Vol. 77 (1) 2025

ARTICLES

Associations of the Zooplankton Communities with the Trophic State and Ecological Potential of Reservoirs

Monika Subeva1*, Vesela Evtimova1, Lyubomir Kenderov2 & Violeta Tyufekchieva1

More info

*1Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: monika.subeva@gmail.com, vtyufekchieva@yahoo.com, vesela.vasileva.evtimova@gmail.com
2Faculty of Biology, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 8 Dragan Tsankov Blvd., 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: lubomir.kenderov@biofac.uni-sofia.bg

https://doi.org/10.71424/azb77.1.002853

PDF

Abstract
The assessment of the current state of lakes and reservoirs is a prerequisite for the conservation and management of these ecosystems as well as for their restoration and mitigation of the damages triggered by various pressures. The aim of the present study was to explore associations of the zooplankton communities with the trophic state and (or) ecological potential (EP) of reservoirs, incorporating also standard physical and chemical factors and primary production. We recorded 48 zooplankton taxa: 32 rotifer, nine cladoceran and seven copepod taxa. Our results suggested a significant relationship of both zooplankton community and univariate metrics with trophic state index (TSI) and conductivity. Reservoirs with the highest correlation with TSI and chlorophyll a were with the highest trophic state. Most of the rotifers identified as indicator taxa evidenced eu-mesotrophic conditions or moderate-poor EP. The indicator cladocerans were significantly associated with moderate EP. The indicator copepods were associated with higher EP and oligo-mesotrophic conditions. Policy-driven approaches identified littoral macrozoobenthos as the key invertebrate group for the assessment of lentic water bodies, while science-driven studies focus more on the pelagial zooplankton communities in assessments of ecosystem health. The pelagial and the littoral of a lake (or a reservoir) are very different in the conditions, which they provide; they could be affected by distinct stressors, thus triggering a specific response of their communities. Studying lentic ecosystems in a more holistic way, across various water body types and for longer periods, would result in rigorous assessment schemes and improved management of the ecosystem health.

Key words
Bulgaria, ecological potential, environmental conditions, freshwater zooplankton, trophic state

How to Cite
Subeva M., Evtimova V., Kenderov L. & Tyufekchieva V. 2025. Associations of the Zooplankton Communities with the Trophic State and Ecological Potential of Reservoirs. Acta zoologica bulgarica 77 (1) 93-105.

References

  1. Almeida R., Formigo N. E., Sousa-Pinto I. & Antunes S. C. 2020. Contribution of zooplankton as a biological element in the assessment of reservoir water quality. Limnetica 39 (1): 245–261.
  2. Arias M. J., Vaschetto P. A., Marchese M., Regaldo L. & Gagneten A. M. 2022. Benthic macroinvertebrates and zooplankton communities as ecological indicators in urban wetlands of Argentina. Sustainability 14 (7): 4045–4066.
  3. Azevêdo D. J. S., Barbosa J. E .L., Gomes W. I. A., Porto D. E., Marques J. C. & Molozzi J. 2015. Diversity measures in macroinvertebrate and zooplankton communities related to the trophic status of subtropical reservoirs: Contradictory or complementary responses? Ecological Indicators 50: 135–149.
  4. Bajkiewicz-Grabowska E. 2007. Trophic diversity of lakes – present state, the place in trophic classification. In: Borowiak D. (ed.), Lakes of the Kashubian Landscape Park, Gdańsk: KLUG, pp. 293–305. (In Polish)
  5. Bledzki L. A. & Rybak J. 2016. Freshwater crustacean zooplankton of Europe. Springer. 918 p.
  6. Caroni R. & Irvine K. 2010. The potential of zooplankton communities for ecological assessment of lakes: redundant concept or political oversight? Biology and Environment Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 110 B: 35–53.
  7. Carlson R. E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 361–369.
  8. Carlson R. E. & Simpson J. 1996. A coordinator’s guide to volunteer lake monitoring methods. North American Lake Management Society, 96 p.
  9. Cheshmedjiev S. & Varadinova E. 2013. Bottom invertebrates. In: Belkinova D., Gecheva G. (Eds.): Biological analysis and ecological assessment of the surface water types in Bulgaria. Plovdiv, Bulgaria: Plovdiv University Press, pp. 12–52: (In Bulgarian).
  10. Davidson T., Bennion А., Jeppesen Е., Clarke G., Sayer C., Morley D., Odgaard B., Rasmussen P., Rawcliffe R., Salgado J., Simpson G. & Amsinck S. 2011. The role of cladocerans in tracking long-term change in shallow lake trophic status. Hydrobiologia 676: 299–315.
  11. Directive 2000/60/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 43: 1–73.
  12. Dufrene M. & Legendre P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.
  13. Ejsmont-Karabin J. 2012. The usefulness of zooplankton as lake ecosystem indicators: rotifer trophic index. Polish Journal of Ecology 60 (2): 339–350.
  14. Ejsmont-Karabin J. & Karabin A. 2013. The suitability of zooplankton as lake ecosystem indicators: crustacean trophic state index. Polish Journal of Ecology 61 (3): 561–573.
  15. EN 15110:2006. Water quality. Guidance standard for the sampling of zooplankton from standing waters, 23 p.
  16. EN ISO 6878:2005. Water quality – Determination of phosphorus – Ammonium molybdate spectrometric method, 29 p.
  17. EN ISO 10523:2012. Water quality – Determination of pH, 24 p.
  18. EN ISO 10870:2012. Water quality – Guidelines for the selection of sampling methods and devices for benthic macroinvertebrates in fresh waters, 36 p.
  19. Free G., Poikane S., Solheim A. L., Bussettini M., Bradley C., Smith J., Caroni R., Bresciani M., Pinardi M., Giardino C. & van de Bund W. 2024. Climate change and ecological assessment in Europe under the WFD–Hitting moving targets with shifting baselines? Journal of Environmental Management 370: p.122884.
  20. Friberg N., Bonada N., Bradley D. C., Dunbar M. J., Edwards F. K., Grey J., Hayes R. B., Hildrew A. G., Lamouroux N., Trimmer M. & Woodward G. 2011. Biomonitoring of human impacts in freshwater ecosystems: the good, the bad and the ugly. In: Woodward G. (Ed.): Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 44. Academic Press,
  21. pp. 1–68.
  22. García-Chicote J., Armengol X. & Rojo C. 2019. Zooplankton species as indicators of trophic state in reservoirs from Mediterranean river basins. Inland Waters 9 (1): 113–123.
  23. Gannon J. E. & Stemberger R. S. 1978. Zooplankton (especially crustaceans and rotifers) as indicators of water quality. Transactions of American Microscopy Society 97 (1): 16–35.
  24. Goździejewska A., Glińska-Lewczuk K., Obolewski K., Grzybowski M., Kujawa R., Lew S. & Grabowska M. 2016. Effects of lateral connectivity on zooplankton community structure in floodplain lakes. Hydrobiologia 774 (1):
  25. 7–21.
  26. Jeppesen E., Nõges P., Davidson A., Haberman J., Nõges T., Blank K., Lauridsen T., Søndergaard M., Sayer C., Laugaste R., Johansson L., Bjerring R. & Amsinck S. 2011. Zooplankton as indicators in lakes: a scientific-based plea for including zooplankton in the ecological quality assessment of lakes according to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). Hydrobiologia 676: 279–297.
  27. Jurca T., Donohue L., McGoff E., Tunali S.Y. & Irvine K. 2021. Unravelling the effect of multiple stressors on ecological structure of littoral lake macroinvertebrates. International Review of Hydrobiology 106 (3–4): 202–212.
  28. Jurczak T., Wojtal-Frankiewicz A., Frankiewicz P., Kaczkowski Z., Oleksińska Z., Bednarek A. & Zalewski M. 2019. Comprehensive approach to restoring urban recreational reservoirs. Part 2 – Use of zooplankton as indicators for the ecological quality assessment. Science of the Total Environment 653: 1623–1640.
  29. ISO 10260: 2002. Water quality – Measurement of biochemical parameters – Spectrometric determination of the chlorophyll-a concentration, 12 p.
  30. Karabin A. 1985. Pelagic zooplankton (Rotatoria+Crustacea) variation in the process of lake eutrophication. I. Structural and quantitative features. Ekologia Polska 33 (4): 567–616.
  31. Kozuharov D. 1994. Analysis of the qualitative composition of the zooplankton of the system river Struma – resevoir “Pchelina” for the period 1990–1992. Hydrobiology 39: 33–46.
  32. Kozuharov D. 1996. Dynamics of quantitative parameters of the zooplankton in the system River Strouma – “Pchelina” Reservoir and the influence of the ecoton zone of them. Hydrobiology 40: 55–64.
  33. Kozuharov D., Evtimova V. & Zaharieva D. 2007. Long-term changes of zooplankton and dynamics of eutrophication in the polluted system of the Struma River – Pchelina Reservoir (South-West Bulgaria). Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 59 (2): 191–200.
  34. Kozuharov D., Stanachkova M., Janev P. & Stanachkov S. 2013. Introduction of RCC Index for Stand Water Bodies. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie Bulgare des Sciences 66 (11): 1563–1570.
  35. Krupa E., Romanova S., Berkinbaev G., Yakovleva N. & Sadvakasov E. 2020. Zooplankton as indicator of the ecological state of protected aquatic ecosystems (Lake Borovoe, Burabay National Nature Park, Northern Kazakhstan). Water 12 (9): 2580.
  36. Kutikova L. A. 1970. Rotifers of the fauna of the USSR (Rotatoria). Nauka, Leningrad. 744 p.: (In Russian).
  37. Lehner B., Liermann C. R., Revenga C., Vörösmarty C., Fekete B., Crouzet P., Döll P., Endejan M., Frenken K., Magome J. & Nilsson C. 2011. High‐resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river‐flow management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9 (9): 494–502.
  38. Marinov M., Uzunov U., Mihaylova M., Angelov M., Angelova A., Belanski K., Georgieva Z., Petkov Y., Stoycheva T, Grozeva P., Grozev D., Galitova D., Tsarev P. & Jordanova Y. 2016. River basin management plan of East Aegean Basin District, Bulgaria (2016–2021). Council of Ministers Decision No 1106/29.12.2016.
  39. MoEW. Ordinance No Н-4 of 14.09.2012 for characterization of surface waters. Issued by the Minister of Environment and Water; promulgated; SG No 22/ 05.03.2013; in force since 05.03.2013; amended and add. SG No 79 of 23.09.2014, in force since 23.09.2014; amended and add. SG. No 85 of 02.10.2020; SG No 13 of 16.02.2021, in force since 16.02.2021; amended and add. SG. No 67 of 04.08.2023, in force since 04.08.2023, Sofia.
  40. Mukhopadhyay S. K., Chattopadhyay B., Goswami A. R. & Chatterjee A. 2007. Spatial variations in zooplankton diversity in waters contaminated with composite effluents. Journal of Limnology 66 (2): 97–106.
  41. Musie W. & Gonfa G. 2023. Fresh water resource, scarcity, water salinity challenges and possible remedies: A review. Heliyon 9 (8): e18685.
  42. Muñoz-Colmenares M. E., Soria J. E. & Vicente E. 2021. Can zooplankton species be used as indicators of trophic status and ecological potential of reservoirs? Aquatic Ecology 55: 1143–1156.
  43. Naidenov W. 1981. Änderungen in der Struktur des Zooplanktons im Stausee ”Shrebtschevo“ unter Einfluss der Verunreinigung und der wasserbaulichen Massnahmen. Hydrobiology 15: 22–43: (In Bulgarian).
  44. Naidenov W. 1987. Relative share of zooplankton in the limnic coenoses and its importance in trophic chains. Contemporary Achievements in Bulgarian Zoology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia: Jusauthor, pp. 99–102: (In Bulgarian).
  45. Pantle R. & Buck H. 1955. Die biologische Überwachung der Gewässer und die Darstellung der Ergebnisse. Gas-Wasserfach 96: 604–620.
  46. River basin management plan (RBMP) of Danube Basin District, Bulgaria (2016–2021). Council of Ministers Decision No 1110/29.12.2016.
  47. River basin management plan (RBMP) of West Aegean Basin District, Bulgaria (2016–2021). Council of Ministers Decision No 1108/29.12.2016.
  48. Rothschein J. 1962. Graphical expression of biological data dealing with evaluation of the water quality. Vyskumy ustav vodohospodarsky. Veda a Vyskum Praxi Bratislava 9: 1–64.
  49. Russev B. 1972. Conditions and perspectives of Saprobiology. Bulletin of the Institute of Zoology and Museum 34: 21–31.
  50. Sommer U., Adrian R., De Senerpont Domis L., Elser J. J., Gaedke U., Ibelings B., Jeppesen E., Lürling M., Molinero J. C., Mooij W. M. & Van Donk E. 2012. Beyond the Plankton Ecology Group (PEG) model: mechanisms driving plankton succession. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 43 (1): 429–448.
  51. State Gazette. 2000. Water Act. No 67/28.01.2000.
  52. Subeva M., Evtimova V., Kenderov L., Dashinov D., Teofilova T., Stoianova D., Georgieva G., Vidinova Y. & Uzunov Y. 2019. Assessment of ecological potential and the benthic macroinvertebrates of eight reservoirs in Bulgaria. Ecologia Balkanica 11 (1): 93–107.
  53. ter Braak C. J. F. & Šmilauer P. 2002 CANOCO Reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). New York: Microcomputer Power. 500 p.
  54. Wetzel R. G. 2001. Limnology: lake and river ecosystems (Vol. 1). Academic Press. 1006 p.
  55. WFD CIS Guidance Document No 4. 2003. Identification and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. European Communities, Luxembourg. 109 p.
  56. Wolfram G., Varadinova E., Groβschartner M., Soufi R. & Stockinger W. 2022. Methods for the analysis of BQEs, reference conditions and the ecological status classification system in the target types of surface waters, Benthic invertebrates (Vs, Feb 2022), Technical report under the project “Validation of the typology and classification system in Bulgaria for assessment the ecological status of surface water bodies of categories “river”, “lake” and “transitional waters”, Final Report Annex 6.5, World Bank Contract Ref. 7195735, Vienna – Sofia.