Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 594, Issue 1, pp 5–17 | Cite as

Restoring Daphnia lacustris G.O. Sars, 1862 (Crustacea, Anomopoda): a cryptic species in the Daphnia longispina group

  • Jens Petter NilssenEmail author
  • Anders Hobæk
  • Adam Petrusek
  • Morten Skage
Cladocera

Abstract

While molecular markers have revealed several distinct species within the Daphnia longispina group, there is a need to reconcile these species with traditional nomenclature. Here we show that one such species, called D. longispina in recent literature based on molecular markers, can reliably be associated with the described taxon Daphnia lacustris G.O. Sars, 1862. Both mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers readily distinguish this species from others in the D. longispina group. D. lacustris is absent in the region from which D. longispina was first described (Denmark), and the designation D. longispina must be reserved for another widespread species represented by Danish lineages. While the diagnosis of D. lacustris (and other species of the D. longispina group) by molecular markers is unequivocal, distinguishing it morphologically from other species is still problematic. The presently known distribution range of D. lacustris includes most of Norway, northern Finland and a single lake in the Polish Tatra Mountains. Its typical habitat is oligotrophic lakes without intense fish predation.

Keywords

Nomenclature Genetic markers 12S mitochondrial gene ITS Biogeography Pelagic predation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work constitutes part of a collaborate effort to elucidate species delimitation and nomenclature of the European D. longispina group, which has involved an open exchange of samples and data as well as joint analyses. A number of persons and institutions have unselfishly supported this initiative in various ways. A sample from the Polish locality was obtained from Martin Černý, and 12S sequences of Finnish populations from Klaus Schwenk. During a stay at the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen, JPN was especially supported by Jørgen Olesen. At the Zoological Museum in Oslo we were kindly supported by Marit E. Christiansen, who also shared her great knowledge on Georg Ossian Sars with us, and by Åse Wilhelmsen at the G.O. Sars’ collection. We are grateful to Svein Birger Wærvågen, Wenche Emely Nessler, Dag Klaveness, Jan Ivar Koksvik and Jørn Enerud for field assistance and/or discussions, and to the staff at the Norwegian National Library, Oslo, for their help with the Sars collection deposited there. JPN acknowledges economical support for biogeographical studies on Norwegian zooplankton from the counties of Aust-Agder, Oslo and Akershus, Buskerud, Telemark, Vestfold and Oppland. AH was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (Grant 121181/720) and by internal funding from the Norwegian Institute for Water Research. AP was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education (project MSM0021620828). His work has been partially carried out during stays at Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität in Frankfurt am Main (financed by the German Academic Exchange Service DAAD) and Katholieke Universiteit in Leuven (financed by Czech-Flemish bilateral cooperation in research and development). The support by Klaus Schwenk, Nora Brede, Luc De Meester and Joachim Mergeay during these stays is gratefully acknowledged. We thank three anonymous referees, whose comments helped improve the article. Finally, thanks are due to Lawrence Kirkendall for linguistic corrections.

References

  1. Aagaard, K. & D. Dolmen (eds), 1996. Limnofauna Norvegica. Tapir, Trondheim, 310. (in Norwegian, English introduction and summary).Google Scholar
  2. Balseiro, E. G. & M. Vega, 1994. Vulnerability of Daphnia middendorffiana to Parabroteas sarsi predation: the role of the tail spine. Journal of Plankton Research 16: 783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benzie, J. A. H., 2005. The Genus Daphnia (Including Daphniopsis) (Anomopoda: Daphniidae). Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 376.Google Scholar
  4. Billiones, R., M. Brehm, J. Klee & K. Schwenk, 2004. Genetic identification of Hyalodaphnia species and interspecific hybrids. Hydrobiologia 562: 433–453.Google Scholar
  5. Brabrand, Å. & S. J. Saltveit, 1983. Biologiske undersøkelser av Maridalsvannet, Oslo kommune. LFI-Rapport nr. 61, 1–51 (in Norwegian). ISSN 0333-161X.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, G. S., 1898. On the British species of Entomostraca belonging to Daphnia and other allied genera. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumberland and Durham 13: 217–248.Google Scholar
  7. Christiansen, M. E., 1993. Georg Ossian Sars (1837–1927), the great carcinologist of Norway. Crustacean Issues 8: 143–164.Google Scholar
  8. Christie, P., 1983. A taxonomical reappraisal of the Daphnia hyalina complex (Crustacea: Cladocera): an experimental and ecological approach. Journal of Zoology, London 199: 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daday, E., 1897. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Microfauna der Tátra-Seen. Természetrajzi Füzetek 20: 149–196.Google Scholar
  10. Flößner, D., 1972. Krebstiere, Crustacea; Kiemen- und Blattfüßer, Branchiopoda; Fischläuse, Branchiura. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands. 60 Teil. VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, 501.Google Scholar
  11. Flößner, D., 2000. Die Haplopoda and Cladocera (ohne Bosminindae) Mitteleuropas. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 428.Google Scholar
  12. Flößner, D. & K. Kraus, 1986. On the taxonomy of the Daphnia hyalina-galeata complex (Crustacea: Cladocera). Hydrobiologia 137: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey, D. G., 1982. G. O. Sars and the Norwegian Cladocera: a continuous frustration. Hydrobiologia 96: 267–293.Google Scholar
  14. Fryer, G., 1985. The ecology and distribution of the genus Daphnia (Crustacea: Cladocera) in restricted areas: the pattern in Yorkshire. Journal of natural history 19: 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gießler, S., E. Mader & K. Schwenk, 1999. Morphological evolution and genetic differentiation in Daphnia species complexes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 710–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurney, R., 1923. The crustacean plankton of the English Lake District. Journal of the Linnean Society 35: 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herbst, H. V., 1962. Blattfusskrebse (Phyllopoden: Echte Blattfüsser und Wasserflöhe). Kosmos Verlag, Stuttgart, 130.Google Scholar
  18. Hobæk, A. & H. G. Wolf, 1991. Ecological genetics of the Norwegian Daphnia. II. Distribution of Daphnia longispina genotypes in relation to short-wave radiation and water colour. Hydrobiologia 225: 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobæk, A., M. Skage & K. Schwenk, 2004. Daphnia galeata × D. longispina hybrids in western Norway. Hydrobiologia 526: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hrbáček, J., 1987. Systematics and biogeography of Daphnia in the northern temperate region. In Peters, R. H. & R. de Bernardi (eds), “Daphnia”. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia 45: 37–76.Google Scholar
  21. Huitfeldt-Kaas, H., 1906. Planktonundersøgelser i Norske Vande. Centraltrykkeriet, Kristiania. 199+3 Planches and 9 Tables (In Norwegian with German summary).Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. S., 1952. The British species of the genus Daphnia (Crustacea, Cladocera). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 122: 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar, S., K. Tamura & M. Nei, 2004. MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Briefings in Bioinformatics 5: 150–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lilljeborg, W., 1901. Cladocera Sueciae. Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis, Serie 3 19: 1–701.Google Scholar
