Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2020 Jul 23;65(11):1997–2009. doi: 10.1111/fwb.13594

Benthic habitat is an integral part of freshwater Mysis ecology

Jason D Stockwell 1,✉, Brian P O’Malley 2, Sture Hansson 3, Rosaura J Chapina 1, Lars G Rudstam 4, Brian C Weidel 2
PMCID: PMC7689720  PMID: 33288969

Abstract

  1. Diel vertical migration (DVM) is common in aquatic organisms. The trade‐off between reduced predation risk in deeper, darker waters during the day and increased foraging opportunities closer to the surface at night is a leading hypothesis for DVM behaviour.

  2. Diel vertical migration behaviour has dominated research and assessment frameworks for Mysis, an omnivorous mid‐trophic level macroinvertebrate that exhibits strong DVM between benthic and pelagic habitats and plays key roles in many deep lake ecosystems. However, some historical literature and more recent evidence indicate that mysids also remain on the bottom at night, counter to expectations of DVM.

  3. We surveyed the freshwater Mysis literature using Web of Science (WoS; 1945–2019) to quantify the frequency of studies on demographics, diets, and feeding experiments that considered, assessed, or included Mysis that did not migrate vertically but remained in benthic habitats. We supplemented our WoS survey with literature searches for relevant papers published prior to 1945, journal articles and theses not listed in WoS, and additional references known to the authors but missing from WoS (e.g. only 47% of the papers used to evaluate in situ diets were identified by WoS).

  4. Results from the survey suggest that relatively little attention has been paid to the benthic components of Mysis ecology. Moreover, the literature suggests that reliance on Mysis sampling protocols using pelagic gear at night provides an incomplete picture of Mysis populations and their role in ecosystem structure and function.

  5. We summarise current knowledge of Mysis DVM and provide an expanded framework that more fully considers the role of benthic habitat. Acknowledging benthic habitat as an integral part of Mysis ecology will enable research to better understand the role of Mysis in food web processes.

Keywords: detritus, diel vertical migration, mysids, omnivore, predation risk

1. INTRODUCTION

In many deep freshwater systems, macrocrustaceans of the genus Mysis play important roles in the food web (Devlin et al., 2016; Lasenby, Northcote, & Furst, 1986; Sierszen et al., 2014). Mysis spp. are omnivorous (Grossnickle, 1982) and can feed on detritus, phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, zooplankton, and even fish embryos (Seale & Binkowski, 1988). Mysis can alter ecosystem structure and function through intense predation on zooplankton, which results in competition with planktivorous fishes (Ellis et al., 2011; Goldman, Morgan, Threlkeld, & Angeli, 1979; Martinez & Bergersen, 1991). In addition to their competitive roles in food webs, Mysis also serve as important prey for both benthic and pelagic prey fishes and juvenile life‐stages of many piscivorous fish species (Elrod & O’Gorman, 1991; Gamble, Hrabik, Stockwell, & Yule, 2011; Gamble, Hrabik, Yule, & Stockwell, 2011).

Mysis exhibit diel vertical migration (DVM), whereby individuals ascend to the pelagic zone as light levels decline at sunset, and then descend to the bottom as sunrise approaches (Beeton & Bowers, 1982). Temperature and light gradients define pelagic conditions that limit the vertical extent of Mysis migration (Boscarino, Rudstam, Minson, & Freund, 2010; Boscarino, Rudstam, Tirabassi, Janssen, & Loew, 2010; Gal, Rudstam, & Johannsson, 2004; Rudstam, Danielsson, Hansson, & Johansson, 1989; Teraguchi, Hasler, & Beeton, 1975). Mysis assessments and specimen collections are often conducted at night, when Mysis can be sampled with relative ease using pelagic nets and hydroacoustics (Jude et al., 2018; McCoy, 2015; Watkins et al., 2015). For example, standard sampling protocols for Mysis in the Laurentian Great Lakes call for pelagic sampling to commence 1 hr post‐sunset when the population is assumed to have migrated (EPA, 2015). Such sampling strategies are based on the assumption that all or most of the population regularly migrates to the pelagic zone at night and that resultant samples quantitatively represent the population.

Recent studies, however, indicate that Mysis exhibit partial DVM, whereby a portion of the population does not ascend but remains on bottom at night (Euclide, Hansson, & Stockwell, 2017; Ogonowski, Duberg, Hansson, & Gorokhova, 2013; O'Malley, Dillon, Paddock, Hansson, & Stockwell, 2018; O'Malley, Hansson, & Stockwell, 2018). Although partial DVM in Mysis has been observed in a number of systems including the Laurentian Great Lakes (Bowers, 1988; Johannsson, Rudstam, Gal, & Mills, 2003) and the Baltic Sea (Rudstam et al., 1989), the magnitude of the population that remains benthic at night is not well understood and this portion of the population is typically excluded from population assessments and evaluations of the importance of Mysis in the ecosystem. We surveyed the literature to evaluate the extent to which benthic Mysis have been included in research. We restricted our analyses to freshwater Mysis (Porter, Meland, & Price, 2008) except for the marine Mysis mixta, as this species has been extensively studied in the Baltic Sea where it coexists with freshwater congenerics Mysis relicta and Mysis salemaai and has similar ecological roles (Salemaa, Tyystjarvimuuronen, & Aro, 1986; Salemaa, Vuorinen, & Välipakka, 1990). Our survey results suggest that benthic habitat is more important to Mysis ecology than previously assumed, and is necessary to consider this to better understand Mysis’ production and its roles in food webs. We conclude with a set of questions and hypotheses to help frame research directions to fill in knowledge gaps in Mysis ecology.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY ON MYSIS ECOLOGY

We conducted literature surveys for three aspects of freshwater Mysis ecology—demographics, in situ diets, and experiments that examined Mysis feeding behaviour. Each survey was initiated using Web of Science (WoS) with varying sets of search terms, spanning 1945–2019. For demographics, we surveyed WoS using the terms “Mysis” AND “abundance OR densit* OR biomass* OR growth OR size OR length OR distribution” under the field “Topic”. We used the terms “Mysis” AND “diet OR gut OR stomach” under the field “Topic” to survey WoS for in situ diets. For experiments on Mysis feeding behaviour, we used two sets of terms under the field “Topic”. The first included “Mysis” AND “feeding OR predation” AND “experiment” under the field “Topic”, and the second included “Mysis” AND “contaminant* OR toxi*” under the field “Topic”.

We examined the resultant titles and abstracts for relevance to each topic, and extracted the relevant information from each study. However, several relevant papers were not identified by the WoS search. For example, at the conclusion of the literature survey, only 47% of the papers used to evaluate in situ diets were identified by WoS. Therefore, during the survey, we examined the cited references in all relevant papers that were published prior to 1945 (the earliest year for WoS search), journal articles and theses that were not listed in WoS, and additional references known to the authors. We did not include papers that developed new sampling devices (Lasenby & Sherman, 1991) or relied solely on acoustics without net samples (Levy, 1991; Miller, 2003). Papers that relied on previously published values (Morgan, 1985; Morgan, Threlkeld, & Goldman, 1978; Sell, 1982; Sullivan & Rudstam, 2016) were not included. Theses and dissertations were included unless data were published in peer‐reviewed literature. In those cases (e.g. Morgan, 1985), information from the published papers was used. Studies that reported metrics but not methods were excluded (Adare & Lasenby, 1994; Lasenby & Langford, 1972). More details are provided in Tables S1–S3, and the results are summarised below. Also note that Mysis taxonomy was revised in the mid‐2000s, with new names given to four sibling species formerly known as M. relicta (M. salemaai, Mysis segerstraeli, Mysis diluviana, and M. relicta; Audzijonytė & Väinölä, 2005). With the exception of the high Arctic, the only mysid species in North America is M. diluviana. Even so, wherever we report a particular species, we refer to the name used in the cited publication.

The results of the literature survey clearly show that freshwater Mysis research has largely ignored benthic‐caught individuals and their benthic environment (Figures 1 and 2). Mysis demographics (n = 142 total studies) included benthic‐caught individuals in a minority of studies, ranging from 15% of the studies that estimated biomass (n = 40) to 40% of studies that assessed life‐stages (n = 76; Figure 1; Table S1). Conversely, such estimates were based solely on pelagic‐caught individuals in 60–85% of demographic studies. However, in a handful of studies which sampled pelagic and benthic habitats at night, variable but potentially very high proportions of Mysis have been reported on the bottom at night (3–84%, Table 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Percent of studies that reported freshwater Mysis spp. and Mysis mixta demographic data using individuals collected from benthic, pelagic, or both habitats. Number of studies reporting each type of demographic data is in parentheses. Total number of studies with at least one demographic metric was 142. Density (number of individuals per unit volume or area) includes abundance (total individuals)

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Different prey types used in freshwater Mysis spp. or Mysis mixta feeding experiments, presented as percent of studies (out of 58) that used each prey type. In some cases, multiple prey types were used in individual studies so sum of percentages exceeds 100%

TABLE 1.

Compilation of studies documenting partial diel vertical migration in Mysis spp. (Mysis diluviana, Mysis relicta, Mysis mixta, Mysis salameii) at night. Studies that did not report quantitative values of Mysis spp. on bottom at night were only included if they reported presence/absence

Species Water body Depth (m) % on bottom at night Method Source
M. relicta Superior 250 50 Submarine; Net Bowers (1988)
M. relicta Snasavatnet 48 23–70 Sled; Net Moen and Langeland (1989)
M. relicta Jonsvatn 10–80 7−84 a Sled; Net Naesje et al. (2003)
M. mixta Baltic 28–40 30 Sled; Net Rudstam et al., (1989)
M. relicta Ontario 35–100 < 5 Sled; Net Shea and Makarewicz (1989)
M. relicta Breiter, Schmaler Luzin 14–40 Pr Scuba; Net Waterstraat, Krappe, Riel, and Rumpf (2005)
M. relicta Ontario 35–75 Pr Predator diet Brandt (1986)
M. relicta Ontario 125 Pr Sled; Net Johannsson et al. (2001), Johannsson et al. (2003)
M. mixta, M. relicta, M. salemaii Baltic 20–40 15 Camera A. Staaf & S. Hansson (unpublished data, Stockholm Univ.)
M. relicta, M. salemaii Baltic 30–35 Pr Sled Ogonowski et al. (2013)
M. diluviana Champlain 70–120 Pr Sled Euclide et al. (2017)
M. diluviana Champlain 60–100 3–46 Sled; Net O'Malley, Hansson, et al. (2018)
M. diluviana Champlain 60 Pr Sled; Camera O'Malley, Dillon, et al. (2018)
Open in a new tab

‘Pr’ indicates present. ‘Sled’ refers to benthic sled, sledge, or dredge; ‘Net’ refers to vertically or horizontally towed pelagic net.

a

Based on biomass.

Our survey of in situ diet studies revealed that benthic‐caught Mysis were examined in only 44% of identified studies (n = 32 total studies; Table S2), despite their well‐known benthic distributions and omnivorous diets, which can include detritus and benthic invertebrates (Johannsson et al., 2001, 2003; Lasenby & Shi, 2004; Lehtiniemi, Kiljunen, & Jones, 2009; Lehtiniemi, Viitasalo, & Kuosa, 2002; Parker, 1980). Pelagic‐caught individuals were solely examined in 56% of the identified in situ diet studies (Table S2). Detritus was reported in Mysis stomachs in 19 of the 32 studies, including nine of 10 studies that included both benthic‐ and pelagic‐caught Mysis, and somewhat surprisingly, in eight of 18 studies that only examined pelagic‐caught Mysis. If mysids feed continuously when on bottom, then pelagic‐caught Mysis sampled early in the night, soon after ascent, may still contain benthic resources in their guts. The remaining 10 pelagic‐only studies did not include detritus as a possible prey category (Table S2). In a recent study, benthic‐caught Mysis during the night and day had similar amounts of detritus in their stomachs, suggesting that Mysis feed continuously when on the bottom (O'Malley & Stockwell, 2019) and benthic resources are likely to contribute significantly to Mysis growth and production (Lehtiniemi et al., 2002; Sierszen, Kelly, Corry, Scharold, & Yurista, 2011; Whall & Lasenby, 2009).

We also found that Mysis feeding ecology experiments (n = 58 total studies) used benthic‐ or combined benthic‐ and pelagic‐caught individuals in only 21% of the studies, whereas 43% of the studies used only pelagic‐caught individuals and 36% did not report the habitat from which Mysis were captured for the experiments (Table S3). Pelagic zooplankton was by far the most used prey item in feeding experiments (>90% of experimental studies), followed by brine shrimp Artemia, which is not a natural prey of Mysis (22% of studies; Figure 2, Table S3). We found few studies where detritus, benthic invertebrates, or algae were used in experiments (n ≤ 7 each, Figure 2, Table S3) despite their presence in field diets (see Role of benthic food resources below).

The lack of historical focus on the benthic environment may bias our basic understanding of Mysis ecology and the role of Mysis in ecosystems. As evidenced by findings from studies that have examined benthic and pelagic Mysis at night (Table 1), only a fraction of a population may inhabit the pelagic environment at night (Naesje, 1995). The ecology of Mysis is more complex than that of an animal simply hiding on the bottom during the day waiting for the cover of darkness to migrate up the water column at night to feed on plankton.

Researchers have probably focused on the pelagic phase of Mysis for several reasons. First, Mysis DVM has been assumed to be a population‐level phenomenon and consequently, night pelagic samples should provide representative estimates of abundance and other population demographics. Second, pelagic habitat is easier to sample than benthic habitat. Sampling devices towed along the bottom can fill with substrate (e.g. mud, silt, detritus, dreissenid mussel shells), get caught on obstructions, or not hold tight to bottom with sharp bathymetric relief or complex substrate. Towing a net through the water column is far easier and safer, despite the necessity of working at night. A number of early studies concluded that pelagic vertical net tows at night were the best method for quantitative estimates of Mysis because they yielded the highest areal density estimates among methods (Grossnickle & Morgan, 1979; Morgan & Threlkeld, 1982; Nero & Davies, 1982; Sell, 1982; Shea & Makarewicz, 1989), which probably influenced following generations of Mysis researchers (but see Reynolds & DeGraeve, 1972). Third, Mysis introductions into non‐native lakes resulted in negative impacts on pelagic zooplankton in many cases (Goldman et al., 1979; Kinsten & Olsén, 1981; Lasenby et al., 1986), which may have increased effort to understand their pelagic implications for fisheries management at the expense of examining their benthic role. Similar consequences of Mysis introductions on benthic environments are not as apparent in the literature and probably more difficult to study and detect, although several studies have noted their importance as prey to benthic fish communities in systems affected by Mysis introductions (e.g. Ellis et al., 2011).

3. THE NEED FOR AN EXPANDED FRAMEWORK ON MYSIS BENTHIC RESOURCES AND HABITAT

The focus on pelagic Mysis restricts our understanding of its general ecology, and poses several potentially large knowledge gaps with implications for population assessments, food web ecology, and fisheries management (Kitchell et al., 2000; Pothoven & Madenjian, 2008; Pothoven, Nalepa, Schneeberger, & Brandt, 2001).

3.1. Mysis demographics and benthic habitat sampling

Mysis occupy benthic habitat night and day (Table 1). Evidence suggests that the individuals caught on the bottom both night and day are represented by disproportionately more adults, including gravid females, compared to pelagic individuals caught during the night (Figure 3; Euclide et al., 2017; McWilliam, 1970; O'Malley, Hansson, et al., 2018; Reynolds & DeGraeve, 1972). Consequently, assessments based on night pelagic samples may underestimate population density and biomass—the latter to a greater extent because of the exponential increase in mass with length. Population size–structure and life‐stages from night pelagic samples may also bias our inferences of population demographics.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Length–frequency distributions of Mysis diluviana collected at night in pelagic and benthic habitats by site depth from Lake Champlain during June–November 2015 (O'Malley, Dillon, et al., 2018) and from Lake Ontario in May 2019 (Rosaura J. Chapina, unpublished data)

Research using cameras (Bergersen & Maiolie, 1981) and video (O'Malley, Dillon, et al., 2018) indicate that benthic Mysis densities may be 2–10× greater than estimates based on traditional benthic sled collections, suggesting that estimates of the proportion of Mysis that are benthic at night based on benthic sleds (Table 1) are probably conservative. Further, wide variability in mysid density estimates has been observed in some benthic collections; however, where reported, the precision of benthic density estimates appears similar in magnitude to that of pelagic density estimates. For example, Moen and Langeland (1989) report coefficients of variation (CV) of 24 and 27% for day and night bottom samples collected with a beam trawl. Naesje, Saksgard, Jensen, and Sandlund (2003) found parallel (side‐by‐side) vertical water column hauls had an average CV of 27%, and among three stations vertical water column hauls had an average CV of 45%. Parallel bottom samples with a beam trawl had an average CV of 42%. O'Malley, Dillon, et al. (2018), O'Malley, Dillon, et al. (2018) found average CV of 23 (day) and 68% (night) for pelagic sampling, and 41 (day) and 32% (night) for benthic sampling. Understanding sampling gear bias and precision is critical for measuring potential demographic differences among habitats. Adoption and refinement of digital recording systems, in concert with benthic sleds, are promising methods to more fully assess mysids in benthic habitats. Deployment of such technologies can take a variety of forms, including stationary observatories (e.g. Grossman, Gallager, & Mitarai, 2014; O'Malley, Dillon, et al., 2018) and mobile platforms such as remotely operated vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles, drop‐frames, benthic sleds, and fish trawls (e.g. Bethoney & Stokesbury, 2018; Brandt et al., 2013; Gutt & Siegel, 1994; Karatayev, Mehler, Burlakova, Hinchey, & Warren, 2018; Kilpatrick, Ewing, Lamb, Welsford, & Constable, 2011; Rosenkranz, Gallager, Shepard, & Blakeslee, 2008). Future methodological evaluations and sampling recommendations for benthic Mysis would be valuable and probably increase the frequency that this habitat is sampled.

Overall, the literature suggests that assessments of Mysis at night using pelagic gear, and their application to ecological processes (e.g. production, zooplanktivory), provide an incomplete picture of Mysis populations and their role in ecosystem structure and function.

3.2. Role of benthic food resources

Benthic food resources probably play a significant role in Mysis energy dynamics. Mysis consume and grow on a variety of benthic foods including detritus, zooplankton eggs, amphipods, and benthic zooplankton (Albertsson, 2004; Johannsson et al., 2001; Karlson & Viitasalo‐Frosen, 2009; Parker, 1980; Sierszen et al., 2011; Viitasalo & Viitasalo, 2004). For example, no differences in growth rates or survival were observed for M. mixta fed Artemia nauplii versus dried and ground plant material (Enteromorpha spp.), with growth rates similar to those observed in situ (Gorokhova & Hansson, 1999). Neomysis americana also grew well on a diet of cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) detritus (Zagursky & Feller, 1985). Similar results were reported for mysids fed fresh and decaying plant material and detritus (Irvine, Moss, Bales, & Snook, 1993; Lasenby & Van Duyn, 1992; Lesutiene, Gorokhova, Gasiunaite, & Razinkovas, 2008; Speirs, Lawrie, Raffaelli, Gurney, & Emes, 2002). Ingestion rates of detritus were approximately double those of phytoplankton in laboratory feeding experiments, on a caloric basis, and suggested that detritus played a significant role in growth of Lake Tahoe Mysis (Morgan, 1979). Large Mysis captured in the pelagia of Lake Superior at night in September relied on benthic sources for 27–58% of their diet (Sierszen et al., 2011), Mysis from Okanagan Lake assimilated 4–59% of their carbon from benthic sources (Whall & Lasenby, 2009), and pelagic zooplankton could not solely support Mysis growth in Lake Ontario (Johannsson, Rudstam, & Lasenby, 1994), providing further evidence that benthic food resources contribute to assimilated energy. Detritus has been found in the stomachs of almost all species of mysids from freshwater to marine habitats (Mauchline, 1980; Takahashi, 2004). Such results are not surprising, as mysids are efficient at digesting detritus and contain gut enzymes needed to breakdown plant material (Foulds & Mann, 1978; Friesen, Mann, & Novitsky, 1986; Wainwright & Mann, 1982). Consequently, more consideration and better estimates of daytime foraging are needed to fully realise the contribution of benthic resources to mysid growth and survival, and by extension, the influence of mysids on ecosystems.

Production estimates need to take into account the demographic distribution of mysids in both pelagic and benthic habitats, and the resources in those habitats including detritus and possibly benthic macro‐ and meio‐fauna (Karlson & Viitasalo‐Frosen, 2009). Growth and mortality estimates based solely on pelagic samples may under‐ and overestimate rates, respectively, because larger (and gravid) individuals of a population may disproportionately occupy benthic habitat at night (Figure 3). Furthermore, the lower temperature in bottom waters may increase energy conversion efficiency and lipid content and hence energy density of mysids (Chess & Stanford, 1999).

3.3. Benthic behaviour

In addition to mysids’ ability to consume benthic resources, Mysis probably use benthic habitat to further reduce their vulnerability to visual predators. For example, bloater (Coregonus hoyi) capture success rate for Mysis off bottom was nearly double that when Mysis were on bottom (Crowder & Binkowski, 1983). The sediment surface is used by Mysis to propel away from predators with greater acceleration and maximum speed than possible in pelagic habitat and to maintain their position on top of sediment in strong currents, and they can also burrow into the sediment (Bowers, 1988; Bowers, Cooper, & Hall, 1990; O'Malley, Dillon, et al., 2018; Robertson, Powers, & Anderson, 1968; Sellers, 1995). Deepwater sculpin (Myoxocephalus thompsonii) and other sculpin species (Cottus bairdi, Cottus ricei, Cottus cognatus), the primary demersal fishes that prey upon mysids in the Laurentian Great Lakes (Gamble, Hrabik, Stockwell, et al., 2011; Gamble, Hrabik, Yule, et al., 2011; Hondorp, Pothoven, & Brandt, 2011; Weidel et al., 2017), consume prey on or in the sediment (Kraft & Kitchell, 1986; Selgeby, 1988) using vibration to detect prey (Hoekstra & Janssen, 1985; Janssen, 1990). Such a foraging strategy, however, may be relatively ineffective on Mysis (Bowers, 1988) given sculpins’ capture success rates of only c. 10% for Mysis compared to 45 and 78% for less agile amphipod and chironomid prey, respectively (Hondorp, 2006). In systems where dreissenid mussels have colonised and expanded into Mysis benthic habitat, the additional complex shell habitat and organic matter could influence Mysis interaction with predators and sediments (Stewart, Miner, & Lowe, 1998), but this remains to be tested.

Mysis behaviour on and in sediment may also influence benthic habitat biogeochemistry. For example, perturbation of sediments by Mysis burrowing into or disturbing the sediment surface can increase oxygen transport across the diffusive boundary layer and reduce the growth of sulfur‐producing bacteria typical of anoxic conditions (Lindström & Sandberg‐Kilpi, 2008), and thus potentially contribute to and impact benthic–pelagic fluxes in organic matter, metabolites, and nutrients (Karlson, Hulth, Ringdahl, & Rosenberg, 2005; Kristensen, 2000; Lohrer, Thrush, & Gibbs, 2004). In systems where benthic invertebrates may be reduced (e.g. Diporeia in the Laurentian Great Lakes; Nalepa, Fanslow, Pothoven, Foley, & Lang, 2007), bio‐perturbation by Mysis could play an increasingly important role in biogeochemical processes at the sediment–water interface. Similarly, in systems where nonnative dreissenid mussels have increased sedimentation rates and sediment organic matter content (e.g. Klerks, Fraleigh, & Lawniczak, 1996; Stewart et al., 1998), the importance of Mysis‐sediment dynamics will probably be greater than in systems without deep, filter‐feeding mussels.

3.4. Food web and ecosystem effects

Mysis use of benthic food resources probably has compounding effects. The total energy consumption by Mysis populations may be underestimated if based on pelagic feeding rates. When energy consumption is inferred from growth rates and bioenergetics models, part of that energy intake will be from benthic resources and, if not accounted for, will bias high the inferred effects on zooplankton. Thus, the pathways by which energy flows through mysid populations are probably different from the estimates and inferences drawn from pelagic‐focused literature (Johannsson et al., 1994; Lehtiniemi et al., 2002, 2009; Viherluoto, Kuosa, Flinkman, & Viitasalo, 2000). For example, estimates of Mysis consumption have generally assumed a diet of 100% zooplankton (Bunnell, Davis, Warner, Chriscinske, & Roseman, 2011; Chipps & Bennett, 2000; Gal et al., 2006; Hrycik et al., 2015; Murtaugh, 1984; Rudstam et al., 1989; Rudstam, Hansson, Johansson, & Larsson, 1992; but see Stewart & Sprules, 2011). The impact that Mysis can have on zooplankton community composition and size structure and the subsequent negative consequences for pelagic planktivorous fishes is unequivocal, as clearly seen in systems where Mysis have been introduced (Devlin et al., 2016; Lasenby et al., 1986; Nesler & Bergersen, 1991). However, estimates of Mysis zooplanktivory based on pelagic sampling, bioenergetics, and assumed consumption of 100% zooplankton will be biased high because these estimates under‐represent how much benthic energy flows through Mysis, and consequently the amount of benthic energy that flows through other components of the food web that directly or indirectly interact with Mysis (Johannsson et al., 1994, 2001; Viherluoto et al., 2000).

Benthic Mysis and benthic resources used by Mysis may explain why mass‐balance food web models often estimate greater fish predation on Mysis than observed Mysis production or biomass can support. Mysis biomass and production had to be increased 2–3‐fold over observed values to meet the estimated consumption demands of planktivorous fishes in a Lake Ontario model (Stewart & Sprules, 2011). Lake Michigan mass‐balance food web models also estimated fish predation of Mysis to be greater than Mysis biomass observations (Rogers, Bunnell, Madenjian, & Warner, 2014). Similarly, in the Baltic Sea, zooplankton production was insufficient to support the quantity of Mysis consumed by fishes (Harvey, Cox, Essington, Hansson, & Kitchell, 2003) when pelagic invertebrates were assumed to consume 100% zooplankton (Sandberg, Elmgren, & Wulff, 2000). To account for the imbalance, and based on results from stable isotope analyses (Hansson et al., 1997), a 50/50 diet balance of zooplankton and plant material for Mysis was needed in the food web model (Harvey et al., 2003). The evidence from the literature suggests such holes in mass balance food web models could be filled by accounting for Mysis in benthic habitats and their use of benthic resources.

One consequence of the pelagic focus of Mysis research in freshwater systems is the implicit inference that pelagic production is the dominant energy pathway for Mysis. Our literature survey, however, suggests that Mysis may spend more time on the bottom than assumed. In winter, when pelagic production is low and Mysis fecundity is high, the motivation to migrate into the water column at night is also presumably low and a greater proportion of the population probably spends more time on bottom than during the other seasons (e.g. Johannsson et al., 2001; Salemaa et al., 1986; but see Lehtiniemi et al., 2009; Figure 4). Conversely, in summer when pelagic production is high, the motivation to migrate is also presumably high but short nights limit access to pelagic resources. Additionally, the abundance and quality of benthic resources is influenced by season and water column depth (Auer, Cannon, & Auer (2009); Eadie, Chambers, Gardner, & Bell, 1984; Ostrom, Long, Bell, & Beals, 1998; Scharold, Lozano, & Corry, 2004), suggesting dynamic cost:benefit trade‐offs to migration over space and time, which probably influences the amount of benthic feeding by mysids (Johannsson et al., 2001; Sierszen et al., 2011, 2014). However, when integrated over a year, the proportion of time and the proportion of mysids that occupy benthic habitat is probably greater than pelagic habitat. Because Mysis continuously feed when on bottom, regardless of time of day (O'Malley & Stockwell, 2019), detritus and other benthic resources are likely to compose a large portion of Mysis diets and thus energy processing and assimilation.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Expectations of diel vertical migration (DVM) behaviour of Mysis populations given seasonal availability of pelagic (following the Plankton Ecology Group model; Sommer et al., 2012) and benthic resources, and observations from Lake Ontario (Johannsson et al., 2001). Time constraints on Mysis foraging in pelagic habitats is indicated by day and night length in the upper panel

An underlying theme in Mysis research, either implicitly implied or explicitly stated by the focus on the pelagia, is that benthic resources act as a resource subsidy to support Mysis populations through periods of low pelagic production (Chipps & Bennett, 2000; Patwa, Christensen, Lasenby, Webster, & MacKay, 2007). An alternative theme is that pelagic production serves as a seasonal resource subsidy or provides a limiting nutrient for a foundational benthic energy pathway. The potential for benthic resources to be the dominant energy source for mysids, and the role Mysis may play in moving, distributing, and cycling benthic‐derived energy and nutrients at the sediment–water boundary and between benthic and pelagic habitats in lakes could be far greater than we thought, and remains a hypothesis to be tested.

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Below, we identify a series of important questions and hypotheses that we believe will advance our understanding of the role of benthic habitat to Mysis ecology. We organised the questions under three themes: (1) what drives decisions to migrate or not; (2) the importance of benthic habitat for Mysis assessment; and (3) how benthic resources may impact Mysis dynamics in a broader ecosystem context.

4.1. (1) What body‐states and environmental conditions determine whether mysids migrate?

Conditions in benthic and pelagic habitats vary seasonally (Figure 4), as do mysids (e.g. life‐stages, body‐state). To understand mysid migration, we need to consider external and internal conditions (Nathan et al., 2008) and evaluate whether variation in migration behaviour at the population level is a result of evolutionarily developed life histories/behaviours or individual decision making. In this context, we pose a series of sub‐questions on processes and mechanisms that may drive emergent population‐level migration behaviours.

(1a) Is partial DVM a result of fixed or plastic behaviours at the individual or group level? Whether a Mysis population can be divided into sub‐groups that each behave consistently within groups but differently among groups, or Mysis behaviour is an outcome of individual choice in response to external conditions or internal states, remains unclear. Several early studies proposed such alternative behaviours (Morgan, 1980; Rybock, 1978), and more recent studies using stable isotopes and genetics have found suggestive but mixed results (Euclide et al., 2017; Ogonowski et al., 2013). Another possibility is the presence of personality traits that influence, or at least reflect, differences in movement, including migration (Chapman et al., 2011; Mettke‐Hofmann, Ebert, Schmidt, Steiger, & Stieb, 2005; Nilsson, Nilsson, Alerstam, & Backman, 2010; Sih & Watters, 2005). In situ tests of fixed or plastic DVM behaviour remain difficult in the absence of the technology to track individual Mysis behaviour through time, although laboratory experiments and agent‐based models are viable options (e.g. DeAngelis & Diaz, 2019; Langer et al., 2019).

(1b) What is the relative importance of pelagic and benthic prey resources for Mysis growth? How is growth influenced by prey availability and nutritional quality between benthic and pelagic habitats and across seasons? Do individuals need to migrate to survive, grow, and reproduce? Our synthesis suggests that a more diverse perspective is needed to better quantify the absolute and relative roles of benthic and pelagic prey resources for Mysis growth. However, observations that individuals captured in pelagic habitat during the day tend to be smaller, that smaller individuals move higher up in the water column at night, and larger individuals tend to dominate night benthic habitat (e.g. Beeton, 1960; Boscarino, Rudstam, Tirabassi, et al., 2010; O'Malley, Dillon, et al., 2018; Ogonowski et al., 2013; Salemaa et al., 1986) suggest that ontogeny and body‐state need to be incorporated into such studies.

(1c) Are predation risks higher in benthic or pelagic habitats? Are DVM patterns dependent on Mysis density and the presumably closer proximity to predators when on the bottom (2‐D habitat) than in the water column (3‐D habitat)? To our knowledge, studies on Mysis predation risk to fish have been primarily focused on pelagic settings (e.g. Boscarino, Rudstam, Tirabassi, et al., 2010; Jensen, Hrabik, Martell, Walters, & Kitchell, 2006; Levy, 1991; Mason & Patrick, 1993). More information is needed to explore risk/benefit aspects of staying on bottom (c.f. Crowder & Binkowski, 1983; Harrington, Hrabik, & Mensinger, 2015; Janssen, 1990) compared to the pelagia. Cannibalism (Fraser, Cahill, Lasenby, Mackay, & Milford, 2005; Quirt & Lasenby, 2002) also needs to be considered as part of the equation to migrate or not, especially as Mysis density can rapidly increase and concentrate in benthic habitats (O'Malley, Dillon, et al., 2018) compared to dispersal in a 3‐D pelagic environment. Modelling encounter rates between Mysis and their predators in 3‐D (Gerritsen & Strickler, 1977) and 2‐D (Hutchinson & Waser, 2007) foraging arenas may prove useful to this end.

4.2. (2) How much does the presence of benthic Mysis affect estimates of abundance and production?

Fundamental questions remain about the extent to which pelagic‐only sampling biases our inferences about Mysis population dynamics.

(2a) What proportion of Mysis populations remain benthic at night? What proportion remain pelagic during the day? The proportion of Mysis that remains on the bottom at night probably varies among sites, lakes, and seasons, as does the proportion that remains suspended in the pelagic zone during the day (O'Malley, Hansson, et al., 2018). Exploration of Mysis behaviour in extreme environments may provide useful insights as to what conditions may influence DVM behaviour. For example, our conceptual model predicts limited DVM behaviour in winter when pelagic resources are at annual lows (Figure 4). By extension, do Mysis populations exhibit restricted DVM behaviour in clear, high‐latitude oligotrophic systems, where benthic production in the littoral zone is the dominant source of system primary production (Ask et al., 2009; Sierszen, McDonald, & Jensen, 2003; Vadeboncoeur et al., 2003)? Conversely, do Mysis populations exhibit increased suspension in pelagic habitat during the day in dark‐water, productive systems (Ball, Mihuc, Myers, & Stockwell, 2015; Griffiths, 2007; Penk, 2011)?

(2b) What are the demographic differences between benthic‐ and pelagic‐caught mysids, and how do such differences influence population production estimates? Assessing demographic differences between benthic and pelagic habitats across bathymetric depths, time of day, and seasons will provide more accurate population assessments, as well as contribute to questions and hypotheses about the mechanisms driving partial DVM (see questions 1a–c above) and to fill in missing biomass and production in food web models (see Food web and ecosystem effects above).

4.3. (3) How does mysids’ use of benthic resources affect their ecological resistance to system change and their ecosystem function?

Zooplanktivory by Mysis can be intense and alter zooplankton community structure and function (Lasenby et al., 1986; Nesler & Bergersen, 1991). However, decreases in pelagic zooplankton may not necessarily induce a negative feedback in Mysis abundance or growth because they can exploit benthic resources (Chipps & Bennett, 2000) and thus exhibit a high degree of adaptive capacity with changing conditions (McMeans et al., 2016). For example, in addition to withstanding intense competition for pelagic zooplankton (Bunnell et al., 2011), Mysis may also be able to resist declines in system productivity as a result of oligotrophication (Barbiero, Lesht, & Warren, 2012) and shifts in energy flow from green (pelagic) to brown (benthic) pathways induced by invasive species (Vanderploeg, Liebig, Nalepa, Fahnenstiel, & Pothoven, 2010). The ability of mysids to use both pelagic and benthic resources probably serves as a buffer against declines in either resource, such that they can maintain their role as an energy conduit across habitats and trophic levels during periods of system change (Johannsson et al., 2001).

5. CONCLUSION

The disproportionate focus on the pelagic phase of Mysis DVM in the published literature and the likely, but perhaps under‐appreciated, role that benthic habitat plays in Mysis ecology suggests a complementary lens through which we should approach Mysis research. Partial DVM in freshwater mysids appears to be the norm rather than the exception. Thus, instead of the seemingly implicit assumption that the pelagic habitat is the most important habitat for Mysis and the benthic environment is simply a hiding place during daylight hours, we propose an alternative and perhaps provocative perspective that benthic habitat is equally, if not more, important than pelagic habitat to understanding Mysis ecology. Such a shift in perspective requires testing that focuses research more equally on the two habitats. A more‐balanced perspective will result in a better understanding of the drivers of Mysis DVM behaviour and yield new insights into the ecosystem effects of animals, such as mysids, that rely on both benthic and pelagic habitats.

Supporting information

Tables S1–S3

Click here for additional data file. (85.9KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by Award 2018‐STO‐44074 from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. S.H. was supported by his appointment as a James Marsh Visiting Professor at the University of Vermont. A Fulbright Award from the U.S. Department of State and the Commission Franco‐Américaine, with kind hospitality provided by the Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomiqe (INRA) at the Centre Alpin de Recherche sur les Réseaux Trophique des Ecosystèmes Limniques (CARRTEL), supported J.D.S. during the development of this manuscript. L.G.R. received support from the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GL‐00E01184‐0). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial/non‐financial competing interests. Michael Sierszen and the Marsden and Stockwell Laboratories provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Hadley Stockwell provided assistance with graphics of conceptual figure.

Stockwell JD, O’Malley BP, Hansson S, Chapina RJ, Rudstam LG, Weidel BC. Benthic habitat is an integral part of freshwater Mysis ecology. Freshwater Biology. 2020;65:1997–2009. 10.1111/fwb.13594

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

As this is a review paper there are no data.

REFERENCES

  1. Adare, K. I. , & Lasenby, D. C. (1994). Seasonal changes in the total lipid‐content of the opossum shrimp, Mysis relicta (Malacostraca, Mysidacea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 51(9), 1935–1941. 10.1139/f94-195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albertsson, J. (2004). Trophic interactions involving mysid shrimps (Mysidacea) in the near‐bottom habitat in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Ecology, 38(3), 457–469. 10.1023/B:Aeco.0000035163.30037.38 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ask, J. , Karlsson, J. , Persson, L. , Ask, P. , Bystrom, P. , & Jansson, M. (2009). Whole‐lake estimates of carbon flux through algae and bacteria in benthic and pelagic habitats of clear‐water lakes. Ecology, 90(7), 1923–1932. 10.1890/07-1855.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Audzijonytė, A. , & Väinölä, R. (2005). Diversity and distributions of circumpolar fresh‐ and brackish‐water Mysis (Crustacea:Mysida): Descriptions of M. relicta Lovén, 1862, M. salemaai n. sp., M. segerstralei n. sp and M. diluviana n. sp., based on molecular and morphological characters. Hydrobiologia, 544, 89–141. 10.1007/s10750-004-8337-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, N. A. , Cannon, B. A. , & Auer, M. T. (2009). Life history, distribution, and production of Diporeia near the Keweenaw Peninsula Lake Superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 35(4), 579–590. 10.1016/j.jglr.2009.08.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ball, S. C. , Mihuc, T. B. , Myers, L. W. , & Stockwell, J. D. (2015). Ten‐fold decline in Mysis diluviana in Lake Champlain between 1975 and 2012. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41(2), 502–509. 10.1016/j.jglr.2015.03.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbiero, R. P. , Lesht, B. M. , & Warren, G. J. (2012). Convergence of trophic state and the lower food web in Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 38(2), 368–380. 10.1016/j.jglr.2012.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beeton, A. M. (1960). The vertical migration of Mysis relicta in Lakes Huron and Michigan. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 17(4), 517–539. 10.1139/f60-037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeton, A. M. , & Bowers, J. A. (1982). Vertical migration of Mysis relicta Lovén. Hydrobiologia, 93(1–2), 53–61. 10.1007/Bf00008098 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergersen, E. P. , & Maiolie, M. (1981). Mysis population estimates: A photographic technique. Applied Sciences Branch, Division of Research, Engineering and Research Center, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (chapter 3, pages 19–24). [Google Scholar]
  11. Bethoney, N. D. , & Stokesbury, K. D. E. (2018). Methods for image‐based surveys of benthic macroinvertebrates and their habitat exemplified by the drop camera survey for the Atlantic sea scallop. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 137, e57493 10.3791/57493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Boscarino, B. T. , Rudstam, L. G. , Minson, M. A. , & Freund, E. E. (2010). Laboratory‐derived light and temperature preferences of juvenile mysid shrimp, Mysis diluviana . Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36(4), 699–706. 10.1016/j.jglr.2010.06.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Boscarino, B. T. , Rudstam, L. G. , Tirabassi, J. , Janssen, J. , & Loew, E. R. (2010). Light effects on alewife‐mysid interactions in Lake Ontario: A combined sensory physiology, behavioral, and spatial approach. Limnology and Oceanography, 55(5), 2061–2072. 10.4319/lo.2010.55.5.2061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowers, J. A. (1988). Diel vertical migration of the opossum shrimp Mysis relicta in Lake Superior ‐ observations and sampling from the Johnson‐Sea‐Link II submersible. Bulletin of Marine Science, 43(3), 730–738. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowers, J. A. , Cooper, W. E. , & Hall, D. J. (1990). Midwater and epibenthic behaviors of Mysis relicta Lovén ‐ observations from the Johnson‐Sea‐Link II submersible in Lake Superior and from a remotely operated vehicle in northern Lake Michigan. Journal of Plankton Research, 12(6), 1279–1286. 10.1093/plankt/12.6.1279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brandt, A. , Elsner, N. , Brenke, N. , Golovan, O. , Malyutina, M. V. , Riehl, T. , … Würzberg, L. (2013). Epifauna of the Sea of Japan collected via a new epibenthic sledge equipped with camera and environmental sensor systems. Deep‐Sea Research II, 86–87, 43–55. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.07.039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brandt, S. B. (1986). Ontogenic shifts in habitat, diet, and diet‐feeding periodicity of slimy sculpin in Lake Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 115(5), 711–715. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Bunnell, D. B. , Davis, B. M. , Warner, D. M. , Chriscinske, M. A. , & Roseman, E. F. (2011). Planktivory in the changing Lake Huron zooplankton community: Bythotrephes consumption exceeds that of Mysis and fish. Freshwater Biology, 56(7), 1281–1296. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02568.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chapman, B. B. , Hulthén, K. , Blomqvist, D. R. , Hansson, L.‐A. , Nilsson, J.‐Å. , Brodersen, J. , … Brönmark, C. (2011). To boldly go: Individual differences in boldness influence migratory tendency. Ecology Letters, 14(9), 871–876. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01648.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chess, D. W. , & Stanford, J. A. (1999). Experimental effects of temperature and prey assemblage on growth and lipid accumulation by Mysis relicta Lovén. Hydrobiologia, 412, 155–164. 10.1023/A:1003886920400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chipps, S. R. , & Bennett, D. H. (2000). Zooplanktivory and nutrient regeneration by invertebrate (Mysis relicta) and vertebrate (Oncorhynchus nerka) planktivores: Implications for trophic interactions in oligotrophic lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 129(2), 569–583. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crowder, L. B. , & Binkowski, F. P. (1983). Foraging behaviors and the interaction of alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and bloater, Coregonus hoyi . Environmental Biology of Fishes, 8(2), 105–113. 10.1007/Bf00005177 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. DeAngelis, D. L. , & Diaz, S. G. (2019). Decision‐making in agent‐based modeling: A current review and future prospectus. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 237 10.3389/fevo.2018.00237 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Devlin, S. P. , Tappenbeck, S. K. , Craft, J. A. , Tappenbeck, T. H. , Chess, D. W. , Whited, D. C. , … Stanford, J. A. (2016). Spatial and temporal dynamics of invasive freshwater shrimp (Mysis diluviana): Long‐term effects on ecosystem properties in a large oligotrophic lake. Ecosystems, 20(1), 183–197. 10.1007/s10021-016-0023-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Eadie, B. J. , Chambers, R. L. , Gardner, W. S. , & Bell, G. L. (1984). Sediment trap studies in Lake Michigan ‐ resuspension and chemical fluxes in the Southern Basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 10(3), 307–321. 10.1016/S0380-1330(84)71844-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, B. K. , Stanford, J. A. , Goodman, D. , Stafford, C. P. , Gustafson, D. L. , Beauchamp, D. A. , … Hansen, B. S. (2011). Long‐term effects of a trophic cascade in a large lake ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(3), 1070–1075. 10.1073/pnas.1013006108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Elrod, J. H. , & O’Gorman, R. (1991). Diet of juvenile lake trout in southern Lake Ontario in relation to abundance and size of prey fishes, 1979–1987. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 120(3), 290–302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. EPA (2015). Standard operating procedure for Mysis sample collection and preservation. Chicago, IL: Great Lakes National Program Office; Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017‐01/documents/sop‐for‐mysis‐sample‐collection‐and‐preservation‐201504‐8pp.pdf [Google Scholar]
  29. Euclide, P. T. , Hansson, S. , & Stockwell, J. D. (2017). Partial diel vertical migration in an omnivorous macroinvertebrate, Mysis diluviana . Hydrobiologia, 787(1), 387–396. 10.1007/s10750-016-2982-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Foulds, J. B. M. , & Mann, K. H. (1978). Cellulose digestion in Mysis stenolepis and its ecological implications. Limnology and Oceanography, 23(4), 760–766. 10.4319/lo.1978.23.4.0760 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fraser, A. J. , Cahill, T. M. , Lasenby, D. C. , Mackay, D. , & Milford, L. (2005). The role of cannibalism and contaminant source on bioaccumulation in aquatic food webs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(4), 909–915. 10.1897/04-178r.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Friesen, J. A. , Mann, K. H. , & Novitsky, J. A. (1986). Mysis digests cellulose in the absence of a gut microflora. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64(2), 442–446. 10.1139/z86-068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gal, G. , Rudstam, L. G. , & Johannsson, O. E. (2004). Predicting Mysis relicta vertical distribution in lake Ontario. Archiv Für Hydrobiologie, 159(1), 1–23. 10.1127/0003-9136/2004/0159-0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gal, G. , Rudstam, L. G. , Mills, E. L. , Lantry, J. R. , Johannsson, O. E. , & Greene, C. H. (2006). Mysid and fish zooplanktivory in Lake Ontario: Quantification of direct and indirect effects. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(12), 2734–2747. 10.1139/F06-156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gamble, A. E. , Hrabik, T. R. , Stockwell, J. D. , & Yule, D. L. (2011). Trophic connections in Lake Superior Part I: The offshore fish community. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(3), 541–549. 10.1016/j.jglr.2011.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gamble, A. E. , Hrabik, T. R. , Yule, D. L. , & Stockwell, J. D. (2011). Trophic connections in Lake Superior Part II: The nearshore fish community. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(3), 550–560. 10.1016/j.jglr.2011.06.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gerritsen, J. , & Strickler, J. R. (1977). Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: A mathematical model. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 34(1), 73–82. 10.1139/f77-008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldman, C. R. , Morgan, M. D. , Threlkeld, S. T. , & Angeli, N. (1979). A population dynamics analysis of the cladoceran disappearance from Lake Tahoe. California‐Nevada. Limnology and Oceanography, 24(2), 289–297. 10.4319/lo.1979.24.2.0289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gorokhova, E. , & Hansson, S. (1999). An experimental study on variations in stable carbon and nitrogen isotope fractionation during growth of Mysis mixta and Neomysis integer . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56(11), 2203–2210. 10.1139/cjfas-56-11-2203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Griffiths, D. (2007). Effects of climatic change and eutrophication on the glacial relict, Mysis relicta, in Lough Neagh. Freshwater Biology, 52(10), 1957–1967. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01824.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Grossmann, M. M. , Gallager, S. M. , & Mitarai, S. (2014). Continuous monitoring of near‐bottom mesoplankton communities in the East China Sea during a series of typhoons. Journal of Oceanography, 71(1), 115–124. 10.1007/s10872-014-0268-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Grossnickle, N. E. (1982). Feeding habits of Mysis relicta ‐ An overview. Hydrobiologia, 93(1–2), 101–107. 10.1007/Bf00008103 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Grossnickle, N. E. , & Morgan, M. D. (1979). Density estimates of Mysis relicta in Lake Michigan. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 36(6), 694–698. 10.1139/f79-103 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Gutt, J. , & Siegel, V. (1994). Benthopelagic aggregations of krill (Euphausia superba) on the deeper shelf of the Weddell Sea (Antarctic). Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 41(1), 169–178. 10.1016/0967-0637(94)90031-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hansson, S. , Hobbie, J. E. , Elmgren, R. , Larsson, U. , Fry, B. , & Johansson, S. (1997). The stable nitrogen isotope ratio as a marker of food‐web interactions and fish migration. Ecology, 78(7), 2249–2257. 10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[2249:Tsnira]2.0.Co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Harrington, K. A. , Hrabik, T. R. , & Mensinger, A. F. (2015). Visual sensitivity of deepwater fishes in Lake Superior. PLoS One, 10(2), 10.1371/journal.pone.0116173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Harvey, C. J. , Cox, S. P. , Essington, T. E. , Hansson, S. , & Kitchell, J. F. (2003). An ecosystem model of food web and fisheries interactions in the Baltic Sea. Ices Journal of Marine Science, 60(5), 939–950. 10.1016/S1054-3139(03)00098-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hoekstra, D. , & Janssen, J. (1985). Non‐visual feeding‐behavior of the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi . Lake Michigan. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 12(2), 111–117. 10.1007/Bf00002763 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hondorp, D. W. (2006). Factors influencing diet and prey selection of the sculpin Cottus cognatus and Myoxocephalus thompsonii. (PhD), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hondorp, D. W. , Pothoven, S. A. , & Brandt, S. B. (2011). Feeding selectivity of slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus and deepwater sculpin Myoxocephalus thompsonii in southeast Lake Michigan: Implications for species coexistence. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(1), 165–172. 10.1016/j.jglr.2010.11.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hrycik, A. R. , Simonin, P. W. , Rudstam, L. G. , Parrish, D. L. , Pientka, B. , & Mihuc, T. B. (2015). Mysis zooplanktivory in Lake Champlain: A bioenergetics analysis. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41(2), 492–501. 10.1016/j.jglr.2015.03.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Hutchinson, J. M. C. , & Waser, P. M. (2007). Use, misuse and extensions of "ideal gas" models of animal encounter. Biological Reviews, 82(3), 335–359. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00014.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Irvine, K. , Moss, B. , Bales, M. , & Snook, D. (1993). The changing ecosystem of a shallow, brackish lake, Hickling Broad, Norfolk, Uk.1. Trophic relationships with special reference to the role of Neomysis integer . Freshwater Biology, 29(1), 119–139. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.tb00750.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Janssen, J. (1990). Localization of substrate vibrations by the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Copeia (2), 349–355. 10.2307/1446340. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Jensen, O. P. , Hrabik, T. R. , Martell, S. J. D. , Walters, C. J. , & Kitchell, J. F. (2006). Diel vertical migration in the Lake Superior pelagic community. II. Modeling trade‐offs at an intermediate trophic level. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(10), 2296–2307. 10.1139/F06-125 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Johannsson, O. E. , Leggett, M. F. , Rudstam, L. G. , Servos, M. R. , Mohammadian, M. A. , Gal, G. , … Hesslein, R. H. (2001). Diet of Mysis relicta in Lake Ontario as revealed by stable isotope and gut content analysis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(10), 1975–1986. 10.1139/cjfas-58-10-1975 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Johannsson, O. E. , Rudstam, L. G. , Gal, G. , & Mills, E. (2003). Mysis relicta in Lake Ontario: Population dynamics, trophic linkages and further questions In Munawar M. (Ed.), State of Lake Ontario (SOLO) ‐ Past, present and future (pp. 257–287). New Delhi, India: Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management Society. [Google Scholar]
  58. Johannsson, O. E. , Rudstam, L. G. , & Lasenby, D. C. (1994). Mysis relicta ‐ assessment of metalimnetic feeding and implications for competition with fish in Lakes Ontario and Michigan. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 51(11), 2591–2602. 10.1139/f94-259 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jude, D. J. , Rudstam, L. G. , Holda, T. J. , Watkins, J. M. , Euclide, P. T. , & Balcer, M. D. (2018). Trends in Mysis diluviana abundance in the Great Lakes, 2006–2016. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44(4), 590–599. 10.1016/j.jglr.2018.04.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Karatayev, A. Y. , Mehler, K. , Burlakova, L. E. , Hinchey, E. K. , & Warren, G. J. (2018). Benthic video image analysis facilitates monitoring of Dreissena populations across spatial scales. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44, 629–638. 10.1016/j.jglr.2018.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Karlson, A. M. L. , & Viitasalo‐Frosen, S. (2009). Assimilation of C‐14‐labelled zooplankton benthic eggs by macrobenthos. Journal of Plankton Research, 31(4), 459–463. 10.1093/plankt/fbn131 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Karlson, K. , Hulth, S. , Ringdahl, K. , & Rosenberg, R. (2005). Experimental recolonisation of Baltic Sea reduced sediments: Survival of benthic macrofauna and effects on nutrient cycling. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 294, 35–49. 10.3354/meps294035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Kilpatrick, R. , Ewing, G. , Lamb, T. , Welsford, D. , & Constable, A. (2011). Autonomous video camera system for monitoring impacts to benthic habitats from demersal fishing gear, including longlines. Deep‐Sea Research I, 58(4), 486–491. 10.1016/j.dsr.2011.02.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Kinsten, B. , & Olsén, P. (1981). Impact of Mysis relicta Lovén introduction on the plankton of two mountain lakes, Sweden. Report of the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, 59, 64–74. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kitchell, J. F. , Cox, S. P. , Harvey, C. J. , Johnson, T. B. , Mason, D. M. , Schoen, K. K. , … Walters, C. J. (2000). Sustainability of the Lake Superior fish community: Interactions in a food web context. Ecosystems, 3(6), 545–560. 10.1007/s100210000048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Klerks, P. L. , Fraleigh, P. C. , & Lawniczak, J. E. (1996). Effects of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on seston levels and sediment deposition in western Lake Erie. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(10), 2284–2291. 10.1139/cjfas-53-10-2284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kraft, C. E. , & Kitchell, J. F. (1986). Partitioning of food resources by sculpins in Lake Michigan. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 16(4), 309–316. 10.1007/Bf00842986 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kristensen, E. (2000). Organic matter diagenesis at the oxic/anoxic interface in coastal marine sediments, with emphasis on the role of burrowing animals. Hydrobiologia, 426(1–3), 1–24. 10.1023/A:1003980226194 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Langer, S. M. , Weiss, L. C. , Ekvall, M. T. , Bianco, G. , Hansson, L. A. , & Tollrian, R. (2019). A three‐dimensional perspective of Daphnia's swimming behavior with and without predator cues. Limnology and Oceanography, 64(4), 1515–1525. 10.1002/lno.11132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Lasenby, D. C. , & Langford, R. R. (1972). Growth, life history, and respiration of Mysis relicta in an Arctic and temperate lake. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 29(12), 1701–1708. 10.1139/f72-270 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Lasenby, D. C. , Northcote, T. G. , & Furst, M. (1986). Theory, practice, and effects of Mysis relicta introductions to North American and Scandinavian lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43(6), 1277–1284. 10.1139/f86-158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Lasenby, D. C. , & Sherman, R. K. (1991). Design and evaluation of a bottom‐closing net used to capture mysids and other suprabenthic fauna. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69(3), 783–786. 10.1139/z91-113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Lasenby, D. C. , & Shi, Y. Q. (2004). Changes in the elemental composition of the stomach contents of the opossum shrimp Mysis relicta during diel vertical migration. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82(3), 525–528. 10.1139/Z04-005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Lasenby, D. C. , & Van Duyn, J. (1992). Zinc and cadmium accumulation by the opossum shrimp Mysis relicta . Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 23(2), 179–183. 10.1007/Bf00212272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lehtiniemi, M. , Kiljunen, M. , & Jones, R. I. (2009). Winter food utilisation by sympatric mysids in the Baltic Sea, studied by combined gut content and stable isotope analyses. Marine Biology, 156(4), 619–628. 10.1007/s00227-008-1113-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lehtiniemi, M. , Viitasalo, M. , & Kuosa, H. (2002). Diet composition influences the growth of the pelagic mysid shrimp, Mysis mixta (Mysidacea). Boreal Environment Research, 7(2), 121–128. [Google Scholar]
  77. Lesutiene, J. , Gorokhova, E. , Gasiunaite, Z. R. , & Razinkovas, A. (2008). Role of mysid seasonal migrations in the organic matter transfer in the Curonian Lagoon, south‐eastern Baltic Sea. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 80(2), 225–234. 10.1016/j.ecss.2008.08.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Levy, D. A. (1991). Acoustic analysis of diel vertical migration behavior of Mysis relicta and kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) within Okanagan Lake, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(1), 67–72. 10.1139/f91-010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Lindström, M. , & Sandberg‐Kilpi, E. (2008). Breaking the boundary ‐ The key to bottom recovery? The role of mysid crustaceans in oxygenizing bottom sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 354(2), 161–168. 10.1016/j.jembe.2007.10.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Lohrer, A. M. , Thrush, S. F. , & Gibbs, M. M. (2004). Bioturbators enhance ecosystem function through complex biogeochemical interactions. Nature, 431(7012), 1092–1095. 10.1038/nature03042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Martinez, P. J. , & Bergersen, E. P. (1991). Interactions of zooplankton, Mysis relicta, and kokanees in Lake Granby, Colorado. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 9, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  82. Mason, D. M. , & Patrick, E. V. (1993). A model for the space‐time dependence of feeding for pelagic fish populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 122(5), 884–901. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Mauchline, J. (1980). The biology of mysids and euphausiids. Part one, the biology of mysids. London, UK: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  84. McCoy, A. K. (2015). An assessment of the impact of non‐native lake trout Salvelinus namaycush and Mysis diluviana on the growth and survival of pelagic planktivores in Lake Tahoe. (PhD), University of Washington, Seattle. [Google Scholar]
  85. McMeans, B. C. , McCann, K. S. , Tunney, T. D. , Fisk, A. T. , Muir, A. M. , Lester, N. , … Rooney, N. (2016). The adaptive capacity of lake food webs: From individuals to ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 86(1), 4–19. 10.1890/15-0288.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. McWilliam, P. S. (1970). Seasonal changes in abundance and reproduction in the “opossum shrimp”, Mysis relicta Lovén in Lake Michigan. (MSc), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mettke‐Hofmann, C. , Ebert, C. , Schmidt, T. , Steiger, S. , & Stieb, S. (2005). Personality traits in resident and migratory warbler species. Behaviour, 142, 1357–1375. 10.1163/156853905774539427 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Miller, G. S. (2003). Mysis vertical migration in Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan, observed by an acoustic Doppler current profiler. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 29(3), 427–435. 10.1016/S0380-1330(03)70448-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Moen, V. , & Langeland, A. (1989). Diurnal vertical and seasonal horizontal distribution patterns of Mysis relicta in a large Norwegian lake. Journal of Plankton Research, 11(4), 729–745. 10.1093/plankt/11.4.729 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Morgan, M. D. (1979). The dynamics of an introduced population of Mysis relicta (Lovén) in Emerald Bay and Lake Tahoe, California‐Nevada. (PhD), University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  91. Morgan, M. D. (1980). Life history characteristics of two introduced populations of Mysis relicta . Ecology, 61(3), 551–561. 10.2307/1937421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Morgan, M. D. (1985). Growth and its relationship to reproduction in Mysis relicta In Wenner A. M. (Ed.), Factors in adult growth (pp. 235–250). Boston, MA: A.A. Balkema. [Google Scholar]
  93. Morgan, M. D. , & Threlkeld, S. T. (1982). Size dependent horizontal migration of Mysis relicta . Hydrobiologia, 93(1–2), 63–68. 10.1007/Bf00008099 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Morgan, M. D. , Threlkeld, S. T. , & Goldman, C. R. (1978). Impact of the introduction of kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) and opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) on a subalpine lake. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 35, 1572–1579. 10.1139/f78-247 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Murtaugh, P. A. (1984). Variable gut residence time ‐ problems in inferring feeding rate from stomach fullness of a mysid crustacean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 41(9), 1287–1293. 10.1139/f84-157 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Naesje, T. F. (1995). Effects of introduced Mysis relicta on habitat utilisation and feeding of Arctic charr. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research, 71, 359–378. [Google Scholar]
  97. Naesje, T. F. , Saksgard, R. , Jensen, A. J. , & Sandlund, O. T. (2003). Life history, habitat utilisation, and biomass of introduces Mysis relicta . Limnologica, 33(4), 244–257. 10.1016/S0075-9511(03)80020-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Nalepa, T. F. , Fanslow, D. L. , Pothoven, S. A. , Foley, A. J. , & Lang, G. A. (2007). Long‐term trends in benthic macroinvertebrate populations in Lake Huron over the past four decades. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 33(2), 421–436. 10.3394/0380-1330(2007)33[421:Ltibmp]2.0.Co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Nathan, R. , Getz, W. M. , Revilla, E. , Holyoak, M. , Kadmon, R. , Saltz, D. , & Smouse, P. E. (2008). A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(49), 19052–19059. 10.1073/pnas.0800375105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Nero, R. W. , & Davies, I. J. (1982). Comparison of two sampling methods for estimating the abundance and distribution of Mysis relicta . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39(2), 349–355. 10.1139/f82-048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Nesler, T. P. , & Bergersen, E. P. (1991). Mysids and their impacts on fisheries: An introduction to the 1988 mysid‐fisheries symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 9, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  102. Nilsson, A. L. K. , Nilsson, J. A. , Alerstam, T. , & Backman, J. (2010). Migratory and resident blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus differ in their reaction to a novel object. Naturwissenschaften, 97(11), 981–985. 10.1007/s00114-010-0714-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Ogonowski, M. , Duberg, J. , Hansson, S. , & Gorokhova, E. (2013). Behavioral, ecological and genetic differentiation in an open environment ‐ A study of a mysid population in the Baltic Sea. PLoS One, 8(3), 10.1371/journal.pone.0057210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. O'Malley, B. P. , Dillon, R. A. , Paddock, R. W. , Hansson, S. , & Stockwell, J. D. (2018). An underwater video system to assess abundance and behavior of epibenthic Mysis . Limnology and Oceanography‐Methods, 16(12), 868–880. 10.1002/lom3.10289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. O'Malley, B. P. , Hansson, S. , & Stockwell, J. D. (2018). Evidence for a size‐structured explanation of partial diel vertical migration in mysids. Journal of Plankton Research, 40(1), 66–76. 10.1093/plankt/fbx060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. O'Malley, B. P. , & Stockwell, J. D. (2019). Diel feeding behavior in a partially migrant Mysis population: A benthic‐pelagic comparison. Food Webs, 20, e00117 10.1016/j.fooweb.2019.e00117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Ostrom, N. E. , Long, D. T. , Bell, E. M. , & Beals, T. (1998). The origin and cycling of particulate and sedimentary organic matter and nitrate in Lake Superior. Chemical Geology, 152(1–2), 13–28. 10.1016/S0009-2541(98)00093-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Parker, J. I. (1980). Predation by Mysis relicta on Pontoporeia hoyi: A food chain link of potential importance in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 6(2), 164–166. 10.1016/s0380-1330(80)72095-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Patwa, Z. , Christensen, R. , Lasenby, D. C. , Webster, E. , & MacKay, D. (2007). An exploration of the role of mysids in benthic‐pelagic coupling and biomagnification using a dynamic bioaccumulation model. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 26(6), 1224–1232. 10.1897/06-441r.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Penk, M. R. (2011). A review of the current distribution of the freshwater opossum shrimp Mysis salemaai Audzijonyte and Vainola, 2005 in Ireland. Biology and Environment‐Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 111b(2), 107–115. 10.3318/Bioe.2011.09 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Porter, M. L. , Meland, K. , & Price, W. (2008). Global diversity of mysids (Crustacea‐Mysida) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595, 213–218. 10.1007/s10750-007-9016-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Pothoven, S. A. , & Madenjian, C. P. (2008). Changes in consumption by alewives and lake whitefish after dreissenid mussel invasions in Lakes Michigan and Huron. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28(1), 308–320. 10.1577/M07-022.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Pothoven, S. A. , Nalepa, T. F. , Schneeberger, P. J. , & Brandt, S. B. (2001). Changes in diet and body condition of lake whitefish in southern Lake Michigan associated with changes in benthos. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21(4), 876–883. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Quirt, J. , & Lasenby, D. (2002). Cannibalism and ontogenetic changes in the response of the freshwater shrimp Mysis relicta to chemical cues from conspecific predators. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80(6), 1022–1025. 10.1139/Z02-084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. Reynolds, J. B. , & DeGraeve, G. M. (1972). Seasonal population characteristics of the opossum shrimp, Mysis relicta, in southeastern Lake Michigan, 1970–71. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Great Lakes Research, 15, 117–131. [Google Scholar]
  116. Robertson, A. , Powers, C. F. , & Anderson, R. F. (1968). Direct observations on Mysis relicta from a submarine. Limnology and Oceanography, 13(4), 700–702. 10.4319/lo.1968.13.4.0700 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Rogers, M. W. , Bunnell, D. B. , Madenjian, C. P. , & Warner, D. M. (2014). Lake Michigan offshore ecosystem structure and food web changes from 1987 to 2008. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71(7), 1072–1086. 10.1139/cjfas-2013-0514 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Rosenkranz, G. E. , Gallager, S. M. , Shepard, R. W. , & Blakeslee, M. (2008). Development of a high‐speed, megapixel benthic imaging system for coastal fisheries research in Alaska. Fisheries Research, 2–3, 340–344. 10.1016/j.fishres.2008.03.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Rudstam, L. G. , Danielsson, K. , Hansson, S. , & Johansson, S. (1989). Diel vertical migration and feeding patterns of Mysis mixta (Crustacea, Mysidacea) in the Baltic Sea. Marine Biology, 101(1), 43–52. 10.1007/Bf00393476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Rudstam, L. G. , Hansson, S. , Johansson, S. , & Larsson, U. (1992). Dynamics of planktivory in a coastal area of the northern Baltic Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 80(2–3), 159–173. 10.3354/meps080159 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Rybock, J. T. (1978). Mysis relicta Lovén in Lake Tahoe: Vertical distribution and nocturnal predation. (PhD), University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  122. Salemaa, H. , Tyystjarvimuuronen, K. , & Aro, E. (1986). Life histories, distribution and abundance of Mysis mixta and Mysis relicta in the Northern Baltic Sea. Ophelia, Suppl. 4, 239–247. [Google Scholar]
  123. Salemaa, H. , Vuorinen, I. , & Välipakka, P. (1990). The distribution and abundance of Mysis populations in the Baltic Sea. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 27(3), 253–257. [Google Scholar]
  124. Sandberg, J. , Elmgren, R. , & Wulff, F. (2000). Carbon flows in Baltic Sea food webs ‐ A re‐evaluation using a mass balance approach. Journal of Marine Systems, 25(3–4), 249–260. 10.1016/S0924-7963(00)00019-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  125. Scharold, J. V. , Lozano, S. J. , & Corry, T. D. (2004). Status of the amphipod Diporeia spp. in Lake Superior, 1994–2000. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 30, 360–368. 10.1016/S0380-1330(04)70397-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Seale, D. B. , & Binkowski, F. P. (1988). Vulnerability of early life intervals of Coregonus hoyi to predation by a freshwater mysid, Mysis relicta . Environmental Biology of Fishes, 21(2), 117–125. 10.1007/Bf00004847 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  127. Selgeby, J. H. (1988). Comparative biology of the sculpins of Lake Superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 14(1), 44–51. 10.1016/S0380-1330(88)71531-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Sell, D. W. (1982). Size‐frequency estimates of secondary production by Mysis relicta in Lakes Michigan and Huron. Hydrobiologia, 93(1–2), 69–78. 10.1007/Bf00008100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Sellers, T. J. (1995). The distribution of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, and opossum shrimp, Mysis relicta, in small boreal lakes with respect to temperature, dissolved oxygen, and light. (MSc Thesis (M Sc)), University of Alberta. [Google Scholar]
  130. Shea, M. A. , & Makarewicz, J. C. (1989). Production, biomass, and trophic interactions of Mysis relicta in Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 15(2), 223–232. 10.1016/S0380-1330(89)71478-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  131. Sierszen, M. E. , Hrabik, T. R. , Stockwell, J. D. , Cotter, A. M. , Hoffman, J. C. , & Yule, D. L. (2014). Depth gradients in food‐web processes linking habitats in large lakes: Lake Superior as an exemplar ecosystem. Freshwater Biology, 59(10), 2122–2136. 10.1111/fwb.12415 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  132. Sierszen, M. E. , Kelly, J. R. , Corry, T. D. , Scharold, J. V. , & Yurista, P. M. (2011). Benthic and pelagic contributions to Mysis nutrition across Lake Superior. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 68(6), 1051–1063. 10.1139/F2011-033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  133. Sierszen, M. E. , McDonald, M. E. , & Jensen, D. A. (2003). Benthos as the basis for arctic lake food webs. Aquatic Ecology, 37(4), 437–445. 10.1023/B:AECO.0000007042.09767.dd [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  134. Sih, A. , & Watters, J. V. (2005). The mix matters: Behavioural types and group dynamics in water striders. Behaviour, 142, 1417–1431. 10.1163/156853905774539454 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  135. Sommer, U. , Adrian, R. , De Senerpont Domis, L. , Elser, J. J. , Gaedke, U. , Ibelings, B. , … Winder, M. (2012). Beyond the Plankton Ecology Group (PEG) model: Mechanisms driving plankton succession. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 43, 429–448. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160251 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Speirs, D. , Lawrie, S. , Raffaelli, D. , Gurney, W. , & Emes, C. (2002). Why do shallow‐water predators migrate? Strategic models and empirical evidence from an estuarine mysid. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 280(1–2), 13–31. 10.1016/S0022-0981(02)00363-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  137. Stewart, T. W. , Miner, J. G. , & Lowe, R. L. (1998). Quantifying mechanisms for zebra mussel effects on benthic macroinvertebrates: Organic matter production and shell‐generated habitat. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17(1), 81–94. 10.2307/1468053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  138. Stewart, T. J. , & Sprules, W. G. (2011). Carbon‐based balanced trophic structure and flows in the offshore Lake Ontario food web before (1987–1991) and after (2001–2005) invasion‐induced ecosystem change. Ecological Modelling, 222(3), 692–708. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.10.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  139. Sullivan, P. J. , & Rudstam, L. G. (2016). Quantifying acoustic survey uncertainty using Bayesian hierarchical modeling with an application to assessing Mysis relicta population densities in Lake Ontario. Ices Journal of Marine Science, 73(8), 2104–2111. 10.1093/icesjms/fsw080 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  140. Takahashi, K. (2004). Feeding ecology of mysids in freshwater and coastal marine habitats: A review. Bulletin of Plankton Society of Japan, 51(1), 46–72. [Google Scholar]
  141. Teraguchi, M. , Hasler, A. D. , & Beeton, A. M. (1975). Seasonal changes in the response of Mysis relicta Lovén to illumination. Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen, 19(4), 2989–3000. 10/1080/03680770.1974.11896404 [Google Scholar]
  142. Vadeboncoeur, Y. , Jeppesen, E. , Zanden, M. J. V. , Schierup, H.‐H. , Christoffersen, K. , & Lodge, D. M. (2003). From Greenland to green lakes: Cultural eutrophication and the loss of benthic pathways in lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, 48(4), 1408–1418. 10.4319/lo.2003.48.4.1408 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  143. Vanderploeg, H. A. , Liebig, J. R. , Nalepa, T. F. , Fahnenstiel, G. L. , & Pothoven, S. A. (2010). Dreissena and the disappearance of the spring phytoplankton bloom in Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36, 50–59. 10.1016/j.jglr.2010.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  144. Viherluoto, M. , Kuosa, H. , Flinkman, J. , & Viitasalo, M. (2000). Food utilisation of pelagic mysids, Mysis mixta and M. relicta, during their growing season in the northern Baltic Sea. Marine Biology, 136(3), 553–559. 10.1007/s002270050715 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  145. Viitasalo, S. , & Viitasalo, M. (2004). Predation by the mysid shrimps Mysis mixta and M. relicta on benthic eggs of Bosmina longispina maritima (Cladocera) in the northern Baltic Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 281, 155–163. 10.3354/meps281155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  146. Wainwright, P. F. , & Mann, K. H. (1982). Effect of antimicrobial substances on the ability of the mysid shrimp Mysis stenolepis to digest cellulose. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 7(3), 309–313. 10.3354/meps007309 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  147. Waterstraat, A. , Krappe, M. , Riel, P. , & Rumpf, M. (2005). Habitat shifts of Mysis relicta (Decapoda, Mysidacea) in the lakes Breiter and Schmaler Luzin (NE Germany). Crustaceana, 78, 685–699. 10.1163/156854005774353467 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  148. Watkins, J. M. , Rudstam, L. G. , Connerton, M. J. , Schaner, T. , Rudstam, P. G. , & Bowen, K. L. (2015). Abundance and spatial distribution of Mysis diluviana in Lake Ontario in 2008 estimated with 120 kHz hydroacoustic surveys and net tows. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 18(1), 63–75. 10.1080/14634988.2014.965646 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  149. Weidel, B. C. , Walsh, M. G. , Connerton, M. J. , Lantry, B. F. , Lantry, J. R. , Holden, J. P. , … Hoyle, J. A. (2017). Deepwater sculpin status and recovery in Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 43(5), 854–862. 10.1016/j.jglr.2016.12.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  150. Whall, J. D. , & Lasenby, D. C. (2009). Differences in the trophic role of Mysis diluviana in two intermontane lakes. Aquatic Biology, 5(3), 281–292. 10.3354/ab00162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  151. Zagursky, G. , & Feller, R. J. (1985). Macrophyte detritus in the winter diet of the estuarine mysid, Neomysis americana . Estuaries, 8(4), 355–362. 10.2307/1351873 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Tables S1–S3

Click here for additional data file. (85.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

As this is a review paper there are no data.

Articles from Freshwater Biology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES