B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S. Penoncello, L. Gauthier B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S....
If you can't read please download the document
B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S. Penoncello, L. Gauthier B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S. Penoncello, L. Gauthier Zooplankton Community Assessment
B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S. Penoncello, L. Gauthier
B.W. Ho, A. R. Pape, C. Stice, N.S. Penoncello, L. Gauthier
Zooplankton Community Assessment in Baron Pond www.ri.net
Slide 2
Introduction Location Magee Rd. (5.6 miles N.E. of Gennesse
ID.) Interest in management and fishery
Slide 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
Slide 4
Hypotheses 1: Zooplankton and macro-invertebrate species vary
in abundance between the littoral and pelagic areas of the pond. H
o : 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. H o : The community will not
be sufficient to support a fishery within the pond.
Slide 5
Methods 1.Sampled 2 pelagic sites with Wisconsin-style
zooplankton tow net (12.5 cm, 80 m) 2.Sampled 2 littoral sites with
D-net (251.6 cm 2, 500 m). 3.Samples preserved with formalin (10%)
4.Counted zooplankton using dissecting microscopes 5.Analyzed data
using Microsoft Excel
Slide 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
Slide 7
Study Site Pelagic zone 2 (1.9m) Pelagic zone 1 (3 m)
Slide 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
Slide 9
Study Site Littoral zone 2 Littoral zone 1 Pelagic zone 2
Pelagic zone 1
Slide 10
Methods: 3 Pelagic samples condensed using 80 m mesh Littoral
samples condensed using 500 m Samples were preserved in formalin
until analysis
Slide 11
Methods: 4 Samples washed of formalin Complete pelagic tow
counts Direct enumeration /back calculation Littoral zone samples
counted Subdivided/ back calculated
Slide 12
Results: Littoral
Slide 13
Results: Pelagic
Slide 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
Slide 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
Slide 16
Acknowledgements Frank M. Wilhelm, Tara Johnson (U of I) Mike
and Beverly Baron (Landowners) www. missouristate.edu