Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Variations in the Zooplankton Species Structure of Eutrophic Lakes in Turkey

By Meral Apaydin Yağci

Submitted: December 4th 2015Reviewed: April 18th 2016Published: August 24th 2016

DOI: 10.5772/63749

Downloaded: 1664


In freshwater ecosystems, zooplanktons provide an important food source for larval fish. Some species of zooplanktons are usually considered as useful indicators of water quality and trophic state, for example, Filinia longiseta, Keratella cochlearis, Keratella quadrata, Brachionus angularis, etc. The purpose of this study is to describe the recent zooplankton composition and monthly variations, to compare results with earlier studies, to determine the trophic level of the eutrophic lake and to show eutrophic lakes in Turkey.


  • zooplankton (Rotifera
  • Cladocera
  • Copepoda)
  • eutrophic
  • lake
  • Karamık
  • Turkey

1. Introduction

Zooplanktonic organisms form the second ring of the food chain in lake ecosystem after phytoplanktonic organism. Zooplanktonic organisms are one of the crucial study subjects in freshwater ecosystems. As forming the basic food chain between primary producers and other higher forms in the founded food chain, zooplankton has a great significance in aquatic ecosystems. Naturally, undergoing a change in number or variety of these organisms affects the living groups on the top of the food chain pyramid [1]. Zooplankton is significant for the nutrition of fish, fry, some invertebrates and birds and in the biodiversity structure of the ecosystem [25]. Besides, it is used as an indicator of trophic situation and the quality of water in the lakes [610]. Zooplanktonic organisms, which are significant for inland fishery, with some species, are evaluated as indicators of contamination with their sensitivity to environmental changes and forming the great part of the aquatic organisms [11]. Zooplankton species are showed as bioindicator for determining the environmental contamination occurred due to environmental parameters [12, 13]. Among zooplanktonic organisms, Rotiferais the primary vertebrate group of freshwater. While Rotiferahas an important role in many freshwater, Cladoceraand Copepodagroup are utilized in culture studies [14]. In eutrophication, distribution and intensity of especially Copepodaand Rotiferagroup of organisms among zooplanktonic organisms have been pointed out to be effective [15, 16]. Among zooplanktonic organisms, particularly small-sized Cladocera, the dominance of Rotiferaspecies means eutrophic lakes; on the other hand, the dominance of Copepodaspecies points out oligotrophic lakes [17, 18]. In addition to this, Cyclopoidaand Harpacticoid Copepodagroups have been used to determine the trophic situation [19, 20]. In the lakes where some dominant zooplankton species are located, the biodiversity of eutrophic lake has been observed as low. Also, zoobentos and Rotiferadiversity are very low in the areas where eutrophication has been shown very high [21, 22]. Copepoda, which is intensely found in freshwater ecosystems, forms the main constituent of planktonic community. Copepodagroup of organisms have been shown as the indicator species for determining the quality of water [23].

In the sediments of the lakes, the records of the change of the biological communities can be followed constantly, because while protecting the quality and the structure in aquatic ecosystems, it is benefited from the earlier formations. In fact, diatoms have been used in the content of functional implementations to evaluate the paleolimnological past of the trophic structure of the lakes. Besides, ecological communities in freshwater ecosystems have been primarily examined in taxonomically and morphologically. Lately, functional organizations, distribution of the species and different ecological roles have been stated as important features. Cladocerais important on the water quality and ecology of the lakes when appeared in the middle level of trophic degree [24]. Also, Cladocerahas been defined as a good indicator of hydrological dynamism of the water floor and the heterogeneity of the habitat [25]. Rotifera, Cladocera, and Copepodaare the basic groups of zooplankton in freshwaters. Many Rotiferahas great effect on the metabolism and rapid turnover of the lacustrine food chain [26, 27]. Cladoceragroup has viability feature in extreme conditions of freshwater [20]. It was observed that the contribution of Rotifer species in zooplankton community might raise the eutrophication [28]. Generally, zooplankton gives immediate reaction to climate change, but endangered populations can be too much insistent on main distribution areas for a long time [29]. Among the zooplankton community, Rotifers, having a high sensitiveness on the conditions of the environment where they live, have a particular importance being an indicator on determining the water quality, contamination, and eutrophication level of the water that contains some species [30]. To fulfill the food need of the people, freshwater fishery is gaining emphasis gradually because of the rising population of the world. Thus, the studies have been speeded up on zooplanktonic organisms, which are one of the main food sources of many fish species in larval stage and forms the basic chain of the food chain in transforming the phytonutrients to proteins in aquatic environment.


2. Eutrophic lakes in Turkey

Eutrophic lakes in Turkey are listed in Table 1.

Lake nameLocalitySurface areaTrophic stateReferences
Beyşehir LakeKonya, Isparta650 km2Mesotrophic-eutrophic[31, 32]
Eğirdir LakeEğirdir, Isparta468 km2Mesotrophic-eutrophic[33]
Marmara LakeSalihli, Manisa45 km2Eutrophic[34]
Akşehir LakeKonya353 km2Mesotrophic-eutrophic[35, 36]
KaragölYamanlar, İzmir2 haEutrophic[37]
Çavuşçu LakeIlgın, Konya1000 haMesotrophic-eutrophic[38]
Gala LakeEnez İpsala5.6 km2Eutrophic[39]
Mogan LakeGölbaşı, Ankara561.2 haMesotrophic-eutrophic[40]
Karataş LakeBurdur11.9 km2Vulnerable to eutrophic[5, 41]
Gölhisar LakeBurdur400 haMesotrophic-eutrophic[42]
Ladik LakeSamsun141.40 km2Eutrophic[10]
Yenişehir LakeReyhanlı, Hatay105.340 m2Eutrophic[43]
Terkos Lakeİstanbul25 km2Eutrophic[44]
Çernek LakeSamsun589 haEutrophic[45]
Karamık LakeÇay, Afyonkarahisar38 km2Eutrophic[1, 46, 47]
Liman LakeKızılırmak Delta50.000 haEutrophic[48]
Gölcük LakeÖdemiş, İzmir125 haEutrophic[49]
Eber LakeBolvadin, Afyonkarahisar12.500 haEutrophic[50]

Table 1.

List of eutrophic lakes in Turkey.


3. Zooplankton indicators of eutrophic lake

Zooplanktonic organisms are studied from many researchers in terms of taxonomy and ecology. Species revealed in freshwater areas are used as an indicator to determine the water quality, contamination and eutrophication condition [51, 52]. Rotiferaspecies are widely stated as an indicator of eutrophic water. Brachionus calyciflorus, Trichotria tetractis, and Filinia longisetaspecies are used as an indicator of eutrophication [53]. It is believed that Rotiferais dominant in eutrophic water. Because parthenogenetic reproduction and population length are very broad, lakes were seen as convenient for eutrophication for the species of Sattal Keratellasp, Brachionussp, F. longiseta, and T. tetractis[54]. Brachionus calyciflorus, B. angularis, Keratella quadrata, K. cochlearis, Polyarthra dolichoptera, Euchlanis dilatata, Lecane luna, Pompholyx sulcata, Filinia longiseta, Trichocerca species(Rotifera), Bosmina longirostris, Chydorus sphaericus, and Daphnia cucullata(Cladocera) are among the species characteristic of eutrophic water [55]. It was reported by Bozkurt and Akın [56] that species of Brachionus quadridentatus, Notholca squamula, Lepadella patella, Lecane bulla, Bosmina longirostris, Alona rectangula, Acanthocyclops robustus, and Cyclops vicinuswere known as the indicator species of eutrophication and found mainly in hot zones. In Ballybeg, Crans and Morgan Lakes in Ireland Bosmina longirostris, Daphnia longispina, D.pulex, Leydigia leydigiand Oxyurella tenuicaudisspecies while showing a positive relationship with trophic condition variables at the same time are formed in high eutrophic areas [24]. Yet, in the study on the composition of zooplankton in Ladik Lake in 2015, the lake was identified as eutrophic for Brachionus calyciflorus, B. angularis, Keratella quadrata, K. cochlearis, Bosmia longirostris, Cyclops vicinus, and Thermocyclops crassus[10]. Keratella cochlearis, Keratella qaudrata, Brachionus angularisspecies, among the Rotiferagroup of organisms, are shown as the indicator of eutrophication by some researchers [2, 19, 27, 57]. Among the Rotiferagroup, Brachionus calyciflorus, B. angularis, Keratella cochlearis, Keratella qaudrata, Conochilus dossuarius, Filinia longiseta, Trichocerca capucina, Trichocerca cylindricaand Bosmina longirostris, Graptoleberis testudinariaamong Cladocera group are stated as the most important indicators found in eutrophic conditions [19, 5861].

While Brachionus angularisand Keratella tropicaspecies form strongly in eutrophicated water [62], Brachionus calyciflorus, Daphniasp. and Ceriodaphniasp form in eutrophication conditions in Beira Lake [8]. Furthermore, Cladoceransand Cyclopoid Copepodsadapted very well to eutrophic water [63]. In Sakarya River (Turkey) zooplankton, many species are shown as the indicator of eutrophication. As typical eutrophic species Brachionusspp.,E. dilatata, F. longiseta, K. cochlearis, K. quadrata, P. quadricornis, B. longirostris, C. sphaericusand C. vicinusin Sakarya River [64]; B. urceolaris, B. calyciflorus, K. quadrata, E. dilatata, B. longirostris, C. sphaericus, C. vicinusand E. serrulatusin Gölcük Lake were found [48]. Anuraeopsis fissa, Brachionus angularis. Keratella cochlearis f. tecta, Pompholyx sulcataand Filinia longisetaspecies are important eutrophication indicators in the lakes of Poland [65].


4. Example of eutrophic lake: Lake Karamık (Çay, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey)

On the fishery of Lake Karamık, the size distribution of pike population, spawning period and nutrition were studied by Aksun [66, 67], and then in 2000s, the fishery of Lake Karamık and determining the biological properties of economical fish species were investigated by Çubuk et al [68]. Lake Karamık is located in 20 km southwest of Çay District in Afyon Province. Karakuş Mountains lie in the south part. The altitude is 1067 m, the acreage is 38 km2 and the average deepness ranges between 2 and 3 m. Most of the lake is covered with plants living in water and on the surface of the water, and thus, the area for fishery is very limited. Lake Karamık is a very shallow lake showing eutrophic properties [1]. Snow and rain water, and Dipsiz, Aykırı and Kocabaş springs are the water sources of the lake and the outlets of the lake are evaporation and the sinkholes, named as Büyük subatan and Küçük subatan, in the south of the lake. The lake drains its water to Lake Hoyran via sinkholes. The wastewater of Afyon-Çay SEKA paper mill was emptied to the lake in the past. After the year 2004, the mill was closed and the wastewater was prevented.


5. Study area

5.1. Sample collection and analysis

Figure 1.

The study area and sampling stations in Lake Karamık.

Monthly sampling was realized in Lake Karamık in three stations between the dates of March 2002 and March 2003. The coordinates of first station are 38° 26′ 10.16″ N, 30° 52′ 14.30″E, second station are 38° 27′ 13.33″N, 30° 51′ 20.05″E and third station are 38° 26′ 44.60″ N, 30° 50′ 36.47″E in Çay District in Afyon Province (Figure 1). Zooplankton samples were taken out of the lake via a 55 micron length of plankton mesh, and then, the samples were fixed in a %4 formaldehyde solution. Related sources were used in the sorting and identification of the species of zooplanktonic organisms [6976]. Olympus model search technique and the invert and stereo model microscopes were used in species identification While making preparations for identification of the species, the samples were taken on the glycerine + formalin mixture dribbled on the slide, and then, the samples, covered with cover glass, were fixed with Canada balsam and taken into the collection In the identification process of the Rotiferaspecies taking trophy with bleach, in the identification process of Copepodaand Cladocera, dissection process was realized. 0.10 and 0.60 mm numbered FST (fine science tools) stainless steel injections were used in the dissection process. Photographs of the organisms were taken by a microscope connected Nikon brand imaging device.

To determine the trophic index of the lake, Brachionus:Trichocerca(QB/T) [61] equality was used. According to Sládeček [61], while a quotient between one and two corresponds to mesotrophic conditions and a ratio of >2 is encountered in eutrophic lakes, a quotient of 1 indicates oligotrophic conditions. We used Soyer’s [77] frequency index to define the frequency of species in the research area and constant (F≥ 50%), common (50% > F≥ 25%), or rare (F< 25%) estimated results were taken. F= m/M × 100 is used in this index (F) to evaluate special species that mis the number of stations for the species and Mis the number of all stations.


6. Results and discussion

In this study, totally 69 zooplankton species were identified. Thirty-seven of the species belong to Rotiferagroup (%54), 22 to Cladoceragroup (%32) and 10 to Copepodagroup (%14) (Figure 2). The identified taxa were listed according to Ustaoğlu [78] and Ustaoğlu et al. [79].

6.1. Zooplankton composition of Lake Karamık (Çay, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey)

Platyias quadricornis(Ehrenberg, 1832), Brachionus angularisGosse, 1851, Brachionus quadridentatusHermann, 1783, Brachionus rubensEhrenberg, 1838, Keratella tecta(Gosse, 1851), Keratella quadrata(Müller, 1786), Notholca acuminata(Ehrenberg, 1832), Euchlanis incisaCarlin, 1939, Euchlanis menetaMyers, 1930, Mytilina mucronata(Müller, 1773), Mytilina ventralis(Ehrenberg, 1830), Trichotria pocillum(Müller, 1776), Trichotria tetractis(Ehrenberg, 1830), Macrochaetus collinsii(Gosse, 1867), Lepadella ehrenbergi(Petry, 1850), Lepadella ovalis(Müller, 1786), Lecane elsaHauer, 1931, Lecane luna(Müller, 1776), Lecane ohioensis(Herrick, 1885), (Herrick, 1885), Lecane bulla(Gosse, 1886), Lecane clostrocerca(Schmarda, 1859), Lecane cornuta(Müller, 1786), Lecane lunaris(Ehrenberg, 1832), Lecane curvicornis(Murray, 1913), Lecane quadridentata(Ehrenberg, 1830), Trichocerca iernis(Gosse, 1887), Trichocerca similis(Wierzeski, 1893), Ascomorpha saltantsBartsch, 1870, Synchaeta pectinataEhrenberg, 1832, Polyarthra dolichopteradelson, 1925, Dicranophorus grandis(Ehrenberg, 1832), Testudinella patina(Hermann, 1783), Conochilus unicornisRousselet, 1892, Hexarthra mira(Hudson, 1871), Filinia longiseta(Ehrenberg, 1834), Filinia terminalis(Plate, 1886), Collethecasp,Daphnia curvirostrisEylmann, 1887, Daphnia longispinaO.F. Müller, 1875, Simocephalus exspinosus(Koch, 1841), Simocephalus vetulus(O.F. Müller, 1776), Ceriodaphnia quadrangula(O.F. Müller, 1785), Ceriodaphnia reticulata(Jurine, 1820), Scapholeberis kingiSars, 1903, Bosmina longirostris(O.F. Müller, 1785), Eurycercus lamellatus(O.F. Müller, 1785), Pleuroxus aduncus(Jurine, 1820), Pleuroxus laevis(Sars, 1862), Alonella excisa(Fischer, 1854), Alonella nana(Baird, 1850), Chydorus sphaericus(O.F. Müller, 1776), Alona costataSars, 1862, Alona guttataSars, 1862, Alona rectangulaSars, 1862, Acroperus harpae(Baird, 1835), Graptoleberis testudinaria(Fischer, 1848), Biapertura affinis(Leydig, 1860),Tretocephala ambiqua(Lilljeborg, 1900), Oxyurella tenuicaudis(Sars, 1862), Acanthodiaptomus denticornis(Wierzejski, 1887), Macrocyclops albidus(Jurine, 1820), Eucyclops macruroides(Lilljeborg, 1901), Eucyclops macrurus(G.O. Sars, 1863), Eucyclops serrulatus(Fischer, 1851), Eucyclops speratus(Lilljeborg, 1901), Cyclops strenuus paternonis (Lindberg, 1956), Megacyclops viridis(Jurine, 1820), Megacyclops gigas(Claus 1857), Nitocra hibernica(Brady, 1880).

Figure 2.

Composition of zooplankton in Lake Karamık.

Among the species identified in the lake, K. quadrata, L. luna, L. bulla, T. patina, D. longispina, D. curvirostris, E. lamellatus, C. aphaericus, A. rectangula, P. aduncus, A. denticornis, E. macrurusand C. strenuus paternoniswere widely found, and P. quadricornis, B. rubens, K. cochlearis tecta, N. acuminata, E. meneta, M. mucronata, T. tetractis, L. elsa, T. similis, D. grandisand A. guttatawere rarely found (Table 2). In this lake, 42 species by Gündüz [1], 86 species by Emir and Demirsoy [46], 18 species by Gündüz [80] and 9 species by Kazancı et al. [41] were reported. While 56 species were similarly found as in previous searches [1, 41, 46, 80], 64 species that were determined in previous were not appeared in this study (Table 3). First study on zooplankton in the lake started with Gündüz [1] (20 species of Rotiferaand 22 species of Cladocera). Though in the study after 12 years, Rotiferagroup of organisms were widely studied [46] (86 species of Rotifera). Eighteen organisms only of Cladoceragroup were listed in the checklist presented in 1997 [80]. However, in the limnologic survey realized in the lake in 1999, a few zooplanktonic organisms were reported (totally nine species). The new species identified in this study (K. cochlearis tecta, L. ehrenbergi, L. ovalis, L. cornuta, L. curvicornis, T. similis, D. grandis, Collethecasp.,B. longirostris, A. guttata, B. affinis, E. macruroides, E. serrulatus, M. gigas)were indicated with asterisk and bold (Table 3). According to frequency index values, four species classified as constant (F≥ 50 %), 14 species as common (50 % > F≥ 25 %), 51 species as rare (F< 25 %). The constant species K. qaudratawas identified in all stations with the highest frequency value (74.29%). Of the group Cladocera, C. sphaericus(71.43%), A. rectangula(60 %), P. aduncus(54.29%) were other widespread species (Table 2).

Study period20022003
Stations/Species12312312312312312312312312312123123123f %
Platyias quadricornis2.86
Brachionus angularis31.43
Brachionus quadridentatus5.71
Brachionus rubens2.86
Keratella tecta2.86
Keratella quadrata74.29
Notholca acuminata2.86
Euchlanis incisa20
Euchlanis meneta2.86
Mytilina mucronata2.86
Mytilina ventralis8.57
Trichotria pocillum14.29
Trichotria tetractis2.86
Macrochaetus collinsii5.71
Lepadella ehrenbergi17.14
Lepadella ovalis11.43
Lecane elsa2.86
Lecane luna40
Lecane ohioensis28.57
Lecane bulla40
Lecane clostrocerca34.26
Lecane cornuta14.29
Lecane lunaris17.14
Lecane curvicornis17.14
Lecane quadridentata11.43
Trichocerca iernis5.71
Trichocerca similis2.86
Ascomorpha saltants20
Synchaeta pectinata34.29
Polyarthra dolichoptera28.57

Study period20022003
Stations/Species12312312312312312312312312312123123123f %
Dicranophorus grandis2.86
Testudinella patina45.71
Conochilus unicornis11.43
Hexarthra mira8.57
Filinia longiseta14.29
Filinia terminalis5.71
Daphnia curvirostris25.71
Daphnia longispina25.71
Simocephalus exspinosus2.86
Simocephalus vetulus11.43
Ceriodaphnia quadrangula8.57
Ceriodaphnia reticulata5.71
Scapholeberis kingi11.43
Bosmina longirostris5.71
Eurycercus lamellatus14.29
Pleuroxus aduncus54.29
Pleuroxus laevis11.43
Alonella excisa8.57
Alonella nana5.71
Chydorus sphaericus71.43
Alona costata8.57
Alona guttata2.86
Alona rectangula60
Acroperus harpae34.29
Graptoleberis testudinaria8.57
Biapertura affinis2.86
Tretocephala ambiqua11.43
Oxyurella tenuicaudis25.71

Study period20022003
Stations/Species12312312312312312312312312312123123123f %
Acanthodiaptomus denticornis45.71
Macrocyclops albidus8.57
Eucyclops macruroides17.14
Eucyclops macrurus17.14
Eucyclops serrulatus2.86
Eucyclops speratus11.43
Cyclops strenuus paternonis22.85
Megacyclops viridis8.57
Megacyclops gigas8.71
Nitocra hibernica5.71

Table 2.

Distribution of zooplankton species found in the Lake Karamık according to months and stations (❁: abundant, ✯: some, ✧:scarce) .

Species/authors[1][46][80][41]Present study
Rotaria neptunia
Rotaria rotatoria
Rotaria socialis
Philodina megalotrocha
Platyias quadricornis
Epiphanes senta
Brachionus angularis
Brachionus calyciflorus
Brachionus diversicornis
Brachionus plicatilis
Brachionus quadridentatus
Brachionus rubens
Brachionus urceolaris
Keratella cochlearis
Keratella tecta*
Keratella quadrata
Keratella tropica
Notholca acuminata
Kellikottia longispina
Anuraeopsis fissa
Euchlanis dilatata
Euchlanis incisa
Euchlanis meneta
Mytilina mucronata
Mytilina ventralis
Lophocharis rubens
Lophocharis salpina
Trichotria pocillum
Trichotria tetractis
Colurella adriatica
Colurella colurus
Colurella obtusa
Colurella uncinata
Colurella sp.
Squatinella mutica
Squatinella rostrum
Squatinella sp.
Lepadella ovalis
Lepadella patella
Macrochaetus collinsii
Lepadella ehrenbergi*
Lepadella ovalis*
Lepadella sp.
Lecane elsa
Lecane inermis
Lecane luna
Lecane nana
Lecane ohioensis
Lecane stichaea
Lecane furcata
Lecane hamata
Lecane lamellata
Lecane bulla
Lecane clostrocerca
Lecane cornuta*
Lecane lunaris
Lecane curvicornis*
Lecane quadridentata
Lindia truncata
Scaridium longicaudum
Monommata longiseta
Eosphora najas
Notommata copeus
Pleurotrocha petromyzon
Cephalodella auriculata
Cephalodella catellina
Cephalodella gibba
Cephalodella sterea
Cephalodella ventripes
Trichocerca cylindrica
Trichocerca iernis
Trichocerca similis*
Trichocerca tenuior
Trichocerca weberi
Ascomorpha ovalis
Ascomorpha saltants
Synchaeta oblonga
Synchaeta pectinata
Polyarthra dolichoptera
Polyarthra vulgaris
Asplanchna girodi
Asplanchna priodonta
Asplanchna sieboldi
Asplanchna sp.
Dicranophorus grandis*
Encentrum saundersiae
Testudinella patina
Pompholyx complanata
Floscularia ringens
Ptygura beauchampi
Conochilus dossuarius
Conochilus natans
Conochilus unicornis
Hexarthra fennica
Hexarthra mira
Hexarthra sp.
Filinia longiseta
Filinia pejleri
Filinia terminalis
Colletheca ornata
Colletheca sp.*
Diaphanosoma lacustris
Daphnia curvirostris
Daphnia longispina
Simocephalus exspinosus
Simocephalus vetulus
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia quadrangula
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Scapholeberis kingi
Moina branchiata
Macrothrix laticornis
Macrothrix rosea
Bosmina longirostris*
Eurycercus lamellatus
Pleuroxus aduncus
Pleuroxus laevis
Alonella excisa
Alonella nana
Chydorus sphaericus
Alona costata
Alona guttata*
Alona rectangula
Acroperus harpae
Graptoleberis testudinaria
Biapertura affinis*
Tretocephala ambiqua
Oxyurella tenuicaudis
Acanthodiaptomus denticornis
Macrocyclops albidus
Eucyclops macruroides*
Eucyclops macrurus
Eucyclops serrulatus*
Eucyclops speratus
Eucyclops sp.
Cyclops strenuus paternonis
Cyclops sp.
Megacyclops viridis
Megacyclops gigas*
Nitocra hibernica

Table 3.

