, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 137–147 | Cite as

The effect of environmental factors on the activity ofGammarus pseudolimnaeus (Amphipoda)

  • D. Dudley Williams
  • Kathryn A. Moore


Various environmental parameters which may affect the activity ofGammarus pseudolimnaeus were examined in the laboratory. The animals' responses were monitored automatically using an ultraviolet beam interruption technique. The basic diel activity pattern in the fall showed high rates of drifting at night but in the summer showed uniform drift throughout the light/dark cycle. Upstream activity was greater in the summer when it compensated approximately 11% of the number of animals drifting downstream. A large-sized gravel substrate (31.5 mm diameter) produced significantly lower night-time drift than either a medium-sized gravel (11.0 mm diameter) or a small-sized gravel (3.4 mm diameter). Animals drifted more at current speeds of 5 to 15 cm/s than at 20 to 25 cm/s. The introduction of rainbow trout to the tanks in the day or night caused almost total cessation of drift and upstream activity within minutes. Trials with fish water suggested that the amphipods detect some form of labile exudate produced by the fishes. Additions of toxicants, in the form of sulphuric acid and NaCl, produced changes in activity levels before lethal concentrations were reached.


Gammarus pseudolimnaeus benthos activity substrate size current fish predation acid water sodium chloride 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan, J. D., 1978. Trout predation and the size composition of stream drift. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23: 1231–1237.Google Scholar
  2. Bousfield, E. L., 1958. Freshwater amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can. Field-Nat. 72: 55–113.Google Scholar
  3. Crowther, R. A. & Hynes, H. B. N., 1977. The effect of road deicing salt on the drift of stream benthos. Environ. Pollut. 14: 113–126.Google Scholar
  4. Dennert, H. G., Dennert, A. L., Kant, P., Pinkster, S. & Stock, J. H., 1969. Upstream and downstream migrations in relation to the reproductive cycle and to environmental factors in the amphipod, Gammarus zaddachi. Bijdr. Dierk. 39: 11–43.Google Scholar
  5. Holt, C. S. & Waters, T. F., 1967. Effects of light intensity on the drift of stream invertebrates. Ecology 48: 225–234.Google Scholar
  6. Hultin, L., 1971. Upstream movement of Gammarus p. pulex (Amphipoda) in a south Swedish stream. Oikos 22: 329–347.Google Scholar
  7. Hynes, H. B. N., 1955. The reproductive cycle of some British freshwater Gammaridae. J. Anim. Ecol. 24: 352–387.Google Scholar
  8. Hynes, H. B. N. & Harper, F., 1972. The life histories of Gammarus lacustris and G. pseudolimnaeus in southern Ontario. Crustaceana 3: 328–341.Google Scholar
  9. Kleerekoper, H. & Mogensen, J., 1963. Role of olfaction in the orientation of Petromyzon marinus. 1. Response to a single amine in prey's body odour. Physiol. Zool. 36: 347–360.Google Scholar
  10. Marchant, R. & Hynes, H. B. N., 1981. The distribution and production of Gammarus pseudolimnaeus (Crustacea; Amphipoda) along a reach of the Credit River, Ontario. Freshwat. Biol. 11: 169–182.Google Scholar
  11. Meijering, M. P. D., 1972. Experimental studies on drift and upstream and downstream movements of gammarids in running water. Arch. Hydrobiol. 70: 133–205.Google Scholar
  12. Meijering, M. P. D., 1973. Quantitative Untersuchungen zur Drift and Aufwanderung von Gammarus fossarum Koch in einem Mittelgebirgsbach. Verh. Ges. Ökologie, Saarbrucken 1973, 143–147.Google Scholar
  13. Minckley, W. L., 1964. Upstream movements of Gammarus (Amphipoda) in Doe Run Meade Country, Kentucky. Ecology 45: 195–197.Google Scholar
  14. Müller, K., 1974. Stream drift as a chronobiological phenomenon in running water ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. System. 5: 309–323.Google Scholar
  15. Peckarsky, B. L., 1980. Predator-prey interactions between stoneflies and mayflies: behavioural observations. Ecology 61: 932–943.Google Scholar
  16. Rees, C. P., 1972. The distribution of the amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield as influenced by oxygen consumption, substratum, and current velocity. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 91: 514–529.Google Scholar
  17. Stein, R. A. & Magnuson, J. J., 1976. Behavioural response of crayfish to a fish predator. Ecology 57: 751–761.Google Scholar
  18. Wallace, R. R., 1977. A discussion on the use of behaviour by Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield in evaluating environmental stress. Proc. 3rd Aquatic Toxicity Workshop, Halifax, N. S., Nov. 2–3, 1976. Environmental Protection Service Tech. Rep. No. EPS-5AR-77–1, Halifax, Canada, pp. 59–67.Google Scholar
  19. Wallace, R. R., Hynes, H. B. N. & Kaushik, N. K., 1975. Laboratory experiments on factors affecting the activity of Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield. Freshwat. Biol. 5: 533–546.Google Scholar
  20. Waters, T. F., 1962. Diurnal periodicity in the drift of stream invertebrates. Ecology 43: 316–320.Google Scholar
  21. Waters, T. F., 1972. The drift of stream insects. Ann. Rev. Ent. 17: 253–272.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, D. D., 1980. Temporal patterns in the recolonization of stream benthos. Arch. Hydrobiol. 90: 56–74.Google Scholar
  23. Zar, J. H., 1974. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Dudley Williams
    • 1
  • Kathryn A. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Life Sciences, Scarborough CollegeUniversity of TorontoWest HillCanada

Personalised recommendations