1 / 16

B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape , C. Stice , N.S. Penoncello , L. Gauthier

Zooplankton Community Assessment in Baron Pond . B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape , C. Stice , N.S. Penoncello , L. Gauthier. www.ri.net. Introduction. Location Magee Rd. (5.6 miles N.E. of Gennesse ID.) Interest in management and fishery. Objectives.

paulos
Download Presentation

B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape , C. Stice , N.S. Penoncello , L. Gauthier

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. Zooplankton Community Assessment in Baron Pond B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S. Penoncello, L. Gauthier www.ri.net

  2. Introduction • Location • Magee Rd. (5.6 miles N.E. of Gennesse ID.) • Interest in management and fishery

  3. Objectives • Determine the biotic community of Baron Pond. • Determine zooplankton and macro-invertebrate species abundance and distribution • Assess whether zooplankton and macro-invertebrate community is sufficient to support a fishery within the pond www.noaa.gov

  4. Hypotheses • 1: Zooplankton and macro-invertebrate species vary in abundance between the littoral and pelagic areas of the pond. • Ho: There is no difference between littoral and pelagic abundances. • 2: The zooplankton and macro-invertebrate community is sufficient to support a fishery within the pond. • Ho: The community will not be sufficient to support a fishery within the pond.

  5. Methods • Sampled 2 pelagic sites with Wisconsin-style zooplankton tow net (12.5 cm, 80 µm) • Sampled 2 littoral sites with D-net (251.6 cm2, 500 µm). • Samples preserved with formalin (10%) • Counted zooplankton using dissecting microscopes • Analyzed data using Microsoft Excel

  6. Methods: 1 • Two sampling sites • Pelagic zone 1: 1.9 m (6.5 Liters) • Pelagic zone 2: 3.0 m (19.6 Liters) • Obtained triplicate samples • Sampling limitations • Tow length = site depth-net length • Not representative of entire water column • Bias toward surface www.dynamicaqua.com

  7. Study Site Pelagic zone 1 (3 m) Pelagic zone 2 (1.9m)

  8. Methods: 2 • Two littoral sampling sites • 1.5 m from shore • Volume sampled 26,312 L/site • Obtained triplicate samples • Sampling limitations • Shape of net difficult to calculate area of sample --Accuracy www.dynamicaqua.com

  9. Study Site Pelagic zone 1 Littoral zone 2 Pelagic zone 2 Littoral zone 1

  10. Methods: 3 • Pelagic samples condensed using 80 µm mesh • Littoral samples condensed using 500 µm • Samples were preserved in formalin until analysis

  11. Methods: 4 • Samples washed of formalin • Complete pelagic tow counts • Direct enumeration /back calculation • Littoral zone samples counted • Subdivided/ back calculated

  12. Results: Littoral

  13. Results: Pelagic

  14. Results • Statistical analysis compared abundances in littoral vs. pelagic sites • Significantly more Calanoids in pelagic (p-value=.01) • More Chironomids in littoral sample (p-value=.03) • Previous research indicates zooplankton vital to supporting fisheries : • Daphnia • Bosmina

  15. Future Research • Refine sampling methods • Time of year influences estimates • Many invertebrates entering quiescence/diapause by November • Sample size • Schindler trap may reduce bias of pelagic sampling • Seine net may be better for sampling littoral zone

  16. Acknowledgements • Frank M. Wilhelm, Tara Johnson (U of I) • Mike and Beverly Baron (Landowners) www. missouristate.edu

More Related