Advertisement

Zooplankton and Their Relationship to Phytoplankton

  • Richard C. Lathrop
  • Stephen R. Carpenter
Part of the Springer Series on Environmental Management book series (SSEM)

Abstract

The limnetic zooplankton that commonly occur in Lake Mendota are important both as grazers of phytoplankton and as food for fish and large invertable predators. Because of their central role in the food web, they are a key ecosystem component from the standpoint of the food web research summarized in this book. Daphnia are of particular interest because they are subject to intensively selective predation by fishes and because they exert substantial grazing pressure on algal populations (Hrbacek 1962; Brooks and Dodson 1965; Shapiro et al. 1975; Carpenter et al. 1987; Sterner 1989; Vanni et al., Ch. 13; Luecke et al., Ch. 14). This chapter describes the zooplankton of the Lake Mendota and, building on results from the preceding chapter on phytoplankton, evaluates patterns of herbivory in Lake Mendota.

Keywords

Total Zooplankton Daphnia Species Daphnia Population Algal Biovolume Edible Alga 
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. Andersson G, Cronberg G (1984) Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and large Daphnia—An interesting plankton association in hypertrophic water. In Bosheim S, Nicholls M (eds) Nordisk limnologsymposium, Interactions between trophic levels in freshwaters, Norsk Limnologforening, OsloGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardach JE (1949) Contribution to the ecology of the yellow perch (Perca flavescens Mitchill) in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  3. Benndorf J (1990) Conditions for effective biomanipulation: Conclusions derived from whole-lake experiments in Europe. Hydrobiologia 200/201:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birge EA (1898) Plankton studies on Lake Mendota: II. The Crustacea of the plankton from July, 1894, to December, 1896. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 11:274–448Google Scholar
  5. Birge EA, Juday C (1922) The inland lakes of Wisconsin: The plankton I. Its quantity and chemical composition. Wis. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. No. 64, Sci. Ser. No. 13Google Scholar
  6. Box GEP, Tiao GC (1975) Intervention analysis with applications to economic and environmental problems. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock TD (1985) A eutrophic lake: Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks JL, Dodson SI (1965) Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150:28–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter SR (1988) Transmission of variance through lake food webs. In Carpenter SR (ed) Complex interactions in lake communities, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 119–135Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter SR, Frost TM, Kitchell JF, Kratz TK, Schindler DW, Shearer J, Sprules WG, Vanni MJ, Zimmerman AP (1991) Patterns of primary production and herbivory in 25 North American lake ecosystems. In Cole J, Findlay S, Lovett G (eds) Comparative analyses of ecosystems: Patterns, mechanisms, and theories, Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1988) Consumer control of lake productivity. BioScience 38:764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF, Hodgson JR, Cochran PA, Elser JJ, Elser MM, Lodge DM, Kretchmer D, He X, von Ende C (1987) Regulation of lake primary productivity by food-web structure. Ecology 68: 1863–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downing JA, Rigler FH (1984) A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hrbacek J (1962) Species composition and the amount of zooplankton in relation to the fish stock. Rozpr. Cesk. Akad. Ved Rada Mat. Prir. Ved 72:1–116Google Scholar
  15. Hutchinson GE (1967) a treatise on limnology. Vol. 2: Introduction to lake biology and the limnoplankton. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Lampert W, Fleckner W, Hakumat R, Taylor BE (1986) Phytoplankton control by grazing zooplankton: A study on the spring clear-water phase. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31:478–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lathrop RC, Nehls SH, Brynildson CL, Plass KR (1992) The fishery of the Yahara lakes. Technical Bulletin (in press), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  18. Lunte CC, Luecke C (1990) Trophic interactions of Leptodora in Lake Mendota. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35:1091–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynch M (1980) Aphanizomenon blooms: Alternate control and cultivation by Daphnia pulex. In Kerfoot WC (ed) Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities, University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, pp 299–304Google Scholar
  20. Lynch M, Weider LJ, Lampert W (1986) Measurement of the carbon balance in Daphnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McNaught DC, Hasler AD (1964) Rate of movement of populations of Daphnia in relation to changes in light intensity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 21:291–318Google Scholar
  22. Neess J (1949) Development and status of pond fertilization in central Europe. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 76:335–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pedrós-Alió C, Brock TD (1985) Zooplankton dynamics in Lake Mendota: Short-term versus long-term changes. Freshwat. Biol. 15:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pedrós-Alió C, Woolsey E, Brock TD (1985) Zooplankton dynamics in Lake Mendota: Abundance and biomass of the metazooplankton from 1976 to 1980. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 73:167–185Google Scholar
  25. Ragotzkie RA (1953) The distribution of Daphnia in Lake Mendota and their mode of feeding. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro J, Lamarra V, Lynch M (1975) Biomanipulation: An ecosystem approach to lake restoration. In Brezonik PL, Fox JL (eds) Proceedings of a symposium on water quality management through biological control, University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  27. Shapiro J, Wright DI (1984) Lake restoration by biomanipulation: Round Lake, Minnesota the first two years. Freshwat. Biol. 14:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sommer U, Gliwicz ZM, Lampert W, Duncan A (1986) The PEG model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in freshwaters. Arch. Hydrobiol. 106:433–471Google Scholar
  29. Spencer CN, King DL (1984) Role of fish in regulation of plant and animal communities in eutrophic ponds. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:1851–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sterner RW (1989) The role of grazers in phytoplankton succession. In Sommer U (ed) Plankton ecology: Succession in plankton communities, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 107–170Google Scholar
  31. Wei WWS (1990) Time series analysis. Addision-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard C. Lathrop
  • Stephen R. Carpenter

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations