Time filter

Source Type

Columbus, OH, United States

Zweifel R.D.,Inland Fisheries Research Unit | Landis A.M.G.,Ohio State University | Landis A.M.G.,Auburn University | Hale R.S.,045 Morse Road | Stein R.A.,Ohio State University
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society | Year: 2010

We parameterized and evaluated a bioenergetics model for saugeye (walleye Sander vitreus × sauger S. canadensis) by using laboratory experiments in an effort to improve predictions of prey consumption. First, we measured daily prey consumption rate and growth of age-0 and age-1 saugeyes fed two daily rations (ad libitum and 50% of maximum) at five temperatures ranging from 10°C to 28°C. Additional experiments quantified routine respiration rates and waste losses for three ages of saugeye (ages 0, 1, and 2) at five temperatures ranging from 10°C to 28°C. Mean daily rates of prey consumption (g · g -1 · d -1) by saugeyes increased from 10°C to 25°C, declining at 28°C. Respiration rates (g O 2 · g -1 · d -1) increased over the entire range of water temperatures. Waste losses were minor for saugeyes as egestion averaged 3.5% of consumed energy and energy lost via excretion was 4.5% of assimilated energy. We evaluated the accuracy of bioenergetics model predictions of saugeye prey consumption using daily prey consumption and corresponding growth data from our first set of experiments. Model estimates of prey consumption rates (g · g -1 · d -1) closely followed observed trends, providing reasonable estimates of cumulative prey consumption across temperature and fish size. The saugeye model provided improved estimates of consumption compared with a model published for walleyes (Kitchell et al. 1977), especially when water temperatures were in excess of 25°C. The differences we observed in predictive performance between the two models resulted from higher thermal optima for saugeyes compared with walleyes, and waste constants for saugeyes were two to three times lower than those calculated from the walleye model. These differences may largely be responsible for the walleye model's overestimation of consumption. Saugeye thermal optima are warmer than those of either parent species, and saugeye is better suited for warm, productive midwestern U.S. reservoirs. The saugeye model developed herein will improve the ability of managers to more accurately predict the consumptive demand of in situ saugeye populations and better tailor stocking rates to match available prey biomass. © American Fisheries Society 2010. Source

May C.J.,Ohio State University | Derek Aday D.,North Carolina State University | Scott Hale R.,045 Morse Road | Denlinger J.C.S.,1235 Mascher Street | Marschall E.A.,Ohio State University
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society | Year: 2012

Mechanisms associated with habitat selection by fishes are often unknown and require both physical habitat and growth environment considerations. We used spatially explicit prey biomass estimates, predator growth rate potential (GRP), bottom slope, predator distance from shore, and substrate data to predict habitat use of the saugeye (walleye Sander vitreus × sauger S. canadensis), a popular sport fish that is stocked throughout the central United States. We used telemetry to determine saugeye locations, acoustics to estimate prey biomass and distributions, and a bioenergetics model to aid in calculation of GRP. Akaike's information criterion was used to determine which habitat variables were most important in explaining saugeye location. Models that included both physical habitat and either GRP or prey density performed better than models that considered only one of these parameter types. The resulting models provided the data to create location suitability maps. In general, saugeyes favored steep slopes over hard substrates in nearshore areas with high biomass of gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum or high GRP. This comprehensive analysis suggests that the consideration of both spatial habitat suitability and temporal prey availability may improve fisheries management and conservation through a quantitative appreciation of available resources. © American Fisheries Society 2012. Source

Winston R.J.,North Carolina State University | Dorsey J.D.,045 Morse Road | Hunt W.F.,North Carolina State University
Science of the Total Environment | Year: 2016

Green infrastructure aims to restore watershed hydrologic function by more closely mimicking pre-development groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration (ET). Bioretention has become a popular stormwater control due to its ability to reduce runoff volume through these pathways. Three bioretention cells constructed in low permeability soils in northeast Ohio were monitored for non-winter quantification of inflow, drainage, ET, and exfiltration. The inclusion of an internal water storage (IWS) zone allowed the three cells to reduce runoff by 59%, 42%, and 36% over the monitoring period, in spite of the tight underlying soils. The exfiltration rate and the IWS zone thickness were the primary determinants of volume reduction performance. Post-construction measured drawdown rates were higher than pre-construction soil vertical hydraulic conductivity tests in all cases, due to lateral exfiltration from the IWS zones and ET, which are not typically accounted for in pre-construction soil testing. The minimum rainfall depths required to produce outflow for the three cells were 5.5, 7.4, and 13.8 mm. During events with 1-year design rainfall intensities, peak flow reduction varied from 24 to 96%, with the best mitigation during events where peak rainfall rate occurred before the centroid of the rainfall volume, when adequate bowl storage was available to limit overflow. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. Source

Richardson J.,Ohio University | Lopez D.,Ohio University | Angle M.,045 Morse Road | Wolfe M.,045 Morse Road | Fugitt F.,045 Morse Road
Special Paper of the Geological Society of America | Year: 2016

By using ground source heat pumps to exchange heat with the shallow surface, areas with minimal or no tectonic activity can still be viable resources for lowtemperature geothermal energy. This study focuses on generally characterizing the potential exploitation of fl ooded mines as low-temperature thermal resources within Ohio. These unconventional thermal resources offer large, thermally stable bodies of water, which store relatively more heat than saturated soils and bedrock. The legacy of underground mining, predominantly in the southeastern and eastern portions of Ohio, makes ground source heat pump geothermal energy a potentially valuable resource for the state. Using geographic information system (GIS) software, mines that were either fl ooded or partially fl ooded and within 1.6 km of a population center were selected as potential candidates for ground source heat pump exploitation. Physical and thermal parameters were calculated for each of the identifi ed geothermal sites. These include: maximum and minimum residence times of waters within the mines, maximum and minimum recharge to the mines, effective mine volumes, linear groundwater velocities, groundwater fl ow direction, and percentage of the mine that is fl ooded. The total theoretical amount of heat extraction or addition per degree change in mine water temperature (Celsius degree) was calculated for each identifi ed mine site, as well as the potential amount of heat either entering or being dissipated in mine waters due to groundwater recharge. This study identifi ed 147 possible mine sites spanning 21 counties that might be used for ground source heat pump installations in Ohio. The mines have an estimated average maximum residence time ranging from 6 to 15 yr and an estimated average minimum residence time ranging from 3.6 to 8.9 yr. It was estimated that, on average, 1010 kJ°C-1 of heat energy could be extracted from the mines. Overall, this study has shown that abandoned underground mines contain enough stored heat to be used as thermal resources for ground source heat pump systems, and that the number and extent of mines within Ohio could make this type of geothermal resource valuable. © 2016 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved. Source

Venteris E.R.,045 Morse Road | Venteris E.R.,Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | Basta N.T.,Ohio State University | Bigham J.M.,Ohio State University | Rea R.,045 Morse Road
Journal of Environmental Quality | Year: 2014

Arsenic in soil is an important public health concern, but risk-based toxicity regulatory standards derived from laboratory studies should also consider concentrations measured away from obvious contamination (i.e., baseline concentrations that approximate natural background) to avoid unnecessary remediation burdens on society. We used soil and stream sediment samples from the USGS National Geochemical Survey to assess the spatial distribution of As over a 1.16 × 105 km2 area corresponding to the state of Ohio. Samples were collected at 348 soil and 144 stream sites at locations selected to minimize anthropogenic inputs. Total As was measured by sodium peroxide fusion with subsequent dissolution using concentrated HCl and analysis using hydride-generation atomic absorption spectrometry. Arsenic in the soil and streambed samples ranged from 2.0 to 45.6 mg kg-1. Sequential Gaussian simulation was used to map the expected concentration of As and its uncertainty. Five areas of elevated concentration, greater than the median of 10 mg kg-1, were identified, and relationships to geologic parent materials, glacial sedimentation, and soil conditions interpreted. Arsenic concentrations <4 mg kg-1 were rare, >10 mg kg-1 common, and >20 mg kg-1 not unusual for the central and west central portions of Ohio. Concentrations typically exceeded the soil As human generic screening level of 0.39 mg kg-1, a value corresponding to an increase in cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000 for soil ingestion. Such results call into question the utility of the USEPA and similarly low soil screening levels. The contrast between laboratory screens and concentrations occurring in nature argue for risk assessment on the basis of baseline concentrations. © American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. Source

Discover hidden collaborations