Elsevier

Fisheries Research

Volume 251, July 2022, 106326
Fisheries Research

The usage of a zooplankton digitization software to study plankton dynamics in freshwater fisheries

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2022.106326Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Automated separation of zooplankton into fisheries relevant taxonomic groups and size classes.

  • Digitization and analyses of fish stomach content.

  • Size development and reproduction cycles of zooplankton.

  • Evaluation of manual vs machine generated Zooscan classification results.

  • Digitization of zooplankton samples enables convenient storage and reanalysis possibilities.

Abstract

To better understand anthropogenically induced shifts of lake nutrient dynamics and subsequent consequences for fish and their zooplankton food sources, an increased spatial and temporal resolution of zooplankton monitoring data is needed. The Zooscan, an instrument mainly used in marine research, enables digitalization of zooplankton samples, and thereby substantially decreases the effort for zooplankton analysis. We present Zooscan analyses of zooplankton from the water column and in whitefish (Coregonus sp.) stomachs from Lake Starnberg (Germany, Central Europe), a large oligotrophic pre-alpine lake. Digitalized manual and automated analyses of important zooplankton parameters such as abundance, species composition, size development and reproductive measures of different taxa are given. The obtained results from automated and manual Zooscan analyses allow drawing conclusions on population dynamics, size developments and zooplankton food preferences by whitefish. In particular, we highlight the advantages of assessing reproductive cycles based on the documentation of egg-bearing individuals of e.g. cladocerans, which are of less importance in marine environments. While the results of automated analysis of stomach content were generally inaccurate, manual validation of digitized images was efficient for identification. Digitized images offer the possibility of fast access and convenient storage of zooplankton samples.

Introduction

Data on the quality and quantity of zooplankton as well as their availability and associated food preferences of fish are important parameters within fisheries science (Wagler, 1927, Nisson, 1960, O’Brien, 1979). In turn, fish predation affects zooplankton and may subsequently influence reproductive behavior as well as morphological development in size and shape (Stibor and Lüning, 1994).

For commercial fisheries in temperate regions, planktivorous whitefish play an important economic role (Anneville et al., 2009). In the last decades however, reoligotrophication of many lakes led to declined plankton abundance and subsequent reductions in whitefish stocks and growth (Klein, 1988, Valkeajarvi et al., 2002, Lumb et al., 2007). Especially changes in nutrient supply and nutrient ratios (bottom up effects) are known to have quantitative and qualitative influence on phytoplankton and thereby also on zooplankton abundance and species composition (Straile, 2000, Jeppesen et al., 2002, Müller et al., 2007). Nevertheless top down effects of fish on the lower pelagic food web (phytoplankton, zooplankton) are strongly determined by the mortality risk of individual zooplankton as an available food source and often characterized by traits related to visibility such as body size or the size of egg clutches etc. (Northcote, 1988, Hülsmann and Mehner, 1997, Eckmann et al., 2002, Stich and Maier, 2006). Hence, zooplankton plays a central role as a link between fish and primary production from both, bottom up and top down perspectives (Huntley et al., 1995). Analysis of the zooplankton diet of fish further needs data on zooplankton ingested. Therefore, stomach analyses of fish are a common and well-established method for estimating ingestion and diet preferences of fish (O’Brien, 1979, Hyslop, 1980, Müller et al., 2007).

Analyses of zooplankton samples are time-consuming, require taxonomic expertise and thereby limit sample numbers (Davis et al., 2004, Remsen et al., 2004, Benfield et al., 2007). The same applies to stomach content analyses of fish. Futher, comparability of data series is sometimes difficult due to different subjective taxonomic evaluation methods (O’Brien et al., 2017). Examining larger samples usually requires a larger number of people, which can lead to a higher probability of taxonomic and quantification errors. Another challenge arises when analyzing stomach contents to determine food preferences. The different digestibility of individual taxa and the determination of fragments result in higher identification difficulties (Elliott and Persson, 1978; Elliott, 1991) and can lead to even larger subjective differences. Automation in data processing and software-supported analysis of long-term data and their constant availability can offer new possibilities. In marine research, the Zooscan (Gorsky et al., 2010) is already an established alternative and supplemental method to traditional microscopic plankton studies. The Zooscan was developed for identification, sizing and counting of zooplankton samples. With the Zooscan, objects can be digitized and further processed by using available image analysis software. Studies using this method mainly generated data on marine zooplankton species distribution, their abundance and biomass and long-term population dynamics (Grosjean et al., 2004, Schultes and Lopes, 2009, Gorsky et al., 2010, Gorsky et al., 2019, Vandromme et al., 2012, Benedetti et al., 2019, Lombard et al., 2019, Mortelmans et al., 2019). Additionally, the Zooscan has been also used for identification of fish eggs (Lelièvre et al., 2012).

