Lake Erie Monitoring

Justin ChaffinStone Laboratory and Ohio Sea Grant

The Ohio State University

WLEB Leadership Team MeetingJune 11, 2014

Groups monitoring the western basin

All groups collect water sample to determine water quality of Lake Erie and to gain a better

understanding of how the system works.

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA NearshoreUSGS Sandusky

ODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

Water Collection Methods

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA Nearshore(most samples)

USGS SanduskyODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

1 meter, pooled

Mid depth, pooled

1 meter above bottom, pooled

Surface to2x Secchi depth

Surface to1 meter above sediments

(up to 8 meter)

Surface to 2 meter

Sampling equipment

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA NearshoreUSGS Sandusky

ODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

Van Dorn Sampler Integrated Tube Samplers

Photo Credit: Justin Chaffin

The study of limnology (inland waters) began in late 1800s. The methods used by researchers reflected the needs of

certain projects or sampling equipment available. Scientists independently created monitoring projects using their

“favorite” water sampling method. Thus, there is no standard method for collecting a water sample.

Why the different methods?

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA Nearshore(most samples)

USGS SanduskyODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

Sampling methods pros and cons

USGS SanduskyODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

Pros: Represents most of the water column.Easier than tube sampler.

Cons: Misses surface scum.Need equal volumes of each sample

Pros: Best represents entire water column.

Cons: Bulky samplers in deep water. Scums diluted.

Pros: Easy

Cons: Over estimates surface scum compared to water column.

Pros: “photic zone”

Cons: Samples differ among sites.Composition point differs among phytoplankton.Dependent on sunlight.Turbid waters resultin a shallow sample.

OEPA Nearshore(most samples)

Sampling Frequency

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA NearshoreUSGS Sandusky

ODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

One a month Every-other weekGrid sample Jun& Sept

Every-other weekEvent-based

Every-other weekEvent-based

Water Quality Analyzes

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA NearshoreUSGS Sandusky

ODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

TP,Chlorophyll aDRP (SRP),Nitrate,Microcystin,Phytoplankton

TP,Chlorophyll aPhytoplankton

TP,Chlorophyll aDRP (SRP),TDP,Nitrate,Nitrite,Silicate,Ammonium,Total Kjeldahl N,Microcystin**,Phytoplankton,Microcystis biovolume

TP,Chlorophyll aDRP (SRP),Nitrate,Microcystin,Phytoplankton

*Different analysis methods** UT does not regularly measure Microcystin

Total Phosphorus (TP) a measure of lake productivity potential.Chlorophyll a is a surrogate of phytoplankton biomass

Water Quality Analyzes

LAKE BOTTOM OR THERMOCLINE

OEPA NearshoreUSGS Sandusky

ODNR

Univ ToledoUSGS Ann ArborOSU Stone Lab

FishingCharter

Boats

TP,Chlorophyll a*DRP (SRP),Nitrate,Microcystin,Phytoplankton

TP,Chlorophyll a*Phytoplankton

TP,Chlorophyll a*DRP (SRP),Nitrate,Microcystin,Phytoplankton

*Different analysis methods

TP,Chlorophyll a*DRP (SRP),TDP,Nitrate,Nitrite,Urea, TDN,Ammonium,Total Kjeldahl N,Silicate,Total SS, NVSS,Microcystin,Phytoplankton,Microcystis biovolume

A Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling Approach for Comparing Water Quality Measurements from

Different Sources

• Song Qian and Thomas Bridgeman– University of Toledo

• Other team members:– OSU Stone Lab, USGS, Univ. Michigan, Ohio EPA, Ohio

DNR, Heidelberg University• Funded by University of Michigan Water Center,

Graham Sustainability Institute• Ohio EPA provided funding in 2013 & 2014• Ohio Sea Grant/ Stone Lab REU program