Zooplankton of turbid and hydrologically dynamic prairie rivers

1. Compared with rivers in more humid, forested ecoregions of eastern and midwestern U.S.A., rivers in semi-arid grassland of the U.S. Great Plains tend to be relatively shallow, more variable in discharge, and characterised by high suspended sediment loads. Although critical life stages of fish in prairie rivers probably depend at least partially on zooplanktonic food, data on community and distributional patterns of potamoplankton in these widespread ecosystems are almost entirely absent. 2. We examined summer zooplankton distribution in five prairie rivers (Arkansas, Kansas, Platte, Elkhorn, and Niobrara Rivers) spread over six degrees of latitude during 2003-2004. We compared our results from 126 samples with previously collected data from the Ohio and St Lawrence Rivers in forested ecoregions and correlated differences with abiotic environmental conditions. 3. The importance of hydrological retention zones to stream biota has been recently demonstrated for rivers with quasi-permanent islands and slackwater regions, but the importance of slackwaters formed by ephemeral sandbar islands in prairie rivers is unknown. We evaluated the role of hydrological retention for planktonic rotifers, cladocera, and copepods in the Kansas River during the summer of 2004. 4. Zooplankton assemblages were extremely similar among prairie rivers (Sorensen Dissimilarity Index: mean = 0.07) but moderately disparate for comparisons of prairie versus forested-basin rivers (mean = 0.50). 5. Total zooplankton densities in prairie rivers (approximately 81 L-1) were intermediate between the Ohio (approximately 92 L-1) and St Lawrence Rivers (approximately 43 L-1), but relative abundances were significantly different. Rotifers represented > 99% of zooplankton individuals in grassland rivers, but only approximately 37-68% in other rivers. Rotifer species richness was lower in prairie rivers, but relative abundances of common genera were much less skewed compared with eastern rivers where Polyarthra dominated rotifer assemblages (41-73%). 6. For comparisons among rivers, rotifers were significantly more abundant in turbid rivers, while microcrustaceans were less dense. However, for comparisons within the Kansas River over time, rotifer densities were inversely related to turbidity. We hypothesise that rotifers indirectly benefit from river turbidity because their food competitors (cladocera) and predators (e.g. cyclopoid copepods and visually feeding fish) are relatively more susceptible to suspended sediments. 7. Crustacean densities were positively related to the degree of hydrological retention (negatively to current velocities) throughout the study, but rotifer densities were significantly depressed by current velocities only when river discharge was high, making slackwaters that much more valuable. Ephemeral sandbars may not provide sufficient hydrological retention in time and space to sustain viable crustacean populations, but they are adequate to help sustain growth of rotifer populations.