US Long-Term Ecological Research Network

North Temperate Lakes LTER Long-term winter chemical limnology and days since ice-on for primary study lakes 1983 - 2014

Abstract
This data set integrates long-term data sets on winter nutrient chemistry with ice phenology (number of days since ice-on), focusing on the subset of measurements taken during ice cover. Parameters characterizing limnology of 5 primary lakes (Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, and Trout lakes, are measured at one station in the deepest part of each lake at the surface, middle, and deep (~1 meter above bottom). These parameters include nitrate-N, ammonium-N, total dissolved phosphorus, dissolved inorganic carbon, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen values are the zonal averages from more complete depth profiles. Sampling Frequency: every 6 weeks during ice-covered season for the northern lakes. Number of sites: 5
Dataset ID
341
Date Range
-
Maintenance
completed
Methods
This is a compilation of three data sets

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Chemical Limnology of Primary Study Lakes: Nutrients, pH and Carbon 1981 - current
https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/dataset/north-temperate-lakes-lter-chemical-limnology-primary-study-lakes-nutrients-ph-and-carbon-19

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Physical Limnology of Primary Study Lakes 1981 - current
https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/dataset/north-temperate-lakes-lter-physical-limnology-primary-study-lakes-1981-current

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Ice Duration - Trout Lake Area 1981 - current
https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/dataset/north-temperate-lakes-lter-ice-duration-trout-lake-area-1981-current
Version Number
6

North Temperate Lakes LTER Estimated winter inputs of stream water and groundwater to primary study lakes 1983 - 2014

Abstract
This data set integrates and summarizes daily surface and groundwater inputs to 5 primary study lakes, using model estimates from a data-driven USGS hydrologic model (Hunt et al. 2013; Hunt and Walker 2017), and ice phenology data (number of days since ice-on). The lakes are Allequash, Big Muskellunge, Crystal, Sparkling, and Trout. Powers et al. (2017) used these data to estimate upper and lower bounds for exogenous chemical inputs to the lakes during winter. For a given lake and winter year, cumulative surface water and groundwater inputs were calculated across the ice cover period. For each lake, this data set reports the mean, maximum, and minimum winter water inputs observed across years, in units of water volume, % of average lake volume, and volume per winter day.Sampling Frequency: 1 per lake, with multiple summary values reported (i.e., mean, min, max). Number of sites: 5Hunt, R.J. et al., 2013. Simulation of Climate - Change effects on streamflow, Lake water budgets, and stream temperature using GSFLOW and SNTEMP, Trout Lake Watershed, Wisconsin. USGS Scientific Investigations Report., pp.2013-5159. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258363719_Simulation_of_Climate-Change_Effects_on_Streamflow_Lake_Water_Budgets_and_Stream_Temperature_Using_GSFLOW_and_SNTEMP_Trout_Lake_Watershed_WisconsinHunt, R.J., and Walker, J.F., 2017, GSFLOW groundwater-surface water model 2016 update for the Trout Lake Watershed, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7M32SZ2Powers SM, Labou SG, Baulch HM, Hunt RJ, Lottig NR, Hampton SE, Stanley EH. In press (expected 2017). Ice duration drives winter nitrate accumulation in north temperate lakes. Limnology and Oceanography Letters.
Dataset ID
340
Data Sources
Date Range
-
LTER Keywords
Methods
This dataset is a compilations of:
USGS hydrologic model estimates (Hunt et al. in preparation)
and
North Temperate Lakes LTER: Ice Duration - Trout Lake Area 1981 - current
https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/dataset/north-temperate-lakes-lter-ice-duration-trout-lake-area-1981-current
Version Number
7

WSC 2006 Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in the Yahara Watershed

