Grazing by large river zooplankton: a key to summer potamoplankton decline? The case of the Meuse and Moselle rivers in 1994 and 1995

  • Véronique Gosselain
  • Jean-Pierre Descy
  • Laurent Viroux
  • Célia Joaquim-Justo
  • Astrid Hammer
  • Arnaud Métens
  • Sabine Schweitzer
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 129)

Abstract

To explain summer declines in phytoplankton biomass in large rivers, we compared the effect of zooplankton grazing on the planktonic algae of two large European rivers, the Meuse and the Moselle. In situ grazing was measured during two years (1994 and 1995), using the Haney method. Total zooplankton community filtration rates recorded in the river Meuse ranged between 1 and 32% of the water volume filtered per day. A drastic algal decline was observed early July both years and may be explained by high densities of a rotifer-dominated zooplankton community (500–700 ind. 1−1) with more than 75% of Brachionus calyciflorus. During the summer period in 1994, when grazing was over 20%, edible algal biomass was controlled by a diversified rotifer community (up to 2500 ind. 1−1), while a non-edible algal assemblage developed. In contrast, phytoplankton biomass remained comparatively low in the Moselle throughout the low-flow period, as did zooplankton numbers during most of this time (fewer than 200 ind. l −1 during the summer period). The proportion of crustaceans in this zooplankton was rather higher than in the Meuse, and they dominated at times, in biomass as well as in numbers. Nevertheless, measured in situ grazing rates (1–15%) could not explain the low summer algal biomass, even if low filtration rates may at times represent a significant carbon loss for phytoplankton, when and where net algal production was low. As a conclusion, the role of phytoplankton — zooplankton interactions in controlling algal biomass in large rivers is discussed.

