Search for: All records

Abstract Consumer nutrient recycling influences aquatic ecosystem functioning by altering the movement and transformation of nutrients. In hypereutrophic reservoirs, zooplankton nutrient recycling has been considered negligible due to high concentrations of available nutrients. A comparative analysis ( Moody and Wilkinson, 2019) found that zooplankton communities in hypereutrophic lakes are dominated by nitrogen (N)-rich species, which the authors hypothesized would increase phosphorus (P) availability through excretion. However, zooplankton nutrient recycling likely varies over the course of a growing season due to changes in biomass, community composition and grazing pressure on phytoplankton. We quantified zooplankton, phytoplankton and nutrient concentration dynamics during the summer of 2019 in a temperate, hypereutrophic reservoir. We found that the estimated contribution of zooplankton excretion to the dissolved nutrient pool on a given day was equivalent to a substantial proportion (21–39%) of the dissolved inorganic P standing stock in early summer when P concentrations were low and limiting phytoplankton growth. Further, we found evidence that zooplankton affected phytoplankton size distributions through selective grazing of smaller phytoplankton cells likely affecting nutrient uptake and storage by phytoplankton. Overall, our results demonstrate zooplankton excretion in hypereutrophic reservoirs likely helped drive springtime phytoplankton dynamics through nutrient recycling while grazing influenced phytoplankton size distributions. 

Abstract Rivers that do not flow year-round are the predominant type of running waters on Earth. Despite a burgeoning literature on natural flow intermittence (NFI), knowledge about the hydrological causes and ecological effects of human-induced, anthropogenic flow intermittence (AFI) remains limited. NFI and AFI could generate contrasting hydrological and biological responses in rivers because of distinct underlying causes of drying and evolutionary adaptations of their biota. We first review the causes of AFI and show how different anthropogenic drivers alter the timing, frequency and duration of drying, compared with NFI. Second, we evaluate the possible differences in biodiversity responses, ecological functions, and ecosystem services between NFI and AFI. Last, we outline knowledge gaps and management needs related to AFI. Because of the distinct hydrologic characteristics and ecological impacts of AFI, ignoring the distinction between NFI and AFI could undermine management of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams and exacerbate risks to the ecosystems and societies downstream.