Zooplankton under the conditions of lake eutrophication and acidification

O.Y. Derevenskaya a*, E.N. Unkovskaya b**, N.M. Mingazova a***

aKazan Federal University, Kazan, 420008 Russia

bVolga-Kama State Nature Biosphere Reserve, Sadovyi, 422537 Russia

E-mail: *oderevenskaya@mail.ru, **l-unka@mail.ru, ***nmingaz@mail.ru

Received March 23, 2018

Full text PDF

DOI: 10.26907/2542-064X.2019.4.521-537

For citation: Derevenskaya O.Y., Unkovskaya E.N., Mingazova N.M. Zooplankton under the conditions of lake eutrophication and acidification. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Estestvennye Nauki, 2019, vol. 161, no. 4, pp. 521–537. doi: 10.26907/2542-064X.2019.4.521-537. (In Russian)

Abstract

Bogging processes are accompanied by the accumulation of humic acids, pH decrease, and low values of oxygen dissolved in water. Environmental conditions that are unfavorable for hydrobionts affect zooplankton communities and change their structure.

We studied zooplankton of 14 lakes in the Middle Volga region (Russia). The lakes are acidified to different degrees; three groups of lakes were distinguished according to the degree of acidification: acidic (pH 5–5.5), transitional (pH 5.6–6.5), and neutral (pH > 6.5). The purpose of the study was to reveal the peculiarities of the structure of zooplankton communities under the conditions of natural bogging and acidification.

The abundance of zooplankton was of the same order in the acidic and transitional lakes and about three times higher in the neutral ones, while rotifers were dominant in the acidic mesotrophic and neutral eutrophic lakes, where they comprised about 80% of the population. The biomass in the acidic and neutral lakes was low and did not exceed 1 g/m3.

Changes in the abundance of prevailing zooplankton groups by the pH gradient were revealed. With the decrease in the acidity, the following changes were observed: Conochilus hippocrepis (Schrank, 1803) was replaced by C. unicornis Rousellet, 1892; the proportion of the genera Kellicottia, Keratella, and Ceriodaphnia increased; Postclausa hyptopus (Ehrenberg, 1838) appeared; and the abundance of the genus Eudiaptomus increased. In the neutral lakes, the proportion of the genus Keratella, as well as that of the genera Asplanchna, Polyarthra, and Trichocerca, increased and the species composition became typical for the eutrophic lakes of the Middle Volga region.

In the acidic lakes, an increase in the number of microdetritivores of the genus Diaphanosoma (biomass) was noticed. Its value decreased in the transitional lakes, where they were replaced by the genus Daphnia and the genus Ceriodaphnia. In the transitional lakes, compared with the acidic ones, the proportion of coarse filter feeders of the genus Eudiaptomus increased. In the neutral lakes, they were replaced by crustaceans of the genus Thermocyclops and their juvenile stages. The pecies diversity of zooplankton increased in the direction from the acidic to neutral lakes.

Keywords: zooplankton, bog, acidification, waterlogging, structure, community, bioindication, lake

Acknowledgments. We are grateful to L.R. Pavlova (Engineer of Optimization of Water-Related Ecosystems Laboratory, Kazan Federal University) and O.Yu. Tarasov (Head of Laboratory for Environmental Analytical Measurements and Environmental Monitoring of Institute for Problems of Ecology and Mineral Wealth Use, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences) for providing us with data of the hydrochemical research.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Abundance (N, thousand ind/m3) of zooplankton of different taxonomic groups in the studied types of lakes.

Fig. 2. Biomass (В, g/m3) of taxonomic groups of zooplankton in the studied groups of lakes.