Checklist of zooplankton species studied during the present and earlier studies in Lake Karamık.

Among the species identified in the lake, B. angularis, F. longiseta, Keratella quadrata[19, 57], B. longirostrisand G. testudinaria([5860] species grow in eutrophic conditions. According to QB/T Rotiferaindex, with the values of Karamık Lake with QB/T = 2.3 [46], Xochimilco Lake (Mexico) QB/T = 10 [81], Dojran Lake (Macedonia) QB/T = 1.6 [82], Beyşehir Lake (Beyşehir, Turkey) QB/T = 1.5–2 [30, 31], Gölcük Lake (Ödemiş, İzmir, Turkey) QB/T = 5 [48], Ladik Lake (Samsun, Turkey) QB/T = 5 [10], Abo Zaabal Lake (Cairo, Egypt) QB/T = 4 [83], Liman Lake (Kızılırmak delta, Turkey) QB/T = 2.5 [84] were shown as eutrophic. Rotiferaspecies were used as indicator while identifying the trophic condition of the lake.

In this study, Karamık Lake was determined QB/T = 1.5. Finally, the lake showed mesotrophic property according to Rotiferaindex and eutrophic property in terms of Rotiferaand Cladoceradominance. It is reported that the dominance of Cladoceraand Cyclopoid Copepodagroup of organisms in eutrophic waters [3], Cyclops strenuus Cyclopoidcopepod dominance in freshwater widely in oligotrophic waters and rarely in shallow eutrophic waters in Japan [85]. B. angularis, B. quadridentatus, K. qaudrata, P. dolichoptera, F. longiseta, C. qaudrangula, B. longirostris, C. sphaericus, Daphnia longispinaand Cyclops strenuus paternonisspecies identified in this study are the indicators of mesotrophic-eutrophic.

While Keratella cochlearis, Keratella quadrataand Polyarthra vulgarisspecies were reported as dominant species in the study made in the lake in 1984, the dominance of these little herbivorous zooplanktons (Rotiferaand Cladocera) in the Lake Karamık was presented as the proof that this lake was eutrophic [1]. After the closure of the paper mill around Karamık Lake, becoming hypereutrophic of the lake was prevented. Existing quantitatively more of the zooplankton species than zooplankton groups depends on high level of food, breeding success of the Rotiferaspecies and above all restrain of the increase in Cladoceraand Copepodaby fish [46]. Consequently, the dominance of the number Rotiferaand Cladoceraspecies and also being in the large form of the Cladoceragroup of organisms show that the lake has turned into eutrophic condition. In this research, the shallow eutrophic lakes in Turkey were reported, and the zooplankton composition in shallow Lake Karamık was studied in detail, and zooplanktonic organisms of the eutrophic lakes were presented. Finally, this study will be useful contributions to the notice of zooplankton fauna of eutrophic lakes and of Turkey’s biodiversity.



The author is grateful to Eğirdir Fisheries Research Institute for its support in taking samples from the lake, to Aquaculture Engineer Rahmi UYSAL from the technical staff of the Institute, to Aquaculture Engineer M.Sc. Abdulkadir YAĞCI for his support in bringing samples from the lake and designing the shape of the study area.

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Meral Apaydin Yağci (August 24th 2016). Variations in the Zooplankton Species Structure of Eutrophic Lakes in Turkey, Lake Sciences and Climate Change, M.Nageeb Rashed, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/63749. Available from:

chapter statistics

1664total chapter downloads

2Crossref citations

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

Phycoremediation of Eutrophic Lakes Using Diatom Algae

By Marella Thomas Kiran, Mallimadugula Venkata Bhaskar and Archana Tiwari

Related Book

First chapter

The Comparison of Soil Load by POPs in Two Major Imission Regions of the Czech Republic

By Radim Vácha, Jan Skála, Jarmila Čechmánková and Viera Horváthova

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us