New LAKEWATCH research: what do we know about mercury in our lakes and rivers?
By Celine Lajoie and Gretchen Lescord
LAKEWATCH staff published a new study this month titled “Mercury in biota from Florida’s freshwater lakes and rivers: a review of current research and emerging challenges”, in the journal Environmental Reviews: https://doi-org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/10.1139/er-2025-0127.
Mercury is a neurotoxin than can build up in some fish over time. It can have adverse health effects for both the humans and wildlife that eat a lot of these fish, which is why the Florida department of health issues annual consumption advisories for some fish species and waterbodies. You can learn more here: https://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/prevention/healthy-weight/nutrition/seafood-consumption/fish-advisories-page.html. It is important to remember that eating fish has lots of health benefits too! At LAKEWATCH, our research focuses on mercury in the environment, not the public health implications; it is always best to consult your doctor if you have any questions about your personal health and diet.
Mercury is a concern in waterbodies all around the world, so a lot of research has been done to understand what drives its accumulation in some fish, but not others. Most of this research comes from northern ecosystems, leaving subtropical systems, like those in Florida, less understood. And the distinct characteristics of Florida’s freshwater systems may limit how well findings from mercury research in northern ecosystems apply here.
To better understand what we know (and don’t know) about mercury in our lakes and rivers, as well as direct future research, LAKEWATCH staff compiled and reviewed all existing studies on mercury in Florida’s freshwater ecosystems, in partnership with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC). We identified 42-peer reviewed sources and examined their conclusions, as well as their recency and spatial coverage. Here’s a summary of our key findings:
- Most mercury research is dated and may not reflect the state today. Outside of the Everglades region, mercury research in Florida’s inland waters is largely outdated (i.e., most studies were 20+ years ago). It is likely that the findings of these past studies are not fully relevant today, as Florida’s landscape has changed considerably over the past 30 years (see below). Note that these findings apply to research studies only, not monitoring efforts; mercury in fish is regularly monitored by FWC in many lakes and rivers around the state, which inform the DOH health guidelines cited above (see https://myfwc.com/research/freshwater/freshwater-projects/water/mercury-testing/ for more information).
- Florida is a mercury hotspot. Mercury concentrations exceeded those reported elsewhere in the U.S. and were even higher in the Everglades. The state’s extensive wetlands, warm climate, and high precipitation rates likely contribute to these elevated levels.
- Mercury concentrations vary a lot across Florida’s waterbodies. Local conditions such as water chemistry, adjacent wetland coverage, and precipitation influence mercury concentrations found within each system. However, other important factors, identified as drivers of mercury uptake into fish in northern lakes and the Everglades (i.e., sulfate and organic matter) need to be further studied in Florida.
- Wildlife effects are mixed. While some studies link high mercury levels to reproductive and neurological effects in fish, alligators showed fewer impacts. Historically, elevated mercury in other wildlife (e.g. panthers) in the Everglades has caused concerns. As such, we suggest that future research continues to monitor wildlife health impacts of elevated mercury concentrations across the state.
The state has changed considerably over the last 30 years, with population growth, urbanization, the prevalence of the stormwater ponds, waterbody management to control the expansion of invasive species, and climate change. Indeed, all these factors can influence how much mercury enters our waterbodies and how efficiently it bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in our food webs. That’s why LAKEWATCH graduate students and post-doctoral fellows are studying some of these factors and their effect on mercury levels in fish. So stay tuned on our research page for updates on our progress. We are also working on a new information circular detailing mercury’s cycle in freshwater ecosystems; we expect this circular to be published and available at your 2026 annual meeting.
Citizen Scientist Volunteers Assist in Tracking Nitrate Changes in Well Water in an Impaired River Basin
By Rick Copeland (rick@aquiferwatch.org), Hailey Hall, Gary Maddox, and Thomas Seal
AquiferWatch: P.O. Box 11185, Tallahassee Fl 30302
Introduction
AquiferWatch is a 501(c)(3) volunteer organization focused on groundwater monitoring and is significantly assisted by Florida LAKEWATCH. In 2014, AquiferWatch began working with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (ACEPD) to monitor groundwater quality in wells located within the Santa Fe River Basin (SFRB; Figure 1). AquiferWatch volunteers gather groundwater samples, which are then analyzed by the LAKEWATCH laboratory for total nitrogen (TN) content. ACEPD operates its own groundwater monitoring network. Recent data from AquiferWatch indicate that nitrogen concentrations are decreasing throughout the basin. Further details are available in the full report, which can be requested from the primary author (Rick Copeland; rick@aquiferwatch.org). This article provides an overview of the project’s objectives and key findings and discusses the role of citizen scientists in minimizing costs associated with essential state needs.
