The structure of the planktonic food-web in the St. Lawrence Great Lakes

被引:75
|
作者
Fahnenstiel, GL
Krause, AE
McCormick, MJ
Carrick, HJ
Schelske, CL
机构
[1] NOAA, Great Lakes Environm Res Lab, Lake Michigan Field Stn, Muskegon, MI 49441 USA
[2] NOAA, Great Lakes Environm Res Lab, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 USA
[3] SUNY Coll Buffalo, Great Lakes Ctr, Dept Biol, Buffalo, NY 14228 USA
[4] Univ Florida, Dept Fisheries & Aquat Sci, Gainesville, FL 32653 USA
关键词
microorganisms; planktonic food-web; Great Lakes; autotrophic; heterotrophic; picoplankton;
D O I
10.1016/S0380-1330(98)70843-3
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The structure of the planktonic food-web was studied during the spring (April/May) and summer (August) periods in 1993 to 1995 at twelve stations located in-the offshore region of all five Great Lakes. All components of the planktonic food-web were collected from the same water sample (with the exception of crustaceans), counted microscopically, converted to carbon units, and averaged over the euphotic zone. Due to phosphorus load reductions and the impact of non-indigenous mussels in the lower lakes, physical/chemical characteristics of the lower lakes are becoming similar to those in the upper lakes. Spring total phosphorus and euphotic zone depth were relatively similar among all the stations (except western Lake Erie), ranging from 3 to 7 mu g/L and 21 to 26 m, respectively. During the summer total phosphorus concentrations were more variable, but ranged between 4 to 10 mu g/L at all stations except western Lake Erie. Planktonic biomass was correlated with total phosphorus concentration. Within a season, the structure of the planktonic food-web was remarkably similar among all stations across all the lakes. Of the seventeen food-web structure parameters examined, only two exhibited significant differences among stations during the spring isothermal period; only four parameters exhibited significant differences among stations during the summer. Small plankton were very abundant in all the lakes. Picoplankton (0.2 to 2.0 mu m) biomass was approximately equal to the combined biomass of nannoand microplankton (2 to 200 mu m). For microorganisms (all organisms except crustaceans) autotrophic: heterotrophic ratios averaged 1.3 (spring = 1.1, summer = 1.5). The heterotrophic microorganism community was comprised of bacteria (mean = 65%), protozoans (mean = 32%), and rotifers (3%). Even though zebra mussel veligers were found in all the lakes except Lake Superior, their contribution to microorganism biomass never exceeded 1%. Due to seasonal variation in crustacean abundance, the mean contribution of major functional groups varied by season; producers (autotrophs), decomposers (bacteria), micrograzers (protozoans and rotifers), and mesograzers (crustaceans) constituted 40%, 30%, 11%, and 19% of total planktonic carbon, respectively, during the spring, and 32%, 15%, 9%, and 43%, respectively, during the summer. The overall similarity in the structure of the planktonic food-web across all stations in the Great Lakes was attributed to the strong influence of abiotic factors.
引用
收藏
页码:531 / 554
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Food-web topology: Universal scaling in food-web structure? (reply)
    Garlaschelli D.
    Caldarelli G.
    Pietronero L.
    Nature, 2005, 435 (7044) : E4 - E4
  • [32] Food-web structure and planktonic predator-prey relationships in two eutrophic European lakes: Stability constraints on carbon fluxes
    Laws, Edward A.
    LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY, 2008, 53 (02) : 760 - 772
  • [33] Public health implications of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basins
    Johnson, BL
    Hicks, HE
    Jones, DE
    Cibulas, W
    Wargo, A
    De Rosa, CT
    JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH, 1998, 24 (03) : 698 - 722
  • [34] Review of field applications of the microtox test in Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River waters
    Kaiser, Klaus L.E.
    Lum, Ken R.
    Palabrica, Virginia S.
    Water pollution research journal of Canada, 1988, 23 (02): : 270 - 278
  • [35] TOWARD AN OPERATIONAL WATER CYCLE PREDICTION SYSTEM FOR THE GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
    Durnford, D.
    Fortin, V.
    Smith, G. C.
    Archambault, B.
    Deacu, D.
    Dupont, F.
    Dyck, S.
    Martinez, Y.
    Klyszejko, E.
    MacKay, M.
    Liu, L.
    Pellerin, P.
    Pietroniro, A.
    Roy, F.
    Vu, V.
    Winter, B.
    Yu, W.
    Spence, C.
    Bruxer, J.
    Dickhout, J.
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2018, 99 (03) : 521 - 546
  • [36] Key environmental human health issues in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basins
    Johnson, BL
    Hicks, HE
    De Rosa, CT
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 1999, 80 (02) : S2 - S12
  • [37] Reptiles and Amphibians: Shy and Sensitive Vertebrates of the Great Lakes Basin and St. Lawrence River
    Christine A. Bishop
    Andrée D. Gendron
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 1998, 53 : 225 - 244
  • [38] Reptiles and amphibians: Shy and sensitive vertebrates of the Great Lakes basin and St. Lawrence River
    Bishop, CA
    Gendron, AD
    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 1998, 53 (01) : 225 - 244
  • [39] THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
    Henry, Philip W.
    GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW, 1927, 17 (02) : 258 - 277
  • [40] Resolving Food-Web Structure
    Pringle, Robert M.
    Hutchinson, Matthew C.
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND SYSTEMATICS, VOL 51, 2020, 2020, 51 : 55 - 80