Abstract
Understanding spatial distributions, synergies and tradeoffs of multiple ecosystem services (benefits people derive from ecosystems) remains challenging. We analyzed the supply of 10 ecosystem services for 2006 across a large urbanizing agricultural watershed in the Upper Midwest of the United States, and asked: (i) Where are areas of high and low supply of individual ecosystem services, and are these areas spatially concordant across services? (ii) Where on the landscape are the strongest tradeoffs and synergies among ecosystem services located? (iii) For ecosystem service pairs that experience tradeoffs, what distinguishes locations that are win win exceptions from other locations? Spatial patterns of high supply for multiple ecosystem services often were not coincident locations where six or more services were produced at high levels (upper 20th percentile) occupied only 3.3 percent of the landscape. Most relationships among ecosystem services were synergies, but tradeoffs occurred between crop production and water quality. Ecosystem services related to water quality and quantity separated into three different groups, indicating that management to sustain freshwater services along with other ecosystem services will not be simple. Despite overall tradeoffs between crop production and water quality, some locations were positive for both, suggesting that tradeoffs are not inevitable everywhere and might be ameliorated in some locations. Overall, we found that different areas of the landscape supplied different suites of ecosystem services, and their lack of spatial concordance suggests the importance of managing over large areas to sustain multiple ecosystem services. <u>Documentation</u>: Refer to the supporting information of the follwing paper for full details on data sources, methods and accuracy assessment: Qiu, Jiangxiao, and Monica G. Turner. &quot;Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed.&quot; <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em> 110.29 (2013): 12149-12154.
Contact
Dataset ID
290
Date Range
-
Maintenance
completed
Metadata Provider
Methods
Each ecosystem service was quantified and mapped by using empirical estimates and spatially explicit model for the terrestrial landscape of the Yahara Watershed for 2006. Crop production (expected annual crop yield, bu per yr) Crop yield was estimated for the four major crop types (corn, soybean, winter wheat and oats) that account for 98.5 percent of the cultivated land in the watershed by overlaying maps of crop types and soil-specific crop yield estimates. The spatial distribution of each crop was obtained from the 2006 Cropland Data Layer (CDL) from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and soil productivity data were extracted from Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. Crop and soil data were converted to 30 m resolution and the two maps were overlain to estimate crop yield in each cell. For each crop-soil combination, crop area was multiplied by the estimated yield per unit area. Estimates for each crop type were summed to map estimated crop yield for 2006. Pasture production (expected annual forage yield, animal-unit-month per year ) As for crop production, forage yield was estimated by overlaying the distribution of all forage crops (alfalfa, hay and pasture/grass) and soil specific yield estimates. The spatial distribution of each forage crop was also derived from 2006 CDL, and rescaled to 30 m grid prior to calculation. The SSURGO soil productivity layer provided estimates of potential annual yield per unit area for each forage crop. Overlay analyses were performed for each forage-soil combination, as done for crops, and summed to obtain the total expected forage yield in the watershed for 2006. Freshwater supply (annual groundwater recharge, cm per year) . Groundwater recharge was quantified and mapped using the modified Thornthwaite-Mather Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) model. SWB is a deterministic, physically based and quasi three-dimensional model that accounts for precipitation, evaporation, interception, surface runoff, soil moisture storage and snowmelt. Groundwater recharge was calculated on a grid cell basis at a daily step with the following mass balance equation<p align="center">Recharge= (precipitation + snowmelt + inflow) &ndash;<p align="center">(interception + outflow + evapotranspiration) &ndash; delta soil moisture<p align="center"> We ran the model for three years (2004 to 2006) at 30m resolution, with the first two years as spin up of antecedent conditions (e.g. soil moisture and snow cover) that influence groundwater recharge for the focal year of 2006. Carbon storage (metric tons<sup> </sup>per ha) We estimated the amount of carbon stored in each 30 m cell in the Yahara Watershed by summing four major carbon pools: aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil carbon and deadwood/litter. Our quantification for each pool was based mainly on carbon estimates from the IPCC tier-I approach and other published field studies of carbon density and was estimated by land-use/cover type.Groundwater quality (probability of groundwater nitrate concentration greater than 3.0 mg per liter, unitless 0 to1) Groundwater nitrate data were obtained from Groundwater Retrieve Network (GRN), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A total of 528 shallow groundwater well (well depth less than the depth from surface to Eau Claire shale) nitrate samples collected in 2006 were used for our study. We performed kriging analysis to interpolate the spatial distribution of the probability of groundwater nitrate concentration greater than 3 mg<sup> </sup>per liter. We mapped the interpolation results at a 30m spatial resolution using Geostatistical Analyst extension in ArcGIS (ESRI). In this map, areas with lower probability values provided more groundwater quality service, and vice versa. Surface water quality (annual phosphorus loading, kg per hectare). We adapted a spatially explicit, scenario-driven modeling tool, Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) to simulate discharge of nonpoint-source phosphorus. A grid cells phosphorus contribution was quantified as a function of water yield index, land use/cover, export coefficient, and downslope retention ability with the following equation:Expx = ALVx * sum of the products from y=x+1 to X for (1-Ey)where ALVx is the adjusted phosphorus export from pixel x , Ey is the filtration efficiency of each downstream pixel y , and X represents phosphorus transport route from where it originated to the downstream water bodies. Filtration efficiency was assigned by cover type: natural vegetation was assigned a high value, semi-natural vegetation an intermediate value, and developed or impervious covers were assigned low values. We ran the model for 2006 and mapped estimated phosphorus loading across the watershed. The ecosystem service of providing high quality surface water was the inverse of phosphorus loading. Therefore, areas with lower phosphorus loading values delivered more surface water quality, and areas with higher phosphorus loading values supplied less surface water quality.Soil retention (annual sediment yield, metric tons per hectare). We quantified annual sediment yield as the (inverse) indicator for soil retention by using the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE). MUSLE is a storm event based model that estimates sediment yield as a function of runoff factor, soil erodibility, geomorphology, land use/cover and land management. Specifically, a grid cells contribution of sediment for a given storm event is calculated as:Sed= 11.8*(Q*q<sub>p</sub>)<sup>0.56</sup> * K * LS * C * Pwhere Sed represents the amount of sediment that is transported downstream network (metric tons), Q is the surface runoff volume (m<sup>3</sup>), q<sub>p </sub>is the peak flow rate (cubic meters per s), K is soil erodibility which is based on organic matter content, soil texture, permeability and profiles, LS is combined slope and steepness factor, and C* P is the product of plant cover and its associated management practice factor. We used the ArcSWAT interface of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to perform all the simulations. We ran this model at a daily time step from 2004 to 2006, with the first two years as spin up , then mapped total sediment yield for 2006 across the watershed. Similar to surface water quality, the ecosystem service of soil retention was the inverse of sediment yield. In this map, areas with lower sediment yield provided more of this service, and areas with higher sediment yield delivered less. Flood regulation (flooding regulation capacity, unitless, 0 to 100) We used the capacity assessment approach to quantify the flood regulation service based on four hydrological parameters: interception, infiltration, surface runoff and peak flow. We first applied the Kinematic Runoff and Erosion (KINEROS) model to derive estimates of three parameters (infiltration, surface runoff and peak flow) for six sampled sub basins in this watershed. KINEROS is an event-oriented, physically based, distribution model that simulates interception, infiltration, surface runoff and erosion at sub-basin scales. In each simulation, a sub basin was first divided into smaller hydrological units. For the given pre-defined storm event, the model then calculated the amount of infiltration, surface runoff and peak flow for each unit. Second, we classified these estimates into 10 discrete capacity classes with range from 0 to 10 (0 indicates no capacity and 10 indicates the highest capacity) and united units with the same capacity values and overlaid with land cover map. Third, we calculated the distribution of all land use/cover classes within every spatial unit (with a particular capacity). We then assigned each land use/cover a capacity parameter based on its dominance (in percentage) within all capacity classes. As a result, every land use/cover was assigned a 0 to 10 capacity value for infiltration, surface runoff and peak flow. This procedure was repeated for six sub basins, and derived capacity values were averaged by cover type. We applied the same procedure to soil data and derived averaged capacity values for each soil type with the same set of three parameters. In addition, we obtained interceptions from published studies for each land use/cover and standardized to the same 0 to 10 range. Finally, the flood regulation capacity (FRC) for each 30m cell was calculated with the equation below:FRC= for each land use and land cover class the sum of (interception + infilitration + runoff + peakflow) + for each soil class the sum of (infiltration + runoff + peakflow).To simplify interpretation, we rescaled original flood regulation capacity values to a range of 0 to100, with 0 representing the lowest regulation capacity and 100 the highest. Forest recreation (recreation score, unitless, 0 to 100). We quantified the forest recreation service as a function of the amount of forest habitat, recreational opportunities provided, proximity to population center, and accessibility of the area for each 30m grid cell with the equation below:FRSi= Ai * sum of (Oppti + Popi + Roadi)where FRS is forest recreation score, A is the area of forest habitat, Oppt represents the recreation opportunities, Pop is the proximity to population centers, and Road stands for the distance to major roads. To simplify interpretation, we rescaled the original forest recreation score (ranging from 0 to 5200) to a range of 0 to 100, with 0 representing no forest recreation service and 100 representing highest service. Several assumptions were made for this assessment approach. Larger areas and places with more recreational opportunities would provide more recreational service, areas near large population centers would be visited and used more than remote areas, and proximity to major roads would increase access and thus recreational use of an area. Hunting recreation (recreation score, unitless 0 to100) We applied the same procedure used for forest recreation to quantify hunting service. Due to limited access to information regarding private land used for hunting, we only included public lands, mainly state parks, for this assessment. The hunting recreation service was estimated as a function of the extent of wildlife areas open for hunting, the number of game species, proximity to population center, and accessibility for each 30m grid cell with the following equation:<br />HRSi= Ai * sum of (Spei + Popi + Roadi)where HRS is hunting recreation score, A is the area of public wild areas open for hunting and fishing, Spe represents the number of game species, Pop stands for the proximity to population centers, and Road is the distance to major roads. To simplify interpretation, we rescaled the original hunting recreation score (ranging from 0 to 28000) to a range of 0 to100, with 0 representing no hunting recreation service and 100 representing highest service. Similar assumptions were made for this assessment. Larger areas and places with more game species would support more hunting, and areas closer to large population centers would be used more than remote areas. Finally, proximity to major roads would increase access and use of an area.
Short Name
Ecosystem services in the Yahara Watershed
Version Number
20

