Rotatoria pp 83-85 | Cite as

Detrital Feeding in Natural Zooplankton Communities: Discrimination Between Live and Dead Algal Foods

  • Peter L. Starkweather
  • Kenneth G. Bogdan
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 1)

Abstract

Freshwater Zooplankton species differ in their consumption of live and dead algal cells when tested in situ. Using isotopicallylabeled living and heat-killed Chlamydomonas reinhardti as models for phytoplankton and detrital ses ton, respectively, we tested differential feeding on these foods by 3 rotifers and 2 microcrustaceans. Keratella cochlearis selectively feeds on ‘detrital’ materials while 2 sympatric rotifer species, Conochilus dossuarius and Kellicottia bostoniensis show no ability to discriminate between the living and dead foods. Both the copepod Diaptomus spatulocrenatus and a cladoceran, Bosmina sp., differentially consume living cells.

Keywords

rotifers detritus detrital feeding food selectivity community structure niche microcrustaceans 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bogdan, K. G., Gilbert, J. J. & Starkweather, P. L. 1980. In situ clearance rates of planktonic rotifers. In this volume, pp. 73–77.Google Scholar
  2. Dumont, H. J. 1977. Biotic factors in the population dynamics of rotifers. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. 8: 98–122.Google Scholar
  3. Edmondson, W. T. 1957. Trophic relations of the Zooplankton. Trans. Am. microsc. Soc. 76: 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erman, L. A. 1962. On the utilization of the reservoirs trophic resources by plankton rotifers, [in Russian]. Byull. Mosk. Obshch. Ispyt. Prir. 67: 32–47.Google Scholar
  5. Gilbert, J. J. & Williamson, C. E. 1978. Predator-prey behavior and its effect on rotifer survival in associations of Mesocyclops edax, Asplanchna girodi, Polyarthra vulgaris, and Keratella cochlearis. Oecologia 37: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haney, J. F. 1971. An in situ method for the measurement of zoo-plankton grazing rates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16: 970–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Naumann, E. 1923. Specielle Untersuchungen über die Ernäh-rungsbiologie des tierischen Limnoplanktons. II. Über den Nahrungsbiologie und die natürliche Nahrung der Copepoden und der Rotiferan des Limnoplanktons. Lunds Univ. Arsskr. N.F. 2, 19: 1–17.Google Scholar
  8. Nauwerck, A. 1963. Die Beziehungen zwischen Zooplankton und Phytoplankton im See Erken. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 17: 1–163.Google Scholar
  9. Pourriot, R. 1965. Recherches sur l’écologie des rotifères. Vie Milieu, Suppl. 21: 1–224.Google Scholar
  10. Pourriot, R. 1977. Food and feeding habits of Rotifera. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. 8: 243–260.Google Scholar
  11. Starkweather, P. L. 1980. Aspects of the feeding behavior and trophic ecology of suspension-feeding rotifers. In this volume, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
  12. Starr, R. C. 1978. The culture collection of algae at the University of Texas at Austin. J. Phycol. 14 Suppl.: 47–100.Google Scholar
  13. Spittler, P. 1969. Zucht-und Fütterungsversuche an einigen Rädertierarten der Hiddenseer Gewässer. Limnologica 7: 207–211.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk bv Publishers, The Hague 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter L. Starkweather
    • 1
  • Kenneth G. Bogdan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations