Consultant's Report - Minnesota State Legislature
Consultant's Report - Minnesota State Legislature Consultant's Report - Minnesota State Legislature
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread of Zebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake findings, MacIsaac and Rocha (1995) reported that total copepod abundance (mainly nauplii) declined between 39 and 69 percent between 1988 and 1993. Generally, it is difficult to differentiate between suppression of zooplankton resulting from direct ingestion by zebra mussels and that caused from food limitation (MacIsaac and Rocha 1995). Planktivorous Fish The suppression of small zooplankton may reduce the food availability for fish that are planktivorous at some developmental stage; however, the actual field results have not been conclusive. While yellow perch recruitment and commercial harvest in Lake Erie declined during the time when zebra mussels invaded the region, the success of other fish species in the region such as the white perch may have contributed to the reduced numbers of yellow perch (OMNR 1994). Walleye populations within the region have also been variable (OMNR 1994). While the invasion of the zebra mussel within Lake Erie is believed to have increased water clarity and light transmittance, this phenomenon is thought to have altered the walleye's habitat. ONMR (1995) has reported that the returns on walleye have been reduced to mixed, as this lightsensitive species has been encountered at increased depths within the region. Molluscivorous Fish The invasion and proliferation of zebra mussels has served as an alternate food supply for those fish that contain upper and lower pharyngeal teeth and chewing pads (French 1993). Within the Great Lakes region, fishes known or expected to consume zebra mussels include freshwater drum, redear sunfish, pumpkinseed, copper and river redhorse, and common carp (French 1993). Adult zebra mussels have been found in the digestive tracks of yellow perch, white perch, lake whitefish, lake sturgeon, and the round goby (French 1993). Macrophytes In turbid, light-limited environments, the presence of zebra mussels may benefit macrophytes. Mussel production may enhance water clarity by reducing suspended sediments, which can promote macrophyte growth (Lewandowski 1982). Piscivorous Fish Zebra mussels may have an indirect beneficial impact on piscivorous fish. The increased abundance of muskellunge, northern pike, and bass in Lake St. Clair may be related to the increased presence of macrophytes and enhanced water clarity, which have been linked to the zebra mussel infestations (Griffiths 1993). Benthic Inverlebrates The invasion of zebra mussels may shift energy from planktonic to benthic foodwebs, and this transition may increase benthic invertebrate communities (MacIsaac 1996). Unionid mussels have been adversely impacted directly by the colonization of zebra mussels (Schloesser et al. 1996). Conversely, other invertebrates including annelids, gastropods, amphipods, and crayfish have directly benefited from the increased presence of feces and pseudofeces associated with IV-15 Review ofZebra Mussel (Dreissella polymorpha) Species
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread of Zebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake zebra mussel production (Stewart and Haynes 1994). Within Lake Erie (Dermott et al. 1993) and Lake St. Clair (Griffiths 1993), these populations of benthic invertebrates have increased proportionately with zebra mussels. Diving Waterfowl Diving waterfowl have been known to prey on zebra mussels within North America. The following species have been observed feeding extensively on zebra mussels in Ontario and throughout the Lake Erie region: greater scaup, lesser scaup, common goldeneye, and the bufflehead (Wormington and Leach 1992, Hamilton et al. 1994). Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Nonindigenous species (NlS), also called exotic, alien or nonnative species, are generally referred to as those plants and animals that are found beyond their natural geographical ranges (US Congress, OTA 1993). It is estimated that as many as 50,000 nonindigenous species (plants, animals, invertebrates, microbes, etc.) have been introduced into the United States (pimentel et al. 2000). Not all nonindigenous species are harmful; some are beneficial including many food crops (US Congress OTA 1993, Pimentel et al. 2000). In more specific terms, an invasive species is one category ofnonindigenous species that is defined as 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112 1999). Invasive species can cause direct harm to species and habitat by directly competing for resources and competitively interacting with native, indigenous species. Additionally, invasive species can result in indirect impacts to species and the general ecology of a system such as the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB). In either case, the impacts are often irreversible and costly. In a 1993 study produced by the United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, it was estimated that 79 nonindigenous species had caused approximately $97 billion in damages from a period of 1906 to 1991. However, more current estimates indicate that some nonindigenous species in the United States may cause as much as $137 billion of damage per year (Pimentel et al. 2000). Most plant and vertebrate introductions were intentional, compared to invertebrate and microbe introductions that are mainly unintentional (Pimentel et al. 2000). Although intentional, not all introductions were malicious attempts to directly alter ecosystems but rather attempts to biologically control or enhance environments. Despite the introduction intentions, some nonindigenous species are spreading at alarming rates and threaten ecologically significant areas such as the Upper Mississippi River Basin. A sub-classification of invasive species are the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) described as nonindigenous species that threaten the diversity or abundance of native species; the ecological stability of infested waters; or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural and recreational activities dependent on waters (ANS 2000). The threat of ANS has prompted action at local, state and federal levels. In 1990, The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act IV-16 Review of Zebra Mussel (Dreissella polymorpha) Species
- Page 3 and 4: List ofTables MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
- Page 5 and 6: I. Introduction Purpose MINNESOTA D
- Page 7 and 8: Feasibility Study To Limit the Spre
- Page 9: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 13 and 14: Hydrological Characteristics MINNES
- Page 15: Outlet Structure MINNESOTA DEPARTME
- Page 20: lBhsl Nllrtq Osso'winnomakee Pelica
- Page 23 and 24: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 25 and 26: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 28 and 29: Age and Growth MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
- Page 32 and 33: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 35: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 39 and 40: Works Cited MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- Page 41 and 42: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 43 and 44: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 46 and 47: Table V-1. Methods Available for Co
- Page 48 and 49: Cavitation MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- Page 50 and 51: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 52: Potassium Salts MINNESOTA DEPARTMEN
- Page 56 and 57: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 58 and 59: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 60 and 61: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 62 and 63: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 64 and 65: Works Cited MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- Page 67: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 72 and 73: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 74: Combined Treatments MINNESOTA DEPAR
- Page 78 and 79: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 80 and 81: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 82 and 83: Feasibility Study To Limit the Spre
- Page 84 and 85: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION MINNESOTA D
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES<br />
Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread of Zebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake<br />
findings, MacIsaac and Rocha (1995) reported that total copepod abundance (mainly nauplii)<br />
declined between 39 and 69 percent between 1988 and 1993. Generally, it is difficult to<br />
differentiate between suppression of zooplankton resulting from direct ingestion by zebra<br />
mussels and that caused from food limitation (MacIsaac and Rocha 1995).<br />
Planktivorous Fish<br />
The suppression of small zooplankton may reduce the food availability for fish that are<br />
planktivorous at some developmental stage; however, the actual field results have not been<br />
conclusive. While yellow perch recruitment and commercial harvest in Lake Erie declined<br />
during the time when zebra mussels invaded the region, the success of other fish species in the<br />
region such as the white perch may have contributed to the reduced numbers of yellow perch<br />
(OMNR 1994). Walleye populations within the region have also been variable (OMNR 1994).<br />
While the invasion of the zebra mussel within Lake Erie is believed to have increased water<br />
clarity and light transmittance, this phenomenon is thought to have altered the walleye's habitat.<br />
ONMR (1995) has reported that the returns on walleye have been reduced to mixed, as this lightsensitive<br />
species has been encountered at increased depths within the region.<br />
Molluscivorous Fish<br />
The invasion and proliferation of zebra mussels has served as an alternate food supply for those<br />
fish that contain upper and lower pharyngeal teeth and chewing pads (French 1993). Within the<br />
Great Lakes region, fishes known or expected to consume zebra mussels include freshwater<br />
drum, redear sunfish, pumpkinseed, copper and river redhorse, and common carp (French 1993).<br />
Adult zebra mussels have been found in the digestive tracks of yellow perch, white perch, lake<br />
whitefish, lake sturgeon, and the round goby (French 1993).<br />
Macrophytes<br />
In turbid, light-limited environments, the presence of zebra mussels may benefit macrophytes.<br />
Mussel production may enhance water clarity by reducing suspended sediments, which can<br />
promote macrophyte growth (Lewandowski 1982).<br />
Piscivorous Fish<br />
Zebra mussels may have an indirect beneficial impact on piscivorous fish. The increased<br />
abundance of muskellunge, northern pike, and bass in Lake St. Clair may be related to the<br />
increased presence of macrophytes and enhanced water clarity, which have been linked to the<br />
zebra mussel infestations (Griffiths 1993).<br />
Benthic Inverlebrates<br />
The invasion of zebra mussels may shift energy from planktonic to benthic foodwebs, and this<br />
transition may increase benthic invertebrate communities (MacIsaac 1996). Unionid mussels<br />
have been adversely impacted directly by the colonization of zebra mussels (Schloesser et al.<br />
1996). Conversely, other invertebrates including annelids, gastropods, amphipods, and crayfish<br />
have directly benefited from the increased presence of feces and pseudofeces associated with<br />
IV-15 Review ofZebra Mussel (Dreissella polymorpha) Species
Change language