Advertisement

Retention Efficiency, Perceptual Bias, and Active Choice as Mechanisms of Food Selection by Suspension-Feeding Zooplankton

  • William R. DeMott
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 20)

Abstract

Suspension-feeding Zooplankton live in environments in which nutritious algae are mixed with particles of low food value, such as silt, detritus, and indigestible or toxic algae (Porter 1977). In this situation an ability to select nutritious particles should be advantageous, provided that the cost of handling and rejecting individuals particles is low. Nonetheless suspension feeding is often considered synonymous with “filter feeding”, a term which suggests a passive, mechanical mode of food collection. For a filter feeder, food selection is largely a function of the range of particle sizes which can be retained by the feeding apparatus and successfully ingested (Boyd 1976). Within the past 10 years, however, a rapidly growing number of studies have shown that many taxa of Zooplankton are not mechanical filter feeders but are able to use complex behaviors to select between individual particles which differ size or nutritional value (reviewed by Price 1988).

Keywords

Particulate Organic Carbon Calanoid Copepod Food Selection Perceptual Bias Cyclopoid Copepod 
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. Andrews, JC (1983) Deformation of the active space in the low Reynolds number feeding current of calanoid copepods. Can J Fish Aquatic Sci 40: 1293–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atema J (1987a) Chemoreception in the sea: Adaptations of chemoreceptors and behaviour to aquatic stimulus conditions. In: Atema J, Ray RR, Popper AN, Tavolga (eds) Sensory biology of aquatic animals, Springer, New York, pp 387–42Google Scholar
  3. 1987b) Distribution of chemical stimuli. In: Atema J, Ray RR, Popper AN, Tavolga. Sensory biology of aquatic animals, Springer, New York, pp 29–56Google Scholar
  4. Bell W, Mitchell R (1972) Chemotactic and growth responses of marine bacteria to algal extracellular products. Biol Bull 143: 265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleiwas AH, Stokes PM (1985) Collection of large and small particles by Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 30: 1090–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd CM (1976) Selection of particle sizes by filter-feeding copepods: A plea for reason. Limnol Oceanogr 21: 175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brendelberger H (1985) Filter mesh-size and retention efficiency for small particles: comparative studies with Cladocera. Arch Hydrobiol Beih Ergebn Limnol 21: 135–146Google Scholar
  8. Herbeck M, Lang H, Lampert W (1986) Daphnirfs filters are not solid walls. Arch Hydrobiol 107: 202Google Scholar
  9. Butler NM, Suttle CA, Neill WE (1989) Discrimination by freshwater zooplankton between single algal cells differing in nutritional status. Oecologia 78: 368–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cannon HG (1933) On the feeding mechanism of the Branchiopoda. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lon Ser B 222: 267–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1984) Plankton community structure and limnetic primary production. Am Nat 124: 159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 65: 1297–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowles TJ, Olson RJ, Chisholm SW (1988) Food selection by copepods: discrimination on the basis of food quality. Mar Biol 100: 41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeMott WR (1985) Relations between filter mesh-size, feeding mode, and capture efficiency for cladocerans feeding on ultrafine particles. Arch Hydrobiol Beih Ergeb Limnol 21: 125–134Google Scholar
  15. 1986) The role of taste in food selection by freshwater zooplankton. Oecologia 69: 334–340Google Scholar
  16. 1988a) Discrimination between algae and artificial particles by freshwater and marine copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 33: 397–408Google Scholar
  17. 1988b) Discrimination between algae and detritus by freshwater and marine zooplankton. Bull Mar Sci 43: 486–499.Google Scholar
  18. 1989) Optimal foraging theory as a predictor of chemically mediated food selection by suspension feeding copepods Limnol Oceanogr 34: 140–154Google Scholar
  19. Kerfoot WC (1982) Competitive interactions among cladocerans: nature of the interaction between Bosmina and Daphnia. Ecology 63: 1949–1966Google Scholar
  20. Donaghay PE (1988) Role of temporal scales of acclimation, food quality and trophic dominance inn controlling the evolution of copepod feeding behavior. Bull Mar Sci 43: 469–485Google Scholar
  21. Downing J A, Peters RH (1980) The effect of body size and food concentration on the in situ filtering rate of Sida crystallina. Limnol Oceanogr 25: 883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fulton RS, Paerl HW (1987a) Effects of colonial morphology on zooplankton utilization of algal resources during blue-green algal ( Microcystis aeruginosa) blooms. Limnol Oceanogr 32: 634–644Google Scholar
  23. 1987b) Toxic and inhibitory effects of the blue-green alga Microcystis aeruginosa on herbivorous zooplankton. J Plankton Res 9: 837–855Google Scholar
  24. Geller W, Muller H (1981) The filtration apparatus of Cladocera: filter mesh-sizes and their implications for food selectivity. Oecologia 49: 316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerritsen J, Porter KG, Strickler JR (1988) Not by sieving alone: observations of suspension feeding in Daphnia. Bull Mar Sci 43: 377–394Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert JJ, Bogdan KG (1981) Selectivity of Polyarthra and Keratella for flagellate and aflagellate cells. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 21: 1515–1521Google Scholar
  27. Gill CW, Harris RP (1987) Behavioral responses of the copepods Calanus helgolandicus and Temora longicornis to dinoflagellate diets. J Mar Biol Ass UK 67: 785–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poulet SA (1988) Impedance traces of copepod appendage movements illustrating sensory feeding behavior. Hydrobiologia 167 /168: 303–310Google Scholar
  29. Gliwicz ZM, Siedlar E (1980) Food size limitation and algae interfering with food collection in Daphnia. Arch Hydrobiol 88: 155–177Google Scholar
  30. Gophen M, Geller W (1984) Filtering mesh size and food particle uptake by Daphnia. Oecologia 64: 408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haney JF (1985) Regulation of cladoceran filtering rates in nature by body size, food concentration and diel feeding patterns. Limnol Oceanogr 30: 397–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hart RD (1986) Zooplankton abundance, community structure and dynamics in relation to inorganic turbidity, and their implications for a potential fishery inn subtropical Lake le Roux, South Africa. Freshwater Biol 16: 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 1987) Observations on calanoid diet, seston, phytoplankton-zooplankton relationships, and inferences on calanoid food limitation in a silt-laden reservoir. Arch Hydrobiol 111: 67–82Google Scholar
  34. Hartmann HJ (1985) Feeding of Daphnia pulicaria and Diaptomus ashlandi on mixtures of unicellular and filamentous algae. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 22: 3178–3183Google Scholar
  35. Hassett RP, Landry MR (1988) Short-term changes in the feeding and digestion by the copepod Calanus pacificus. Mar Biol 99: 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hessen DO (1985) Filtering structures and particle size selection in coexisting Cladocera. Oecologia 66: 368–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hughes RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximization premise: the effects of recognition time and learning. Am Nat 113: 209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 1980) Optimal foraging in the marine context. Oceanogr Mar Biol A Rev 18: 428–449Google Scholar
  39. Huntley M (1988) Feeding biology of Calanus: a new perspective. Hydrobiologia 167 /168: 83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sykes P, Rohan S, Marin V (1986) Chemically-mediated rejection of dinoflagellate prey by the copepods Calanus pacificus and Paracalanusparvus: mechanism, occurrence, and significance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 28: 105–120Google Scholar
  41. Infante A, Abella SEB (1985) Inhibition of Daphnia by Oscillatoria in Lake Washington. Limnol Oceanogr 30: 1046–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kerfoot WC (1978) Combat between predatory copepods and their prey: Cyclops, Epischura, and Bosmina. Limnol Oceanogr 23: 1089–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. DeMott WR, DeAngelis DL (1985) Interactions among cladocerans: Food limitation and exploitative competition. Arch Hydrobiol Ergebn Limnol 21: 431–452Google Scholar
  44. Koehl MAR (1984) Mechanisms of particle capture by copepods at low Reynolds numbers: possible modes of selective feeding. In: Meyers DG, Strickler JR (eds) Trophic interactions within aquatic ecosystems. AAAS Select Symp Ser 85, Westview, Boulder, pp 135–166Google Scholar
  45. Lam RK, Frost BW (1976) Model of copepod feeding response to changes in size and concentration of food. Limnol Oceanogr 21: 490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lampert W, Taylor BE (1985) Zooplankton grazing in a eutrophic lake: implications of diel vertical migration. Ecology 66: 68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmitt, R-D, Muck P (1988) Vertical migration of freshwater Zooplankton: test of some hypotheses predicting a metabolic advantage. Bull Mar Sci 43: 620–640Google Scholar
  48. Landry MR, Lehner-Fournier JM (1988) Grazing rates and behaviors of Neocalanus plumchrus: implications for phytoplankton control in the subarctic Pacific. Hydrobiologia 167 /168: 9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Legier-Visser MF, Mitchell JG, Okubo A, Fuhrman JA (1986) Mechanoreception in calanoid copepods. A mechanism of prey detection. Mar Biol 90: 529–535Google Scholar
  50. Lehman JT (1976) The filter feeder as an optimal forager, and the predicted shapes of feeding curves. Limnol Oceanogr 21: 501–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paffenhöfer G-A, Van Sant KB (1986) The feeding response of a marine planktonic copepod to quantity and quality of particles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 27: 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Porter KG (1976) Enhancement of algal growth and productivity by grazing Zooplankton. Science 192: 1332–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 1977) The plant-animal interface in freshwater ecosystems. Am Sci 65: 159–170Google Scholar
  54. Poulet SA, Marsot P (1980) Chemosensory feeding and food-gathering by omnivorous marine copepods. In: Kerfoot WC (ed) The evolution and ecology of Zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 198–218Google Scholar
  55. Ouellet G (1982) The role of amino acids in the chemosensory swarming and feeding of marine copepods. J Plankton Res 4: 341–361Google Scholar
  56. Price HJ (1988) Feeding mechanisms in marine and freshwater Zooplankton. Bull Mar Sci 43: 327–343Google Scholar
  57. Paffenhöfer G-A (1984) Effects of feeding experience in the copepod Eucalanus pileatus: a cinematographic study. Mar Biol 84: 35–40Google Scholar
  58. 1985) Perception of food availability by calanoid copepods. Arch Hydrobiol Beih 21: 115–124Google Scholar
  59. Strickler JR (1983) Modes of cell capture in calanoid copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 28: 116–123Google Scholar
  60. Starkweather PL, Bogdan KG (1980) Detrital feeding in natural Zooplankton communities: discrimination between live and dead algal foods. Hydrobiologia 73: 83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steele JH, Frost BW (1977) The structure of plankton communities. Phil Trans R Soc London 280: 485–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stemberger RS (1981) A general approach to the culture of planktonic rotifers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38: 721–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. Strickler JR (1982) Calanoid copepods, feeding currents, and the role of gravity. Science 218: 158–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 1984) Sticky water: a selective force in copepod evolution. In Meyers DG, Strickler JR (eds) Trophic interactions within aquatic ecosystems. AAAS Select Symp Ser 85, Westview, Boulder, pp 135–166Google Scholar
  66. Taghon GL (1981) Beyond selection: optimal ingestion rate as a function of food value. Am Nat 118: 202–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner JT (1984) Zooplankton feeding ecology: contents of fecal pellets of the copepods Eucalanus pileatus and Paracalanus quasimodo from continental self water of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 15: 27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uchima M, Hirano R (1986) Food of Oithona davisae (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) and the effect of food concentration at first feeding on the larval growth. Bull Plankton Soc Japan 33: 21–28Google Scholar
  69. Vanderploeg HA (1981) Seasonal particle-size selection by Diaptomus sicilis in offshore Lake Michigan. J Fish Res Board Can 38: 504–517Google Scholar
  70. Paffenhofer GA (1985) Modes of algal capture by the freshwater copepod Diaptomus sicilis and their relation to food-size selection. Limnol Oceanogr 30: 871–885Google Scholar
  71. Liebig JR (1988) Diaptomus vs. net phytoplankton: Effects of algal size and morphology on selectivity of a behaviorally flexible, omnivorous copepod. Bull Mar Sci 43: 377–394Google Scholar
  72. this volume) New cinematographic observations and hypotheses on the concentration-variable selectivity of calanoid copepods for particles of different food quality. In: Behavioural mechanisms of food selection. Hughes RN (ed) Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Ondricek-Fallscheer RL (1982) Intersetular distances are a poor predictor of particle-retention efficiency in Diaptomus sicilis. J Plankton Res 4: 237–244Google Scholar
  74. Wetzel RG, Likens GE (1979) Limnological analyses. WB Saunders Company, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  75. Zach R, Smith JMN (1981) Optimal foraging in wild birds? In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological and psychological approaches. Garland STPM Press, New York, pp 95–107Google Scholar
  76. Zimmer-Faust RK (in press) The relationship between chemoreception and foraging behavior in crustaceans. Limnol OceanogrGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. DeMott
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences and Crooked Lake Biological StationIndiana University-Purdue University at Fort WayneFort WayneUSA

Personalised recommendations