Next Article in Journal
Stage-Related Neurotoxicity of BPA in the Development of Zebrafish Embryos
Next Article in Special Issue
Occurrence, Distribution and Toxins of Benthic Cyanobacteria in German Lakes
Previous Article in Journal
Preliminary Study on the Protective Effects and Molecular Mechanism of Procyanidins against PFOS-Induced Glucose-Stimulated Insulin Secretion Impairment in INS-1 Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Toxicity of Microcyclamide Produced by Microcystis aeruginosa in Danio rerio Embryos
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/toxics11020176
toxics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Experimental Studies on Zooplankton-Toxic Cyanobacteria Interactions: A Review

by
S. Nandini
* and
S. S. S. Sarma
Laboratory of Aquatic Zoology, Division of Research and Postgraduate Studies, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, FES-Iztacala, Tlalnepantla 54090, State of Mexico, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2023, 11(2), 176; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020176
Submission received: 31 December 2022 / Revised: 9 February 2023 / Accepted: 11 February 2023 / Published: 14 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue (Eco)Toxicology of Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: From Environmental Dynamics to Adverse Effects)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cyanobacterial blooms have been recognized as a problem in fresh water for about 150 years. Over the past 50 years, experimental studies on the subject have gained importance considering the increasing need to control toxic cyanobacterial blooms. This article presents information on the different lines of research that have been undertaken on zooplankton–cyanobacteria interactions over the past 50 years. These include information on filtering/ingestion rates and phytoplankton preferences of small and large rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods; growth rates of zooplankton on cyanobacterial diets; feeding rates of other freshwater invertebrates on cyanobacteria; role of zooplankton in top-down biomanipulation efforts; effect of cyanotoxins on zooplankton; bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins; and physical and chemical control of cyanobacterial blooms. We also highlight measures that have led to successful lake management and improvement of water quality in selected waterbodies.

1. Macroanalysis of Works Involving Toxic Cyanobacteria and Zooplankton

Ever since the first report on the toxicity of cyanobacterial blooms by George Francis in 1878, there have been numerous field and laboratory studies on freshwater and marine cyanobacteria. These studies in fresh water are of vital importance considering the limited quantities of this resource and the difficulty in reducing the concentrations of cyanotoxins with water treatment procedures. Bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins in marine and freshwater organisms often results in health risks to humans, another reason for the increased effort in studying the effects of cyanotoxins. Studies on cyanobacterial interactions have focused mostly on those with viruses, bacteria, rotifers, cladocerans, copepods, mollusks, and fish. Based on a data search in the Web of Science using the words Cyanobacteria and Zooplankton and Experiment, we retrieved 425 articles. We found that many studies focused on field and laboratory grazing experiments using zooplankton, nutrient effects on cyanobacteria, and limnetic and marine cyanobacteria. However, more than 19% of the studies focused on the effect of cyanobacteria and their secondary metabolites on the fitness of rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods, while more than 10% of the studies were on methods to control cyanobacterial blooms (Figure 1).
Close to 2700 species of cyanobacteria from about 150 genera have been described, and it is predicted that this number will rise to above 6000 in the future [1]. However, less than 20 genera have been actually tested in experimental studies (Table 1). Since Spirulina is not toxic to zooplankton, it was excluded from the present analysis. Among zooplankton, most studies focus on the effects of cyanobacteria on rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods. More than 30 species of cladocerans and 25 species of calanoid copepods have been used in experimental studies to test the toxic effects of cyanobacteria. Fewer species (17) of rotifers, cyclopoid copepods (12), and harpacticoid copepods (5) have been used in similar studies (Table 2). Among cladocerans, the emphasis has been on the genus Daphnia: nineteen species have been used in experiments and only thirteen species of other genera and species of Cladocera.

2. Ingesting Toxic Cyanobacteria

Recent studies indicate the ability of viruses and bacteria to increase the edibility of cyanobacteria. Agha et al. [2] show that cyanobacteria infected by chytrid fungi are better utilized by Daphnia galeata. Protist endoparasites such as Caullerya mesnili, however, increase the susceptibility of Daphnia to cyanobacterial diets [3]. Gut microbiota is also known to facilitate the consumption and digestion of cyanobacteria by cladocerans [4]. These works are few, and further studies are needed to understand the molecular mechanism in such observations. Data on cladoceran tolerance of cyanobacterial diets in different regions of the world indicate that the same crustacean species tolerant in some geographic regions is not the case for other regions [5]. The rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus is tolerant to Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii isolated from Brazil and consumed the cyanobacteria [6]. On the other hand, the same rotifer species was more sensitive to the same cyanobacterial species isolated from another region. This has been attributed to clone-related differences of the cyanobacterial species in question [7] and the adaptation of the zooplankton taxa. However, it is also possible that this may be due to differences in the gut flora [4].
Many studies on zooplankton cyanobacteria interactions focus on the ability of zooplankton to control cyanobacterial blooms. In a seminal work, Burns [8] showed that large-sized cladocerans could ingest cyanobacteria better. The study shows the importance of large-sized cladocerans in ingesting phytoplankton > 50 µm. Ever since, numerous studies on the filtering rates of cladocerans and other aquatic organisms have shown that large-sized microcrustaceans (>3000 µm) are quite effective in feeding on cyanobacterial colonies, filaments, and detritus [9,10]. Clearance and ingestion rate studies are short-term experiments that provide ample information on the possibility of success in using selected taxa in consuming a given diet and cyanobacteria control [11]. These have been conducted by direct algal counts or using radioactive markers [12].

3. Attempts to Control Cyanobacterial Blooms

Ever since the early studies by Schindler et al. [13], Shapiro et al. [14], and Carpenter et al. [15] on the control of nutrient input, trophic cascade, and biomanipulation to control cyanobacterial blooms, several laboratory experiments have been conducted to determine the most effective zooplankton species for cyanobacterial feeding in selected regions for the control of toxic blooms. Small-sized cladocerans such as Bosminia longirostris, Ceriodaphnia cornuta, and Ceriodaphnia dubia often have moderate growth rates and survivorship on cyanobacterial diets [5,16,17]. However, their ability to effectively control blooms in nature is greatly limited since they cannot graze on large colonial or filamentous cyanobacteria. There is evidence of a relationship between temperature, cyanobacterial length, and the body size of cladocerans in effectively feeding on filamentous phytoplankton [10,18]. Daphniids are often considered the most suitable zooplankton to control cyanobacterial blooms. The large body size and adequate growth rates of Daphnia magna on cyanobacterial diets [19] indicate that the species is ideally suited for lake management. This is probably the reason for the emphasis on studies on Daphnia; nineteen species of the genus Daphnia have been used in experiments to test the effects of cyanobacteria or cyanotoxins on their fitness, while thirteen species of all the other cladocerans have been used in similar studies (Table 2).

4. Cladoceran Tolerance to Cyanobacteria

Simple experiments to test for the toxicity of algal blooms suggested by Lampert [20] (comparing the survivorship of starved cladocerans to those fed on cyanobacterial diets) were standard practice until the development of ELISA kits and HPLC techniques to quantify cyanotoxins. However, these ecological experiments have a great application; cladocerans often are quite resistant to cyanotoxins. Some studies indicate that previous exposure to toxic cyanobacteria results in an adaptation to cyanobacterial diets [5,21]. Genetic markers are being studied to indicate clones tolerant to cyanobacteria [22]. Proteomics and the study of zooplankton hormones are future lines of research that will help explain the response of different clones and species of zooplankton to cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins [23,24].

5. Studies in Temperate and Tropical Regions on Cyanobacterial Control

Many studies on controlling cyanobacterial blooms have used Daphnia magna in temperate countries where the species is naturally distributed. Daphnia (often <2000 µm) occurs in tropical countries, too, although they may have been first described from temperate regions (Daphnia carinata, Daphnia ambigua, Daphnia lumholtzi, and Daphnia similis) [25]. In general, however, Daphnia spp. are found at low densities in tropical waters, possibly because of high fish predation pressure throughout the year [26] and their sensitivity to toxic cyanobacteria. For the same reasons, the size structure of zooplankton communities in tropical waters is often in favor of small zooplankton (rotifers, copepods, and small cladocerans) [27]. Common cladoceran genera in tropical and sub-tropical waters include Diaphanosoma, Moina, Chydorus, Alona, and Macrothrix, all of which measure less than 1000 µm. Population growth and life table experiments indicate that some clones of Moina can grow well on cyanobacterial diets, especially at high temperatures (>25 °C) [28,29]. On the other hand, the sensitivity of some clones of Moina to cyanobacterial diets is attributed to the adverse effect of these diets on the functioning of digestive enzymes, especially proteases [30].
Dense and persistent cyanobacterial blooms are often found in tropical waters almost throughout the year. Smaller-sized zooplankton present in such waters are not as effective cyanobacteria grazers as large (>3000 µm) daphniids of temperate regions. Hence, the need exists to determine the grazing potential of other crustaceans common in these regions. Ostracods are known to feed on some filamentous cyanobacteria [31]. Some observational field studies and laboratory experiments show that ostracods and amphipods are effective feeders of cyanobacteria [32,33]; their ability to control cyanobacterial blooms on a large scale needs to be tested.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the effect of cyanobacteria or cyanotoxins on zooplankton. Discussing all of them is beyond the scope of this manuscript; hence, some selected studies are highlighted in Table 3. Daphniids are often quite sensitive to cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, and many species of zooplankton die when fed Microcystis. Daphnia laevis is an interesting species with regard to its ability to tolerate cyanobacterial blooms in the tropics. Nandini et al. [21] showed that Daphnia laevis has higher growth rates on cyanobacterial diets from the reservoir Valle de Bravo than chlorophytes. Recent works show that Daphnia has specific enzymes that enable it to tolerate cyanotoxins [34]. Daphnia laevis is quite common in lakes and reservoirs with cyanobacteria in Mexico. Daphnia laevis is also capable of bioaccumulating cyanotoxins and shows a high degree of tolerance to these compounds, as evident from laboratory [21,29] and field studies [35].

6. Zooplankton Tolerance to Toxic Cyanobacteria

Extrapolating laboratory findings to field situations based on studies using a single experimental design is perhaps unwise. For instance, several field and laboratory experiments have been conducted using Diaphanosoma, a common cladoceran in cyanobacteria-dominated lakes. Fulton and Paerl [49] showed in laboratory experiments that compared to Daphnia, Diaphanosoma brachyurum had a greater tolerance to Microcystis. While previous exposure to Microcystis helps Daphnia improve its tolerance to this diet [50], demographic experiments on Diaphanosoma mongolianum regarding its tolerance to Microcystis diets show that it is high regardless of previous exposure to a cyanobacterial diet [37]. Species-specific differences in the clearance rates of Diaphanosoma are also well established based on laboratory studies [51,52]. Pagano [53], in feeding experiments, showed that Diaphanosoma does not feed on large food particles but mostly on particles < 4.5 µm to 10 µm. Gut content analyses indicate the presence of Dolichospermum in Diaphanosoma in reservoirs in Poland [54]. Recent studies also show that some species of Diaphanosoma such as D. celebensis are capable of microcystin uptake and tolerance [55]; these studies also indicate the importance of molecular markers in biomonitoring of aquatic water bodies. These findings help explain the frequent occurrence of Diaphanosoma in reservoirs dominated by cyanobacteria around the world [37,56].
Maternal exposure to cyanobacteria helps improve fitness although a meta-analysis by Radersma et al. [57] showed that these interactions are weak. We also found similar results in the fitness of two strains of Diaphanosoma mongolianum with and without previous exposure to Microcystis [37]. Tolerance to cyanotoxins as a consequence of previous exposure has also been reported in the literature. For example, Daphnia magna previously feeding on cyanobacteria showed greater tolerance to these diets, as do their offspring [58]. Similar trends have been reported for two clones of Ceriodaphnia cornuta fed on Microcystis aeruginosa: one isolated from a water body without Microcystis and the other from a pond with M. aeruginosa [5].

7. Rotifers as Grazers on Toxic Cyanobacteria

Rotifers are common in eutrophic tropical and temperate lakes and reach high densities in spite of the presence of cyanobacteria [59,60]. Although feeding experiments and demographic studies on rotifers such as Brachionus calyciflorus, B. havanaensis, Hexarthra mira, Keratella cochlearis, and Synchaeta pectinata, among others, indicate their ability to feed on cyanobacteria such as Microcystis aeruginosa, Anabaena flos aquae, and Anabaena affinis [5,61,62], their feeding and clearance rates are not enough to effectively reduce cyanobacterial blooms. Some species such as Brachionus havanaensis are common in tropical lakes in the Americas; laboratory experiments also indicate that this rotifer can grow well on unicellular cyanobacteria [59]. The adverse effects of a cyanobacterial diet (Microcystis, Anabaena, and Dolichospermum) and cyanotoxins (pure and crude extracts) on Brachionus calyciflorus have been well documented [5,39,62,63]. Often, the abundant taxa in lakes with dense cyanobacterial blooms include Keratella and Polyarthra. These are bacterivores, probably avoiding the adverse effects of cyanotoxins since they cannot ingest large colonies or filaments. Brachionus havanaensis, which is native to the neotropical region [64], has recently been reported from L’Albufera, Valencia, where it is an exotic species, feeding on cyanobacteria when offered in the sonicated form [60].

