Research Article |
Corresponding author: Eleonora Fikovska ( e_fikovska@abv.bg ) Academic editor: Vlada Peneva
© 2022 Eleonora Fikovska, Dimitar Kozuharov, Marieta Stanachkova.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Fikovska E, Kozuharov D, Stanachkova M (2022) Influence of some environmental factors on the distribution of zooplankton complexes in Mandra Reservoir, in Southeastern Bulgaria. In: Chankova S, Peneva V, Metcheva R, Beltcheva M, Vassilev K, Radeva G, Danova K (Eds) Current trends of ecology. BioRisk 17: 343-355. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.17.77368
|
The aim of the present study was to trace the influence of some environmental factors (w.temperature, wind, transparency, depth) on the distribution of zooplankton communities in the system Reservoir Mandra and the ecotone zones formed at the confluence of rivers Fakiyska, Sredetska, Izvorska and Rusokastrenska. Four samplings were performed at seven sites between February 2020 and January 2021. After determining the species composition and abundance, the results were subjected to structural analysis and Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA). A total of 67 taxa were identified, constituting about 48% of the Rotifera group, 27% of Cladocera and 19% of the Copepoda and only 6% from Protozoa. The Shannon-Weaver index for individual species diversity was between 2.37 and 0.62. The positive and negative correlation of zooplankton distribution in CCA shows that the relative abundance of any species depends on specific environmental variables. Analysis showed that temperature and wind had the strongest impact on the distribution of zooplankton.
Canonical Correspondence Analysis, community structural analysis, Mandra Reservoir, zooplankton
The distribution of aquatic organisms in the environment is the result of influences of biotic and abiotic factors as well as of the interactions between the organisms in the different parts of the food webs (
Shallow and deep lakes are affected differently by weather conditions and shallow polymictic fresh water ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate warming (
Zooplankton is not included in the European Union Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) as obligatory biological quality elements, despite it being considered a key component of pelagic food webs. Many authors such as
Zooplankton is an integral part of aquatic ecosystems, playing a crucial role in connecting primary producers and higher trophic levels, such as fish. Zooplankton communities, on the other hand, are sensitive to changes in their resources and their predators and therefore reflect the balance of food web processes through body size distribution and taxonomic composition (
Reservoir Mandra, situated in Southeastern Bulgaria, is part of the Mandra-Poda complex, which is a protected area under the two main environmental directives of the European Union – Directive 92/43 / EEC on the protection of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna and Directive 2009/147 / EU Wildlife Conservation. The Via Pontica bird migration route passes over Mandra.
Earlier studies that were conducted on Mandra Reservoir (
Mandra Reservoir covers an area of 33 km2 and the maximum depth reaches 7 m. The strong winds common to coastal lakes and reservoirs define Mandra as a holo-polymictic basin. The four sampling sessions (Feb 20, June 20, Sep 20, Jan 21) were performed between 1 February 2020 and 1 January 2021, during which qualitative and quantitative zooplankton samples were collected, as well as data on environmental factors. Our study is focused more on the dynamics in overlapping seasons when plankton comes under strong environmental pressure. The geographical coordinates of the sampling points (Fig.
Location of the sampling points on Mandra Reservoir. 1. 42°24.14'N, 27°19.26'E – the mouth of the Rusokastrenska River; 2. 42°23.19'N, 27°18.84'E – the mouth of the Sredetska River; 3. 42°24.68'N, 27°20.41'E – northern dike; 4. 42°23.57'N, 27°22.57'E – the mouth of the Fakiyska River; 5. 42°24.15'N, 27°26.06'E – the mouth of the Izvorska River; 6. 42°26.28'N, 27°26.11'E – dam; 7. 42°24.70'N, 27°22.65'E – central part.
24 quantitative and 24 qualitative samples were collected by using an Apstein plankton net 55 µm mesh size and via filtering of 100 dm3 of water through the net. As the reservoir is shallow, in places between 1 and 2 meters (Table
We used three indicators that generally characterize the biological completeness of water through the parameters of the species structure of communities. These indicators are the Shannon-Weaver index for individual species diversity (H), Simpson’s index of dominance (c) and the Pielou’s evenness index (e) after
A total of 67 taxa were identified during the laboratory processing of zooplankton samples. 10 of them were found in very low quantities only in qualitative samples. The list of taxa and their frequency of occurrence (pF) for the studied period are presented in Table
List of zooplankton species found in Reservoir Mandra and their values of pF – frequency of occurrence for the studied period.
Taxa | pF | Taxa | pF |
---|---|---|---|
Testacea | Keratella hiemalis Carlin, 1943 | 75.00 | |
Difflugia sp. Leclerc, 1815 | 4.17 | Notholca squamula (Müller, 1786) | 8.33 |
Arcella catinus Penard, 1890 | 12.50 | Lepadella patella (O. F. Müller, 1773) | 4.17 |
Ciliatea | Lepadella ovalis (O.F. Müller, 1786) | 8.33 | |
Stentor polymorphus | 4.17 | Asplanchna sieboldi (Leydig, 1854) | 50.00 |
Stentor roeseli Oken, 1815 | 4.17 | Asplanchna priodonta Gosse, 1850 | 50.00 |
Rotifera | Trichocerca sp. | 4.17 | |
Pompholyx complanata Gosse, 1851 | 79.17 | Trichocerca similis (Wierzejski, 1893) | 33.33 |
Testudinella sp. | 20.83 | Trichocerca cylindrica (Imhof, 1891) | 4.17 |
Testudinella truncata (Gosse, 1886) | 12.50 | Trichocerca capucina (Wierzejski & Zacharias, 1893) | 25.00 |
Filinia longiseta/ Triarthra longiseta (Ehrenberg, 1834) | 12.50 | Trichocerca pusilla (Jennings, 1903) | 4.17 |
Filinia terminalis (Plate, 1886) | 8.33 | Synchaeta sp. Ehrenberg, 1832 | 12.50 |
Lecane sp. | 12.50 | Polyarthra sp. | 20.83 |
Lecane monostila (Harring & Myers, 1926) | 4.17 | Polyarthra remata Skorikov, 1896 | 62.50 |
Lecane luna (Müller, 1776) | 4.17 | Polyarthra dolichoptera Idelson, 1925 | 62.50 |
Epiphanes sp. | 4.17 | Polyarthra vulgaris Carlin, 1943 | 62.50 |
Euchlanis sp. | 4.17 | Polyarthra minor Voigt, 1904 | 16.67 |
Brachionus angularis Gosse, 1851 | 20.83 | Polyarthra major Burckhardt, 1900 | 8.33 |
Brachionus calyciflorus Pallas, 1776 | 8.33 | Cladocera | |
Keratella cochlearis (Gosse, 1851) | 100.00 | Diaphanosoma lacustris Korjinek, 1981 | 33.33 |
Keratella tecta (Gosse, 1851) | 75.00 | Bosmina longirostris (O. F. Müller, 1776) | 12.50 |
Keratella quadrata (Müller, 1786) | 54.17 | Bosmina kessleri Uljanin, 1874 | 54.17 |
Bosmina coregoni Baird, 1857 | 83.33 | Harpacticoida genus sp. G. O. Sars, 1903 | 4.17 |
Daphnia cucullata G.O. Sars, 1862 | 58.33 | Cyclops sp. | 4.17 |
Daphnia galeata G. O. Sars, 1864 | 37.50 | Cyclops f. insignis | 8.33 |
Daphnia pulex (O.F. Müller, 1785) | 4.17 | Tropocyclops prasinus (Fischer, 1860) | 12.50 |
Daphnia sp. Juv. | 12.50 | Copepodites-Copepoda | 100.00 |
Ceriodaphnia quadrangula (O.F. Müller, 1785) | 4.17 | Nauplius | 100.00 |
Simocephalus vetulus (O.F. Müller, 1776) | 4.17 | ||
Alona guttata Sars, 1862 | 8.33 | ||
Alonella nana (Baird, 1850) | 4.17 | ||
Chydorus sp. | 4.17 | ||
Chydorus sphaericus (O.F. Müller, 1776) | 79.17 | ||
Chydorus latus G.O.Sars, 1862 | 4.17 | ||
Chydorus sp. Juv. | 4.17 | ||
Pleuroxus sp. Baird, 1843 | 4.17 | ||
Leptodora kindti (Focke, 1844) | 8.33 | ||
Copepoda | |||
Eudiaptomus gracilis (Sars, 1862) | 50.00 | ||
Cyclops strenuus Fischer, 1851 | 12.50 | ||
Cyclops vicinus Uljanin, 1875 | 29.17 | ||
Thermocyclops crassus (Fischer, 1853) | 37.50 | ||
Acanthocyclops sp. | 4.17 | ||
Acanthocyclops americanus (Marsh, 1893) | 16.67 |
The abundance observed in February and June is relatively low, compared to the other months (Fig.
In February 2020, the highest numbers had Nauplius with 32 500 ind/m3, measured at sampling point 5. With a slightly lower number, but close in value, are Copepodites-Copepoda and Asplanchna priodonta. The maximum number of Copepodites-Copepoda is 23 200 ind/m3, also measured at sampling point 5, and for A. priodonta, respectively, 20 400 ind/m3, measured at sampling point 7.
Hydrological values measured in Mandra Dam in the period 02.2020–01.2021.
date-sampling point | depth (m) | transparency Secchi (cm) | wind (m/s) | t (°C) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Feb 20-S4 | 1.10 | 50 | 6 | 7.7 |
Feb 20-S5 | 1.70 | 150 | 6 | 8.4 |
Feb 20-S6 | 3.00 | 130 | 6 | 7.5 |
Feb 20-S7 | 2.30 | 65 | 6 | 6.2 |
June 20-S1 | 1.50 | 40 | 0 | 26 |
June 20-S2 | 1.50 | 40 | 0 | 25 |
June 20-S3 | 1.80 | 45 | 0 | 22 |
June 20-S4 | 1.20 | 50 | 0 | 22 |
June 20-S5 | 1.50 | 60 | 0 | 22 |
June 20-S6 | 3.80 | 60 | 0 | 26 |
Sep 20-S1 | 1.50 | 30 | 4 | 20.38 |
Sep 20-S2 | 1.50 | 30 | 4 | 18.7 |
Sep 20-S3 | 1.80 | 35 | 4 | 19.8 |
Sep 20-S4 | 1.20 | 30 | 4 | 20.14 |
Sep 20-S5 | 1.50 | 35 | 4 | 20.17 |
Sep 20-S6 | 3.80 | 35 | 4 | 20.5 |
Sep 20-S7 | 3.20 | 30 | 4 | 20.35 |
Jan 21-S1 | 2.00 | 70 | 8 | 10.2 |
Jan 21-S2 | 1.50 | 80 | 8 | 10 |
Jan 21-S3 | 2.00 | 45 | 8 | 10.4 |
Jan 21-S4 | 2.60 | 65 | 8 | 10.15 |
Jan 21-S5 | 1.30 | 90 | 8 | 10.6 |
Jan 21-S6 | 3.70 | 70 | 8 | 9 |
Jan 21-S7 | 4.00 | 75 | 8 | 9.9 |
Dominant in number in June 2020 are three taxa, with maximum numbers as follows – Nauplius – 172 800 ind/m3, at sampling point 3, Chydorus sphaericus – 102 813 ind/m3, at sampling point 2, Polyarthra vulgaris – 72 500 ind/m3, measured at sampling point 5.
In September 2020, the highest numbers had Keratella cochlearis – 339 000 ind/m3, measured at sampling point 5, Polyarthra vulgaris – 156 000 ind/m3, at sampling point 5, Nauplius – 136 000 ind/m3, measured sampling point 3.
