crooked lake plot study 2011
DESCRIPTION
A small Lake research project to determine what would grow if Eurasian water milfoil was not present.TRANSCRIPT
Potential for Native Aquatic Plant Growth after Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil
2011 Crooked Lake Plot Study
James A. Johnson, M.S.
Lake Scientist
Freshwater Scientific Services, LLC
2011 Crooked Lake Plot Study2011 Crooked Lake Plot Study
James A. Johnson, M.S.
Lake Scientist
Freshwater Scientific Services, LLC
LakeUse
WaterQuality
PollutionFromLand
AquaticPlants
NutrientsFish
2011 Plot Study
• Establish 6 study plots (early June)
• Remove Eurasian milfoil from plots
• Assess aquatic plant growth (late Aug)
Questions• What native plants will grow?
Questions3. Will the abundance and diversity of
native plants be sufficient to protect water clarity and provide fish habitat?
Questions3. Will these native plants slow the
reestablishment of Eurasian milfoil?
Average Water Depth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
De
pth
(in
ch
es
)
1. Water Depth
2. Types of plants
3. Plant Height
4. % Coverage
Results• What types of plants
Results• What types of plants
Coontail
Results• What types of plants
Coontail
Muskgrass
Results• What types of plants
Coontail
Muskgrass
Illinois Pondweed
Results• What types of plants
Coontail
Muskgrass
Illinois Pondweed
Sago Pondweed
Results• What types of plants
Coontail
Muskgrass
Illinois Pondweed
Sago Pondweed
Bushy Pondweed
Results2. How common was each type of plant?
- % Occurrence
4 ÷ 9 = 44%
Results - % Occurrence
Eurasian Watermilfoil
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6Plot
% O
cc
urr
en
ce
Coontail
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% O
cc
urr
en
ce
Muskgrass
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% O
cc
urr
en
ce
Illinois Pondweed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% O
cc
urr
en
ce
Sago Pondweed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot%
Oc
cu
rre
nc
e
Bushy Pondweed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% O
cc
urr
en
ce
Eurasian Watermilfoil
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6Plot
% O
cc
urr
en
ce
Results2. How densely did each type of plant
grow?
% Cover
Plant Height
Water Depth
Biovolume
Results - % Cover
Eurasian Watermilfoil
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Ave
rag
e %
Co
ve
r
Coontail
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Avera
ge %
Co
ver
Muskgrass
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Averag
e %
Co
ver
Sago Pondweed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Av
era
ge
% C
ov
er
Illinois Pondweed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Av
era
ge
% C
ov
er
Bushy Pondweed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Ave
rag
e %
Co
ve
r
Eurasian Watermilfoil
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Av
era
ge
% C
ov
er
Results - Plant Height
Eurasian Watermilfoil
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
De
pth
/Pla
nt
He
igh
t (i
nch
es)
Coontail
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
De
pth
/Pla
nt
He
igh
t (i
nch
es)
Muskgrass
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
De
pth
/Pla
nt
Heig
ht
(in
ch
es)
Sago Pondweed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
De
pth
/Pla
nt
He
igh
t (i
nch
es)
Illinois Pondweed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
De
pth
/Pla
nt
He
igh
t (i
nch
es)
Bushy Pondweed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
Dep
th/P
lan
t H
eig
ht
(inch
es)
Results - % Biovolume
Eurasian Watermilfoil
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6Plot
% o
f W
ate
r V
olu
me
Coontail
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f W
ate
r V
olu
me
Muskgrass
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f W
ate
r V
olu
me
Illinois Pondweed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f W
ate
r V
olu
me
Sago Pondweed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f W
ate
r V
olu
me
Bushy Pondweed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f W
ate
r V
olu
me
Coontail
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f Wat
er V
olum
e
Muskgrass
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Plot
% o
f W
ater
Vo
lum
e
Summary of Findings• Treatments reduced milfoil
• Regrowth of milfoil fragments in untreated plots
• Coontail and Muskgrass dominant- dense, persistent “carpet”
• Taller plant species also fairly common - should provide quality habitat for fish
• Natural recruitment likely
Full Report Available for Download at…