Limnological Analysis of Blue Lake

1. Limnological Analysis of Blue Lake Prepared by: Bryce Oldemeyer, Adrienne Roumasset, BenVaage and Ryan Johnson

2. Blue Lake, Idaho • Kettle Origin (Wetzel, 2001) • Rainbow Trout and Bullhead • “Bottomless” • Dimictic • Stratifies • Turns over twice a year Google Earth

3. Trophic Levels in Blue Lake Bullhead Trout Zooplankton Phytoplankton

4. Goals of Zooplankton Sampling • Determine zooplankton abundance and distribution in Blue Lake. • Make inferences about data concerning: • Status of the lake • Foraging of fish • Trophic cascade

5. Methods • Overview • Measure photic zone using Secchi disk. • Sample zooplankton at four points on the lake. • At each point, sample above and below photic zone. • PHOTIC ZONE:Upper depths of lake where light can penetrate and facilitate plant growth. (Wetzel, 2001)

6. Littoral Zone: Shallow zone, emergent macrophytes can grow Pelagic Zone: Deeper zone, free open water Transects and Sampling Locations on East Side of Blue Lake

7. EQUIPMENT Secchi disk: Measures photic zone Schindler trap: Collects zooplankton at discrete depths Plankton net: Collects integrated samples

8. Results of Chlorophyll-A in Blue Lake • Four sites sampled in replicates of 3, and the average [Chla] was 4.43µg/L. And a range of 2.7-6.7 µg/L.

9. Results of Total Phosphorus in Blue Lake • Excluding outliers, average [TP] for Blue Lake was 12.45 µg/L. And a range of 10-41µg/L.

10. Zooplankton Observed calanoid Ceriodaphnia cyclopoid www.google.com/images www.google.com/images www.google.com/images

11. Results of Pelagic Zooplankton -Two transects sampled in triplicates in both the photic and aphotic zone. Transect 1 Transect 2

12. Results of Pelagic Zooplankton • Overall, aphotic zone yielded fewer zooplankton counts. Transect 1 Transect 2

13. Results of Littoral Zooplankton • Sampled two transects in triplicates. Transect 1 Transect 2

14. Results for Blue Lake Zooplankton -Average zooplankton for both transects in photic zone was 103/L -Aphotic zone average was 49/L -Littoral zone was 36 zooplankton/L. Transect 1 Transect 2

15. Discussion: Macrophyte Removal Benefits Costs • Remove macrophytes for a more aesthetically pleasing pond. • Possibly better swimming waters. • Absence of macrophytes reduces cover for large zooplankton (Wetzel, 2001). • Increase phytoplankton numbers, due to lack of grazing (Wetzel, 2001). • Macrophytes shade phytoplankton, especially lilies.

16. Macrophyte Management Suggestion • Removing macrophytes may make Blue Lake less “blue”. • Still large amounts of organic sediment and steep gradient. • Leave macrophytes, increase large zooplankton populations, increase quality of fish, and keep water quality constant.

17. Fishery Management • Relatively low nutrients * Following classifications given in Wetzel, 2001 • Increasing fish abundance • Potential resource strain

18. Results of Resource Strain • Stunted growth in fish (Kohler, and Hubert, 1999) • Decreased quality of fish (Kohler, and Hubert, 1999) • Altered zooplankton composition (Brooks, and Dodson, 1965) • Increase in phytoplankton (Timms, & Moss, 1984) RBT and Bullhead (-)“Large” Z.P. (+) “Small” Z.P. (+) Phytoplankton

19. Zooplankton concerns • Selective predatory pressure creates favorable conditions for smaller zooplankton. • Smaller zooplankton consume less phytoplankton than larger zooplankton (Wetzel, 2001) • Ultimately increases phytoplankton abundance RBT and Bullhead (-)“Large” Z.P. (+) “Small” Z.P. (+) Phytoplankton

20. “Green” water • Large abundance of phytoplankton cause “green” water (Wetzel, 2001) • Large ZP can help control phytoplankton (Timms, & Moss, 1984) www.google.com/images

21. Management Suggestion • Bullhead and RBT removal • Catch and Keep • A rainbow trout of 220 mm tends to feed upon zooplankton ranging from 1.2 mm to 2.4 mm (Haddix et al, 2005). • Reducing number of trout will increase larger zooplankton in Blue Lake • Remaining trout will have more available forage and will be healthier • Larger zooplankton will become more abundant. • Reduces chances of “green water” RBT and Bullhead (-)“Large” Z.P. (+) “Small” Z.P. (+) Phytoplankton

22. Results of Removal Remove RBT and Bullhead Increased large ZP Increased phytoplankton consumption Increased H20 clarity and decrease “green” H20 possibility Decrease Intra and Inter species competition Increased fish forage Better Quality Fish

23. Recommended Actions • Catch and Keep! • Begin removing all fish caught • As time progresses, primarily target smaller fish • Occasionally keep larger fish www.google.com/images

24. References • Kohler, C. and Hubert, W. (1999). Inland fisheries management in north america, 2nd edition. Maryland: American Fisheries Society. • Wetzel, Robert. (2001). Limnology, Third Edition: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic Press. • Haddix, Tyler, P. Budy, R. Schneidervin (2005). Zooplankton size selection relative to gill raker spacing in rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 1228-1235. • Kohler, C. and Hubert, W. (1999). Inland fisheries management in north america, 2nd edition. Maryland: American Fisheries Society. • Brooks, J, & Dodson, S. (1965). Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 85, 835 • Timms, R, & Moss, b. (1984). Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton populations by zooplankton grazing, in the presence of zooplanktivorous fish, in a shallow wetland ecosystem. Limnology and Oceanography, 29(3), 472-486 .