LTREB Biological Limnology at Lake Myvatn 2012-current

Abstract
These data are part of a long-term monitoring program in the central part of Myvatn that represents the dominant habitat, with benthos consisting of diatomaceous ooze. The program was designed to characterize import benthis and pelagic variables across years as midge populations varied in abundance. Starting in 2012 samples were taken at roughly weekly inervals during June, July, and August, which corresponds to the summer generation of the dominant midge,<em>Tanytarsus gracilentus</em>.
Creator
Dataset ID
296
Date Range
-
Maintenance
Ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
Benthic Chlorophyll Field sampling (5 samples) (2012, 2013)1. Take 5 cores from the lake2. Cut the first 0.75 cm (1 chip) of the core with the extruder and place in deli container. Label with date and core number.3. Place deli containers into opaque container (cooler) and return to lab. This is the same sample that is used for the organic matter analysis.In 2014, the method for sampling benthic chlorophyll changed. The calculation of chlorophyll was changed to reflect the different area sampled. Below is the pertinent section from the methods protocols. Processing after the collection of the sample was not changed.Take sediment samples from the 5 cores collected for sediment characteristics. Take 4 syringes of sediment with 10mL syringe (15.96mm diameter). Take 4-5cm of sediment. Then, remove bottom 2cm and place top 2cm in the film canister.Filtering1. Measure volume of material in deli container with 60mL syringe and record.2. Homogenize and take 1mL sample with micropipette. The tip on the micropipette should be cut to avoid clogging with diatoms. Place the 1mL sample in a labeled film canister. Freeze sample at negative 20 degrees Celsius unless starting methanol extraction immediately.3. Add 20mL methanol. This methanol can be kept cool in the fridge, although then you will need a second bottle of methanol for the fluorometer. Shake for 5 sec.4. After 6-18 hours, shake container for 5 sec.Fluorometer1. Allow the film canisters to sit at room temperature for approximately 15 min to avoid excessive condensation on the glass tubes. Shake tubes for 5 sec after removing from fridge but then be careful to let them settle before removing sample.2. Record the sample information for all of the film canisters on the data sheet.3. Add 4mL of sample to a 13x100mL glass tube.4. Insert the sample into the fluorometer and record the reading in the Fluor Before Acid column. The sample reading should be close to one of the secondary solid standards (42ug/L or 230ug/L), if not, dilute the sample to within 25 per cent of the secondary solid standards (30-54ug/L or 180-280ug/L). It is a good idea to quickly check 2mL of a sample that is suspected to be too high to get an idea if other samples may need to be diluted. If possible, read the samples undiluted.5. If a sample needs to be diluted, use a 1000 microLiter pipette and add 2mL of methanol to a tube followed by 2mL of undiluted sample. Gently invert the tube twice and clean the bottom with a paper towel before inserting it into the fluorometer. If the sample is still outside of the ranges above, combine 1 mL of undiluted sample with 3 mL of methanol. Be sure to record the dilution information on the data sheet.6. Acidify the sample by adding 120microLiters of 0.1 N HCl (30microLiters for every one mL of sample). Then gently invert the sample and wait 90 seconds (we used 60 seconds in 2012, the protocol said 90) before putting the sample into the fluorometer and recording the reading in the Fluor After Acid column. Be sure to have acid in each tube for exactly the same amount of time. This means doing one tube at a time or spacing them 30-60 seconds apart.7. Double check the results and redo samples, which have suspicious numbers. Make sure that the after-acidification values make sense when compared to the before acidification value (the before acid/after acid ratio should be approximately the same for all samples).Clean up1. Methanol can be disposed of down the drain as long as at least 50 times as much water is flushed.2. Rinse the film canisters and lids well with tap water and scrub them out with a bottle brush making sure to remove any remaining filter paper. Give a final rinse with distilled water. Pelagic Chlorophyll Field sampling (5 samples)1. Take 2 samples at each of three depths, 1, 2, and 3m with Arni&rsquo;s zooplankton trap. For the 1m sample, drop the trap to the top of the chain. Each trap contains about 2.5L of water when full. 2. Empty into bucket by opening the bottom flap with your hand.3. Take bucket to lab.Filtering1. Filter 1L water from integrated water sample (or until the filter is clogged) through the 47 mm GF/F filter. The pressure used during filtering should be low ( less than 5 mm Hg) to prevent cell breakage. Filtering and handling of filters should be performed under dimmed lighting.2. Remove the filter with forceps, fold it in half (pigment side in), and put it in the film canister. Take care to not touch the pigments with the forceps.3. Add 20mL methanol. This methanol can be kept cool in the fridge, although then you will need a second bottle of methanol for the fluorometer. Shake for 5 sec. and place in fridge.4. After 6-18 hours, shake container for 5 sec.5. Analyze sample in fluorometer after 24 hours.Fluorometer1. Allow the film canisters to sit at room temperature for approximately 15 min to avoid excessive condensation on the glass tubes. Shake tubes for 5 sec after removing from fridge but then be careful to let them settle before removing sample.2. Record the sample information for all of the film canisters on the data sheet.3. Add 4mL of sample to a 13x100mL glass tube.4. Insert the sample into the fluorometer and record the reading in the Fluor Before Acid column. The sample reading should be close to one of the secondary solid standards (42ug/L or 230ug/L), if not, dilute the sample to within 25 percent of the secondary solid standards (30-54ug/L or 180-280ug/L). It is a good idea to quickly check 2mL of a sample that is suspected to be too high to get an idea if other samples may need to be diluted. If possible, read the samples undiluted.5. If a sample needs to be diluted, use a 1000uL pipette and add 2mL of methanol to a tube followed by 2mL of undiluted sample. Gently invert the tube twice and clean the bottom with a paper towel before inserting it into the fluorometer. If the sample is still outside of the ranges above, combine 1 mL of undiluted sample with 3 mL of methanol. Be sure to record the dilution information on the data sheet.6. Acidify the sample by adding 120 microLiters of 0.1 N HCl (30 microLiters for every one mL of sample). Then gently invert the sample and wait 90 seconds (we used 60 seconds in 2012, the protocol said 90) before putting the sample into the fluorometer and recording the reading in the Fluor After Acid column. Be sure to have acid in each tube for exactly the same amount of time. This means doing one tube at a time or spacing them 30-60 seconds apart.7. Double check the results and redo samples, which have suspicious numbers. Make sure that the after-acidification values make sense when compared to the before acidification value (the before acid/after acid ratio should be approximately the same for all samples).Clean up1. Methanol can be disposed of down the drain as long as at least 50 times as much water is flushed.2. Rinse the film canisters and lids well with tap water and scrub them out with a bottle brush making sure to remove any remaining filter paper. Give a final rinse with distilled water. Pelagic Zooplankton Counts Field samplingUse Arni&rsquo;s zooplankton trap (modified Schindler) to take 2 samples at each of 1, 2, and 3m (6 total). For the 1m sample, drop the trap to the top of the chain. Each trap contains about 2.5L of water when full. Integrate samples in bucket and bring back to lab for further processing.Sample preparation in lab1. Sieve integrated plankton tows through 63&micro;m mesh and record volume of full sample2. Collect in Nalgene bottles and make total volume