While in the other seasons the dominants are followed by other species with a slightly smaller value, in January the absolute dominant for the Mandra Reservoir is K. cochlearis. The maximum number of 1 282 000 ind/m3 was measured at S2.
The highest and the lowest biomass within the four samplings were measured in June (Fig.
The ratio between the species composition of the different zooplankton groups during the four periods is shown in Fig.
Percent species composition of different plankton groups (February 2020, June 2020, September 2020, January 2021).
Results of Shannon-Weaver diversity index (H), Simpson’s index of dominance (c), Pielou’s evenness index (e) and Margalef richness index are shown in Fig.
Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H), Simpson’s index of dominance (c), Pielou’s evenness index (e) and Margalef richness index after
For the study period, the Shannon-Weaver diversity index ranged between 0.52 at station 3 in June and 2.37 at station 6 in September. These are comparatively low values of the index. The degree of dominance index was always inversely proportional to the individual species diversity index. Its value was lowest at station 6 in September (0.13) and highest at station 3 in June (0.75). This was the period of higher abundance in the larval stages – Nauplius and Copepodites-Copepoda.
The Margalef richness index varies between 1.23 at station 4 in June and 4.09 at station 7 in January. In general, there is a relatively constant trend between stations for different periods, except for the June series. Then the index varies between 1.23 (station 4) and 3.26 (station 1). This trend is also observed in Pielou’s evenness index. The maximum and minimum values were reported at the same time – June, at station 5 (0.78) and at station 3 (0.25). High values of Pielou’s index are registered when and where abiotic factors often change and a species or group of species cannot be dominant.
The CCA (Fig.
Some species like Keretella quadrata, Brachionus angularis, Trichocerca pusilla, Filinia longiseta are considered indicative of advance processes of eutrophication (
The ratio between the groups of zooplankton taxa in different seasons and the predominance of the species diversity of organisms from the Rotifera type confirm the observations in the dominant complexes from a previous study (
The analysis also shows that depth is not essential for the distribution of zooplankton in this shallow polymictic basin. It showed weak positive correlation (0.09) with Axis 1.
According to one of the biocoenotic principles formulated by
The rare zooplankton taxa established only in qualitative samples could be called casual components. Their quantities are lower than the range of quantitative parameters of the samples. That means very rare components.
Probably the main reason for the comparatively low values of the Shannon – Weavers index is the stabile dominant species and complexes that have high quantitative values in the reservoir of zooplankton. The obtained high values of the index of dominance confirm that conclusion.
The significant differences in the values of the Simpson’s index of dominance show that different conditions were observed in various parts of this comaratively large (in surface) reservoir during different samplings and seasons. Environmental factors have a great influence, but, on the other hand, the low diversity and richness values might be result of fish predation on site 3 and 4, moreover the observed data corresponded with lowest zooplankton biomass at the seasons (Fig.
Winter and summer conditions show characteristics of two different water basins. Water basins in which Rotifera predominate go from mesotrophic to eutrophic. Large zooplankton organisms from the group Copepoda like Cyclops strenuus and Eudiaptomus gracilis, which have the highest biomass in winter, are typical indicators for mesotrophic conditions in the reservoir. As a whole, the conditions in the studied shallow artificial water body are very dynamic during different seasons, which determines the dynamics in the structure and the distribution of zooplankton complexes of the zooplankton in Mandra Reservoir.
Based on the results of our study and taking into account relevant data from numerous zooplankton studies, we can conclude that the zooplankton can be used as key indicator in the monitoring of shallow holo-polymictic water bodies such as Mandra Reservoir.
The results obtained for the calculated structural indices are normal for mesotrophic and eutrophic water basins. The obtained high values of the diversity index are determined by the more diverse habitat conditions along the reservoir and ecotone zones of the inflowing rivers. However, biotic interactions may have adverse impact on the formation of a community structure and should be the next step in our investigation.