Advertisement

Collection, Enumeration, and Biomass of Zooplankton

  • Robert G. Wetzel
  • Gene E. Likens

Abstract

Zooplankton usually are distributed throughout a lake or reservoir. Most forms are motile, and thus their distribution both vertically and horizontally may be quite variable. Species have different habitat preferences that further accentuate spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Zooplankton are major herbivores as well as important predators in aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, to understand lake metabolism it is necessary to evaluate the biomass and the role of zooplankton in the ecosystem.

Keywords

Water Bottle Mesh Opening Small Organism Collection Device Wash Bottle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlstrom, E.H., J.D. Isaacs, J.R. Thrakill, and L.W. Kidd. 1958. High-speed plankton sampler. Fish Bull. Fish Wildl. Serv. 58 (132): 187–214.Google Scholar
  2. de Bernardi R. 1984. Methods for the estimation of zooplankton abundance. pp. 59–86. In: J.A. Downing and F.H. Rigler, Editors. A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Clutter, R.I. and M. Anraku. 1968. Avoidance of samplers. pp. 57–76. In: D.J. Tranter and J.H. Fraser, Editors. Zooplankton Sampling. UNESCO Press, Paris.Google Scholar
  4. Dumont, H.J., I. Van de Velde, and S. Dumont. 1975. The dry weight estimate of biomass in a selection of Cladocera, Copepoda and Rotifera from the plankton, periphyton and benthos of continental waters. Oecologia 19: 75–97.Google Scholar
  5. Edmondson, W.T. and G.G. Winberg (eds). 1971. A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. IBP Handbook No. 17. Blackwell, Oxford. 358 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, D.J., W.E. Cooper, and E.E. Werner. 1970. An experimental approach to the production dynamics and structure of freshwater animal communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 15:839–928.Google Scholar
  7. Isaacs, J.D. and L.W. Kidd. 1953. Isaacs-Kidd midwater trawl. Final report. Scripps Inst. Oceanogr. (Ref. 53–3, 1–18. Oceanographic Equipment Rept. No. 1 ).Google Scholar
  8. Juday, C. 1916. Limnological apparatus. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 18(Pt. 2): 566–592. Levin, S.A. and L.A. Segel. 1976. Hypothesis for origin of planktonic patchiness. Nature 259: 659.Google Scholar
  9. Likens, G.E. and J.J. Gilbert. 1970. Notes on quantitative sampling of natural populations of planktonic rotifers. Limnol. Oceanogr. 15: 816–820.Google Scholar
  10. Makarewicz, J.C. 1974. The community of zooplankton and its production in Mirror Lake. Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell Univ., Ithaca. 206 pp.Google Scholar
  11. McCauley, E. 1984. The estimation of the abundance and biomass of zooplankton in samples. pp. 228–265. In: J.A. Downing and F.H. Rigler, Editors. A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. McNaught, D.G. 1971. Appendix to Clarke-Bumpus plankton sampler. pp. 11–12. In: W.T. Edmondson and G.G. Winberg, Editors. Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Nauwerck, A. 1963. Die Beziehungen zwischen Zooplankton and Phytoplankton im See Erken. Symbol. Bot. Upsaliensis 17 (5): 1–163.Google Scholar
  14. Pennak, R.W. 1962. Quantitative zooplankton sampling in littoral vegetation areas. Limnol. Oceanogr. 7: 487–489.Google Scholar
  15. Ruttner-Kolisko, A. 1977a. Comparison of various sampling techniques, and results of repeated sampling of planktonic rotifers. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebn. Limnol. 8:13–18.Google Scholar
  16. Ruttner-Kolisko, A. 1977b. Suggestions for biomass calculation of planktonic rotifers. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebn. Limnol. 8: 71–76.Google Scholar
  17. Schindler, D.W. 1969. Two useful devices for vertical plankton and water sampling. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 26: 1948–1955.Google Scholar
  18. Smyly, W.J.P. 1968. Some observations on the effect of sampling technique under different conditions on numbers of some freshwater planktonic Entomostroca and Rotifera caught by a water bottle. J. Nat. Hist. 2: 569–575.Google Scholar
  19. Steedman, H.F. (ed.) 1976. Zooplankton Fixation and Preservation. UNESCO Press, Paris. 350 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Szlauer, L. 1964. Reaction of Daphnia pulex de Geer to the approach of different objects. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 12:15–16.Google Scholar
  21. Tonolli, V. 1971. Zooplankton. pp. 1–14. In: W.T. Edmondson and G.G. Winberg, Editors. A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. IBP Handbook No. 17. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Tranter, D.J. and J.H. Fraser (eds). 1968. Zooplankton Sampling. UNESCO Press, Paris. 174 pp. Utermöhl, H. 1958. Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt. Int. Ver. Limnol. 9. 38 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological Methods. Blakiston, Philaldelphia. 381 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Winberg, G.G. (ed). 1972. Methods for the Estimation of Production of Aquatic Animals. Academic Press, New York. 175 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert G. Wetzel
    • 1
  • Gene E. Likens
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology, College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Ecosystem StudiesThe New York Botanical Garden, Cary ArboretumMillbrookUSA

Personalised recommendations