2017Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of LimnologyRequires access

Are the littoral zone conditions suitable for tropical planktonic microcrustaceans?

Bruno Barretto de Souza, Marlene Sofía Arcifa, Tânia Cristina dos Santos Ferreira, Lúcia Helena Sampaio da Silva, Cláudia Fileto, Andrés Ricardo Domingos

Open publisher page 9 citations

Abstract

The occupation of the littoral and limnetic zones by planktonic species has led to questions about whether littoral macrophytes would be a suitable habitat or refuge. These questions guided our field and laboratory studies on the spatial occupation and the food suitability for microcrustaceans of a shallow tropical lake. Replicated zooplankton samples were collected over 18 days, at intervals of 3 days, at three zones (the middle and edge of the stands of the emergent macrophyte, Ludwigia sp., and the limnetic zone). Some species, such as the cladocerans Diaphanosoma birgei and Daphnia ambigua, showed preference for the littoral zone and the limnetic zone, respectively. Copepodites, and adult copepods Thermocyclops decipiens and Tropocyclops prasinus meridionalis are mainly limnetic dwellers. The size of the cladocerans Ceriodaphnia richardi and Daphnia gessneri did not differ between the zones, nor did the clutch size of the former species; smaller individuals of D. ambigua were found within macrophyte stands. In laboratory experiments, the seston of the three zones did not negatively affect the development of the cladocerans C. richardi and D. birgei. On the contrary, the seston of the middle of the macrophyte stands promoted better growth rates of both cladocerans and some of the life table parameters of D. birgei than the seston of the other two zones. Food quantity and quality are not negative factors to microcrustaceans in the littoral and limnetic zones. The preference or indifference of microcrustaceans to habitats may be part of their adaptive strategies regarding other factors, including predation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The occupation of the littoral and limnetic zones by planktonic species has led to questions about whether littoral macrophytes would be a suitable habitat or refuge. These questions guided our field and laboratory studies on the spatial occupation and the food suitability for microcrustaceans of a shallow tropical lake. Replicated zooplankton samples were collected over 18 days, at intervals of 3 days, at three zones (the middle and edge of the stands of the emergent macrophyte, Ludwigia sp., and the limnetic zone). Some species, such as the cladocerans Diaphanosoma birgei and Daphnia ambigua, showed preference for the littoral zone and the limnetic zone, respectively. Copepodites, and adult copepods Thermocyclops decipiens and Tropocyclops prasinus meridionalis are mainly limnetic dwellers. The size of the cladocerans Ceriodaphnia richardi and Daphnia gessneri did not differ between the zones, nor did the clutch size of the former species; smaller individuals of D. ambigua were found within macrophyte stands. In laboratory experiments, the seston of the three zones did not negatively affect the development of the cladocerans C. richardi and D. birgei. On the contrary, the seston of the middle of the macrophyte stands promoted better growth rates of both cladocerans and some of the life table parameters of D. birgei than the seston of the other two zones. Food quantity and quality are not negative factors to microcrustaceans in the littoral and limnetic zones. The preference or indifference of microcrustaceans to habitats may be part of their adaptive strategies regarding other factors, including predation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 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

The occupation of the littoral and limnetic zones by planktonic species has led to questions about whether littoral macrophytes would be a suitable habitat or refuge. These questions guided our field and laboratory studies on the spatial occupation and the food suitability for microcrustaceans of a shallow tropical lake. Replicated zooplankton samples were collected over 18 days, at intervals of 3 days, at three zones (the middle and edge of the stands of the emergent macrophyte, Ludwigia sp., and the limnetic zone). Some species, such as the cladocerans Diaphanosoma birgei and Daphnia ambigua, showed preference for the littoral zone and the limnetic zone, respectively. Copepodites, and adult copepods Thermocyclops decipiens and Tropocyclops prasinus meridionalis are mainly limnetic dwellers. The size of the cladocerans Ceriodaphnia richardi and Daphnia gessneri did not differ between the zones, nor did the clutch size of the former species; smaller individuals of D. ambigua were found within macrophyte stands. In laboratory experiments, the seston of the three zones did not negatively affect the development of the cladocerans C. richardi and D. birgei. On the contrary, the seston of the middle of the macrophyte stands promoted better growth rates of both cladocerans and some of the life table parameters of D. birgei than the seston of the other two zones. Food quantity and quality are not negative factors to microcrustaceans in the littoral and limnetic zones. The preference or indifference of microcrustaceans to habitats may be part of their adaptive strategies regarding other factors, including predation.

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Are the littoral zone conditions suitable for tropical planktonic microcrustaceans? — Research Paper | ScholarLens