Background
Since the 1950s, changes in land use practices in Florida have resulted in increases of nitrogen into the underlying Upper Floridan aquifer. The land uses of concern are fertilizer application, animal waste, wastewater, and septic tanks in dense residential areas (Harrington et al. 2010). Rainfall transports excess nitrogen into the soil, where it combines with oxygen to form nitrate (NO₃) via nitrification (Upchurch et al. 2019). Nitrate moves into the aquifer during recharge, then travels downgradient in groundwater, eventually reaching surface waterbodies or spring runs. High nitrate levels are the main cause of algal imbalance in spring runs (Harrington et al. 2010).
As late as the 1950s, nitrate concentrations in aquifer were below 50 μg/L (Upchurch, 1992). Unfortunately, by 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) classified the SFRB spring water, groundwater (well water), and surface water as impaired due to elevated nitrate levels (Hallas and Magley, 2008). Following this designation, FDEP was obligated to reduce nitrate concentrations to 350 μg/L.
Although the LAKEWATCH laboratory measures total nitrogen (TN), FDEP focuses on nitrate. Results from multiple AquiferWatch analyses using a variety of available groundwater data indicate that nitrate comprises a major part of TN in the SFRB basin. The consistently high ratios of nitrate to TN found in the SFRB suggest changes in TN concentrations reflect those of nitrate. Thus, monitoring TN can be used to understand the behavior of nitrate concentrations in this SFRB. However, using this method in other basins would require additional analyses to determine viability, and calculation of nitrate to TN ratios using local groundwater data.
After impairment was declared, FDEP developed a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) to restore water quality. The plan required monitoring to track its restoration efforts. This effort was initiated by establishing priority focus areas which can be considered areas most vulnerable to groundwater contamination. These efforts delayed monitoring elsewhere and with limited resources, FDEP requested assistance from external organizations. Partially for these reasons, AquiferWatch and ACEPD commenced monitoring inside and outside priority focus areas, independent of FDEP. Monitoring began in 2014 and is an on-going project. However, for the current analysis, only data through 2024 (except AquiferWatch wells in 2016) are used. AquiferWatch staff have over 100 years of experience in monitoring Florida’s groundwater resources. During each sampling event, AquiferWatch staff lead each sampling team. Each team leader follows FDEP sampling procedures.
Results and Discussion
Description of statistical analyses is available in the full report. Figure 2 shows estimated annual median nitrate concentrations from 23 AquiferWatch wells and 12 ACEPD wells. Both data sets indicate a decline in nitrate levels over the 11-year period. ACEPD wells consistently had higher concentrations and a steeper decline rate than AquiferWatch wells.
This project tackles several key issues:
- Nitrate levels have decreased within the SFRB.
- AquiferWatch samplers, who are unpaid volunteers, can significantly lower sample collection costs.
- Total nitrogen data are sent to the FDEP Watershed Information Network (WIN), a statewide repository of water-quality data. Data from WIN are publicly accessible and can be used by FDEP to evaluate restoration progress.
- Volunteer sampling of wells shows citizen scientists can effectively support FDEP’s groundwater basin restoration efforts.
- Through their participation with AquiferWatch, citizens become more active in the management of their water resources.
References Cited
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2025. Watershed information network. https://floridaFDEP.gov/dear/watershed-services-program/content/winstoret. Accessed: February 20, 2025.
Hallas, J.F. and Magley. W. 2008. Nutrient and dissolved oxygen TMDL for the Suwannee River, Santa Fe River, Manatee Springs (3422R), Fanning Springs (3422S), Branford Spring (3422J), Ruth Spring (3422L), Troy Spring (3422T), Royal Spring (3422U), and Falmouth Spring (3422Z). https://floridaFDEP.gov/sites/default/files/suwanneebasinnutrienttmdl.pdf. Accessed: May 14, 2024.
Harrington, D. Maddox G. and Hicks. R. 2010. Florida spring initiative monitoring network report and recognized sources of nitrate. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. https://floridaFDEP.gov/sites/default/files/springs_Monitoring_report_102110.pdf. Accessed: May 14, 2024.
Mckee. K. 2005. University of Florida Water Institute. Map of aquifer confinement in the Santa Fe Basin, Florida. https://archives.waterinstitute.ufl.edu/suwannee-hydro-observ/santa-fe-test-bed/images/maps/geology/Aquifers SF. Accessed: November 22, 2024.
Upchurch. SB. 1992. Quality of water in Florida's aquifer systems. in Maddox. GL. Lloyd. JM. Scott, T.M., Upchurch, S.B., and Copeland R. eds. Florida's groundwater quality monitoring program—Background hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 34. pp. 12–63.
Upchurch. SB. Scott. TM., Alfieri. MC. Fratesi. B. and Dobecki. TL. 2019. The karst systems of Florida: understanding karst in a geologically young terrain. Cham. Switzerland. Springer International. 450 p.
For more information on Rick and AquiferWatch, see the Volunteer Highlight in this issue!
Student Edition!
For this edition’s Ask the Experts column, we’re highlighting the next generation of limnologists! More specifically, you’ll hear from four undergraduate students who took Dr. Lescord’s Introduction to Fisheries Science course in spring 2025. As part of the course, the students pick a recent question that you, our volunteers, have asked at a regional LAKEWATCH meeting. The students conduct a rigorous literature search on their chosen question, after learning modern tools for finding high quality resources. They end their semester by writing a literature report and giving their classmates a presentation on what they learned. These four students picked questions we get asked a lot. So, after the class was complete they were invited to summarize their findings for you!
“Where does my alligator go when it leaves my canal/lake?”
(asked in several counties, 2022-2024)
by Aspen Inouye
Hello! My name is Aspen, and I recently graduated with a B.S. in marine science. For my literature review, I chose to explore the spatial ecology of American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) because they’re fascinating creatures and I think they are often misunderstood. In Florida, we share our waterways with alligators, so it is especially important to learn more about them so we can better coexist.
During my review, I found 11 high-quality and peer-reviewed studies. These studies focused on alligator habitat preferences, movement patterns, and distributional range across alligator populations. Finding papers based in Florida was difficult, showing how understudied alligators are. Luckily, I was able to find some research based in nearby states like Georgia and Texas as well, using some advanced library science tools.
Overall, I found that alligators play a crucial role in aquatic ecosystems. For example, they can alter habitats to benefit other animals – and this is particularly critical during droughts when resources are limited. They are also important as ecological connectors – because they can move between freshwater and brackish water, they act as a bridge between food webs. However, their movement differs from alligator to alligator, and they generally have wide home ranges. For example, scientists estimate that one alligator’s home range was the size of 130 football fields! Salinity is an important factor in their range and movement – they can only tolerate a certain amount of salt, so they only go where the water is fresh enough to survive. Additionally, alligators preferred habitats with wider river channels, more vegetation, and typically avoided human-made structures. However, newer studies show that habitat loss may be pushing some alligators into unusual areas, like lagoons on golf courses.
So, your local alligators probably move around their large home range, based on all of these factors! One key takeaway from my review is that there should be more research on looking at alligator movement patterns on a fine-scale, or a day-to-day basis. This data could help communities better understand alligator behavior and feel safer as well as more informed when living near them.
“I’ve noticed more mussels in my lake; is that a good thing?”
(asked in Hillsborough/Pasco in 2024)
by Ella Svarverud
Hello! My name is Ella Svarverud, and I recently graduated from the University of Florida with a B.S. in Marine Sciences. My interest in this topic stems from my experience with bivalves and my understanding of the importance of filter feeders, having grown up on the Chesapeake Bay. This led me to investigate the question, “I’ve noticed more mussels in my lake; how do they affect it?” for my class project. I reviewed over 40 publications accessed from Web of Science using key search terms such as “Freshwater mussel”, “Unionidae”, and “Florida lakes” and then selected only the ones relevant to Florida ecosystems. More specifically, I used a paper if it was based in Florida, examined species found in Florida, or examined species that are invasive to or have an invasion potential in Florida. Using these parameters, I read a total of 17 papers that shaped my findings and informed the ecology of freshwater mussels in lakes.
After reviewing relevant literature, I identified three key findings. Firstly, mussels play a crucial role in nutrient cycling and the overall function of lakes. For example, they enhance water clarity and process nutrients like nitrogen. Still, their benefits depend on factors such as mussel species, lake bottom stability, oxygen levels, and the presence of certain fish that are critical for reproduction. Mussels' parasitic larval phase relies on specific fish species, and losing these host fish can severely impact mussel populations.
Secondly, mussels are sensitive to water quality, making them effective bioindicators of certain types of pollution in our waters. Thus, an increase in mussels may reflect an improvement in water quality, as they are particularly sensitive to metals. But not all lakes naturally have mussels in them, so the lack of mussels is not always indicative of a problem.
Lastly, there is a significant, long-term decline in freshwater mussels across North America, which research mostly attributes to pollution and habitat loss. Interestingly, this last finding from my literature review contradicts the observation in my chosen question. Local increases suggested by my project question could result from small-scale environmental recovery or the introduction of invasive species. They could also be due to natural biotransport of mussels from one neighboring lake to another, usually by a bird, fish, or other wildlife. Mussels can also be hard to see, especially if they are small and in deep water; so, it is also possible they were in the lake before but have moved into more shallow or visible waters.
While the reports of increased mussel populations in Florida lakes may be positive, they do not reflect broader trends. It is important to monitor specific species and environmental factors to understand these changes accurately. Volunteers can play a significant role in tracking trends and supporting the health of Florida’s freshwater systems, and reports of local increases can lead to larger efforts.
“How do we remove lily pads from our lakes?”
(asked in Hillsborough/Pasco counties, 2024)
by Noah Hart
My name is Noah Hart and I’m a senior at the University of Florida studying Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. During my studies, I have become interested in the management of plants and the roles they play in our ecosystems. This made it an easy choice to research the management of lily pads in our freshwater lakes. Finding peer reviewed articles on lily pad management specifically in Florida was difficult. I used research databases like Web of Science and ResearchGate to find 11 peer reviewed articles. Several articles focused on the management and ecology of lily pads internationally, in places like the Netherlands and China. Additionally, I used 1 LAKEWATCH document to help answer my question.
When managing plants in any ecosystem, it is always a good idea to create a management plan that establishes your objectives for your waterbody. For lily pads specifically, there are a couple of scenarios where someone may want to remove or reduce the plant. First and foremost, they can impede people’s recreation; lily pads can form dense mats on a lake making access difficult, limiting people’s ability to enjoy their lake. Lily pads can also have negative ecological impacts when they become too abundant. For example, while lily pads release oxygen through photosynthesis, they also need a small amount of oxygen to break down stored sugars for energy. Thus, very dense mats of lily pads can deplete oxygen levels, which can be harmful for aquatic animals. Regardless of the reason, removing lily pads can be challenging. Physical removal by using a water rake, or chemical removal by using herbicides were the most common methods I found in my review. As always, remember to read and follow the labels for any herbicide to ensure responsible and safe use.
While there may be a time and a place to remove lily pads, I also wanted to explore their role in our lake ecosystems as part of my review. I found that lily pads play an important role in our freshwater ecosystems, filtering the water and remove excess nutrients that could cause algae blooms, for example. They also support juvenile and adult insects that are food for young fish, a variety of birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Thus, these plants are crucial in supporting a biodiverse ecosystem, a role I think should be kept in mind when asking ourselves if we should remove lily pads.
“How can we remove tilapia from our lakes?”
(asked in Sarasota/Manatee in 2024)
by Ariella Jacobson
Hello! My name is Ariella, and I am a junior at the University of Florida majoring in Natural Resource Conservation. I chose this topic because growing up in Florida meant being surrounded by invasive species, and I was interested in how tilapia are handled and managed. I found that blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) are the most common invasive tilapia in Florida, so I tried to select papers that focused on blue tilapia specifically, or that were based in Florida and similar climates. Out of the 25 papers I reviewed, I selected the 10 that best explained why tilapia are harmful as an invasive species or provided a concrete method of removing them from aquatic systems.
