![k-bob](/data/avatars/m/2/2769.jpg?1640368493)
k-bob
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,371
right forgot about that... less than of 100 % of PA had brookies in 1492
troutbert wrote:
I thought you meant there was something in the unassessed waters PowerPoint that indicated that the best of the brookie streams today are likely to have populations similar to what they were in the past.
It should be considered as an open question. Do the best brookie streams today have populations that are lower, higher, or about the same as in the past?
Suppose you took a slice of the best brookie streams today, let's say the top 5%. Would to total populations of those streams be lower or higher or about the same?
troutbert wrote:
troutbert wrote:
pcray1231 wrote:
I'm not so sure it's true that old growth results in more LWD than modern successional forests, though. There's certainly more woody debris in your typical 80-130 year old mixed forest than there is in the pockets of virgin, mostly Hemlock, forests I've been in.
Where were you seeing this? (The streams flowing through pockets of mostly hemlock old growth forest?)
BTW, this question is not just for pcray. I'd be interested in any stretch of stream people have seen flowing through old growth forest in PA. There are probably very few such stream stretches, but I'm interested to go see the ones that exist.
FarmerDave wrote:
Now here is the kicker. If we come up with a lost of the best 5% of today and compare that to the best 5% back then. The best 5% today would have WAY less because they would be completely different streams. The best brook trout streams before Europeans arrived now likely are dominated by brown trout.
k-bob wrote:
We all agree that current total brookie PA biomass must be much less than 1492 total PA brookie biomass. I'd probably say 20%. That's a higher number than anyone else gave. My thinking: hemlocks are poor for in-stream invertebrate productivity, so the old biomass level may be less than we imagine. But everyone else said half that much or less. ??
The more interesting question to me is whether any of the PA streams that currently have brookies had fewer brookies in 1492. My guess is a few. Pat said 5%.
TB care to weigh in on that? Buckeye Bullet?![]()
troutbert wrote:
FarmerDave wrote:
Now here is the kicker. If we come up with a lost of the best 5% of today and compare that to the best 5% back then. The best 5% today would have WAY less because they would be completely different streams. The best brook trout streams before Europeans arrived now likely are dominated by brown trout.
That's a good point. They would be different streams.
Here's something to think about:
I. The population of brook trout in the Little Juniata River, back in the day.
II. The population of brook trout in all of Potter County today?
Which would be greater? And by how much?
Explain your work. ;-)
k-bob wrote:
let's look at it from a fishing perspective: the state of PA can never have its brookie biomass from 1492 again.
are there any individual streams in PA with greater brookie biomass right now than the same stream had in 1492?
I. The population of brook trout in the Little Juniata River, back in the day.
II. The population of brook trout in all of Potter County today?
Which would be greater? And by how much?
pcray1231 wrote:
Oh, they cause acidic soil. No question about that. Use pine needle mulch on your flowers and see what happens....