Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 167–173 | Cite as

Behavioural response of plant-associated Eurycercus lamellatus (Ö.F. Müller) to different food sources and fish cues

  • Meryem Beklioglu
  • Erik Jeppesen


The habitat preference and activity pattern of a large-bodied plant-associated chydorid, Eurycercus lamellatus, were experimentally tested under laboratory conditions using different food sources and fish cues. In the absence of epiphyton, we found significantly higher densities of E. lamellatus on plants when concentrations of phytoplankton were high, while no differences were found for real plants hosting epiphytes. In the absence of predator cues, E. lamellatus preferred plants. Exposure of E. lamellatus to chemical cues released by 0+ roach (Rutilis rutilis) previously fed on E. lamellatus or Ceriodaphnia spp. induced a habitat shift from plants to the bottom of the experimental chambers or to the sediment. However, the activity level of the test animals significantly varied between treatments. Test animals were found to be more agitated (as measured by intensity of crawling and jumping activities) in the presence of cues from E. lamellatus-fed roach then when exposed to Ceriodaphnia spp-fed roach. Most likely, the presence of cues from the conspecific E. lamellatus induced the agitated behaviour of E. lamellatus, which may be an attempt to bury within the sediment to avoid predation. Time series experiments in the presence and absence of sediment showed an almost immediate response of E. lamellatus to the addition of fish cues. The animals, however, returned to the plants during the next 7–24 h, most likely reflecting a rapid degradation of the chemical cues. The results suggest a significant influence of chemical cues on the behaviour of plant-associated microcrustaceans in the littoral zones of lakes.

diel vertical migration Eurycercus lamellatus fish cue littoral zone microcrustacea plant-associated 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. DeStasio BT Jr (1993) Diel vertical and horizontal migration by zooplankton: population budgets and the diurnal deficit. Bull Mar Sci 53: 44–64Google Scholar
  2. Fairchild GW (1981) Movement and microdistribution of Sida crystallina and other littoral microcrustacea. Ecology 62: 1341–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fairchild GW (1982) Population responses of plant-associated invertebrates to foraging by largemouth bass fry (Micropterus salmoides). Hydrobiologia 96: 169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fairchild GW (1983) Birth and death rates of a littoral feeding microcrustacean Sida crystallina (Cladocera), in Cochran lake, Michigan. Int Rev Gesamten Hydrobiol 68: 339–350Google Scholar
  5. Fryer G (1963) The functional morphology feeding mechanism of chydorid cladocerans Eurycercus lamellatus (O. F. Müller). Trans R Soc Edinb 65: 335–381Google Scholar
  6. Gliwicz ZM and Rybak JI (1976) Zooplankton. In: Pieczynska E (ed) Selected problems of lake littoral ecology. University of Warsaw, Warsaw, pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
  7. Heller R and Milinski M (1979) Optimal foraging of sticklebacks on swarming prey. Anim Behav 27: 1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacobsen PJ and Johnsen (1988) The influence of food limitation on swarming behaviour in the waterflea Bosmina longispina. Anim Behav 17: 501–537Google Scholar
  9. Jacobsen L, Lauridsen TL, Berg S, Jeppesen E and Søndergaard M (submitted) Dietary choice of 0+ perch (Perca fluviatilis) and 0+ roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the presence and absence of submerged macrophytes and piscivorous perch.Google Scholar
  10. Jeppesen E (1998) Ecology of Shallow Lakes-Trophic Interactions in the Pelagial. DSc dissertation. Ministry of Environment and Energy, NERI's technical report, No. 247, Silkeborg, 420 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Jeppesen E, Lauridsen TL, Kairesalo T, Perrow MR (1997) Impact of macrophytes on fish-zooplankton interactions in lakes. Ecological Studies Series 131: 91–114Google Scholar
  12. Johnson DM, Pierce CL, Martin TH, Watson CN, Bohanan RE and Crowley PH (1987) Prey depletion by odonate larvae: combining evidence from multiple field experiments. Ecology 68: 1459–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lampert W (1993) Ultimate causes of diel vertical migration of zooplankton: new evidence for the predator-avoidance hypothesis. Arch Hydrobiol Beih Ergbn Limnol 39: 79–88Google Scholar
  14. Larsson P and Dodson S (1993) Invited review — chemical communication in planktonic animals. Arch Hydrobiol 129: 129–155Google Scholar
  15. Lauridsen TL and Buenk I (1996) Diel changes in the horizontal distribution of zooplankton in the littoral zone of two shallow eutrophic lakes. Arch Hydrobiol 137: 161–176Google Scholar
  16. Lauridsen TL and Lodge D (1996) Avoidance by Daphnia magna of fish and macrophytes: chemical cues and predator-mediated use of macrophyte habitat. Limnol Oceanogr 41: 794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lauridsen TL, Pedersen LJ, Jeppesen E and Søndergaard M (1996) The importance of macrophyte bed size for cladoceran composition and horizontal migration in a shallow lake. J Plank Res 18: 2283–2294Google Scholar
  18. Loose, CJ (1993). Daphnia diel vertical migration behaviour. Response to vertebrate predatory abundance. Arch Hydrobiol Beih 39: 29–36Google Scholar
  19. Loose CJ, Elert E von and Dawidowicz P (1992) Chemically-induced diel vertical migration in Daphnia: a new bioassay for kairomones exuded by fish. Arch Hydobiol 126: 329–337Google Scholar
  20. Meyers DG (1980) Diurnal vertical migration in aquatic microcrustaceans: light and oxygen responses of littoral zooplankton. In: Kerfoot, WC (ed) Evolution and Ecology of Zooplankton Communities. The University Press of New England, pp. 89–90Google Scholar
  21. Mittelbach GG (1984) Predation and resource partitioning in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology 65: 499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paterson M (1993) The distribution of microcrustacea in the littoral zone of a freshwater lake. Hydrobiologia 263: 173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pijanowska J and Kowalczewski A (1997) Predators can induce swarming behaviour and locomotory responses in Daphnia. Freshwa Biol 37: 649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quade HW (1969) Cladoceran faunas associated with aquatic macrophytes in some lakes in Northwestern Minnesota. Ecology 50: 170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smirnov NN (1962) Eurycercus lamellatus (O.F. Müller) (Chydoridae: Cladocera): Field observations and nutrition. Hyrobiologia 20: 280–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stirling G (1995) Daphnia behaviour as a bioassay of fish presence or predation. Func Ecol 9: 778–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. von Elert E and Loose CJ (1996) Predator-induced diel vertical migration in Daphnia: enrichment and preliminary chemical characterisation of a kairomone exuded fish. J Chem Ecol 22: 885–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vuille T (1991) Abundance, standing crop and production of microcrustacean populations (Cladocera, Copepoda) in the littoral zone of Lake Biel, Switzerland. Arch Hydrobiol 123: 165–185Google Scholar
  29. Walls M, Rajasilta M, Sarvala J and Salo J (1990) Diel changes in horizontal microdistribution of littoral Cladocera. Limnologica 20: 253–258Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meryem Beklioglu
    • 1
  • Erik Jeppesen
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Lake and Estuarine EcologyNational Environmental Research InstituteSilkeborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations