DOCSLIB.ORG

UMISC Conference Duluth, MN October 20-22, 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UMISC Conference Duluth, MN October 20-22, 2014 Michelle Nault, Wisconsin DNR Science Services John Skogerboe, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired) Herbicide Monitoring What: Collect data on herbicide concentration and exposure times under varying operational conditions Purpose: To provide recommendations for improving control of invasive aquatic plants and minimizing damage to native plants Outputs: Scientific evaluation of herbicide treatments Nault et al. 2014. Whole-lake 2,4-D for EWM Control. Lake & Res 30:1-10 Nault et al. 2012. NALMS LakeLine 32(1):19-24 Large Scale Treatment Factsheet (PUB-SS-1077 2011) CET Experiments Indoor Growth Chambers Outdoor Mesocosm Tanks • Wide range of herbicide concentrations and exposure times (CET) • Replicated studies • Species sensitivity 2,4-D Concentration/Exposure Time Small-Scale ‘High’ dose Green & Westerdahl, 1990 Short exposure JAPM 28:27-32 2.0 1.5 ae ppm 1.0 Large-Scale ‘Low’ dose 0.5 Long exposure Recommended 2,4-D label rate: 2.0 – 4.0 ppm (Hours) 1.0 ppm = 1.0 mg/L = 1000 ppb Herbicide Exposure Time • Dissipation: horizontal and vertical movement of herbicide within the water column – Treatment area relative to lake – Wind – Water flow – Water depth • Degradation: physical breakdown of herbicide into inert components – Microbial – Photolytic Lakewide Horizontal Dissipation SouthSouth TwinTwin Lake,Lake, 20102010 Mean Treated 2,4-D Herbicide Residuals 2500 2,4-D Herbicide Concentrations Mean Untreated Lakewide Target Irrigation Limit ) 2000 Lae / µg ( 1500 1000 Concentration 500 0 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 Days after treatment Lakewide Vertical Dissipation Mixed Lake Stratified Lake Lakewide Vertical Dissipation ForestForest Lake, Lake 2,4 2,4-D-D Herbicide Herbicide Concentrations Residuals 350 5 ft 300 10 ft 15 ft 250 20 ft 25 ft 200 Target Conc. 150 100 Concentration (µg/L ae) (µg/L Concentration 50 0 0 7 14 21 28 35 Days after treatment Survey Methods Herbicide Water Sample Collection Immunoassay Test (ELISA) Aquatic Plant Surveys – Hauxwell et. al 2010 Large-Scale Milfoil Control 100 Grass Wilson South Twin '10 Tomahawk Deep Pine 90 Big Sand Sandbar '11 Sandbar '13 Kathan 80 70 EWM Forest '11 60 Forest '12 HWM 50 South Twin '09 English '10 Round 40 Frog Golden George Silver Milfoil Control (%) Control Milfoil 30 20 English '12 10 Marion Millpond 0 Langford 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Mean 2,4-D Concentration 0-7 DAT (ppm) Watermilfoil DNA Analysis LaRue et al. 2014 Zuelling & Thum, 2012 Large-Scale Milfoil Control 100 Grass Wilson South Twin '10 Tomahawk Deep Pine 90 Big Sand Sandbar '11 ??? Sandbar '13 High level of milfoil Kathan control 80 Focus Seasonal area Damage to natives 70 milfoil control EWM Damage to Forest '11 60 Forest '12 HWM No control some natives 50 South Twin '09 English '10 Round 40 Frog Golden George Silver Milfoil Control (%) Control Milfoil 30 20 English '12 10 Marion Millpond 0 Langford 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Mean 2,4-D Concentration 0-7 DAT (ppm) Pre/Post Native Species * = negative 2,4-D Whole Lake Treatments + = positive Scientific Name, Common Name Group Sandbar Tomahawk Frog Kathan S. Twin '09 S. Twin '10 Berry Wilson Myriophyllum spicatum , Eurasian water milfoil Dicot *** *** n.s. *** *** *** *** *** Bidens beckii , Water marigold Dicot - <5% - - *** *** - - Brasenia scherberi , Watershield Dicot - <5% - n.s. - - n.s. <5% Ceratophyllum demersum , Coontail Dicot <5% <5% - n.s. n.s. n.s. <5% *** Chara spp., Muskgrasses Macroalgae n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. *** n.s. n.s. * Eleocharis acicularis , Needle spikerush Monocot n.s. <5% - <5% n.s. n.s. <5% <5% Elodea canadensis , Common waterweed Monocot n.s. *** - n.s. n.s. *** <5% n.s. Heteranthera dubia , Water star grass Monocot - <5% - - *** * - - Myriophyllum tenellum , Dwarf watermilfoil Dicot n.s. <5% - - <5% - <5% - Myriophyllum sibiricum, Northern watermilfoil Dicot - <5% - <5% *** *** ** <5% Najas flexilis , Bushy pondweed Monocot ** *** *** *** n.s. *** * * Nitella spp., Stoneworts Macroalgae n.s. *** - *** <5% <5% <5% n.s. Nymphaea odorata , White water lily Dicot - <5% <5% n.s. - - <5% n.s. Potamogeton amplifolius , Large-leaf pondweed Monocot n.s. *** n.s. n.s. <5% <5% n.s. n.s. Potamogeton epihydrus , Ribbon-leaf pondweed Monocot - - - *** - - - <5% Potamogeton foliosus , Leafy pondweed Monocot - - * - - - - - Potamogeton friesii, Fries' pondweed Monocot - - - - ** <5% - - Potamogeton gramineus , Variable leaf pondweed Monocot * n.s. <5% <5% n.s. * n.s. - Potamogeton pusillus , Small pondweed Monocot *** *** n.s. *** * *** <5% ** Potamogeton richardsonii, Clasping-leaf pondweed Monocot <5% - - <5% + n.s. - - Potamogeton robbinsii , Robbins pondweed Monocot n.s. * - - n.s. n.s. n.s. *** Potamogeton strictifolius , Stiff pondweed Monocot - - *** *** <5% <5% <5% - Potamogeton zosteriformis , Flat-stem pondweed Monocot - - n.s. + n.s. *** <5% *** Stuckenia pectinata , Sago pondweed Monocot - - n.s. - - - <5% - Utricularia minor , Small bladderwort Dicot - - - * - - - - Vallisneria americana , Wild celery Monocot *** *** <5% + *** + + * Native spp. Significant Decrease (FOO > 5%) 4 7 3 6 7 8 2 7 Native spp. Significant Increase (FOO > 5%) 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 Net Native spp. Loss/Gain -4 -7 -3 -4 -6 -7 -1 -7 Macrophyte Community Tomahawk Sandbar Tomahawk Sandbar Nault et al., 2014. Lake & Res. 30:1-10 Tomahawk/Sandbar Nault et al., 2014. Lake & Res. 30:1-10 2,4-D Herbicide Monitoring Nault et al., 2014. Lake & Res. 30:1-10 What variables affect herbicide degradation rates? Half-life = 36 days Half-life = 6 days Lake type? Water chem (pH, cond, TSI)? Water temp? Treatment history? 2,4-D Concentration/Exposure Time Small-Scale ‘High’ dose Green & Westerdahl, 1990 Short exposure JAPM 28:27-32 2.0 1.5 ae ppm 1.0 0.5 Recommended 2,4-D label rate: 2.0 – 4.0 ppm (Hours) 1.0 ppm = 1.0 mg/L = 1000 ppb Preliminary Findings • Recommended 2,4-D label concentrations (2.0-4.0 ppm) may not be applicable for whole lake or large scale chemical treatments • Treating multiple ‘small’ areas of a lake can result in a whole lake treatment if the scale of the treatment area is large compared to the overall lake volume • EWM control looks promising, however short-term damage to certain native species may occur and long-term effects on biotic and abiotic parameters is uncertain • Further exploration of hybrid milfoil populations is needed • Small scale treatments undergo rapid dissipation and efficacy is less predictable • Herbicide monitoring is important, both to understand treatment efficacy, as well as ecological risks DISCUSSION [email protected] 608-221-6359.
Recommended publications
  • Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report Spotted Pondweed

    Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report Spotted Pondweed

    Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report on Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher Tuckerm.) prepared for Nova Scotia Species at Risk Working Group by David Mazerolle and Sean Blaney Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre P.O. Box 6416, Sackville, NB E4L 1C6 DRAFT Funding provided by Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Submitted December 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................i WILDLIFE SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE...........................................1 Name and Classification............................................................................................1 Morphological Description ........................................................................................2 Field identification......................................................................................................3 Designatable Units .....................................................................................................4 Special Significance...................................................................................................5 DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................................7 Global Range ..............................................................................................................7 Canadian Range .........................................................................................................8
  • Pearl Lake, Waushara County Point Intercept Aquatic Plant Survey August 5 Th & 14 Th, 2019

    Pearl Lake, Waushara County Point Intercept Aquatic Plant Survey August 5 Th & 14 Th, 2019

    Pearl Lake, Waushara County Point Intercept Aquatic Plant Survey August 5 th & 14 th, 2019 Mr. Volden, Golden Sands Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc (RC&D) completed a Point Intercept Aquatic Plant Survey (PI survey) on Pearl Lake on August 5 th & 14 th, 2019. The survey was requested by the Pearl Lake Protection & Rehabilitation District. PI surveys capture the plant community and the density of any invasive species, like Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM). This monitoring data can be used to show progress over time and used by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources staff to understand what type of management is needed for EWM. Benefits of Aquatic Plants Aquatic plants are an important part of the state’s wet ecosystems. They produce oxygen and help protect water quality. They help clarify water in wetlands, lakes and rivers by using nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen that might otherwise be used to produce algal blooms. Aquatic plants help reduce wave action and current flow which reduces shoreland erosion and helps stabilize sediments in the waterbody. Perhaps most apparent, plants provide food, shelter and habitat for fish, invertebrates and all sorts of wildlife. Finally, diverse, healthy plant communities can help prevent invasive species from establishing. Invasive species are more likely to become established in disturbed areas. Aquatic Invasive Species Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are plants or animals that are not native to a particular area and dominate an area where they are introduced. They can be very successful because they fill a niche that isn’t occupied, are able to tolerate a wider range of living conditions, they don’t have any natural predators or diseases or perhaps they begin growing earlier.
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska

    Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska

    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps

    Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps

    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
  • Aquatic Invasive Plants Information and Identification Tips

    Aquatic Invasive Plants Information and Identification Tips

    AQUATIC INVASIVE PLANTS INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION TIPS Alberta Lake Management Society PO Box 4283, Edmonton AB T6E 4T3 www.alms.ca INTRODUCTION This document is intended to provide an identification resource for aquatic invasive plants and encourage Alberta lake-users to watch for these species. The importance and issues associated with all aquatic plants are outlined and the implications of infestations of invasive species are discussed. We highlight four invasive aquatic plant species of concern for Alberta lakes: • Hydrilla • Curly-leafed Pondweed • Eurasian Water milfoil • Flowering Rush Detailed information on the plant is included for each species as well as a comparison between the invasive species and a similar species native to Alberta. Major distinguishing characteristics are in blue font while glossary words are underlined. If you believe you have found an invasive aquatic plant in your lake please contact us via www.alms.ca. AQUATIC VEGETATION: BENEFITS AND ISSUES What do aquatic plants do for the lake? Aquatic vegetation has many important functions within an aquatic ecosystem. Many aquatic plants provide food for fish or aquatic invertebrates, and are a key member in the food chain for these ecosystems. Many small aquatic invertebrates feed from and lay their eggs on macrophytes. In addition to food sources, aquatic plants provide shelter for young and small fish from larger predators. They are also used as spawning areas for fish and amphibians. Emergent aquatic plant such as cattails, sedges and rushes improve shoreline stability and reduce shoreline erosion. The presence of these emergent plants as well as submerged varieties, aid improving water clarity due to the binding of roots with the lake’s substrate.
  • Aquatic Macrophyte Survey: Point-Intercept Method Spooner Lake Washburn County, Wisconsin WBIC: 2685200 June/August 2018

    Aquatic Macrophyte Survey: Point-Intercept Method Spooner Lake Washburn County, Wisconsin WBIC: 2685200 June/August 2018

    Aquatic Macrophyte Survey: Point-intercept Method Spooner Lake Washburn County, Wisconsin WBIC: 2685200 June/August 2018 Survey completed by Ecological Integrity Service, Amery Wisconsin Abstract In June and August 2018, a full lake point-intercept aquatic macrophyte survey was conducted on Spooner Lake, Washburn County Wisconsin. The results showed plants growing in 91% of the lake with a mean rake fullness of 1.9 (scale of 0-3). The species richness was 34 native species and 2 non-native species. A Simpson’s Diversity index of 0.91 was calculated. The maximum depth with plants growing was 15.3 feet and a mean depth of plants growing was 5.3 feet. The floristic quality index (FQI) was 33.2. Two non-native invasive species, Potamogeton crispus and Typha angustifolia, were sampled. Two other non-native invasive species, Phalaris arundinacea and Iris pseudacorus, were observed in locations not part of the point intercept grid. Some areas had nuisance level filamentous algae floating on the surface during the August survey. Comparison with previous surveys in 2006 and 2012 using chi-square showed a statistically significant increase in 10 species from 2012 to 2018 and 12 species from 2006 to 2018. There was a statistically significant decrease in one species from 2012 to 2018 and in six species from 2006 to 2018. Spooner Lake Aquatic Macrophyte Survey-2018 Page 2 Introduction In June and August 2018, a full lake aquatic macrophyte survey was conducted using the point intercept (PI) method on Spooner Lake, Washburn County Wisconsin. Spooner Lake has an area of 1162 acres with a maximum depth of 17 feet and a mean depth of seven feet.
  • Pondnet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5)

    Pondnet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5)

    WETLAND PLANTS PondNet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5) Your Name Date Pond name (if known) Square: 4 fig grid reference Pond: 8 fig grid ref e.g. SP1243 e.g. SP 1235 4325 Determiner name (optional) Voucher material (optional) METHOD (complete one survey form per pond) Aim: To assess pond quality and conservation value, by recording wetland plants. How: Identify the outer boundary of the pond. This is the ‘line’ marking the pond’s highest yearly water levels (usually in early spring). It will probably not be the current water level of the pond, but should be evident from wetland vegetation like rushes at the pond’s outer edge, or other clues such as water-line marks on tree trunks or stones. Within the outer boundary, search all the dry and shallow areas of the pond that are accessible. Survey deeper areas with a net or grapnel hook. Record wetland plants found by crossing through the names on this sheet. You don’t need to record terrestrial species. For each species record its approximate abundance as a percentage of the pond’s surface area. Where few plants are present, record as ‘<1%’. If you are not completely confident in your species identification put ’?’ by the species name. If you are really unsure put ‘??’. Enter the results online: www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/waternet/ or send your results to Freshwater Habitats Trust. Aquatic plants (submerged-leaved species) Nitella hyalina (Many-branched Stonewort) Floating-leaved species Apium inundatum (Lesser Marshwort) Nitella mucronata (Pointed Stonewort) Azolla filiculoides (Water Fern) Aponogeton distachyos (Cape-pondweed) Nitella opaca (Dark Stonewort) Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (Frogbit) Cabomba caroliniana (Fanwort) Nitella spanioclema (Few-branched Stonewort) Hydrocotyle ranunculoides (Floating Pennywort) Callitriche sp.
  • White Clay Lake Aquatic Plant Inventory

    White Clay Lake Aquatic Plant Inventory

    White Clay Lake Aquatic Plant Inventory Town of Washington, Shawano County, Wisconsin Funding for this study was provided in part by the Lumberjack RC&D Council, Inc., and the Town of Washington. White Clay Lake Aquatic Plant Inventory Prepared for the Town of Washington by the Shawano County Land Conservation Divison with funding provided through Lumberjack Resource Conservation and Development Council. The Shawano County Land Conservation Division would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ms. Alison Mikulyuk with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in preparing the study. Washington Town Board Members James Schneider, Chairman Daniel Sumnicht, Supervisor Steve Wegner, Supervisor James Mitchell, Clerk Carol Capelle, Treasurer Shawano County Land Conservation Staff Tim Ried, Planning Director Scott Frank, County Conservationist Jon Motquin, AIS Coordinator/Lake Manager Blake Schuebel, Conservation and Land Use Technician Brian Hanson, Land Conservation Technician Ethan Firgens, Aquatic Plant Survey Intern Shawano County Land Conservation Division 311 N. Main Street, Room 3 Shawano, Wisconsin 54166 Phone: (715) 526-6766 Fax: (715) 526-6273 Web: http://www.co.shawano.wi.us/departments/?department=c61420c5769b&subdepartment= c61b4eb2e953 ii iii iv Table of Contents _Toc313445748 Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Aquatic Vegetation Survey ...........................................................................................................10
  • Pickerel Lake Aquatic Plants

    Pickerel Lake Aquatic Plants

    Lake Conservation Notes Northeast Glacial Lakes Watershed Project 600 East Highway 12, Suite 1 Webster, SD 57274 Phone: 605/345-4661 Common Aquatic Plants of Pickerel Lake Aquatic macrophytes (macro = large, phytes = plants) are an essential component of a lakes ecosystem. They provide habitat for aquatic insects and fish, food for invertebrates and wa- terfowl, produce oxygen (essential for all aquatic life), and are an important component of a lakes nutrient cycle. Aquatic plants are classified by how and where they grow. Emergent aquatic plants grow in shallow areas where they are rooted in the water, however a majority of the plant is exposed above the water’s surface. Examples of emergent plants are cattails and bulrush. Floating-leaf plants are rooted in the bottom, have long stems and large leaves that float on the water’s surface. Floating-leaf plants include pond lilies and the large-leaved po- tamogetons. Submersed aquatic plants are found living completely under the water. Examples include coontail and sago pondweed. The following species were found during a survey of Pickerel Lake, August 2020. Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) Coontail continued: Native. The most abundant aquatic plant occurring in Pickerel Lake. Coontail is a submersed plant that can survive in low light allowing the plant to grow in the deeper areas of a lake. Un-rooted plants tend to drift around the lake in large mats of vegetation. The plant has long stems with whorled spiny thin leaves surround- ing the stem. The leaf whorls become quit dense at the end of the branches. Can grow to nuisance levels in lakes with high levels of phosphorus.
  • Aquatic Macrophyte Survey for Lipsett Lake

    Aquatic Macrophyte Survey for Lipsett Lake

    Aquatic Macrophyte Survey for Chetac Lake Sawyer County, Wisconsin WBIC: 2113300 Project Initiated by: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Big Chetac Chain Lake Association and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. * Chetac Lake Survey Conducted by and Report Prepared by: Endangered Resource Services, LLC Matthew S. Berg, Research Biologist St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin Summer 2008 i Page ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………… ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………… iii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….… iv LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..… v INTRODUCTION …..……..………………………………………………………. 1 PLANT SURVEY METHODS………..…………………………………………… 2 DATA ANALYSIS….…………………………………………………………….... 3 RESULTS …………..…………………………………………………………….... 6 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT…..…..……….. 17 LITERATURE CITED……………………….…………………………………….. 21 APPENDICES…….………………………………………………………………... 22 I: Chetac Lake Map with Survey Sample Points………..…….………………… 22 II: Boat Survey Data Sheet ………………………………………………………. 24 III: Vegetative Survey Data Sheet ………………………………………..………. 26 IV: Cold Water Curly-leaf pondweed Survey Map……....……..………..………. 28 V: Habitat Variable Maps.…………………..………….……………………....... 30 VI: Plant Species Accounts ……….…..…………………………………..………. 34 VII: Point Intercept Plant Species Distribution Maps……………………………….. 47 VIII: Glossary of Biological Terms……………..……………………….………….. 89 IX: Aquatic Exotic Invasive Species Information…………..….…………..……… 93 X: Raw Data Spreadsheets…….……………..……………….…………………... 102 ii ABSTRACT Chetac Lake (WBIC 2113300) is a 1,920-acre stratified
  • Factors Known to Control the Distribution and Growth of Lotic Aquatic Ma- Crophytes Include Turbulence, Light, Surface-Water

    Factors Known to Control the Distribution and Growth of Lotic Aquatic Ma- Crophytes Include Turbulence, Light, Surface-Water

    Aquatic Botany, 31 (1988) 1-12 1 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands INTERSTITIAL WATER PATTERNS: A FACTOR INFLUENCING THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF SOME LOTIC AQUATIC VASCULAR MACROPHYTES SHARON L. FORTNER and DAVID S. WHITE ~ Great Lakes Research Division, Program in Water Resource Science and Biological Station, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, M148109 (U.S.A.) (Accepted for publication 15 February 1988) ABSTRACT Fortner, S.L. and White, D.S., 1988. Interstitial water patterns: a factor influencing the distri- butions of some lotic aquatic vascular macrophytes. Aquat. Bot., 31: 1-12. The distributions of 9 species of aquatic vascular macrophytes were examined in relation to interstitial water patterns (based on temperature) in the beds of three northern Michigan (U.S.A.) streams. Ranunculus septentrionalis Poir., Caltha palustris L. and Nasturtium officinale R.Br. were associated with areas of groundwater discharge. Sparganium chlorocarpum Rydb., Veronica catenata Penn., Potamogeton fili/ormis Pers. and P. richardsonii (Benn.) Rydb. occurred most often at the downstream end of a hyporheic zone (corresponding to the foot of a riffle) where interstitial water was of surface origin. Sagittaria lati[olia Willd. occurred where interstitial tem- peratures were cool; the water origin was not determined. Potamogeton gramineus L. occurred most often where interstitial temperatures were warm, primarily at the upstream ends and middles of hyporheic zones (heads of riffles) in areas of surface-water infiltration. Complex patterns of interstitial water movement and related physicochemical complexity combined with differences in plant requirements, in part, may determine observed local distributions. INTRODUCTION Factors known to control the distribution and growth of lotic aquatic ma- crophytes include turbulence, light, surface-water chemistry, surface-water temperature, flow, sediment structure and chemistry, and other biota (Spence, 1967; Peltier and Welch, 1968; Kullberg, 1974; Hutchinson, 1975; Beal 1977; Haslam, 1978).
  • Aquatic Plant Management Plan & Aquatic Invasive

    Aquatic Plant Management Plan & Aquatic Invasive

    1203 Storbeck Drive Waupun, WI 53963 (920) 324-8600 (800) 498-3921 Fax (920) 324-3023 www.northernenvironmental.com AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN & AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION & CONTROL PLAN CROOKED, BASS & GILKEY LAKES OCONTO COUNTY, WISCONSIN January 10, 2007 Prepared for: Crooked Lake Protection & Rehabilitation District PO Box 125 Mountain, WI 54149 Prepared by: Northern Environmental Technologies, Incorporated 1203 Storbeck Drive Waupun, Wisconsin 53963 Project Number: CBG-08-5500-0834 __________________________ ______ __________________________ ______ Crystal J. Koles Marty L. Koopman, PG Project Scientist District Director CJK/msd © 2007 Northern Environmental Technologies, Incorporated Crooked, Bass & Gilkey Lakes-APM & AIS Plan 01/10/2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Lake History and Morphology ........................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Watershed Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Aquatic Plant Management History