OK, It looks like it's just a matter of semantics that we're discussing.
Let's assume my definition of carrying capacity for a moment.
My definition of carrying capacity is as follows:
The carrying capacity of a pond is the total combined dry weight of all plants and animals.
This definition can be further broken down into subgroups of microphytic and macrophytic life, as well as vertebrate and invertebrate animal life.
You can even further break that down into largemouth bass or bluegill or gar if you wish.
Kill all the organisms, dry 'em out, and weigh them, and you've got the total carrying weight of a pond. The capacity of this weight is the ultimate amount of weight that can be held in the confines of that system. Hence carrying capacity is maximum dry weight of plants and animals.
I contend that the carrying capacity, as previously, arbitrarily defined by me, is essentially a constant, when defined by a certain amount of available original energy, influenced, or amplified if you will, by the plants ability to turn that energy, by photosynthesis as follows:
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
Six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen.
I further contend that the carrying capacity of a pond is almost entirely unaffected by the presence of structure or habitat.
Notice I said unaffected by structure or habitat.
Now let's make an analogy.
You own ten identical enclosures. Each enclosure is 20 X 20 feet X 12 feet high. Each enclosure has a trap door in the ceiling.
Within the enclosure you have trapped the following organisms.
1. 10 billion bacteria
2. 100 mice
3. 50 rabbits
4. 10 chimps
5. 2 orangutans
One mile away, you own a fine restaurant, and your specialty is the best soy burger ever invented. Your 'veggie burger' is the toast of the town. You also have in your employ ten couriers, who have nice bicycles to deliver your product around town.
You decide that you're going to deliver a dozen of these delicious veggie burgers to each enclosure every day. The individual courier will open the trap door in the ceiling and drop the veggie burgers into the room.
Your restaurant represents the sun. The couriers represent plant's ability to deliver energy into the system. The occupants of the building represent your live organisms in the pond.
Each courier makes his delivery at each of the enclosure at the same time and drops the food straight to the floor. It's a mad scramble for the food! Bodies and fur flying everywhere! The quickest to the food gorge themselves. Some animals thrive and others get beat out every time. You would find that if you repeated this process everyday, that a hierarchy would develop. Certain animals would always get their share. Some animals would perish. The ones that thrived would defacate and the bacteria would get their share because they're specialists, but certain types of bacteria would do well and others wouldn't.
Im contending that all ten enclosures would end up with similar hierarchies. Certain species would always rise to the top. Some would get their share by jumping to the food as it fell. Others would get their share because of their speed.
One thing would be for certain, though.
The original weight of the animals, plus the weight of the added nutrients in the form of your veggie burgers would be a simple identifiable number. The total dry weight in each room would be the same.
Now let's introduce structure.
Let's say that in two of the rooms you built shelves ten feet off of the floor. When the courier brought his food he would carefully lower the veggie burgers onto the shelves.
This is what structure and habitat do. They change the dynamic of availability.
Now the orangutans have a huge advantage. Their monstrously long arms can reach up to grab the burgers off of the shelves. The mice are probably screwed. The rabbit's speed has been negated.
But you know what?? The total weight of animal mass in these two rooms will stay the same as the rooms without the shelves. It will simply be redistributed. It will still be the added weight of the twelve veggie burgers to the original weight of the animals. Energy and matter work this way. You can't make matter without energy.
From the dictionary:
Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms (for instance, friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy). In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems.
Put simply, The law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created (made from nothing), or destroyed (made to disappear to no-where) and that energy can be changed from one form to another (such as electrical energy in to heat energy).
You can redistribute, but you can't create.
How can you make one of the enclosures exceed the others?
Well, for one you could provide more veggie burgers to each enclosure on a daily basis. That would be the same as improving the water clarity of your pond. This allows for more sunlight penetration into the system, which is more utilizable energy.
Another way would be to have two couriers take burgers to the enclosure each day. This would be the same as fertilizing an oligotrophic pond so that more plants, in the form of algae are working for you to bring the burgers to the enclosure occupants.
You could also start introducing other food sources like maybe some pasta. This would be like feeding the fish in your pond.
But no matter what you do with the structure, by adding shelves, or dangling the veggie burger off of a string, or hiding it in a box, all you can do is redistribute the available energy. You can't create any new mass.
Now why is this all relevant? Maybe it really isn't at all.
Most people think of increasing carrying capacity as a means to increase the mass of their combined bluegill and bass communities. This is definitely something you can accomplish. If this is your definition of carrying capacity, then you can absolutely do it by creating structures and habitats that favor the species that you like to catch. But every extra ounce of largemouth means one less ounce of something else.
So it really just comes down to what your definition of "carrying capacity" is. Once you've defined that, then you've got something to work with.
In the original carrying capacity thread, we were discussing carrying capacity as it pertains to specific species, and as it is limited by certain factors such as lack of light, or lack of suitable water for a particular fish.
As long as we're talking about carrying capacity of a single desirable species, irrespective of the pond's overall carrying capacity, then I'm on board with the structure as a means of improvement. I love the idea of structure. I can't say that enough. I just wanted to crystalize the discussion a little bit.
Here's the link:
http://www.pondboss.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000004
Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 04:42 PM.
