Journal of Ecology and Environment

한국생태학회 (The Ecological Society of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Utilization of fish gut analysis to elucidation of microcrustacean species composition (cladoceran and copepoda) in a shallow and vegetated lake (Jangcheok Lake, South Korea)

  • Choi, Jong-Yun (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Kwang-Seuk (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Lee, Eunkyu (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Choi, Kee-Ryong (School of Biological Sciences, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Joo, Gea-Jae (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University)
  • 투고 : 2014.03.15
  • 심사 : 2014.05.13
  • 발행 : 2014.08.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Structural heterogeneity results in different spatial distributions of microcrustaceans. Thus, in ecosystems with excessive macrophyte development, it may be difficult to determine the microcrustacean species composition. Given the importance of microcrustaceans in the food web, the elucidation of microcrustacean diversity is essential. In vegetated habitats, bluegill sunfish can prey on microcrustaceans, and therefore have a potential role as microcrustacean monitoring agents. In the present study, we compared microcrustacean species compositions in the field with those in the guts of bluegill, in Jangcheok Lake, South Korea. Our results showed that the number of microcrustacean species was higher in bluegill guts than in the field. Further, microcrustacean species, such as Daphnia galeata, Graptoleveris testudinaria, Leydigia leydigii, Rhynchotalona sp., and Simocephalus exponisus, were found only in bluegill guts. Our findings verify the validity of the fish gut analysis to monitor microcrustacean species compositions and to clarify spatial distributions of microcrustacean species in structurally heterogeneous ecosystems with excessive macrophyte development.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bazzaz FA. 1975. Plant species diversity in old-field successional ecosystems in southern Illinois. Ecology 56: 485-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934981
  2. Bettoli PW, Maceina MJ, Noble RL, Betsill RK. 1992. Piscivory in largemouth bass as a function of aquatic vegetation abundance. N Am J Fish Manage 12: 509-516. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(1992)012<0509:PILBAA>2.3.CO;2
  3. Burks R, Lodge DM, Jeppesen E, Lauridsen TL. 2002. Diel horizontal migration of zooplankton: costs and benefits of inhabiting littoral zones. Freshw Biol 47: 343-365. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00824.x
  4. Crowder LB, Coooper WE. 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802-1813. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940122
  5. Hambright KD. 1991. Experimental analysis of prey selection by Largemouth Bass: role of predator mouth width and prey body depth. Trans Am Fish Soc 120: 500-508. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1991)120<0500:EAOPSB>2.3.CO;2
  6. Jacobsen L, Perrow MR, Landkildehus F, Hjorne M, Lauridsen TL, Berg S. 1997. Interactions between piscivores, zooplanktivores and zooplankton in submerged macrophytes: preliminary observations from enclosure and pond experiments. Hydrobiologia 342/343: 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017032020760
  7. Jeppesen E, Lauridsen TL, Kairesalo T, Perrow MR. 1998. Impact of submerged macrophytes on fish-zooplankton interactions in lakes. In: The Structuring Role of Submerged Macrophytes in Lakes (Jeppesen E, Sondergaard M, Christoffersen K, eds). Springer, New York, NY, pp 91-114.
  8. Kuczynska-Kippen NM, Nagengast B. 2006. The influence of the spatial structure of hydromacrophytes and differentiating habitat on the structure of rotifer and cladoceran communities. Hydrobiologia 559: 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0867-0
  9. Manatunge J, Asaeda T, Priyadarshana T. 2000. The influence of structural complexity on fish-zooplankton interactions: a study using artificial submerged macrophytes. Environ Biol Fish 58: 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007691425268
  10. Meerhoff M, Fosalba C, Bruzzone C, Mazzeo N, Noordoven W, Jeppesen E. 2006. An experimental study of habitat choice by Daphnia: plants signal danger more than refuge in subtropical lakes. Freshw Biol 51: 1320-1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01574.x
  11. Meerhoff M, Iglesias C, de Mello FT, Clemente JM, Jensen E, Lauridsen TL, Jeppesen E. 2007. Effects of habitat complexity on community structure and predator avoidance behaviour of littoral zooplankton in temperate versus subtropical shallow lakes. Freshw Biol 52: 1009-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01748.x
  12. Mizuno T, Takahashi E. 1991. An Illustrated Guide to Freshwater Zooplankton in Japan. Tokai University Press, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
  13. Moss B, Kornijow R, Measey G. 1998. The effect of nymphaeid (Nuphar lutea) density and predation by perch (Perca fluviatilis) on the zooplankton communities in a shallow lake. Freshw Biol 39: 689-697. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00322.x
  14. Nowlin WH, Drenner RW. 2000. Context-dependent-effects of bluegill in experimental mesocosm communities. Oecologia 122: 421-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050048
  15. O'Hare MT, Baattaup-Pedersen A, Nijboer R, Szoszkiewicz K, Ferreira T. 2006. Macrophyte communities of European streams with altered physical habitat. Hydrobiologia 566: 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0095-2
  16. Paukert CP, Willis DW. 2002. Seasonal and diel habitat selection by bluegills in a shallow natural lake. Trans Am Fish Soc 131: 1131-1139. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<1131:SADHSB>2.0.CO;2
  17. Sakuma M, Hanazato T, Nakazato R, Haga H. 2002. Methods for quantitative sampling of epiphytic microinvertebrates in lake vegetation. Limnology 3: 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s102010200013
  18. Smokorowski KE, Pratt TC. 2007. Effect of a change in physical structure and cover on fish and fish habitat in freshwater ecosystems - a review and meta-analysis. Environ Rev 15: 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1139/a06-007
  19. Thomaz SM, Dibble ED, Evangelista LR, Higuti J, Bini LM. 2008. Influence of aquatic macrophyte habitat complexity on invertebrate abundance and richness in tropical lagoons. Freshw Biol 53: 358-367.
  20. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA. 2004. Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141: 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1644-x
  21. Van Donk E, van de Bund WJ. 2002. Impact of submerged macrophytes including charophytes on phyto- and zooplankton communities: allelopathy versus other mechanisms. Aquat Bot 72: 261-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(01)00205-4
  22. Vieira LCG, Bini LM, Velho LFM, Mazaao GR. 2007. Influence of spatial complexity on the density and diversity of periphytic rotifers, microcrustaceans and testate amoebae. Fund Appl Limnol 170: 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1127/1863-9135/2007/0170-0077
  23. Werner EE, Gilliam JF. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15: 393-425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002141
  24. Wetzel RG, Likens GE. 2000. Limnological Analyses, 3rd ed. Springer, New York, NY.

피인용 문헌

  1. 부착돌말영양지수(TDI)를 활용한 습지환경 평가 vol.33, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.13047/kjee.2019.33.5.525