Plankton dynamics in a river-lake system — on continuity and discontinuity
- 347 Downloads
We studied the plankton dynamics in the shallow, rapidly flushed lake Neuendorfer See and an adjacent reach of the river Spree. During summer/fall, zooplankton and phytoplankton densities increased exponentially in the lake and decreased exponentially in the river without major changes in species composition. Both parts of the system can be described as tubular plug flow reactors that differ markedly in the growth rates of plankton. Whereas reproduction in rotifers was constant in the whole system, the mortality was about 10 times higher in the river compared to the lake caused by the filtration activity of abundant mussels. Physiological conditions can be regarded as continuous in the river-lake system. According to trophic conditions, the river-lake system is divided in two contrasting subsystems with the lake classified as ‘autotrophic’ and the river as ‘heterotrophic’ and the site of discontinuity was located sharply at the lake-river transition. At very low discharges, the differences between the subsystems were reduced and intra-pelagic mechanisms became more important. A model of plankton dynamics in the river-lake system is presented.
Key wordsplankton dynamics lowland river River Continuum Concept Serial Discontinuity Concept
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Böhme, M., 1994. Release and consumption of oxygen by a phytoplankton dominated community of a eutrophic lowland river. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 25: 1585 – 1589.Google Scholar
- Idrisi, N., 1997. Impact of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) on the pelagic lower trophic levels of Oneida Lake, NY. PhD thesis, SUNY College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
- Jeppesen, E., M. Sondergaard, M. Sondergaard & K. Christoffersen (eds), 1997. The Structuring Role of Submerged Makrophytes in Lakes. Ecological studies 131. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
- Lammens, E. H. H. R. & S. H. Hosper, 1998. Het voedselweb van IJsselmeer en Markermeer, trends gradiënten en stuurbaarheid. RIZA report 98.003; Lelystad: 52 pp.Google Scholar
- Marzolf, G. R., 1990. Reservoirs as environments for zooplankton. In Thornton, K. W., B. L. Kimmel & F. E. Payne (eds), Reservoir Limnology. Wiley & Sons: 195 – 207.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, C. S., J. P. Descy & J. Padisäk, 1994. Are phytoplankton dynamics in rivers so different from those in shallow lakes? Hydrobiologia 289: 1 – 7.Google Scholar
- Siefert, J., 1996. Respirations-and Filtrationsraten zweier in der Spree dominierender Großmuschelarten (Anodonta anatina, Unio tumidus, Unionidae) unter Berücksichtigung der Fließgeschwindigkeit. Diploma thesis. Freie Universität Berlin: 126 pp.Google Scholar
- Sommer, U., Z. M. Gliwicz, W. Lampert & A. Duncan, 1986. The PEG-model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters. Arch. Hydrobiol. 106: 433 – 471.Google Scholar
- Scheffer, M., 1998. Ecology of shallow lakes. Chapman & Hall. Statzner, B., 1978. Factors that determine the benthic secondary production in two lake outflows — a cybernetical model. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 1517 – 1522.Google Scholar
- Welker, M. & N. Walz, 1998. Can mussels control the plankton in rivers? A planktological study applying a Lagrangian sampling strategy. Limnol. Oceanogr. 43: 753 – 762.Google Scholar