Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Variations in the Zooplankton Species Structure of Eutrophic Lakes in Turkey

Written By

Meral Apaydin Yağci

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

DOI: 10.5772/63749

Chapter metrics overview

2,001 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


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, Rotifera is the primary vertebrate group of freshwater. While Rotifera has an important role in many freshwater, Cladocera and Copepoda group are utilized in culture studies [14]. In eutrophication, distribution and intensity of especially Copepoda and Rotifera group of organisms among zooplanktonic organisms have been pointed out to be effective [15, 16]. Among zooplanktonic organisms, particularly small-sized Cladocera, the dominance of Rotifera species means eutrophic lakes; on the other hand, the dominance of Copepoda species points out oligotrophic lakes [17, 18]. In addition to this, Cyclopoida and Harpacticoid Copepoda groups 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 Rotifera diversity 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. Copepoda group 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. Cladocera is important on the water quality and ecology of the lakes when appeared in the middle level of trophic degree [24]. Also, Cladocera has been defined as a good indicator of hydrological dynamism of the water floor and the heterogeneity of the habitat [25]. Rotifera, Cladocera, and Copepoda are the basic groups of zooplankton in freshwaters. Many Rotifera has great effect on the metabolism and rapid turnover of the lacustrine food chain [26, 27]. Cladocera group 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 name Locality Surface area Trophic state References
Beyşehir Lake Konya, Isparta 650 km2 Mesotrophic-eutrophic [31, 32]
Eğirdir Lake Eğirdir, Isparta 468 km2 Mesotrophic-eutrophic [33]
Marmara Lake Salihli, Manisa 45 km2 Eutrophic [34]
Akşehir Lake Konya 353 km2 Mesotrophic-eutrophic [35, 36]
Karagöl Yamanlar, İzmir 2 ha Eutrophic [37]
Çavuşçu Lake Ilgın, Konya 1000 ha Mesotrophic-eutrophic [38]
Gala Lake Enez İpsala 5.6 km2 Eutrophic [39]
Mogan Lake Gölbaşı, Ankara 561.2 ha Mesotrophic-eutrophic [40]
Karataş Lake Burdur 11.9 km2 Vulnerable to eutrophic [5, 41]
Gölhisar Lake Burdur 400 ha Mesotrophic-eutrophic [42]
Ladik Lake Samsun 141.40 km2 Eutrophic [10]
Yenişehir Lake Reyhanlı, Hatay 105.340 m2 Eutrophic [43]
Terkos Lake İstanbul 25 km2 Eutrophic [44]
Çernek Lake Samsun 589 ha Eutrophic [45]
Karamık Lake Çay, Afyonkarahisar 38 km2 Eutrophic [1, 46, 47]
Liman Lake Kızılırmak Delta 50.000 ha Eutrophic [48]
Gölcük Lake Ödemiş, İzmir 125 ha Eutrophic [49]
Eber Lake Bolvadin, Afyonkarahisar 12.500 ha Eutrophic [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]. Rotifera species are widely stated as an indicator of eutrophic water. Brachionus calyciflorus, Trichotria tetractis, and Filinia longiseta species are used as an indicator of eutrophication [53]. It is believed that Rotifera is 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 Keratella sp, Brachionus sp, 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 vicinus were 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 leydigi and Oxyurella tenuicaudis species 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 angularis species, among the Rotifera group of organisms, are shown as the indicator of eutrophication by some researchers [2, 19, 27, 57]. Among the Rotifera group, Brachionus calyciflorus, B. angularis, Keratella cochlearis, Keratella qaudrata, Conochilus dossuarius, Filinia longiseta, Trichocerca capucina, Trichocerca cylindrica and Bosmina longirostris, Graptoleberis testudinaria among Cladocera group are stated as the most important indicators found in eutrophic conditions [19, 5861].

While Brachionus angularis and Keratella tropica species form strongly in eutrophicated water [62], Brachionus calyciflorus, Daphnia sp. and Ceriodaphnia sp form in eutrophication conditions in Beira Lake [8]. Furthermore, Cladocerans and Cyclopoid Copepods adapted very well to eutrophic water [63]. In Sakarya River (Turkey) zooplankton, many species are shown as the indicator of eutrophication. As typical eutrophic species Brachionus spp., E. dilatata, F. longiseta, K. cochlearis, K. quadrata, P. quadricornis, B. longirostris, C. sphaericus and C. vicinus in Sakarya River [64]; B. urceolaris, B. calyciflorus, K. quadrata, E. dilatata, B. longirostris, C. sphaericus, C. vicinus and E. serrulatus in Gölcük Lake were found [48]. Anuraeopsis fissa, Brachionus angularis. Keratella cochlearis f. tecta, Pompholyx sulcata and Filinia longiseta species 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 Rotifera species taking trophy with bleach, in the identification process of Copepoda and 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 m is the number of stations for the species and M is 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 Rotifera group (%54), 22 to Cladocera group (%32) and 10 to Copepoda group (%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 angularis Gosse, 1851, Brachionus quadridentatus Hermann, 1783, Brachionus rubens Ehrenberg, 1838, Keratella tecta (Gosse, 1851), Keratella quadrata (Müller, 1786), Notholca acuminata (Ehrenberg, 1832), Euchlanis incisa Carlin, 1939, Euchlanis meneta Myers, 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 elsa Hauer, 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 saltants Bartsch, 1870, Synchaeta pectinata Ehrenberg, 1832, Polyarthra dolichoptera delson, 1925, Dicranophorus grandis (Ehrenberg, 1832), Testudinella patina (Hermann, 1783), Conochilus unicornis Rousselet, 1892, Hexarthra mira (Hudson, 1871), Filinia longiseta (Ehrenberg, 1834), Filinia terminalis (Plate, 1886), Colletheca sp, Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann, 1887, Daphnia longispina O.F. Müller, 1875, Simocephalus exspinosus (Koch, 1841), Simocephalus vetulus (O.F. Müller, 1776), Ceriodaphnia quadrangula (O.F. Müller, 1785), Ceriodaphnia reticulata (Jurine, 1820), Scapholeberis kingi Sars, 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 costata Sars, 1862, Alona guttata Sars, 1862, Alona rectangula Sars, 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. macrurus and C. strenuus paternonis were widely found, and P. quadricornis, B. rubens, K. cochlearis tecta, N. acuminata, E. meneta, M. mucronata, T. tetractis, L. elsa, T. similis, D. grandis and A. guttata were 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 Rotifera and 22 species of Cladocera). Though in the study after 12 years, Rotifera group of organisms were widely studied [46] (86 species of Rotifera). Eighteen organisms only of Cladocera group 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, Colletheca sp., 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. qaudrata was 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 period 2002 2003
Months March April May June July August September October November December January February March
Stations/Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 f %
Platyias quadricornis 2.86
Brachionus angularis 31.43
Brachionus quadridentatus 5.71
Brachionus rubens 2.86
Keratella tecta 2.86
Keratella quadrata 74.29
Notholca acuminata 2.86
Euchlanis incisa 20
Euchlanis meneta 2.86
Mytilina mucronata 2.86
Mytilina ventralis 8.57
Trichotria pocillum 14.29
Trichotria tetractis 2.86
Macrochaetus collinsii 5.71
Lepadella ehrenbergi 17.14
Lepadella ovalis 11.43
Lecane elsa 2.86
Lecane luna 40
Lecane ohioensis 28.57
Lecane bulla 40
Lecane clostrocerca 34.26
Lecane cornuta 14.29
Lecane lunaris 17.14
Lecane curvicornis 17.14
Lecane quadridentata 11.43
Trichocerca iernis 5.71
Trichocerca similis 2.86
Ascomorpha saltants 20
Synchaeta pectinata 34.29
Polyarthra dolichoptera 28.57

Study period 2002 2003
Months March April May June July August September October November December January February March
Stations/Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 f %
Dicranophorus grandis 2.86
Testudinella patina 45.71
Conochilus unicornis 11.43
Hexarthra mira 8.57
Filinia longiseta 14.29
Filinia terminalis 5.71
Colletheca sp. 17.14
Daphnia curvirostris 25.71
Daphnia longispina 25.71
Simocephalus exspinosus 2.86
Simocephalus vetulus 11.43
Ceriodaphnia quadrangula 8.57
Ceriodaphnia reticulata 5.71
Scapholeberis kingi 11.43
Bosmina longirostris 5.71
Eurycercus lamellatus 14.29
Pleuroxus aduncus 54.29
Pleuroxus laevis 11.43
Alonella excisa 8.57
Alonella nana 5.71
Chydorus sphaericus 71.43
Alona costata 8.57
Alona guttata 2.86
Alona rectangula 60
Acroperus harpae 34.29
Graptoleberis testudinaria 8.57
Biapertura affinis 2.86
Tretocephala ambiqua 11.43
Oxyurella tenuicaudis 25.71

Study period 2002 2003
Months March April May June July August September October November December January February March
Stations/Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 f %
Acanthodiaptomus denticornis 45.71
Macrocyclops albidus 8.57
Eucyclops macruroides 17.14
Eucyclops macrurus 17.14
Eucyclops serrulatus 2.86
Eucyclops speratus 11.43
Cyclops strenuus paternonis 22.85
Megacyclops viridis 8.57
Megacyclops gigas 8.71
Nitocra hibernica 5.71

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. longirostris and G. testudinaria ([5860] species grow in eutrophic conditions. According to QB/T Rotifera index, 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. Rotifera species 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 Rotifera index and eutrophic property in terms of Rotifera and Cladocera dominance. It is reported that the dominance of Cladocera and Cyclopoid Copepoda group of organisms in eutrophic waters [3], Cyclops strenuus Cyclopoid copepod 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 longispina and Cyclops strenuus paternonis species identified in this study are the indicators of mesotrophic-eutrophic.

While Keratella cochlearis, Keratella quadrata and Polyarthra vulgaris species were reported as dominant species in the study made in the lake in 1984, the dominance of these little herbivorous zooplanktons (Rotifera and 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 Rotifera species and above all restrain of the increase in Cladocera and Copepoda by fish [46]. Consequently, the dominance of the number Rotifera and Cladocera species and also being in the large form of the Cladocera group 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.


  1. 1. Gündüz E: Determination of zooplankton species and the effects of pollution on zooplankton in Karamuk and Hoyran Lakes [thesis]. Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering. Ankara; 1984.
  2. 2. Baloch WA, Jafri SIH, Soomro AN: Spring zooplankton composition of Rawal Lake, Islamabad. Sindh Univ Res J (Sci Ser). 2005; 37: 41–46.
  3. 3. Altındağ A, Buyurgan Ö, Kaya M, Özdemir E, Dirican S: A survey on some physicochemical parameters and zooplankton structure in Karaman Stream, Antalya, Turkey. J Anim Vet Adv. 2009; 8: 1710–1716.
  4. 4. Yıldız Ş, Özgökçe, MS, Özgökçe F, Karaca İ, Polat, E: Zooplankton composition of Van Lake coastline in Turkey. Afr J Biotechnol. 2010; 9: 8248–8252.
  5. 5. Apaydın Yağcı M: Seasonal zooplankton community variation in Karataş Lake, Turkey. Iran J Fish Sci. 2013; 12: 265–276.
  6. 6. Pinto-Coelho R, Pinel-Alloul R, Méthot G, Havens KE: Crustancean zooplankton in lakes and reservoirs of temperate and tropical regions: Variation with trophic status. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2005; 62: 348–361.
  7. 7. Sukumaran PK, Das AK: Distribution and abundance of rotifers in relation to water quality of some tropical reservoirs. Indian J Fish. 2004; 51: 295–301.
  8. 8. Kamaladasa AI, Jayatunga YNA: Composition, density and distribution of zooplankton in south west and east lakes of Beira Lake soon after the restoration of south west lake. Cey J Sci. 2007; 36: 1–7.
  9. 9. Ezekiel EN, Ogamba EN, Abowei JFN: The zooplankton species composition and abundance in Sombreiro River, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Asian J Agric Sci. 2011; 3: 200–204.
  10. 10. Apaydın Yağcı M, Yılmaz S, Yazıcıoğlu O, Polat N: The zooplankton composition of Lake Ladik (Samsun, Turkey). Turk J Zool. 2015; 39: 652–659.
  11. 11. Güher H: A faunistic study on the freshwater Cladocera (Crustacea) species in Turkish Thrace (Edirne, Tekirdağ, Kırklareli). Turk J Zool. 2000; 24: 237–243.
  12. 12. Rajashekhar M, Vijaykumar K, Parveen Z: Zooplankton diversity of three freshwater lakes with relation to trophic status, Gulbarga District, North-East Karnataka, South India. Int J Syst Biol. 2009; 1: 32–37.
  13. 13. Gökçe D, Özhan Turhan D: Evaluation of vertical and horizontal changes in community structure of zooplankton in a deep dam lake. Turk J Zool. 2014; 38: 11–22.
  14. 14. Segers H: Global diversity of Rotifers (Rotifera) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 2008; 595: 49–59.
  15. 15. Hra M: Seasonal and spatial distribution of Brachionus (Pallas, 1966; Eorotatoria: Monogonanta: Brachionidae), a bioindicator of eutrophication in lake El-Manzalah, Egypt. Biol Med. 2011; 3: 60–69.
  16. 16. Špoljar M, Tomljanović T, Lalić I: Eutrophication impact on zooplankton community: a shallow lake approach. Holist Approach Environ. 2011; 1: 131–142.
  17. 17. Baloch WA, Suzuki H: Summer zooplankton composition, vertical distribution and biomass in Lake Ikeda, Southern Kyushu, Japan. Sindh Univ Res J (Sci Ser). 2009; 41: 35–40.
  18. 18. Shah JA, Pandit AK: Seasonal successıon of crustacean zooplankton in Wular Lake of the Kashmir Himalaya. Arch Biol Sci Belgrade. 2013; 63: 1063–1068.
  19. 19. Geng H, Xie P, Deng D, Zhou Q: The rotifer assemblage in a shallow, eutrophic Chinese lake and its relationships with cyanobacterial blooms and crustacean zooplankton. J Fresh Ecol. 2005; 20: 93–100.
  20. 20. Sarma SSS, Nandini S, Gulati RD: Life history strategies of cladocerans: comparison of tropical and temperate taxa. Hydrobiologia. 2005; 542: 315–333.
  21. 21. Gutkowska A, Paturej E, Kowalska E: Rotifer trophic state indices as ecosystem indicators in brackish coastal waters. Oceanologia. 2013; 55: 887–889.
