Methods

One zooplankton sample was collected in June 2015 at the deepest part of each lake, via vertical tow with a Wisconsin net (20cm diameter, 80um mesh). Contents of the net were preserved in the field with cold 95% ethanol. Subsamples of each vertical tow sample were counted for zooplankton species, using enough volume to count at least 300 individuals. A larger volume was then visually scanned to look for presence of additional species not seen in the count volume, until at least 2000 individuals had been seen.

Methods

Fisheries surveys of inland lakes and streams in Wisconsin have been conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) professionals and its predecessor the Wisconsin Conservation Department for >70 y. Standard fyke net and boat electrofishing surveys tend to dominate the fisheries surveys and data collected. Most fyke net data on certain species (e.g., Walleye Sander vitreus and Muskellunge Esox masquinongy) originates from annual spring netting surveys following ice-out. These data are used for abundance estimates, mark and recapture surveys for estimating population sizes, and egg-take procedures for the hatcheries. Boat-mounted boom and mini-boom electrofishing surveys became increasingly common in the late 1950s and 1960s. Boat electrofishing surveys have typically been conducted during early summer months (May and June), but some electrofishing survey data are also collected in early spring as part of walleye and muskellunge mark-recapture surveys. Summer fyke netting surveys have been collected more sporadically over time, but were once more commonly used as a panfish survey methodology. Surveys were largely non-standardized. Thus, future users and statistical comparisons utilizing these data should acknowledge the non-standard nature of their collection. More in-depth description of these data can be found in Rypel, A. et al., 2016. Seventy-Year Retrospective on Size-Structure Changes in the Recreational Fisheries of Wisconsin. Fisheries, 41, pp.230-243. Available at: http://afs.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03632415.2016.1160894

Methods

Samples counted prior to 1996 were assigned one taxon name with all taxonomic information. This taxon name was split into distinct columns of genus, species and description for archival as best possible. Samples from 2013-2015 were sent to Phycotech inc. (http://www.phycotech.com/) to be counted.

Methods

Protocol available in methods section of: http://msphere.asm.org/content/2/3/e00169-17
Prior to collection, water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations are measured using a YSI 550a. The ranges of the epilimnion and hypolimnion are determined based on the location of the thermocline (where temperature/oxygen is changing the fastest). The two layers are collected separately in 1 meter increments using an integrated water column sampler. Water samples are taken back to the lab, shaken thoroughly, and filtered via peristaltic pump through 0.22 micron filters (Pall Supor). Filters are temporarily stored at -20C after collection and then transferred to -80C after transport on dry ice from Trout Lake Station to UW-Madison. Nutrient samples are collected bi-weekly following standard LTER protocols. DNA is extracted from filters using a FASTDNA SpinKit for Soil with minor modifications. (In cases of low yield or specialized sequencing methods, a phenol-chloroform extraction is used instead). The protocol for sequencing and analysis of data varies by year and by sub-project.

Methods

general monitoring for spiny water flea:
The dataset contains collected Bythotrephes longimanus monitoring efforts from 8 invaded lakes in Wisconsin that took place over the course of 2009 through 2014 using a zooplankton net. Monitoring efforts were conducted to 1) obtain more accurate estimates of Bythotrephes densities using a more appropriately sized net (50-cm diameter over 30-cm diameter) and 2) obtain detailed demographic measurements of Bythotrephes morphology and reproduction in each lake. Here only Bythotrephes densities are included.
The majority of samples occurred at a lakes deep hole with a 50-cm diameter and 150-micron mesh zooplankton net. Nets are lowered to 2 m off of the lake bottom before being towed to the surface. Samples are processed in their entirety
Exceptions to this are those at sites containing “LTER” (e.g., site IDs LTER-DH and LTER-MB) in their ID which were samples taken according to the Southern Lakes LTER zooplankton collection protocol with a 30-cm and 83-micron mesh. Other exceptions include sites outside the deep hole of the lake (site ID 5m = 5m lake depth north of the Center for Limnology on Lake Mendota; CFL = 15m lake depth north of the Center for Limnology; DH = deep hole but specific to Lake Mendota; MB = 15m lake depth southwest of Maple Bluffs in Madison on Lake Mendota; MO.5m = a 5m lake depth site in Lake Monona; MO.Y = 5m lake depth site at the mouth of the Yahara River on Lake Monona; TL = 15m lake depth west of Tenney Locks in Madison on Lake Mendota; WS = 15m site in northwestern basin of Lake Mendota, east of Picnic Point; WP = 5m site south of Warner Park on Lake Mendota). Several tows were taken using a 200m oblique (i.e., horizontal) net tow with the 50-cm diameter net (DH-ObliqueTow). Efforts in Southern Wisconsin were led by Jake Walsh while efforts in Northern Wisconsin were led by Carol Warden (site ID = CW), Pam Montz (site ID = PM), Sam Christel (site ID = SC), Sam Oliver (site ID = SM), as well as a researcher with initials (site ID) “EM”.