| Literature DB >> 35011122 |
Krzysztof Ciszewski1, Wawrzyniec Wawrzyniak1, Przemysław Czerniejewski1.
Abstract
It is still to be confirmed whether global warming with its predicted elevated water temperature will cause an increase in predation and alter phenological and physiological processes leading to changes in the size of aquatic organisms. In an experimental system of water column stratification simulating a natural combination of field conditions, we created artificial abiotic factors that mimicked the natural environment, i.e., light intensity, oxygen conditions, and thermal stratification. Subsequently, we added biotic factors such as algae, Daphnia, and planktivorous fish. We studied the intensity of foraging of planktivorous fish on individuals of Daphnia per min in different conditions of biotic and abiotic gradients. We demonstrated a possible scenario involving the risk of elimination of large prey within macrocladocera communities by predatory pressure as a result of climate change. A higher intensity of foraging of planktivorous fish caused or increased the occurrence of larger groups of planktonic animals with a smaller body size. The mechanisms of a future scenario were discovered at a higher trophic level in the aquatic environment.Entities:
Keywords: climate change; foraging fish; planktonic animals; regime shifts
Year: 2021 PMID: 35011122 PMCID: PMC8749725 DOI: 10.3390/ani12010017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1System of vertical columns used in the experiments and photos taken during the experiments.
Figure 2Diagram presenting the various experimental conditions.
Results of the experiments testing Hypotheses 1, 2, 3.
| ( | M | Me | SD | Min | Max | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Control | 9.7 | 9.9 | 0.8 | 8.6 | 10.6 | ||
| HL | 7.5 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 4.5 | 9.5 | |||
| HO | 13.0 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 11.1 | 17.8 | |||
| NO | 9.9 | 10.1 | 1.0 | 8.5 | 11.1 | |||
| A2 | Control |
| M | 7.2 | 7.3 | 0.5 | 6.4 | 7.7 |
| 11.0 | ||||||||
|
| 3.8 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 4.2 | |||
| NO |
| 12.9 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 1.3 | 7.3 | 10.3 | |
|
| 4.2 | 4.2 | 0.2 | 3.9 | 4.5 | |||
| A3 | Hb | HL (Hb) | 12.4 | 12.2 | 2.4 | 9.4 | 15.6 | |
| HO (Hb) | 15.4 | 15.6 | 0.6 | 14.5 | 15.9 | |||
Results of the Wilcoxon test for Hypotheses 1, 2, 3.
| Pairs | Z | Wilcoxon | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | STATISTICA | Control and HL | −2.533 | 0.011 | |
| Control and HO | −2.533 | 0.011 | |||
| Control and NO | −0.533 | 0.574 | |||
| A2 | Control | Control | −2.533 | 0.011 | |
| Control | −2.533 | 0.011 | |||
| Control | −0.558 | 0.011 | |||
| Control | −2.533 | 0.011 | |||
| A3 | Control (HL | −2.533 | 0.011 | ||
| Control (HO | −2.111 | 0.035 | |||
| HL ( | −2.111 | 0.035 | |||
↑—high/elevated hemoglobin level.
Figure 3Wilcoxon test results for Hypotheses 1, 2, 3. * Statistically significant (p < 0.05); ns not significant.