Abstract
The effects of piscivores upon zooplanktivore behaviour and distribution and the impact of zooplanktivores on the abundance and distribution of zooplankton are well documented. However, the potential indirect effect of piscivores reducing the predation pressure upon grazing zooplankton through behavioural changes of zooplanktivores has received little attention, even though this may be an important mechanism in enhancing the stability of submerged macrophytes in shallow lakes. Preliminary observations from an unreplicated large-scale field enclosure experiment and a replicated pond experiment suggest that this mechanism is plausible with the set of piscivores (pike Esox luciusand perch Perca fluviatilis)and the zooplanktivores (0+ roach Rutilus rutilusand perch) common in temperate Europe. The presence of piscivores typically changed the habitat use and the activity level of zooplanktivores and the presence of zooplanktivores typically changed the habitat selection of cladoceran zooplankton. In the case of piscivore/zooplanktivore interactions, the risk of predation was enough to generate clear responses even where the losses to predation were low. However, only in the enclosure experiment was an indirect impact of the presence of piscivores, enabling Daphnia spp. to utilise open water in the presence of a high density of zooplanktivorous fish observed. Whether the magnitude and direction of the effect of piscivores is sufficient to benefit zooplankton may depend on the functional group (capable of foraging within structured habitats) of the predator (both piscivore and zooplanktivore), absolute and relative densities of predator and prey and predator dietary choice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bean, C. W. & I. J. Winfield, 1995. Habitat use and activity patterns of roach (Rutilus rutilus(L.)), rudd (Scardinius erythwphthalmus(L.)), perch (Perca fluviatilisL.) and pike (Esox luciusL.) in the laboratory: the role of predation threat and structural complexity. Ecol. of Freshwat. Fish 4: 37–46.
Berg, S., E. Jeppesen, M. Søndergaard & E. Mortensen, 1994: Environmental effects of introducing whitefish, Coregonus lavaretus(L.), in Lake Ring. Hydrobiologia 275/276: 71–80.
Breder, C. M., 1960. Design for a fish trap. Zoologica, N.Y. 45: 155–159.
Canfield, D. E. Jr., J. V. Shireman, D. E. Colle, W. T. Haller, C. E. Watkins II & M. J. Maceina, 1984. Prediction of clorophyll aconcentrations in Florida lakes: importance of aquatic macrophytes. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 41: 497–501.
Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell, J. R. Hodgson, P. A. Cochran, J. J. Elser, M. M. Elser, D. M. Lodge, D. Kretchmer, X. He & C. N. von Ende, 1987. Regulation of a lake primary productivity by food web structure. Ecology 68: 1863–1876.
Carvalho, L., 1994. Top-down control of phytoplankton in a shallow hypertrophic lake: Little Mere (England). Hydrobiologia 275/276: 53–64.
Christensen, B. & L. Persson, 1993. Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 1–9.
Diehl, S., 1988. Foraging efficiency of three freshwater fishes: effects of structural complexity and light. Oikos 53: 207–214.
Dorgelo, J. & M. Heycoop, 1985. Avoidance of macrophytes by Daphnia longispina. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 3369–3372.
Eklöv, P., 1992. Group foraging versus solitary foraging efficiency in piscivorous predators: the perch, Perca fluviatilis,and pike, Esox lucius,patterns. Anim. Behav. 44: 313–326.
Eklöv, P. & S. Diehl, 1994. Piscivore efficiency and refuging prey: the importance of predator search mode. Oecologia 98: 344–353.
Gliwicz, J. M. & A. Jachner, 1992. Diel migrations of juvenile fish: a ghost of predation past or present? Arch. Hydrobiol. 124: 385–410.
Gotceitas, V. & P. Colgan, 1987. Selection between densities of artificial vegetation by young bluegills avoiding predation. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 116: 40–49.
Grimm, M. P. & J. J. G. M. Backx, 1990. The restoration of shallow eutrophic lakes, and the role of northern pike, aquatic vegetation and nutrient concentration. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 557–566.
Hambright, K. D., R. J. Trebatoski & R. W. Drenner, 1986. Experimental study of the impacts of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)on pond community structure. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 43: 1171–1176.
Irvine, K., B. Moss & H. Balls, 1989. The loss of submerged plants with eutrophication II. Relationships between fish and zooplankton in a set of experimental ponds, and conclusions. Freshwat. Biol. 22: 89–107.
Lammens, E. H. R. R., R. D. Gulati, M.-L. Meier & E. van Donk, 1990. The first biomanipulation conference: a synthesis. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 619–627.
Lauridsen, T. L. & D. M. Lodge, 1996. Avoidance by Daphnia magnaof fish and macrophytes: chemical cues and predatormediated use of macrophyte habitat. Limnol. Oceanogr. 4: 794–798.
