Pond Boss Forums Like Post

It may be of interest to some that there are desert playas that ephemerally occur in clay basins that support a remarkable biomass of organisms on a per unit area basis. What makes the biomass remarkable is that there is practically no photosynthesis taking place due to the extreme muddiness of the water. This is supported by evidence where chlorophyll is quantified. What supports these food webs are bacteria and fungi that break down organic detritus that accumulate in these pans. So these base materials are the result of photosynthesis that took place elsewhere and they find their way into the pans by being wind blown and by deposition of dung by higher life forms. So bacteria and fungi are primary detritivores that can support more complex organisms.

If one is paying attention to Bill Cody's posts regarding the use of copper based algaecides, he will notice that Bill warns of killing the benthos community as they accumulate in the sediment. The benthos community, which is responsible to recycle organics accumulating on the pond bottom, is a critical player in your pond's food web. I would go as far as to say that it is an indicator of the health of a pond. Since they live in and near the sediments and derive their living from the organics in the sediments, they are particularly sensitive to conditions there.

I may receive some criticism for this, but IMHO the use of fish feed on a perpetual and ongoing basis is a primary source of nutrient overloading in many recreational ponds. Ted, in your proposed 1 1/4 acre pond, which drains 2 acres, most of the nutrients will come from the soil and the well you will be filling it with. Unless you feed or fertilize, the well water, nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria, and bird wastes will be the primary sources of increasing nutrient load. It is doubtful, that you will have any problem with excessive nutrients for many years ... unless ... you put them in your pond by other means like feeding and/or fertilization.

Once nutrients become a real problem I question whether continuation of feeding is in the best interest of the pond owner. The problem, when one thinks about it, is nature's response to excessive nutrients. What could be better than nature's response? Some might say dye and herbicide so you can continue feeding. But for me, the answer is curtailment of deliberate nutrient inputs or at least natural solutions like wetland filters that Ted proposes. IMHO there is risk to take more food away from the pond's food web by using dyes and herbicides than can be gained by feed. Isn't it a non sequitur that one must add nutrients (feed) to a pond with excessive nutrients (excess ability to produce food)? It's worth considering other options for managing the problem of excessive nutrients.