bioproduktivnost i ochrana vodojemov i vodotokov Ukrajiny. Voprosy gidrobiologii IG AN USSR Kijev: 137–138.

  • Russev, B. K. 1973. Kompensationsflug bei der Ordnung Ephemeroptera. Proc. of the First Internat. Conference on Ephemeroptera: 132–142.

  • Sedlák, E. 1969. Die Biomasse der Bodenfauna des Flusses Loučka und ihre Beziehung zur Nährung der Forelle. Folia fac. sci. nat. Univ. Purkynianae Brunensis, Biol. 10 (8): 115–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieminska, J. 1956. Hydrobiologiczna i rybacka charakterystyka rzeki Bynicy. -Polskie Arch. Hydrobiol. 3: 69–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, T. F. & Crawford, G. W. 1973. Annual production of a stream mayfly population: a comparison of methods. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18: 286–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winberg, G. G. et al. 1971. Methods for Calculating Productivity. In: Edmondson, W. T. & Winberg, G. G. 1971. A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. IBP Handbook No. 17: 296–316.

  • Zahrádka, J. 1976. Produkční biologie dvou druhů jepic — Potamanthus luteus a Ephoron virgo. Univ. J. E. Purkyně Brno, diplomová práce zoologie: 1–68.

  • Zaika, V. E. 1972. Specific production of aquatic invertebrates. Kiev, pp. 147 (Russian, English summary.)

  • Zelinka, M. 1968. Results of Limnological Investigations on the Valley Reservoirs in the Morava River Basin. Acta sci. nat. Brno 2 (12): 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelinka, M. 1969. Die Eintagsfliegen (Ephemeroptera) in Forellenbächen der Beskiden. I. — Abundaz und Biomasse. Folia fac. sci. nat. Univ. Purkyninae Brunensis 10, Biol. 25 (8): 155–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelinka, M. 1971. Konkurenčnii potravní vztahy v pstruhovém toku. Vertebrat. zprávy 2: 95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelinka, M. 1973. Die Eintagsfliegen (Ephemeroptera) in Forellenbächen der Beskiden. II. — Produktion. Hydrobiologia 42 (1): 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelinka, M. et al. 1977. Production conditions of the polluted trout brook. Folia Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Purkynianae Brunensis-in print.

  • Zelinka, M. & Marvan, P. 1977. Notes to Methods for Estimating Production of Zoobenthos. Folia Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Purkynianae Brunensis 17, Biol. 58 (10): 1–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zelinka, M. The production of Ephemeroptera in running waters. Hydrobiologia 56, 121–125 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00023349

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00023349

Keywords

Navigation