For freshwater zooplankton analyses the often large size variability of zooplankton species in freshwater and the condition of ingested food in the stomach of fish poses a challenge for automated optical validation. Additionally, egg-bearing cladocerans and copepods, which are uncommon in marine environments, are important indicators of reproductive periods within the growing season. Hence, a zooplankton imaging solution useable for freshwater fisheries purposes would allow for all above mentioned aspects.

In the present work, zooplankton samples from both a large number of whitefish stomachs and open water samples, are evaluated in terms of time effort and taxonomic resolution using Zooscan instrumentation. Here, we show how the Zooscan in combination with semi-automatic taxonomic classification can be successfully applied in fisheries specific freshwater research.

Section snippets

Field sampling

Between March and August 2017, zooplankton dynamics and food preferences of whitefish were studied biweekly using gillnet fishing and vertical zooplankton profiles in Lake Starnberg, a large pre-alpine oligotrophic lake in southern Germany.

Abundance

The analysis of the open water samples (n = 61) provided an insight into the seasonal abundance and size variability of the zooplankton community. The six vertical zooplankton abundance profiles, which are included in the analysis for each sampling date ensured a depth integrated representation of the food supply. The median zooplankton density per sampling date was between 2.2 and 8.4 ind./L. A positive trend in calanoid copepod and Daphnia spp. abundance can be seen from March to August. In

Discussion

In our study we highlight the accuracy of correct identification of different freshwater zooplankton groups in comparison to machine generated automated assignments. Additionally, we show for the first time how well the Zooscan performs in processing zooplankton data from fish stomach samples and the assessment of zooplankton reproductive periods.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Christian Vogelmann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Maxim Teichert: Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Andreas Martens: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Michael Schubert: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft. Sabine Schultes: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Herwig Stibor: Conceptualization,

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (46)

  • R. Eckmann et al.

    Estimating food consumption by a heavily fished stock of zooplanktivorous Coregonus lavaretus

    Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

    (2002)
  • J. Elliott

    Rates of gastric evacuation in piscivorous brown trout, Salmo trutta

    Freshw. Biol.

    (1991)
  • J. Elliott et al.

    The estimation of daily rates of food consumption for fish

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1978)
  • J.E. Gannon

    The effects of differential digestion rates of zooplankton by alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, on determinations of selective feeding

    Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

    (1976)
  • S. Gasparini et al.

    PLANKTON IDENTIFIER: a software for automatic recognition of planktonic organisms

    Use Man

    (2007)
  • G. Gorsky et al.

    Expanding tara oceans protocols for underway, ecosystemic sampling of the ocean-atmosphere interface during tara pacific expedition (2016–2018)

    Front. Mar. Sci.

    (2019)
  • G. Gorsky et al.

    Digital zooplankton image analysis using the ZooScan integrated system

    J. Plankton Res.

    (2010)
  • P. Grosjean et al.

    Enumeration, measurement, and identification of net zooplankton samples using the ZOOSCAN digital imaging system

    ICES J. Mar. Sci.

    (2004)
  • O. Haram et al.

    Some observations on the food of the gwyniad Coregonus clupeoides pennantii Valenciennes of Llyn Tegid (Lake Bala), North Wales

    J. Fish. Biol.

    (1971)
  • M.F. Huntley et al.

    Mesoscale distribution of zooplankton in the California Current in late spring, observed by Optical Plankton Counter

    J. Mar. Res.

    (1995)
  • S. Hülsmann et al.

    Predation by underyearling perch (Perca fluviatilis) on a Daphnia galeata population in a short-term enclosure experiment

    Freshwat. Biol.

    (1997)
  • E.J. Hyslop

    Stomach contents analysis—a review of methods and their application

    J. Fish Biol.

    (1980)
  • J. Jacobs

    Quantitative measurement of food selection

    Oecologia

    (1974)
  • View full text