Key word

potamoplankton plankton interactions in situ grazing European rivers 
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. Admiraal, W., L. Breebart, G. M. J. Tubbing, B. van Zanten, E. D. de Ruyter van Steveninck & R. Bijkerk, 1994. Seasonal variation in composition and production of planktonic communities in the lower River Rhine. Freshwat. Biol. 32: 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, C. W., B. S. Payne & A. C. Miller, 1995. Oxygen consumption, nitrogenous excretion, and filtration rates of Dreissena polymorpha at acclimation temperatures between 20 and 32 °C. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 52: 1761–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachmann, V., E. Cegielka, P. Wagner, P. Usseglio-Poltera & J. C. Moreteau, 1997. Installation de l’amphipode Corophium curvispinum et de la palourde asiatique Corbicula sp. dans le cours français de la Moselle–Establishment of the Amphipod Corophium curvispinum and the Asiatic Clam Corbicula sp. in the French part of the Mosel river. Hydroécol. Appl. 7: 185–191.Google Scholar
  4. Basu, B. K. & F. R. Pick, 1997. Phytoplankton and zooplankton development in a lowland, temperate river. J. Plankton Res. 19: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhme, M., 1994. Release and consumption of oxygen by a phytoplankton dominated community of a eutrophic lowland river. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 25: 1585–1589.Google Scholar
  6. de Ruyter van Steveninck, E. D., W. Admiraal, L. Breebaart, G. M. J. Tubbing & B. van Zanten, 1992. Plankton in the River Rhine: structural and functional changes observed during downstream transport. J. Plankton Res. 14: 1351–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Descy, J.-P., 1993. Ecology of the phytoplankton of the River Moselle: effects of disturbances on community structure and diversity. Hydrobiologia 249: 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Descy, J.-P. & C. Willems, 1991. Contribution à la connaissance du phytoplancton de la Moselle (France). Cryptogamie, Algol. 12: 87–100.Google Scholar
  9. Descy, J.-P. & V. Gosselain, 1994. Ecological importance and dynamics of phytoplankton in a large lowland river (River Meuse, Belgium). Hydrobiologia 289: 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Descy, J.-P. & A. Métens, 1996. Biomass-pigment relationships in potamoplankton. J. Plankton Res. 18: 1557–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Descy, J.-P., R. Servais, J. S. Smith, G. Billen & E. Everbecq, 1987. Phytoplankton biomass and production in the River Meuse (Belgium). Wat. Res. 21: 1557–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downing, J. A. & F. H. Rigler, 1984. A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. IBP Handbook 17; Blackwell scientific publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Effler, S. W., C. M. Brooks, K. Whitehead, B. Wagner, S. M. Derr, M. Perkins, C. A. Siegfried, L. Walrath & R. R. Canale, 1996. Impact of zebra mussel invasion on river water-quality. Wat. Env. Res. 68: 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gamier, J., G. Billen & M. Coste, 1995. Seasonal succession of diatoms and chlorophyceae in the drainage network of the River Seine: Observations and modelling. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40: 750–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gawler, M. & R. Chapuis, 1987. An improved version of the Haney grazing chamber. Freshwat. Biol. 18: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosselain, V., J.-P. Descy & E. Everbecq, 1994. The phytoplankton community of the River Meuse, Belgium: seasonal dynamics (year 1992) and the possible incidence of zooplankton grazing. Hydrobiologia 289: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosselain, V., L. Viroux, & J.-P. Descy, 1998. Can a community small-bodied grazers control phytoplankton in rivers? Freshwat. Biol. 39: 9–24.Google Scholar
  18. Gosselain, V., C. Joaquim-Justo, L. Viroux, M. Mena, A. Métens, J.-P. Descy & J.-P. Thomé, 1996. Laboratory and in situ grazing rates of freshwater rotifers and their contribution to community grazing rates. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 113: 353–361.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, P., 1990. The revised edition of a computerized plankton counter for plankton, periphyton and sediment diatom analyses. Hydrobiologia 194: 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haney, J. F., 1971. An in situ method for the measurement of zoo-plankton grazing rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16: 971–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Köhler, J., 1995. Growth, production and losses of phytoplankton in the lowland River Spree: carbon balance. Freshwat. Biol. 34: 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maclssac, H. J., C. J. Lonnee & J. H. Leach, 1995. Suppression of microzooplankton by zebra mussels: importance of mussel size. Freshwat. Biol. 34: 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacIsaac, H. J., W. G. Sprules, O. E. Johannsson & J. H. Leach, 1992. Filtering impacts of larval and sessile zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in western Lake Erie. Oecologia 92: 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marneffe, Y., J.-P. Descy & J.-P. Thorne, 1996. The zooplankton of the lower River Meuse, Belgium: seasonal changes and impact of industrial and municipal discharges. Hydrobiologia 317: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reynolds, C. S., 1986. Experimental manipulations of the phytoplankton periodicity in large limnetic enclosures in Blelham Tarn, English Lake District. Hydrobiologia 138: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reynolds, C. S. & J.-P. Descy, 1996. The production, biomass and structure of phytoplankton in large rivers. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 113: 161–187.Google Scholar
  27. RIWA, 1996a. Rapport annuel 1994 - Tome B: la Meuse, RIWA, Amsterdam, septembre 1996, 144 pp.Google Scholar
  28. RIWA, 1996b. Rapport annuel 1995 - Tome B: la Meuse, RIWA, Amsterdam, février 1996, 128 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Smayda, T. J., 1978. From phytoplankters to biomass. In Sournia, A. (ed), Phytoplankton Manual. UNESCO, Paris: 273–279.Google Scholar
  30. Sprung, M., 1995. Physiological energetics of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha in lakes. II. Food uptake and gross growth efficiency. Hydrobiologia 304: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Viroux, L., 1997. Zooplankton development in two large lowland rivers, the Moselle (France) and the Meuse (Belgium), in 1993. J. Plankton Res. 19: 1743–1762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Véronique Gosselain
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Descy
    • 1
  • Laurent Viroux
    • 1
  • Célia Joaquim-Justo
    • 2
  • Astrid Hammer
    • 3
  • Arnaud Métens
    • 1
  • Sabine Schweitzer
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology (LFE)Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la PaixNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’EcotoxicologieInstitut de Zoologie, Université de LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.Erasmus student at LFEfrom the University of RostockGermany
  4. 4.Centre de Recherches Ecologiques de l’Université de MetzFrance

Personalised recommendations