1. Sierra Cantrell, Ron Irvin, Elizabeth Ng, John Tjaden University of Idaho Limnology Fall 2013 Biological Assessment of Lucas Pond

2. Outline Objectives Methods Data Suggestions

3. Objectives What kinds of organisms? How many? Qualitative habitat assessment Can (more) fish be supported? What steps are needed?

4. Methods Shoreline (littoral) Macroinvertebrates Sample surface of sediment Open water (pelagic) Zooplankton Discrete samples Integrated samples

5. A B C 1 2 3

6. Littoral Zone D-ring kick net Three sites Area about 0.5 m 2 (3 ft 2 ) Transect parallel to shore

7. Macroinvertebrates

8. Hydrozoa Gastropoda Plecoptera Amphipoda Ephemeroptera Odonata Diptera Oligochaeta Coleoptera

9. Zooplankton

10. Schindler trap 0.5 m ~1.5 ft 1.0 m ~3 ft 2.0 m ~6 ft

11. Zooplankton Wisconsin-style plankton net (Sites B, C) Whole water column

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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. 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.

15. 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.

16. Suggestions

17. Factors conducive to fish production Ground water input Consistent water levels High dissolved oxygen Size of pond economically manageable

18. Areas for improvement Littoral structure Few aquatic plants Grass carp Little fish food Low phosphorous concentration Low productivity (chlorophyll a)

19. 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