8. Demographic and Population Level Parameters of Zooplankton Fed Mixed Cyanobacterial-Algal Diets

Species of rotifers and cladocerans when fed on an exclusive diet of cyanobacterial such as Microcystis had lower growth rates than those fed on green algae (Table 4). Though various species of toxic cyanobacteria often occur as blooms, they rarely constitute 100% of the phytoplankton. They coexist with species of edible algae, albeit at lower densities [65]. Therefore, zooplankton in nature can exploit the seasonal changes in the proportion of toxic cyanobacteria and edible algal species. During winters, especially in high-altitude waterbodies, cyanobacterial blooms are not common, and the relative proportion of edible algae increases. Under such conditions, rotifers and cladocerans can effectively feed on the edible fraction of phytoplankton or include some portion of toxic cyanobacteria for their growth [66]. Cyanobacterial species also contain some useful energy components in their chemical composition, such as proteins [67]. Therefore, feeding on a mixed diet involving a small proportion of toxic cyanobacteria with a higher proportion of edible algae may offer better growth rates than exclusively relying on limited edible algae. Alva-Martínez et al. [68,69] conducted population growth experiments on selected species of rotifers and cladocerans using different proportions of cyanobacteria with green algae (100–0%). In general, their studies revealed higher population growth rates of zooplankton on mixed diets than algae or cyanobacteria alone. This suggests that in nature, some species of zooplankton show higher population abundances, probably due to their generalist feeding on available seston [11].
In cyanobacteria-dominated waterbodies, certain zooplankton dominate, while others remain in low abundance [78]. However, with seasonal changes, the composition of phytoplankton varies, favoring other zooplankton species. The dominance of one species of zooplankton over others in waterbodies with cyanobacterial blooms is also due to the relative sensitivities of zooplankton. Therefore, the competing abilities of zooplankton species depend on their ability to resist cyanotoxins [79]. This is usually a conjecture if the interpretation is exclusively based on field samples. Laboratory studies on competition involving toxic cyanobacteria as diet confirm the relative competitive abilities of two or more zooplankton species for limited resources. The competition study by Sarma et al. [60] indicates the ability of the exotic Brachionus havanaensis to outcompete the native B. angularis, especially on Microcystis diets; this cyanobacterium forms dense blooms in L’ Albufera. Demographic studies on the effect of extracts from phytoplankton blooms using rotifers provide valuable insights into natural interactions. For instance, Zamora Barrios et al. [38] studied the tolerance of clones of B. calyciflorus from Lake Texcoco, a saline lake with dense cyanobacterial blooms. It was clear that the crude extracts were not toxic to B. calyciflorus, unlike in the study by Nandini et al. (2019) [43], where extracts from dense blooms of Woronichinia in the freshwater reservoir of Valle de Bravo were toxic to B. calyciflorus. Kotut and Kreinitz [80] suggested that Microcystis from saline lakes are often low in toxicity and may represent cryptic species different from the freshwater Microcystis aeruginosa.

9. Grazing and Selection

Among the different groups of zooplankton, copepods can selectively feed on edible particles such as algae, detritus, and bacteria while simultaneously avoiding ingestion of toxic cyanobacteria [81]. This conclusion can also be derived based on gut content analysis of copepods and laboratory studies involving analysis of phytoplankton composition before and after addition of copepods in microcosms [11,82]. Copepods also show marked species-specific responses to cyanobacterial diets. Feeding studies indicate that copepods can detect the quality of the diet and often avoid toxic cyanobacteria [81]. This, along with their high swimming speed and the ability to avoid fish predators [83], makes them, with rotifers, the dominant taxa in tropical lakes and reservoirs [84]. However, species-specific responses in the feeding preferences of copepods are frequently reported; for instance, Kâ et al. [85] reported that Mesocyclops ogunnus does not feed on cyanobacteria, while Mesocyclops thermocyclopoides and Mesocyclops pehpeiensis can feed and reproduce on cyanobacterial diets, albeit not as well as on animal diets [86,87]. Xu and Burns [88] also showed that three species of Boeckella can grow well on an exclusive diet of Anabaena oscillarioides. With the development of molecular tools, a recent study by Gorokhova et al. [22] indicated that the year-long expression of mlrA genes (codes for the production of microcystinase, an enzyme that hydrolyzes microcystins) from the gut of the marine copepods Acartia bifilosa and Eurytemora affinis allows them to feed effectively on Nodularia spumigena. Further studies are needed to explain the mechanisms behind the species-specific responses of copepods to cyanobacterial diets and cyanotoxins.
The ability of cladocerans and rotifers to selectively avoid ingestion of toxic cyanobacterial cells can be easily confirmed from laboratory studies. In most mixed-diet (cyanobacteria and edible algae, mentioned earlier) studies, the quantity of unconsumed cyanobacterial cells is rarely quantified, and therefore, it is difficult to derive the energy budget of such studies [68]. Carefully executed short-term grazing studies certainly offer some light on the differential feeding rates from algal-cyanobacterial mixed diets. This approach becomes much easier if the diet composition can be identified based on their morphological differences. To avoid mechanical impediments, large colonies of cyanobacteria such as Microcystis spp. are sonicated to single cells and mixed with single-celled non-colonial algal species such as Scenedesmus. The mixed diet can be offered in different proportions to the grazers, and after a specific period of feeding, the unconsumed cells of cyanobacteria and alga can be quantified. Pérez-Morales et al. [89] showed that although the cladocerans Daphnia pulex, Moina micrura, and Ceriodaphnia dubia consumed sonicated cells of toxic Microcystis aeruginosa, when mixed with algae, the consumption of cyanobacterial cells varied depending on the proportion of the mixed diets. Thus, when the algal cell density in the mixed diet was higher, the rate of consumption of M. aeruginosa cell numbers by D. pulex and M. micrura was lower. The same study using rotifers (B. calyciflorus, B. rubens, and Plationus patulus) showed differential feeding rates on cyanobacteria in mixed diets. Thus, the study showed that the consumption of cyanobacteria by the zooplankton also depends on the availability and proportion of the edible fraction of seston in natural water bodies.

10. Effects of Crude and Purified Extracts from Toxic Cyanobacteria

Even after the collapse of cyanobacterial blooms, water toxicity exists in lakes and reservoirs. This is due to the lysis of cyanobacterial cells and the release of cyanotoxins into the medium. Estimating the concentration of and effects of cyanotoxins in reservoir water should be routine in water management protocols [90]. Evaluating the effects of pure cyanotoxins and crude extracts from blooms in lakes and reservoirs on zooplankton is on the rise over the past couple of decades. The latter are easily obtained using cycles of freezing, thawing, and sonication of concentrated blooms from natural waterbodies [91]. The effect of these extracts on locally available zooplankton taxa makes it easier to extrapolate the findings from laboratory studies to nature. The adverse effects of cyanobacterial extracts have been studied since the early 2000s [30,92] on several cladocerans including Moina macrocopa, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Ceriodaphnia silvestrii, and Daphnia similis. Ever since, many studies indicate the toxicity of extracts from blooms on rotifers and cladocerans [29,38,39,41,43,93]. These studies are based on acute and chronic toxicity tests and data related to survivorship and fecundity of the test zooplankton. Some species of cyanobacteria, Woronichinia, for instance, are difficult to culture under laboratory conditions [94]; extraction of cyanotoxins from field-collected blooms enables assessment of their toxicity to zooplankton [36]. Other effective short-term experiments not frequently used to analyze the effect of cyanobacteria on cladocerans are the heartrate measurements when exposed to toxins. Recently, Araiza Vazquez et al. (in prep) showed that there was approximately a 30% decline in the number of palpitations of the heart of Simocephalus vetulus when exposed to cyanotoxins from a bloom of Microcystis aeruginosa in the Virgilio Uribe rowing canal in Mexico City. This simple and effective experimental design yields quantitative results on the toxicity of water with cyanobacterial blooms.

11. Bioaccumulation of Cyanotoxins through the Food Chain

The bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins in zooplankton has been well demonstrated. Early studies by Watanabe et al. [95] indicated high levels of bioaccumulation in small cladocerans such as Bosmina and Diaphanosoma when exposed to Microcystis diets. With the advent of ELISA, more reliable methods also indicated the accumulation of cyanotoxins in generalist filter feeders, mostly cladocerans [12]. The degree of bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins can be related to the feeding rates and filtering behavior of the species; [96]. Zamora Barrios et al. [38] suggested that the low bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins in cladocerans such as Bosmina in a Mexican lake is due to their inability to ingest the dominant cyanobacterial taxa, which are present as large filaments or colonies (Planktothrix, Anabaena, Microcystis, and Cylindrospermopsis). Some cladocerans such as Diaphanosoma and Daphnia laevis are more tolerant to cyanotoxins in their tissues than other species [55,97,98].

