, Volume 490, Issue 1–3, pp 125–134 | Cite as

Seasonal succession in fishless ponds: effects of enrichment and invertebrate predators on zooplankton community structure

  • Christopher F. Steiner
  • Allison H. Roy


Size-selective predation by fish is often considered to be a primary driver of seasonal declines in large-bodied Daphnia populations. However, large Daphnia commonly exhibit midsummer extinctions in ponds lacking planktivorous fish. A number of empirical and theoretical studies suggest that resource competition and its interaction with nutrient enrichment may determine variable dominance by large Daphnia. Low resource levels may favor competitive dominance by small-bodied taxa while large Daphnia may be favored under high resource conditions or following a nutrient/productivity pulse. Nutrient enrichment may also influence the strength of invertebrate predation on Daphnia by affecting how long vulnerable juveniles are exposed to predation. We investigated these hypotheses using an in situ mesocosm experiment in a permanent fishless pond that exhibited seasonal losses of Daphnia pulex. To explore the effects of nutrient enrichment, Daphnia plus a diverse assemblage of small-bodied zooplankton were exposed to three levels of enrichment (low, medium, and high). To explore the interaction between nutrient enrichment and invertebrate predation, we crossed the presence/absence of Notonecta undulata with low and high nutrient manipulations. We found no evidence of competitive reversals or shifts in dominance among nutrient levels, Daphnia performed poorly regardless of enrichment. This may have been due to shifts in algal composition to dominance by large filamentous green algae. Notonecta had significant negative effects on Daphnia alone, but no interaction with nutrient enrichment was detected. These results suggest that Daphnia are not invariably superior resource competitors compared to small taxa. Though predators can have negative effects, their presence is not necessary to explain poor Daphnia performance. Rather, abiotic conditions and/or resource-based effects are probably of greater importance.

competition Daphnia enrichment Notonecta seasonal succession size-efficiency hypothesis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arner, M., S. Koivisto, J. Norberg, & N. Kautsky, 1998. Trophic interactions in rockpool food webs: regulation of zooplankton and phytoplankton by Notonecta and Daphnia. Freshwat. Biol. 39: 79–90.Google Scholar
  2. Auchenbach, L. & W. Lampert, 1997. Effects of elevated temperatures on threshold food concentrations and possible competitive abilities of differently sized cladoceran species. Oikos 79: 469–476.Google Scholar
  3. Bengtsson, J., 1987. Competitive dominance among Cladocera: are single-factor explanations enough? An examination of the experimental evidence. Hydrobiologia 145: 245–257.Google Scholar
  4. Bogdan, K. G. & J. J. Gilbert, 1987. Quantitative comparison of food niches in some freshwater zooplankton: a multi-tracer-cell approach. Oecologia 72: 331–340.Google Scholar
  5. Bohannan, B. J. M. & R. E. Lenski, 1999. Effect of prey heterogeneity on the response of a model food chain to resourceenrichment. Am. Nat. 153: 73–82.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, J. L. & S. I. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28–35.Google Scholar
  7. Chase, J. M., 1999. Food web effects of prey size refugia: Variable interactions and alternative stable equilibria. Am. Nat. 154: 559–570.Google Scholar
  8. DeMott, W. R., 1989. The role of competition in zooplankton succession. In Sommer, U. (ed.), Plankton Ecology: Succession in Plankton Communities. Springer-Verlag, New York: 195–252.Google Scholar
  9. Dodson, S. I., 1970. Complementary feeding niches sustained by size-selective predation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 15: 131–137.Google Scholar
  10. Gliwicz, Z. M. & W. Lampert, 1990. Food thresholds in Daphnia species in the absence and presence of blue-green filaments. Ecology 71: 691–702.Google Scholar
  11. Gliwicz, Z. M. & J. Pijanowska, 1989. The role of predation in zooplankton succession. In Sommer, U. (ed.), Plankton Ecology: Succession in Plankton Communities. Springer-Verlag, New York: 253–295.Google Scholar
  12. Gliwicz, Z. M. & E. Seidlar, 1980. Food size limitation and algae interfering with food collection in Daphnia. Arch. Hydrobiol. 88: 155–177.Google Scholar
  13. Goulden, C. E., L. L. Hornig & C. Wilson, 1978. Why do large zooplankton species dominate? Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. Verh. 20: 2457–2460.Google Scholar
  14. Goulden, C. E., L. L. Henry & A. J. Tessier, 1982. Body size, energy reserves, and competitive ability in three species of cladocera. Ecology 63: 1780–1789.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, D. J., W. E. Cooper & E. E. Werner, 1970. An experimental approach to the production dynamics and structure of freshwater animal communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 15: 839–928.Google Scholar
  16. Healey, F. P. & L. L. Hendzel, 1976. Physiological indicators of nutrient deficiency in lake phytoplankton. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37: 442–453.Google Scholar
  17. Hrbacek, J., M. Dvorakova, V. Korinek & L. Prochazkova, 1961. Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. Verh. 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  18. Kerfoot, W. C., C. Levitan & W. R. DeMott, 1988. Daphniaphytoplankton interactions: density-dependent shifts in resource quality. Ecology 69: 1806–1825.Google Scholar
  19. Knisely, K. & W. Geller, 1986. Selective feeding of four zooplankton species in natural lake phytoplankton. Oecologia 69: 86–94.Google Scholar
  20. Lynch, M., 1978. Complex interactions between natural coexploiters–Daphnia and Ceriodaphnia. Ecology 59: 552–564.Google Scholar
  21. Lynch, M., 1979. Predation, competition, and zooplankton community structure: an experimental study. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 253–272.Google Scholar
  22. McCauley, E. & F. Briand, 1979. Zooplankton grazing and phytoplankton species richness: field tests of the predation hypothesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 243–252.Google Scholar
  23. McCauley, E., 1984. The estimation of the abundances and biomass of zooplankton in samples. In Downing, J. A. & F. Rigler (eds), A Manual on the Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Freshwaters. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 228–265.Google Scholar
  24. McCauley, E., W. W. Murdoch & S. Watson, 1988. Simple models and variation in plankton densities among lakes. Am. Nat. 132: 383–403.Google Scholar
  25. Mittelbach, G. G., A. M. Turner, D. J. Hall, J. E. Rettig & C. W. Osenberg, 1995. Perturbation and resilience: a long-term, wholelake study of predator extinction and reintroduction. Ecology 76: 2347–2360.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, M. & C. Folt, 1993. Zooplankton body size and community structure: effects of thermal and toxicant stress. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 178–183.Google Scholar
  27. Morin, P. J., 1987. Salamander predation, prey facilitation, and seasonal succession in microcrustacean communities. In Kerfoot, W. C. & A. Sih (eds), Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England, Hanover: 174–187.Google Scholar
  28. Murdoch, W. W., M. A. Scott & P. Ebsworth, 1984. Effects of the general predator Notonecta (Hemiptera) upon a freshwater community. J. anim. Ecol. 53: 791–808.Google Scholar
  29. Neill, W. E., 1975a. Experimental studies of microcrustacean competition, community composition, and efficiency of resource utilization. Ecology 56: 809–826.Google Scholar
  30. Neill, W. E., 1975b. Resource partitioning by competing microcrustaceans in stable laboratory microecosystems. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. Verh. 19: 2885–2890.Google Scholar
  31. Pace, M. L., K. G. Porter & Y. S. Feig, 1983. Species-and agespecific differences in bacterial resource utilization by two cooccurring cladocerans. Ecology 64: 1145–1156.Google Scholar
  32. Pastorak, R. A., 1981. Prey vulnerability and size selection by Chaoborus larvae. Ecology 62: 1311–1324.Google Scholar
  33. Reynolds, C. S., 1984. The Ecology of Freshwater Phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  34. Richman, S. & S. I. Dodson, 1983. The effect of food quality on feeding and respiration by Daphnia and Diaptomus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28: 948–956.Google Scholar
  35. Romanovsky, Y. E. & I. Y. Feniova, 1985. Competition among Cladocera: effect of different levels of food supply. Oikos 44: 243–252.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, M. A. & W. M. Murdoch, 1983. Selective predation by the backswimmer, Notonecta. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28: 352–366.Google Scholar
  37. Sommer, U., M. Gliwicz, W. Lampert & A. Duncan, 1986. The PEG-model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters. Arch. Hydrobiol. 106: 433–471.Google Scholar
  38. Spitze, K., 1985. Functional response of an ambush predator: Chaoborus americanus predation on Daphnia pulex. Ecology 66: 938–949.Google Scholar
  39. Steiner, C. F., 2001. Seasonal succession and variable Daphnia dominance in fishless ponds: ecological determinants and ecosystem consequences. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  40. Steiner, C. F., 2002. Context-dependent effects of Daphnia pulex on pond ecosystem function: observational and experimental evidence. Oecologia 131: 549–558.Google Scholar
  41. Sterner, R. W. & D. O. Hessen, 1994. Algal nutrient limitation and the nutrition of aquatic herbivores. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 1–29.Google Scholar
  42. Swift, M. C. & A. Y. Fedorenko, 1975. Some aspects of prey capture by Chaoborus larvae. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 418–425.Google Scholar
  43. Tessier, A. J. & C. E. Goulden, 1987. Cladoceran juvenile growth. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32: 680–686.Google Scholar
  44. Tessier, A. J. & J. Welser, 1991. Cladoceran assemblages, seasonal succession and the importance of a hypolimnetic refuge. Freshwat. Biol. 25: 85–93.Google Scholar
  45. Tillmann, U. & W. Lampert, 1984. Competitive ability of differently sized Daphnia species: an experimental test. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 2: 311–323.Google Scholar
  46. Vanni, M. J., 1987. Effects of nutrients and zooplankton size on the structure of a phytoplankton community. Ecology 68: 624–635.Google Scholar
  47. Vinyard, G. L. & R. A. Menger, 1980. Chaoborus americanus predation on various zooplankters: functional response and behavioral observations. Oecologia 45: 90–93.Google Scholar
  48. von Ende, C. N., 1993. Repeated-measures analysis: growth and other time-dependent measures. In Scheiner, S. M. & J. Gurevitch (eds), Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York: 113–137.Google Scholar
  49. Welschmeyer, N. A., 1994. Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of chlorophyll b and phaeopigments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39: 1985–1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher F. Steiner
    • 1
  • Allison H. Roy
    • 2
  1. 1.W. K. Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of ZoologyMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Cook CollegeRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations