1 / 19

Sierra Cantrell, Ron Irvin, Elizabeth Ng, John Tjaden University of Idaho Limnology Fall 2013

Biological Assessment of Lucas Pond. Sierra Cantrell, Ron Irvin, Elizabeth Ng, John Tjaden University of Idaho Limnology Fall 2013 . Outline. Objectives Methods Data Suggestions. Objectives. What kinds of organisms? How many? Qualitative habitat assessment

gita
Télécharger la présentation

Sierra Cantrell, Ron Irvin, Elizabeth Ng, John Tjaden University of Idaho Limnology Fall 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biological Assessment of Lucas Pond Sierra Cantrell, Ron Irvin, Elizabeth Ng, John Tjaden University of Idaho Limnology Fall 2013

  2. Outline • Objectives • Methods • Data • Suggestions

  3. Objectives • What kinds of organisms? • How many? • Qualitative habitat assessment • Can (more) fish be supported? • What steps are needed?

  4. Methods • Shoreline (littoral) • Macroinvertebrates • Sample surface of sediment • Open water (pelagic) • Zooplankton • Discrete samples • Integrated samples

  5. 3 B C A 2 1

  6. Littoral Zone • D-ring kick net • Three sites • Area about 0.5 m2 (3 ft2) Transect parallel to shore

  7. Macroinvertebrates

  8. Diptera Coleoptera Oligochaeta Odonata Plecoptera Hydrozoa Amphipoda Gastropoda Ephemeroptera

  9. Zooplankton

  10. Zooplankton • Schindler trap 0.5 m ~1.5 ft 1.0 m ~3 ft 2.0 m ~6 ft

  11. Zooplankton • Wisconsin-style plankton net (Sites B, C) • Whole water column

  12. Figure 2. Total estimated density of organisms per liter for entire water body from Schindler trap. Samples were taken from Lucas Pond on Oct. 9, 2013. Latah Co. Idaho, USA.

  13. Figure 3. Total estimated density of organisms per liter for entire water body from Schindler trap, emphasizing the ratio of Ceriodaphnia to other Cladocera species. Samples were taken from Lucas Pond on Oct. 9, 2013. Latah Co. Idaho, USA.

  14. Figure 4. Density per liter of Cladocera spp. (left) and Copepodaspp. (right) at depth of sample from Schindler Trapping. No data were collected at Site A at 2 m due to sediment disturbance. Standard error is shown for comparison. Samples were taken from Lucas Pond on Oct. 9, 2013. Latah Co. Idaho, USA. Figure 5. Total estimated density per liter of Cladocera spp. and Copepodaspp. from Wisconsin plankton net samples. No data were collected from Site A due to sediment disturbance. Standard error is shown for comparison. Samples were taken from Lucas Pond on Oct. 9, 2013. Latah Co. Idaho, USA.

  15. Figure 6. Density of organisms as a percentage of total density in the water body from Schindler trap samples. Samples were taken from Lucas Pond on Oct. 9, 2013. Latah Co. Idaho, USA.

  16. Suggestions

  17. Factors conducive to fish production • Ground water input • Consistent water levels • High dissolved oxygen • Size of pond economically manageable

  18. Areas for improvement • Littoral structure • Few aquatic plants • Grass carp • Little fish food • Low phosphorous concentration • Low productivity (chlorophyll a)

  19. Suggestions • Enhance littoral structure • Rooted aquatic plants • Reduce grass carp • Plantings • Add non-biotic structure • Increase productivity • Fertilize with phosphorus • Introduce prey fish • Monitor progress

More Related