References

  1. Brett M.T. Zooplankton communities and acidification process (a review). Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 1989, vol. 44, pр. 387–414. doi: 10.1007/BF00279267.
  2. Schindler D.W. Changes caused by acidification to the biodiversity: Productivity and biogeochemical cycles of lakes. In: Steinberg C.E.W., Wright R.F. (Eds.) Acidification of Freshwater Ecosystems: Implication for the Future. Chichester, UK, Wiley & Sons, 1994, рр. 153–164.
  3. Lazareva V.I., Zhgareva N.N., Gusakov V.A., Ivanov V.K. Trophic web structure of invertebrate communities in three small lakes with different levels of water acidification: Zooplankton. Biol. Vnutr. Vod, 2003, no. 1, рр. 49–57. (In Russian)
  4. Lazareva V.I. Zooplankton ecology in different types of reservoirs in the Upper Volga River basin. Doct. Bio. Sci. Diss. Borok, 2008. 419 р. (In Russian)
  5. Faithfull C.L., Mathisen P., Wenzel A., Bergström A.K., Vrede T. Food web efficiency differs between humic and clear water lake communities in response to nutrients and light. Oecologia, 2015, vol. 177, no. 3, рр. 823–835. doi: 10.1007 / s00442-014-3132-2.
  6. Ozera Srednego Povolzh’ya [Lakes of the Middle Volga Region]. Sorokin I.N., Petrova R.S. (Eds.). Leningrad, Nauka, 1976. 236 р. (In Russian)
  7. Ochocka A., Pasztaleniec A. Sensitivity of plankton indices to lake trophic conditions. Environ. Monit. Assess., 2016, vol. 188, art. 622, pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1007 / s10661-016-5634-3.
  8. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po sboru i obrabotke materialov pri gidrobiologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na presnovodnykh vodoemakh. Zooplankton i ego produktsiya [Methodological Recommendations for Sampling and Processing of Materials during Hydrobiological Research of Freshwater Reservoirs. Zooplankton and Its Products]. Leningrad, Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR. GosNIORKh, 1982. 33 p. (In Russian)
  9. Hakkari L. Zooplankton species as indicators of the environment. Aqua Fenn. (Helsinki), 1972, рр. 46–54.
  10. Andronikova I.N. Strukturno-funktsional’naya organizatsiya zooplanktona ozernykh ekosistem raznykh troficheskikh tipov [Structural and Functional Organization of Zooplankton in Lake Ecosystems of Different Trophic Types]. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1996. 189 р. (In Russian)
  11. Adamczuk M., Mieczan T., Tarkowska-Kukuryk M., Demetraki-Paleolog A. Rotatoria–Cladocera–Copepoda relations in the long-term monitoring of water quality in lakes with trophic variation (E. Poland). Environ. Earth Sci., 2015, vol. 73, no. 12, рр. 8189–8196. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3977-z.
  12. Whittaker R.H. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science, 1965, vol. 147, no. 3655, рр. 250–260. doi: 10.1126/science.147.3655.250.
  13. Shannon C.E., Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, Univ. Ill. Press, 1949. 117 p.
  14. Sládecek V. System of water quality from biological point of view. Adv. Limnol., 1973, vol. IV. 218 р.
  15. Alekin O.A. Osnovy gidrokhimii [Fundamentals of Hydrochemistry]. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat, 1970. 443 p. (In Russian)
  16. Alekin O.A., Semenov A.D., Skopintsev B.A. Rukovodstvo po khimicheskomu analizu vod sushi [Handbook on Chemical Analysis of Inland Waters]. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat, 1973. 268 p. (In Russian)
  17. Lur’e Yu.Yu. Unifitsirovannye metody analiza vod [Uniform Methods of Water Analysis]. Moscow, Khimiya, 1973. 376 p. (In Russian)
  18. Carlson R.E. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr., 1977, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 361–369. doi: 10.4319/lo.1977.22.2.0361.
  19. Baranov I.V. Limnologicheskie tipy ozer SSSR [Limnological Types of Lakes in the USSR]. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat, 1962. 276 p. (In Russian)
  20. Hutchinson D. Limnologiya. Geograficheskie, fizicheskie i khimicheskie kharakteristiki ozer [Limnology. Geographical, Physical, and Chemical Characteristics of Lakes]. Moscow, Mir, 1969. 590 p. (In Russian)
  21. Alekseev V.R., Glagolev S.M., Dobrynina T.I., Kotov A.A., Kutikova L.A., Mazei Yu.A., Malya­vin S.A., Naumova E.Yu., Sinev A.Yu., Smirnov N.N., Stepanova L.A., Stoiko T.G., Sukhikh N.M., Telesh I.V., Fefilova E.B., Fil’chakov V.A. Opredelitel’ zooplanktona i zoobentosa presnykh vod Evropeiskoi Rossii [Key to Zooplankton and Zoobenthos of Fresh Waters of European Russia]. Moscow, Tovarishchestvo Nauchn. Izd. KMK, 2010. 495 p. (In Russian)
  22. Lazareva V.I. Transformation of zooplankton communities during acidification of small lakes. Tr. Inst. Biol. Vnutr. Vod Ross. Akad. Nauk, 1994, no. 70: Ecosystem structure and functioning in acidic lakes, рр. 150–169. (In Russian)
  23. Ivanova M.B. Effects of water active reaction and total mineralization approaching extreme values on the formation of zooplankton communities in lakes. Tr. Zool. Inst. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 1997, vol. 272: Response of lake ecosystems to changes in biotic and abiotic conditions, рр. 71–86. (In Russian)
  24. Gray D.K., Arnott S.E., Shead J.A., Derry A.M. The recovery of acid-damaged zooplankton communities in Canadian Lakes: The relative importance of abiotic, biotic and spatial variables. Freshwater Biol., 2012, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 741–758. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02739.x.
  25. Stuchlík E., Bitušík P., Hardekopf D.W., Hořická Z., Kahounová M., Tátosová J., Vondrák D., Dočkalová K. Complexity in the biological recovery of Tatra Mountain lakes from acidification. Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 2017, vol. 228, no. 5, art. 184, pp. 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11270-017-3362-0.
  26. Korosi J.B., Smol J.P. Contrasts between dystrophic and clearwater lakes in the long-term effects of acidification on cladoceran assemblages. Freshwater Biol., 2012, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 2449–2464. doi: 10.1111/fwb.12012.
  27. Valois A.E., Bill Keller W., Ramcharan C.W. Recovery in a multiple stressor environment: Using the reference condition approach to examine zooplankton community change along opposing gradients. J. Plankton Res., 2011, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1417–1429. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbr036.
  28. Vrba J., Bojková J. , Chvojka P., Fott J., Kopáček J., Macek M., Nedbalová L., Papáček M., Rádková V., Sacherová V., Soldán T., Šorf M. Constraints on the biological recovery of the Bohemian Forest lakes from acid stress. Freshwater Biol., 2016, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 376–395. doi: 10.1111/fwb.12714.
  29. Vandysh O.I. Effect of acidification on zooplankton communities of small lakes in mountain tundra. Water Resour., 2002, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 554–560. doi: 10.1023/A:1020382016192.
  30. Siegfried C.A., Bloomfield J.A., Sutherland J.W. Planktonic rotifer community structure in Adirondack, New York, U.S.A. lakes in relation to acidity, trophic status and related water quality characteristics. Hydrobiologia, 1989, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 33–48. doi: 10.1007/BF00008473.
  31. Derevenskaya O.Y., Unkovskaya E.N. Zooplankton community structure of lakes of the Volga-Kama Nature Reserve. Tr. Zool. Inst. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2016, vol. 320, no. 3, pp. 294–303. (In Russian)