McQueen, D. J., 1990. Manipulating lake community structure: where do we go from here? Freshwat. Biol. 23: 613–620.
Naud, M. & P. Magnan, 1988. Diel onshore-offshore migrations in northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos(Cope), in relation to prey distribution in a small oligotrophic lake. Can. J. Zool. 66: 1249–1253.
Pennak, R. W., 1973. Some evidence for aquatic macrophytes as repellants for a limnetic species of Daphnia . Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 58: 569–576.
Perrow, M. R., A. J. D. J. Jowitt & L. Zambrano Gonzalez, 1996. Sampling fish communities in shallow lowland lakes: point sample electricfishing versus electricfishing within stop-nets. Fish. Mgmt Ecol. 3(4): 303–313.
Persson, L., 1993. Predator-mediated competition in prey refuges: the importance of habitat dependent prey resources. Oikos 68: 12–22.
Persson, L., S. Diehl, L. Johansson, G. Andersson & S. F. Hamrin, 1991. The succession of fish communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes-patterns and the importance of size-structured populations. J. Fish. Biol. 38: 281–293.
Persson, L. & P. Eklöv, 1995. Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach. Ecology 76: 70–81.
Phillips, G. L., M. R. Perrow & J. H. Stansfield, 1996. Manipulating the fish-zooplankton interactions in shallow lakes: a tool for restoration. In Greenstreet, S. P. R. & M. L. Tasker (eds), Aquatic Predators and their prey. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd., Oxford, England: 174–183.
Savino, J. F. & R. A. Stein, 1989. Behavioural interactions between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density. Anim. Behav. 37: 311–321.
Scheffer, M., S. H. Hosper, M.-L. Meijer, B. Moss & E. Jeppesen, 1993. Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. TREE 8: 275–279.
Schriver, P., J. Bøgestrand, E. Jeppesen & M. Søndergaard, 1995. Impact of submerged macrophytes on fish-Zooplankton—phytoplanktonlankton interactions: large-scale enclosure experiments in a shallow lake. Freshwat. Biol. 33: 255–270.
Siegel, S. & N. J. Castellan Jr., 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co., London and New York, 399 pp.
Stansfield, J. H., M. R. Perrow, L. D. Tench, A. J. D. Jowitt & A. A. L. Taylor, 1997. Submerged macrophytes as refuges for grazing Cladocera against fish predation: observations on seasonal changes in relation to macrophyte cover and predation pressure. Hydrobiologia 342/343: 229–240.
Søndergaard, M., E. Jeppesen, E. Mortensen, E. Dall, P. Kristensen & O. Sortkjær, 1990. Phytoplankton biomass reduction after planktivorous fish reduction in a shallow, eutrophic lake: a combined effect of reduced internal P-loading and increased zooplankton grazing. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 229–240.
Tatrai, I. & A. Herzig, 1995. Effects of habitat structure on the feeding efficiency of young stages of razor fish (Pelecus cultratus(L.)): an experimental approach. Hydrobiologia 299: 75–81.
Timms, R. M. & B. Moss, 1984. Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton populations by zooplankton grazing, in the presence of zooplanktivorous fish, in a shallow wetland system. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 472–486.
Townsend, C. R. & M. R. Perrow, 1989. Eutrophication may produce population cycles in roach, Rutilus rutilus,by two contrasting mechanisms. J. Fish. Biol. 34: 161–164.
Turner, A. M. & G. G. Mittelbach, 1990. Predator avoidance and community structure: interactions among piscivores, planktivores, and plankton. Ecology 71: 2241–2254.
Venugopal, M. N. & I. J. Winfield, 1993. The distribution of juvenile fishes in a hypereutrophic pond. Can macrophytes potentially offer refuges for zooplankton? J. Freshwat. Ecol. 8: 389–396.
Werner, E. E., J. F. Gilliam, D. J. Hall & G. G. Mittelbach, 1983. An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64: 1540–1548.
Winfield, I. J., 1986. The influence of simulated aquatic macrophytes on the zooplankton consumption rate of juvenile roach, Rutilus rutilus,and perch, Perca fluviatilis. J. Fish. Biol. 29 (suppl. A): 37–48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jacobsen, L., Perrow, M.R., Landkildehus, F., Hjørne, M., Lauridsen, T.L., Berg, S. (1997). Interactions between piscivores, zooplanktivores and zooplankton in submerged macrophytes: preliminary observations from enclosure and pond experiments. In: Kufel, L., Prejs, A., Rybak, J.I. (eds) Shallow Lakes ’95. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol 119. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5648-6_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5648-6_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6382-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5648-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive