Small ponds, which exhibit unstable succession pattern of plankton community, are less well studied than large lakes. Recently, the importance of small ponds for local biodiversity conservation has highlighted the necessity of understanding the dynamics of biological community. In the present study, we collected zooplankton from three small reservoirs with monthly basis and analyzed their seasonal dynamics. To understand the complicated zooplankton community dynamics of small reservoirs, we categorized zooplankton species into four groups (LALF Group, Low Abundance Low Frequency; LAHF Group, Low Abundance High Frequency; HALF Group, High Abundance Low Frequency; HAHF Group, High Abundance High Frequency) based on their occurrence pattern (abundance and frequency). We compared the seasonal pattern of each group, and estimated community diversity based on temporal beta diversity contribution of each group. The result revealed that there is a relationship between groups with the same abundance but different occurrence frequencies, and copepod nauplii are common important component for both abundance and frequency. On the other hand, species included with LALF Group throughout the study period are key in terms of monthly succession and diversity. LALF Group includes Anuraeopsis fissa, Hexarthra mira and Lecane luna. However, groups containing species that only occur at certain times of the year and dominate the waterbody, HALF Group, hindered to temporal diversity. The results of this study suggest that the species-specific occurrence pattern is one key trait of species determining its contribution to total annual biodiversity of given community.

Through sample-size-based rarefaction analyses, we tried to suggest the appropriate degree of sample concentration and sub-sample extraction, as a way to estimate more accurate zooplankton species diversity when assessing biodiversity. When we collected zooplankton from three reservoirs with different environmental characteristics, the estimated species richness (S) and Shannon’s Hʹ values showed different changing patterns according to the amount of sub-sample extracted from the whole sample by reservoir. However, consequently, their zooplankton diversity indices were estimated the highest values when analyzed by extracting the largest amount of sub-sample. As a result of rarefaction analysis about sample coverage, in the case of deep eutrophic reservoir (Juam) with high zooplankton species and individual numbers, it was analyzed that 99.8% of the whole samples were represented by only 1 mL of sub-sample based on 100 mL of concentrated samples. On the other hand, in Soyang reservoir, which showed very small species and individual numbers, a relatively low representation at 97% when 10 mL of sub-sample was extracted from the same amount of concentrated sample. As such, the representation of sub-sample for the whole zooplankton sample varies depending on the individual density in the sample collected from the field. If the degree of concentration of samples and the amount of subsample extraction are adjusted according to the collected individual density, it is believed that errors that occur when comparing the number of species and diversity indices among different water bodies can be minimized.