Skip to main content
Log in

Some aspects of vulnerability to cyclopoid predation of zooplankton prey individuals

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The predation cycle (encounter, attack, capture and ingestion or survival) by adult female Acanthocyclops robustus was observed for four crustacean prey types. The chief defense of A. robustus nauplii was escape response ability, reducing the probability of capture after attack, and, most likely, attack after encounter. The most important feature reducing the vulnerability of Ceriodaphnia and Daphnia species was large body size, decreasing the probability of capture after attack. Escape response ability and carapace strength/integrity further reduced vulnerability. Carapace strength/integrity was an effective defense for Bosmina longirostris, reducing the probability of ingestion after capture.

The predation cycle by juvenile A. robustus was examined for three prey types. All three prey types seemed to be readily attacked. Due to their possession of loricae, Keratella cochlearis and Pompholyx sulcata were seldom eaten, while the illoricate Synchaeta kitina was highly vulnerable.

Egg vulnerability after attack by the adult female predator was analysed. The eggs of Brachionus calyciflorus, Pompholyx sulcata and Filinia longiseta were rarely eaten, although the adults of the latter were usually ingested (thus causing the eggs to float free). Out of three attacks recorded on Keratella Quadrata, the eggs were eaten (or destroyed) twice.

Handling times by the adult female predator were measured for a number of prey types. The shortest mean handling time was for Synchaeta kitina (less than one second), while the longest was on Ceriodaphnia species (716 seconds). Results were quite variable. Handling time was significantly positively related to prey body volume, while exoskeletal strength/integrity also increased this time. No effect of temperature on handling time was found for Synchaeta pectinata or Polyarthra major between 15 and 26.5 °C.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brandl, Z. & C. H. Fernando, 1975. Food consumption and utilization in two freshwater Cyclopoid Copepods (Mesocyclops edax and Cyclops vicinus). Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 60: 471–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandl, Z. & C. H. Fernando, 1986. Feeding and food consumption by Mesocyclops edax. Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Copepoda, Nat. Mus. Nat. Sciences Can., Syllogus No. 58: 254–258.

  • Cook, R. M. & B. J. Cockrell, 1978. Predator ingestion rate and its bearing on feeding time and the theory of optimal diets. J. anim. Ecol. 47: 529–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, W. T., 1960. Reproductive rates of rotifers in natural populations. Mem. Ist. ital. Idrobiol. 12: 21–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, W. T., 1974. Secondary production. Verb. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 229–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerritsen, J., 1978. Instar-specific swimming patterns and predation of planktonic copepods. Verb. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 2531–2536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. J., 1980. Further observations on developmental polymorphism and its evolution in the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Freshwat. Biol. 10: 281–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. J. & C. E. Williamson, 1978. Predator-prey behaviour and its effect on rotifer survival in associations of Mesocyclops edax, Asplanchna girodi, Polyarthra vulgaris and Keratella cochlearis. Oecologia 37: 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giller, P. S., 1980. The control of handling time and its effects on the foraging strategy of a heteropteran predator, Notonecta. J. anim. Ecol. 49: 699–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gophen, M., 1977. Food and feeding habits of Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus) in Lake Kinneret (Israel). Freshwat. Biol. 7: 513–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C. H., 1983. Selective predation in freshwater zooplankton communities. Int. Revue. ges. Hydrobiol. 68: 297–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassell, M. P., 1978. The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Monographs in Population Biology 13, Princeton, New Jersey, 237 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S., 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 45: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. N. & R. W. Elner, 1979. Tactics of a predator, Carcinus maenas, and morphological responses of the prey, Nucella lapillus. J. anim. Ecol. 48: 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, C. D., 1980. The predatory feeding of copepodid stages III to adult Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus). In W. C. Kerfoot (ed.) Evolution and Ecology of Zooplankton Communities. The University Press of New England, Hanover (N.H.); Lond.: 518–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karabin, A., 1978. The pressure of pelagic predators of the genus Mesocyclops (Copepoda, Crustacea) on small zooplankton. Ekol. Pol. 26: 241–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerfoot, W. C., 1977. Implications of copepod predation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22: 316–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerfoot, W. C., 1978. Combat between predatory copepods and their prey: Cyclops, Epischura and Bosmina. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23: 1089–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerfoot, W. C., D. L. Kellogg, Jr. & J. R. Strickler, 1980. Visual observations of live zooplankters: Evasion, escape, and chemical defenses. In W. C. Kerfoot (ed.), Evolution and Ecology of Zooplankton Communities. The University Press of New England, Hanover (N.H.); Lond.: 10–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. L. & H. W. Li, 1979. Species-specific factors affecting predator-prey interactions of the copepod Acanthocyclops vernalis with its natural prey. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 613–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, K. F., 1987. Post-encounter vulnerability of some rotifer prey types to predation by the copepod Acanthocyclops robustus. Hydrobiologia 147: 229–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttner-Kolisko, A., 1977. Suggestions for biomass calculation of plankton rotifers. Arch. Hydrobiol. 8: 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemberger, R. S., 1985. Prey selection by the copepod Diacyclops thomasi. Oecologia 65: 492–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemberger, R. S. & J. J. Gilbert, 1984. Spine development in the rotifer Keratella cochlearis: induction by cyclopoid copepods and Asplanchna. Freshwat. Biol. 14: 639–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemberger, R. S. & J. J. Gilbert, 1987. Defenses of planktonic rotifers against predators. In W. C. Kerfoot & A. Sih (eds), Predation: Direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. The University Press of New England, Hanover (N.H.); Lond.: 227–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickler, J. R., 1975. Intra- and interspecific information flow among copepods: II. Receptors. Verb. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 2951–2958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. J., 1984. Predation. Population and community biology series. Chapman & Hall, New York, 166 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Threlkeld, S. T., 1979. Estimating cladoceran birth rates: the importance of egg mortality and the egg age distribution. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 601–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E. E., 1974. The fish size, prey size, handling time relation in several sunfishes and some implications. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 31: 1531–1536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C. E., 1980. The predatory behaviour of Mesocyclops edax: Predator preferences, prey defenses and starvation induced changes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25: 903–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C. E., 1983. Behavioural interactions between a cyclopoid copepod predator and its prey. J. Plankton Res. 5: 701–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C. E., 1986. The swimming and feeding behavior of Mesocyclops. Hydrobiologia 134: 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C. E. & J. J. Gilbert, 1980. Variation among zooplankton predators: the potential of Asplanchna, Mesocyclops and Cyclops to attack, capture and eat various rotifer prey. In W. C. Kerfoot (ed.), Evolution and Ecology of Zooplankton Communities. The University Press of New England, Hanover (N.H.); London.: 509–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. K., 1981. Predatory feeding behavior of Epischura lacustris (Copepoda, Calanoida) and prey defense. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 38: 275–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, R. E. & W. C. Kerfoot, 1980. The shape and swimming technique of Bosmina longirostris. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25: 126–133.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roche, K. Some aspects of vulnerability to cyclopoid predation of zooplankton prey individuals. Hydrobiologia 198, 153–162 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00048632

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00048632

Key words

Navigation