Journal of Ecology and Environment

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

DOI QR Code

Influene of aquatic macrophytes on the interactions among aquatic organisms in shallow wetlands (Upo Wetland, South Korea)

  • Jeong, Keon-Young (Institute of Environmental Science & Technology, Pusan National University) ;
  • Choi, Jong-Yun (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Kwang-Seuk (Institute of Environmental Science & Technology, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2014.08.05
  • Accepted : 2014.09.19
  • Published : 2014.11.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Seasonal monitoring was implemented to understand the influence of macrophyte bed structure on the composition and trophic interaction of aquatic organisms (algae, zooplankton, macro-invertebrate, and fish) in a shallow wetland (Upo Wetland, South Korea). Distinct division of the plant assemblage (reed zone and mixed plant zone) was observed. The reed zone was composed solely of Phragmites communis, whereas the mixed plant zone comprised a diverse macrophyte assemblage (Salvinia natans, Spirodela polyrhiza, Trapa japonica, Ceratophyllum demersum, and Hydrilla verticillata). Most of the aquatic organisms were more abundant in the mixed plant zone than in the reed zone, and this was positively associated with the seasonal development of macrophyte cover. Stable isotope analysis showed seasonal interactions among aquatic organisms. The majority of aquatic animal (zooplankton, Odonata, and Ephemeroptera) were dependent on epiphytic particulate organic matter (EPOM), and the dependence on EPOM gradually increased toward autumn. Interestingly, Lepomis macrochirus consumed Ephemeroptera and zooplankton in both macrophyte zones, but Micropterus salmoides depended on different food items in the reed zone and the mixed plant zone. Although, M. salmoides in the reed zone showed food utilization similar to L. macrochirus, it consumed Odonata or small L. macrochirus in the mixed plant zone. Based on these results, it appears that differences in the structure of the two macrophyte zones support different assemblages of aquatic organisms, strongly influencing the trophic interactions between the aquatic organisms.

Keywords

References

  1. Agostinho AA, Thomaz SM, Gomes LC, Baltar SLSMA. 2007. Influence of the macrophyte Eichhornia azurea on fish assemblage of the Upper Parana River floodplain (Brazil). Aquat Ecol 41: 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-007-9122-2
  2. Barnes LE. 1983. The colonization of ball-clay ponds by macroinvertebrates and macrophytes. Freshwater Biol 13: 561-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1983.tb00013.x
  3. Blaxter JHS. 1986. Development of sense organs and behaviour of teleost larvae with special reference to feeding and predator avoidance. Trans Am Fish Soc 115: 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1986)115<98:NLFCDO>2.0.CO;2
  4. Bothwell ML. 1988. Growth rate responses of lotic periphytic diatoms to experimental phosphorus enrichment: the influence of temperature and light. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45: 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1139/f88-031
  5. Butler RG, de Maynadier PG. 2008. The significance of littoral and shoreline habitat integrity to the conservation of lacustrine damselflies (Odonata). J Insect Conserv 12: 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9059-0
  6. Castro BB, Marques SM, Goncalves F. 2007. Habitat selection and diel distribution of the crustacean zooplankton from a shallow Mediterranean lake during the turbid and clear water phases. Freshw Biol 52: 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01717.x
  7. Cattaneo A, Galanti G, Gentinetta S, Romo S. 1998. Epiphytic algae and macroinvertebrates on submerged and floating-leaved macrophytes in an Italian lake. Freshw Biol 39: 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00325.x
  8. Crowder LB, Cooper WE. 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802-1813. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940122
  9. Denny P. 1994. Biodiversity and wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manage 3: 55-61.
  10. Eppink FV, Van Den Bergh JCJM, Rietveld P. 2004. Modelling biodiversity and land use: urban growth, agriculture and nature in a wetland area. Ecol Econ 51: 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.011
  11. Findlay CST, Bourdages J. 2000. Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conserv Biol 14: 86-94. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99086.x
  12. France RL. 1996. Carbon-13 conundrums: limitations and cautions in the use of stable isotope analysis in stream ecotonal research. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53: 1916-1919. https://doi.org/10.1139/f96-121
  13. Gotceitas V. 1990. Variation in plant stem density and its effects on foraging success of juvenile bluegill sunfish. Environ Biol Fish 27: 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00004905
  14. Haney JF, Hall DJ. 1973. Sugar-coated Daphnia: a preservation technique for Cladocera. Limnol Oceanogr 18: 331-333. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1973.18.2.0331
  15. 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
  16. 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 Ma, Sondergaard Mo, Christoffersen K, eds). Springer, New York, pp 91-114.
  17. Lazzaro X. 1987. A review of planktivorous fishes: their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities, and impacts. Hydrobiologia 146: 97-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008764
  18. Lee JY, Yoshioka T, Hanazato T. 2002. Faunal trophic interaction in an oligotrophic-dystrophic lake (Shirakoma-like, Japan). Limnolgy 3: 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s102010200018
  19. Lillie RA, Budd J. 1992. Habititat architecture of myriophyllum spicatum L. as an index to habitat quality for fish and macroinvertebrates. J Freshw Ecol 7: 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.1992.9664677
  20. Manatunge J, Aseada 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
  21. 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
  22. Meerhoff M, Iglesias C, Mello FT, Clemente JM, Jensen E, Lauridsen T, Jeppesen E. 2007. Effects of habitat complexity on community structure and predator avoidance behaviour of littoral zooplankton in temperate versus substropical shallow lakes. Freshw Biol 52: 1009-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01748.x
  23. Meerhoff M, Mazzeo N, Moss B, Rodriguez-Gallego L. 2003. The structuring role of free-floating versus submerged plants in a subtropical shallow lake. Aquat Ecol 37: 377-391. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AECO.0000007041.57843.0b
  24. Merritt RW, Cummins KW. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
  25. Mizuno T, Takahashi E. 1991. An Illustrated Guide to Freshwater Zooplankton in Japan. Book in Japanese. Tokai University Press, Tokyo.
  26. Moss B, Kornijow R, Measey GJ. 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
  27. Rooke JB. 1984. The invertebrate fauna of four macrophytes in a lotic system. Freshw Biol 14: 507-513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1984.tb00171.x
  28. Sand-Jensen K, Sondergaard M. 1981. Phytoplankton and epiphyte development and their shading effect on submerged macrophytes in lakes of different nutrient status. Int Rev ges Hydrobiol 66: 529-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19810660406
  29. Scharf FS, Juanes F, Rountree RA. 2000. Predator size-prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on throphic-niche breadth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 208: 229-248. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps208229
  30. Theel HJ, Dibble ED, Madsen JD. 2008. Differential influence of a monotypic and diverse native aquatic plant bed on a macroinvertebrate assemblage; an experimental implication of exotic plant induced habitat. Hydrobiologia 600: 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9177-z
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. Vieira LCG, Bini LM, Velho LFM, Mazao 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
  34. 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
  35. Westfall MJ, May ML. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL.
  36. Wetzel RG, Likens GE. 2000. Limnological Analyses. 3rd ed. Springer, New York, NY.

Cited by

  1. Conservation management of abandoned paddy fields in Asia: Semi‐natural marshes with low‐intensity bovid grazing have higher biodiversity vol.30, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3442