Predatory copepods can control nematode populations: A functional-response experiment with Eucyclops subterraneus and bacterivorous nematodes

Muschiol, Daniel; Markovic, Mirjana; Threis, Ilka; Traunspurger, Walter

doi:10.1127/1863-9135/2008/0172-0317

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the fertilisation effects on cladocerans, copepods and rotifers should be considered with caution, as these taxa displayed larger time‐dependent than nutrient‐dependent density and biomass changes. Additionally, biotic interactions within the reticulate benthic food web, such as predation (Schmid‐Araya & Schmid, 1995; Muschiol et al. , 2008), are also likely to drive meiofaunal structure, even though there were no indications of such top‐down mechanisms in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

The effects of nutrient enrichment on a freshwater meiofaunal assemblage

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1. The effects of eutrophication on phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish in lakes are well known. By contrast, little is known about the response of the zoobenthos to nutrient enrichment, while smaller organisms, such as the meiofauna, have for the most part been neglected. 2. In a long‐term (16 months) microcosm experiment, we assessed the effects of five levels of nutrients [total phosphorus (TP), 7–250 μg L−1; nitrate, 2–8 mg L−1] on a freshwater meiofaunal assemblage and on nematode diversity in particular. 3. Within the first 8 months, meiofaunal succession was only weakly affected, whereas, during the last 4 months, nutrient addition influenced most of the main taxa, with a concomitant change in the assemblage structure. 4. The density of the numerically dominant nematodes decreased upon nutrient enrichment, whereas ostracods became more numerous. Other taxa, including copepods, reached a maximum at intermediate nutrient levels or, in case of oligochaetes, were almost unaffected by nutrient enrichment. However, the changes in the density of the main taxa were usually insufficient to alter their biomass. Consequently, meiofaunal biomass was remarkably unresponsive to nutrient addition, while meiofaunal density displayed a unimodal relationship, with a peak at a TP concentration of 30 μg L−1. In addition, nematode species richness decreased significantly with increasing nutrient concentrations. 5. We hypothesise that the response of meiofaunal taxa to nutrients is attributable to the development of primary producers, which shifted with enrichment from low densities of edible diatoms and unicellular green algae to large standing stocks of inedible forms, such as Lemna minor and Cladophora spp.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

The effects of nutrient enrichment on a freshwater meiofaunal assemblage

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite some early attempts to quantify feeding interactions for meiofaunal copepods and ciliates (Rieper, 1985), the benthic ciliate–copepod link has received no further attention in the literature. However, some recent studies have demonstrated that cyclopoid copepods have a wide food spectrum and can control other meiofaunal groups such as nematodes (Muschiol et al. , 2008a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding response of a benthic copepod to ciliate prey type, prey concentration and habitat complexity

Reiss

Schmid‐Araya

2011

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Protozoans are important consumers within microbial food webs and, in turn, they represent potential prey for small metazoans. However, feeding interactions within these food webs are rarely characterised and this is especially true for freshwater sediments. 2. We aimed to quantify the feeding links between a freshwater meiofaunal copepod and ciliates in two laboratory experiments. The first experiment addressed the response of Eucyclops serrulatus towards ciliate density and type (two ciliate species of the same genus differing in terms of body size). A second experiment assessed the effect of habitat structure on feeding rates by introducing different structural complexity into the feeding arena. In contrast to the first experiment, which was run only for one time period, this experiment also tested three different total feeding times (4, 7 and 9 h). 3. Eucyclops serrulatus exhibited high ingestion rates, with 3-69 ciliates copepod )1 h )1 consumed depending on food concentration, food type and habitat complexity. Copepods exhibited a preference for the smaller ciliate when total ciliate concentration was low, but selected both ciliates equally when food concentrations were medium or high. However, at very high food concentration, Eucyclops preferred the larger ciliate (which was 1 ⁄ 3 of its own body size), suggesting that the longer handling times of the larger prey are rewarding when the large prey is present in high numbers. In terms of total numbers consumed, copepods fed on more small ciliates, but in terms of carbon units both ciliates were selected equally when total prey concentration was low or medium. However, copepods derived more carbon from the larger prey at high and very high prey concentrations (up to 0.7 lgC out of a maximum of 1.1 lgC copepod )1 h )1 ). Habitat complexity influenced the feeding of copepods when it was observed over time. 4. The copepod-ciliate link is well known from the pelagic zone of both marine and freshwater habitats. We have shown its potential importance within the benthos, where it can be influenced by food identity, food quantity and possibly by habitat complexity.

show abstract

“…within 20 min and a maximum of 238 Panagrolaimus sp. per day (Muschiol et al, 2008b). Hohberg & Traunspurger (2005 evaluated the feeding behavior of the tardigrade Macrobiotus richtersii when offered different nematode species as prey and found that up to 105 small Pelodera teres were eaten by the predator within 4 h. Moreover, juvenile tardigrades ingested 56 small Pelodera teres, which corresponded to an uptake of 65% of the predator's own biomass within the same time frame.…”

Section: Quantification Of Ingested Meiofaunamentioning

confidence: 99%

Are meiofauna a standard meal for macroinvertebrates and juvenile fish?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the lack of empirical data, meiofauna are often underestimated as prey for freshwater animals and are commonly regarded as trophic dead ends. Here we present a synthesis of recent evidence showing that meiofauna are significant as prey, not only for many benthic macroinvertebrates (chironomids, shrimps, and flatworms) but also for juveniles of widespread freshwater bottom-feeding fish species (e.g., carps, gudgeons, catfish). In this review, we focus on the following questions: (1) Which groups consume meiofauna? (2) In what amounts are meiofauna ingested? (3) Does predatory feeding behavior influence natural meiofaunal communities? (4) Are meiofauna organisms actively ingested or are they bycatch? To answer these questions, we focused on studies that included gut/feces analyses of potential predators and empirical investigations conducted in the laboratory (e.g., functional response experiments and microcosm studies) and in the field (enclosure/ exclosure settings). We were able to demonstrate that meiofauna taxa are consumed in high numbers by a wide range of larger organisms. This predation can significantly shape meiofaunal communities, by reducing the abundance, biomass, and production of certain members of the investigated assemblages. However, in most cases, it remains unclear if there is an active predation of meiofauna or a passive ingestion by unselective feeding.

show abstract

Predatory copepods can control nematode populations: A functional-response experiment with Eucyclops subterraneus and bacterivorous nematodes

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

The effects of nutrient enrichment on a freshwater meiofaunal assemblage

The effects of nutrient enrichment on a freshwater meiofaunal assemblage

Feeding response of a benthic copepod to ciliate prey type, prey concentration and habitat complexity

Are meiofauna a standard meal for macroinvertebrates and juvenile fish?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About