Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Selecting a site Quarry Contest 2010

But, nutrients don't have to be limited to what's in sediment. Nutrients can be dissolved in water as well - look at hydrophonics.

Which does what for the sago? (Helps or hurts)

Helps, but only in the short term right? Eventually they kill themselves off by their overabundance, taking all that your lake has.

That depends on what the goal for Sago is. Like Eric said it helps the Sago grow short term, but hurts the long term growth.

Bruce:

With the influx of groundwater, limited available nutrients, and relatively shallow overall pond depth, how will a photoplankton bloom stay established to minimize excessive submerged weed growth?

Why, thank you, DIED! I appreciate the compliment, especially since I feel like I'm taking random shots in the dark here! I feel sorta like Dustin Hoffman as Rainman - a bit of an idiot savante, though with the greater emphasis on idiot!

See, I've been going with the saying "Better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

Fair warning. I may feel the need to use that quote at some point in the future.

Sorry I've been absent for a bit - just finished a phone conference, but I'm back in the game now!

Well, even though you may have inadvertently answered this one yourself, I think I even would have figured out that this condition would lead to increased water clarity. Less nutrients available would definitely reduce algae's ability to grow/thrive from what I've learned over the past several months on the forum, which is why we strive to have the right balance in our ponds. Enough nutrients, we get a healthy bloom; not enough, you get increased clarity and greater light penetration and plant growth to deeper depths. I think I hit on the turbidity point a little earlier today, so it seems to make sense as things are all coming together, or at least I think so!

I'm catching up here, folks - looks like a handful of posts occurred while I was away from my computer. Esshup, I am taking this to be exactly what Bruce is saying if I am correctly understanding the line of questions here. The nutrients would be largely contained in the soil/substrate and would really foster good growth of the Sago. The nutrients still in the water, because there would have to be some still there, are probably also getting used up by the plants as they flourish.

Helps.

Definitely helps. It's a vicious cycle. Sago doesn't wax and wane like some emergents throughout the year. You can get a good bloom that lasts 6-7 months.

I'm thinking the regular influx of groundwater will aid by adding nutrients to the water on a fairly consistent basis and maybe that would be enough to sustain a bloom PROVIDED the right stuff is being washed into the lake. At some point, it makes sense that if there wasn't fertilizer or other reasonably rich sources of nutrient being carried in, the lake owners might have to add something, i.e., fertilizer, to get/keep the bloom going.

Is that at all a reasonable interpretation?

The goal for sago is to live year to year. Once sago uses up all the nutrients it doesn't die...it just stops growing...and waiting and lurking to steal each addition bit of nitrogen and phosphorous that re-enters the system, inluding the phosphorous and nitrogen that enter the system through the death of it's own brethren. Generally if sago gets off to a terrific start it will be embedded until you get some serious cold weather, usually 1st of November in Nebraska.

A theory to which I readily subscribe, my friend! (I've even used that with a client or two in my time - sometimes they even understand my point!) However, on this one, I've decided to wade right in and just let all my inhibitions go! No issues of personal pride here, baby!

Ideally you have just enough turbidity to limit sago's fast start. That way you can get some single celled algae to use nutrients and limit light penetration for the rest of the year. In 2009 I never saw a single stalk of sago. The water was deeper from recent (last three years) rainfall, and was also getting some light turbidity from early spring rains. The sago got off to a poor start then got outcompeted by the single celled algae. Another vicious cycle.

Understood!

sago is rhizome based i think, and doesnt like water depths >10 feet....so if a prolonged wet cycle kept the water levels up (via groundwater) wouldnt the rhizomes eventually rot out? sounds like in yer pond the rhizomes survived long enough for that next drought cycle.

any more non-geology questions.......i'm toast.

I'm not buying that rubbish, DIED! You just used "rhizome" in a coherent and appropriately contextual sentence! You're sandbagging, methinks!

I wonder if you will have more problems with Sago as time progresses. If you are the last house (in the foreseeable future) to be built on the surrounding land, there will be less bare ground exposed due to construction. As time goes on, there will be less and less surface run-off into the pond as the vegetation grows surrounding the pond. Which possibly means that there would be less suspended sediment washed into the pond, but not a reduction in dissolved nutrients (from the lawns). Same nutrient load (or increased nutrient load due to more fish in the pond as time goes on) and possibly increased water clarity unless the photoplankton gets a jump on the Sago in the Spring.

Great and simple illustration of this whole line of logic, Bruce. Thanks - makes a lot of this much more clear (kinda like your water!).

the sum of the parts has tickled this question to death.

Bruce:

I may be answering my own question here, but have you seen a problem with FA in the pond? (at any time of the year) If not, could it be the Sago assimilating the nutrients before the FA got a foothold?