Zooplankton—phytoplankton interactions in lakes Võrtsjärv, Peipsi (Estonia) and Yaskhan (Turkmenia)

  • Tiina Nõges
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 119)

Abstract

Zooplankton—phytoplankton interactions have been studied in three shallow lakes of different trophic state. In strongly eutrophic, large and very shallow Lake Võrtsjärv the grazing does not play a leading role in controlling phytoplankton production and its standing stock. Small-size zooplankton can not eat filamentous blue-greens. The nutrient regeneration by zooplankton has a weak impact on phytoplankton, the latter being limited rather by underwater light than by nutrient availability. In large moderately eutrophic Lake Peipsi the presence of concentrated zooplankton in the experimental vessel mostly stimulated steady-state phytoplankton growth and negative grazing values were measured. Most probably the nutrients (N, P), excreted by zooplankton in grazing chamber stimulated the growth of larger phytoplankton which dominated because of heavy grazing pressure on edible forms. In Lake Peipsi phytoplankton seems to be nutrient-limited and heavily controlled by zooplankton community. In eutrophic, macrophyte-dominated Lake Yaskhan zooplankton in grazing chamber also mainly stimulated the growth of phytoplankton community which seemed to be nutrient-limited because of strong competition with macrophytes.

Key words

zooplankton phytoplankton interactions grazing nutrient regeneration shallow eutrophic lake 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bulyon, V. V., 1976. Soderzhaniye organicheskogo veshchestva v fotosinteticheskih pigmentah v planktone ozera Baikal. [Organic matter content in photosynthetic pigments of the plankton in Lake Baikal]. In Winberg, G. G. (ed.), Gidrobiologicheskiye osnovy samoochishcheniya vod [Hydrobiological basis of water self-purification.] Nauka, Leningrad (St. Petersburg).Google Scholar
  2. Elser, J. J., 1992, Phytoplankton dynamics and the role of grazers in Castle Lake, California. Ecology 73: 887–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geller, W., 1984. A device for the in situmeasurement of zooplankton food selection, grazing and respiration rate. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 1425–1431.Google Scholar
  4. Gulati, R. D., 1984. The zooplankton and its grazing as measures of trophy in Loosdrecht lakes. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 1202–1210.Google Scholar
  5. Gutelmakher, B. L., 1986. Metabolizm planktona kak edinogo tselogo: trofometabolicheskiye vzaimodeistviya zoo-i fitoplanktona [Metabolism of the plankton community as a whole: trophic relations of zoo-and phytoplankton.] Leningrad (St. Petersburg), 155 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Haberman, J., 1984. Võrtsjärve zooplankton aastail 1964–1982. Võrtsjärve ökosüsteemi seisund [zooplankton of Lake Võtsjärv in 1964–1982. The Ecosystem of Lake Võrtsjärv]. Tartu: 65–78.Google Scholar
  7. Haberman, J., 1993. zooplankton of Lake Yaskhan. Lirnnologica 23: 215–225.Google Scholar
  8. Haberman, J., P. Nõges, E. Pihu, T. Nõges, K. Kangur & V. Kisand. Characterization of L. Võrtsjärv. Lirnnologica (in press).Google Scholar
  9. James, M. R. & D. J. Forsyth, 1990. Zooplankton—phytoplanktonlankton interactions in a eutrophic lake. J. Plankton Res. 12: 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jarvis, A. C., 1986. zooplankton community grazing in a hypertrophic lake (Hartbeespoort Dam, South Africa). J. Plankton Res. 8: 1065–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kankaala, P., 1988. The relative importance of algae and bacteria as food for Daphnia longispina(Cladocera) in a polyhumic lake. Freshwat. Biol. 19: 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirsipuu, A., T. Kallejärv, R. Laugaste, J. Haberman, H. Timm, A. Järvalt & P. Nõges, 1993. Brief characterization of Lake Yaskhan. Lirnnologica 23: 179–182.Google Scholar
  13. Lampert, W., 1988. The relationship between zooplankton biomass and grazing: a review. Lirnnologica 19: 11–20.Google Scholar
  14. Lampert, W. & [auB. E. Taylor], 1985. zooplankton grazing in aeutrophic lake: implications of diel vertical migration. Ecology. 66: 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laugaste, R. & I. Ott, 1993. Phytoplankton of Lake Yaskhan. Lirnnologica 23: 195–214.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, J. M. & I. E. Hobbie, 1988. Micro-organisms in Action: Concepts and Applications in Microbial Ecology. Oxford-Melbourne, 363 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Nauwerk, A., 1963. Die Beziehung Zwishen zooplankton and Phytoplankton im See Erken. Symbolae Botanicae Uppsaliensis 17: 1–163.Google Scholar
  18. Nõges, T. 1992. Comparison of two methods of zooplankton grazing measurements. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 77: 665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nõges, P., 1993. Hydrochemical characteristics, productivity of phytoplankton, bacterioplankton and amphiphytes of the freshwater part of L. Yaskhan. Lirnnologica 23: 183–193.Google Scholar
  20. Nõges, T., J. Haberman, H. Tammert, M. Timm, I. Ott & P. Nõges, 1992. Ecological relations of main plankton components in the pelagial of Lake Peipsi. Proc. Estionian Acad. Sci. Ecol. 2: 137–155.Google Scholar
  21. Nõges, T., J. Haberman, M. Timm & P. Nõges, 1993. The seasonal dynamics and trophic relations of the plankton components in Lake Peipsi (Peipus). Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 77: 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nõges, T. & P. Nõges. Primary production of L. Võrtsjärv. Lirnnologica. (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Nõges, T., P. Nõges, J. Haberman, V. Kisand, K. Kangur, A. Kangur & A. Järvalt. Food web structure in shallow eutrophic Lake Võrtsjärv (Estonia). Lirnnologica (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Peters, R. H. M. & J. A. Downing, 1984. Empirical analysis of zooplankton filtering and feeding rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 763–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pihu, E., 1996. Fishes, their biology and fisheries management in Lake Peipsi. Hydrobiologia 338: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Recommendations for marine biological studies in the Baltic Sea. Phytoplankton and Chlorophyll. 1979. BMB Publications No 5, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Sterner, R. W., 1989. The role of grazers in phytoplankton succession. In Sommer, U. (ed.), Plankton Ecology. Succession in plankton communities. Brock/Springer Series in Contemporary Bioscience. Springer Verlag, 369 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Tackx, M. L. M. & E. M. van de Vrie, 1985. Calculations of results in grazing experiments using the counting method. Hydrobiol. Bull. 19: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Timm, H., K. Kangur, T. Timm & V Timm, 1990. Peipsi makrozoobentose seisund [State of macrozoobenthos of Lake Peipsi]. In Timm, T. (ed.), Peipsi järve seisund [State of Lake Peipsi.] Tartu: 123–126.Google Scholar
  30. Umnov, A. A., 1983. Otsenka tochnosti rascheta skorosti filtratsij vody i ratsiona vodnyh zhivotnyh s filtratsionnyrn tipom pitaniya [Precision of filtration activity and ration calculations of filtrativefeeding animals]. In Winberg, G. G. (ed.), Troficheskie svyazi i ih rol’ v produktivnosti prirodnyh vodoemov [Trophic relations and their role in production of natural water bodies]. Nauka. Leningrad (St. Petersburg): 90–99.Google Scholar
  31. Vollenweider, R. A, M. Munavar & P. Stadelman, 1974. A comparative review of phytoplankton and primary production in the Laurential Great Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 31: 739–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waters, T. F, 1977. Secondary production in inland waters. In McFayden, A. (ed.), Advances in Ecological Research. London-San Francisco: 91–164.Google Scholar
  33. Wetzel, R. G. 1983. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia-Toronto, 767 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiina Nõges
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Võrtsjärv Limnological Station of the Institute of Zoology and BotanyRannu, Tartu CountyEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of Zoology and HydrobiologyTartu UniversityTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations