- Aquatic ecology -- Research -- United States,
- Environmental monitoring -- Pacific Northwest,
- Oregon Lakes
MaxDepth Aquatics, Inc. was contracted to conduct a hydroacoustic survey of macrophyte distribution in Diamond Lake in 2009. The survey essentially repeated surveys conducted in 2002 and 2007, allowing for a detailed assessment of conditions in 2009 and comparisons among previous years. In addition, Portland State University was contracted to conduct a depth stratified random point sample survey of macrophyte species presence and absence. The point sample survey was similar to surveys conducted in 2005 and 2007. The results of the 2009 hydroacoustic survey showed that macrophytes were widely distributed throughout the lake at depths less than 8 meters, although some shorter aggregations of macrophytes were found at depths down to 14 meters. Average canopy height corresponded closely to macrophyte density in 2009. The recent survey showed that macrophytes had extended deeper throughout the lake compared to 2002 and 2007 and that canopy height had increased substantially in some locations. The 2009 distribution showed that recolonization of the near shore areas was proceeding, albeit at a relatively slow pace since the lake drawdown completed in 2006. The maximum density of macrophytes in 2009 was found between 4 to 6 meters. Five macrophyte species, one macroalgal species, and filamentous algae were present in the 2009 random point survey. The occurrence rates of the macrophytes Elodea canadensis, Ceratophyllum demersum, and Potamogeton praelongus in 2009 were similar to 2005 and 2007 while Potamogeton pusillus occurrence increased and Myriophyllum verticillatum decreased. Macrophytes were present in a few samples greater than 9 meters; however, biomass, as measured by the fullness of a sampling rake, was highest between 2 and 6 meters. The comparison of the grab sampling conducted in August with the hydroacoustic survey in early September showed poor correspondence in macrophyte density obtained by the two methods. This is likely due to differences in spatial scales of collected samples (10 m2 grid for hydroacoustics compared to < 1 m2 grab samples), comparison of a continuous analytic tool (hydroacoustic) versus an ordinal ranking of density (rake), and possibly some changes in the macrophytes community between the two sampling dates.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/mark_sytsma/55/