Charts are great ! I liken a pond to an engine (sun is fuel , nutrients (represented by secchi readings / plankton) and water quality. You can add to the nutrients (or have naturally high rate due to soil) and run the engine at high rate which produces more and more -- until it wears out or breaks. Then you have water quality issues , fish kills , stinky water quality etc. The trick is to get the most out of the engine (get where you are headed/ reach goals) over time without creating a broken down engine.

One thing to note is many of the Fla lakes have great water quality as the soil is very good underlaid by limestone and phosphate. Some of those lakes have tremendous productive ability with minimal water quality issues. The study map shows this and many of the locations were in the central phosphate belt.

A good quote on the process from the study;
There are many quantitative studies that support the expectation that an increase in productivity at the base of food chains
in a lake should translate into an increase in the abundance of
fish at higher trophic levels. Oglesby (1977) found high correlations between fish yields in lakes and summer phytoplankton
standing crops as measured by chlorophyll A and also between
fish yield and annual primary productivity.

Last edited by ewest; 11/01/21 10:05 AM.