to 50mL3. Add 8 drops of lugol to fix zooplankton.4. Label bottle with sample date, benthic or pelagic zooplankton, and total volume sieved. Samples can be stored in the fridge until time of countingCounting1. Remove sample from fridge2. Sieve sample with 63 micro meter mesh over lab sink to remove Lugol&rsquo;s solution (which vaporizes under light)3. Suspend sample in water in sieve and flush from the back with squirt bottle into counting tray4. Homogenize sample with forceps or plastic pipette with tip cut off5. Identify (see zooplankton identification guide) using backlit microscope and count with multiple-tally counter. i. Set magnification so that you can see both top and bottom walls of the tray. ii. Change focus depth to check for floating zooplankton that must be counted as well.6. Pipette sample back into Nalgene bottle, add water to 50mL, add 8 drops Lugol&rsquo;s solution, and return to fridgeSubsamplingIf homogenized original sample contains more than 500 individuals in the first line of counting tray, you may subsample under the following procedure.1. Return original sample to Nalgene bottle and add water to 50mL2. Homogenize sample by swirling Nalgene bottle3. Collect 10mL of zooplankton sample with Hensen-Stempel pipette4. Empty contents of Hensen-Stempel pipette into large Bogorov tray5. Homogenize sample in tray with forceps or plastic pipette with tip cut off6. Identify (see zooplankton identification guide) using backlit microscope and count with multiple-tally counter. i. Set magnification so that you can see both top and bottom walls of the tray. ii. Change focus depth to check for floating zooplankton that must be counted, too! 7. Pipette sample back into Nalgene bottle, add water to 50mL, add 8 drops Lugol&rsquo;s solution, and return to fridge Benthic Microcrustacean Counts Field samplingLeave benthic zooplankton sampler for 24h. Benthic sampler consists of 10 inverted jars with funnel traps in metal grid with 4 feet. Set up on bench using feet (on side) to get a uniform height of the collection jars (lip of jar = 5cm above frame). Upon collection, pull sampler STRAIGHT up, remove jars, homogenize in bucket and bring back to lab. Move the boat slightly to avoid placing sampler directly over cored sediment.Sample preparation in lab1. Sieve integrated samples through 63 micrometer mesh and record volume of full sample2. Collect in Nalgene bottles and make total volume to 50mL3. Add 8 drops of lugol to fix zooplankton.4. Label bottle with sample date, benthic or pelagic zooplankton, and total volume sieved. Samples can be stored in the fridge until time of countingCounting1. Remove sample from fridge2. Sieve sample with 63 micrometer mesh over lab sink to remove Lugol&rsquo;s solution (which vaporizes under light)3. Suspend sample in water in sieve and flush from the back with squirt bottle into counting tray4. Homogenize sample with forceps or plastic pipette with tip cut off5. Identify (see zooplankton identification guide) using backlit microscope and count with multiple-tally counter. i. Set magnification so that you can see both top and bottom walls of the tray. ii. Change focus depth to check for floating zooplankton that must be counted, too!6. Pipette sample back into Nalgene bottle, add water to 50mL, add 8 drops Lugol&rsquo;s solution, and return to fridgeSubsamplingIf homogenized original sample contains more than 500 individuals in the first line of counting tray, you may subsample under the following procedure.1. Return original sample to Nalgene bottle and add water to 50mL2. Homogenize sample by swirling Nalgene bottle3. Collect 10mL of zooplankton sample with Hensen-Stempel pipette4. Empty contents of Hensen-Stempel pipette into large Bogorov tray5. Homogenize sample in tray with forceps or plastic pipette with tip cut off6. Identify (see zooplankton identification guide) using backlit microscope and count with multiple-tally counter. i. Set magnification so that you can see both top and bottom walls of the tray. ii. Change focus depth to check for floating zooplankton that must be counted, too! 7. Pipette sample back into Nalgene bottle, add water to 50mL, add 8 drops Lugol&rsquo;s solution, and return to fridge Chironomid Counts (2012, 2013) For first instar chironomids in top 1.5cm of sediment only (5 samples)1. Use sink hose to sieve sediment through 63 micrometer mesh. You may use moderate pressure to break up tubes.2. Back flush sieve contents into small deli container.3. Return label to deli cup (sticking to underside of lid works well).For later instar chironomids in the section 1.5-11.5cm (5 samples)4. Sieve with 125 micrometer mesh in the field.5. Sieve through 125micrometer mesh again in lab to reduce volume of sample.6. Transfer sample to deli container or pitfall counting tray.For all chironomid samples7. Under dissecting scope, pick through sieved contents for midge larvae. You may have to open tubes with forceps in order to check for larvae inside.8. Remove larvae with forceps while counting, and place into a vial containing 70 percent ethanol. Larvae will eventually be sorted into taxonomic groups (see key). You may sort them into taxonomic groups as you pick the larvae, or you can identify the larvae while measuring head capsules if chironomid densities are low (under 50 individuals per taxanomic group).9. For a random sample of up to 50 individuals of each taxonomic group, measure head capsule, see Chironomid size (head capsule width).10. Archive samples from each sampling date together in a single 20mL glass vial with screw cap in 70 percent ethanol and label with sample contents , Chir, sample date, lake ID, station ID, and number of cores. Chironomid Cound (2014) In 2014, the method for sampling chironomid larvae changed starting with the sample on 2014-06-27; the variable &quot;top_bottom&quot; is coded as a 2. In contrast to previous measurements, the top and bottom core samples were combined and then subsampled. Below is the pertinent section of the protocols.Chironomid samples should be counted within 24 hours of collection. This ensures that larvae are as active and easily identified as possible, and also prevents predatory chironomids from consuming other larvae. Samples should be refrigerated upon returning from the field.<strong>For first instar chironomids in top 1.5cm of sediment only (5 samples)</strong>1. Use sink hose to sieve sediment through 63&micro;m mesh. You may use moderate pressure to break up tubes.2. Back flush sieve contents using a water bottle into small deli container.3. Return label to deli cup (sticking to underside of lid works well).<strong>For larger instar chironomids in the section 1.5-11.5cm (5 samples)</strong>4. Sieve with 125&micro;m mesh in the field.5. Sieve through 125&micro;m mesh again in lab to reduce volume of sample and break up tubes.6. Transfer sample to deli container with the appropriate label.<strong>Subsample if necessary</strong>If necessary, subsample with the following protocol.a. Combine top and bottom samples from each core (1-5) in midge sample splitter.b. Homogenize sample thoroughly, collect one half in deli container, and label container with core number and &ldquo;1/2&rdquo;c. If necessary, split the half that remains in the sampler into quarters, and collect each in deli containers labeled with core number, &ldquo;1/4&rdquo;, and replicate 1 or 2d. Store all deli containers in fridge until counted, and save until all counting is complete&quot; Chironomid Size (head capsule width) 1. Obtain picked samples preserved in ethanol and empty onto petri dish.2. Sort larvae by family groups, arranging in same orientation for easy measurment.3. Set magnification to 20, diopter, x 50 times4. Take measurments for up to 50 or more individuals of each taxa. Round to nearest optical micrometer unit.5. Fill out data sheet for number of larvae in each taxa, Chironomid measurements for each taxa, date of sample, station sample was taken from, which core the sample came from, who picked the core, and your name as the measurer.6. Enter data into shared sheetSee &quot;Chironomid Counts&quot; for changes in sampling chironomid larvae in 2014.
Version Number
17

LTREB Chemical and Physical Limnology at Lake Myvatn 2012-current

Abstract
These data are part of a long-term monitoring program at station 33 in the central part of Myvatn that represents the dominant habitat, with benthos consisting of diatomaceous ooze. The program was designed to characterize import benthis and pelagic variables across years as midge populations varied in abundance. Starting in 2012 samples were taken at roughly weekly inervals during June, July, and August, which corresponds to the summer generation of the dominant midge, Tanytarsus gracilentus.
Creator
Dataset ID
287
Date Range
-
Maintenance
Ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
Water Profile1. Take Light, DO, pH, Temp profile every 0.5mUse YSI DO probe, pH meter, and Li Cor light meter. Take the light profile from the sunny side of the boat.2. Take Secchi depthLower Secchi disk slowly until you can never see clear boundaries between white and black quarters, record this distance to the surface of the water as lower Secchi disk observation. Then pull the Secchi up until you can always see clear boundaries between white and black quarters, record this distance to the surface as the upper Secchi observation.Benthic Net Primary Production1. Measure light, temperature, percentDO, DO, and pH at 0.5m intervals at the sampling location.2. Take 10 clean/undisturbed cores. Try to get a uniform distance between the sediment and top of tube, so the cores have the same volume of water. Cover in boat with tarp to exclude light.3. Collect water from the shore of the boat and measure temp, percentDO, and DO. Save in bucket.4. Measure light intensity at 0 (out) and 0.5m depth where the cores will be incubated.5. Set up HOBO light recorder on the incubator.6. For each tube, take initial temp, percentDO, and DO. Before taking DO measurement, move the DO probe up and down three times to ensure no DO gradient (but do not disturb sediment). Add, slowly and without bubbling, 10 to 20mL of water (just the amount needed) to the core from bucket (number 3) to ensure no air space, and replace the stopper. Measure the distance from sediment to bottom of stopper to the nearest 0.5cm (column_depth).7. Place cores 1, 3, 5, and 7 in dark chambers (opaque tubes), so there are 4 dark and 6 light treatments.8. Incubate the cores using the metal structure at saturation light intensity if possible (300 mol per meter squared per second at 0.5m depth) for about 3h.9. Before taking DO measurement, move the DO probe up and down three times to ensure no DO gradient (but do not disturb sediment), and then measure percentDO, DO, and temperature in each core.Light controlsOnce a month (June, July, August), on a sunny day, incubate 10 cores for 3h with different light intensities to determine primary productivity under different light intensities and different temperatures. It would be best to do this the day after routine sampling (i.e., when retrieving the benthic sampler) so that the results can be compared to those from the routine sampling. Different light levels are obtained using white mesh bags around the core tubes.Core 1 and 6, lightCore 2 and 7, 2xCore 3 and 8, 4xCore 4 and 9, 8xCore 5 and 10, darkIMPORTANT: After the incubations, measure light intensity inside a core tube covered for the different treatments. This is done by removing the light meter from the metal holder and placing it facing up in a core using zip ties and a blue stopper at the bottom. Then place treatment bags over the top and measure light when holding the core at the level they reach in the incubator; use the marking on the light meter cord to make sure this is standardized for all measurements. This should be done 8 times total (each bag plus twice without bags).Light saturationOnce a month in the summer of 2013, we conducted sediment core incubations with varying amounts of shade cloth applied to the cores. Sediment cores received 0, 2, 4, 8, or 15 layers of shade cloth, with two cores in each treatment. All cores were then incubated in the lake over the same 3hr period at a depth of 0.5m.Sediment Dry Weight and Weight on Combustion1. Remove 0.75cm of sediment from a core into a plastic deli container. This should be done on a fresh core. This is the same sample that is used for chl analysis.2. Subsample 5 to 10mL sediment solution and place in a pre-weighed tin tray in oven at 60C for at least 12 hours. When dry, weigh for dry weight.In 2014, the method for sampling benthic chlorophyll changed. Sediment Dry Weight measurements were taken from these samples as well. Below is the pertinent section from the methods protocols. Processing after the collection of the sample was not changed.Take sediment samples from the 5 cores collected for sediment characteristics. Take 4 syringes of sediment with 10mL syringe (15.3 mm diameter). Take 4-5cm of sediment. Then, remove bottom 2cm and place top 2cm in the film canister.3. Combust at 550C for 4.5 hours. Weigh tray.4. If not analyzing combusted samples immediately, place in drying oven before weighing.
Version Number
15

Fluxes project at North Temperate Lakes LTER: Spatial Metabolism Study 2007

Abstract
Data from a lake spatial metabolism study by Matthew C. Van de Bogert for his Phd project, "Aquatic ecosystem carbon cycling: From individual lakes to the landscape."; The goal of this study was to capture the spatial heterogeneity of within-lake processes in effort to make robust estimates of daily metabolism metrics such as gross primary production (GPP), respiration (R), and net ecosystem production (NEP). In pursuing this goal, multiple sondes were placed at different locations and depths within two stratified Northern Temperate Lakes, Sparkling Lake (n=35 sondes) and Peter Lake (n=27 sondes), located in the Northern Highlands Lake District of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, respectively.Dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were made every 10 minutes over a 10 day period for each lake in July and August of 2007. Dissolved oxygen measurements were corrected for drift. In addition, conductivity, temperature compensated specific conductivity, pH, and oxidation reduction potential were measured by a subset of sondes in each lake. Two data tables list the spatial information regarding sonde placement in each lake, and a single data table lists information about the sondes (manufacturer, model, serial number etc.). Documentation :Van de Bogert, M.C., 2011. Aquatic ecosystem carbon cycling: From individual lakes to the landscape. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The University of Wisconsin - Madison, United States -- Wisconsin, p. 156. Also see Van de Bogert, M.C., Bade, D.L., Carpenter, S.R., Cole, J.J., Pace, M.L., Hanson, P.C., Langman, O.C., 2012. Spatial heterogeneity strongly affects estimates of ecosystem metabolism in two north temperate lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 57, 1689-1700.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
285
Date Range
-
Metadata Provider
Methods
Data were collected from two lakes, Sparkling Lake (46.008, -89.701) and Peter Lake (46.253, -89.504), both located in the northern highlands Lake District of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan over a 10 day period on each lake in July and August of 2007. Refer to Van de Bogert et al. 2011 for limnological characteristics of the study lakes.Measurements of dissolved oxygen and temperature were made every 10 minutes using multiple sondes dispersed horizontally throughout the mixed-layer in the two lakes (n=35 sondes for Sparkling Lake and n=27 sondes for Peter Lake). Dissolved oxygen measurements were corrected for drift.Conductivity, temperature compensated specific conductivity, pH, and oxidation reduction potential were also measured by a subset of sensors in each lake. Of the 35 sondes in Sparkling Lake, 31 were from YSI Incorporated: 15 of model 600XLM, 14 of model 6920, and 2 of model 6600). The remaining sondes placed in Sparkling Lake were 4 D-Opto sensors, Zebra-Tech, LTD. In Peter Lake, 14 YSI model 6920 and 13 YSI model 600XLM sondes were used.Sampling locations were stratified randomly so that a variety of water depths were represented, however, a higher density of sensors were placed in the littoral rather than pelagic zone. See Van de Bogert et al. 2012 for the thermal (stratification) profile of Sparkling Lake and Peter Lake during the period of observation, and for details on how locations were classified as littoral or pelagic. In Sparkling Lake, 11 sensors were placed within the shallowest zone, 12 in the off-shore littoral, and 6 in each of the remaining two zones, for a total of 23 littoral and 12 pelagic sensors. Similarly, 15 sensors were placed in the two littoral zones, and 12 sensors in the pelagic zone.Sensors were randomly assigned locations within each of the zones using rasterized bathymetric maps of the lakes and a random number generator in Matlab. Within each lake, one pelagic sensor was placed at the deep hole which is used for routine-long term sampling.Note that in Sparkling Lake this corresponds to the location of the long-term monitoring buoy. After locations were determined, sensors were randomly assigned to each location with the exception of the four D-Opto sensor is Sparkling Lake, which are a part of larger monitoring buoys used in the NTL-LTER program. One of these was located near the deep hole of the lake while the other three were assigned to random locations along the north shore, south shore and pelagic regions of the lake. Documentation: Van de Bogert, M.C., Bade, D.L., Carpenter, S.R., Cole, J.J., Pace, M.L., Hanson, P.C., Langman, O.C., 2012. Spatial heterogeneity strongly affects estimates of ecosystem metabolism in two north temperate lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 57, 1689-1700.
Version Number
17

LTREB Kalfastrond Peninsula Experiment (KAL) Midge Counts at Lake Myvatn 2008-2011

Abstract
A cross ecosystem resource blocking experiment was conducted on the Kalfastrond peninsula, known as the KAL experiment or KAL midge blocking experiment, at Lake Myvatn to determine the influence of an aquatic resource on a terrestrial food web over time. A manipulative field experiment was used in conjunction with a stable isotope analysis to examine changes in terrestrial arthropod food webs in response to the midge subsidy. Cages were established at 2 by 2 meter plots in 6 blocks spread across the site. Each block included 3 treatment levels, an open control plot, a full exclusion cage and a partial exclusion cage, for a total of 18 experimental plots. Midge exclusion cages were designed to prevent midges from entering plots with such cages. Control open pit midge cages were set as a control which allowed complete access to all arthropods. Partial midge exclusion cages were designed and used to examine any effects of cages themselves on terrestrial responses while minimally affecting midge inputs into the plots and arthropod movement. All cages were set at the middle to end of May to the beginning of August in each year, the period corresponding to the active growing season of plants and the flight activity of midges at this site. Midge activity was measured in all plots to document changes in midge abundance over the course of a season and between years and to assess the degree to which cages excluded midges.Midge abundance in the plots was continuously measured using passive aerial infall traps. Midges from infall traps were counted and identified to morphospecies, where the small species is Tanytarsus gracilentus and the large species is Chironomus islandicus. Some arthropods were only identified to the family level Simuliidae, and other arthropods were lumped in a category named others. If the infall trap contained hundreds to thousands of a particular midge species a subsample for each species was performed to estimate the number of midges trapped. These data are the results of the midge counts from the infall traps.
Contact
Core Areas
Dataset ID
284
Date Range
-
Maintenance
Ongoing
Metadata Provider
Methods
I. Field MethodsThe site where this manipulative field experiment was conducted on the Kalfastrond peninsula at Lake Myvatn is approximately 150 meters long and 75 meters wide. The vegetation consists of grasses Deschampsia spp., Poa spp., and Agrostis spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and forbs (Ranunculus acris, Geum rivale,and Potentilla palustris). The experimental midge exclusions occurred from the middle or end of May to the beginning of August in each year, the period corresponding to the active growing season of plants and the flight activity of midges at this site. 2 by 2 meter plots were established in 6 blocks spread across the site. Each block included 3 treatment levels, an open control plot, a full exclusion cage and a partial exclusion cage, for a total of 18 experimental plots. Control plots were open to allow complete access to all arthropods. Experimental midge exclusion cages were 1 meter high and constructed from white PVC tubing affixed to rebar posts on each corner of the plot, Plate 1. Full exclusion cages were entirely covered with white polyester netting, 200 holes per square inch, Barre Army Navy Store, Barre VT, USA, to prevent midges from entering the plot. The mesh netting completely enclosed the 2 by 2 by 1 meter frame to prevent flying insects from entering, however the mesh was not secured to the ground in order to allow non flying,ground crawling, arthropods to freely enter and exit the cages. Partial exclusion cages had one 0.5 meter strip of mesh stretched around the outside of the frame and another 0.75 meter strip draped over the top. Partial cages were designed to examine any effects of cages themselves on terrestrial responses while minimally affecting midge inputs into the plots and arthropod movement.The partial exclusion treatment was discontinued in 2011. Each plot contains a pitfall and an infall trap that are continuously sampled during the summer, while the cages are up. Vacuum samples were taken from the plots about once per month in 2008 through 2010 and only once per summer for subsequent summers.Midge activity was measured in all plots to document changes in midge abundance over the course of a season and between years and to assess the degree to which cages excluded midges. Midge abundance in the plots was continuously measured using passive aerial infall traps consisting of a 1000 milliliter clear plastic cup, 95 square centimeter opening, attached to a post 0.5 meters high and filled with 250 milliliters of a 1 to 1 ethylene glycol to water solution and a small amount of unscented detergent to capture and kill insects that alighted upon the surface. Infall traps were emptied about every 10 days.II. AnalysisMidges were counted and identified to morphospecies, small and large. The midge (Diptera,Chrionomidae) assemblage at Myvatn is dominated by two species,Chironomus islandicus (Kieffer)(large, 1.1 mg dw) and Tanytarsus gracilentus(Holmgren)(small, 0.1 mg dw), together comprising 90 percent of total midge abundance (Lindegaard and Jonasson 1979). First, the midges collected in the infall traps were spread out in trays, and counted if there were only a few. Some midges were only identified to the family level of Simuliidae,and other arthropods were counted and categorized as the group, others. Arthropods only identified to the family level Simuliidae or classified as others were not dually counted as Chironomus islandicus or Tanytarsus gracilentus. If there were many midges, generally if there were hundreds to thousands, in an infall trap,subsamples were taken. Subsampling was done using plastic rings that were dropped into the tray. The rings were relatively small compared to the tray, about 2 percent of the area of a tray was represented in a ring. The area inside a ring and the total area of the trays were also measured. Note that different sized rings and trays were used in subsample analysis. These are as follows, Trays, small (area of 731 square centimeters), large1 (area of 1862.40 square centimeters), and large2 (area of 1247 square centimeters). Rings, standard ring (diameter of 7.30 centimeters, subsample area is 41.85 square centimeters) and small ring (diameter of 6.5 centimeters, subsample area is 33.18 square centimeters). A small ring was only used to subsample trays classified as type large2.The fraction subsampled was then calculated depending on the size of the tray and ring used for the subsample analysis. If the entire tray was counted and no subsampling was done then the fraction subsampled was assigned a value of 1.0. If subsampling was done the fraction subsampled was calculated as the number of subsamples taken multiplied by the fraction of the tray that a subsample ring area covers (number of subsamples multiplied by (ring area divided by tray area)). Note that this is dependent on the tray and ring used for subsample analysis. Finally, the number of midges in an infall trap accounting for subsampling was calculated as the raw count of midges divided by the fraction subsampled (raw count divided by fraction subsampled).Other metrics such as total insects in meters squared per day, and total insect biomass in grams per meter squared day can be calculated with these data. in addition to the estimated average individual midge masses in grams, For 2008 through 2010 average midge masses were calculated as, Tanytarsus equal to .0001104 grams, Chironomus equal to .0010837 grams. For 2011 average midge masses were, Tanytarsus equal to .000182 grams, Chironomus equal to .001268 grams.
Version Number
15

Trout Lake USGS Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets (WEBB) Stream Data 1975-current

Abstract
This data was collected by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budget Project. The data set is primarily composed of water chemistry variables, and was collected from four USGS stream gauge stations in the Northern Highland Lake District of Wisconsin, near Trout Lake. The four USGS stream gauge stations are Allequash Creek at County Highway M (USGS-05357215), Stevenson Creek at County Highway M (USGS-05357225), North Creek at Trout Lake (USGS-05357230), and the Trout River at Trout Lake (USGS-05357245), all near Boulder Junction, Wisconsin. The project has collected stream water chemistry data for a maximum of 36 different chemical parameters,. and three different physical stream parameters: temperature, discharge, and gauge height. All water chemistry samples are collected as grab samples and sent to the USGS National Water Quality Lab in Denver, Colorado. There is historic data for Stevenson Creek from 1975-1977, and then beginning again in 1991. The Trout Lake WEBB project began during the summer of 1991 and sampling of all four sites continues to date.
Creator
Dataset ID
276
Date Range
-
Maintenance
Completed.
Metadata Provider
Methods
DL is used to represent “detection limit” where known.NOTE (1): Each method listed below corresponds with a USGS Parameter Code, which is listed after the variable name. NOTE (2): If the NEMI method # is known, it is also specified at the end of each method description.NOTE (3): Some of the variables are calculated using algorithms within QWDATA. If this is the case see Appendix D of the NWIS User’s Manual for additional information. However, appendix D does not list the algorithm used by the USGS. If a variable is calculated with an algorithm the term: algor, will be listed after the variable name.anc: 99431, Alkalinity is determined in the field by using the gran function plot methods, see TWRI Book 9 Chapter A6.1. anc_1: 90410 and 00410, Alkalinity is determined by titrating the water sample with a standard solution of a strong acid. The end point of the titration is selected as pH 4.5. See USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 57, NEMI method #: I-2030-89.2. c13_c12_ratio: 82081, Exact method unknown. The following method is suspected: Automated dual inlet isotope ratio analysis with sample preparation by precipitation with ammoniacal strontium chloride solution, filtration, purification, acidified of strontium carbonate; sample size is greater than 25 micromoles of carbon; one-sigma uncertainty is approximately ± 0.1 ‰. See USGS Determination of the delta13 C of Dissolved Inorganic Carbon in Water, RSIL Lab Code 1710. Chapter 18 of Section C, Stable Isotope-Ratio Methods Book 10, Methods of the Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory.3. ca, mg, mn, na, and sr all share the same method. The USGS parameter codes are listed first, then the method description with NEMI method #, and finally DL’s:ca- 00915, mg- 00925, mn- 01056, na- 00930, sr- 01080All metals are determined simultaneously on a single sample by a direct reading emission spectrometric method using an inductively coupled argon plasma as an excitation source. Samples are pumped into a crossflow pneumatic nebulizer, and introduced into the plasma through a spray chamber and torch assembly. Each analysis is determined on the basis of the average of three replicate integrations, each of which is background corrected by a spectrum shifting technique except for lithium (670.7 nm) and sodium (589.0 nm). A series of five mixed-element standards and a blank are used for calibration. Method requires an autosampler and emission spectrometry system. See USGS OF 93-125, p 101, NEMI Method #: I-1472-87.DL’s: ca- .02 mg/l, mg-.01 mg/l, mn-1.0 ug/l, na- .2 mg/l, sr- .5 ug/l4. cl, f, and so4 all share the same method. The USGS parameter codes are listed first, then the method description with NEMI method #, and finally DL’s:cl- 00940, f-00950, so4-00945All three anions (chloride, flouride, and sulfate) are separated chromatographically following a single sample injection on an ion exchange column. Ions are separated on the basis of their affinity for the exchange sites of the resin. The separated anions in their acid form are measured using an electrical conductivity cell. Anions are identified on the basis of their retention times compared with known standards. 19 The peak height or area is measured and compared with an analytical curve generated from known standards to quantify the results. See USGS OF 93-125, p 19, NEMI method #: I-2057.DL’s: cl-.2 mg/l, f-.1 mg/l, so4-.2 mg/lco2: 00405, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, Page 285.co3: 00445, algor.color: 00080, The color of the water is compared to that of the colored glass disks that have been calibrated to correspond to the platinum-cobalt scale of Hazen (1892), See USGS TWRI 5-A1 or1989, P.191, NEMI Method #: I-1250. DL: 1 Pt-Co colorconductance_field: 00094 and 00095, specific conductance is determined in the field using a standard YSI multimeter, See USGS TWRI 9, 6.3.3.A, P. 13, NEMI method #: NFM 6.3.3.A-SW.conductance_lab: 90095, specific conductance is determined by using a wheat and one bridge in which a variable resistance is adjusted so that it is equal to the resistance of the unknown solution between platinized electrodes of a standardized conductivity cell, sample at 25 degrees celcius, See USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 461, NEMI method #: I-1780-85.dic: 00691, This test method can be used to make independent measurements of IC and TC and can also determine TOC as the difference of TC and IC. The basic steps of the procedure are as follows:(1) Removal of IC, if desired, by vacuum degassing;(2) Conversion of remaining inorganic carbon to CO<sub>2</sub> by action of acid in both channels and oxidation of total carbon to CO<sub>2</sub> by action of ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the TC channel. For further information, See ASTM Standards, NEMI method #: D6317. DL: n/adkn: 00623 and 99894, Organic nitrogen compounds are reduced to the ammonium ion by digestion with sulfuric acid in the presence of mercuric sulfate, which acts as a catalyst, and potassium sulfate. The ammonium ion produced by this digestion, as well as the ammonium ion originally present, is determined by reaction with sodium salicylate, sodium nitroprusside, and sodium hypochlorite in an alkaline medium. The resulting color is directly proportional to the concentration of ammonia present, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 327, NEMI method #: 351.2. DL: .10 mg/Ldo: 0300, Dissolved oxygen is measured in the field with a standard YSI multimeter, NEMI Method #: NFM 6.2.1-Lum. DL: 1 mg/L.doc: 00681, The sample is acidified, purged to remove carbonates and bicarbonates, and the organic carbon is oxidized to carbon dioxide with persulfate, in the presence of an ultraviolet light. The carbon dioxide is measured by nondispersive infrared spectrometry, see USGS OF 92-480, NEMI Method #: O-1122-92. DL: .10 mg/L.don: 00607, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, page 291.dp: 00666 and 99893, All forms of phosphorus, including organic phosphorus, are converted to orthophosphate ions using reagents and reaction parameters identical to those used in the block digester procedure for determination of organic nitrogen plus ammonia, that is, sulfuric acid, potassium sulfate, and mercury (II) at a temperature of 370 deg, see USGS OF Report 92-146, or USGS TWRI 5-A1/1979, p 453, NEMI method #: I-2610-91. DL= .012 mg/L.fe: 01046, Iron is determined by atomic absorption spectrometry by direct aspiration of the sample solution into an air-acetylene flame, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1985, NEMI method #: I-1381. DL= 10µg/L.h_ion: 00191, algor.h20_hardness: 00900, algor.h20_hardness_2: 00902, algor.hco3: 00440, algor.k: 00935, Potassium is determined by atomic absorption spectrometry by direct aspiration of the sample solution into an air-acetylene flame , see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 393, NEMI method #: I-1630-85. DL= .01 mg/L.n_mixed: 00600, algor.n_mixed_1: 00602, algor.n_mixed_2: 71887, algor.nh3_nh4: 00608, Ammonia reacts with salicylate and hypochlorite ions in the presence of ferricyanide ions to form the salicylic acid analog of indophenol blue (Reardon and others, 1966; Patton and Crouch, 1977; Harfmann and Crouch, 1989). The resulting color is directly proportional to the concentration of ammonia present, See USGS OF 93-125, p 125/1986 (mg/l as N), NEMI Method #: I-2525. DL= .01 mg/L.nh3_nh4_1: 71846, algor.nh3_nh4_2: 00610, same method as 00608, except see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 321. DL = .01 mg/L.nh3_nh4_3: 71845, algor.no2: 00613, Nitrite ion reacts with sulfanilamide under acidic conditions to form a diazo compound which then couples with N-1-naphthylethylenediamine dihydrochloride to form a red compound, the absorbance of which is measured colorimetrically, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 343, NEMI method #: I-2540-90. DL= .01 mg/L.no2_2: 71856, algor.no3: 00618, Nitrate is determined sequentially with six other anions by ion-exchange chromatography, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, P. 339, NEMI method #: I-2057. DL= .05 mg/L.no3_2: 71851, algor.no32: 00630, An acidified sodium chloride extraction procedure is used to extract nitrate and nitrite from samples of bottom material for this determination(Jackson, 1958). Nitrate is reduced to nitrite by cadmium metal. Imidazole is used to buffer the analytical stream. The sample stream then is treated with sulfanilamide to yield a diazo compound, which couples with N-lnaphthylethylenediamine dihydrochloride to form an azo dye, the absorbance of which is measured colorimetrically. Procedure is used to extract nitrate and nitrite from bottom material for this determination (Jackson, 1958), see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 351. DL= .1 mg/Lno32_2: 00631, same as description for no32, except see USGS OF 93-125, p 157. DL= .1 mg/L.o18_o16_ratio: 82085, Sample preparation by equilibration with carbon dioxide and automated analysis; sample size is 0.1 to 2.0 milliliters of water. For 2-mL samples, the 2-sigma uncertainties of oxygen isotopic measurement results are 0.2 ‰. This means that if the same sample were resubmitted for isotopic analysis, the newly measured value would lie within the uncertainty bounds 95 percent of the time. Water is extracted from soils and plants by distillation with toluene; recommended sample size is 1-5 ml water per analysis, see USGS Determination of the Determination of the delta (18 O or 16O) of Water, RSIL Lab Code 489.o2sat: Dissolved oxygen is measured in the field with a standard YSI multimeter, which also measures % oxygen saturation, NEMI Method #: NFM 6.2.1-Lum.ph_field: 00400, pH determined in situ, using a standard YSI multimeter, see USGS Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, Chaps. A1-A9, Chap. A6.4 "pH," NEMI method # NFM 6.4.3.A-SW. DL= .01 pH.ph_lab: 00403, involves use of laboratory pH meter, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 363, NEMI method #: I-1586.po4: 00660, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, Page 286.po4_2: 00671, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, NEMI method #: I-2602. DL= .01 mg/L.s: 63719, cannot determine exact method used. USGS method code: 7704-34-9 is typically used to measure sulfur as a percentage, with an DL =.01 µg/L. It is known that the units for sulfur measurements in this data set are micrograms per liter.sar: 00931, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, Page 288.si: 00955, Silica reacts with molybdate reagent in acid media to form a yellow silicomolybdate complex. This complex is reduced by ascorbic acid to form the molybdate blue color. The silicomolybdate complex may form either as an alpha or beta polymorph or as a mixture of both. Because the two polymorphic forms have absorbance maxima at different wavelengths, the pH of the mixture is kept below 2.5, a condition that favors formation of the beta polymorph (Govett, 1961; Mullen and Riley, 1955; Strickland, 1952), see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 417, NEMI method #: I-2700-85. DL= .10 mg/L.spc: 00932, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, Page 289.tds: 70300 and 70301, A well-mixed sample is filtered through a standard glass fiber filter. The filtrate is evaporated and dried to constant weight at 180 deg C, see " Filterable Residue by Drying Oven," NEMI method #: 160.1, DL= 10 mg/l. Note: despite DL values occur in the data set that are less than 10 mg/l.tds_1: 70301, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, Page 289.tds_2: 70303, algor, see NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, Page 290.tkn: 00625 and 99892, Block digester procedure for determination of organic nitrogen plus ammonia, that is, sulfuric acid, potassium sulfate, and Mercury (II) at a temperature of 370°C. See the USGS Open File Report 92-146 for further details. DL: .10 mg/L.toc: 00680, The sample is acidified, purged to remove carbonates and bicarbonates, and the organic carbon is oxidized to carbon dioxide with persulfate, in the presence of an ultraviolet light. The carbon dioxide is measured by nondispersive infrared spectrometry, see USGS TWRI 5-A3/1987, p 15, NEMI Method #: O-1122-92. DL=.10 mg/L.ton: 00605, algor, See NWIS User's Manual, QW System, Appendix D, page 286.tp: 00665 and 99891, This method may be used to analyze most water, wastewater, brines, and water-suspended sediment containing from 0.01 to 1.0 mg/L of phosphorus. Samples containing greater concentrations need to be diluted, see USGS TWRI 5-A1/1989, p 367, NEMI method #: I-4607. tp_2: 71886, algor.tpc: 00694, The basic steps of this test method are:1) Conversion of remaining IC to CO2 by action of acid, 2) Removal of IC, if desired, by vacuum degassing, 3) Split of flow into two streams to provide for separate IC and TC measurements, 4) Oxidation of TC to CO2 by action of acid-persulfate aided by ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the TC channel, 5) Detection of CO2 by passing each liquid stream over membranes that allow the specific passage of CO2 to high-purity water where change in conductivity is measured, and 6) Conversion of the conductivity detector signal to a display of carbon concentration in parts per million (ppm = mg/L) or parts per billion (ppb = ug/L). The IC channel reading is subtracted from the TC channel reading to give a TOC reading, see ASTM Standards, NEMI Method #: D5997. DL= .06 µg/L.tpn: 49570, A weighed amount of dried particulate (from water) or sediment is combusted at a high temperature using an elemental analyzer. The combustion products are passed over a copper reduction tube to covert nitrogen oxides to molecular nitrogen. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor are mixed at a known volume, temperature, and pressure. The concentrations of nitrogen and carbon are determined using a series of thermal conductivity detectors/traps, measuring in turn by difference hydrogen (as water vapor), carbon (as carbon dioxide), and nitrogen (as molecular nitrogen). Procedures also are provided to differentiate between organic and inorganic carbon, if desired, see USEPA Method 440, NEMI method #: 440. DL= .01 mg/L.
Short Name
TL-USGS-WEBB Data
Version Number
15

South: Field Sampling Routine

A. Nutrient Sampling: Refer to the Field Sheet to see which bottles need to be sampled at which depths and the 'Southern Lakes LTER Bottle Codes’ for preservation, filtering, and coding information.
 
1.     Purge the lines: Whenever sampling from a new depth, the peristaltic pump tubing must be purged of the water from the previous depth. After reaching the proper sampling depth, use a graduated cylinder to measure the volume of water purged before beginning the sampling. Purge at least 1200 mL of water for each 20 meters of tu
Subscribe to water