1997
DOI: 10.1093/plankt/19.8.1125
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are bacteria an important food source for rotifers in eutrophic lakes?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
30
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
3
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Their dominance in the Lake probably arose from their wide tolerance to variable dissolved oxygen concentrations (Galkovskaya, 1995) and from their capability to feed on bacteria and detritus (Ruttner-Kolisko, 1974;Habdija et al, 1993). The most abundant species -Keratella quadrata, K. cochlearis, Polyarthra vulgaris, Filinia terminalis and Hexarthra mira -are abundant in water bodies with a wide range of physico-chemical factors and are able to use bacteria and detritus in suspension as food resources (Bogdan and Gilbert, 1982;Zankai, 1989;Habdija et al, 1993;Ooms-Wilms, 1997). Macrophyte source detritus is likely the most important food source for rotifers in the Lake, since no correlations were found between these species and chlorophyll-a concentrations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their dominance in the Lake probably arose from their wide tolerance to variable dissolved oxygen concentrations (Galkovskaya, 1995) and from their capability to feed on bacteria and detritus (Ruttner-Kolisko, 1974;Habdija et al, 1993). The most abundant species -Keratella quadrata, K. cochlearis, Polyarthra vulgaris, Filinia terminalis and Hexarthra mira -are abundant in water bodies with a wide range of physico-chemical factors and are able to use bacteria and detritus in suspension as food resources (Bogdan and Gilbert, 1982;Zankai, 1989;Habdija et al, 1993;Ooms-Wilms, 1997). Macrophyte source detritus is likely the most important food source for rotifers in the Lake, since no correlations were found between these species and chlorophyll-a concentrations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Metazooplankton were further divided into three groups (one feeding on bacteria, phytoplankton, heterotrophic fl agellates and ciliates, a second consuming phytoplankton, heterotrophic fl agellates and ciliates, and a third feeding from all metazooplankton groups). The groupings were based on feeding preferences (Bogdan and Gilbert, 1982;Pace et al, 1983;Browman et al, 1989;Bern, 1990;Boon and Shiel, 1990;Gilbert and Jack, 1993;Sarma, 1993;Ooms-Wilms, 1997). Although the results for the metazooplankton groups are presented as one unit, all groups were treated separately in carbon budget calculations (Table 2).…”
Section: Data Sources and Budget Assumptions For The Pelagic Habitat mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditionally, bacterioplankton abundance is considered to be under the control of heterotrophic nanoflagellates [7], as this component of the microbial food web has similar growth rates to bacteria. Nevertheless, such predator-prey relationships are not always established [19,71], and abundance of bacterioplankton and heterotrophic nanoflagellates could be controlled by other grazers [19,40,72]. Heterotrophic nanoflagellates could also be asymetrically related to the bacterioplankton with preference for larger bacterial cells [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%