Overall, I found four different ways to remove a tilapia population from a waterbody: sterile male stocking, piscicides, eDNA detection, and manual efforts. Sterile male stocking is when you add more tilapia into the population you are trying to remove. These added tilapia will all be male, with two Y chromosomes, unlike naturally occurring male tilapia, which have one X and one Y chromosome. These new tilapia guarantee that any offspring will be born male, limiting reproduction and causing a slow sterilization of the population. This method takes time, so if you are looking for something faster, chemicals like Rotenone have been observed to kill tilapia in a manner of hours. However, these chemicals will affect all fish indiscriminately; thus, Rotenone applications must be done by a licensed applicator and require extensive permits. The third method of tilapia removal involves using environmental DNA to detect where tilapia are. Environmental DNA (or eDNA) is tiny bits of genetic material that get left behind by an organism as it moves through its environment. Fish are constantly shedding scales, mucus, and other genetic material into the water as they swim, including tilapia. So, this method uses eDNA technology to look for tilapia DNA in water samples, then using the results to identify where tilapia are most abundant and guide targeted removal efforts. The last method is manual removal, such as fishing, electrofishing, or trapping tilapia. While not a lot of scientific papers have been written about this method and it can take significant time, anglers, fish farmers, and other people have reported success in removing tilapia on their own.
Tilapia removal is a very complicated process, and the method you choose depends on several factors such as the size of your lake, the time constraint, and budget you are working with. Hopefully with more research, we can come up with a more simple, standardized way to remove tilapia (and other invasive species) in the future!
Dr. Rick Copeland
Lake Talquin, Leon County & AquiferWatch
Dr. Rick Copeland, like many of us, was not born a Floridian. Yet, like many of us hope to, he has truly made a positive impact on our great state’s waterbodies. It wasn’t necessarily what his parents expected when they uprooted the family and moved from Michigan to Gainesville when Rick was in middle school. And, it wasn’t what Rick expected when he started as an undergrad at the University of Florida, intending to major in history. But when he took his first geology course as a freshman, Rick fell in love with the subject and there was no looking back. After three degrees in geology and a full career in surface and groundwater monitoring with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Rick retired in 2010 but quickly found himself wanting to do even more for Florida’s groundwater resources.
Rick and his friend, Ron Rice, have been sampling Lake Talquin in Leon County for LAKEWATCH for nearly 20 years, since shortly after Rick and his wife, Debbie, purchased a home on the lake in 2004. All of them love the chance to get out on the water – Rick knows intellectually that monitoring surface waters is an important task but that doesn’t stop him from also enjoying the beauty on his lake. “I love in the winter when the white pelicans come to roost.” These resourceful birds utilize cormorant fishing activities – cormorants do all the work stirring up fish, making them easier for pelicans to catch with minimal effort!
However, Rick is not like the white pelican in this sense – he does not shy away from hard or uncertain work, he is inspired by it. In fact, he was inspired by the hard work of the Florida LAKEWATCH team and volunteers to create a sister program for groundwater monitoring with co-founder Gary Maddox, called AquiferWatch. As professional geologists, Gary and Rick felt that were aware that groundwater impairment wasn’t getting enough attention or funding – and not for lack of need. Groundwater is a critical resource that supplies drinking water and feeds surface waters. Elevated nutrients can trigger ecological imbalances and, in some cases, render drinking water unsafe.
But they faced some challenges in getting the program off the ground. Rick and Gary modeled AquiferWatch after LAKEWATCH, envisioning a program that would educate Floridians about groundwater resources and use volunteer efforts to collect samples to build a long-term monitoring dataset. However, in Rick’s estimation sampling for groundwater isn’t always as fun as sampling surface water. It’s less of a lovely day on the water and more waiting in someone’s backyard for their well to purge before taking a sample. So, long-term volunteers have sometimes been hard to come by. A second major challenge was the age-old issue of funding – volunteers donate their time but supplies and sample analysis are not free.
But akin to the white pelicans that harness the efforts of cormorants, Rick and Gary knew that success would depend on strong partnerships. First, they reached out to former LAKEWATCH directors Dan Canfield and Mark Hoyer, who wanted to support AquiferWatch and agreed to analyze samples free of charge (a commitment we continue to this day), partly alleviating their funding issue. Next, they partnered with the Itchetucknee Alliance and Our Santa Fe River, who have a plethora of local volunteers who were eager to assist.
Today, AquiferWatch 47 volunteers working in 4 counties, standing as a testament to Rick’s unwavering commitment and to the power of collaboration. The work is not done – they continue to build towards educational and stewardship goals. But we want to show our gratitude for all the work Rick has done throughout his career and retirement – for the state of Florida, for Lake Talquin, for LAKEWATCH, and for our groundwater resources. Thank you, Rick!
Eastern Mosquitofish
Scientific name: Gambusia holbrooki
Written by Regional Coordinator, Dan Willis
The eastern mosquitofish are stout and sometimes pot-bellied with a broad flat back and laterally compressed towards the tail of the fish which is fan shaped and rounded. They can be silver or whitish to green on top of their body and as you go from the top towards the belly area of fish the color becomes lighter in most cases white. Their scales are lined which can give them a crossed hatch appearance. Their head is triangular with a large eye, and they have a small mouth that is tilted upward.
They are livebearers which means they give birth to live young. It only takes 4-6 weeks from birth to become a mature adult. The female fish can have 40 to 60 fry per brood and have multiple broods throughout the year.
These native fish are used in mosquito control. The early stage of a mosquito’s life cycle occurs in the water and at this point their larvae are very vulnerable. The mosquitofish like the mosquito larvae so they are used as a biological control agent. There are many commercial companies growing mosquitofish for stocking. Many counties in Florida give mosquitos fish to homeowners to put in their backyard ponds to control mosquitos. There is a list of suppliers available at your local county UF IFAS Extension Office.
- Diet: They feed on insects, snails, and crustaceans. They have been known to eat small aquatic plants like duck weed but this maybe accidental.
- Distribution in the US: They are native to the Atlantic and Gulf slope drainages and can be found throughout Florida. New Jersey is the northern range of the eastern distribution, and they go west to southern Alabama.
- More information: Eastern Mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki, for Control of Mosquito Larvae
Roseate Spoonbill
Scientific Name: Platalea ajaja
Written by Florida LAKEWATCH Regional Coordinator, Natalie Anderson
With their vibrant pink plumage and unusual spoon-shaped bills, Roseate Spoonbills are among the most striking birds found in Florida’s wetlands. These wading birds are often mistaken for flamingos, but they belong to the ibis family and have their own endearing charm. Six species of spoonbills exist worldwide, and the Roseate Spoonbill is the only one native to the United States.
Roseate Spoonbills forage in shallow waters, sweeping their bill side to side to detect prey by touch. Their diet consists of small fish, crustaceans, and aquatic insects, which contribute to their distinctive pink coloration through pigments known as carotenoids. Want to see their unique feeding style in action? Check out this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJJ3QmHlkPg.
You’ll often spot spoonbills in estuaries, tidal creeks, and freshwater marshes. Historically, Florida Bay in the Everglades served as a vital nesting ground, once hosting up to 90% of the state’s breeding population. In recent years, colonies have shifted farther north and inland. Spoonbills nest in colonies, alongside herons, egrets, and ibis. Nest building is a shared responsibility, with males gathering sticks and females building the platform. Nests are built in mangroves or shrubs, sometimes as high as 16 feet off the ground, helping to protect their young from predators.
If you’d like to observe these birds up close, visit places like the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge, or the Everglades. Their graceful movements, bright pink coloring, and bizarre spoon-shaped bills make them a favorite amongst birdwatchers and photographers alike.
- Fun fact: As Roseate Spoonbills age, they go “bald,” gradually losing feathers from the top of their heads. This natural change gives older birds a unique look, often sporting a bare, greenish crown, that sets them apart from their younger counterparts with white feathered heads.
- Diet: Small fish, shrimp, aquatic insects, and other invertebrates.
- Threats: Habitat loss, water pollution, and disturbance during nesting. In Florida, Roseate Spoonbills are listed as threatened, though they are not federally listed as endangered in the US.
- Recovery: Once hunted for their feathers, Roseate Spoonbills have rebounded thanks to conservation efforts, though they remain vulnerable to habitat changes.
- More Information: FWC, Audubon, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Reminders
Who you gonna call?
Broken Bottles
The LAKEWATCH Lab has been receiving nutrient bottles that are in rough shape. These are the smaller bottles that you fill and freeze each time you sample. We reuse these bottles for as long as possible to save money for the program and keep as many lakes in the program as we can. Please follow the tips below to help us keep using these nutrient bottles:
- Please do not write on the bottles. Make sure to write on the labels only.
- Don't overfill them. The water expands as it freezes and will crack the bottles.
- Be careful when handling frozen bottles as they can crack easily.
Please complete your data sheet!
You work hard for your data so don't forget the little things. Data sheets without sampling and filtering times and dates must be entered with "qualifiers", which means they won't be as useful to DEP and researchers. In fact, they may not be able to be entered into DEP's Watershed Information Network at all.
The LAKEWATCH newsletter is edited by Dr. Liz Moreau. You can reach out with questions, comments, or feedback at duermite@ufl.edu