12. Lake Management

An important reason for the increased interest in cyanobacterial research is the global presence of persistent cyanobacterial blooms in freshwaters. Several excellent reviews [99] and books [100] have been written on the subject in recent years. Physical, chemical, and biological methods to control cyanobacteria are being attempted but with limited success [99]. A holistic approach involving bottom-up and top-down control [101] will yield satisfactory results.

13. Conclusions

Many studies have considered the adverse effects of cyanobacteria on zooplankton based on both field and laboratory studies. These studies offer some generalizations on how toxic cyanobacteria shape the zooplankton community structure under field conditions and changes in the demographic parameters of rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods under laboratory conditions. Short-term feeding and mesocosm studies show how effective grazing by zooplankton is in controlling toxic cyanobacterial blooms. Most studies suggest that large cladocerans, particularly daphniids, can reduce toxic cyanobacterial blooms. Previous exposure to cyanotoxins is known to increase the tolerance of zooplankton to cyanobacteria. Laboratory experiments on the demographic responses of zooplankton to cyanobacterial diets and cyanotoxins permit the explanation of the dominance of these taxa in nature. Regarding toxicity tests, a given zooplankton species may respond differently when exposed to the same cyanobacterium. These differences are mainly due to difficulties in the identification of cyanobacteria (lack of molecular approach in the taxonomic determination [80]), differences in cyanobacteria and zooplankton, loss of cyanotoxicity in long-term laboratory cultures with relation to nitrogen availability [102], previous exposure to toxic cyanobacteria, multi- and trans-generational adaptation of zooplankton, bioassay design, and tests conducted under field or laboratory conditions. Studies aimed at reducing toxic cyanobacterial blooms using crustaceans (other than cladocerans and copepods) such as ostracods and amphipods are few. Other modes of control (chemical or physical agents) such as by nutrient-based approach or intra-primary producer interactions (e.g., allelopathic effects) have not been considered here, as they are beyond the scope of this work. An integrated approach involving different methods is much needed to reduce the cyanobacterial blooms in ponds, lakes, and reservoirs.

Author Contributions

All aspects of this manuscript (Conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation; resources; data curation; writing—original draft preparation; writing—review and editing; visualization; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition) were equally undertaken by S.N. and S.S.S.S. The authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

PAPCA: FESI-PAPCA 2021-2022-54 and FESI-PAPCA 2021-2022-55; PAPIIT (UNAM)-IG200820; CONACyT Mexico, 20520 and 18723.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank PAPCA (FESI-PAPCA 2021-2022-54 and FESI-PAPCA 2021-2022-55), PAPIIT IG200820, and CONACyT (20520 and 18723) for financial support. We gratefully acknowledge a full waiver of APC for this contribution.

Conflicts of Interest

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Nabout, J.C.; da Silva Rocha, B.; Carneiro, F.M.; Leite Sant’Anna, C. How many species of Cyanobacteria are there? Using a discovery curve to predict the species number. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 2907–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agha, R.; Saebelfeld, M.; Manthey, C.; Rohrlack, T.; Wolinska, J. Chytrid parasitism facilitates trophic transfer between bloom-forming cyanobacteria and zooplankton (Daphnia). Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 35039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tellenbach, C.; Tardent, N.; Pomati, F.; Keller, B.; Hairston, N.G., Jr.; Wolinska, J.; Spaak, P. Cyanobacteria facilitate parasite epidemics in Daphnia. Ecology 2016, 97, 3422–3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Macke, E.; Callens, M.; De Meester, L.; Decaestecker, E. Host-genotype dependent gut microbiota drives zooplankton tolerance to toxic cyanobacteria. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nandini, S.; Rao, T.R. Somatic and population growth in selected cladoceran and rotifer species offered the cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa as food. Aquat. Ecol. 1998, 31, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Soares, M.C.S.; Lürling, M.; Huszar, V.L.M. Responses of the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus to two tropical toxic cyanobacteria (Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii and Microcystis aeruginosa) in pure and mixed diets with green algae. J. Plankton Res. 2010, 32, 999–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bolius, S.; Wiedner, C.; Weithoff, G. High local trait variability in a globally invasive cyanobacterium. Freshw. Biol. 2017, 62, 1879–1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Burns, C.W. Relation between filtering rate, temperature and body size in four species of Daphnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1969, 14, 423–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gliwicz, Z.M.; Lampert, W. Food thresholds in Daphnia species in the absence and presence of blue-green filaments. Ecology 1990, 71, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gulati, R.D.; Bronkhorst, M.; Van Donk, E. Feeding in Daphnia galeata on Oscillatoria limnetica and on detritus derived from it. J. Plankton Res. 2001, 23, 705–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Monakov, A.V. Feeding of Freshwater Invertebrates; Kenobi Productions: Ghent, Belgium, 2003; p. 373. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferrão-Filho, A.S.; Kozlowsky-Suzuki, B. Cyanotoxins: Bioaccumulation and effects on aquatic animals. Mar. Drugs 2011, 9, 2729–2772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schindler, D.W. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: Implications for lake management. Science 1974, 184, 897–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shapiro, J.; Lamarra, V.; Lynch, M. Biomanipulation: An ecosystem approach to lake restoration. In Water Quality Management through Biological Control; Brezonik, P.L., Fox, J.L., Eds.; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1975; pp. 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carpenter, S.R.; Kitchell, J.F.; Hodgson, J.R. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 1985, 35, 634–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. DeMott, W.R. The role of taste in food selection by freshwater zooplankton. Oecologia 1986, 69, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pérez-Morales, A.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Nandini, S.; Espinosa-Rodríguez, C.A.; Rivera-De la Parra, L. Demographic responses of selected rotifers (Rotifera) and cladocerans (Cladocera) fed toxic Microcystis aeruginosa (Cyanobacteria). Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 2020, 193, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sikora, A.; Dawidowicz, P. Breakage of cyanobacterial filaments by small- and large-sized Daphnia: Are there any temperature-dependent differences? Hydrobiologia 2017, 798, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bednarska, A. Food quantity and quality shapes reproductive strategies of Daphnia. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lampert, W. Laboratory studies on zooplankton-cyanobacteria interactions. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1987, 21, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nandini, S.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Ramírez-García, P. Life table demography and population growth of Daphnia laevis (Cladocera, Anomopoda) under different densities of Chlorella vulgaris and Microcystis aeruginosa. Crustaceana 2000, 73, 1273–1286. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gorokhova, E.; El-Shehawy, R.; Lehtiniemi, M.; Garbaras, A. How copepods can eat toxins without getting sick: Gut bacteria help zooplankton to feed in cyanobacteria blooms. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 589816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, R.; Jiang, Y.; MacIsaac, H.J.; Chen, L.; Li, J.; Xua, J.; Wang, T.; Zi, Y.; Chang, X. Blooming cyanobacteria alter water flea reproduction via exudates of estrogen analogues. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 133909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shahmohamadloo, R.S.; Poirier, D.G.; Ortiz Almirall, X.; Bhavsar, S.P.; Sibley, P.K. Assessing the toxicity of cell-bound microcystins on freshwater pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 188, 109945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Benzie, J.A.H. Cladocera: The genus Daphnia (including Daphniopsis). In Guides to the Identification of the Microinvertebrates of the Continental Waters of the World; Dumont, H.J.F., Ed.; Kenobi Productions: Ghent, Belgium, 2005; p. 376. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dumont, H.J. On the diversity of the Cladocera in the tropics. Hydrobiologia 1994, 272, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brendonck, L.; de Necker, L.; Dube, T.; Dalu, T.; Van Damme, K.; Pinceel, T.; Nhiwatiwa, T. Chapter 9—Zooplankton. In Fundamentals of Tropical Freshwater Wetlands; Dalu, T., Wasserman, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 221–271. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nandini, S. Responses of rotifers and cladocerans to Microcystis aeruginosa (Cyanophyceae): A demographic study. Aquat. Ecol. 2000, 34, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Herrera, N.A.; Fernando Echeverri, L.; Ferrão-Filho, A.S. Effects of phytoplankton extracts containing the toxin microcystin-LR on the survival and reproduction of cladocerans. Toxicon 2015, 95, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Agrawal, M.K.; Bagchi, D.; Bagchi, S.N. Acute inhibition of protease and suppression of growth in zooplankter, Moina macrocopa, by Microcystis blooms collected in Central India. Hydrobiologia 2001, 464, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nascimento, F.J.A.; Karlson, A.M.L.; Elmgren, R. Settling blooms of filamentous cyanobacteria as food for meiofauna assemblages. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2008, 53, 2636–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poirier, A.M.T.; Cattaneo, A.; Hudon, C. Benthic cyanobacteria and filamentous chlorophytes affect macroinvertebrate assemblages in a large fluvial lake. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2010, 29, 737–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Figueroa-Sánchez, M.A.; Nandini, S.; Castellanos-Páez, M.E.; Sarma, S.S.S. Effect of temperature, food quality and quantity on the feeding behavior of Simocephalus mixtus and Hyalella azteca: Implications for biomanipulation. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 27, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schwarzenberger, A. Negative effects of cyanotoxins and adaptative responses of Daphnia. Toxins 2022, 14, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pinto-Coelho, R.M.; Bezerra-Neto, J.F.; Giani, A.; Macedo, C.F.; Figueredo, C.C.; Carvalho, E.A. The collapse of a Daphnia laevis (Birge, 1878) population in Pampulha reservoir, Brazil. Acta Limnol. Bras. 2003, 15, 53–70. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nandini, S.; Miracle, M.R.; Vicente, E.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Gulati, R.D. Microcystis extracts and single cells have differential impacts on the demography of cladocerans: A case study on Moina cf. micrura isolated from the Mediterranean coastal shallow lake (L’ Albufera, Spain). Hydrobiologia 2017, 798, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nandini, S.; Miracle, M.R.; Vicente, E.; Sarma, S.S.S. Strain-related differences in bacterivory and demography of Diaphanosoma mongolianum (Cladocera) in relation to diet and previous exposure to cyanobacteria in nature. Aquat. Ecol. 2021, 55, 1225–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zamora Barrios, C.A.; Nandini, S.; Sarma, S.S.S. Effect of crude extracts from cyanobacterial blooms in Lake Texcoco (Mexico) on the population growth of Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera). Toxicon 2017, 139, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Zamora Barrios, C.A.; Nandini, S.; Sarma, S.S.S. Effect of crude extracts of Dolichospermum planctonicum on the demography of Plationus patulus (Rotifera) and Ceriodaphnia cornuta (Cladocera). Ecotoxicology 2015, 24, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Freitas, E.C.; Pinheiro, C.; Rocha, O.; Loureiro, S. Can mixtures of cyanotoxins represent a risk to the zooplankton? The case study of Daphnia magna Straus exposed to hepatotoxic and neurotoxic cyanobacterial extracts. Harmful Algae 2014, 31, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nandini, S.; Zamora-Barrios, C.A.; Sarma, S.S.S. A long-term study on the effect of cyanobacterial crude extracts from Lake Chapultepec (Mexico City) on selected zooplankton species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 39, 2409–2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bui, B.T.; Wiegand, C.; Din, K.V.; Dao, T.S. Responses of a tropical micro-crustacean, Daphnia lumholtzi, upon exposures to dissolved toxins and living cells of cyanobacteria. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 19, 100973. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nandini, S.; Sánchez-Zamora, C.; Sarma, S.S.S. Toxicity of cyanobacterial blooms from the reservoir Valle de Bravo (Mexico): A case study on the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 1348–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jungmann, D.; Benndorf, J. Toxicity to Daphnia of a compound extracted from laboratory and natural Microcystis spp., and the role of microcystins. Freshw. Biol. 1994, 32, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pawlik-Skowrońska, B.; Kalinowska, R.; Skowroński, T. Cyanotoxin diversity and food web bioaccumulation in a reservoir with decreasing phosphorus concentrations and perennial cyanobacterial blooms. Harmful Algae 2013, 28, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, Z.; Yu, J.; Yang, M.; Zhang, J.; Burch, M.D.; Han, W. Cyanobacterial population and harmful metabolites dynamics during a bloom in Yanghe Reservoir, North China. Harmful Algae 2010, 9, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Podduturi, R.; Schlüter, L.; Liu, T.; Saviolo Osti, J.A.; Bispo Moraes, M.A.; Jørgensen, N.O.G. Monitoring of saxitoxin production in lakes in Denmark by molecular, chromatographic and microscopic approaches. Harmful Algae 2021, 101, 101966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Krzton, W.; Pudasz, K.; Pociecha, A.; Strzesak, M.; Kosiba, J.; Walusiak, E.; Szarek-Gwiazda, E.; Wilk-Wozniak, E. Microcystins affect zooplankton biodiversity in oxbow lakes. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fulton, R.S., III; Paerl, H.W. Effects of the blue-green alga Microcystis aeruginosa on zooplankton competitive relations. Oecologia 1988, 76, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guo, N.; Xie, P. Development of tolerance against toxic Microcystis aeruginosa in three cladocerans and the ecological implications. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 143, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bogdan, K.G.; Gilbert, J.J. Quantitative comparison of food niches in some freshwater zooplankton. Oecologia 1987, 72, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hart, R.C.; Jarvis, A.C. In situ determinations of bacterial selectivity and filtration rates by five cladoceran zooplankters in a hypertrophic subtropical reservoir. J. Plankton Res. 1993, 15, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pagano, M. Feeding of tropical cladocerans (Moina micrura, Diaphanosoma excisum) and rotifer (Brachionus calyciflorus) on natural phytoplankton: Effect of phytoplankton size-structure. J. Plankton Res. 2008, 30, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Solis, M.; Pawlik-Skowrońska, B.; Adamczuk, M.; Kalinowska, R. Dynamics of small-sized Cladocera and their algal diet in lake with toxic cyanobacterial water blooms. Int. J. Limnol. 2018, 54, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Won, E.J.; Kim, D.; Yoo, J.W.; In, S.; Shin, K.H.; Lee, Y.M. Oxidative stress responses in brackish water flea exposed to microcystin-LR and algal bloom waters from Nakdong River, Republic of Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 162, 111868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Han, B.P.; Yin, J.; Lin, X.; Dumont, H.J. Why is Diaphanosoma (Crustacea: Ctenopoda) so common in the tropics? Influence of temperature and food on the population parameters of Diaphanosoma dubium, and a hypothesis on the nature of tropical cladocerans. Hydrobiologia 2011, 668, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Radersma, R.; Hegg, A.; Noble, D.W.A.; Uller, T. Timing of maternal exposure to toxic cyanobacteria and offspring fitness in Daphnia magna: Implications for the evolution of anticipatory maternal effects. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 12727–12736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Lyu, K.; Guan, H.; Wu, C.; Wang, X.; Wilson, A.E.; Yang, Z. Maternal consumption of non-toxic Microcystis by Daphnia magna induces tolerance to toxic Microcystis in offspring. Freshw. Biol. 2016, 61, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gayosso-Morales, M.A.; Nandini, S.; Martínez-Jeronimo, F.F.; Sarma, S.S.S. Effect of organic and inorganic turbidity on the zooplankton community structure of a shallow waterbody in Central Mexico (Lake Xochimilco, Mexico). J. Environ. Biol. 2017, 38, 1183–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sarma, S.S.S.; Nandini, S.; Miracle, M.R.; Vicente, E. Effect of a cyanobacterial diet on the competition between rotifers: A case study in Lake Albufera of Valencia, Spain. Limnetica 2019, 38, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Starkweather, P.L.; Kellar, P.E. Utilisation of cyanobacteria by Brachionus calyciflorus: Anabaena flos-aquae (NRC441) as a sole or complementary food source. Hydrobiologia 1983, 104, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gilbert, J.J. Differential effects of Anabaena affinis on cladocerans and rotifers: Mechanisms and implications. Ecology 1990, 71, 1727–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pawlik-Skowrońska, B.; Toporowska, M.; Mazur-Marzec, H. Effects of secondary metabolites produced by different cyanobacterial populations on the freshwater zooplankters Brachionus calyciflorus and Daphnia pulex. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 11793–11804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Segers, H. 2007 Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum Rotifera), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy and distribution. Zootaxa 2007, 1564, 1–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kalff, J.; Knoechel, R. Phytoplankton and their dynamics in oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1978, 9, 475–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kurmayer, R.; Jüttner, F. Strategies for the co-existence of zooplankton with the toxic cyanobacterium Planktothrix rubescens in Lake Zürich. J. Plankton Res. 1999, 21, 659–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Baumgartner, D.; Kopf, M.; Klähn, S.; Steglich, C.; Hess, W.R. Small proteins in cyanobacteria provide a paradigm for the functional analysis of the bacterial micro-proteome. BMC Microbiol. 2016, 16, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Alva-Martínez, A.F.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Nandini, S. Effect of mixed diets (cyanobacteria and green algae) on the population growth of the cladocerans Ceriodaphnia dubia and Moina macrocopa. Aquat. Ecol. 2007, 41, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Alva-Martínez, A.F.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Nandini, S. Population dynamics of Brachionus calyciflorus and Brachionus havanaensis (Rotifera) on mixed diets with Microcystis aeruginosa and green algae. Hidrobiologica 2007, 17 (Suppl. S1), 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  70. da Costa, S.M.; da Silva Ferrão-Filho, A.; Azevedo, S.M.F.O. Effects of saxitoxin- and non-saxitoxin-producing strains of the cyanobacterium Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii on the fitness of temperate and tropical cladocerans. Harmful Algae 2013, 28, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bednarska, A.; Łoś, J.; Dawidowicz, P. Temperature-dependent effect of filamentous cyanobacteria on Daphnia magna life history traits. J. Limnol. 2011, 70, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hulot, F.D.; Carmignac, D.; Legendre, S.; Yepremian, C.; Bernard, C. Effects of microcystin-producing and microcystin-free strains of Planktothrix agardhii on long-term population dynamics of Daphnia magna. Int. J. Limnol. 2012, 48, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Luo, X.; Liu, Z.; Gulati, R.D. Cyanobacterial carbon supports the growth and reproduction of Daphnia: An experimental study. Hydrobiologia 2015, 743, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Whittington, D.; Walsh, M.R. Divergent phenotypic responses to predators and cyanobacteria in Daphnia lumholtzi. Freshw. Biol. 2015, 60, 1880–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lamei, L.; Huang, H.; Peng, L.; Yang, Y.; Xiao, L.; Han, B.P. Life-history responses of Daphnia sinensis simultaneously exposed to Microcystis aeruginosa and Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii. Ecotoxicology 2020, 29, 771–779. [Google Scholar]
  76. Haney, J.F.; Lampert, W. Spatial avoidance of Microcystis aeruginosa by Daphnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2013, 58, 2122–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jiang, X.; Liang, H.; Yang, W.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhao, S.; Jing, X. Fitness benefits and costs of induced defenses in Daphnia carinata (Cladocera: Daphnidae) exposed to cyanobacteria. Hydrobiologia 2013, 702, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Reichwaldt, E.S.; Ghadouani, A. Effects of rainfall patterns on toxic cyanobacterial blooms in a changing climate: Between simplistic scenarios and complex dynamics. Water Res. 2012, 46, 1372–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Belfiore, A.P.; Buley, R.P.; Fernandez-Figueroa, E.G.; Gladfelter, M.F.; Wilson, A.E. Zooplankton as an alternative method for controlling phytoplankton in catfish pond aquaculture. Aquac. Rep. 2021, 21, 100897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kotut, K.; Krienitz, L. Does the potentially toxic cyanobacterium Microcystis exist in the soda lakes of East Africa? Hydrobiologia 2011, 664, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. DeMott, W.R.; Moxter, F. Foraging cyanobacteria by copepods: Responses to chemical defense and resource abundance. Ecology 1991, 72, 820–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rangel, L.M.; Silva, L.H.S.; Faassen, E.J.; Lürling, M.; Ger, K.A. Copepod prey selection and grazing efficiency mediated by chemical and morphological defensive traits of cyanobacteria. Toxins 2020, 12, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gemmel, B.J.; Houshuo, J.; Strickler, J.R.; Buskey, E.J. Plankton reach new heights in effort to avoid predators. Proc. R. Soc. 2012, 279, 2786–2792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Figueroa-Sanchez, M.A.; Nandini, S.; Sarma, S.S.S. Zooplankton community structure in the presence of low levels of cyanotoxins: A case study in a high altitude tropical reservoir (Valley de Bravo, Mexico). J. Limnol. 2014, 73, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kâ, S.; Mendoza-Vera, J.M.; Bouvy, M.; Champalbert, G.; N’Gom-Kâ, R.; Pagano, M. Can tropical freshwater zooplankton graze efficiently on cyanobacteria? Hydrobiologia 2012, 679, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kumar, R.; Rao, T.R. Post-embryonic developmental rates as a function of food type in the cyclopoid copepod, Mesocyclops thermocyclopoides Harada. J. Plankton Res. 1998, 20, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sarma, S.S.S.; Jiménez-Contreras, J.; Fernández, R.; Nandini, S.; García-García, G. Functional responses and feeding rates of Mesocyclops pehpeiensis Hu (Copepoda) fed different diets (rotifers, cladocerans, alga and cyanobacteria). J. Nat. Hist. 2013, 47, 841–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Xu, Z.; Burns, C.W. Development, growth and survivorship of juvenile calanoid copepods on diets of cyanobacteria and algae. Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 1991, 76, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Pérez-Morales, A.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Nandini, S. Feeding and filtration rates of zooplankton (rotifers and cladocerans) fed toxic cyanobacterium (Microcystis aeruginosa). J. Environ. Biol. 2014, 35, 1013–1020. [Google Scholar]
  90. Allillo-Sánchez, J.L.; Gaytán-Herrera, M.L.; Martínez-Almeida, V.M.; Ramírez-García, P. Microcystin-LR equivalents and their correlation with Anabaena spp. in the main reservoir of a hydraulic system of Central Mexico. Inland Waters 2014, 4, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pietsch, C.; Wiegand, C.; Áme, V.; Nicklish, A.; Wunderlin, D.; Pflugmacher, S. 2001 The effects of cyanobacterial crude extract on different aquatic organisms: Evidence for cyanobacterial toxin modulating factors. Environ. Toxicol. 2001, 16, 535–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Okumura, D.; Sotero-Santos, R.; Takenaka, R.; Rocha, O. Evaluation of cyanobacteria toxicity in tropical reservoirs using crude extracts bioassay with cladocerans. Ecotoxicology 2007, 16, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Vilar, M.C.P.; de Araújo-Castro, C.M.V.; Moura, A.N. Acute toxicity of Microcystis spp. (Cyanobacteria) bloom on Moina minuta (Cladocera) in a tropical reservoir, Northeastern Brazil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Contam. 2014, 9, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bober, B.; Bialczyk, J. Determination of the toxicity of the freshwater cyanobacterium Woronichinia naegeliana (Unger) Elenkin. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 1355–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Watanabe, M.M.; Kaya, K.; Takamura, N.J. Fate of the toxic cyclic hepatopeptides, the microcystins, from blooms of Microcystis (Cyanobacteria) in a hypereutrophic lake. Phycology 1992, 28, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Larson, D.; Ahlgren, G.; Willén, E. Bioaccumulation of microcystins in the food web: A field study of four Swedish lake. Inland Waters 2014, 4, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ferrão-Filho, A.S.; Pereira, U.J.; Vilar, M.C.P.; de Magalhães, L.; Marinho, M.M. Can small-bodied Daphnia control Raphidiopsis raciborskii in eutrophic tropical lakes? A mesocosm experiment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 35459–35473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Vilar, M.C.P.; da Silva Ferrão-Filho, A.; Azevedo, S.M.F.O. Single and mixed diets of the toxic Cyanobacteria Microcystis aeruginosa and Raphidiopsis raciborskii differently affect Daphnia feeding behavior. Food Webs 2022, 32, e00245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Paerl, H.W.; Hall, N.S.; Calandrino, E.S. Controlling harmful cyanobacterial blooms in a world experiencing anthropogenic and climatic-induced change. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 1739–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gulati, R.D.; Lammens, E.H.R.R.; Meijer, M.L.; van Donk, E. (Eds.) Biomanipulation Tool for Water Management. In Developments in Hydrobiology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1990; Volume 61, pp. 1–628. [Google Scholar]
  101. McQueen, J.D.; Post, J.R.; Mills, E.L. Trophic Relationships in Freshwater Pelagic Ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1986, 43, 1571–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gobler, C.J.; Burkholder, J.M.; Davis, T.M.; Harke, M.J.; Johengen, T.; Stow, C.A.; Van de Waal, D.B. The dual role of nitrogen supply in controlling the growth and toxicity of cyanobacterial blooms. Harmful Algae 2016, 54, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Toxics 11 00176 g001 550
Figure 1. Different fields of research (%) on the zooplankton–cyanobacterial interactions. (1) Cyanobacterial effects on cladocerans and copepods, (2) control of cyanobacteria, (3) limnological effects on cyanobacteria, (4) zooplankton grazing in the field, (5) nutrient effects on cyanobacterial blooms, (6) marine cyanobacterial studies, (7) zooplankton grazing on cyanobacteria and laboratory studies, (8) cyanobacterial consumption by fish, (9) zooplankton vs. cyanobacterial blooms, (10) river studies and grazing, (11) ciliates and cyanobacteria, (12) cyanobacterial effects on rotifers, (13) fish effects on cyanobacteria and zooplankton, and (14) other studies such as molecular studies, paleolimnology, bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins, etc.
Figure 1. Different fields of research (%) on the zooplankton–cyanobacterial interactions. (1) Cyanobacterial effects on cladocerans and copepods, (2) control of cyanobacteria, (3) limnological effects on cyanobacteria, (4) zooplankton grazing in the field, (5) nutrient effects on cyanobacterial blooms, (6) marine cyanobacterial studies, (7) zooplankton grazing on cyanobacteria and laboratory studies, (8) cyanobacterial consumption by fish, (9) zooplankton vs. cyanobacterial blooms, (10) river studies and grazing, (11) ciliates and cyanobacteria, (12) cyanobacterial effects on rotifers, (13) fish effects on cyanobacteria and zooplankton, and (14) other studies such as molecular studies, paleolimnology, bioaccumulation of cyanotoxins, etc.
Toxics 11 00176 g001
Table
Table 1. List of cyanobacterial genera used to evaluate their effects on zooplankton.
Table 1. List of cyanobacterial genera used to evaluate their effects on zooplankton.
Order: Chroococcales
Aphanothece
Microcystis
Woronichinia
Order: Nostocales
Anabaena
Aphanizomenon
Cylindrospermopsis
Cylindrospermum
Microcoleus
Nodularia
Scytonema
Spirulina
Order: Oscillatoriales
Arthrospira
Lyngbya
Phormidium
Planktothrix
Pseudanabaena
Table
Table 2. Species of major zooplankton groups (Rotifera, Cladocera, and Copepoda) used in experimental studies with cyanobacteria.
Table 2. Species of major zooplankton groups (Rotifera, Cladocera, and Copepoda) used in experimental studies with cyanobacteria.
Group/Species
Rotifera
Asplanchna girodi
Brachionus angularis
Brachionus calyciflorus
Brachionus dimidiatus
Brachionus falcatus
Brachionus havanaensis
Brachionus plicatilis
Brachionus rubens
Brachionus urceolaris
Euchlanis dilatata
Hexarthra mira
Keratella cochlearis
Keratella testudo
Lecane inermis
Plationus patulus
Polyarthra vulgaris
Synchaeta pectinata
Cladocera
Bosmina fatalis
Bosmina longirostris
Ceriodaphnia cornuta
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia rigaudi
Daphnia ambigua
Daphnia carinata
Daphnia cucullata
Daphnia galeata
Daphnia gessneri
Daphnia hyalina
Daphnia laevis
Daphnia longispina
Daphnia lumholtzi
Daphnia magna
Daphnia mendotae
Daphnia obtusa
Daphnia parvula
Daphnia pulex
Daphnia pulicaria
Daphnia retrocurva
Daphnia similis
Daphnia similoides
Daphnia sinensis
Diaphanosoma brachyurum
Diaphanosoma celebensis
Diaphanosoma mongolianum
Macrothrix spinosa
Moina macrocopa
Moina micrura
Scapholeberis kingii
Simocephalus vetulus
Copepoda
Calanoids
Acartia bifflosa
Acartia clausi
Acartia lilljeborgii
Acartia tonsa
Acrocalanus gibber
Acrocalanus gracilis
Arctodiaptomus dorsalis
Boeckella dilatata
Boeckella hamata
Boeckella propinqua
Boeckella triarticulata
Calanus finmarchicus
Diaptomus birgei
Diaptomus floridanus
Eudiaptomus gracilis
Eurytemora affinis
Eurytemora carolleeae
Notodiaptomus iheringi
Paracalanus parvus
Pseudodiaptomus forbesi
Pseudodiaptomus hessei
Pseudodiaptomus inopinus
Sinocalanus tenellus
Temora longicornis
Temora stylifera
Temora turbinata
Cyclopoids
Acanthocyclops robustus
Cyclops kolensis
Cyclops vernalis
Cyclops vicinus
Diacyclops thomasi
Mesocyclops leuckarti
Mesocyclops ogunnus
Mesocyclops pehpeiensis
Mesocyclops thermocyclopoides
Metacyclops mendocinus
Thermocyclops decipiens
Thermocyclops oithonoides
Harpacticoids
Attheyella trispinosa
Canuella perplexa
Euterpe acutifrons
Macrosetella gracilis
Tigriopus japonicus
Table
Table 3. Selected data on the effects of cyanobacteria/cyanotoxins on zooplankton based on laboratory and field studies.
Table 3. Selected data on the effects of cyanobacteria/cyanotoxins on zooplankton based on laboratory and field studies.
AuthorsToxins/Concentrations TestedWaterbodyCyanobacteriaZooplankton
Nandini et al. 2017 [36]Concentration of microcystins in the extract (see methods) obtained during the bloom was 138 µg L−1; sestonic microcystins in Lake L’Albufera 0.8 µg to 1.94 µg L−1Lake L’Albufera, SpainMicrocystis spp.Moina micrura
Nandini et al. 2021 [37]Median lethal concentration on Moina macrocopa was 1.56, 1.30, and 2.56 µg L−1 in June, September, and March, respectively.Virgilio Uribe,
Mexico		Microcystis spp.Moina macrocopa
Zamora Barrios et al. 2017 [38]0.20 and 2.4 µg L−1 in the lake water. Lake Texcoco,
Mexico		Planktothrix, Anabaenopsis, Spirulina, and MicrocystisBrachionus calyciflorus
Zamora Barrios et al. 2015 [39]1.504 µg L−1Valle de Bravo, Mexico Ceriodaphnia cornuta; Plationus patulus
Freitas et al. 2014 [40]48 h LC50 values of cyanobacteria: hepatotoxic (ranging from 216.69 to 270.25 mg L−1) and neurotoxic (ranging from 210.74 to 234.74 mg L−1)Jacarepaguá Lagoon, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilAnabaena spiroides; Microcystis aeruginosaDaphnia magna
Nandini et al. 2020 [41]0.14–10.8 µg L−1 Chapultepec Lake, MexicoMicrocystis spp.Brachionus havanaensi, Brachionus calyciflorus, Moina macrocopa
Vo et al. 2020 [42]The 24 h and 48 h LC50 values for MC-LR ranged from 247–299 and 331–409 µg MCE L−1, respectively. Microcystis aeruginosa; Cylindrospermopsis curvisporaDaphnia lumholtzi
Nandini et al. 2019 [43]Microcystin concentration in lake water was 9.57 µg L−1 and 0.097 µg L−1; LC50 was 5.34 and 0.035 µg microcystin L−1 in January and September, respectively.Valle de Bravo, MexicoMicrocystis flos aquae (January); Woronichinia naegliana (September)Brachionus calyciflorus
Jungmann and
Benndorf1998 [44]		1.6 to 4.3 µg mg−1 dry weight. LC50 of 36 µg ml−1 dry weight of Microcystis and hepatotoxic microcystins are different from DTC (Daphnia-toxic compound)Bautzen Reservoir, GermanyMicrocystis spp.Daphnia pulicaria
Shahmohamadloo et al. 2020 [24]Median lethal concentrations in C. dubia (LC50 = 5.53 µg L−1) and D. magna (LC50 = 85.72 µg L−1)Canadian laboratory studyMicrocystis aeruginosa CPCC 300Daphnia magna;
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Pawlik-Skowrońska et al. 2013 [45]22.2 mg L−1 of microcystin and 14.4 mg L−1 anatoxins in the cyanobacteria Zemborzycki Dam Reservoir in Lublin, PolandAnabaena planctonica; Anabena affinis;
Microcystis spp.		Bioaccumulation in Abramis brama
Li et al. 2010 [46]The highest dissolved cyanotoxin concentrations: MC-RR 1.56 mg L−1, MCYR 0.066 mg L-1, MC-LR 0.544 mg L−1, and anatoxin-a 0.106 mg L−1; intracellular: MC-RR 70.1 mg L−1, MC-YR 3.76 mg L−1, MC-LR 24.6 mg L−1, and anatoxin-a 0.184 mg L−1.Yanghe Reservoir, ChinaAnabaena spiroides
Podduturi et al. 2021 [47]240–985 ng L−1Different
waterbodies in Denmark		Aphanizomenon,
Cuspidothrix,
Dolichospermum,
Phormidium, Planktolyngbya,
Synechocystis.
Vo et al. 2020 [42]24 h LC50: MC-LR 247–299 µg L−1
Microcystins containing extract 331–409 µg L−1 		VietnamMicrocystis aeruginosa; Cylindrospermopsis curvisporaDaphnia lumholtzi
Krztoń et al. 2017 [48]Microcystins (0.246 µg L−1,
microcystin LR)		Vistula River PolandMicrocystis ichthyoblabe, Microcystis wesenbergii, Woronichinia naegeliana, Dolichospermum
planctonicum,
Dolichospermum
spiroides, Oscillatoria tenuis, Cuspidothrix issatschenkoi,
Anabaena spp.		19 species of rotifers, 14 cladoceran species, and 9 species of copepods
Table
Table 4. Population growth rates of zooplankton cultured on cyanobacterial diets.
Table 4. Population growth rates of zooplankton cultured on cyanobacterial diets.
Author(s)Zooplankton TaxaTest Conditions
Control
Ankistrodesmus falcatus		Treatment
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii
STX-producing strain
da Costa et al. 2013 [70]Daphnia gessneri0.2660.289–0.313
Moina micrura0.5840.431–0.490
Daphnia pulex0.3090.146–0.296
0.05–8.94
Bednarska et al. 2011 [71]Daphnia magnaScenedesmus acutus0.58–0.78
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii0.2–0.42
Soares et al. 2010 [6]Brachionus calyciflorusScenedesmus0.2–0.8
Cylindrospermopsis0.1–0.4
MicrocystisAll dead
Hulot et al. 2012 [72]Daphnia magnaPlanktothrix agardhii MC or
MC-free strains		1.28–1.62
Luo et al. 2015 [73]Daphnia similoides9 d decayed Microcystis0.28
Scenedesmus obliquus0.35
Whittington and Walsh 2015 [74]Daphnia lumholtziS. obliquus1.98
Cylindrospermopsis1.25–1.6
Lamei et al. 2020 [75]Daphnia sinensisChlorella alone0.35
Chlorella pyrenoidosa +
M. aeruginosa-FACHB469 (F469) or C. raciborskii N8 (N8) 50% each		0.20–0.25
Sarma et al. 2019 [60]Brachionus havanaensisNannochloropsis0.403
Microcystis aeruginosa0.174
Brachionus angularisNannochloropsis0.302
Microcystis aeruginosa−0.076
Haney and Lampert 2013 [76]Daphnia galeataMicrocystis0.25
Daphnia carinata −0.1
Daphnia pulex (Arctic) 0.05
Jiang et al. 2013 [77]Daphnia carinataChlorella pyrenoidosa (Cp)0.2
25% Cp + 75% Microcystis0.25
Zamora Barrios et al. 2017 [38]Brachionus calyciflorusControls: 0.16–0.241.74–0.48 in crude extracts
Mostly Planktothrix, Anabaenopsis, Spirulina, and Microcystis
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nandini, S.; Sarma, S.S.S. Experimental Studies on Zooplankton-Toxic Cyanobacteria Interactions: A Review. Toxics 2023, 11, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020176

AMA Style

Nandini S, Sarma SSS. Experimental Studies on Zooplankton-Toxic Cyanobacteria Interactions: A Review. Toxics. 2023; 11(2):176. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nandini, S., and S. S. S. Sarma. 2023. "Experimental Studies on Zooplankton-Toxic Cyanobacteria Interactions: A Review" Toxics 11, no. 2: 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020176

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop