4.6 Article

Composition, size, and biomass of zooplankton in large productive Florida lakes

Journal

HYDROBIOLOGIA
Volume 668, Issue 1, Pages 49-60

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-010-0386-5

Keywords

Zooplankton; Species composition; Body size; Biomass; Predation; Florida lakes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crustacean zooplankton data were compiled from long-term observational studies at seven large shallow Florida lakes, to determine whether there are general characteristics in regard to species composition, body size, and biomass. In particular, we examined whether patterns in body size and species richness fit empirical models developed by Stanley Dodson. The lakes included range in size from 125 to 1730 km(2) and encompass mesotrophic to hyper-eutrophic conditions. We found that zooplankton biomass was strongly dominated by one species of calanoid copepod-Arctodiaptomus dorsalis. Large daphnids were absent, and Cladocera assemblages were dominated by small taxa such as Ceriodaphnia, Chydorus, and Eubosmina. The total number of species of pelagic cladocerans (8-12) was consistent with Dodson's predictions based on lake area. The average size of crustacean zooplankton in Florida lakes is small in comparison with temperate communities. A. dorsalis is the smallest calanoid copepod in North America, and the mean length of Cladocera (0.6 mm) is consistent with Dodson's results that size decreases from temperate to tropical zones. Total biomass of crustacean zooplankton was very low, ratios of zooplankton to phytoplankton biomass (0.01-0.1) are among the lowest reported in the literature, and the zooplankton displayed short-lasting early spring peaks in biomass. Cladocera were almost entirely absent in spring and summer. Factors known to occur in Florida lakes, which appear to explain these characteristics of biomass, include intense fish predation and high summer water temperature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available