Slide 1

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