US Long-Term Ecological Research Network

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Northern Wisconsin boater survey, 2011 - 2012

Abstract
Understanding public perceptions of the importance of environmental issues is crucial for gauging support for management activities. This survey assess the importance boaters placed on 16 water issues in a lake-rich region of northern Wisconsin.<br/>Understanding public perceptions of the importance of environmental issues is crucial for gauging support for management activities. This survey assess the importance boaters placed on 16 water issues in a lake-rich region of northern Wisconsin.<br/>Understanding public perceptions of the importance of environmental issues is crucial for gauging support for management activities. This survey assess the importance boaters placed on 16 water issues in a lake-rich region of northern Wisconsin.<br/>
Dataset ID
404
Date Range
-
LTER Keywords
Methods
Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>Boaters were recruited into a yearlong trip diary program at the landings of lakes in Vilas and Oneida Counties (Wisconsin) between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day, 2011.<br/>
Version Number
1

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, USA, (Non-Dreissenid) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Biomass, and Community Composition 2016-2018

Abstract
We sampled the zoobenthos (macroinvertebrates of the benthos) of Lake Mendota from 2016-2018 to track impacts of invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) which were discovered in Lake Mendota in 2015 and grew exponentially to densities greater than 10,000 m-2 in shallow, rocky habitat by 2018. The data presented here exclude all zebra mussels, which are archived in a separate datset. We sampled along three transects inherited from Karatayev et al. (2013) at five different depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 m) twice a summer (June and August) from 2016-2018. These data also contain some samples opportunistically taken from deeper depths along these transects that do not follow the routine sampling structure. A pared-down version of this routine sampling continued from 2019 onward but is not included here. This dataset complements zebra mussel and phytobenthos data collected according to the same routine sampling structure, for which data is also archived with EDI.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
394
Data Sources
Date Range
-
Methods
We sampled non-zebra mussel benthic macroinvertebrates twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along each of three transects (A-C) running perpendicular to the shore of Lake Mendota. We collected triplicate samples from each site using a 0.625 m-2 circular quadrat and an airlift method with a modified SCUBA tank suction device called an AquaVac. Air was released through a PVC pipe, creating backpressure to lift sediment, which was captured in a 500μm mesh bag and transported in a resealable plastic bag. We chose an airlift method because of difficulty closing Eckman samplers on the hard substrates of rock and zebra mussel druses. Occasionally additional samples were taken with an Eckman, often at deeper depths, for comparing to the main transects and depths sampled with AquaVac or to collect additional material for isotope analysis.<br/>We sampled non-zebra mussel benthic macroinvertebrates twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along each of three transects (A-C) running perpendicular to the shore of Lake Mendota. We collected triplicate samples from each site using a 0.625 m-2 circular quadrat and an airlift method with a modified SCUBA tank suction device called an AquaVac. Air was released through a PVC pipe, creating backpressure to lift sediment, which was captured in a 500μm mesh bag and transported in a resealable plastic bag. We chose an airlift method because of difficulty closing Eckman samplers on the hard substrates of rock and zebra mussel druses. Occasionally additional samples were taken with an Eckman, often at deeper depths, for comparing to the main transects and depths sampled with AquaVac or to collect additional material for isotope analysis.<br/>
Version Number
1

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, USA, Zebra Mussel Density and Biomass 2016-2018

Abstract
We sampled adult zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in the benthos of Lake Mendota from 2016-2018 to track the growth of the population following its initial detection in fall 2015. We sampled along three transects inherited from Karatayev et al. (2013) at five different depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 m) twice a summer (June and August) from 2016-2018. Because suitable zebra mussel substrate was limited at these sites, we also selected five 1 m depth, rocky sites (optimal zebra mussel sites) to track density and biomass where colonization was most intense. A pared-down version of this routine sampling continued from 2019 onward but is not included here. This dataset complements zoobenthos and phytobenthos data collected according to the same routine sampling structure, as well as larval zebra mussel (veliger) sampling for which data is also archived with EDI. Biomass data are modeled from lengths of up to 100 individuals that were measured in each sample. Those lengths were fed into Lake Mendota-specific length-to-weight power law equations parameterized by body size measurements (length, width, live weight, wet weight, dry weight, shell weight, shell-free weight, and ash-free dry weight) of 99 mussels collected at different sites across Lake Mendota in 2018.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
393
Date Range
-
LTER Keywords
Methods
We sampled adult zebra mussels twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along each of three transects running perpendicular to shore (A-C). Dominant substrates at transect A were rock at 1 m depth, sand at 3 and 5 m, and muck at 8 and 10 m. At transects B and C, sand was the dominant substrate at 1 and 3 m depth and muck was dominant at 5, 8, and 10m. Significant macrophyte growth was generally absent at all sites in June and occurred mostly at 1, 3, and 5 m sites only at transects A and C. Because most sites lacked hard substrate (rocks, logs, etc.) suitable for zebra mussel colonization, we also sampled five additional rocky 1m depth sites to represent prime zebra mussel habitat.<br/>We sampled adult zebra mussels twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along each of three transects running perpendicular to shore (A-C). Dominant substrates at transect A were rock at 1 m depth, sand at 3 and 5 m, and muck at 8 and 10 m. At transects B and C, sand was the dominant substrate at 1 and 3 m depth and muck was dominant at 5, 8, and 10m. Significant macrophyte growth was generally absent at all sites in June and occurred mostly at 1, 3, and 5 m sites only at transects A and C. Because most sites lacked hard substrate (rocks, logs, etc.) suitable for zebra mussel colonization, we also sampled five additional rocky 1m depth sites to represent prime zebra mussel habitat.<br/>We sampled adult zebra mussels twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along each of three transects running perpendicular to shore (A-C). Dominant substrates at transect A were rock at 1 m depth, sand at 3 and 5 m, and muck at 8 and 10 m. At transects B and C, sand was the dominant substrate at 1 and 3 m depth and muck was dominant at 5, 8, and 10m. Significant macrophyte growth was generally absent at all sites in June and occurred mostly at 1, 3, and 5 m sites only at transects A and C. Because most sites lacked hard substrate (rocks, logs, etc.) suitable for zebra mussel colonization, we also sampled five additional rocky 1m depth sites to represent prime zebra mussel habitat.
Version Number
1

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, USA, Zebra Mussel Body Size and Biomass Biometrics 2018

Abstract
We sampled 98 individuals of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population of Lake Mendota from many littoral zone sites in 2018 to create biometric relationships between several metrics of body size and several metrics of biomass, including length, width, height, living weight, wet weight, dry weight, shell weight, shell-free dry weight, and ash-free dry weight. We selected individuals to span a wide range of body sizes and found strong relationships between most combinations of body size and biomass metrics.<br/>
Dataset ID
395
Date Range
-
LTER Keywords
Methods
In the laboratory, three measurements of body size and seven measurements of biomass were captured. First, any foreign material found adhering to the external surface of specimens was completely removed. Body size directional measurements of shell length (L), width (W), and height (H) were recorded for every specimen with the aid of callipers (0.01 mm). Following this, any excess water was removed from surfaces by drying the external shell with tissue paper. Further, using a scalpel blade and tweezers, excess water was removed from the mantle cavity by gently forcing bivalves to gape, taking care not to cut the adductor muscle or damage tissues. Using high-resolution scales, living-weight (LW) was obtained for each specimen. Then each specimen was fully opened, which in most cases involved cutting of the adductor muscles. To remove additional fluid from the mantle and other cavities, each specimen was then placed with the valve gape (flesh) facing downwards onto absorbent tissue, for ~5-10 minutes. A wet-weight (WW) was obtained for each specimen. Following this, the soft tissue was dissected from the shell, then both soft tissue and shell were dried together within an oven (60-72 degreeC) for ~48 hrs, or until they reached a constant weight. Specimens were cooled to room temperature in a desiccator before final weighing. A combined dry-weight (DW) was recorded, as were weights for the soft tissue and shell separately, i.e. shell free dry-weight (SFDW) and dry shell-weight (SW), respectively. Following the establishment of SW, SFDW was calculated subtracting SW from the total DW (i.e. SFDW = DW–SW). To obtain an ash-weight (AW), the soft and hard tissue structures of specimens were incinerated (500–550 degreeC) together within a muffle furnace for 4–6 hrs. In all cases, the ash free dry-weight (AFDW) was then calculated for the entire specimen (soft tissue and shell) by subtracting the AW from DW, i.e. AFDW = DW–AW.<br/>
Version Number
1

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, USA, Zebra Mussel Veliger Water Column Density 2016-2019

Abstract
We sampled veliger (larval stage) zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) from 2016-2019.
Zebra mussels are invasive in Lake Mendota and were first detected in November 2015. Samples
were taken at three different sites on Lake Mendota from June to August in 2016, and from
June to November in 2018-2019, using a 0.5 m diameter, 64 micrometer mesh size plankton net
for an 8 m depth tow. This dataset complements adult zebra mussel, zoobenthos, and
phytobenthos data collected during the same time period, for which data is also archived
with EDI.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
392
Data Sources
Date Range
-
Methods
We sampled larval zebra mussels (veligers) using a 64 microm mesh, 0.5 m diameter
plankton net and stored them in 80% ethanol in 200 mL containers at 25degree C for 0-12
weeks until processing. At each site we performed triplicate 8 m depth plankton tows by
pulling a net from 2 m above the lake bottom at the 10 m depth sites of transects A-C
developed for adult zebra mussel collection. We collected samples approximately every 14
days from June to August in 2016, and June to November in 2017-2019. During fall
sampling, poor weather conditions occasionally limited the number of sites or replicates
collected. We also sampled veligers biweekly in 2019 but reduced sampling to one
replicate per site and only sampled at one site after September. Because veligers are
small and difficult to see, enumeration was time consuming. <br/>We sampled larval zebra mussels (veligers) using a 64 microm mesh, 0.5 m diameter
plankton net and stored them in 80% ethanol in 200 mL containers at 25degree C for 0-12
weeks until processing. At each site we performed triplicate 8 m depth plankton tows by
pulling a net from 2 m above the lake bottom at the 10 m depth sites of transects A-C
developed for adult zebra mussel collection. We collected samples approximately every 14
days from June to August in 2016, and June to November in 2017-2019. During fall
sampling, poor weather conditions occasionally limited the number of sites or replicates
collected. We also sampled veligers biweekly in 2019 but reduced sampling to one
replicate per site and only sampled at one site after September. Because veligers are
small and difficult to see, enumeration was time consuming. <br/>We sampled larval zebra mussels (veligers) using a 64 microm mesh, 0.5 m diameter
plankton net and stored them in 80% ethanol in 200 mL containers at 25degree C for 0-12
weeks until processing. At each site we performed triplicate 8 m depth plankton tows by
pulling a net from 2 m above the lake bottom at the 10 m depth sites of transects A-C
developed for adult zebra mussel collection. We collected samples approximately every 14
days from June to August in 2016, and June to November in 2017-2019. During fall
sampling, poor weather conditions occasionally limited the number of sites or replicates
collected. We also sampled veligers biweekly in 2019 but reduced sampling to one
replicate per site and only sampled at one site after September. Because veligers are
small and difficult to see, enumeration was time consuming.
Version Number
1

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, USA, Phytobenthos Abundance and Community Composition 2016-2018

Abstract
We sampled the phytobenthos (epibenthic periphyton) of Lake Mendota from 2016-2018 to track impacts of invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) which were discovered in Lake Mendota in 2015 and grew exponentially to densities greater than 10,000 m-2 in shallow, rocky habitat by 2018. We sampled along three transects inherited from Karatayev et al. (2013) at five different depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 m) twice a summer (June and August) from 2016-2018. A pared-down version of this routine sampling continued from 2019 onward but is not included here. This dataset complements zebra mussel and zoobenthos data collected according to the same routine sampling structure, for which data is also archived with EDI.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
391
Data Sources
Date Range
-
Methods
We sampled phytobenthos twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along three transects running perpendicular to shore (A-C, Fig. 1). We collected triplicate samples at each site. SCUBA divers retrieved one rock at rock-dominated sites, or a petri dish full of undisturbed sediment at sand- and muck-dominated sites, and transported samples to the surface in a resealable plastic bag. In the laboratory, we scrubbed phytobenthos from rocks with a brush or emptied petri dish contents into a beaker. We separated phytobenthos from inorganic material by adding ~1 L of deionized water, homogenizing the sample, allowing settlement of inorganic material, and decanting the suspended phytobenthos. We kept samples dark and refrigerated until completely processed to prevent cell division after collection. <br/>We sampled phytobenthos twice a summer (early June and late August) from 2016-2018 at five depths (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10m) along three transects running perpendicular to shore (A-C, Fig. 1). We collected triplicate samples at each site. SCUBA divers retrieved one rock at rock-dominated sites, or a petri dish full of undisturbed sediment at sand- and muck-dominated sites, and transported samples to the surface in a resealable plastic bag. In the laboratory, we scrubbed phytobenthos from rocks with a brush or emptied petri dish contents into a beaker. We separated phytobenthos from inorganic material by adding ~1 L of deionized water, homogenizing the sample, allowing settlement of inorganic material, and decanting the suspended phytobenthos. We kept samples dark and refrigerated until completely processed to prevent cell division after collection.
Version Number
1

Madison community science field campaign to assess abundance and distribution of invasive jumping worms.

Abstract
Asian pheretimoid earthworms of the genera Amynthas and Metaphire
(jumping worms) are leading a new wave of co-invasion into
Northeastern and Midwestern states, with potential consequences for
native organisms and ecosystem processes. However, little is known
about their distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences in urban
landscapes – areas which likely influence range expansion via
human-driven spread. We led a participatory field campaign to assess
jumping worm distribution and abundance in Madison, Wisconsin in
September of 2017. By compressing 250 person-hours of sampling effort
into a single day, we quantified presence and abundance of three
jumping worm species across different land-cover types (forest,
grassland, open space, residential lawns and gardens), finding that
urban green spaces differed in invasibility. We show that community
science can be powerful for researching invasive species while
engaging the public in conservation. This approach was particularly
effective here, where broad spatial sampling was required within a
short temporal window.
Core Areas
Dataset ID
387
Date Range
LTER Keywords
Methods
At each study site, teams visually surveyed the area for signs of
jumping worm presence, including live organisms or the characteristic
granular soil signature indicative of their activity. For example, in
a residential yard, participants would walk through the space for
approximately 10 minutes, brushing aside leaf litter and checking
underneath planters or landscaping cloth (where the species are
anecdotally known to congregate) for live earthworms, and examining
garden soil for structural characteristics. Next, earthworms were
censused at three haphazard locations using a 30cm x 30cm quadrat and
a standard mustard extraction (Lawrence and Bowers 2002). Any
suspected jumping worms found were collected and returned to the
laboratory for visual identification following the field campaign. We
identified jumping worms to species (A. tokioensis, A. agrestis, M.
hilgendorfi) when possible (Chang et al. 2016a). Participants also
recorded the presence/absence of any additional (European) earthworm
species observed during sampling.
<br/>
NTL Themes
Version Number
1

North Temperate Lakes LTER: Trout Lake Spiny Water Flea 2014 - present

Abstract
Beginning in 2014, 30 meter vertical tows with a special zooplankton net were collected in Trout Lake specifically for the invasive Bythotrephes longimanus (spiny water flea). The net has a 400 micrometer mesh with a 0.5 meter diameter opening. Individuals are simply counted, and density is determined to be the number of individuals divided by the total water volume of each tow.
Additional Information
Related data set: North Temperate Lakes LTER: Zooplankton - Trout Lake Area 1992 - current (37)
Core Areas
Dataset ID
389
Date Range
-
Methods
Two 30-meter vertical tows (0.5m diameter, 400um mesh net) are collected at the deepest part of Trout Lake each time the lake is visited for routine LTER sampling during open water. On occasion, tows are collected on additional dates. Samples are visually scanned in their entirety for number of Bythotrephes present. The samples are not preserved or archived.

Publication Date
Version Number
1

North Temperate Lakes LTER Bythotrephes longimanus spiny water flea population monitoring in Wisconsin and Minnesota 2009 - 2014

Abstract
Three data tables are included describing population dynamics for Bythotrephes longimanus, spiny water flea, in Southern Wisconsin during invasion. General monitor took place in Lake Mendota, Lake Monona, Lake Waubesa, Lake Kegonsa, Stormy Lake, Gile Flowage, Lake Gogebic.Accompanying Bythotrephes morphological measurements from Lake Mendota monitoring efforts in 2011 and 2012. Included are individual measurements of body morphology and reproductive status for ~2,500 <em>Bythotrephes </em>collected from Lake Mendota in 2011 and 2012.Sediment cores from Lake Mendota were analyzed for spiny water flea evidence with age of sediment estimated.
Contact
Core Areas
Dataset ID
342
Date Range
-
Maintenance
complete
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”.
Version Number
8
Subscribe to invasive species