Advanced

Response of zooplankton to nutrient enrichment and fish in shallow lakes: a pan-European mesocosm experiment

Vakkilainen, K; Kairesalo, T; Hietala, J; Balayla, D M; Becares, E; Van de Bund, W J; Van Donk, E; Fernandez-Alaez, M; Gyllström, Mikael LU and Hansson, Lars-Anders LU , et al. (2004) In Freshwater Biology 49(12). p.1619-1632
Abstract
1. Responses of zooplankton to nutrient enrichment and fish predation were studied in 1998 and 1999 by carrying out parallel mesocosm experiments in six lakes across Europe. 2. Zooplankton community structure, biomass and responses to nutrient and fish manipulation showed geographical and year-to-year differences. Fish had a greater influence than nutrients in regulating zooplankton biomass and especially the relative abundances of different functional groups of zooplankton. When fish reduced the biomass of large crustaceans, there was a complementary increase in the biomasses of smaller crustacean species and rotifers. 3. High abundance of submerged macrophytes provided refuge for zooplankton against fish predation but this refuge effect... (More)
1. Responses of zooplankton to nutrient enrichment and fish predation were studied in 1998 and 1999 by carrying out parallel mesocosm experiments in six lakes across Europe. 2. Zooplankton community structure, biomass and responses to nutrient and fish manipulation showed geographical and year-to-year differences. Fish had a greater influence than nutrients in regulating zooplankton biomass and especially the relative abundances of different functional groups of zooplankton. When fish reduced the biomass of large crustaceans, there was a complementary increase in the biomasses of smaller crustacean species and rotifers. 3. High abundance of submerged macrophytes provided refuge for zooplankton against fish predation but this refuge effect differed notably in magnitude among sites. 4. Large crustacean grazers (Daphnia, Diaphanosoma, Sida and Simocephalus) were crucial in controlling algal biomass, while smaller crustacean grazers and rotifers were of minor importance. Large grazers were able to control phytoplankton biomass even under hypereutrophic conditions (up to 1600 mug TP L-1) when grazer biomass was high (>80-90 mug dry mass L-1) or accounted for >30% of the grazer community. 5. The littoral zooplankton community was less resistant to change following nutrient enrichment in southern Spain, at high temperatures (close to 30degreesC), than at lower temperatures (17-23degreesC) characterising the other sites. This lower resistance was because of a greater importance of nutrients than zooplankton in controlling algal biomass. 6. Apart from the reduced role of large crustacean grazers at the lowest latitude, no consistent geographical patterns were observed in the responses of zooplankton communities to nutrient and fish manipulation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Freshwater Biology
volume
49
issue
12
pages
1619 - 1632
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • wos:000225316100009
  • scopus:9644268735
ISSN
0046-5070
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01300.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
6c85bb46-e039-4cf7-837d-74eba7efcfb7 (old id 136549)
date added to LUP
2007-06-29 08:19:56
date last changed
2017-08-06 04:40:27
@article{6c85bb46-e039-4cf7-837d-74eba7efcfb7,
  abstract     = {1. Responses of zooplankton to nutrient enrichment and fish predation were studied in 1998 and 1999 by carrying out parallel mesocosm experiments in six lakes across Europe. 2. Zooplankton community structure, biomass and responses to nutrient and fish manipulation showed geographical and year-to-year differences. Fish had a greater influence than nutrients in regulating zooplankton biomass and especially the relative abundances of different functional groups of zooplankton. When fish reduced the biomass of large crustaceans, there was a complementary increase in the biomasses of smaller crustacean species and rotifers. 3. High abundance of submerged macrophytes provided refuge for zooplankton against fish predation but this refuge effect differed notably in magnitude among sites. 4. Large crustacean grazers (Daphnia, Diaphanosoma, Sida and Simocephalus) were crucial in controlling algal biomass, while smaller crustacean grazers and rotifers were of minor importance. Large grazers were able to control phytoplankton biomass even under hypereutrophic conditions (up to 1600 mug TP L-1) when grazer biomass was high (>80-90 mug dry mass L-1) or accounted for >30% of the grazer community. 5. The littoral zooplankton community was less resistant to change following nutrient enrichment in southern Spain, at high temperatures (close to 30degreesC), than at lower temperatures (17-23degreesC) characterising the other sites. This lower resistance was because of a greater importance of nutrients than zooplankton in controlling algal biomass. 6. Apart from the reduced role of large crustacean grazers at the lowest latitude, no consistent geographical patterns were observed in the responses of zooplankton communities to nutrient and fish manipulation.},
  author       = {Vakkilainen, K and Kairesalo, T and Hietala, J and Balayla, D M and Becares, E and Van de Bund, W J and Van Donk, E and Fernandez-Alaez, M and Gyllström, Mikael and Hansson, Lars-Anders and Miracle, MR and Moss, B and Romo, S and Rueda, J and Stephen, D},
  issn         = {0046-5070},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {12},
  pages        = {1619--1632},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Freshwater Biology},
  title        = {Response of zooplankton to nutrient enrichment and fish in shallow lakes: a pan-European mesocosm experiment},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01300.x},
  volume       = {49},
  year         = {2004},
}