Geology topics

Research about Great Lakes

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Great Lakes.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

USGS2016

Eurytemora carolleeae in the Laurentian Great Lakes revealed by phylogenetic and morphological analysis

In the Laurentian Great Lakes, specimens of Eurytemora have been reported as Eurytemora affinis since its invasion in the late 1950s. During an intensive collection of aquatic invertebrates for morphological and molecular identification in Western Lake Erie in 2012-2013, several specimens of Eurytemora were collected. Analysis of these specimens identified them as the recently described species Eurytemora carolleeae Alekseev and Souissi 2011. This result led us to assess E. carolleeae’s identifying features, geographic distribution and historical presence in the Laurentian Great Lakes in view of its recent description in 2011. Cytochrome oxidase I (COI) DNA sequences of Eurytemora specimens were identified as closer (2 - 4% different) to recently described E. carolleeae than to most E. affinis sequences (14% different). Eurytemora from other areas of the Great Lakes and from North American rivers as far west as South Dakota (Missouri River) and east to Delaware (Christina River) also keyed to E. carolleeae . Morphological analysis of archival specimens from 1962 and from all the Great Lakes was identified as E. carolleeae . Additionally, Eurytemora drawings in previous publications were reassessed to determine if the species was E. carolleeae and are reported here. Additional morphological characters that may distinguish North American E. carolleeae from other taxa are also described. We conclude that E. carolleeae is the correct name for the species of Eurytemora that has inhabited the Great Lakes since its invasion, as established by both morphological and COI sequence comparisons to reference keys and sequence databases in present and archival specimens.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2016

Organic contaminants in Great Lakes tributaries: Prevalence and potential aquatic toxicity

Organic compounds used in agriculture, industry, and households make their way into surface waters through runoff, leaking septic-conveyance systems, regulated and unregulated discharges, and combined sewer overflows, among other sources. Concentrations of these organic waste compounds (OWCs) in some Great Lakes tributaries indicate a high potential for adverse impacts on aquatic organisms. During 2010–13, 709 water samples were collected at 57 tributaries, together representing approximately 41% of the total inflow to the lakes. Samples were collected during runoff and low-flow conditions and analyzed for 69 OWCs, including herbicides, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, plasticizers, antioxidants, detergent metabolites, fire retardants, non-prescription human drugs, flavors/fragrances, and dyes. Urban-related land cover characteristics were the most important explanatory variables of concentrations of many OWCs. Compared to samples from nonurban watersheds (< 15% urban land cover) samples from urban watersheds (> 15% urban land cover) had nearly four times the number of detected compounds and four times the total sample concentration, on average. Concentration differences between runoff and low-flow conditions were not observed, but seasonal differences were observed in atrazine, metolachlor, DEET, and HHCB concentrations. Water quality benchmarks for individual OWCs were exceeded at 20 sites, and at 7 sites benchmarks were exceeded by a factor of 10 or more. The compounds with the most frequent water quality benchmark exceedances were the PAHs benzo[ a ]pyrene, pyrene, fluoranthene, and anthracene, the detergent metabolite 4-nonylphenol, and the herbicide atrazine. Computed estradiol equivalency quotients (EEQs) using only nonsteroidal endocrine-active compounds indicated medium to high risk of estrogenic effects (intersex or vitellogenin induction) at 10 sites. EEQs at 3 sites were comparable to values reported in effluent. This multifaceted study is the largest, most comprehensive assessment of the occurrence and potential effects of OWCs in the Great Lakes Basin to date.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2016

Groundwater science relevant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: A status report

When the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was signed in 1972 by the Governments of Canada and the United States (the “Parties”) (Environment Canada, 2013a), groundwater was not recognized as important to the water quality of the Lakes. At that time, groundwater and surface water were still considered as two separate systems, with almost no appreciation for their interaction. When the GLWQA was revised in 1978 (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012), groundwater contamination, such as that reported at legacy industrial sites such as those at Love Canal near the Niagara River, was squarely in the news. Consequently, the potential impacts of contaminated groundwater from such sites on Great Lakes water quality became a concern (Beck, 1979), and Annex 16 was added to the agreement, to address “pollution from contaminated groundwater” (Francis, 1989). However, no formal process for reporting under this annex was provided. The GLWQA Protocol in 1987 modified Annex 16 and called for progress reports beginning in 1988 (USEPA, 1988). The Protocol in 2012 provided a new Annex 8 to address groundwater more holistically (Environment 2 Canada, 2013b). Annex 8 (Environment Canada, 2013b) commits the Parties to coordinate groundwater science and management actions; as a first step, to “publish a report on the relevant and available groundwater science” by February 2015 (this report); and to “identify priorities for science activities and actions for groundwater management, protection, and remediation…” The broader mandate of Annex 8 is to (1) “identify groundwater impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (2) “analyze contaminants, including nutrients in groundwater, derived from both point and non-point sources impacting the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (3) “assess information gaps and science needs related to groundwater to protect the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” and (4) “analyze other factors, such as climate change, that individually or cumulatively affect groundwater’s impact on the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes.” A binational Annex 8 Subcommittee was formed to lead efforts to fulfill the mandate of this annex (members listed on p. i of this report). In turn, this subcommittee has recruited a task team to prepare this report (listed as authors of each chapter). This report addresses all of the above four objectives, based on a compilation of the “relevant and available groundwater science.” Specifically, the second objective (to “analyze contaminants”) is addressed by incorporating information obtained in ongoing monitoring and research activities conducted by the Parties, and by various other members of the Great Lakes Executive Committee.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2015

A spatial classification and database for management, research, and policy making: The Great Lakes aquatic habitat framework

Managing the world's largest and most complex freshwater ecosystem, the Laurentian Great Lakes, requires a spatially hierarchical basin-wide database of ecological and socioeconomic information that is comparable across the region. To meet such a need, we developed a spatial classification framework and database — Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Framework (GLAHF). GLAHF consists of catchments, coastal terrestrial, coastal margin, nearshore, and offshore zones that encompass the entire Great Lakes Basin. The catchments captured in the database as river pour points or coastline segments are attributed with data known to influence physicochemical and biological characteristics of the lakes from the catchments. The coastal terrestrial zone consists of 30-m grid cells attributed with data from the terrestrial region that has direct connection with the lakes. The coastal margin and nearshore zones consist of 30-m grid cells attributed with data describing the coastline conditions, coastal human disturbances, and moderately to highly variable physicochemical and biological characteristics. The offshore zone consists of 1.8-km grid cells attributed with data that are spatially less variable compared with the other aquatic zones. These spatial classification zones and their associated data are nested within lake sub-basins and political boundaries and allow the synthesis of information from grid cells to classification zones, within and among political boundaries, lake sub-basins, Great Lakes, or within the entire Great Lakes Basin. This spatially structured database could help the development of basin-wide management plans, prioritize locations for funding and specific management actions, track protection and restoration progress, and conduct research for science-based decision making.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2015

Tools for discovering and accessing Great Lakes scientific data

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is a multidisciplinary and interagency effort focused on the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes (GL) using the best available science and applying lessons learned from previous studies. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) contributes to the GLRI effort by providing resource managers with information and tools needed to meet restoration goals. This includes contributing scientific expertise and delivering findings to the GL community through meaningful information products. One of the strengths of the GLRI is its interagency approach; however, this can create challenges when coordinating the large number of restoration activities being performed by GL governments, tribes, academics, nonprofits, and industry. There is a vast array of data being produced by both the USGS and its partners, and it is crucial that scientists, managers, policymakers, and the public can easily locate the biological, geological, geospatial, and water-resources data being generated. The USGS strives to develop data products that are easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to use through Web-accessible tools that allow users to learn about the breadth and scope of GLRI activities being undertaken by the USGS and its partners. By creating tools that enable data to be shared and reused more easily, the USGS can encourage collaboration and assist the GL community in finding, interpreting, and understanding the information created during GLRI science activities.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2015

Occurrence and distribution of fecal indicator bacteria and gene markers of pathogenic bacteria in Great Lakes tributaries, March-October 2011

From March through October 2011, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), conducted a study to determine the frequency of occurrence of pathogen gene markers and densities of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in 22 tributaries to the Great Lakes. This project was funded as part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and included sampling at 22 locations throughout 6 states that border the Great Lakes. A total of 177 environmental samples were collected at USGS streamgaging stations during both normal-flow and high-flow conditions and were analyzed by the Michigan Bacteriological Research Laboratory at the USGS Water Science Center in Lansing, Michigan. Water samples were analyzed for the presence of FIB concentrations (FIB; fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli [ E. coli ], and enterococci) by using membrane filtration and serial dilution methods. The resulting enrichments from standard culturing of the samples were then analyzed by using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to determine the occurrence of pathogen gene markers for Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni and coli , Salmonella species, and pathogenic E. coli , including Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC).

Great Lakes↗

USGS2015

Assessment of general health of fishes collected at selected sites in the Great Lakes Basin In 2012

During the past decade, there has been a substantive increase in the detection of “emerging contaminants”, defined as a new substance, chemical, or metabolite in the environment; or a legacy substance with a newly expanded distribution, altered release, or a newly recognized effect (such as endocrine disruption). Emerging contaminants include substances such as biogenic hormones (human and animal), brominated flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, plasticizers, current use pesticides, detergents, and nanoparticles. These contaminants are frequently not regulated or inadequately regulated by state or Federal water quality programs. Information about the toxicity of these substances to fish and wildlife resources is generally limited, compared to more highly regulated contaminants, and some classes have been shown to cause affects (for example feminization of male fish, immunomodulation) that are not evaluated via traditional toxicity testing protocols. As a result, these compounds may pose a substantial, but currently poorly documented threat to aquatic ecosystems. Failure to identify and understand the impacts of these emerging contaminants on fish and wildlife resources may result in deleterious impacts to Great Lakes resources that can result in adverse ecological, economic and recreational consequences. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service received funding through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) for an Early Warning Program to detect and identify emerging contaminants and to evaluate the effects of these contaminants on fish and wildlife. The U.S. Geological Survey (WV Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and National Fish Health Research Laboratory, Leetown Science Center) developed and implemented a biological effects monitoring protocol to assist in this program. Fish collections and measurements of biomarkers of exposure in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 occurred at individual sites within select Areas of Concern (AOCs). They provided an assessment of the utility of the suite of biomarkers and also identified sites for more in-depth analyses. Selected areas are characterized as areas with known emerging contaminants, sensitive or listed species, areas downstream from municipal wastewater discharges or receiving waters for industrial facilities, and/or areas susceptible to agricultural or urban contamination, or harbors or ports. The results of the 2010- 2011 studies were summarized in Blazer et al. 2014 a, b, c; Braham et al. in review and Blazer et al. in review.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Bacterial pathogen gene abundance and relation to recreational water quality at seven Great Lakes beaches

Quantitative assessment of bacterial pathogens, their geographic variability, and distribution in various matrices at Great Lakes beaches are limited. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used to test for genes from E. coli O157:H7 ( eae O157 ), shiga-toxin producing E. coli ( stx2 ), Campylobacter jejuni ( mapA ), Shigella spp. ( ipaH ), and a Salmonella enterica -specific ( SE ) DNA sequence at seven Great Lakes beaches, in algae, water, and sediment. Overall, detection frequencies were mapA > stx2 > ipaH > SE > eae O157 . Results were highly variable among beaches and matrices; some correlations with environmental conditions were observed for mapA , stx2 , and ipaH detections. Beach seasonal mean mapA abundance in water was correlated with beach seasonal mean log 10 E. coli concentration. At one beach, stx2 gene abundance was positively correlated with concurrent daily E. coli concentrations. Concentration distributions for stx2 , ipaH , and mapA within algae, sediment, and water were statistically different (Non-Detect and Data Analysis in R). Assuming 10, 50, or 100% of gene copies represented viable and presumably infective cells, a quantitative microbial risk assessment tool developed by Michigan State University indicated a moderate probability of illness for Campylobacter jejuni at the study beaches, especially where recreational water quality criteria were exceeded. Pathogen gene quantification may be useful for beach water quality management.

Environmental Science & Technology↗

USGS2014

Relationships between land cover and dissolved organic matter change along the river to lake transition

Dissolved organic matter (DOM) influences the physical, chemical, and biological properties of aquatic ecosystems. We hypothesized that controls over spatial variation in DOM quantity and composition (measured with DOM optical properties) differ based on the source of DOM to aquatic ecosystems. DOM quantity and composition should be better predicted by land cover in aquatic habitats with allochthonous DOM and related more strongly to nutrients in aquatic habitats with autochthonous DOM. Three habitat types [rivers (R), rivermouths (RM), and the nearshore zone (L)] associated with 23 tributaries of the Laurentian Great Lakes were sampled to test this prediction. Evidence from optical indices suggests that DOM in these habitats generally ranged from allochthonous (R sites) to a mix of allochthonous-like and autochthonous-like (L sites). Contrary to expectations, DOM properties such as the fluorescence index, humification index, and spectral slope ratio were only weakly related to land cover or nutrient data (Bayesian R 2 values were indistinguishable from zero). Strongly supported models in all habitat types linked DOM quantity (that is, dissolved organic carbon concentration [DOC]) to both land cover and nutrients (Bayesian R 2 values ranging from 0.55 to 0.72). Strongly supported models predicting DOC changed with habitat type: The most important predictor in R sites was wetlands whereas the most important predictor at L sites was croplands. These results suggest that as the DOM pool becomes more autochthonous-like, croplands become a more important driver of spatial variation in DOC and wetlands become less important.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Development of a spatially universal framework for classifying stream assemblages with application to conservation planning for Great Lakes lotic fish communities

Classifications are typically specific to particular issues or areas, leading to patchworks of subjectively defined spatial units. Stream conservation is hindered by the lack of a universal habitat classification system and would benefit from an independent hydrology-guided spatial framework of units encompassing all aquatic habitats at multiple spatial scales within large regions. We present a system that explicitly separates the spatial framework from any particular classification developed from the framework. The framework was constructed from landscape variables that are hydrologically and biologically relevant, covered all space within the study area, and was nested hierarchically and spatially related at scales ranging from the stream reach to the entire region; classifications may be developed from any subset of the 9 basins, 107 watersheds, 459 subwatersheds, or 10,000s of valley segments or stream reaches. To illustrate the advantages of this approach, we developed a fish-guided classification generated from a framework for the Great Lakes region that produced a mosaic of habitat units which, when aggregated, formed larger patches of more general conditions at progressively broader spatial scales. We identified greater than 1,200 distinct fish habitat types at the valley segment scale, most of which were rare. Comparisons of biodiversity and species assemblages are easily examined at any scale. This system can identify and quantify habitat types, evaluate habitat quality for conservation and/or restoration, and assist managers and policymakers with prioritization of protection and restoration efforts. Similar spatial frameworks and habitat classifications can be developed for any organism in any riverine ecosystem.

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin↗

USGS2014

A Great Lakes atmospheric mercury monitoring network: evaluation and design

As many as 51 mercury (Hg) wet-deposition-monitoring sites from 4 networks were operated in 8 USA states and Ontario, Canada in the North American Great Lakes Region from 1996 to 2010. By 2013, 20 of those sites were no longer in operation and approximately half the geographic area of the Region was represented by a single Hg-monitoring site. In response, a Great Lakes Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring (GLAMM) network is needed as a framework for regional collaboration in Hg-deposition monitoring. The purpose of the GLAMM network is to detect changes in regional atmospheric Hg deposition related to changes in Hg emissions. An optimized design for the network was determined to be a minimum of 21 sites in a representative and approximately uniform geographic distribution. A majority of the active and historic Hg-monitoring sites in the Great Lakes Region are part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) in North America and the GLAMM network is planned to be part of the MDN. To determine an optimized network design, active and historic Hg-monitoring sites in the Great Lakes Region were evaluated with a rating system of 21 factors that included characteristics of the monitoring locations and interpretations of Hg data. Monitoring sites were rated according to the number of Hg emissions sources and annual Hg emissions in a geographic polygon centered on each site. Hg-monitoring data from the sites were analyzed for long-term averages in weekly Hg concentrations in precipitation and weekly Hg-wet deposition, and on significant temporal trends in Hg concentrations and Hg deposition. A cluster analysis method was used to group sites with similar variability in their Hg data in order to identify sites that were unique for explaining Hg data variability in the Region. The network design included locations in protected natural areas, urban areas, Great Lakes watersheds, and in proximity to areas with a high density of annual Hg emissions and areas with high average weekly Hg wet deposition. In a statistical analysis, relatively strong, positive correlations in the wet deposition of Hg and sulfate were shown for co-located NADP Hg-monitoring and acid-rain monitoring sites in the Region. This finding indicated that efficiency in regional Hg monitoring can be improved by adding new Hg monitoring to existing NADP acid-rain monitoring sites. Implementation of the GLAMM network design will require Hg-wet-deposition monitoring to be: (a) continued at 12 MDN sites active in 2013 and (b) restarted or added at 9 NADP sites where it is absent in 2013. Ongoing discussions between the states in the Great Lakes Region, the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (a regional planning entity), the NADP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey are needed for coordinating the GLAMM network.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Initial soil respiration response to biomass harvesting and green-tree retention in aspen-dominated forests of the Great Lakes region

Contemporary forest management practices are increasingly designed to optimize novel objectives, such as maximizing biomass feedstocks and/or maintaining ecological legacies, but many uncertainties exist regarding how these practices influence forest carbon (C) cycling. We examined the responses of soil respiration (R s ) to biomass harvesting and green-tree retention in an effort to empirically assess their impacts on C cycling. We measured R s and soil microclimatic variables over four growing seasons following implementation of these management practices using a fully replicated, operational-scale experiment in aspen-dominated forests in northern Minnesota. Treatments included three levels of biomass removal within harvested areas: whole-tree harvest (no slash deliberately retained), 20% slash retained, and stem-only harvest (all slash retained), and two levels of green-tree retention: 0.1 ha aggregate or none. The relative amount of biomass removed had a negligible effect on R s in harvested areas, but treatment effects were probably obscured by heterogeneous slash configurations and rapid post-harvest regeneration of aspen in all of the treatments. Discrete measurements of R s and soil temperature within green-tree aggregates were not discernible from surrounding harvested areas or unharvested control stands until the fourth year following harvest, when R s was higher in unharvested controls than in aggregates and harvested stands. Growing season estimates of Rs showed that unharvested control stands had higher R s than both harvested stands and aggregates in the first and third years following harvest. Our results suggest that retention of larger forest aggregates may be necessary to maintain ecosystem-level responses similar to those in unharvested stands. Moreover, they highlight the innate complexity of operational-scale research and suggest that the initial impacts of biomass harvest on R s may be indiscernible from traditional harvest in systems where incidental breakage is high.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Beach science in the Great Lakes

Monitoring beach waters for human health has led to an increase and evolution of science in the Great Lakes, which includes microbiology, limnology, hydrology, meteorology, epidemiology, and metagenomics, among others. In recent years, concerns over the accuracy of water quality standards at protecting human health have led to a significant interest in understanding the risk associated with water contact in both freshwater and marine environments. Historically, surface waters have been monitored for fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli , enterococci), but shortcomings of the analytical test (lengthy assay) have resulted in a re-focusing of scientific efforts to improve public health protection. Research has led to the discovery of widespread populations of fecal indicator bacteria present in natural habitats such as soils, beach sand, and stranded algae. Microbial source tracking has been used to identify the source of these bacteria and subsequently assess their impact on human health. As a result of many findings, attempts have been made to improve monitoring efficiency and efficacy with the use of empirical predictive models and molecular rapid tests. All along, beach managers have actively incorporated new findings into their monitoring programs. With the abundance of research conducted and information gained over the last 25 years, “Beach Science” has emerged, and the Great Lakes have been a focal point for much of the ground-breaking work. Here, we review the accumulated research on microbiological water quality of Great Lakes beaches and provide a historic context to the collaborative efforts that have advanced this emerging science.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Conservation and management of fisheries and aquatic communities in Great Lakes connecting channels

The North American Laurentian Great Lakes are linked by a unique series of riverine and lacustrine waters known as the Great Lakes connecting channels that are as integral to the basin's ecology and economies as the lakes themselves. The St. Marys River (SMR) is the northernmost channel and flows from Lake Superior to Lake Huron. Waters from the upper Great Lakes (Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron) empty from Lake Huron via the St. Clair–Detroit River system (SCDRS, also known as the Huron–Erie Corridor) into Lake Erie. The SCDRS is composed of the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River. The Niagara River (NR) serves as the outflow from Lake Erie into Lake Ontario. The NR above Niagara Falls is bisected by Grand Island and contains several other islands and man-made embayments whereas the NR below the falls is more linear. The outflow from Lake Ontario, representing the natural outlet of all the Great Lakes, is the St. Lawrence River (SLR) which empties into the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the northwest Atlantic Ocean.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

In vivo and in vitro phenotypic differences between Great Lakes VHSV genotype IVb isolates with sequence types vcG001 and vcG002

Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) is an aquatic rhabdovirus first recognized in farmed rainbow trout in Denmark. In the past decade, a new genotype of this virus, IVb was discovered in the Laurentian Great Lakes basin and has caused several massive die-offs in some of the 28 species of susceptible North American freshwater fishes. Since its colonization of the Great Lakes, several closely related sequence types within genotype IVb have been reported, the two most common of which are vcG001 and vcG002. These sequence types have different spatial distributions in the Great Lakes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the genotypic differences between representative vcG001 (isolate MI03) and vcG002 (isolate 2010-030 #91) isolates correspond to phenotypic differences in terms of virulence using both in vitro and in vivo approaches. In vitro infection of epithelioma papulosum cyprini (EPC), bluegill fry (BF-2), and Chinook salmon embryo (CHSE) cells demonstrated some differences in onset and rate of growth in EPC and BF-2 cells, without any difference in the quantity of RNA produced. In vivo infection of round gobies ( Neogobius melanostomus ) via immersion exposure to different concentrations of vcG001 or vcG002 caused a significantly greater mortality in round gobies exposed to 10 2 plaque forming units ml − 1 of vcG001. These experiments suggest that there are phenotypic differences between Great Lakes isolates of VHSV genotype IVb.

Journal of Great Lakes Research↗

USGS2014

Enterococcus phages as potential tool for identifying sewage inputs in the Great Lakes region

Bacteriophages are viruses living in bacteria that can be used as a tool to detect fecal contamination in surface waters around the world. However, the lack of a universal host strain makes them unsuitable for tracking fecal sources. We evaluated the suitability of two newly isolated Enterococcus host strains (ENT-49 and ENT-55) capable for identifying sewage contamination in impacted waters by targeting phages specific to these hosts. Both host strains were isolated from wastewater samples and identified as E. faecium by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Occurrence of Enterococcus phages was evaluated in sewage samples ( n = 15) from five wastewater treatment plants and in fecal samples from twenty-two species of wild and domesticated animals (individual samples; n = 22). Levels of Enterococcus phages, F + coliphages, Escherichia coli and enterococci were examined from four rivers, four beaches, and three harbors. Enterococcus phages enumeration was at similar levels (Mean = 6.72 Log PFU/100 mL) to F + coliphages in all wastewater samples, but were absent from all non-human fecal sources tested. The phages infecting Enterococcus spp. and F + coliphages were not detected in the river samples (detection threshold < 10 PFU/100 mL), but were present in the beach and harbor samples (range = 1.83 to 2.86 Log PFU/100 mL). Slightly higher concentrations (range = 3.22 to 3.69 Log MPN/100 mL) of E. coli and enterococci when compared to F + coliphages and Enterococcus phages, were observed in the river, beach and harbor samples. Our findings suggest that the bacteriophages associated with these particular Enterococcus host strains offer potentially sensitive and human-source specific indicators of enteric pathogen risk.

Journal of Great Lakes Research↗

USGS2014

Great Lakes prey fish populations: a cross-basin overview of status and trends based on bottom trawl surveys, 1978-2013

The assessment of Great Lakes prey fish stocks have been conducted annually with bottom trawls since the 1970s by the Great Lakes Science Center, sometimes assisted by partner agencies. These stock assessments provide data on the status and trends of prey fish that are consumed by important commercial and recreational fishes. Although all these annual surveys are conducted using bottom trawls, they differ among the lakes in the proportion of the lake covered, seasonal timing, trawl gear used, and the manner in which the trawl is towed (across or along bottom contours). Because each assessment is unique, population indices were standardized to the highest value for a time series within each lake for the following prey species: Cisco (Coregonus artedi), Bloater (C. hoyi), Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax), Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus). In this report, standardized indices are presented in graphical form along with synopses to provide a short, informal cross-basin summary of the status and trends of principal prey fishes. There was basin-wide agreement in the trends of age-1 and older biomass for all prey species, with the highest concordance occurring for coregonids and Rainbow Smelt, and weaker concordance for Alewife. For coregonids, the highest biomass occurred from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Rainbow Smelt biomass declined slowly and erratically during the last quarter century. Alewife biomass was generally higher from the early 1980s through 1990s across the Great Lakes, but since the early 1990s, trends have been divergent across the lakes, though there has been a downward trend in all lakes since 2005. Recently, Lake Huron has shown resurgence in biomass of Bloater, achieving 75% of its maximum record in 2012 due to recruitment of a succession of strong and moderate year classes that appeared in 2005-2011. Also, strong recruitment of the 2010 year class of Alewife has led to a sharp increase in biomass of Alewife in Lake Michigan. In general, trends in year-class strengths were less concordant across the basin and only coregonids showed statistical agreement across the upper Great Lakes. The appearance of strong and moderate year-classes of Bloater in Lake Huron in 2005- 2011 countered the trend of continuing weak year-classes of coregonids in Lakes Michigan and Superior. Not shown in our analysis is the appearance of the 2013 year-class of Bloater in Huron, the largest to date. There was no agreement in cross-basin trends in year-class strengths for Rainbow Smelt and Alewife, although there was agreement between pairs of lakes. Although there was statistical agreement in trends of age-0 and older Round Goby biomass among lakes where this species has successfully invaded (Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario), temporal patterns of biomass in each lake were different. Round Goby may be approaching equilibrium in Lake Erie, peaking in Lake Huron, and expanding in Lake Michigan. The trend in Lake Ontario remains unclear. Declining abundance in Lake Erie has corresponded with evidence that Round Goby have become increasingly incorporated into piscivore diets, e.g., Lake Trout, Walleye, Smallmouth Bass, Yellow Perch, and Burbot in Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. Round Goby continue to be absent from spring bottom trawl assessments in Lake Superior, but their presence in the harbors and embayments of Duluth and Thunder Bay (U.S. Geological Survey and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, unpublished data), suggests that there is potential for future colonization.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Great Lakes restoration success through science: U.S. Geological Survey accomplishments 2010 through 2013

The Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) are the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth and serve as an important source of drinking water, transportation, power, and recreational opportunities for the United States and Canada. They also support an abundant commercial and recreational fishery, are crucial for agriculture, and are essential to the economic vitality of the region. The Great Lakes support a wealth of biological diversity, including over 200 globally rare plants and animals and more than 40 species that are found nowhere else in the world. However, more than a century of environmental degradation has taken a substantial toll on the Great Lakes. To stimulate and promote the goal of a healthy Great Lakes region, President Obama and Congress created the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in 2009. The GLRI is an interagency collaboration that seeks to address the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The GLRI is composed of five focus areas that address these issues: Cleaning up toxic substances and Areas of Concern, Preventing and controlling invasive species, Promoting nearshore health, Protecting and restoring habitat and wildlife, Tracking progress and working with partners. As of August 2013, the GLRI had funded more than 1,500 projects and programs of the highest priority to meet immediate cleanup, restoration, and protection needs. These projects use scientific analyses as the basis for identifying the restoration needs and priorities for the GLRI. Results from the science, monitoring, and other on-the-ground actions by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provide the scientific information needed to help guide the Great Lakes restoration efforts. This document highlights a selection of USGS projects for each of the five focus areas through 2013, demonstrating the importance of science for restoration success. Additional information for these and other USGS projects that are important for Great Lakes restoration is available at http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/glri-catalog/ .

Great Lakes↗