  25. Lityński, A., 1913. Revision der Cladocerenfauna der Tatra-Seen. I. Teil. Daphnidae. Bulletin international de l’Académie des Sciences de Cracovie, Classe des Sciences. Mathématiques et Naturelles/Série. B 1913: 566–623.Google Scholar
  26. Løvik, J. E., 1984. Limnologisk forskning i Maridalsvatnet. Delrapport 3/84. Dyreplankton 1981. NIVA-report, F-81424: 1-20. ISBN 82-577-0842-9 (in Norwegian).Google Scholar
  27. Lysebo, E. M., 1995. Behavioural and morphological changes in polymorphic Daphnia related to different predation regimes. Hydrobiologia 307: 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minkiewicz, S., 1911. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Temporalvariaton zweier Daphnien aus dem Tatragebirge. Kosmos (Lwow) 36: 383–394+1 plate. (In Polish with German summary).Google Scholar
  29. Müller, O. F., 1785. Entomostraca seu insecta testacea, quae in aquis Daniæ et Norvegiæ reperit, descripsit et iconibus illustravit. J.G. Müller & F.W. Thiele. Lipsiae et Havniae. 135.Google Scholar
  30. Müller, P. E., 1868. Danmarks Cladocera. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, Serie 3, 5: 53–240, Plates I–VI (in Danish, species descriptions in Latin).Google Scholar
  31. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research), 1961. En undersøkelse av Maridalsvannet som drikkevannskilde, 1959–60. Report O-92: 1–110 (in Norwegian).Google Scholar
  32. Nordgaard, O., 1918. Michael og Ossian Sars. Steenske Forlag, Kristiania, 96 (in Norwegian).Google Scholar
  33. Nøst, T. & A. Langeland, 1994. Introduction of roach (Rutilus rutilus) in an oligohumic lake 2. Selective predation impacts on the zooplankton. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 25: 2118–2122.Google Scholar
  34. Richard, J., 1896. Revision des Cladocères. Deuxième Partie. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie et Paléontologie, 8. Série, 2: 187–363.Google Scholar
  35. Rylov, V. M., 1935. Das Zooplankton der Binnengewässer. Die Binnengewässer 15. Stuttgart, 272.Google Scholar
  36. Sars, G. O., 1861/1993. On the freshwater Crustaceans occurring in the vicinity of Christiania. Handwritten dissertation. In Christiansen, M. E., J. A. Eie, G. Halvorsen, A. Hobæk & P. Larsson. English translation (by Anders Brettingen) published by the University of Bergen, Norway, 197+113 Plates.Google Scholar
  37. Sars, G. O., 1862. Hr. Studiosus medic. G.O. Sars fortsatte sit Foredrag over de af ham i Omegnen af Christiania iagttagne Crustacea Cladocera. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania Aar 1861: 250–302 (in Norwegian, new species descriptions in Latin).Google Scholar
  38. Sars, G. O., 1863. Beretning om en i Sommeren 1862 foretagen zoologisk Reise i Christianias og Trondhjems Stifter. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne 12: 193–252 (in Norwegian, new species descriptions in Latin).Google Scholar
  39. Sars, G. O., 1864. Beretning om en i Sommeren 1863 foretagen zoologisk Reise i Christiania Stift. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne 13: 225–260 (in Norwegian, new species descriptions in Latin).Google Scholar
  40. Sars, G. O., 1890. Oversigt af Norges Crustaceer med foreløbige Bemærkninger over de nye eller mindre bekjente Arter. II. Branchiopoda, Ostracoda, Cirripedia. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania Aar 1890: 1–80 (in Norwegian, new species descriptions in Latin).Google Scholar
  41. Sars, G. O., 1903. On the Crustacean fauna of Central Asia. Part II. Cladocera. Annuaire du Musée Zoologique de l’Academie Imperiale des Sciences de St.-Petersbourg 8: 157–194.Google Scholar
  42. Schwenk, K., A. Sand, M. Boersma, M. Brehm, E. Mader, D. Offerhaus & P. Spaak, 1998. Genetic markers, genealogies and biogeographic patterns in the Cladocera. Aquatic Ecology 32: 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwenk, K., D. Posada & P. D. N. Hebert, 2000. Molecular systematics of European Hyalodaphnia: the role of contemporary hybridization in ancient species. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Series B 267: 1833–1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwenk, K., P. Junttila, M. Rautio, F. Bastiansen, J. Knapp, O. Dove, R. Billiones & B. Streit, 2004. Ecological, morphological, and genetic differentiation of Daphnia (Hyalodaphnia) from the Finnish and Russian subarctic. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 532–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scott, T., 1899. Report on special investigation. III. The invertebrate fauna of the inland waters of Scotland. Seventeenth annual report of the Fisheries Board for Scotland, Part III, 132–204 + 1 plate.Google Scholar
  46. Scourfield, D. J. & J. P. Harding, 1941. A key to the British species of freshwater Cladocera with notes on their ecology. Freshwater Biological Association of the British Empire, Scientific Publication 5: 1–50.Google Scholar
  47. Scourfield, D. J. & J. P. Harding, 1966. A key to the British species of freshwater Cladocera with notes on their ecology. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication 5: 1–55, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  48. Skage, M., A. Hobæk, Š. Ruthová, B. Keller, A. Petrusek, J. Seďa & P. Spaak, This volume. Intra-specific rDNA-ITS restriction site variation and an improved protocol to distinguish species and hybrids in the Daphnia longispina complex.Google Scholar
  49. Šrámek-Hušek, R., 1962. Řád Cladocera – perloočky. In Šrámek-Hušek, R., M. Straškraba & J. Brtek (eds), Lupenonožci – Branchiopoda. Fauna ČSSR. Vol. 16. Nakladatelství ČSAV, Praha: 174–410 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  50. Stingelin, T., 1910. Crustaceen aus kleineren Seen der Unterwaldner und Berneralpen. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 18: 107–172.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, D. J., P. D. N. Hebert & J. K. Colbourne, 1996. Phylogenetics and evolution of the Daphnia longispina group (Crustacea) based on 12S rDNA sequence and allozyme variation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 5: 495–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, D. J., H. L. Sprenger & S. Ishida, 2005. Geographic and phylogenetic evidence for dispersed nuclear introgression in a daphniid with sexual propagules. Molecular Ecology 14: 525–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tollrian, R. & G. D. Harvell (eds). 1999. Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, U.S.A.: 383.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins & T. J. Gibson, 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 4673–4680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tveten, G. & A. Hobæk, 2002. Genetisk mangfold hos Daphnia rosea. In Aagaard, K., T. Bækken & B. Jonsson (eds), Vann og vassdrag i by- og tettstedsnære områder. NINA Temahefte 19/NIVA rapport nr 4539–2002: 1–80. (in Norwegian). ISSN: 0804-421X, ISBN: 82-426-1305-2.Google Scholar
  56. Wagler, E., 1913. Faunistische und biologische Studien an freischwimmenden Cladoceren Sachsens. Zoologica 67: 305–366.Google Scholar
  57. Wagler, E., 1937. Klasse: Crustacea, Krebstiere. Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas. II, 2a. Leipzig. 224.Google Scholar
  58. Wesenberg-Lund, C., 1904. Studier Over de Danske Søers Plankton. Spesielle del I. Tekst. Nordisk Forlag, København, 223 (in Danish).Google Scholar
  59. Wesenberg-Lund, C., 1926. Contribution to the biology and morphology of the genus Daphnia, with some remarks on heredity. Kongelige Danske Videnskabers Selskab Skrifter, Naturvidenskabelig og Matematisk Afdelning (Serie 8) 11: 92–150.Google Scholar
  60. Wierzejski, A., 1882. Materyjały do fauny jezior Tatrzańskich. Sprawozdanie Komisyi Fizyjograficznéj Akademija Umiejętności w Krakowie 16: 215–229 + 2 tabs. (in Polish).Google Scholar
  61. Wolf, H. G. & A. Hobæk, 1986. Ecological genetics of Norwegian Daphnia I. Genetical differentiation between pigmented and unpigmented alpine pond populations. Hereditas 104: 193–198.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Petter Nilssen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anders Hobæk
    • 2
  • Adam Petrusek
    • 3
  • Morten Skage
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Freshwater and Marine SciencesNiels Henrik Abel CentreGjerstadNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Water ResearchRegional Office BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Faculty of Science, Department of EcologyCharles University in PraguePrague 2Czechia
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations