4.6 Article

Winter Zooplankton in a Small Arctic Lake: Abundance and Vertical Distribution

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13070912

关键词

freshwater zooplankton; copepods; vertical distribution; Lake Kulonga; Arctic

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The winter zooplankton community in Lake Kulonga, located in the Arctic regions of Russia, exhibited specific dynamics influenced by the density of fish predators. The copepod Macrocyclops albidus dominated in terms of biomass at deep-water stations, while old copepodites of Cyclops spp. were prevalent at deep-water stations in terms of abundance. Overall, the abundance and biomass of zooplankton in winter showed significant variations among different taxa and stations.
Zooplankton assemblages are of great importance in aquatic food webs because they link lower (microplankton) and higher trophic levels (top predators). Small water bodies in the Arctic regions of Russia are less studied in winter because of severe ice conditions. For this reason, we analyzed the winter zooplankton community in Lake Kulonga (western coast of Kola Bay, Barents Sea). A total of 9 taxa were found in the samples. The total abundance varied from 200 to 1320 ind. m(-3), averaging 705 ind. m(-3). The total zooplankton biomass was 1.8-72.8 mg of wet mass m(-3) with an average of 30 mg m(-3). These parameters were lower than in other Russian Arctic and sub-arctic lakes in summer. Old copepodites of Cyclops spp. dominated the zooplankton community at deep-water stations in terms of the total abundance consisting of 24-33%. The copepod Macrocyclops albidus prevailed in terms of the total zooplankton biomass comprising 30-33% at deep-water stations while Cyclops scutifer and copepodites Cyclops spp. had the highest biomass at shallow water stations. Vertical distribution demonstrated different patterns at neighboring stations, probably as a result of differences in the density of fish predators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据