• News
  • Lake Facts
  • About

Lake Scientist

Research Summary: Ecosystem Niche as a Framework for Lake Management

0
  • by Edgar Lowe and Lawrence Battoe
  • — March 26, 2014

We propose a framework for lake management that accounts for inherent variation in ecosystem state and extends the Hutchinsonian niche concept to the ecosystem level.

Analogous to the n-dimensional species niche, the ecosystem state “niche” is enclosed by the range of variation in primary environmental drivers within which the target ecosystem state can be established and maintained. We applied this concept to Lake Apopka in central Florida using the 3 major drivers of trophic status: concentration of total phosphorus; concentration of chlorophyll a; and transparency, as represented by Secchi disk transparency.

Floral-City-Tsala-Lake-Apopka-Florida

Lake Apopka, February 2007. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons User Ebyabe via Creative Commons)

We delineated 3 volumes or domains: regional, reference, and target domain, which is the ecosystem state niche for the desired condition. The regional domain includes the range of variation in trophic status drivers for the region. The reference domain lies within the regional domain and includes the ranges for trophic status variables for a set of lakes within the region that have conditions approximating the desired condition. The target domain is the ecosystem state niche, encompassed by the ranges of values required for establishment and persistence of the desired condition. The target domain, or ecosystem state niche, considers site-specific aspects such as the lake’s bathymetry, water budget, and natural nutrient loadings. Further, we demonstrate that state diagrams of the temporal trajectory of lake trophic status, plotted over the suite of domains, effectively track progress toward the management goals embodied by the ecosystem state niche.

Full study and references – “The ecosystem niche as a framework for lake management” – published in Lake and Reservoir Management (Volume 29, Issue 4; pages 279 – 284). Abstract reprinted by permission of North American Lake Management Society (http://www.nalms.org).

 

Share

You may also like...

  • Sampling of Ohio lakes shows high levels of algae toxin, coliform bacteria
  • County-funded shoreline buffers help protect lakes
  • Zebra mussels found in two critical Connecticut lakes
  • Predictive Modeling Supports Mapping of Ecosystem Services in a Lake Superior Estuary

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

FishSens SondeCAM HD
  • Recent Posts

    • Pennsylvania’s Lacawac Sanctuary Offers Rare Pristine Glacial Lake to ResearchersJanuary 31, 2019
    • Hawai‘i’s He‘eia NERR Looks to its Ancient Past to Prepare for its FutureJanuary 9, 2019
    • Managing and Studying Texas’s Edwards AquiferJanuary 2, 2019
    • Science in the Sub-Arctic: the Tundra Ecosystem Research StationDecember 28, 2018
    • From Alkalinity to Zebra Mussels: Murray State’s Hancock Biological Station Reveals Trends Via Long-Term and Real-Time Environmental MonitoringDecember 18, 2018
  • Popular Tags

    Great Lakes research Lake Erie pollution Product Spotlight invasive species research summary Algae international runoff Lake Michigan Ohio EPA nutrient-loading temperature dissolved oxygen eutrophication toxic waters USGS ice phosphorus Asian Carp Michigan climate change list

©2016 Fondriest Environmental Inc. | Questions? Call 888.426.2151 or email customercare@fondriest.com