Species Diversity of Zooplankton of Small Steppe Lakes of the Northern Part of Kazakhstan
by
,
Gulmira Satybaldiyeva
1,
Nazym Sapargaliyeva
2,
Sayat Sharakhmetov
2,3,
Zarina Inelova
2,*,
Emil Boros
4,*,
Elena Krupa
5,
Aizhan Utarbayeva
1 and
Kazbek Shupshibayev
1 1
Department of Ecology, S. Seifullin Kazakh Agrotechnical Research University, 62 Zhenis Ave., Astana 010011, Kazakhstan
2
Department of Biodiversity and Bioresources, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, 71 Al-Farabi Ave., Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
3
Research Institute of Ecological Problems, 71 Al-Farabi Ave., Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
4
Institute of Aquatic Ecology, Centre for Ecological Research, Karolina Str. 29, H-1113 Budapest, Hungary
5
Institute of Zoology, 93 Al-Farabi Ave., Almaty 050060, Kazakhstan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(23), 4054; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234054
Submission received: 16 October 2023
/
Revised: 15 November 2023
/
Accepted: 17 November 2023
/
Published: 22 November 2023
Abstract
:The inland waters of Northern Kazakhstan are important components of the ecosystems of this region and have unique characteristics. Endorheic steppe lakes are important ecosystems with significant ecological value. They play an important role in maintaining biodiversity, they provide water resources for living organisms, they serve as breeding and migration sites for various animal species, and their zooplankton communities have a key role in the trophic web of these waters. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to study the diversity of zooplankton communities in some small steppe lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan (Pavlodar, Kostanay, North Kazakhstan, and Akmola regions), which have different environmental conditions. Sampling to study the species diversity of zooplankton in the steppe water bodies of Northern Kazakhstan was carried out from 13 areas, 12 of which are plain lakes, and 1 of which is a reservoir, and sampling was performed in 2021 and 2022 during in the spring, summer, and autumn periods. Within the research period of 2021–2022, between 6 and 36 species of zooplankton were found in small steppe lakes. A total of 92 taxa were found. Rotifers (46 taxa) were found to have the richest number of species representatives. Cladocera were represented by 21 taxa, and Copepods by 25 taxa. All studied steppe lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan are characterized by high specificity in terms of taxonomic composition, since the similarity indices did not exceed 0.632. According to cluster analysis, the studied samples of water bodies are divided into five clusters, in which lakes with a relatively similar taxonomic composition are combined. The halophile species (e.g., Arctodiaptomus salinarus) indicate water salinization. Our results confirm the applicability of the use of zooplankton in assessing water quality and the current ecological state of aquatic ecosystems.
1. Introduction
Species diversity in the biological communities of aquatic ecosystems generally increases along with the size and stability of water bodies, such as springs, rivers, ponds, and small lakes. This is due to the unique fauna that has been forming over long geological periods and its adaptation to changing environmental conditions. The high density of macrophytes in shallow water bodies contributes to the diversity of habitats, which is the basis for maintaining the diversity of aquatic ecosystems [1,2]. Small steppe lakes (lakes with an area of less than 10 km2) of Northern Kazakhstan are important components of those region ecosystems and have their own unique characteristics. Most of the lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan are endorheic. Such lakes are usually non-permanent reservoirs, which can periodically change their size and water level depending on climatic conditions and seasonal fluctuations in precipitation. Endorheic steppe lakes are an important part of ecosystems with significant ecological value. They play an important role in maintaining biodiversity, provide water resources for living organisms, and serve as breeding and migration sites for various animal species [3].
To develop a strategy for the management and protection of aquatic biodiversity in water bodies at the landscape level, information regarding the spatial organization of diversity in different types of aquatic habitats is required [1].
Recently, the study of small water bodies is considered to have become more important for understanding their role in the conservation of biological diversity. However, there are still few publications focusing on the hydrofauna of this category of water bodies. In Kazakhstan, hydrobiological studies mainly cover large lakes, rivers, and reservoirs; studies of small reservoirs are carried out much less frequently. The main attention of hydrobiologists is focused on such economically important water bodies as the Caspian and Aral Seas, Burabay, Lower Kolsay and Middle Kolsay Lakes, Balkhash, Alakol lakes, Sorbulak, Buktyrma, and Kapshagay reservoirs [4,5,6,7].
The importance of hydrobionts in ecosystems is great and diverse. Hydrobionts oxidize organic substances dissolved in water, thereby participating in the self-purification of water bodies and are used as indicators of their saprobity [8,9].
Zooplankton communities play an important role in the aquatic ecosystem as primary and secondary consumers: they transfer the energy received from primary producers to higher trophic levels [10]. The purpose of this work is to study the diversity of zooplankton communities in some small steppe lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan (Pavlodar, Kostanay, North Kazakhstan, and Akmola regions), which are different according to their physicochemical conditions.
2. Materials and Methods
Sampling to study zooplankton species diversity within steppe water bodies in the northern part of Kazakhstan was carried out from 13 areas (Figure 1), 12 of which are plain lakes and 1 of which is a reservoir. It was carried out in 2021 and 2022 during the spring–summer–autumn periods. The basic physical and chemical parameters of water were studied on all lakes using devices for field and laboratory analysis of water by Hanna Instruments (USA). The temperature, mineralization and pH of the water were determined according to the readings of the Combo pH & EC device. The concentration of nitrates (NO3-) was determined using the HI 96728 instrument, and ammonium (NH4+) was determined by HI 96700. Morphometric indicators and hydrochemical and biological data of lakes at the time of the study are shown in Table 1.
Zooplankton samples were taken from the open-water surface area far from the shoreline, in order to sample at a place where water depth had not changed significantly anymore, by straining 100 L of water through Apshtein’s plankton net. Samples were fixed with 40% formalin until reaching a final concentration of 4%. Species identification of planktonic invertebrates was carried out according to determinants [11,12,13,14]. Quantitative analysis of zooplankton rotifers, crustaceans, branchiopods, and copepods samples was performed by standard methods [15] with modifications. To count the number of organisms, the sample was brought to a certain volume (150–600 cm3). After thorough mixing, 2–3 subsamples were taken from the sample using a 1 mL pipette.
Individual representatives of all encountered species were counted in these subsamples. Then, the sample was concentrated to a smaller volume (most often half of the initial one) and the procedure was repeated several times more. At the end, the sample was examined as a whole to count the abundance of large and rare species. Obtained results were recalculated per 1 m3. Individual representatives were counted according to the pre-selected size and age stages. To calculate the biomass of planktonic invertebrates, we used individual weights of representatives/species determined by corresponding formulas [16,17]. The lake trophic state was assessed according to the trophicity scale of S.P. Kitaev (1984) [18].
Comparison of the species composition of zooplankton was carried out according to our own research lists of species by using the Sorenson coefficient, where a and b are the numbers of species found in each of the two compared lakes and c is the number of species common to them.
Cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) were performed using the statistical program PAST 4.07 [19]. The algorithm for making a dendrogram was produced by the unweighted pair group method (UPGMA). The first and second largest positive and negative loadings were used to determine the position of samples from different lakes in principal component space.
3. Results and Discussion
During the research period of 2021–2022, between 6 and 36 species were found and identified within the zooplankton of small steppe lakes (Table 2). A total of 92 taxa were identified. Rotifers (46 taxa) were found to have the richest number of species representatives. Cladocera were represented by 21, and Copepods by 25 taxa. The widest diversity of zooplankton communities (36) was found in Maibalyk lake. Relatively high species richness of zooplankton in the summer period was recorded in the lakes Kondratievskoe (25) and Solontsy (24), in the Koyandy reservoir (24), and in the lakes Zharken (23) and Presnoe (19). The minimum total number of taxa was identified in lakes Zharlykol (16), Lebyazhye (16), Kostomar (15), Polkovnikovo (12), Ashchikol (13), Zharkol (10), and Solenoye (6). Rotifers (Brachionus angularis, Keratella quadrata, Notommatidae gen. sp., cladocerans Alona rectangula, Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris, and Chydorus sphaericus) and copepods (Mesocyclops leuckarti and Thermocyclops crassus) were the most common in the studied reservoirs.
Below, there is a brief annotation of zooplankton composition within the studied water bodies (Table 3):
Zharlykol lake. Plankton fauna of Zharlykol lake was represented by 16 taxa, of which 11 were rotifers, 2 were cladocerans, and 3 were copepods. The lake zooplankton were characterized by relatively low quantitative indicators. The basis of abundance and biomass was mostly formed by cladocerans. Rotifers subdominated according to their abundance, and copepods dominated according to their biomass. The dominant complex in terms of abundance consisted of the small-sized cladocera Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris, which formed 56.52% of the total. In terms of biomass, dominance was formed by the species Daphnia (Daphnia) hyalina (50.77%).
Maibalyk lake. The diversity of planktonic invertebrates consisted of 36 taxa, of which 20 were identified as rotifers, 10 were cladocerans, and 6 were copepods. In July 2021, the rotifers Asplanchna girodi, Brachionus angularis, Filinia longiseta, the cladocerans Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris, Ceriodaphnia reticulata, and the cyclops Thermocyclops taihokuensis were considered as being background species.
Koyandy reservoir. Zooplankton were represented by 24 species, of which 16 were rotifers, 4 were cladocerans, and 4 were copepods. Biomass was formed by copepods, with the largest contribution from the cyclops Thermocyclops crassus.
Zharkol lake. The diversity of planktonic invertebrates consisted of 10 taxa, of which 3 were rotifers, 3 were cladocerans, and 4 were copepods. Copepods (64.9%) and cladocerans (33.4%) dominated. The cladocera Moina mongolica and diaptomus Arctodiaptomus salinus have made the greatest contribution to the formation of net indicators.
Kostomar lake. Zooplankton was represented by 15 species, of which 4 were rotifers, 5 were cladocerans, and 6 were copepods. The background species were the cladocera Moina mongolica, the diaptomid Arctodiaptomus salinus, and the harpacticid Cletocamptus retrogressus.
Zharken lake. Zooplankton was represented by 23 species, of which 5 were rotifers, 9 were cladocerans, and 9 were copepods. Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris, Ceriodaphnia quadrangula, Chydorus sphaericus, Daphnia (Daphnia) longispina, Diaphanosoma brachyurum, Polyphemus pediculus, Acanthodiaptomus denticornis, Cryptocyclops bicolor, Eudiaptomus transylvanicus, Mesocyclops leuckarti, and Keratella quadrata were widespread within this water body. Branched crustaceans formed the core of quantitative indicators of zooplankton communities. They accounted for 57.8% of the population and 67.6% of community biomass.
Solenoe lake. The diversity of planktonic invertebrates consisted of 6 taxa, of which 4 were rotifers, 0 were cladocerans, and 2 were copepods. The population of planktonic animals was abundant. Rotifers dominated, with the large halophile species Hexarthra fennica predominating. Among the copepods, the role of the halophilic species Arctodiaptomus salinus was the most noticeable in the formation of quantitative indicators of zooplankton.
Lebyazhye lake. Within the plankton community of the lake, 16 taxa were identified, of which 8 were rotifers, 4 were cladocerans, and 4 were copepods. Rotifers dominated in numbers. The biomass distribution of rotifers and copepods was relatively uniform. The rotifers Filinia longiseta, Brachionus angularis, and the cyclops Thermocyclops vermifer have made the greatest contribution to the formation of quantitative indicators.
Polkovnikovo lake. Zooplankton was represented by 12 taxa, of which 7 were rotifers, 2 were cladocerans, and 3 were copepods. The population of planktonic fauna was at a relatively high level, with a moderate biomass. Rotifers dominated in abundance and biomass, with Asplanchna girodi and Filinia terminalis leading the list.
Solontsy lake. Within zooplankton composition, 24 species were identified, including 10 rotifers, 7 cladocerans, and 7 copepods. Brachionus angularis, Brachionus urceus, Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris, Ceriodaphnia reticulata, Chydorus sphaericus, Daphnia (Daphnia) galeata, Daphnia (Daphnia) pulex, Cyclops vicinus, Eudiaptomus graciloides, Mesocyclops leuckarti, and Thermocyclops crassus were the most widespread. The number of zooplankton was relatively high and averaged at 154,151 ind./m3. Cladocerans were dominant, comprising 75.8%, with Daphnia (Daphnia) galeata and Daphnia (Daphnia) pulex leading the list.
Ashchikol lake. The diversity of planktonic invertebrates consisted of 13 taxa, of which 5 were rotifers, 5 were cladocerans, and 3 were copepods. The population density of planktonic was high. The absolute leaders in this indicator were copepods with the euryhaline crustacean Arctodiaptomus salinus dominating. A very high biomass of zooplankton was formed due to the cladocera Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) magna, with the subdominant position of Arctodiaptomus.
Kondratievskoe lake. Zooplankton was represented by 25 taxa, including 14 rotifers, 7 cladocerans, and 4 copepods. The cladocerans Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris, Alona rectangula, and the copepod Thermocyclops crassus were the most common. The abundance and biomass backbone of zooplankton was formed by a group of copepods, with T. crassus dominating with 63.1% and 56.1%, respectively, and B. (B.) longirostris subdominating, accounting for 37.7% of the abundance and 33.2% of the zooplankton biomass.
Presnoe lake. The planktonic fauna included 19 taxa, including 11 rotifers, 4 cladocerans, and 4 copepods. Quantitative indicators of zooplankton were at a moderate level. Copepods dominated, among which the cyclopes Thermocyclops crassus and Mesocyclops leuckarti played the most prominent roles. Cladocerans subdominated, with Alona rectangula and Diaphanosoma brachyurum dominating.
The density of zooplankton in the studied lakes ranged from 14.07 to 581.01 thousand ind./m3, and the biomass ranged from 0.13 to 69.24 g/m3. The maximum density and biomass of zooplankton communities were identified in Ashchikol lake. The minimum number of zooplankton was identified in Zharkol lake, and the smallest biomass was identified in Lebyazhye lake (Table 3).
The similarity of zooplankton composition in the studied water bodies, according to the Sorensen index, varied from 0 to 0.632, averaging at 0.274. Zero indicator values were recorded between the taxonomic lists of Zharkol lake and water reservoirs such as Lebyazhye and Polkovnikovo lakes (Table 4).
In general, the measured Sorensen similarity values indicate a rather low degree of similarity between the taxonomic composition and relative abundance of zooplankton in the researched water bodies.
Samples from different water bodies show a significant difference in the taxonomic zooplankton composition between lakes according to its abundance. During cluster analysis at a level corresponding to an approximate Sorensen similarity value of 0.200, five clusters can be distinguished, containing 2–5 lakes (Figure 2).
Cluster 1 combines two lakes (Presnoye and Zharken). Within this group, water bodies are characterized as having a relatively small number of taxa below the genus rank. The number of species and types varies from 19 (Presnoe lake) to 23 (Zharken lake), and the similarity of zooplankton composition was 0.273. Within these two lakes, Keratella quadrata, Diaphanosoma brachyurum, and Mesocyclops leuckarti were identified as the dominant and subdominant species.
Cluster 2 consists of Ashchikol and Kostomar lakes. The numbers of species and varieties identified in these lakes are 13 and 15, respectively. The euryhaline crustacean Arctodiaptomus salinus was found to be dominant in both of the lakes.
Cluster 3 includes five lakes: Maibalyk, Kondratievskoe, Solontsy, Lebyazhye, and Polkovnikovo. The number of species and intraspecific taxa in these lakes varies from 12 to 36. The number of dominants varies from 0 (Lebyazhye and Polkovnikovo lakes) to 1–2 (Kondratyevskoye, Maibalyk, and Solontsy lakes). Notommatidae gen.sp., Polyarthra dolichoptera, and Alona rectangula, which are considered similar species, are found to be present within almost all of these lakes. Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris is found to be dominant in three lakes, excluding Lebyazhye and Polkovnikovo lakes.
Cluster 4 is formed by two water bodies: Zharlykol Lake (16 taxa) and Koyandy water reservoir (24 taxa). The Sorensen coefficient was equal to 0.350 regarding the taxonomic composition of these lakes. Seven species were similar in both water bodies. However, no common taxa have been identified among them.
Cluster 5 is represented by two lakes, such as Solenoe (6 taxa) and Zharkol (10 taxa). The Sorensen coefficient was relatively high and equal to 0.632 regarding the taxonomic composition of the lakes. A characteristic feature of these water bodies is the presence of a common dominant, namely the diaptomus Arctodiaptomus salinus. Hexarthra fennica was found to be subdominant for both lakes.
Thus, within the identified clusters, the lakes are characterized by a fairly high uniqueness. All-aquatic objects differ significantly in their taxonomic composition. A commonality of some mass species is found within the allocated water groups.
The spatial location of samples from different lakes of principal components is shown in Figure 3.
According to the first main component, the largest positive load was found in Maibalyk lake, since a high diversity of zooplankton communities was found here, and the largest negative load was found in lakes Zharkol and Solenoe, since only the minimum number of taxa was identified in these reservoirs. According to the second main component, the main negative load was in lakes Kostomar, Zharkol, and Maibalyk. These mentioned lakes had their own dominant species, which are shown in the cluster analysis. According to the third main component, the largest positive load was found in Zharken Lake, since only here is the numbers of cladocerans and copepods greater than that of rotifers compared to other lakes. The load of the main components on the lakes is presented in Table 5.
4. Discussion
Studies of zooplankton within lakes to diagnose their ecological state and quality have been carried out for a long time [22,23,24,25]. Zooplankton species are used as indicators for the following purposes: assessments of eutrophication, including water quality research; studying the impact of changes in watersheds and land use; and analysis of biological interactions. Zooplankton communities are usually measured by abundance, species diversity, and taxon biomass. In recent studies, biomass is increasingly used as an indicator of zooplankton [26,27,28].
Depending on the response of zooplankton communities to lake eutrophication, a taxon-specific classification is carried out. According to the authors, the characteristics of the zooplankton community are inversely proportional to the progress of eutrophication, including species richness, average size, and abundance ratio of calanoida/(cyclopoida + cladocera) [29]. In our studies, the largest abundance and biomass of cladocera was found in Solontsy Lake.
Potential indicator species that appear in eutrophic lakes and rise in abundance as eutrophication goes on, include Keratella cochlearis, K. tropica, Brachionus budapestinensis, and B. calyciflorus [30]. In the lakes researched by the authors of the article, Keratella cochlearis dominates in Koyandy water reservoir, which indicates the ongoing eutrophication of this reservoir.
It is known that when the content of sulfates is more than 1 g/L, a specific cenosis of Daphnia hyalina is formed, characterized by an extremely high biomass. Zooplanktocenoses of morphometrically oligotrophic lakes are mainly formed by Eudiaptomus gracilis, E. graciloides, Сyclops scutifer, Holopedium gibberum, Daphnia longiremis, and Bosmina obtusirostris. In the summer period, Ceriodaphnia quadrangula and Diaphanosoma brachyurum join them [31]. In our studies, Eudiaptomus graciloides, Ceriodaphnia quadrangula, and Diaphanosoma brachyurum were widespread in Solontsy and Zharken lakes, but the presence of these species does not classify these water bodies as oligotrophic, since zooplankton was represented by 26 and 23 species, respectively. Planktonic filter feeders, and primarily the massive Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) magna, serve not only as food for fish, but also contribute to the biological self-purification of the reservoir. During the day, the crustacean is able to filter up to 300 thousand chlorella cells [31]. A very high biomass of zooplankton was formed due to Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) magna in Ashchikol lake, which indicates a high self-purification of the reservoir.
Zooplankton species are effectively used to assess the trophic state of water bodies due to their sensitivity to environmental changes and their important role in the aquatic food web [28,32,33]. When monitoring aquatic ecosystems, zooplankton indices can be used to determine the overall health of the system. Information about the state of the lake environment related to the flow of energy and material through biological interactions in the food web can be obtained through the study of taxonomic diversity and zooplankton biomass. The distribution of zooplankton is influenced by abiotic limits, methods, and means of distribution, as well as biological interactions [33,34]. If the ecosystem is disturbed, the structure of the community changes rapidly, leading to community simplification and extinction of species.
Lake ecosystems are closed areas with a long residence time and endogenous organic matter produced by macrophytes, sessile algae, and phytoplankton [35]. Organic matter and pollutants introduced from outside circulate in the lake through biological food webs [36]. Therefore, information related to the flow of energy and materials, obtained by detecting changes within biological interactions between lake organisms in the food web, can be effectively used to represent the health status of the entire lake ecosystem [28].
5. Conclusions
All studied steppe lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan are characterized by high uniqueness in terms of taxonomic composition, since the similarity indices did not exceed 0.632. According to cluster analysis, the studied samples of water bodies are divided into five clusters, in which lakes with a relatively similar taxonomic composition are combined.
Most of the lakes we studied are currently in an ecologically unfavorable state. This is probably due to both natural causes and anthropogenic impact. Almost all lakes are located near fairly large settlements or on cultivated lands.
Among researched lakes, according to the zooplankton trophic scale, only Ashchikol Lake was classified as α-polytrophic, and Soloncy Lake as α-eutrophic; the rest of the lakes are marked by a lower trophic level, which is a characteristic of both alpha- and beta-oligotrophic types of the reservoir.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, G.S., N.S., S.S. and Z.I.; methodology, G.S., E.K. and S.S.; validation, S.S., formal analysis, S.S. and E.B.; investigation, E.B.; resources, G.S., S.S. and K.S.; data curation, G.S., E.K., S.S. and K.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.S., N.S., S.S. and Z.I.; writing—review and editing, G.S., N.S., S.S., Z.I. and E.B.; visualization, G.S., N.S., S.S., Z.I., E.B., E.K., A.U. and K.S.; supervision, G.S., Z.I. and E.B.; project administration, G.S., N.S. and Z.I., funding acquisition, G.S., N.S., S.S., A.U. and K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The work was carried out under project No. «AP09259969 Ecological Monitoring of Water Bodies in Northern Kazakhstan» of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- De Bie, T.; Declerck, S.; Martens, K.; De Meester, L.; Brendonck, L. A Comparative Analysis of Cladoceran Communities from Different Water Body Types: Patterns in Community Composition and Diversity. Hydrobiologia 2007, 597, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, B.R.; Biggs, J.; Williams, P.J.; Lee, J.T.; Thompson, S.A. Comparison of the Catchment Sizes of Rivers, Streams, Ponds, Ditches and Lakes: Implications for Protecting Aquatic Biodiversity in an Agricultural Landscape. Hydrobiologia 2007, 597, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ermolaeva, N.I. Some Results of Zooplankton Research in Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan. Arid. Ecosyst. 2013, 12, 91–103. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Krupa, E.; Barinova, S.; Romanova, S.; Aubakirova, M.; Ainabaeva, N. Planktonic invertebrates in the assessment of long-term change in water quality of the Sorbulak wastewater disposal system (Kazakhstan). Water 2020, 12, 3409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krupa, E.; Romanova, S.; Berkinbaev, G.; Yakovleva, N.; Sadvakasov, E. Zooplankton as indicator of the ecological state of protected aquatic ecosystems (Lake Borovoe, Burabay national nature park, Northern Kazakhstan). Water 2020, 12, 2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aubakirova, M.; Krupa, E.; Mazhibayeva, Z.; Isbekov, K.; Assylbekova, S. The role of external factors in the variability of the structure of the zooplankton community of small lakes (South-East Kazakhstan). Water 2021, 13, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samarkhanov, T.N.; Myrzagaliyeva, A.B.; Chlachula, J.; Kushnikova, L.B.; Czerniawska, J.; Nigmetzhanov, S.B. Geoenvironmental Implications and Biocenosis of Freshwater Lakes in the Arid Zone of East Kazakhstan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dukravets, G.M.; Sidorova, A.F. On the History of Hydrobiological and Ichthyological Research at the Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. Bull. Al-Farabi Kazakh Natl. Univ. Biol. Ser. 2011, 5, 5–18. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Matmuratov, S.A.; Stuge, T.S.; Troshina, T.T.; Lopatin, O.E. Zooplankton of the Korgalzhin Lake System and Its Indicator Value. Proc. Inst. Zool. 2009, 50, 198–211. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Zsuga, K.; Inelova, Z.; Boros, E. Zooplankton Community Structure in Shallow Saline Steppe Inland Waters. Water 2021, 13, 1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogozin, A.G. Materials on the fauna and ecology of rotifers in the Urals, family Brachionidae (Rotifera, Eurotatoria, Ploima), genera Kellicottia, Plationus, and Platyias. Biol. Bull. 2021, 48, 950–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merrix-Jones, F.L.; Thackeray, S.J.; Ormerod, S.J. A global analysis of zooplankton in natural and artificial fresh waters. J. Limnol. 2013, 72, 66–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsalolikhin, S.Y. Determinant of Freshwater Invertebrates of Russia and Adjacent Territories; Lower Invertebrates: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 1994; Volume 1. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Krupa, E.G.; Dobrokhotova, O.V.; Stuge, T.S. Fauna of Calanoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) Kazakhstan and Adjacent Territories: Monograph; Etalon Print: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2016; p. 395. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Suthers, I.; Bowling, L.; Kobayashi, T.; Rissik, D. Sampling Methods for Plankton. In Plankton: A Guide to Their Ecology and Monitoring for Water Quality; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2009; pp. 73–114. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, R.C.; Bychek, E.A. Body size in freshwater planktonic crustaceans: An overview of extrinsic determinants and modifying influences of biotic interactions. Hydrobiologia 2011, 668, 61–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keskitalo, J.; Salonen, K. Manual for Integrated Monitoring. Subprogramme Hydrobiology of Lakes; National Board of Waters and the Environment: Helsinki, Finland, 1994; p. 46.
- Kitaev, S.P. Fundamentals of Limnology for Hydrobiologists and Ichthyologists; KarSC RAS: Petrozavodsk, Russia, 2007; p. 395. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Leal, T.L.; Freitas, M.F.; Alencar, N.R.O.; Lisboa, G.D.S.; Stracieri, J. Statistical analysis of solid waste generation in the state of Bahia, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Gestão Desenvolv. Reg. 2023, 19, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- QGIS Development Team. QGIS 3.22.1. Geographic Information System. Open-Source Geospatial Foundation Project. 2023. Available online: http://Qgis.osgeo.org (accessed on 2 February 2023).
- GIS Mapping Software. 2022. Available online: www.esri.com (accessed on 8 January 2023).
- Krupa, E.G. Zooplankton Structure of Ecologically Diverse Reservoirs and Watercourses of Kazakhstan. Doctoral Dissertation, Institut Zoologi, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2010. (In Russian). [Google Scholar]
- Choi, Y.; Oh, H.-J.; Lee, D.-H.; Jang, M.-H.; Lee, K.-L.; Chang, K.-H.; Kim, H.-W. Current Utilization and Further Application of Zooplankton Indices for Ecosystem Health Assessment of Lake Ecosystems. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeppesen, E.; Nõges, P.; Davidson, T.A.; Haberman, J.; Nõges, T.; Blank, K.; Lauridsen, T.L.; Søndergaard, M.; Sayer, C.; Laugaste, R.; et al. Zooplankton as Indicators in Lakes: A Scientific-Based Plea for Including Zooplankton in the Ecological Quality Assessment of Lakes according to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). Hydrobiologia 2011, 676, 279–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.; Dalton, C.M.; Taylor, D. Cladocera as Indicators of Trophic State in Irish Lakes. J. Paleolimnol. 2010, 44, 465–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamou, G.; Katsiapi, M.; Moustaka-Gouni, M.; Michaloudi, E. Grazing Potential—A Functional Plankton Food Web Metric for Ecological Water Quality Assessment in Mediterranean Lakes. Water 2019, 11, 1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamou, G.; Mazaris, A.D.; Moustaka-Gouni, M.; Špoljar, M.; Ternjej, I.; Dražina, T.; Dorak, Z.; Michaloudi, E. Introducing a Zooplanktonic Index for Assessing Water Quality of Natural Lakes in the Mediterranean Region. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 69, 101616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ejsmont-Karabin, J.; Karabin, A. The Suitability of Zooplankton as Lake Ecosystem Indicators: Crustacean Trophic State Index. Pol. J. Ecol. 2013, 61, 561–573. [Google Scholar]
- Mao, M.; Zhu, Y.; Zhu, X.; Jiang, Z.; Xuan, J.; Gu, J.; Du, P.; Zeng, J. Response of zooplankton to warming in a low-salinity, eutrophic bay. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 153, 110459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aubakirova, G.; Adilbekov, Z.; Narbayev, S. Influence of water mineralization on zooplankton productivity in reservoirs of Akmola region. Period. Tchê Química 2020, 17, 520–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krylov, А.; Gerasimov, Y.; Gabrialiyan, V.; Borisenko, E.; Akopyan, A.; Nikoghosyan, A.; Malin, M.; Hovsepyan, А. Zooplankton of Lake Sevan during the Period of Continued Increase in Water Level and Decrease in Fish Density. Biol. Inland Waters 2013, 2013, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochocka, A. ZIPLAS: Zooplankton Index for Polish Lakes’ Assessment: A New Method to Assess the Ecological Status of Stratified Lakes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sendacz, S.; Caleffi, S.; Santos-Soares, J. Zooplankton Biomass of Reservoirs in Different Trophic Conditions in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2006, 66, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Egeren, S.J.; Dodson, S.I.; Torke, B.; Maxted, J.T. The Relative Significance of Environmental and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting Zooplankton Community Structure in Southeast Wisconsin till Plain Lakes. Hydrobiologia 2011, 668, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamilov, N.; Sharakhmetov, S.; Amirbekova, F.; Bekkozhayeva, D.; Sapargaliyeva, N.; Kegenova, G.; Tanybayeva, A.; Abilkasimov, K. Past, Current and Future of Fish Diversity in the Alakol Lakes (Central Asia: Kazakhstan). Diversity 2021, 14, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaghloul, A.; Saber, M.; Gadow, S.; Awad, F. Biological Indicators for Pollution Detection in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2020, 44, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Map of collection sites. Areas are marked by numbers: 1–13.
Figure 2.
Cluster analysis of the similarity of zooplankton composition (according to the Sorensen index) of steppe lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan (indicating mass taxa).
Figure 2.
Cluster analysis of the similarity of zooplankton composition (according to the Sorensen index) of steppe lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan (indicating mass taxa).
Figure 3.
Locations of samples from different lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan (Different colors are indicated: lakes of Pavlodar region in green; lakes of Kostanay region in red; lakes of Akmola region in blue; lakes of North Kazakhstan region in black.).
Figure 3.
Locations of samples from different lakes in the northern part of Kazakhstan (Different colors are indicated: lakes of Pavlodar region in green; lakes of Kostanay region in red; lakes of Akmola region in blue; lakes of North Kazakhstan region in black.).
Table 1.
Summary of the main physical, chemical, and biological factors of the waters.
| № | Name of Water Body | WGS (lat) | WGS (lon) | Area (km2) | Depth (cm) | O2 (mg L−1) | рН | Salinity (gL−1) | Color of Water (Pt Co) | NO3− (mg L−1) | NO2− (mg L−1) | ZOO SUM (ind./m3) | TAX NUM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akmola region | |||||||||||||
| 1. | Zharlykol Lake | 50.607 | 71.026 | 14.80 | 70 | 5.38 | 6.52 | 0.51 | 30 | 2.9 | 0.02 | 36,089 | 16 |
| 2. | Maibalyk Lake | 50.967 | 71.528 | 14.60 | 60 | 3.90 | 7.60 | 3.26 | 35 | 2.3 | 0.01 | 120,149 | 36 |
| 3. | Koyandy reservoir | 51.330 | 71.691 | 1.78 | 60 | 5.42 | 7.26 | 0.44 | 40 | 3.2 | 0.02 | 103,586 | 24 |
| Kostanai region | |||||||||||||
| 4. | Zharkol Lake | 53.219 | 63.236 | 19 | 50 | 5.34 | 7.74 | 0.55 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 14,067 | 10 |
| 5. | Kostomar Lake | 53.218 | 63.136 | 12.4 | 120 | 6.37 | 8.15 | more 20 | 45 | 2.3 | 0.01 | 55,244 | 15 |
| North Kazakhstan region | |||||||||||||
| 6. | Zharken Lake | 54.031 | 67.003 | 5 | 50 | 2.15 | 8.25 | 2.23 | 55 | 3.0 | 0.01 | 54,218 | 23 |
| 7. | Solenoe Lake | 55.077 | 69.034 | 3.00 | 70 | 7.8 | 7.72 | 8.96 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 581,013 | 6 |
| 8. | Lebyazhe Lake | 55.149 | 69.187 | 4.80 | 100 | 6.58 | 8.6 | 2.57 | 40 | 2.5 | 0.02 | 161,232 | 16 |
| 9. | Polkovnikovo Lake | 55.168 | 69.240 | 1.50 | 80 | 8.5 | 7.55 | 1.13 | 30 | 3.0 | 0.05 | 144,175 | 12 |
| 10. | Solontsy Lake | 55.307 | 69.327 | 4.4 | 150 | 2.44 | 8.42 | 1.32 | 40 | 2.0 | 0.02 | 154,151 | 24 |
| Pavlodar region | |||||||||||||
| 11. | Ashchikol Lake | 51.795 | 75.277 | 6.40 | 80 | 7.16 | 8.02 | more 10 | 40 | 2.5 | 0.01 | 370,786 | 13 |
| 12. | Kondratievs koe Lake | 52.178 | 76.977 | 0.1 | 120 | 4.24 | 7.84 | 1.35 | 35 | 3.0 | 0.01 | 190,464 | 25 |
| 13. | Presnoe Lake | 51.881 | 77.414 | 0.37 | 90 | 8.7 | 7.86 | 1.43 | 30 | 3.3 | 0.02 | 125,420 | 19 |
Table 2.
Species composition of zooplankton in the steppe lakes of the northern part of Kazakhstan in June–July of 2021–2022.
Table 2.
Species composition of zooplankton in the steppe lakes of the northern part of Kazakhstan in June–July of 2021–2022.
| Species | Zharlykol | Koiandy | Maibalyk | Kostomar | Zharkol | Zharken | Lebiazhe | Polkovnikovo | Solenoe | Solontsy | Ashchikol | Kondratievskoe | Presnoe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotifera | |||||||||||||
| Asplanchna priodonta (Gosse, 1850) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Asplanchna girodi (Guerne, 1888) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Asplanchna intermedia (Hudson, 1886) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Asplanchna priodonta (Gosse, 1850) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Asplanchna sieboldi (Leydig, 1854) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Bdelloida gen. sp. | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Bipalpus hudsoni (Imhof, 1891) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Brachionus angularis (Gosse, 1851) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Brachionus calyciflorus amphiceros (Ehrenberg, 1838) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Brachionus diversicornis (Daday, 1883) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Brachionus plicatilis (Muller, 1786) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Brachionus plicatilis longicornis (Fadeev, 1786) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Brachionus quadridentatus ancylognathus (Schmarda, 1859) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Brachionus quadridentatus dorcas (Gosse, 1851) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Brachionus quadridentatus (Hermann, 1783) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Brachionus urceus (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Brachionus variabilis (Hempel, 1896) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Cephalodella sp. | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Euchlanis dapidula (Parise, 1966) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Euchlanis dilatata (Ehrenberg, 1832) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Euchlanis lyra (Hudson, 1886) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Filinia longiseta (Ehrenberg,1834) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Filinia terminalis (Plate, 1886) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Hexarthra fennica (Levander, 1892) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Kellicottia longispina (Kellicott, 1879) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Keratella cochlearis (Gosse, 1851) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Keratella quadrata (Müller, 1786) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Keratella tropica (Apstein,1907) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Lecane bulla (Gosse,1851) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Lecane crenata (Harring, 1913) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Lecane (s. str.) luna (Müller, 1776) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Lepadella (s. str.) triptera (Еhrenberg, 1830) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Lophocharis oxysternon (Gosse, 1851) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Mytilina mucronata (Müller, 1773) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Notholca acuminata (Ehrenberg, 1832) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Notommata collaris (Ehrenberg, 1832) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Notommatidae gen. sp. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Platyias quadricornis (Ehrenberg, 1832) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Polyarthra vulgaris (Carlin, 1943) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Polyarthra dolichoptera (Idelson, 1925) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Polyarthra vulgaris (Carlin, 1943) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Pompholyx sulcata (Hudson, 1885) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Synchaeta stylata (Wierzejski, 1893) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Testudinella patina (Hermann, 1783) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Trichotria pocillum (Müller, 1776) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Trichotria truncata (Whitelegge, 1889) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Total number of Rotifera: 46 | 11 | 16 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 14 | 11 |
| Cladocera | |||||||||||||
| Alona rectangula (G.O. Sars, 1862) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Bosmina (Bosmina) longirostris (O.F. Müller, 1785) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Bythotrephes longimanus (Leydig, 1860) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Ceriodaphnia pulchella (Sars, 1862) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Ceriodaphnia quadrangula (O.F. Müller, 1785) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Ceriodaphnia reticulata (Jurine, 1820) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Ceriodaphnia sp. | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Chydorus sphaericus (O.F. Müller, 1776) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Daphnia (Ctenodaphnia) magna (Straus 1826) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Daphnia (Daphnia) galeata (G.O. Sars, 1864) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Daphnia (Daphnia) hyalina (Leydig, 1860) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Daphnia (Daphnia) longispina (O. F. Müller, 1785) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Daphnia (Daphnia) pulex (De Geer, 1778) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Daphnia (Daphnia) cucullata (Sars, 1862) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Diaphanosoma brachyurum (Liévin, 1848) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Moina mongolica (Daday, 1901) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Pleuroxus aduncus (Jurine, 1820) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Polyphemus pediculus (Linnaeus, 1761) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Scapholeberis mucronata (O.F.Müller, 1776) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Simocephalus mixtus (Sars, 1903) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Simocephalus serrulatus (Koch, 1841) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Total number of Cladocera: 21 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Copepoda | |||||||||||||
| Acanthodiaptomus denticornis (Wierzejski, 1887) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Arctodiaptomus salinus (Daday 1885) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Cletocamptus retrogressus (Schmankevitsch, 1875) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Cryptocyclops bicolor (Sars G.O., 1863) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Cyclopoida gen.sp. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Cyclops vicinus (Uljanin, 1875) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Diacyclops languidoides (Lilljeborg, 1901) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Diaptomidae gen.sp. (Sars) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Eudiaptomus transylvanicus (Daday, 1890) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Ergasilidae gen.sp. | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Eucyclops denticulatus (Graeter, 1903) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Eucyclops macrurus (Sars G.O., 1863) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Eucyclops serrulatus (Lilljeborg, 1901) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Eucyclops speratus (Lilljeborg, 1901) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Eudiaptomus graciloides (Lilljeborg, 1888) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Eurytemora affinis (Poppe, 1880) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Harpacticoida gen.sp. | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Megacyclops viridis (Jurine, 1820) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus, 1857) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Neutrodiaptomus incongruens (Poppe, 1888) | |||||||||||||
| Thermocyclops crassus (Fischer, 1853) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Thermocyclops dybowskii (Lande, 1890) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Thermocyclops sp. | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Thermocyclops taihokuensis (Harada, 1931) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Thermocyclops vermifer (Lindberg, 1935) | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Total number of Copepoda: 25 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| In total: 92 | 16 | 24 | 36 | 15 | 10 | 23 | 16 | 12 | 6 | 24 | 13 | 25 | 16 |
Table 3.
Quantitative indicators of zooplankton communities in the studied lakes.
| Lake | Population, thousand ind./m3 | Biomass, g/m3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotifera | Cladocera | Copepoda | Total | Rotifera | Cladocera | Copepoda | Total | |
| Zharlykol Lake | 12.48 | 20.73 | 2.88 | 36.09 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.38 |
| Maibalyk Lake | 64.24 | 1.70 | 54.22 | 120.15 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.03 | 0.57 |
| Koyandy Reservoir | 87.46 | 0.70 | 15.14 | 103.29 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.23 |
| Zharkol Lake | 0.24 | 4.73 | 9.10 | 14.07 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.40 | 0.64 |
| Kostomar Lake | 0.01 | 42.54 | 12.69 | 55.23 | 0.00 | 3.50 | 0.32 | 3.83 |
| Zharken Lake | 5.66 | 31.33 | 17.23 | 54.22 | 0.00 | 2.34 | 1.12 | 3.46 |
| Solenoe Lake | 522.86 | 1.49 | 56.66 | 581.01 | 3.06 | 0.17 | 0.80 | 4.02 |
| Lebyazhe Lake | 139.16 | 3.48 | 18.59 | 161.23 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.13 |
| Polkovnikovo Lake | 124.60 | 1.34 | 18.24 | 144.18 | 1.07 | 0.08 | 0.34 | 1.50 |
| Solontsy Lake | 19.24 | 116.88 | 17.71 | 153.82 | 0.01 | 19.34 | 0.26 | 19.61 |
| Ashchikol Lake | 1.60 | 25.85 | 343.34 | 370.79 | 0.00 | 55.83 | 13.41 | 69.24 |
| Kondratievskoe Lake | 6.51 | 63.84 | 120.11 | 190.47 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.82 |
| Presnoe Lake | 6.38 | 50.45 | 68.59 | 125.42 | 0.01 | 0.79 | 1.62 | 2.42 |
Table 4.
Similarity of the zooplankton composition of the studied water bodies according to the Sørensen index.
Table 4.
Similarity of the zooplankton composition of the studied water bodies according to the Sørensen index.
| Water Bodies | Zharlykol Lake | Koyandy Reservoir | Maibalyk Lake | Kostomar Lake | Zharkol Lake | Zharken Lake | Lebyazhe Lake | Polkovnikovo Lake | Solenoe Lake | Solontsy Lake | Ashchikol Lake | Kondratievskoe Lake | Presnoe Lake |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zharlykol Lake | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Koyandy Reservoir | 0.350 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Maibalyk Lake | 0.214 | 0.281 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Kostomar Lake | 0.375 | 0.150 | 0.393 | 1 | |||||||||
| Zharkol Lake | 0.286 | 0 | 0.038 | 0.357 | 1 | ||||||||
| Zharken Lake | 0.146 | 0.245 | 0.338 | 0.293 | 0.108 | 1 | |||||||
| Lebyazhe Lake | 0.242 | 0.293 | 0.456 | 0.364 | 0 | 0.286 | 1 | ||||||
| Polkovnikovo Lake | 0.200 | 0.263 | 0.407 | 0.267 | 0 | 0.103 | 0.516 | 1 | |||||
| Solenoe Lake | 0.348 | 0.065 | 0.043 | 0.174 | 0.632 | 0.063 | 0.083 | 0.095 | 1 | ||||
| Solontsy Lake | 0.273 | 0.346 | 0.441 | 0.227 | 0.200 | 0.415 | 0.400 | 0.429 | 0.229 | 1 | |||
| Ashchikol Lake | 0.276 | 0.270 | 0.264 | 0.414 | 0.160 | 0.211 | 0.267 | 0.074 | 0.100 | 0.195 | 1 | ||
| Kondratievskoe Lake | 0.276 | 0.340 | 0.493 | 0.311 | 0.049 | 0.222 | 0.348 | 0.419 | 0.056 | 0.456 | 0.238 | 1 | |
| Presnoe Lake | 0.171 | 0.233 | 0.169 | 0.171 | 0.129 | 0.273 | 0.169 | 0.121 | 0.154 | 0.340 | 0.250 | 0.250 | 1 |
Table 5.
Loads of the main components on the zooplankton community of the lakes. (The largest loads are indicated in bold).
Table 5.
Loads of the main components on the zooplankton community of the lakes. (The largest loads are indicated in bold).
| Name of Water Body | Main Components | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| PC 1 | PC 2 | PC 3 | |
| Zharlykol Lake | −1.2995 | −0.39924 | −1.0659 |
| Koyandy Reservoir | 0.48019 | 2.2314 | −1.6759 |
| Maibalyk Lake | 3.731 | −1.8439 | 1.0181 |
| Kostomar Lake | −0.6118 | −1.9326 | 0.27934 |
| Zharkol Lake | −2.2268 | −1.1999 | 0.28282 |
| Zharken Lake | 0.031702 | 1.2497 | 3.2707 |
| Lebyazhe Lake | 1.0577 | −0.40156 | −0.40403 |
| Polkovnikovo Lake | 0.59731 | −0.26252 | −1.1374 |
| Solenoe Lake | −1.9249 | −0.60174 | −0.18336 |
| Solontsy Lake | 0.69291 | 1.8814 | 0.70725 |
| Ashchikol Lake | −0.80699 | −0.69883 | 0.009319 |
| Kondratievskoe Lake | 1.4938 | 0.4997 | −1.7531 |
| Presnoe Lake | −1.2146 | 1.4781 | 0.65205 |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Satybaldiyeva, G.; Sapargaliyeva, N.; Sharakhmetov, S.; Inelova, Z.; Boros, E.; Krupa, E.; Utarbayeva, A.; Shupshibayev, K. Species Diversity of Zooplankton of Small Steppe Lakes of the Northern Part of Kazakhstan. Water 2023, 15, 4054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234054
AMA Style
Satybaldiyeva G, Sapargaliyeva N, Sharakhmetov S, Inelova Z, Boros E, Krupa E, Utarbayeva A, Shupshibayev K. Species Diversity of Zooplankton of Small Steppe Lakes of the Northern Part of Kazakhstan. Water. 2023; 15(23):4054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234054
Chicago/Turabian StyleSatybaldiyeva, Gulmira, Nazym Sapargaliyeva, Sayat Sharakhmetov, Zarina Inelova, Emil Boros, Elena Krupa, Aizhan Utarbayeva, and Kazbek Shupshibayev. 2023. "Species Diversity of Zooplankton of Small Steppe Lakes of the Northern Part of Kazakhstan" Water 15, no. 23: 4054. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15234054
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
