|
Forums36
Topics40,963
Posts557,989
Members18,503
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,151 Likes: 491
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,151 Likes: 491 |
ewest - It would be okay to add one to several buckets of water from one of his other ponds to the pond that was "nuked". This would reseed some of the microscopic organisms that would stimulate the bottom of the food chain. It is best to do this when nuisance forms of algae blooms are not occurring. There are definately periods when the pond water is dominated by less than desirable types of algae.
The disadvantages of doing this would be that he might introduce some nuisance algae types that are present in the donor pond. Numerous species of nuisance algae are usually present in most ponds all the time but their densities are very rare or scarse. When pond conditions change and favor their growth then nuisance species bloom.
Research has shown that the "nuked" or devistated ponds will naturally recover pretty rapidly in terms of recolonization of the microscopic biological community. Mount St. Helens is a good example on the large scale. Most new ponds quickly develop the basics of a food chain without help from humans. By spring the natural recolonization of Canepole's pond will be well on its way to recovery without the addition of extra reseed water.
The organisms that may not recolonize very rapidly are things like freshwater shrimp, clams, specialized invertebrates and fish.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|