The importance of drawdown and sediment removal for the restoration of the eutrophied shallow Lake Kraenepoel (Belgium)

Wichelen, Jeroen Van; Declerck, Steven; Muylaert, Koenraad; Hoste, Ivan; Geenens, Vanessa; Vandekerkhove, Jochen; Michels, Erik; Pauw, Niels De; Hoffmann, Maurice; Meester, Luc De; Vyverman, Wim

doi:10.1007/s10750-007-0611-z

Cited by 40 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cottenie et al 2001;Jeppesen et al 2002) and fish (e.g. Van Wichelen et al 2007). An increasing phytoplankton production along the trophic gradient also fuels the development of abundant communities of bacteria and a wide array of protozoa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planktonic ciliate community structure in shallow lakes of lowland Western Europe

Wichelen

Johansson

Vanormelingen

et al. 2013

European Journal of Protistology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. AbstractTemperate shallow meso-to eutrophic lakes can exist in one of two alternative states with contrasting foodwebs, referred to as the clear-water and the turbid state. We describe the planktonic ciliate communities of such lakes based on a survey of 66 northwestern European lakes. Ciliates were enumerated and identified to species level according to the quantitative protargol staining technique. Ciliate biomass was on average twice as high in the turbid than in the clear-water lakes. The ciliate communities were dominated by oligotrichs and protostomatids, and no differences in functional composition or ␣-diversity could be detected between turbid and clear-water lakes, although ␤-diversity tended to be higher in the latter. At the species level, however, community structure strongly differed between turbid and clear-water lakes, and several indicator species could be identified for the different lake categories. Variation partitioning showed that nutrient status did not explain ciliate community structure independent of the alternative states, while lake area was identified as an additional structuring factor for the ciliate communities. These results stress the importance of the ecosystem structure in shaping ciliate communities in temperate shallow lakes and suggest that nutrient status has little direct effect on ciliate community structure in such lakes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planktonic ciliate community structure in shallow lakes of lowland Western Europe

Wichelen

Johansson

Vanormelingen

et al. 2013

European Journal of Protistology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Substantial reduction of nutrient loading can be useful, particularly in cases when nutrients come from point sources (Simons et al 1994;Moss et al 1996a;Jeppesen et al 2005Jeppesen et al , 2007Søndergaard et al 2005a), but it might not produce the desired effect or such an effect can be considerably delayed in cases of accumulation of phosphorus in the sediment or diffuse external nutrient sources (Lauridsen et al 2003;Carpenter 2005;Søndergaard et al 2007) A number of studies have demonstrated, however, that sizeable reduction in fish densities shifts lakes and ponds from phytoplankton to submerged vegetation dominance, thus improving the water quality and reducing the risk of cyanobacterial bloom occurrence (Shapiro and Wright 1984;Shapiro 1990Shapiro , 1995Gulati and van Donk 2002;Søndergaard et al 2007;Van Wichelen et al 2007). Removal of all or most of the fish or addition of piscivores with the aim of reducing phytoplankton biomass is referred to as biomanipulation (Shapiro and Wright 1984;Moss et al 1996a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It allows phytoplankton control through increase in grazing by large zooplankton released from fish predation. Because of its costeffectiveness and quick response to the intervention as compared to nutrient reduction measures (Lammens 1999;Lauridsen et al 2003), biomanipulation has been a primary method of lake and pond restoration (Shapiro and Wright 1984;Jeppesen et al 1990; Moss et al 1996a; Gulati and van Donk 2002;Van Wichelen et al 2007). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomanipulation of hypereutrophic ponds: when it works and why it fails

Peretyatko

Teissier

Backer

et al. 2011

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged vegetation and main nutrients have been monitored in 48 eutrophic ponds from the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium) between 2005 and 2008. Nine ponds have been biomanipulated in order to improve their ecological quality and prevent the occurrence of noxious cyanobacterial blooms. The 4-year study of a large number of ponds allowed identification of the factors having the strongest influence on phytoplankton growth. Continuous monitoring of the biomanipulated ponds allowed the significance of changes caused by biomanipulation to be tested as well as the main reasons of biomanipulation successes and failures to be elucidated. The main factors controlling phytoplankton in the ponds studied appeared to be grazing by large cladocerans and inhibition of phytoplankton growth by submerged vegetation. Biomanipulation resulted in a significant decrease in phytoplankton biomass in general and biomass of bloom-forming cyanobacteria in particular that were associated with a significant increase in large Cladocera density and size. In six out of nine ponds biomanipulation resulted in the restoration of submerged vegetation. The maintenance of the restored clearwater state in the biomanipulated ponds was strongly dependent on fish recolonisation and nutrient level. In the absence of fish, the clearwater state could be maintained by submerged vegetation or large zooplankton grazing alone. In case of fish recolonisation, restoration of extensive submerged vegetation could buffer, to a considerable degree, the effect of fish except for ponds with high nutrient levels.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have demonstrated, however, that substantial reduction in fish densities shifts ponds or lakes from phytoplankton to submerged vegetation dominance, thus improving the water quality and reducing the risk of cyanobacterial blooms (Shapiro, 1990;Van Wichelen et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It allows phytoplankton control through increase in large zooplankton grazing released from fish predation. Because of its cost effectiveness and quick response to the intervention as compared to nutrient reduction measures (Lammens, 1999;Lauridsen et al, 2003), biomanipulation has been a primary method of lake and pond restoration (Shapiro, 1990;Van Wichelen et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration potential of biomanipulation for eutrophic peri-urban ponds: the role of zooplankton size and submerged macrophyte cover

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight hypereutrophic phytoplankton dominated ponds from the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium) were biomanipulated (emptied with fish removal) to restore their ecological quality and reduce the risk of cyanobacterial bloom formation. Continuous monitoring of the ponds before and after the biomanipulation allowed the effects of the management intervention on different compartments of pond ecosystems (phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged vegetation and nutrients) to be assessed. Fish removal resulted in a drastic reduction in phytoplankton biomass and a shift to the clear-water state in seven out of eight biomanipulated ponds. The reduction in phytoplankton biomass was associated with a marked increase in density and size of large cladocerans in six ponds and a restoration of submerged macrophytes in five ponds. The phytoplankton biomass in the ponds with extensive stands of submerged macrophytes was less affected by planktivorous fish recolonisation of some of the ponds later in the summer. The two non-vegetated ponds as well as one pond with sparse submerged vegetation showed a marked increase in phytoplankton biomass associated with the appearance of fish. Phytoplankton biomass increase coincided with the decrease in large Cladocera density and size. One pond lacking submerged macrophytes could maintain very low phytoplankton biomass owing to large Cladocera grazing alone. The results of this study confirmed the importance of large zooplankton grazing and revegetation with submerged macrophytes for the maintenance of the clear-water state and restoration success in hypereutrophic ponds. They also showed that large Cladocera size is more important than their number for efficient phytoplankton control and when cladocerans are large enough, they can considerably restrain phytoplankton growth, including bloom-forming cyanobacteria, even when submerged vegetation is not restored. The positive result of fish removal in seven out of eight biomanipulated ponds clearly indicated that such management intervention can be used, at least, for the short-term restoration of ecological water quality and prevention of noxious cyanobacterial bloom formation. The negative result of biomanipulation in one pond seems to be related to the pollution by sewage water.

show abstract

The importance of drawdown and sediment removal for the restoration of the eutrophied shallow Lake Kraenepoel (Belgium)

Cited by 40 publications

References 31 publications

Planktonic ciliate community structure in shallow lakes of lowland Western Europe

Planktonic ciliate community structure in shallow lakes of lowland Western Europe

Biomanipulation of hypereutrophic ponds: when it works and why it fails

Restoration potential of biomanipulation for eutrophic peri-urban ponds: the role of zooplankton size and submerged macrophyte cover

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About