4.6 Article

Ecological impacts of an exotic benthivorous fish, the common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.), on water quality, sedimentation, and submerged macrophyte biomass in wetland mesocosms

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 755, 期 1, 页码 107-121

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-015-2220-6

关键词

Common carp; Eutrophication; Wetlands; Water quality; Mesocosms; Phytoplankton; Suspended solids; Turbidity

资金

  1. Institute of Wetland and Waterfowl Research of Ducks Unlimited Canada
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the interactions of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) and nutrient additions on water quality, sedimentation rates, and submerged macrophyte biomass in mesocosms in Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada. We wanted to determine if carp and nutrients interacted synergistically to increase phytoplankton biomass. A two-by-three duplicated, factorial design had the following treatments: (1) control mesocosms with no carp or nutrient additions; (2) low carp density and no nutrient additions; (3) high carp density and no nutrient additions; (4) no carp and nutrient additions; (5) low carp density and nutrient additions; and (6) high carp density and nutrient additions. The presence of carp increased ammonia concentrations, turbidity, and phytoplankton biomass as expected but did not increase total reactive phosphorus concentrations. The presence of carp did not appear to interact synergistically with nutrient additions to increase phytoplankton as has been suggested by others. In mesocosms with high carp density and receiving nutrient enrichment, phytoplankton appeared to be suppressed relative to mesocosms receiving nutrient enrichment only, and nutrient enrichment and low carp density. Overall, the presence of carp appears to mimic the effects of eutrophication. Our results demonstrate that carp can cause a shift from a clear, macrophyte-dominated state to a turbid phytoplankton-dominated state at a biomass of less than 600 kg ha(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据