Full Text
The Sand Wand A new tool to suppress NZ Mudsnails? A. Sepulveda1,2, J. Gross1, J. Sechrist3, and L. Marczak2 USGS, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center University of Montana, College of Forestry Bureau of Reclamation, Science and Technology Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Fighting invasives like cancer Prevention Early Detection Rehabilitation Treatment Options Identify the severity & monitor High risk Low risk Cancer present Low-grade, not aggressive High grade and stage Cancer absent Cancer still present ---PAGE BREAK--- Treatment Options Early detection? Established populations? ---PAGE BREAK--- Sand Wand (www.streamsidesystems.com) • Dislodge and vacuum NZMS • Remove fine sediments A. Sepulveda A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Use natural history to identify weakness Poor suction to substrate, easily dislodged Thrives in disturbed streams, especially with fine sediment Broekhuizen et al. 2001 ---PAGE BREAK--- Is the Sand Wand an effective tool for NZMS removal? Kackley Springs, ID Bear River basin A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Habitat problems: sediment & NZMS • > 70% substrate embedded • D50 < 2 mm A. Sepulveda A. Sepulveda K. Dahle ---PAGE BREAK--- Does the Sand Wand: 1) Remove fine sediments? 2) Eradicate or reduce NZMS abundance? 3) Have negative non-target impacts? ---PAGE BREAK--- Before-After-Control-Impact Design Before • 3 - 5 d prior to impact After • 3, 30 , 60 d Control (No sand wand) • 3 upstream reaches Impact (Sand wand) • 6 reaches A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Does the Sand Wand reduce fine sediment? A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Before After Mean proportion of sediment < 2 mm Change in sediment composition A. Sepulveda A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Does the Sand Wand remove or reduce NZMS? A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- A. Sepulveda A. Sepulveda A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary data: relative abundance 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 15 30 45 60 Mean NZMS m2 Days after treatment Treatment ---PAGE BREAK--- Non-target effects? A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Stream Insect Emergence 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Pre 3 30 Mean mass Days after treatment Control Sand Wand A. Sepulveda ---PAGE BREAK--- Leaf-Litter Decomposition Rate 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 3 15 30 60 % AFDM remaining Days after treatment Control Sand Wand ---PAGE BREAK--- Conclusions Removes fine sediment, improves fish habitat Does not eradicate NZMS, but may reduce abundance No obvious non-target impacts Need stream insect data to confirm Future: Sand Wand + hot water, salinity, electricity How deep are NZMS in the sediment? ---PAGE BREAK--- Fighting invasives like cancer Prevention Early Detection Rehabilitation Treatment Options Identify the severity & monitor High risk Low risk Cancer present Low-grade, not aggressive High grade and stage Cancer absent Cancer still present