This Weeks Citation Classic

FEBR~JARY13,1989

Waters I F. Secondary production in inland waters.

Advan. Ecol. Res. 10:91-164, 1977.
[Department of Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MNI

But the first great stimulation, conceptually

and mathematically sound, was that
2 presented
independently
by W.E. Ricker and K.R.
3
AlIen what we now call the instantaneous
growth rate (ICR) method for estimating fish
production. Even so, a long lag occurred between the mid-1940s and4 important further advances; H.B.N. 1-lynes, in reviewing stream
ecology literature through 1966, considered
production research to be in its infancy. By
about the mid-1960s, however, the International Biological Program (lBP), emphasizing
productivity, had given great impetus to research on the subject, and a few landmark paAnimal Production in Fresh Waters
pers had also appeared by that time. Furthermore, a methodological breakthrough for ben5
Thomas F. Waters
thos production was presented by Hynes
that now, after further development, we term
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
University of Minnesota
the size-frequency method.
By the mid-i970s, then, a viable, decadeSt. Paul, MN 55108
long literature had accumulated. Thus, I think
November 7, 1988 the reason for the frequent citation is that my
review served as a linchpin for further work,
In 1974, Professor Amyan Macfadyen, editor appropriately located in time. Subsequent auof Advances in Ecological Research, wrote to thors could refer to the definition of producmeand suggested a review of secondary pro. tion without giving a complicated explanation
duction measurement. I immediately agreed of their own; the methods were given in a
because, at that date, the subject of freshwater somewhat recipe-book style and could be
productionhad been researched with some in- readily referenced; and the literature data,
tensity for the past decade, and the first major summarized in tabular form with common
accumulation of data had been done. The time units, could be easily examined.
No comparable review has been subsequentseemed particularly opportune to critically
summarize methods, which had reached a ly published, although A.C. Benke reviewed
point of soundness and broad applicability, in depth the concept and methods for7 benthos,
and to collect into one place most of the and R.H.K. Mann and T. Penczak summaworlds production data. Another objective rized production by river fishes. The revised
was to clarify the concept and terminology of IBP handbook on secondary productivity in
deals with a number of related
production, at that time in a bit of a mess in fresh waters
8
the literature. I felt it would be helpful to also subjects.
During the most recent decade, a large numconvert the melange of units in the literature
into a single expression for each of the three ber of additional estimates have been pubmajor groups: kg/ha/yr (wet) for fish, kg/ha/yr lished, particularly on fishes and stream ben(dry) for zoobenthos, and g/m/yr (dry) for zoo- thos. Methods used are basically the same but
have been fine-tuned in some critical respects.
plankton.
The definitive beginning of aquatic produc- Methods used today most commonly appear
tion literature is usually
t credited to the paper to be the ICR method for fish and the size-freof P. Boysen-jensen on a marine benthos. quency method for benthos.
This review deals with annual production by the freshwater animal groups: fishes, zoobenthos, and zooplankton. Included are the concept and terminology
of productivity, methods for estimating annual production, the production/biomass ratio, and levels of
production by5 the three groups from the world literature. [The SC! indicates that this paper has been cited
in over 180 publications.]

1. Boysen-Jensen P. Valuation of the LimOord. I. Studies on Inc fish-food in the Limljord 1909-1917, its quantity, variation
and annual production. Rep. Dan. BioL Sm. 26:344. 1919. (Cited 30 times since 1945.)
2. Picker WE. Production and utilization of fish populations. EcoL Monogr. 16:373-9!. 1946. (Cited 14t asses.)
3. Allen K R. Some aspects of the production and cropping of fresh waters. Trans. Roy. Soc. N. Z. 77:222-8. 1949.
(Cited 20 times.)
4. Hynes H B N. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press. (1970) 1982. 440 p.
(Cited 745 times.)
5.
. The invertebrate fauna of a Welsh mountain stream. Arch. Hydrobtol. 57:344-88. 1961. (Cited 220 times.)
1See also: Hynes H B N. Citation Classic. (Barrett S T. comp.( Contemporary classics in plant, animal, and
environntental sciences. Pttiladelphia: IS! Press. 1986. p. 164.1
6. Benke A C. Secondary production of aquatic insects. (Resh V H & Rosenberg 0 M. eds.( The ecology of aquatic insects.
New York: Praeger, 1984. p. 289-322. (Cited 20 tintes.(
7. Mann R H K & Penczak T. Fislt production in rivers: a review. Polish Arch. 1-fydrobiol. 33:233-47, 986.
8. DownIng J A & RIgler F H, eds. A ntanaai on methods for the assessment of secondary prodacfisify infresh wafers.
Oxford. England: Blaclraell Scientific. 984. 501 p.

14

1989by SI CURRENT CONTENTS