Sierra Cantrell, Ron Irvin, Elizabeth Ng, John TjadenUniversity of Idaho Limnology

Fall 2013

Biological Assessment of Lucas Pond

Outline•Objectives•Methods•Data•Suggestions

Objectives•What kinds of organisms?•How many?•Qualitative habitat assessment•Can (more) fish be supported?

•What steps are needed?

Methods•Shoreline (littoral)

•Macroinvertebrates•Sample surface of sediment

•Open water (pelagic)•Zooplankton•Discrete samples•Integrated samples

A

B

C

1

2

3

Littoral Zone•D-ring kick net

•Three sites•Area about 0.5 m2 (3 ft2)

Transect parallel to shore

Macroinvertebrates

0

100

200

300

400

500

600Site 3 Site 2 Site 1

Num

ber/m

2

2287 ± 3338

Hydrozo

a Gastropod

aPlecopter

a Amphipod

a Ephemeroptera

Odonat

aDiptera

Oligochaeta

Coleoptera

Zooplankton

Zooplankton•Schindler trap

0.5 m~1.5 ft

1.0 m~3 ft

2.0 m~6 ft

Zooplankton

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

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.

Cladocera Copepoda Diptera Cnideria0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Order

Num

ber p

er li

ter

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.

Cladocera (Ceri-odaphnia)

Copepoda Diptera Cnideria0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800N

umbe

r pe

r lite

r

Other Cladocera spp.(24.5% of Cladocera species.)

Cla

doce

ra sp

p.

Cla

doce

ra sp

p.

Cop

epod

a sp

p.

Cop

epod

a sp

p.

Site B Site C Site B Site C

0

100

200

300

Order

Ave

rage

abu

ndan

ce o

f zo

opla

nkto

n pe

r lit

er

Figure 5. Total estimated density per liter of Cladocera spp. and Copepoda spp. 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.

0.5 m

1 m

2 m

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Site B Site A

Density - (Number per Liter)D

epth

(met

ers)

Cladocera spp.

0.5 m

1 m

2 m

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Site B Site A

Density - (Number per Liter)

Dep

th (m

eter

s)

Copepoda spp.

Figure 4. Density per liter of Cladocera spp. (left) and Copepoda spp. (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.

Other Cladocera15%

Cladocera (Ceriodaphnia)47%

Copepoda36%

Diptera1%

Cnideria1%

Other Cladocera Cladocera (Ceriodaphnia) CopepodaDiptera Cnideria

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.

Suggestions

Factors conducive to fish production•Ground water input

•Consistent water levels•High dissolved oxygen•Size of pond economically manageable

Areas for improvement•Littoral structure

•Few aquatic plants•Grass carp

•Little fish food•Low phosphorous concentration

•Low productivity (chlorophyll a)

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