Chaoborus flavicans in the food web - competitor or resource for fish?

• Autorzy: Pekcan-Hekim Zeynep , Liljendahl-Nurminen Anne , Horppila Jukka
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In lakes, chaoborids can be a food resource and also act as competitors for planktivorous fish. Usually their density varies reciprocally with the density of planktivorous fish, which forage on chaoborids. Results from Lake Hiidenvesi show, however, that in deep clay-turbid lakes chaoborids may be the main regulators of herbivorous zooplankton although the density of planktivorous fish is high. This is because turbidity reduces the feeding efficiency of fish while the feeding of chaoborids is not affected by the high turbidity levels.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

clay-turbidity; predation; smelt; white bream

PL

Chaoborus; drapieżnictwo; leszcz; muchówki; środowisko wodne

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: Vol. 54, nr 4
• Strony: 701--707

Twórcy

autor

Pekcan-Hekim Zeynep

• Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences/Aquatic Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland, P.O.B. 65, FIN-00014

autor

Liljendahl-Nurminen Anne

• Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences/Aquatic Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland, P.O.B. 65, FIN-00014

autor

Horppila Jukka

• Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences/Aquatic Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland, P.O.B. 65, FIN-00014

• Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences/Aquatic Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland, P.O.B. 65, FIN-00014

Bibliografia

• Appenzeller A.R., Leggett W.C. 1995 – An evaluation of light-mediated vertical migration of fish based on hydroacoustic analysis of the diel vertical movements of rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 504–511.
• Benndorf J. 1995 – Possibilities and limits for controlling eutrophication by biomanipulation – Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 80: 519–534.
• Black R.W., Hairston N.G.Jr. 1988 – Predator driven changes in community structure – Oecologia, 77: 468–479.
• Borkent A. 1981 – The distribution and habitat preferences of the Chaoboridae (Culicomorpha: Diptera) of the holarctic region – Can. J. Zool. 59: 122–133.
• Cuker B.E. 1993 – Suspended clays alter trophic interactions in the plankton – Ecology, 74: 944–953.
• De Robertis A., Ryer C.H., Veloza A., Brodeur R.D. 2003 – Differential effects of turbidity on prey consumption of piscivorous and planktivorous fish – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 1517–1526.
• Diehl S. 1988 – Foraging efficiency of three freshwater fishes: Effects of structural complexity and light – Oikos, 53: 207–214.
• Elser M.M., von Ende C.N., Sorranno P., Carpenter S.R. 1987 – Chaoborus populations: response to food web manipulations and potential effects on zooplankton communities – Can. J. Zool. 65: 2846–2852.
• Giske J., Aksnes D.L., Fiksen Ø. 1994 – Visual predators, environmental variables and zooplankton mortality risk – Vie et Milieu, 44: 1–9.
• Gliwicz Z.M., Hillbricht-Ilkowska A., Węgleńska T. 1978 – Contribution of fish and invertebrate predation to the elimination of zooplankton biomass in two Polish lakes – Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20: 1007–1011.
• Hemmings C.C. 1966 – Factors influencing the visibility of objects underwater (In: Light as an ecological factor, Eds. R. Bainbridge, G.C. Evans, O. Rackham) – Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 359–374.
• Hinshaw J.M. 1985 – Effects of illumination and prey contrast on survival and growth of larval yellow perch Perca flavescens – Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114: 540–545.
• Horppila J. 2005a – Project background and lake description – Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 59: 1–11.
• Horppila J. 2005b – Expected and unexpected phenomena – experiences from Lake Hiidenvesi research – Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 59: 219–232.
• Horppila J., Liljendahl-Nurminen A. 2005 – Clay-turbid interactions may not cascade – a reminder for lake managers – Restor. Ecol. 13: 241–245.
• Horppila J., Liljendahl-Nurminen A., Malinen T. 2004 – Effects of clay turbidity and light on the predator-prey interaction between smelts and chaoborids – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 1862–1870.
• Jeppesen E., Jensen J.P., Søndergaard M., Lauridsen T., Landkildehus F. 2000 – Trophic structure, species richness and biodiversity in Danish lakes: changes along a phosphorus gradient – Freshwat. Biol. 45: 201–218.
• Kajak Z., Rybak J. 1979 – The feeding of Chaoborus flavicans Meigen (Diptera, Chaoboridae) and its predation on lake zooplankton – Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobiol. 64: 361–378.
• Kirk J.T.O. 1994 – Light and photoynthesis in aquatic ecosystems – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 509 pp.
• Lair N. 1990 – Effects of invertebrate predation on the seasonal succession of a zooplankton community: a two year study in Lake Aydat, France – Hydrobiologia, 198: 1–12.
• Lammens E.H.R.R., Geursen J., Mac-Gillavry P.J. 1987 – Diet shifts feeding efficiency and coexistence of bream (Abramis brama), roach (Rutilus rutilus) and white bream (Blicca bjoerkna) in hypertrophic lakes – Proc. V Congr. Europ. Ichtyol. Stockholm, 1985: 153–162.
• Lampert W., Sommer U. 1997 – Limnoecology: The ecology of lakes and streams – Oxford University Press, Oxford – New York, 382 pp.
• Lane P.A. 1978 – Role of invertebrate predation in structuring zooplankton communities – Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20: 480–485.
• Liljendahl-Nurminen A., Horppila J., Eloranta P., Malinen T., Uusitalo L. 2002 – The seasonal dynamics and distribution of Chaoborus flavicans in adjacent lake basins of different morphometry and degree of eutrophication – Freshwat. Biol. 47: 1283–1295.
• Liljendahl-Nurminen A., Horppila J., Eloranta P., Alajärvi E., Malinen T., Valtonen S., Vinni M. 2003 – The supremacy of invertebrate predators over fish – factors behind the unconventional seasonal dynamics of cladocerans in Lake Hiidenvesi – Arch. Hydrobiol. 158:75–96.
• Liljendahl-Nurminen A., Horppila J., Eloranta P., Valtonen S., Pekcan-Hekim Z. 2005 – Searching for the missing peak – an enclosure study on the seasonal succession of cladocerans in Lake Hiidenvesi – Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 59: 85–103.
• Luecke C. 1986 – A change in the pattern of vertical migration of Chaoborus flavicans after the introduction of trout – J. Plankton Res. 8: 649–657.
• Lüning-Krizan J. 1997 – Selective feeding of third- and fourth instar larvae of Chaoborus flavicans in the field – Arch. Hydrobiol. 140: 347–365.
• McQueen D.J., Ramcharan C.W., Demer E., Yan N.D., Conforti L.M., Perez-Fuentetaja A. 1999 – Chaoborus behavioural responses to changes in fish density – Arch. Hydrobiol. 145: 165–179.
• Nilssen J.P. 1974 – On the ecology and distribution of the Norwegian larvae of Chaoborus (Diptera, Chaoboridae) – Norw. J. Entomol. 21: 37–44.
• Nurminen L. 2003 – Macrophyte species composition reflecting water quality changes in adjacent water bodies of Lake Hiidenvesi, SW Finland – Ann. Bot. Fenn. 40: 199–208.
• Olin M., Rask M., Ruuhijärvi J., Kurkilahti M., Ala-Opas P., Ylönen O. 2002 – Fish community structure in mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes of southern Finland: the relative abundances of percids and cyprinids along a trophic gradient – J. Fish Biol. 60: 593–612.
• Olin M., Rask M., Ruuhijärvi J., Keskitalo J., Horppila J., Tallberg P., Taponen T., Lehtovaara A., Sammalkorpi I. 2006– Effects of biomanipulation on fish and plankton communities in ten eutrophic lakes of southern Finland – Hydrobiologia, 553: 67–88..
• Olin M., Ruuhijärvi J. 2005 – Fish communities in the different basins of L. Hiidenvesi in 1997–2001: effects of trophic status and basin morphology – Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 59: 125–140.
• Pastorok R.A. 1981 – Selection of prey by Chaoborus larvae: A review and new evidence for behavioral flexibility (In: Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities, Ed. W.C. Kerfoot) – The University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, pp. 538–554.
• Peckan-Hekim Z. Horppila J. – Feeding efficiency of white bream at different inorganic turbidities and light climates – J. Fish Biol. (in press)
• Persson L. 1987 – Effects of habitat and season on competitive interactions between roach (Rutilus rutilus) and perch (Perca fluviatilis) – Oecologia, 73: 170–177.
• Persson L., Diehl S., Johansson L., Andersson G., Hamrin S.F. 1991 – Shifts in fish communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes – patterns and the importance of size-structured interactions – J. Fish Biol. 38: 281–293.
• Persson L., Diehl S., Johansson L., Andersson G., Hamrin S. 1992 – Trophic interactions in temperate lake ecosystems: a test of food chain theory – Am. Nat. 140: 59–84.
• Pope G.F., Carter J.C.H., Power G. 1973 – The influence of fish on the distribution of Chaoborus spp. (Diptera) and density of larvae in the Matamek River System, Québec – Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102: 707–722.
• Ramcharan C.W., McQueen D.J., Pérez-Fuentetaja A., Yan N.D., Demers E., Rusak J. 2001 – Complex responses of Chaoborus to changes in fish populations – Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 56: 81–100.
• Sæther O.A. 1997 – Diptera Chaoboridae, Phantom midges (In: Aquatic insects of North Europe 2, Ed. A. Nilsson) – Apollo Books, Stenstrup, pp. 149–161.
• Shapiro J., Lamarra V., Lynch M. 1975 – Biomanipulation: an ecosystem approach to lake restoration (In: Water quality management through biological control, Eds. P.L. Brezonit, J.L. Fox) – University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 85–96.
• Sommer U., Gliwicz Z.M., Lampert W., Duncan A. 1986 – The PEG-model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters – Arch. Hydrobiol. 106: 433–471.
• Tallberg P., Horppila J., Väisänen A., Nurminen L. 1999 – Seasonal succession of phytoplankton and zooplankton along a trophic gradient in a eutrophic lake – implications for food web management – Hydrobiologia, 412: 81–94.
• Townsend C.R., Risebrow A.J. 1982 – The influence of light level on the functional response of a zooplanktonivorous fish – Oecologia, 53: 293–295.
• Utne-Palm A.C. 1999 – The effect of prey mobility, prey contrast, turbidity and spectral composition on the reaction distance of Gobiusculus flavescens to its planktonic prey – J. Fish Biol. 54: 1244–1258.
• Van Densen W.L.T., Ligtvoet W., Roozen R.W.M. 1996 – Intra-cohort variation in the individual size of juvenile pikeperch, Stizostedion lucioperca, and perch, Perca fluviatilis, in relation to the size spectrum of their food items – Ann. Zool. Fennici, 33: 495–506.
• Vinyard G.L., O’Brien J. 1976 – Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) – J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2845–2849.
• Von Ende C.N. 1978 – Regional coexistence of four Chaoborus species – Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20: 2630–2633.
• Wissel B., Benndorf J. 1998 – Contrasting effects of the invertebrate predator Chaoborus obscuripes and planktivorous fish on plankton communities of a long term biomanipulation experiment – Arch. Hydrobiol. 143: 129–146.