1998Freshwater BiologyRequires access

Environmental gradients and the horizontal distribution of microcrustaceans in lakes

Elizabeth A. Smiley, Alan J. Tessier

Open publisher page 45 citations

Abstract

1. The assemblage of suspension‐feeding microcrustaceans in lakes changes along a habitat gradient from nearshore to offshore. This gradient of microcrustaceans was explored in relation to differences in macrophytes and the associated changes in water chemistry, food resources and types of predators. 2. Some microcrustacean species were littoral or limnetic specialists, while others changed their distribution along this horizontal habitat gradient on a diel or seasonal basis. Distribution patterns were similar in a lake and a pond which differed in extent of macrophyte habitat. 3. There was a large shift in the composition of sestonic food, indicating heterotrophic seston nearshore and more autotrophic seston offshore. Sit‐and‐wait predators of microcrustaceans (e.g. Enallagma spp.) dominated nearshore and cruising predators (e.g. Leptodora kindtii Focke) were more common offshore. 4. A reciprocal transplant experiment revealed that littoral specialists could survive equally well when fed littoral or limnetic seston, while limnetic specialists performed poorly when fed littoral seston. Food resources may be important in determining where some microcrustacean species live along this horizontal habitat gradient.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

1. The assemblage of suspension‐feeding microcrustaceans in lakes changes along a habitat gradient from nearshore to offshore. This gradient of microcrustaceans was explored in relation to differences in macrophytes and the associated changes in water chemistry, food resources and types of predators. 2. Some microcrustacean species were littoral or limnetic specialists, while others changed their distribution along this horizontal habitat gradient on a diel or seasonal basis. Distribution patterns were similar in a lake and a pond which differed in extent of macrophyte habitat. 3. There was a large shift in the composition of sestonic food, indicating heterotrophic seston nearshore and more autotrophic seston offshore. Sit‐and‐wait predators of microcrustaceans (e.g. Enallagma spp.) dominated nearshore and cruising predators (e.g. Leptodora kindtii Focke) were more common offshore. 4. A reciprocal transplant experiment revealed that littoral specialists could survive equally well when fed littoral or limnetic seston, while limnetic specialists performed poorly when fed littoral seston. Food resources may be important in determining where some microcrustacean species live along this horizontal habitat gradient.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 45 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

1. The assemblage of suspension‐feeding microcrustaceans in lakes changes along a habitat gradient from nearshore to offshore. This gradient of microcrustaceans was explored in relation to differences in macrophytes and the associated changes in water chemistry, food resources and types of predators. 2. Some microcrustacean species were littoral or limnetic specialists, while others changed their distribution along this horizontal habitat gradient on a diel or seasonal basis. Distribution patterns were similar in a lake and a pond which differed in extent of macrophyte habitat. 3. There was a large shift in the composition of sestonic food, indicating heterotrophic seston nearshore and more autotrophic seston offshore. Sit‐and‐wait predators of microcrustaceans (e.g. Enallagma spp.) dominated nearshore and cruising predators (e.g. Leptodora kindtii Focke) were more common offshore. 4. A reciprocal transplant experiment revealed that littoral specialists could survive equally well when fed littoral or limnetic seston, while limnetic specialists performed poorly when fed littoral seston. Food resources may be important in determining where some microcrustacean species live along this horizontal habitat gradient.

Key concepts: Limnetic zone, Seston, Littoral zone, Macrophyte, Ecology, Zooplankton, Branchiopoda, Habitat

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Environmental gradients and the horizontal distribution of microcrustaceans in lakes — Research Paper | ScholarLens