Pardon my ignorance, but the unit of measure that he's using for a scale (line = 10??). How many "10's" are there in a thousanth of an inch? Or, how many are in an inch?
The measurement unit is micrometers. One micrometer is equal to one thousandth of a millimeter or one millionth of a meter. Sometime it is called a micron.
This is fabulous micro-photography of plankton, the life force of any aquatic eco-system.
I got a microscope when I was 10 and looked at a drop of pond water and was amazed to see all the little animals swimming around in it. As I remember the book that came with it said to soak some straw in a glass of water for a few days and the plankton would develop also. I’m pretty sure they did I think I remember.
1 new lake 16 acres - greenish - vis 24 inches. 2 old lake 6+ acres - slight greenish/brown - vis 30 inches. 3 Murhead lake 12 acres - brown - vis 18 inches - this is the brown one.
Lake 1 new
Lake 2 old
Lake 3 Murhead - the brown one
For reference - this is the clearest of the lakes - lake 2 at the time of the sample and pic
There could be several articles. That will be up to Bill. I will help by providing any on the ground info he needs.
Too many people think of plankton as a single monolithic plant but as you can see that is not correct. Lots of different things in this water all with different purposes, requirements and effects. I would expect that the results will change over the summer. Time will tell.
Pond 3 with a secchi disk of 18” had phytoplankton of 83,183/ml. Detritus densities of sizes 0.1-1um were 931,300/ml, and 1-5+um were 347,500/ml. Detritus is almost always much more abundant (at least 10-100 times) in surface waters than the phytoplankton. The detrital component of the food web has proven to be very important in the aquatic ecosystems. Lots of zooplankton food available in pond 3.
I think the brown hue in this pond is due mainly to the Dinobryon (Chrysophyta) and the Euglenophytes such as Euglena, Phacus, Trachelomonas, Strombomonas. Pond 3 is rich in species of Euglenophyta. I have read that Euglenophyta as a group typically prefer waters rich in dissolved organics (DOC); maybe from leaves? Dinobryon is known to be phagotrophic (phagotrophy) and ingests bacteria and tiny detritus in addition to being photosynthetic.
Phytoplankton was diverse in this pond with lots of species. Most abundant specie in Pond 3 was a colonial green algae Coelastrum sphaericum (see Pd3Ful2). It exists as groups of 4-32 cells in arrangements of triangle or square depending on number of cells. Small unidentifiable Picoplankton and microflagellates were second and third most abundant taxa. Scenedesmus a green algae was 4th most abundant.
Pond 2 with a secchi disk of 30” had phytoplankton of 22,894/ml. Detritus densities of sizes 0.1-1um were 597,700/ml, and 1-5+um were 180,700/ml. Detritus is almost always much more abundant (at least 10-100 times).
Dominant species were Picoplankton 7200/ml, and Merismopedia tenuissima 4800/ml, and Microflagellates unidentified 3,800/ml. Many analysts do not count picoplankton because it is too small to see at 400X magnifications, which is a 400X count method often used by many labs, including universities. Thus many phytoplankton studies neglect the picoplankton component of the plankton community. Marine picoplankton has been studied the most, although freshwater picoplankton has been studied quite a bit, including by myself (“Picoplankton Counts Greatly Alter Phytoplankton Quantitative Analyses Results”. 1998. E.W.Wilde & W.R.Cody, J.Freshwater Ecology 13;(1) 79-85). Look at the picture on the right side edge and 3rd picture down. This colony has lots of small cells. When this colony breaks apart all those tiny cells become part of the picoplankton. Picoplankton is all single photosynthetic cells that have sizes of 2-3um dia and less, usually down to around 1um. I only count those that are 2-3 um dia.
Pond 2 had the lowest species diversity of 16 taxa in a standard count. All the species encountered were many of the same species that were also present in Ponds 3 and 1.
I made a special burnt mount preparation to look at some diatoms of Pond 2. Most of the diatoms were rare, in the sample. I thought you would like to see pictures of some of them. Attachment EW diatomsP2 . One of the pictures in this plate is not a diatom. It belongs to a genus of scaled Chrysophyte called Mallamonas (probably M. tonsurata). Two interesting species of diatoms occurred in the Ponds as common or rare taxa. One was a centric diatom that I do not see very often – Aulacoseira tenera (1056/ml) Ponds 1 & 2. The other was a needle shaped diatom with a swollen middle - Fragilaria longifusiformis (upper left picture of EW Pd2 PL1 and EW DiatomsP2). It occurred in all three ponds but was most abundant in Pond 3 (6000/ml) . F. longifusiformis is a new name for this species. It was transferred from Synedra planktonica to the new name in 2006. Last time that I saw it was in some South Carolina samples. A. tenera and F. longifusiformis most generally occur in lower alkalinity waters. Two other interesting species in Pond 2 two were Anabaena sp1 (1420 cell equivalents/ml) and Anabaena sp2 (182 cell equivalents/ml). I could not positively determine a specie name for either of the Anabaena. Some Anabaena are morphologically variable species and positive identification can at times be difficult. Both Anabaena were also in Pond 1 as rare taxa.
Pond 1 with a secchi disk of 24” had phytoplankton of 124,320/ml. Detritus densities in this pond were the highest of all three ponds: sizes 0.1-1um were 3,197,000/ml, and 1-5+um were 973,000/ml. Detritus is almost always much more abundant (at least 5-50 times). Notice in the back ground of picture EW Pd1 GroupA there is a lot of what looks like dirt or dust. The magnification for this picture is 400X and estimate the detritus at 1000X. It does not have any bilateral or radial symmetry, not round nor having any special symmetry. This is the detritus that I describe or make note of in the samples. The smallest particles of 0.1-1 um you don’t see at 400X. This is from Wetzel 2001, Limnology Lake & River Ecosystems: Detritus is technically called particulate organic matter (POM). Many organisms ingest variable amounts of particulate detritus (dead organic matter) which I have noted, normally dominates the plankton. Studies indicate that up to 99% of the organic matter fluxes within aquatic ecosystems are detrital-based, however the predation based paradigms continue to prevail as the primary constructs of ecosystem operations, whereas in reality they are the minority. Essentially, all inland water ecosystems are microbially based heterotrophic ecosystems in which heterotrophic utilization of organic matter within lakes and streams exceeds - usually greatly exceeds - autochthonous autotrophic production . Wetzel says, Detrital DOC and POC have long been known to exceed by many times the amount of organic carbon present as living material in the form of bacteria, plankton, flora, and fauna. ). As you can see my estimates of the living particulate organic carbon (POC) i.e.phytoplankton comprise a small part of the potential total POC. Dominant species in Pond 1 were Aphanocapsa small colony at 36,000/ml, Chroococcus microscopicus at 19,200/ml, and Picoplankton at 17,520/ml. In this pond Aphanocapsa and Chroococcus exist as small colonies of very small cells about 1 um dia. In picture EW Pd1 GroupA at the bottom center there what I call an Aphaocapsa colony. There is another group of this type of cells to the left on the right side of that narrow finger-like thing (Eunotia bilunaris) coming up from the bottom. When these colonies break up the cells become part of the Picoplankton. When they decay into smaller particles or become manure, they become a portion of the dead detrital organic matter, – detritus. In the counts, Pond 1 had the most number of species 35, Pond 2 had 16 species and Pond 3 had 26 species. Higher species diversity is a good feature.
I ask about that and the answer is it does not work. I even moved 500 gals of water from one pond to another with no luck even with ideal circumstances. If you find out different I would like to know.
Very often what grows in jar monocultures does not do well in the natural pond habitats due primarily to widely different conditions. Jar cultures are mostly beneficial for feeding zooplankton cultures.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/15/1107:36 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
Why do you think transplanting plankton from one pond to another doesn't work?
Because I tried it 3 times under ideal conditions and it did not work. This was confirmed IMO by Bill's testing the water. I looked at it first for 2 years and with no results as far as I could tell I asked Bill to look.
Seeding may work somewhere else but I had no luck.
Nature is VERY inovative in transferring species, especially tiny ones such as bacteria and algae. Species distribution, location and movement are a science. Many of the hundreds of thousands of algae species are specialists favoring or only growing in unique conditions be it eutrophic, mesotrophic or oligotrophic with wide differences in each category. Many are generalists 'doing' well, or rampant or just surviving in a wide range of conditions (pH, hardness, macro and micro nutrients in conjunction with external influences). Add competition factors into the mix and it becomes quite complex.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/16/1108:10 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
Do you have water quality test results for each of the 3 ponds? If so, and you find the time, could you post them? I'm interested to see if the water quality parameters were part of the reason why you couldn't get a green bloom going in Mur Pond 3.
I have old soil test info that indicates no nutrient or other problems other than needing lime - which it gets. All other factors are in the normal range. The brown pond is more productive than the others even with no green as per the plankton analysis by Bill and growth rates on fish. Greg ran some water parameters and they were ok (better than what mine showed).
As I recall and without looking at the data, the brownish pond (Mu Pond3), had a bloom when I analyzed the phytoplankton. The bloom was comprised of species with darker colored chlorophyll and pigments rather than those species with brigher green hues. There is probably a unique micro nutrient and/or dissolved substance combination in this pond that favors the browner, darker colored species of algae. I analyzed water from one of Ray Scott's ponds that had water chemistry that produced a bloom with a reddish hue.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 02/06/1309:27 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
It's so funny that this thread came up, I was about to post a question regarding taking pictures on a microscope. Since it's related to this topic I'll ask it here or a mod can edit and move it for me.
I've been looking for something to capture pictures on my microscope that's relatively inexpensive but I want something with enough quality to identify microscopic cells or organisms or look at fish scales for aging.
SkyLight: This one just snaps a picture of the field of view through one of the microscope eyepieces with a smartphone, might be capable of taking a video (I have to find out), it's a camera stabilizer ($65): http://www.skylightscope.com/purchase/product/skylight/
Comparison study of a SkyLight/iPhone 4s and Olympus DP70: http://www.jascyto.org/article/S2213-2945(12)00269-4/fulltext (might have to copy and paste this in your browser)
I like the simplicity of the stabilizer for my iPhone, no computer connection needed, probably good enough for my purpose, pictures can be easily enlarged and my pictures will be portable instead of printing them but, will I miss the ability to measure? Keep in mind that I will have to look up plankton to identify them because this isn't a field that I know much about. There has been another occasion when I was trying to identify a parasite where I wished I had a way to measure. Also, the software included with the USB camera is only good for PC's, if I ever get a MAC I will only be able to live preview and capture images.
Bill, or anybody else with knowledge, can you help me decide or suggest something else?
My dad got my little guy a microscope from Orion (same guys that make telescopes) rather than an eyepiece, it has a digital back. Takes pretty good videos and images. It is a surprisingly affordable and decent outfit! History: My dad was a professional microscopist at Kodak as part of his chemistry career.
Only problem is it's highest level of magnification is pretty close to the slide, so you really need some thin slices to view them properly.
I will see if I can post some images I took for examples.
The microscopenet and Celestron Digital Microscope Imager units appear to only capture video & transfer it to a screen and not take digital pictures. Probably okay if that is what you want. Skylight holds your cell phone. Have you tried to just put your phone up to the eye piece and snap a picture? A professor at a local small college told me her students were doing that (hold phone to the eyepiece) to get some OK pictures using the microscope.
Measuring objects and putting the measurement on a picture: To apply measurements to a picture you will need to first calibrate an ocular micrometer in your eyepiece then use that calibration for the camera unit that 'stamps' the measurement onto the picture. You to need to know a length of something at the magnification that you are using to transpose that measurement to a photograph. Do you have a micrometer in your microscope ocular? Then you will also need to have a standard unit stage micrometer to calibrate your ocular micrometer - do you have one of those? Without those things measurements on the picture will not be accurate.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 02/07/1308:06 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
Most were taken before I realized I needed a diffuser on the aperture, so there are abundant halos. Looks much better with the diffuser, but my SD card kicked the bucket after being toted around the house.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
