Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 442, Issue 1–3, pp 291–300 | Cite as

Species-specific population-density thresholds in cladocerans?

  • Z. Maciej Gliwicz
Article

Abstract

The population density of a Daphnia species seems more dependent on properties specific to the species than on those specific to the point in the season, location within a lake basin or the given lake itself. In spite of week-to-week fluctuations, the population density for each of two common European Daphniaspecies was found to be remarkably similar within single lakes (from station to station on a single date, and from date to date at a single station) as well as from lake to lake, regardless of trophic state. All lakes on all dates revealed densities in the range 10–50 ind l−1 for the smaller-bodied D. cucullata and 1–5 ind l−1 for the larger-bodied D. hyalina, in spite of different intensity of reproduction resulting from different food levels (chlorophyll a between 0.2 and 4.2 μg/l). It can be asserted that the population density of each species remains far below the carrying capacity of the habitat K, and does not depend on food levels, which merely set the rate of population increase, while the population density reflects the species' vulnerability to predation by planktivorous fish. The reactive distance (the distance over which a foraging fish can see its prey) in 1+ roach, a dominant planktivore in the lakes studied, has been found to be twice as great for D. hyalina as for D. cucullata, whatever the light intensity. The relative reactive field volume was therefore an order of magnitude greater for the former than for the latter, showing that the densities of the two prey species would be assessed by a foraging roach as equal when, in reality, they differed by an order of magnitude, as they do in various lakes and in various seasons.

The first of the two conclusions is that whatever the growth and reproduction in a population of a cladoceran such as Daphnia, its density would be fixed by mortality induced by fish predation. The second would be, that the difference between the bottom-up and top-down effects in freshwater is more than merely the upward or downward direction along the food web, since the bottom-up effects are about the flow control (the rate of net production, individual growth rate, rate of reproduction) and the top-down about the standing-crop control (biomass, individual body size, population density level).

birth and death rates Daphnia planktivorous fish reactive distance and relative reactive field volume relative prey density 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cáceres, C. E., 1998. Seasonal dynamics and interspecific competition in Oneida Lake Daphnia. Oecologia 115: 233–244.Google Scholar
  2. Connell, J. H., 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.Google Scholar
  3. Eggers, D. M., 1982. Planktivore preference by prey size. Ecology 63: 381–390.Google Scholar
  4. Fott, J., B. Desortova & J. Hrbacek, 1980. A comparison of the growth of flagellates under heavy grazing stress with a continuous culture. Contin. Cultiv. Mcroorganisms, Proc. 7th Symp. Prague: 395–401.Google Scholar
  5. Fott, J., V. Koøínek, M. Prazakova, B. Vondrus & K. Forejt, 1974. Seasonal development of phytoplankton in fish ponds. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 59: 629–641.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, M. B., 1981. Mechanisms of size selectivity by planktivorous fish: a test of hypotheses. Ecology 62: 571–578.Google Scholar
  7. Ghilarov, A., 1984. The paradox of the plankton reconsidered; or why do species coexist? Oikos 43: 46–52.Google Scholar
  8. Giske, J., G. Huse & Ø. Fiksen, 1998. Modelling spatial dynamics of fish. Rev. Fish Biol Fisheries 8: 57–91.Google Scholar
  9. Gliwicz, Z. M., 1986. A lunar cycle in zooplankton. Ecology 67: 885–897.Google Scholar
  10. Gliwicz, Z. M., 1990. Food thresholds and body size in cladocerans. Nature 343: 638–640Google Scholar
  11. Gliwicz, Z. M., A. E. Rutkowska and J. Wojciechowska, 2000. Daphnia populations in three interconnected lakes with roach as the principal planktivore. J. Plankton Res. 22: 1539–1557.Google Scholar
  12. Gliwicz, Z. M., W. A. Wutsbaugh & A. Ward, 1995. Brine shrimp ecology in the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Rep. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, 83 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Hebert, P. D. N. & T. J. Crease, 1980. Clonal coexistence in Daphnia pulex: another planktonic paradox. Science 207: 1363–1365.Google Scholar
  14. Hu, S. S. & A. J. Tessier, 1995. Seasonal succession and the strength of intra-and interspecific competition in Daphnia assemblage. Ecology 76: 2279–2294.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchinson, G. E., 1961. The paradox of the plankton. Am. Nat. 95: 137–147.Google Scholar
  16. Lampert, W. & U. Sommer, 1993. Limnoökologie. Georg Thiemme Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, 440 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Luo, J. G., S. B. Brandt & M. J. Klebasko, 1996. Virtual reality of planktivores: A fish's perspective of prey size selection. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 140: 271–283.Google Scholar
  18. Mlonek, A., 1998. Day and nighttime depth distribution in planktonic crustaceans in 15 lakes of North-Eastern Poland. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw (in Polish).Google Scholar
  19. O'Brien, W. J., 1987. Planktivory by freshwater fish: thrust and parry in the pelagia. In Kerfoot W. C. & A. Sih (eds), Predation. Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover & London: 5–16.Google Scholar
  20. O'Brien, W. J., N. A. Slade & G. L. Viniard, 1976. Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57: 1304–1310.Google Scholar
  21. Rothhaupt, K. O., 1988. Mechanistic resource competition theory applied to laboratory experiments with zooplankton. Nature 333: 660–662.Google Scholar
  22. Rothhaupt, K. O., 1990. Resource competition of herbivorous zooplankton: a review of approaches and perspectives. Arch. Hydrobiol. 118: 1–29.Google Scholar
  23. Sliwowska, M., 2000. Reactive distance in juvenile roach, rudd and perch fed different cladoceran species. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw (in Polish).Google Scholar
  24. Tilman, D., 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton: 296 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Tollrian, R. & C. D. Harvell, 1999. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press. Princeton: 383 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Vanderploeg, H. A. & D. Scavia, 1979. The electivity indices for feeding with special reference for zooplankton grazing. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 36: 362–365.Google Scholar
  27. Von Frish, K., 1941. Uber einen Schreckstoff der Fischhaut und seine biologische Bedeutung. Z. vergl. Physiol. 29: 46–145.Google Scholar
  28. Werner, E. E. & D. J. Hall, 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55: 1042–1052.Google Scholar
  29. Wetterer, J. K. & C. J. Bishop, 1985. Planktivore prey selection: the reactive field volume model vs. the apparent size model. Ecology 66: 457–464.Google Scholar
  30. Wisniowska, Z., 1999. Ontogenetic shifts in the diet of roach Rutilus rutilus L. in Lake Ublik Maly. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw (in Polish).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Z. Maciej Gliwicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations