US Long-Term Ecological Research Network

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Pelagic Prey - Sonar Data 2001 - current

Abstract
Total pelagic fish abundance data were collected annually in mid-summer using sonar along a set of transects in each of eight lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, Trout, Mendota, Monona, and Fish), from 1981-1999, and in Lakes Monona and Fish from 1995-1999. This data is not available online (contact gahler@wisc.edu). No data was collected in 2000.

In 2001, collection resumed on Crystal, Sparkling, and Trout. In 2005, collection resumed on Lake Mendota. This data is included in this dataset as CSV files. The data represent lake-wide density estimates for abundant pelagic prey species in each lake. The sampling on each lake was conducted in depths greater than 5 meters to avoid hazards to equipment. In addition, because of the near field acoustic effects, the upper 2 meters of the water column is not represented in the data. Although they were rare, large targets representing predatory species were excluded from the density estimation for pelagic prey species using the proportion of large targets identified during single target analysis on each lake. Densities for Sparkling, Crystal and Mendota are for the entire basin of each lake. The data shown for Trout Lake represent densities in only the south basin. Number of sites: 4
Core Areas
Dataset ID
115
Date Range
-
LTER Keywords
Maintenance
ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
Sonar Sampling Protocol and Data Generation From 1981-1994, pelagic fish abundance data were collected along a set of transects in each of six lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, Trout, Mendota) using a Simrad 70 khz EY-M echosounder. The transducer was attached to a 4 aluminum towbody suspended in front of the boat and deployed at a speed of approximately 3-4 knots. Transects were run on two nights and two days in late summer in each year such that they intersected the deepest portions of each lake. The returning acoustic signal was recorded on audio tape (until ~ 1989) or DAT tapes (from ~ 1989-1994), as well as on paper charts. The recorded signal was analyzed with the deconvolution program developed by C.S. Clay (Rudstam et al. 1987, Stanton and Clay 1986, Jacobson et al. 1990) and with the HADAS post processing package by Torfinn Lindem (Lindem 1993, Rudstam et al. 1988) to estimate fish densities, by size, for each discrete depth in the lake. Most of the information collected from 1981 to 1989 was collected without recording the gain setting on the audio tapes and some tapes were recorded with too low gain resulting in too high signal to noise ratios. This made post processing difficult, however some data could be recovered by using the target strength of the dominant fish species to scale the recordings. Lars Rudstam analyzed data prior to 1989 using target strength estimated from fish caught in gillnets to calibrate the sonar information. Data and information was published on Trout Lake for 1983 and 1985 (Jacobson et al. 1990), Trout and Muskellunge Lakes for 1981 (Rudstam et al. 1987), on Mendota for 1981 to 1989 (Rudstam et al. 1993) and expanded to 1991 in DeStasio et al. (1995). For Crystal Lake, Rudstam generated data from 1981-1988 while Hrabik analyzed information from 1989-1995 (Sanderson et al. 1999). In 1995, the Simrad EY-M echosounder ceased to work reliably. In 1996, the LTER project purchased an HTI Model 241 echosounder with a 120 kHz split beam configuration. This echosounder was deployed in the manner described above on (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, Trout, Mendota, Monona, and Fish Lakes). Ecoscape post-processing software, produced by HTI, was used to post-process data. Data were archived in the output format from HTI sounder software v. 1.0 and raw acoustic signals were stored on digital audio tapes. Prior to post processing of all HTI data, however, the computer containing the Ecoscape software ceased to work. No computer was purchased to replace it and the analysis, in 1998-9, also ceased. However, all the raw acoustic information is archived on digital audio tapes and processed on the HTI sounder software output files. After the laptop that operated the HTI system failed, there were no funds offered to replace it. No information was collected in 2000 because there was no laptop. Thus, there have been two major changes in analysis methods over time. The first was a change in single beam methods from the C.S. Clays deconvolution method to T. Lindems HADAS system. Rudstam et al (1988) found the two methods comparable. The second change involved switching from single beam analysis to split beam, from a 70kHz frequency to 120kHz and from Simrad to HTI and later Biosonics. Rudstam et al. (1999a) compared the single beam HADAS analysis using 70kHz (Simrad EYorM, HADAS analysis), split beam 70kHz (Simrad EY500, EP500 analysis) and split beam 120 kHz (Simrad EY500, EP500 analysis) for rainbow smelt in Lake Erie. Differences in density estimates and average target strengths were not large although there was a bias in the HADAS approach to single beam derived average target strength of 0.8dB (Rudstam et al. 1999a). Rudstam et al (1999b) reviewed the single beam methods in general and Mason and Schaner (2001) has compared data from the Biosonics, Simrad, and HTI units for smelt in Lake Champlain. From 2001-2003, sonar data was collected on Trout, Sparkling and Crystal Lakes using a Biosonics DT-6000 Echosounder with a 120kHz split beam transducer (T. Hrabik). Post-processing was performed using Echoview (SonarData Inc.) analysis software. In 2004, a Biosonics DT-X echosounder with a 70 kHz split beam transducer was used on Trout and Sparkling Lakes (T. Hrabik). No information was collected on Crystal Lake (the generator made too much noise in 2003 and caused a response from Law Enforcement). The information collected by Hrabik between 2001 and 2004 is currently being analyzed to generate aggregated lake-wide and 200 m transect-level fish size and density estimates (which can be converted into biomass and biomass by species using gillnet information) as well as transect-level data stratified at a 1m vertical depth resolution.Data Correction:December 2013: an error was detected for data from Sparkling Lake for the year 2004. Erroneous data have been replaced with corrected data in the metadata version 10 and data version v3.January 2014: an error was detected for data from Trout Lake for the year 2012. Erroneous data have been replaced with corrected data in the medatadata version 11 and data version v4. Literature cited DeStasio, B. J., L. G. Rudstam, A. Haning, P. Soranno, and Y. Allen. 1995. An in situ test of the effects of food quality on Daphnia population growth. Hydrobiologia 307:221-230. Jacobson, P. T., C.S. Clay, and J.J. Magnuson. 1990. Size, distribution, and abundance of pelagic fish by deconvolution of single beam acoustic data. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 189:304-311. Lindem, T. 1983. Successes with conventional in situ determination of fish target strength. FAO Fish. Rep. 300:104-111. Lindem, T. 1990. Hydro acoustic data acquisition system HADAS. Instruction manual. Lindem data acquisition Lda, Oslo. Lindem, T., and D. A. Houari. 1988. Hydro acoustic data acquisition system HADAS. mimoegraphed report. Lindeman, R. L. 1942. The trophic dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:157-176. Mason, D. M., and T. Schaner. 2001. Final report to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commisison for the acoustics intercalibration exercise in 1999. Rudstam, L. G., C. S. Clay, and J. J. Magnuson. 1987. Density and size estimates of cisco, Coregonus artedii using analysis of echo peak a single transducer sonar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:811-821. Rudstam, L. G., S. Hansson, T. Lindem, and D. W. Einhouse. 1999. Comparison of target strength distributions and fish densities obtained with split and single beam echo sounders. Fisheries Research 42:207-214. Rudstam, L. G., T. Lindem, and S. Hansson. 1988. Density and in situ target strength of herring and sprat: a comparison between two methods of analyzing single beam sonar data. Fisheries Research 6:305-315. Rudstam, L. G., T. Lindem, and G. LaBar. 1999. The single beam analysis. Pages 6-13 in E. Ona, editor. Methodology for target strength measurements (with special reference to in situ techniques for fish and micronekton). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Sanderson, B. L., T. R. Hrabik, et al. 1999. Cyclic dynamics of a yellow perch (Perca flavescens) population in an oligotrophic lake: evidence for the role of intraspecific interactions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1534-42. Stanton, T. K., and C. S. Clay. 1986. Sonar echo statistics as a remote-sensing tool: volume and seafloor. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering OE-11:79-96.
Short Name
NTLFI04
Version Number
32

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Fish Abundance 1981 - current

Abstract
This data set is a derived data set based on fish catch data. Data are collected annually to enable us to track the fish assemblages of eleven primary lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, Trout, bog lakes 27-02 [Crystal Bog] and 12-15 [Trout Bog], Mendota, Monona, Wingra and Fish). Sampling on Lakes Monona, Wingra, and Fish started in 1995; sampling on other lakes started in 1981. Sampling is done at six littoral zone sites per lake with seine, minnow or crayfish traps, and fyke nets; a boat-mounted electrofishing system samples three littoral transects. Vertically hung gill nets are used to obtain two pelagic samples per lake from the deepest point. A trammel net samples across the thermocline at two sites per lake. In the bog lakes only fyke nets and minnow traps are deployed. Parameters measured include species-level identification and lengths for all fish caught, and weight and scale samples from a subset. Derived data sets include species richness, catch per unit effort, and size distribution by species, lake, and year. Dominant species vary from lake to lake. Perch, rockbass, and bluegill are common, with walleye, large and smallmouth bass, northern pike and muskellunge as major piscivores. Cisco have been present in the pelagic waters of four lakes, and the exotic species, rainbow smelt, is present in two. The bog lakes contain mudminnows. Protocol used to generate data: Day seines were only used in 1981 and have been eliminated from this data set to make sampling effort across years comparable. Number caught for each species is summed over repetitions of a gear within a lake and over depth. The absence of a species in a given lake/year indicates none were caught and the catch per unit effort is zero. For information on fish stocking by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resouces in LTER lakes in Dane and Vilas counties, see http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/wdnr_biology/Public_Stocking/StateMapHotspotsAllYears.htm.
The only sampling done in 2020 were a single gill-netting replicate in Sparkling, Crystal, and Trout lakes.
Sampling Frequency: annually. Number of sites: 11.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
7
Date Range
-
Maintenance
ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
SAMPLING SITES The same sampling sites are used each year. All sampling occurs between the 3rd week of July and Labor Day. Lakes are generally sampled in the following order: Allequash, Crystal, Big Muskellunge, Sparkling, Crystal Bog, Trout Bog, Trout, Wingra, Fish, Monona, Mendota. Sites for fyke nets, trammel nets and night seining sites were chosen by random process in 1981 for the Northern Highland State Forest lakes (Trout, Big Muskellunge, Allequash, Crystal, Sparkling). Sites for Lake Mendota were chosen in 1981, and for the other Madison lakes (Monona, Fish, and Wingra) in 1995. In 1998, all the Northern Highland lake sampling sites were recorded and archived as GPS coordinates. In 1999, all the Madison lake sites were recorded and archived as GPS sites. Prior to 1998 and 1999, fyke and trammel net sites were found each year by reference to lake maps, local landmarks, and stake locations. Gill nets are placed near the deep-hole, which is marked by a buoy (on most lakes) and/or GPS coordinates. In the bog lakes (Trout Bog and Crystal Bog), which are sampled with only fyke nets and minnow traps, there are no fixed sites; nets are placed equal distances apart around the entire circumference of the lake in approximately the same locations each year. NIGHT SEINING Night seining is conducted to achieve relative abundances of small fish species such as minnows, darters, sculpin, and young gamefish species on a yearly basis. Seining is most effective on small fish at night, due to reduced net avoidance, and is one of the most effective methods of catching small fish species. The seine used is 12.2 m long by 1.2 m deep, consisting of two 5.5 x 1.2 m wings surrounding a 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 m central bag. The wings are made of 6.4 mm stretch measure knitted delta-strength nylon mesh, and the bag is of 3.2 mm delta strength nylon mesh. The entire net is tarred. The two wings and the opening to the bag have weighted foot ropes and buoyed head ropes. The seine is pulled via two PVC or steel poles on either end of the seine. Prior to 1997, seine sites consisted of 100 meters of shoreline. This was subdivided into 3 seine hauls, each covering 33 meters. Stakes were placed to mark the beginning and end of each haul, with the first stake lettered A and the fourth (final) stake lettered D. In 1997, seine hauls were reduced to 2 hauls of 33m each. The final 34m of the 100m site (stakes C-D) is now used as an alternate seine site in the event of difficulty (snag, twisted net) in one of the first two hauls. Our convention is that the first haul (identified as "site number -1") is the one segment at the left end of the site, as one faces the site from the lake. The day crew working the lake will have marked the location of these stakes using green 12-hour chemical light sticks. There are 6 seine sites per lake for a total of 18 hauls per lake prior to 1997; starting in 1997, there are 12 hauls per lake. The seine crew approaches the site from the lake by boat in such a way as not to pass over the area to be seined. The seine is deployed using as little light as possible. An 8m length of rope is tied between the poles as a guide for the maximum spread of the seine. Two people, working 8 meters apart when possible, pull the seine on a course parallel to the shore line. The outside or deep person should be 8m from the shallow person (max rope length) or as deep as they can be without overtopping their waders (just below chest height). The inside or shallow person keeps as close to shore as possible without steeping onto dry land. When the shallow person is about 8 meters from the end of the haul heorshe moves very slowly, allowing the deep person to swing around toward the chemical light stick; both seiners should reach the light at the same time. The seine is quickly landed by crossing the poles and drawing the lead line together. The lead line is kept on the lake bottom while the wings are drawn in. When the bag reaches the poles it is picked up by the 4 corners. Fish are collected from the bag and processed before the crew goes on to the next haul. TRAMMEL NET The trammel net is used to sample fish species present near the bottom at the thermoclineorsubstrate interface. This area is utilized by a number of fish species, and is an important area of the lake due to the large change in temperature in a relatively short distance. As in the terrestrial environment, the thermocline acts as an ecotone and several fish species which require very different physical environments may exist in relatively close proximity. So achieving yearly fish abundances in this habitat is also important in determining long term trends in fish abundances. The trammel net used is 30.5 m long and 1.1 m deep. It consists of two outer nets of 170 mm square 32 kg test mesh multifilament nylon with an inner panel of 51 mm stretch mesh 9 kg test multifilament nylon. The three nets are connected at the leaded foot line and the buoyed head rope. The trammel net is set on the bottom, along a line perpendicular to the shoreline and crossing the thermocline. This can generally be accomplished by setting the shallow end in about 3 meters of water, and running the net out perpendicular to shore. Fish are picked out of the trammel net as it is brought back into the boat. The trammel net is set by the day crew at two sites in each lake, and fished for approximately 24 hours at each site. FYKE NETS Fyke netting is a very common method of sampling a wide size range of fishes which use littoral zone habitat. At different times of the day andoror season, many different fish species utilize the littoral zone area for feeding, digesting, and mating purposes. Sampling the abundances of fish species in this area, thus, is also very important in determining yearly changes in fish abundances. To monitor yearly changes in littoral fish abundances, fyke nets are deployed at six sampling sites in all 11 LTER study lakes. A separate set of three fyke nets of similar dimensions are used for the Northern Highland lakes and the Madison lakes. For the Northern Higland lakes, each fyke net is approximately 12 m long and consists of two rectangular steel frames 90 cm wide by 75 cm high and 4 steel hoops, all covered by 7 mm delta stretch mesh nylon netting. An 8 m long by 1.25 m deep leader net made of 7 mm delta stretch mesh nylon netting is attached to a center bar of the first rectangular frame (net mouth). The second rectangular frame has two 10 cm wide by 70 cm high openings, one on each side of the frame s center bar. The four hoops follow the second frame. Throats 10 cm in diameter are located between the second and third hoops. The net ends in a bag with a 20.4 cm opening at the end, which is tied shut while the net is fishing. New nets of the same dimensions were purchased for the Northern Highland lakes in 2000. Fyke nets for the Madison lakes are 10 m long (including lead) with 1 rectangular aluminum frame followed by 2 aluminum hoops. The aluminum frame has the dimensions 98 cm wide x 82 cm tall, and is constructed of 2.5 cm tubing, with an additional center vertical bar. The hoops are 60 cm in diameter and constructed of 5 mm diameter aluminum rod. The single net funnel is between the first and second hoops and is 20 cm in diameter. The lead is 8 m long and 1.25m deep, constructed from 7mm delta stretch mesh. Each fyke net is set in shallow water perpendicular to shore such that the net mouth is covered by about 1 meter of water when possible. When the net is properly set, the lead is perpendicular to shore, vertical and not twisted, the mouth of the net is upright and facing shore, and all the hoops are upright. When the net is pulled in, the hoops and frames are gathered together and lifted into the boat. The net is positioned over a live well with the net mouth upward. One frame at a time is lifted and any fish present are shaken down into the next chamber, until all the fish are in the bag, which is emptied into the live well. Three fyke net sites are set per day (for two days), each with a single net in the middle of a 100m site, for a total of 6 fyke net sites per lake. Due to the soft bottom, and small size of the bog lakes, minnow traps and fyke nets are the only gear used to sample the fish community of these systems. The fyke nets are suspended by placing floats at the apex of each hoop, and on the top of the opening frames. This is done to prevent the nets from sinking into the soft sediments at the bottom of the bogs. CRAYFISH AND MINNOW TRAPS There have been introductions of exotic crayfish species in recent years into many north temperate lakes. Monitoring yearly abundances of crayfish species is important in determining the status and extent of the invasions. Crayfish traps are set on all lakes except the bog lakes (Crystal Bog and Trout Bog). Minnow traps are set only on the bog lakes. Prior to 1998, five traps were set at each fyke net site. Starting in 1998, three traps are set per site. Thus, prior to 1998, thirty traps were set on each lake (covering 6 sites.) As of 1998, 18 traps are set on each lake. Minnow traps and crayfish traps are set in shallow water (approx 1 m), 2 traps on one side, and 1 trap on the other side of the fyke net lead. Minnow traps are baited with 1 slice of bread per trap to attract minnows inhabiting the bogs. Crayfish traps are baited with 120 g of liver. Traps are fished for approximately 24 hours . Crayfish are identified to species and returned to the lake. Minnows caught in either the crayfish or minnow traps are identified to species, measured for total length. Minnow traps used are galvanized steel two piece traps, 44.5 cm long by 30.5 cm maximum diameter with 2.5 cm diameter openings at the ends. The mesh size is 6.4 mm on a side. Crayfish traps are identical, but the opening hole of both sides of the trap has been forced to 5 to 7 cm. GILL NETS In most lakes, there are species of fish which inhabit the pelagic (open water) zone. These fish species can have a large impact on lake ecosystem dynamics when they occur in abundance. To monitor yearly changes in the abundance of pelagic fish species, we sample the deep basin of eight of the LTER lakes with vertical gill nets. Our gill nets are a set of 7 nets, each in a different mesh size, hung vertically from foam rollers, and chained together in a line. Each net is 4 m wide and 33 m long. From 1981 through 1990 the nets were multifilament mesh, in stretched mesh sizes of 19, 25, 32, 38, 51, 64, and 89 mm. In 1991, the multifilament nets were replaced with monofilament nets of the same sizes. One side of the net is marked in meters from top to bottom. Stretcher bars have been installed at 10 meter intervals from the bottom to keep the net as rectangular as possible when deployed. The bottom end is weighted with a lead pipe to quicken the placement of the net and to maintain the position of the net on the bottom. Gill nets are set at the deepest point of all LTER lakes except Crystal Bog, Trout Bog, and Fish Lake. The nets are set for two consecutive 24 hour sets. The nets are set in a straight line, each connected to the next, and anchored at each end of the line. Once the nets are in position, they are unrolled until the bottom end reaches the bottom, and then tied off to prevent further unrolling. The nets are pulled by placing each net onto a pair of brackets attached to the side of the boat and rolling the net back onto its float; the fish are picked out as the net is brought up, placed in tubs according to depth. The fish are processed when the net is completely rolled up and before it is redeployed. ELECTROFISHING We use a boom style electrofishing system to sample the littoral zone fish community. Prior to 1997, four electrofishing transects were done on each lake. In 1997, the number of transects was reduced to 3. The same transects are used each year. Each transect consists of 30 minutes of current output, with the boat moving parallel to shore in 1-2 meters of water at a slow steady speed. We use the DC pulse system, with 240 volts at 3-5 amps. Two crew members in the bow of the boat dip up all stunned fish, placing them in the live well for processing at the end of each transect. Transect lengths vary depending upon the size of the lake. If the end of a transect is reached before 30 minutes has elpased, time is paused while the electrofisher loops back to the start of the transect. The transect is then repeated for the remaining time. In 1999, dip nets were standardized to 10 foot poles attached to 18in. x 20in. tear drop shaped hoops. The nets are made of 7 mm stretch mesh. PROCESSING THE CATCH For all collecting methods, the fish are processed as follows. Each individual fish is identified to species. If it cannot be positively identified, after it is processed, it is preserved in 10percent buffered formalin or 95percent ethanol for later identification. The total length of the fish (measured from nose to end of caudal fins pinched together) is measured in mm. Prior to 1997, the weight (g) of the first 5 fish of each species in each 10 mm size category was also measured, using the appropriate Pesola spring balance (fish weight registering in the middle range of scale). A tally sheet was used to record how many fish in each size category had been measured. Starting in 1997, 2 fish are weighed for each fish species in each 5mm size category. Also in 1997, data recording switched to an electronic system which tallied measured fish. For yellow perch, rock bass, and cisco, a scale sample is collected from each weighed fish. This is removed from the left side of the fish, above the lateral line and below the origin of the dorsal fin. Scale samples are stored in scale envelopes and labeled with a unique ID number, the date the scale was taken, a lake ID number, the species code, land length and weight. For gill net catches, the depth at which each individual is caught is also recorded. Fish from all gear (except gillnets) are held in live wells during processing. Fish are sorted by species into buckets, processed as quickly as possible, and returned to the lake. Fish from the gillnets are very rarely alive. If alive, they are usually badly damaged when the nets are raised. PROTOCOL CHANGES</p>1995 Resumed sampling Lake Mendota with full suite of sampling gear 1995 Began sampling Lakes Wingra, Monona, and Fish 1997 Two fish are weighed for each fish species in each 5mm size category. Previously, five fish were weighed for each fish species in each 10mm size category 1997 Data recording switched from manual field sheets to an electronic system 1997 Changed from 4 to 3 electrofishing runs per lake 1997 Changed from 18 to 12 seine hauls per lake 1998 Changed from 30 to 18 crayfish or minnow traps per lake 2004 Discontinued crayfish or minnow traps on southern lakes 2015 The sampling lake order was changed for the northern lakes. Trout Lake, which was formerly sampled first, is now last due to the presence of spiny water flea. 2016 The sampling lake order was changed for the southern lakes. Fish Lake is sampled first and Mendota last to avoid bringing invasive species to Fish Lake. Winga had generally been the first since 1995.</p>DATA MODIFICATIONS</p>Prior to 2018, gill net data had been standardized to a 24-hour sampling period. This is no longer the case, and catch numbers for all years have been recomputed to reflect the number of fish actually caught.</p>2018-01-18: Species names ('spname') added in 2012 had space characters appended to the end of the name. These spaces have been removed. The occasional appearance throughout the data set of species name 'SUNFISH' and 'LARVALSUNFISH' have all been changed to 'UNIDSUNFISH'.</p>&nbsp;</p>
Short Name
NTLFI02
Version Number
40

Little Rock Lake Experiment at North Temperate Lakes LTER: Zooplankton count 1983 - 2000

Abstract
The Little Rock Acidification Experiment was a joint project involving the USEPA (Duluth Lab), University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, University of Wisconsin-Superior, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Little Rock Lake is a bi-lobed lake in Vilas County, Wisconsin, USA. In 1983 the lake was divided in half by an impermeable curtain and from 1984-1989 the northern basin of the lake was acidified with sulfuric acid in three two-year stages. The target pHs for 1984-5, 1986-7, and 1988-9 were 5.7, 5.2, and 4.7, respectively. Starting in 1990 the lake was allowed to recover naturally with the curtain still in place. Data were collected through 2000. The main objective was to understand the population, community, and ecosystem responses to whole-lake acidification. Funding for this project was provided by the USEPA and NSF. Zooplankton samples are collected from the treatment and reference basins of Little Rock Lake at at two to nine depths using a 30L Schindler Patalas trap (53um mesh). Zooplankton samples are preserved in buffered formalin and archived. Data are summed over sex and stage and integrated volumetrically over the water column to provide a lake-wide estimate of organisms per liter for each species. Sampling Frequency: varies - Number of sites: 2
Core Areas
Dataset ID
251
Date Range
-
LTER Keywords
Maintenance
completed
Metadata Provider
Methods
We collect zooplankton samples at the deepest part of the lake using two different gear types. We take one vertical tow with a Wisconsin Net (80um mesh), and a series of Schindler Patalas (53um mesh) samples spanning the water column. All samples are preserved in cold 95percent EtOH. After collection we combine subsamples of the individual Schindler Patalas trap samples to create one hypsometrically pooled sample for each lakeordate. The individual depth samples are discarded after pooling except from one August sampling date per year. The Hypsometrically Pooled sample and the Wisconsin Net sample are archived in the UW Zoology museum. We count zooplankton in one or two subsamples, each representing 1.8L of lake water, of the hypsometrically pooled samples to calculate zooplankton abundance. We count one sample date per month from the open water season, and the February ice cover sample. We identify individuals to genus or species, take length measurements, and count eggs and embryos. Protocol log: 1981-May1984 -- a 0.5m high, 31L Schindler Patalas trap with 80um mesh net was used. Two Wisconsin Net tows were collected. Preservative was 12percent buffered formalin. June1984 -- changed to 53um mesh net on Schindler trap. July1986 -- began using the 2m high, 45L Schindler Patalas trap. Changed WI Net collection to take only one tow. 2001 -- changed zooplankton preservative from 12percent buffered formalin to 95percent EtOH. The number of sample dates per year counted varies with lake and year, from 5 datesoryear to 17 datesoryear. 1981-1983 -- pooled samples are of several types: Total Pooled (TP) were created using equal volume subsamples of the Schindler samples. Epi, Meta, Hypo pooled used equal volume subsamples from the Schindler samples collected from each of the thermal strata. Strata Pooled used equal volume subsamples from the Epi, Meta, Hypo pooled samples to create an entire lake sample. Hypsometrically Pooled (HP) is our standard, which uses subsample volumes weighted to represent the hypsometry of the lake.
Short Name
LRZOOP1
Version Number
3

Lake Wingra: Fish Abundance

Abstract
Data are collected annually to enable us to track the fish assemblages of Lake Wingra. Sampling is done at six littoral zone sites per lake with a beach seine, minnow or crayfish traps, and fyke nets, while a boat-mounted electrofishing system samples four littoral transects. Vertically hung gill nets are used to obtain two pelagic samples per lake from the deepest point. A trammel net samples across the thermocline at two nearshore sites per lake. Fish are identified to species. Lengths are measured for all fish caught, while weight and scale are collected from a subset. Derived data include catch per unit effort and size distribution by species, lake, and year. Protocol used to generate data: Gill net data have been standardized to a 24-hour sampling period. Assumptions used in the standardization are available from the investigators. Number caught for each species is summed over repetitions of a gear within a lake and over depth Sampling Frequency: annually. Number of sites: 1. Note that 2020 data does not exist due to insufficient sampling.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
182
Date Range
-
Maintenance
ongoing
Metadata Provider
Short Name
FOLWFI02
Version Number
18

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Zooplankton - Madison Lakes Area 1997 - current

Abstract
Zooplankton samples for the 4 southern Wisconsin LTER lakes (Mendota, Monona, Wingra, Fish) have been collected for analysis by LTER since 1995 (1996 Wingra, Fish) when the southern Wisconsin lakes were added to the North Temperate Lakes LTER project. Samples are collected as a vertical tow using an 80-micron mesh conical net with a 30-cm diameter opening (net mouth: net length ratio = 1:3) consistent with sampling conducted by the Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources in prior years. Zooplankton tows are taken in the deep hole region of each lake at the same time and location as other limnological sampling; zooplankton samples are preserved in 70% ethanol for later processing. Samples are usually collected with standard tow depths on most dates (e.g., 20 meters for Lake Mendota) but not always, so tow depth is recorded as a variate in the database. Crustacean species are identified and counted for Mendota and Monona and body lengths are recorded for a portion of each species identified (see data protocol for counting procedure); samples for Wingra and Fish lakes are archived but not routinely counted. Numerical densities for Mendota and Monona zooplankton samples are reported in the database as number or organisms per square meter without correcting for net efficiency. [Net efficiency varies from a maximum of about 70% under clear water conditions; net efficiency declines when algal blooms are dense (Lathrop, R.C. 1998. Water clarity responses to phosphorus and Daphnia in Lake Mendota. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.)] Organism densities in number per cubic meter can be obtained by dividing the reported square-meter density by the tow depth, although adjustments for the oxygenated depth zone during the summer and early fall stratified season is required to obtain realistic zooplankton volumetric densities in the lake's surface waters. Biomass densities can be calculated using literature formulas for converting organism body lengths reported in the database to body masses. Sampling Frequency: bi-weekly during ice-free season from late March or early April through early September, then every 4 weeks through late November; sampling is conducted usually once during the winter (depending on ice conditions). Number of sites: 4 Note: for a period between approximately 2011 and 2015, a calculation error caused density values to be significantly greater than they should have been for the entire dataset. That issue has been corrected.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
90
Date Range
-
Maintenance
ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
We collect zooplankton samples at the deepest part of the lake using two different gear types. We take one vertical tow with a Wisconsin Net (80um mesh), and a series of Schindler Patalas (53um mesh) samples spanning the water column. All samples are preserved in cold 95percent EtOH.After collection we combine subsamples of the individual Schindler Patalas trap samples to create one hypsometrically pooled sample for each lakeordate. The individual depth samples are discarded after pooling except from one August sampling date per year. The Hypsometrically Pooled sample and the Wisconsin Net sample are archived in the UW Zoology museum.We count zooplankton in one or two subsamples, each representing 1.8L of lake water, of the hypsometrically pooled samples to calculate zooplankton abundance. We count one sample date per month from the open water season, and the February ice cover sample. We identify individuals to genus or species, take length measurements, and count eggs and embryos.Protocol log: 1981-May1984 -- a 0.5m high, 31L Schindler Patalas trap with 80um mesh net was used. Two Wisconsin Net tows were collected. Preservative was 12percent buffered formalin.June1984 -- changed to 53um mesh net on Schindler trap.July1986 -- began using the 2m high, 45L Schindler Patalas trap. Changed WI Net collection to take only one tow.2001 -- changed zooplankton preservative from 12percent buffered formalin to 95percent EtOH.The number of sample dates per year counted varies with lake and year, from 5 datesoryear to 17 datesoryear.1981-1983 -- pooled samples are of several types: Total Pooled (TP) were created using equal volume subsamples of the Schindler samples. Epi, Meta, Hypo pooled used equal volume subsamples from the Schindler samples collected from each of the thermal strata. Strata Pooled used equal volume subsamples from the Epi, Meta, Hypo pooled samples to create an entire lake sample. Hypsometrically Pooled (HP) is our standard, which uses subsample volumes weighted to represent the hypsometry of the lake.
Short Name
NTLPL06
Version Number
31

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Zooplankton - Trout Lake Area 1982 - current

Abstract
Zooplankton samples are collected from the seven primary northern lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, and Trout lakes and bog lakes 27-02 [Crystal Bog], and 12-15 [Trout Bog]) at two to nine depths using a 2m long Schindler Patalas trap (53um mesh) and with vertical tows using a Wisconsin net (20cm diameter, 80um mesh). Zooplankton samples are preserved in buffered formalin (until 2001) or 95% ethanol (2001 onwards). Subsamples of the individual Schindler trap samples are combined to create a hypsometrically pooled sample which is counted for copepods, cladocerans, and rotifers. Data are summed over sex and stage to provide a lake-wide estimate of organisms per liter for each species. A minimum of 5 samples per lake-year are counted. The data set also contains length measurements for copepods and cladocerans. The Wisconsin net sample and the pooled sample are archived in the UW Zoology museum. Each year one complete set of Schindler Patalas depth samples collected in August is also archived. From 1981 to August 1986 - used a 0.5m high Schindler Patalas trap. Sampling Frequency: every two weeks during ice-free season, every 5 weeks during ice-cover. Number of sites: 7
Core Areas
Dataset ID
37
Date Range
-
Maintenance
ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
Schindler-Patalas trap samples are collected with a 2-meter high, 45L Schindler-Patalas trap with 53um mesh net at the deepest part of the lake. Samples are collected from specified target depths to include most or all of the water column, every two weeks during open water and every five weeks during ice cover. In addition, a vertical tow taken with an 80um mesh Wisconsin net is collected from the same location. Samples are preserved in the field with cold 95 percent EtOH.
For zooplankton counting, a hypsometrically pooled sample is created from subsamples of the individual Schindler Patalas samples. Subsample volumes are calculated using the hypsometric data for each lake, so that each subsample volume is proportional to the volume of lake water represented by the trap sample. A portion of the pooled sample is counted for copepods, cladocerans, and rotifers, identifying individuals to species or genus. All eggs are counted and length measurements are taken on copepods and cladocerans. Taxonomic resolution: A genus-only designation may mean a different species than the otherwise named species in that lake, or it may mean that the person counting only identified it to genus in that sample. Within one sample (same lake and date) it may be assumed that a genus only individual is a different species than other SameGenus/Named species in that count.
All records from 1981-1989 were modified in March 2015 to correct an error in how density had been calculated. Density values in many cases are significantly reduced. The table that was corrected in this case is dbmaker.zoop_all_density. Density values are modified from the original to final tables as they are summed or averaged over other variables (sample depth, replicate, and sex stage). The final table, where this website extracts density from, is dbmaker.zoop_allnl_summary_snap. Records after 1989 were already valid and did not require any modification.
Short Name
NTLPL03
Version Number
37

Wisconsin Lake Plants - multi source database of lake plant abundance 1930 - 2004

Abstract
This data set provides sampling-point by sampling-point macrophyte data for lakes sampled by a number of agencies in Wisconsin. The relational tables in this dataset were originally used to generate plant community tables. This dataset contains detailed and recent data from approximately the 1970s onward. Sampling timing and intensity varied. Table DATSOUR contains sources of data for tables AQUAPLT2 and LAKEHAB. Table AQUAPLT2 gives an estimate of plant density at each sample point. Table MAXDEPLNG has initial lake parameters derived from data in AQUAPLT2 and LAKEHAB Table LAKEHAB contains habitat characteristics at macrophyte sampling locations. Table PLTNAME has species information for plants in tables AQUAPLT2 and LAKESPEC. Table LAKES contains information for lakes included in this dataset. Table COUNTY contains information associated with the counties where the lakes in the AQUAPLT2 dataset and the LAKESPEC dataset are located. . Sampling Frequency: varies Number of sites: 1938
Core Areas
Dataset ID
61
Date Range
-
Maintenance
completed
Metadata Provider
Methods
This data set provides sampling-point by sampling-point macrophyte data for lakes sampled by a number of agencies in Wisconsin. Sampling timing and intensity varied. An estimate of plant density is given at each point and water depth and substrate information is available for many sampling points. The AQUAPLT2, DATSOUR, MAXDEPLNG, PLTNAME, and LAKEHAB tables are relational and were original used in a database to generate plant community tables. These relational tables contain more detailed and recent data from approximately the 1970s onwardThe LAKESPEC table contains analyzed plant community data that may have been generated from the above tables or gleaned from the literature. The LAKESPEC data contains some historical data from the 1930s and before as well as more recent data. More information on the LAKESPEC data is in Nichols, S.A. and R. A. Martin, 1990. Wisconsin Lake Plant Database. Information Circular 69, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison, 27 ppVilas County lakes were sampled from 2001-2004 (approximately 15 different lakes each year).
Short Name
SNAQ2
Version Number
4
Subscribe to abundance