Goal: understand human-riparian-littoral-pelagic interactions

-need for developing a more pragmatic plan

-discussion on staffing/people required for the fish crew, etc.

-Benthic Invertebrates (need for people/resources)

Riparian: What has happened in the past?

a) Fish: 40 lakes over 4 years

-CPUE - dominant species include WAE, LMB, SMB, RB, YP, BG

-Fish Growth - size-structure is the easiest variable

- length, weight, age (more difficult, more information?)

-Fish diversity - LPP protocol (fyke, electroshock, gill nets, minnow traps)

b) Macrophytes:

-Where? (CWD sites, random, reference v/s developed)

-Presence/absence (Percent cover)

-Coarse categories

c) Crayfish: LTER methodology

d) Benthic Invertebrates: No?

e) Microbes: Tony Yannarell, Eric Triplett

-Bacterial community

g) Limnology:

Sparkling (smelt and crayfish removal)

-Bring LTER data up to date

-Continue LTER sampling (limnology, fish, crayfish, macrophytes)

1. Benthic Invertebrates: LTER Dendy's

-gravel baskets, flower pot, snails?

2. Fish: Brian Roth

-CPUE, diets, size, age stucture - once a month

-bioenergetics -consumption (SMB, YP, RB, WAE)

3. Macrophytes: Karen Wilson

-8 transects used by Harry Boston (1980)

4. Crayfish:

Lodge/Kratz sampling distribution

Mark - recapture experiment

Fall 2001 removal

-block net removals in areas of high density

-beach seine at night

-CPUE, sex, carapace length, form I, form II males

5. Microbes: Tony Yannarell?
6. Smelt: REU/undergrad - summer

1. CWD:
2. Fish: Tanya Havlicek, Greg Sass

- CPUE, growth, bioenergetics, distribution, behaviour, recruitment, LMB, SMB, YP

3. Benthic Invertebrates: Intensive if REU/Undergrad available

-species, distribution, CWD, substrates

4. Microbes: Yannarell?
5. Limnology: (more frequent recording of data)

-secchi - conductivity - pH - TP - DOC - TN - temperature, DO profile

-discussion on "branchiness"

-staffing

-selection of sampling zones

a) a detailed sampling 10 metres from the shoreline of every tree species and dbh.

b) a less detailed (easier) sampling at the next 20 metres

c) shoreline mapping (Mark Wegener)

d) digital bathymetry -key for area and density measures

e) contacting private landowners for sampling permission

g) equipment needs: GPS, ….

a) Ten 50m (or is this 10-50 m) shoreline transects/lake

b) category rules: especially "branchiness", based on what is important to fish

c) shoreline data

- slope aspect of shoreline

- shoreline substrate type (rocky, sandy, etc)

-Smelt and crayfish infestation

-19 years of baseline historical macrophyte data - Barbara Benson's 1980 survey

To extirpate either, use Predation and Removal Interaction

Action: Can we get quick comparison data to address harvest alone v/s predator alone hypothesis?

Boulder Lake Lake association

Kentuck

Spring: Smelt - spawning areas?

May - August: design protocol

Any other baseline (Macrophytes, Diets)

Mid Aug - Sept: Major removal

Action: diplomacy with homeowners early: Spring break? (enlist students/others as helpers)

Nebish: lots of wood ADD

Little Rock: lots of wood REMOVE

Spruce: very little wood

Concern: confounding effects of harvest on populations (e.g. CWD ­ Þ Fish ¯ )

Action: Ask DNR about stopping harvest on Spruce: constant fishing effort.

Action: What are the indicator variables and how does stability compare among them?

Repeat a Power Analysis with existing data and simulation (e.g. population density, diversity, age-specific growth.

Action: How to measure compexity of CWD branching, diameter, clumping, placement?

Find: What are the measures of complexity fractal dimension used in landscape ecology?

-Monica's lab?

Need: Index?

Action Item: cribs placed in 1930's Woodruff DNR history fishers maps

- CWD mechanisms

- diet v/s refuge

- inverts

Fundamental Question:

What is socio-economic response to ecological change in lake system?

1. Form cooperative organization
2. Buy-Sell property

Note: there are many possible responses, but group discussion focused on these two responses

1. Formation of cooperative organization (questions to address)

1. What are lake associations? What responsibilities / capabilities do they have?
2. What characterizes or explains their success and persistence?
3. How does association affect lake development?
4. Why do associations form on some lakes and not on others?

Common analytical blueprint for collecting and analyzing this information

*** Truman Beweley Models

*** View lakes as common property resources and examine work of Ostrom and others on management of common property resources

Data collection issues

1. obtain lake association minutes, grant proposal etc in order to better understand their goals and objectives and to understand problems they face
2. attend lake association conference and begin networking with appropriate associations

2. People move (buy and sell lake properties) Why do people move from or to particular lakes?

1. on-going work with Dept. of Revenue data
2. interviews with local realtors and others with knowledge of local area
3. use platte maps and deeds to examine ownership patterns

***Additional discussion points not included on original overhead.***

1. Additional socio-economic responses to ecological change.

1. lake residents cooperate to restrict land use
2. restrictions on non-residents
3. non-residents change angling habits
4. local government response
5. residents keep nonresidents out (could look at police records, talk to fishing guides

2. What are residents responding to? Need to look at literature by Ty Bow (sp.??) on different social mechanisms which may give rise to associations.

3. Possibility of looking at changes in riparian zone change with the use of historical documents such as aerial photography

What are the criteria for lake selection? - public v/s private, critiques

Existing data (big list available): Garry Peterson, Greg, Mark, Mike, Tanya to creat lake selection matrix (fast and frugal)

Fish + terrestrial + social: pretty hazy as of now

Action: Garry and team to compile existing lake data for selection purposes. Small committee comprising Kitchell, Hotchkiss, Turner, Provencher, Carpenter, Kratz to nail down 20 lakes for summer and to prioritize these lakes.

2. What are we really going to do? (reality check)

Personnel requirements: 5-6 Graduate students, summer hourlies, 2 FT techs for 5 years

Data needs for experiments: need to flesh out exact data sets required

Experimental design: (on target) Y1- analyze removal methods, Y2 - carry out removal

Action: PI meetings +

3. Information management goals (Steve, Barbara, Tim K)

Flow of data to the information management team - adapt from LTER

- need protocols for tree sampling

- need protocols for social data

- data entry process (for fish is automated, need to set target to automate wood data by 2002)

- need for goals (IS and other resources)

4. Buy/scrounge stuff (technicians)

Techs are responsible for decisions on equipment and supplies

Need to have fish/wood expertise. Should have both techs in by May.

Tim - Fishy/woody ; Brian on campus - scuba requirements

Comparative: Lake selection + …

Experiments: Steve