  22. 22. Xiong J, Mei X, Liu J: Comparative studies on community structure, biodiversity of plankton and zoobenthos in four lakes of different trophic states in China. Asian Fish Sci. 2003; 16: 361–372.
  23. 23. Maqbool A, Sulehria AQK, Ejaz M, Hussain A: Density, diversity and abundance of Copepods in a pond. Biologia. 2014; 60: 57–62.
  24. 24. Chen G, Dalton C, Taylor D: Cladocera as indıcators of trophic state in Irish lakes. J Paleolimnol. 2010; 44: 465–481.
  25. 25. Illyová M. Ecological integrity of river-floodplain system-assessment by planktonic crustaceans surveys (Branchiata: Branchiopoda). XVI. Konferencia (CLA A SLS); 25–29 June 2012; Jasná: pp. 50–53.
  26. 26. Segers H: Rotifera: Monogononta. In: Yule CM, Yong HS, editors. Handbook of freshwater invertebrates of the Malaysian region. Kuala Lumpur, Academy of Sciences of Malaysia; 2004. pp. 106–120.
  27. 27. Ustaoğlu MR: An updated zooplankton biodiversity of Turkish inland waters. J Limnol Freshw Fish Res. 2015; 1 (3): 151–159.
  28. 28. Baiao C, Boavida MJ: Rotifers of Portuguese reservoirs in River Tejo catchment: relations with trophic state. Limnetica. 2005; 24: 103–114.
  29. 29. Dumont HJ. Zooplankton and the science of biogeography: the example of Africa. In: Kerfoot, W, editors. Handbook of evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities. Special Symposium Volume 3 American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, University Press of New England Hanover, New Hampshire and London, England; 1980. pp. 685–696.
  30. 30. Özdemir N, Atamanalp M. Rotifers in Aquatic Toxicology, Ist Symposium on Fish Introduction and Reservoir Management, Antalya: 2006. p. 509-516.
  31. 31. Altındağ A, Yiğit S: Beyşehir Gölü Zooplankton Faunası ve Mevsimsel Değişimi. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2004; 24: 217–225.
  32. 32. Didinen H, Boyacı YÖ: Lake Beyşehir Monthly Distribution of Zooplankton Species. Journal of Natural and Applied Science. 2014; 18: 91-98.
  33. 33. Apaydın Yağcı M, Yağcı A, Bilgin F: Study on composition and abundance of zooplankton assemblages in Eğirdir Lake (Isparta, Turkey). Iran J Fish Sci. 2014; 13: 834–855.
  34. 34. Yıldız Ş, Altındağ A, Ergönül MB: Seasonal fluctuations in the zooplankton composition of a Eutrophic Lake: Lake Marmara (Manisa, Turkey). Turk J Zool. 2007; 31: 121–126.
  35. 35. Ustaoğlu MR, Akyürek M. Zooplankton of Lake Akşehir. XII. National Biology Congress. 6-8 July 1994; Edirne.
  36. 36. Altındağ A: Seasonal Variations of the Zooplanktonic Community of Lake Akşehir. Ege University, Faculty of Fisheries, Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1997; 14: 57-69.
  37. 37. Ustaoğlu MR: Zooplankton (metazoa) of the Karagöl (Yamanlar, İzmir-Turkey). Biol Gallo-hell. 1986; 12: 273–281.
  38. 38. Emir N: Zooplankton community structure of Çavuşcu and Eber Lakes in Central Anatolia. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol. 1994; 22: 280–288.
  39. 39. Güher H, Erdoğan S, Kırgız T, Çamur-Elipek B: The dynamics of zooplankton in National Park of Lake Gala (Edirne-Turkey). Acta Zool Bulg. 2011; 63: 157–168.
  40. 40. Altındağ A, Yiğit S, Ergönül MB: The zooplankton community of Lake Mogan, Turkey. J Freshw Ecol. 2007; 22: 709–711.
  41. 41. Kazancı N, Girgin S, Dügel M, Oğuzkurt D, Mutlu B, Dere Ş, Barlas M, Özçelik M. Köyceğiz, Beyşehir, Eğirdir, Akşehir, Eber, Çorak, Kovada, Yarışlı, Bafa, Salda, Karataş, Çavuşçu, Small and Large Menderes Delta, Güllük Reed Bed, Karamuk Marsh Limnology, Environmental Quality and Biodiversity. Turkey Inland Waters Research Series. IV, Ankara; 1999. 371p.
  42. 42. Apaydın Yağcı M: Seasonal variations in zooplankton species of Lake Gölhisar, a shallow lake in Burdur, Turkey. Pak J Zool. 2014; 46: 927–932.
  43. 43. Bozkurt A: Zooplankton of Yenişehir Lake (Reyhanlı, Hatay). E.U. Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences. 2006; 23: 39-43.
  44. 44. Güher H, Kırgız T, Çamur B, Güner U: A study on zooplankton organisms community structures of Lake Terkos (İstanbul-Turkey). Pak J Biol Sci. 2004; 7: 566–570.
  45. 45. Bekleyen A, Taş B: Zooplankton fauna of Çernek Lake (Samsun). Ekoloji. 2008; 17: 24–30.
  46. 46. Emir N, Demirsoy A: Seasonal variation of the zooplanktonik organizms of Karamuk Lake. Turk J Zool. 1996; 20: 137–144.
  47. 47. Serteser A, Acar H: Aquatic macrophytes and soil features on Karamik Lake coastal ecosystem in Afyonkarahisar (Turkey). J Biol Environ Sci. 2014; 8: 143–150.
  48. 48. Saygı Y, Gündüz E, Demirkalp FY, Çağlar SS: Seasonal patterns of the zooplankton community in the shallow, brackish Liman Lake in Kızılırmak Delta, Turkey. Turk J Zool. 2011; 35: 783–792.
  49. 49. Özdemir Mis D, Ustaoğlu MR: Investigations on zooplankton of Gölcük Lake (Ödemiş, İzmir). Eu J Fish Aquat Sci. 2009; 26: 19–27.
  50. 50. Yasan AB. Determination of Trophic Status of Eber (Afyon) Lake [thesis]. Ankara University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Department of Biology. Ankara; 2007.
  51. 51. Yiğit S: Seasonal fluctuation in the Rotifer fauna of Kesikköprü Dak Lake (Ankara, Turkey). Turk J Zool. 2002; 26: 341–348.
  52. 52. Güher H: A checklist of zooplankton (Rotifera, Copepoda, Cladocera) of European Turkey inland waters. Ege J Fish Aqaut Sci. 2014; 31: 221–225.
  53. 53. Ruttner-Kolisko A. Handbook of plankton rotifers, biology and taxonomy. Die Binnengewasser. XXVI/I. Stuttgart; 1974. 144p.
  54. 54. Inaotombi S, Gupta PK, Mahanta PC: Influence of abiotic factors on the spatio-temporal distribution of rotifers in a subtropical lake of Western Himalaya. Water Air Soil Pollut., 2016; 227:50.
  55. 55. Bozkurt A, Tepe Y: Zooplankton composition and water quality of Lake Gölbaşı (Hatay-Turkey). Fresenius Environ Bull. 2011; 20: 166–174.
  56. 56. Bozkurt A, Akın Ş. Zooplankton fauna of Yeşilırmak (between Tokat and Blacksea), Hasan Uğurlu and Suat Uğurlu Dam Lakes. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci. 2012; 12: 777–786.
  57. 57. Imoobe TOT, Adeyinka ML: Zooplankton-based assessment of the trophic state of a tropical forest river in Nigeria. Arch Biol Sci Belgrade. 2009; 61: 733–740.
  58. 58. Saksena, DN: Rotifers as indicators of water quality. Acta Hydrobiol. 1987; 15: 481–485.
  59. 59. Makarewicz JC: A lakewide comparison of zooplankton biomass and its species composition in Lake Erie. J Great Lakes Res JGLRDE, 1993; 19: 275–290.
  60. 60. Bos DG, Cumming BF: Sedimentary cladoceran remains and their relationship to nutrients and other limnological variables in 53 lakes from British Columbia, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2003; 60: 1177–1189. DOI: 10.1139/f03-097
  61. 61. Sendacz S, Caleffi S, Santos-Soares J: Zooplankton biomass of reservoir in diff erent trophic conditions in the state of Sao Paulo. Braz J Biol. 2006; 66: 337–350.
  62. 62. Sládeček V: Rotifers as indicators of water quality. Hydrobiology. 1983; 100: 169–201.
  63. 63. Gannon JE, Stemberger RS: Zooplankton (especially crustaceans and rotifers) as indicators of water quality. Trans Am Microsc Soc. 1978; 97: 16–35.
  64. 64. Dorak Z: Zooplankton abundance in the lower Sakarya River Basin (Turkey): impact of environmental variables. J Black Sea/Mediterranean Environ. 2013; 19: 1–22.
  65. 65. Ejsmont-Karabin J: The usefulness of zooplankton as lake ecosystem indıcators: rotifer trophic state index. Polish J Ecol. 2012; 60: 339–350.
  66. 66. Aksun FY: The Reproduction Biology of Pike (Esox lucius L., 1758) in Karamık Lake. DOĞA Turk. Zool. Journal. 1987a; 11: 67-75.
