1 / 23

Benthic Analysis of Ingle's Pond: Shallow vs. Deep Water Comparison

This study compares benthic invertebrate populations in shallow and deep water areas of Ingle's Pond, analyzing sediment type, organic material, and species diversity. Results show differences in taxa distribution and organic content. Conclusions highlight implications for fish populations. Acknowledgments, references, and data analysis methods are detailed.

lizina
Download Presentation

Benthic Analysis of Ingle's Pond: Shallow vs. Deep Water Comparison

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Benthic Analysis: Mr. Ingle’s Pond X Group Tarah Johnson McClure Tosch Stephen Wells Lance Keller

  2. Overview • Objectives • Study Area • Materials & Methods • Results • Conclusions • Summary

  3. Objectives Shallow Water vs. Deep Water • Sediment Type • Organic material • Benthic invertebrate population

  4. Study Area • Deep: 9’2” • Shallow: 3’ 5”

  5. Methods • Assessment was split into two parts: • Benthic sampling for macro invertebrates • Eckman Dredge • 15 cm x 15 cm • Weight sampling for sediment loading and organic concentration • KB corer • 2 inches in diameter

  6. Methods • Both assessments were taken in triplicate totaling 6 samples each • Deep • 3 Eckman Dredge samples • 3 Core samples • Shallow • 3 Eckman Dredge samples • 3 Core samples

  7. Methods: Eckman Samples • Sieved on site • Biota preserved with formalin • Transported to lab for analysis

  8. Methods: Eckman Samples • Filtered to wash off formalin • 80 micrometer (μm) sieve • Large samples • Sub-sampled when needed • Observed under dissecting scope • Counted and identified to family • T-test and an ANOVA • Difference in count and composition

  9. Methods: Core Samples • Core samples were sectioned on site • 2cm sub-sample to 10cm • Wet weight • Crucible weight (zeroed out) • Crucible + sediment sample

  10. Methods: Core Samples • Oven Dry Weight • 24 hours at 150° C • Organic Weight • Furnace: 3 hours at 500° C • T-test and an ANOVA • difference in composition between shallow and deep samples.

  11. Results: Profiles

  12. Results: Eckman Samples

  13. Greater Diversity in shallow samples Shallow samples were more even distributed Shallow samples had more taxa Results: Eckman Samples

  14. Results: Eckman Samples • Major Taxa Found - Chaoboridae - Chironomus • Minor Taxa Found - Ceratopogonidae - Oligochaeta

  15. Results: Core Samples

  16. Results: Core Samples

  17. Results: Core Samples • There was no difference in moisture content • There was a difference in percent organic • The sediment is mainly composed of silt

  18. Conclusions • Fish feed on Chaoboridae and Chironomus larvae (Sweetman 2006). • Chironomus larvae suggest highly eutrophic pond (Saether 1979) • Chaoboridae larvae specifically Chaoborus migrate vertically to avoid predation (Sweetman 2006).

  19. Conclusions • The percent water content suggests a silt/clay sediment • Dr. McDaniel concluded the sediment was mostly silt • The difference in percent organic might be from differences in Chaoboridae numbers.

  20. Summary • The high Chaoboridae and Chironomus populations are good fish food but might not be available to eat. • There is a difference in organic soil content between deep and shallow probably due to Chaoboridae pop. • There was no difference in sediment loads between the shallow and deep end of the lake.

  21. Acknowledgments • Mr. Ingle • Picture Credits • iodeweb5.vliz.be/.../AndersonBook/SampEquip.htm • Dr. Wilhelm • Other Credits • X Group Bathometric Group • X Group Light and Temperature Profiles

  22. References • Jon N. Sweetman, a, and John P. SmolaReconstructing fish populations using Chaoborus (Diptera: Chaoboridae) remains – a review Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory (PEARL), Department of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., Canada K7L 3N6 • Saether, O.A. 1979. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. – Holarct Ecol. 2: 65-74

  23. Questions?

More Related