Biomanipulation: A Classic Example in a Shallow Eutrophic Pond

Albright, Matthew F.; Harman, Willard N.; Tibbits, Wesley T.; Gray, Michael S.; Warner, David M.; Hamway, Rebecca J.

doi:10.1080/07438140409354155

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our review of the literature, we found a large number of studies in which largemouth bass were simultaneously stocked with other piscivores or in conjunction with other ecosystem manipulations, such as human removal of fish, thus making the effects of largemouth bass indistinguishable from those of the other experimental manipulations (Hrba´cˇek et al, 1961;Shapiro & Wright, 1984; Wagner, 1986;Carpenter et al, 1987, Hanson & Butler, 1990Hanson & Butler, 1994a, b;McQueen et al, 2001;Albright et al, 2004). Six studies examined the top-down effects of largemouth bass cascading to phytoplankton without additional manipulations or simultaneous stocking with other piscivore species (Spencer & King, 1984;Hambright et al, 1986;Turner & Mittelbach, 1990;Hambright, 1994;Baca & Drenner 1995;Mittelbach et al, 1995;.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Gape Limitation, Prey Size Refuges and the Top–down Impacts of Piscivorous Largemouth Bass in Shallow Pond Ecosystems

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Top-down control of phytoplankton biomass through piscivorous fish manipulation has been explored in numerous ecological and biomanipulation experiments. Piscivores are gape-limited predators and it is hypothesized that the distribution of gape sizes relative to distribution of body depths of prey fish may restrict piscivore effects cascading to plankton. We examined the top-down effects of piscivorous largemouth bass on nutrients, turbidity, phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish in ponds containing fish assemblages with species representing a range of body sizes and feeding habits (western mosquitofish, bluegill, channel catfish, gizzard shad and common carp). The experimental design consisted of three replicated treatments: fishless ponds (NF), fish community without largemouth bass (FC), and fish community with largemouth bass (FCB). Turbidity, chlorophyll a, cyclopoid copepodid and copepod nauplii densities were significantly greater in FC and FCB ponds than in NF ponds. However, these response variables were not significantly different in FC and FCB ponds. The biomass and density of shallow-bodied western mosquitofish were reduced and bluegill body depths shifted toward larger size classes in the presence of largemouth bass, but the biomass and density of all other fish species and of the total fish community were unaffected by the presence of largemouth bass. Our results show that top-down impacts of largemouth bass in ecosystems containing small-and deep-bodied fish species may be most intense at the top of the food web and alter the size distribution and species composition of the fish community. However, these top-down effects may not cascade to the level of the plankton when large-bodied benthivorous fish species are abundant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Gape Limitation, Prey Size Refuges and the Top–down Impacts of Piscivorous Largemouth Bass in Shallow Pond Ecosystems

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theoretical application has been extended by linking nutrient loadings (Schindler et al 1997) and fish abundance to zooplankton biomass or phytoplankton biomass (Carpenter et al 1987) and has withstood repeated tests (Carpenter et al 1987;Persson et al 1988;Hansson et al 1998;Hansson 2004). The "topdown" approach has been widely applied to numerous waterbodies in North America (Carpenter et al 2008;Albright et al 2004;Coveney et al 2002), Europe (Romo et al 2004;van Donk et al 1990; Gulati and van Donk 2002;Prokopkin et al 2006), South America (Starling 1993), and Oceania (Hunt and Matveev 2005). The biota used for top-down biomanipulations are categorized as zooplankton (Romare and Bergman 1999), planktivorous fishes (Starling and Rocha 1990;Starling 1993;Zhang et al 2006), and macroinvertebrates such as bivalves (Hwang et al 2001) and daphnia (Meijer et al 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of Algal Scum Using Top-Down Biomanipulation Approaches and Ecosystem Health Assessments for Efficient Reservoir Management

Lee

Kumar

et al. 2009

Water Air Soil Pollut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were algal control and health assessments in a temperate eutrophic reservoir. Laboratory and mesocosm-scale in situ topdown biomanipulation experiments using planktivorous fishes and filter-feeding macroinvertebrates were conducted along with identification of the limiting nutrient using nutrient enrichment bioassays (NEBs), and ecosystem health evaluation based on the modified index of biological integrity model (Reservoir Ecosystem Health Assessment; REHA). Nutrients and N/P ratio analyses during 5 years revealed that the reservoir was in a eutrophic-hypertrophic state and that the key limiting nutrients, based on the NEBs, varied among seasons. Reservoir trophic guilds indicated declines in sensitive and endemic fish species and dominance of tolerant omnivores. Model values from multimetric REHAs averaged 25.8, indicating that the ecological health was in "fair to poor" condition. Overall microcosm biomanipulation tests suggested that macroinvertebrates, specifically Palaemon paucidens and Caridina denticulata, were effective candidates for phytoplankton control, compared to fishes. In situ mesocosm experiments revealed the highest removal rates with bluegreen algae and a phytoplankton size fraction of 2-19 μm (R e >90%, Mann-Whitney U= 64.5-74.0, p<0.01), the dominant fractions in the reservoir. Our biomanipulation technique may provide a key tool for efficient management and restoration of eutrophied reservoirs.

show abstract

“…Predominantly warm [33][34][35][36][37][38], eutrophic [21,[39][40][41][42], and lentic [9,37,[43][44][45] waters. Submerged plants [9,19,21,33,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61], woody debris, or underwater structures [48,[62][63][64][65][66].…”

Section: Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By inducing cascading effects on lower trophic levels, the largemouth bass can also affect the dynamics and composition of the planktonic food web [40,42,57,87,128,171]. Given its negative effects on zooplanktivorous fish, M. salmoides has been used for biomanipulation aimed at controlling phytoplankton density [57,87].…”

Section: Community-wide Effects Of M Salmoidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Invasions in Fresh Waters: Micropterus salmoides, an American Fish Conquering the World

Costantini,

Kabala,

Sporta Caputi

et al. 2023

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions in fresh waters cause biodiversity loss and impairment of ecosystem functioning. Many freshwater invasive species are fish, including the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, which is considered one of the 100 worst invasive species in the world. Fast individual growth rates, high dispersal ability, ecological tolerance, and trophic plasticity are among the characteristics contributing to its success. The negative impact of M. salmoides on littoral fish communities is believed to be mitigated by habitat structural complexity resulting from aquatic vegetation and coarse woody debris, while the main limits on its spread seem to be strong water flows and high turbidity, which impairs visual predation. Together with the human overexploitation of its potential fish antagonists, habitat alteration could result in M. salmoides having seriously detrimental effects on native biodiversity. The purpose of this study is to critically review the life history and ecology of M. salmoides, its impact on ecosystems outside North America, and the effects of anthropogenic activities on its spread. This will highlight environmental factors that favor or limit its invasive success, helping to identify management measures that might mitigate its negative effects on freshwater biodiversity.

show abstract

Biomanipulation: A Classic Example in a Shallow Eutrophic Pond

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Gape Limitation, Prey Size Refuges and the Top–down Impacts of Piscivorous Largemouth Bass in Shallow Pond Ecosystems

Gape Limitation, Prey Size Refuges and the Top–down Impacts of Piscivorous Largemouth Bass in Shallow Pond Ecosystems

Control of Algal Scum Using Top-Down Biomanipulation Approaches and Ecosystem Health Assessments for Efficient Reservoir Management

Biological Invasions in Fresh Waters: Micropterus salmoides, an American Fish Conquering the World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About