  67. 67. Aksun FY: The Growth Features and Growth Rates of Pike (Esox lucius L., 1758) in Karamık Lake. DOĞA Turk. Zool. Journal. 1987b; 11: 76-86.
  68. 68. Çubuk H, Balık İ, Özkök R, Uysal R, Yağcı A. Determination of Biological Properties of Fisheries and Economic Fish Species in Lake Karamık. Project Number: Tagem-Haysüd-2-00-17-03.Fisheries Research Institute, Eğirdir, Isparta, Turkey; 2004.
  69. 69. Dussart B. Les Copédes des eaux continentales d'Europe occidentale. Tome I. Calanoides et Harpacticoides. Paris, France: N. Boubee et cie.1967. 500p.
  70. 70. Dussart B. Les Copédes des eaux continentales d'Europe occidentale. Tome II. Cyclopoides et Biologie. Paris, France: N Boubee et cie. 1969. 292p.
  71. 71. Koste W. Rotatoria, Die Radertiere Mitteleuropas ein Bestimmungswerk, begrundet von Max Voigt Uberordnung Monogononta,I Textband and II Textband, Gebruder Borntraeger, Berlin, Stuttgart. 1978. 234p. and 673p.
  72. 72. Negrea S. Fauna republici socialiste Romania. Crustacea, Cladocera. Bucharest, Romania: Acedemia Rep. Soc. Romania. 1983. 367p.
  73. 73. Korovchinsky NM: Sididae and Holopedidae (Crustacea: Daphniiformes), Guides to identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the World. The Netherlands, SPB Academic Publishers. 1992. 82p.
  74. 74. Segers H: The Lecanidae (Monogononta). Vol. 2, Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the World. Coordinating editor: HJF Dumont. Gent Univ., Belgium. The Netherlands, SPB Academic Publishers; 1995. 226p.
  75. 75. Smirnov NN: Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the world. Cladocera: the Chydorinae and Sayciinae (Chydoridae) of the World No. 11. The Hague, the Netherlands, SPB Academic Publishers; 1996. 197p.
  76. 76. Nogrady T, Segers H. Asplanchnidae, Gastropodidae, Lindiidae, Microcodidae, Synchaetidae, Trochosphaeridae and Filinia. In: Dumont HJ, editor. Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the world, Vol. 6. Leiden, the Netherlands, Backhuys Publishers BV; 2002. 264p.
  77. 77. Soyer J: Bionomie benthique du plateau continental de la côte catalane française. III. Les peuplements de Copépodes Harpacticoides. Vie et Milieu Ser (B) Océanogr., 1970; 21: 337-511.
  78. 78. Ustaoğlu MR: A checklist for zooplankton of Turkish inland waters. Ege Univ J Fish Aquat Sci. 2004; 21: 191–199.
  79. 79. Ustaoğlu MR, Altındağ A, Kaya M, Akbulut N, Bozkurt A, Özdemir Mis, Atasagun S, Erdoğan S, Bekleyen A, Saler S: A checklist of Turkish rotifers. Turk J Zool. 2012; 36: 607–622.
  80. 80. Gündüz E: A Checklist of Cladoceran Species (Crustacea) Living in Turkish Inland Waters. Turk. J. Zool., 1997; 21: 37-45.
  81. 81. Nandini S, Ramírez García P, Sarma SSS: Water quality indicators in Lake Xochimilco, Mexico: zooplankton and Vibrio cholerae. J Limnol. 2016; 75: 91–100.
  82. 82. Tasevska O, Jersabek CD, Kostoski G, Gušeska D: Differences in rotifer comminities in two freshwater bodies of different degree (Lake Ohrid and Lake Dojran, Macedonia). Biologia. 2012; 67: 565–572.
  83. 83. El-Bassat RA, Taylor WD: The zooplankton community of Lake Abo Zaabal, a newly-formed mining lake in Cairo, Egypt. Afr J Aquat Sci. 2007; 32: 185–192.
  84. 84. Demirkalp FY, Saygı Y, Çağlar SS, Gündüz E, Kılınç S: Limnological assesment on the brackish shallow Liman Lake from Kizilirmak Delta (Turkey). J Anim Vet Adv. 2010; 9: 2132–2139.
  85. 85. Makino W, Ban S: Diel changes in vertical overlap between Cyclops strenuus—Copepoda; Cyclopoida/and its prey in oligotrophic Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan. J Mar Syst. 1998; 15: 139–148.

Written By

Meral Apaydin Yağci

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