Originally Posted By: Snipe
The sediment/muck is a big part of the nutrient source (thinking out loud) if you increase the depth to a point any useful vegetation will not grow then I would say you will never duplicate/replicate nutrient use by plants.
I would have to go back to the 20-25% rule. (of the newly opened up area)
I'm also on board with TJ's "5"..
However, should we also have a handle on what plant species is best at converting nutrients as well? This would change the amount, or % needed to replicate Spatterdock, would it not?
Also..if removing nutrient load in muck/sediment, will it REQUIRE the same conversion rate?.?….


Yes it would require the plants. What I didn't say is that this is in a 365 surface acre lake that is starting to experience Cyanobacteria blooms in late summer. There is going to be a nutrient reduction plan put in place, a bottom diffuser aeration plan, and a dredging plan also put in place. This will be a long tedious process, as the homeowners (i.e. boaters) want minimal underwater weeds, at least not within a few feet of the surface and minimal weeds along shore in front of the houses. The last time the sediment build up was measured was in 1999, and at that time it was estimated that in the existing 2' to 7' water depth range there was in excess of 195,000 cubic yards. (Personally I think that is WAY under estimated given the 75 year old bathyspheric map that I have.)

This area in particular is out in front of where a ditch enters the lake.

Last edited by esshup; 12/10/19 08:28 PM.
www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).