Influence of gizzard shad on phytoplankton size and primary productivity in mesocosms and earthen ponds in the southeastern U.S

• Published in: Hydrobiologia Vol. 495; no. 1-3; pp. 17 - 32
• Main Authors: WATSON, David L, BAYNE, David R, DEVRIES, Dennis R, WILLIAMS, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer 01.03.2003; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Algae; Animal and plant ecology; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Aquatic environment; Biological and medical sciences; Detritus; Dorosoma cepedianum; Fish; Fresh water ecosystems; Freshwater; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Grazing; Larvae; Lepomis macrochirus; Phytoplankton; Ponds; Productivity; Synecology; Trophic relationships; Water quality; Zooplankton; United States; North America; America; USA; USA, Southeast; Clupeidae; Community structure; Primary productivity; Filter feeder animal; Size; Trophic factor; Browsing; Omnivorous; mesocosms; Chlorophyll a; phytoplankton size structure; Trophic group; Freshwater environment; Vertebrata; Pond; Pisces; Phytoplankton; Photosynthesis; Zooplankton; assimilation number; gizzard shad
• ISSN: 0018-8158; 1573-5117
• DOI: 10.1023/A:1025459422455

Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), a filter feeding omnivore, can consume phytoplankton, zooplankton and detritus and is a common prey fish in U.S. water bodies. Because of their feeding habits and abundance, shad have the potential to affect primary productivity (and hence water quality) directly through phytoplankton grazing and indirectly through zooplankton grazing and nutrient recycling. To test the ability of shad to influence primary productivity, we conducted a 16-day enclosure study (in 2.36-m^sup 3^ mesocosms) and a 3-year whole-pond manipulation in 2-5 ha earthen ponds. In the mesocosm experiment, shad reduced zooplankton density and indirectly enhanced chlorophyll a concentration, primary productivity, and photosynthetic efficiency (assimilation number). While shad did not affect total phytoplankton density in the mesocosms, the density of large phytoplankton was directly reduced with shad. Results from the pond study were not consistent as predicted. There were few changes in the zooplankton and phytoplankton communities in ponds with versus ponds without gizzard shad. One apparent difference from systems in which previous work had been conducted was the presence of high densities of a potential competitor (i.e., larval bluegill) in our ponds. We suggest that the presence of these extremely high larval bluegill densities (20-350 larval bluegill m^sup -3^; 3-700 times higher density than that of larval gizzard shad) led to the lack of differences between ponds with versus ponds without gizzard shad. That is, the influence of gizzard shad on zooplankton or phytoplankton was less than the influence of abundant bluegill larvae. Differences in systems across regions must be incorporated into our understanding of factors affecting trophic interactions in aquatic systems if we are to be able to manage these systems for both water quality and fisheries.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]