Zooplankton biomass dynamics in oligotrophic versus eutrophic conditions: a test of the PEG model

Abstract

Summary The model of the International Society of Limnology (SIL) Plankton Ecology working group (hereafter the PEG model) is a verbal model describing the patterns and driving factors of seasonal phytoplankton and zooplankton succession in oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes (Sommer et al., 1986). Despite being a citation classic, tests of the PEG model with respect to differences in zooplankton biomass dynamics between oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes are lacking. Here, I use the long‐term data from Lake Constance, which during the last 100 year changed from an (ultra‐) oligotrophic lake to a eutrophic lake and back to an oligotrophic lake to analyse trophic status differences in zooplankton biomass seasonality. Using data from one lake allows one to study trophic influences on biomass dynamics without the confounding effects of lake geographical setting and lake morphology, which complicate comparative dynamics in eutrophic versus oligotrophic lakes. However, environmental changes due to other driving factors, for example climate change, may possibly alter biomass dynamics as well. Data from Lake Constance do not support the differences in zooplankton seasonality in respect to peak timing between eutrophic and oligotrophic lakes suggested by the PEG model. Rather total zooplankton biomass, as well as cladoceran and copepod biomass showed a peak in May/June during all trophic conditions. Biomass dynamics of cladocerans during spring were more strongly influenced by water temperature than by trophic state. Furthermore, analyses of the geographical setting of the lakes considered in Sommer et al. (1986) suggest that the proposed differences in zooplankton seasonality between eutrophic and oligotrophic lakes are at least partially due to the confounding effect of lake altitudinal setting; the oligotrophic lakes were located at higher altitude than the eutrophic lakes. As a consequence of the results from Lake Constance, and the bias detected in the Sommer et al. (1986) study, a modified PEG model is proposed which considers low water temperature and not food limitation as the most important factor reducing zooplankton growth rate during early spring in both oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes.

The effects of hypolimnetic anoxia on the diel vertical migration of freshwater crustacean zooplankton

“…Finally, other factors may have contributed to zooplankton vertical migration and seasonal biomass differences such as baseline fish grazing rates between the reservoirs (Deneke andNixdorf 1999, Jeppesen et al 2004), or disease pressure differences (Johnson et al 2018), which we cannot rule out. Looking ahead, conducting more 24-h sampling events would help quantify the full seasonal range of zooplankton DVM, spatial heterogeneity of DVM in the pelagic zone, day-to-day variability in DVM in anoxic waterbodies, and zooplankton seasonal succession , Sommer et al 1986, Straile 2015.…”

Seasonal strengths of the abiotic and biotic drivers of a zooplankton community

“…Other environmental factors were the main drivers structuring the community during the cold period and summer. Previous results also suggest that temperature is an important factor driving cladoceran (Gillooly & Dodson, ; Straile, ), and rotifer (Holst, Zimmermann, Kausch, & Koste, ) community assembly during spring. Spring climatic events have started to occur earlier as temperatures increase (Parmesan & Yohe, ; Root et al., ).…”

“…Multivariate autoregressive models fit to the vegetative and summer communities were considerably more complex than the model fit to the intra‐annual zooplankton community, as we expected. Particularly in summer, when species in temperate regions generally tend to increase their population size (Sommer et al., ; Straile, ), this network was the most complex (i.e. more and/or slightly stronger interactions).…”

Resilience to changes in lake trophic state: Nutrient allocation into Daphnia resting eggs

“…Daphnia galeata invaded Upper Lake Constance in the late 1950s, presumably with the onset of eutrophication (Straile & Geller, ). Nowadays, both species and their hybrids are found in the lake, albeit the abundance of D. galeata is decreasing in recent years (Straile, ). Resting eggs from D. galeata , D. longispina , and their hybrids could not be distinguished morphologically and our samples thus may have consisted of resting eggs from both species and their hybrids.…”