Duval et al fish habitat
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•408 views
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ă„hnlich wie Duval et al fish habitat
Ă„hnlich wie Duval et al fish habitat (20)
KĂĽrzlich hochgeladen
KĂĽrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Duval et al fish habitat
- 1. Strategic Aquatic Habitat Conservation Opportunities for Minnesota Lakes Michael Duval Peter Jacobson Tom Jones Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources MN Association of Conservation Professionals Camp Ripley, MN March 2, 2012 Photo courtesy of Bill Lindner Photography
- 2. Primary Categories of Fish Habitat in Lakes Physical Structure Water Quality Properties Properties • vegetation • sedimentation • woody habitat • epiphytic algae • substrate • hypolimnetic oxygen • regime shifts Primary Disturbance Drivers Shoreline Watershed disturbance from disturbance from development urbanization and agriculture
- 4. Courtesy UW – Green Bay
- 5. Interaction of water quality with fish species 140 a ab 120 b 100 bc c bc IBI 80 60 40 20 Forest Forest Ag/For Ag/For/ Urban Ag > 60% Urb Drake and Pereira 2002. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1105-1123.
- 6. Interaction of water quality with physical habitats Photo: Eric Engbretson Scheffer et al. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.
- 7. HIGH Watershed Disturbance Restore watershed Restore watershed Protect shoreline Restore shoreline Threshold > Protect watershed Protect watershed Protect shoreline Restore shoreline LOW ^ LOW Threshold HIGH Shoreline Disturbance
- 9. Estimated land disturbance in local lake catchments
- 10. Estimated statewide disturbance in lake watersheds
- 11. Primary Categories of Fish Habitat in Lakes Physical Structure Water Quality Properties Properties • vegetation • sedimentation • woody habitat • epiphytic algae • substrate • hypolimnetic oxygen • regime shifts Primary Disturbance Drivers Shoreline Watershed disturbance from disturbance from development urbanization and agriculture
- 12. Cumulative effects of shoreline development on Lake Selection fish habitat in northern Minnesota lakes • Northern Lakes & Forests • Mesotrophic, TP 12-30 ppb • High in watershed GOALS • Analyze shoreline development on 100 lakes • Determine and model local habitat impacts • Develop and test model to predict effects of shoreline development on fish 100 Lakes: GIS DNR U of M 30 Lakes: fish and habitat sites Donna Dustin Bruce Vondracek 12 Lakes: whole lake habitat Cindy Tomcko Jen Keville Jessie Lepore
- 15. Interim estimated riparian lake habitat condition Preliminary analyses provided by Donna Dustin, Fisheries Research
- 16. HIGH Watershed Disturbance Restore watershed Restore watershed Protect shoreline Restore shoreline Threshold > Protect watershed Protect watershed Protect shoreline Restore shoreline LOW ^ LOW Threshold HIGH Shoreline Disturbance
- 17. Lake Habitat Condition Assessment Minnesota Lakes Fish Habitat Condition 100 Watershed Disturbance (% disturbed land use) 75 50 25 0 0 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 Shoreline Disturbance (% developed within 75m)
- 18. Habitat Condition Assessment Minnesota Lakes Fish Habitat Condition 100 Watershed Disturbance (% disturbed land use) 75 50 25 0 0 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 Shoreline Disturbance (% developed within 75m)
- 19. Visualizing risk of WQ 100 habitat Percent of Watershed Protected 80 degradation 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Watershed Disturbance (% disturbed land use)
- 21. Ten Mile Lake Watershed Owner Acres % County 7,106 27.9 State 5,342 20.9 Federal 6,154 24.1 Private 6,907 27.1 Total 25,510 $400,000 for 530 acres of private forest conservation easements @$750/acre would protect 75% of the total watershed
- 22. Protection example of reducing WQ risk 100 80 2011, added 1,000 acre SRA 2010, added 270 acre SNA Percent Protected 60 2009 Photo: Kristi Coughlin 40 PROTECTION RESTORATION 20 PARTIAL RESTORATION 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Disturbed
- 23. What do we mean by partial restoration?
- 24. Photos courtesy of Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
- 26. Restoration example of reducing nearshore disturbance Minnesota Lakes Fish Habitat Condition 100 Watershed Disturbance (% disturbed land use) 75 50 25 0 0 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 Shoreline Disturbance (% developed within 75m)
- 27. Proposed Allocation of Resources Section of Fisheries 60% 40% Protection Restoration
- 28. Thank You! michael.duval@state.mn.us peter.jacobson@state.mn.us tom.jones@state.mn.us
Hinweis der Redaktion
- The lakes in the study are tiered such that different lakes will get different levels of attention. All 100 lakes will be included in the GIS analysis, where, in addition to the development buffers that I already discussed, we will try various methods to characterize the lakeshore remotely. The GIS only lakes are shown in orange.30 Lakes (blue dots) will be visited and we will sample habitat and fish at a number of sites, and ground-truth the GIS results. At 12 lakes (green dots) we will collect habitat data for the entire lake, so that we can develop whole-lake models of the effects of various habitat scenarios.