4.2 Article

Direct effects of Daphnia-grazing, not infochemicals, mediate a shift towards large inedible colonies of the gelatinous green alga Sphaerocystis schroeteri

Journal

LIMNOLOGICA
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 137-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.limno.2007.01.001

Keywords

colonial gelatinous green algae; zooplankton grazing; infochemicals; algal defence mechanism

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The influence of Daphnia galeata x hyalina grazing and of infochemicals released by the daphnids on the colony size and growth rate of the colonial gelatinous green alga Sphaerocystis schroeteri (Chlorococcales) was investigated in laboratory batch experiments run for 96 h. High zooplankton grazing pressure was exerted by a final concentration of 100 daphnids L-1 in the Daphnia treatments. Infochemicals were obtained by filtration (0.2 mu m) of water from D. galeata x hyalina cultures (200 ind. L-1 exposed for 24 h). This filtrate was added to the S. schroeteri cultures in two concentrations corresponding to 7 and 50 daphnids L-1, respectively. The growth rate of S. schroeteri was neither affected significantly by direct Daphnia grazing nor by the presence of Daphnia infochemicals, in comparison to the control. However, the portion of inedible S. schroeteri colonies (diameter> 50 mu m) increased under direct grazing pressure, whereas the Daphnia infochemicals did not influence the colony size significantly. We conclude that the shift in colony size by direct zooplankton grazing denotes an effective defence mechanism against size selective feeding for colonial gelatinous green algae. This effective defence in combination with unchanged growth rates of the larger colonies (under non-limiting nutrient and light conditions) falsifies the assumption of a trade-off between minimising grazing losses and maximising growth by optimising the colony size. (C) 2007 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available