English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Multiple aspects of food limitation in zooplankton communities: the Daphnia - Eudiaptomus example

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons56790

Lampert,  Winfried
Department Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Limnology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Lampert, W., & Muck, P. (1985). Multiple aspects of food limitation in zooplankton communities: the Daphnia - Eudiaptomus example. Ergebnisse der Limnologie/Advances in Limnology, 21, 311-322.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0004-F284-5
Abstract
The differential response of Eudiaptomus and Daphnia to multiple aspects of food limitation
is used to summarize the problems addressed in this symposium. Eudiaptomus and Daphnia
respond differently with respect to quality and quantity of food. The copepod feeds more
selectively than the cladoceran. Both species exhibit similar efficiencies of collecting particles at
low food concentrations, but the maximum feeding rate of Daphnia is higher. This results in
considerably higher rates of food uptake and production by Dapbnia when the food concentration is high.
On the other hand, Daphnia is more sensitive to starvation. A 24-hour starvation period
causes a significant weight loss and reduction of the filtering rate in Daphnia, which is not seen
in Eudiaptomus. When the food is provided intermittently, survivorship and body weight of
Døpbnia decrease with increasing intervals between the food pulses. This effect is less pronounced
in Eudiaptomus: the copepod is apparently buffered against food fluctuations at low resource
levels. The differential success of daphnids and copepods is most likely due to different pro-
duction strategies th¿n to differences in the efficiency ofgathering food.