More Like this

1. Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0cpx  

   Hussain, Mir Zaman ; Hamilton, Stephen ; Robertson, G. Philip ; Basso, Bruno ( January 2021 , Dryad)

   Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016 using tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0–25 cm depth) was measured every autumn. Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed (> 0.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized cropping systems may leach legacy P from past cropland management. Experimental details The Biofuel Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) is located at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) (42.3956° N, 85.3749° W; elevation 288 m asl) in southwestern Michigan, USA. This site is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (www.glbrc.org) and is a Long-term Ecological Research site (www.lter.kbs.msu.edu). Soils are mesic Typic Hapludalfs developed on glacial outwash54 with high sand content (76% in the upper 150 cm) intermixed with silt-rich loess in the upper 50 cm55. The water table lies approximately 12–14 m below the surface. The climate is humid temperate with a mean annual air temperature of 9.1 °C and annual precipitation of 1005 mm, 511 mm of which falls between May and September (1981–2010)56,57. The BCSE was established as a randomized complete block design in 2008 on preexisting farmland. Prior to BCSE establishment, the field was used for grain crop and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) production for several decades. Between 2003 and 2007, the field received a total of ~ 300 kg P ha−1 as manure, and the southern half, which contains one of four replicate plots, received an additional 206 kg P ha−1 as inorganic fertilizer. The experimental design consists of five randomized blocks each containing one replicate plot (28 by 40 m) of 10 cropping systems (treatments) (Supplementary Fig. S1; also see Sanford et al.58). Block 5 is not included in the present study. Details on experimental design and site history are provided in Robertson and Hamilton57 and Gelfand et al.59. Leaching of P is analyzed in six of the cropping systems: (i) continuous no-till corn, (ii) switchgrass, (iii) miscanthus, (iv) a mixture of five species of native grasses, (v) a restored native prairie containing 18 plant species (Supplementary Table S1), and (vi) hybrid poplar. Agronomic management Phenological cameras and field observations indicated that the perennial herbaceous crops emerged each year between mid-April and mid-May. Corn was planted each year in early May. Herbaceous crops were harvested at the end of each growing season with the timing depending on weather: between October and November for corn and between November and December for herbaceous perennial crops. Corn stover was harvested shortly after corn grain, leaving approximately 10 cm height of stubble above the ground. The poplar was harvested only once, as the culmination of a 6-year rotation, in the winter of 2013–2014. Leaf emergence and senescence based on daily phenological images indicated the beginning and end of the poplar growing season, respectively, in each year. Application of inorganic fertilizers to the different crops followed a management approach typical for the region (Table 1). Corn was fertilized with 13 kg P ha−1 year−1 as starter fertilizer (N-P-K of 19-17-0) at the time of planting and an additional 33 kg P ha−1 year−1 was added as superphosphate in spring 2015. Corn also received N fertilizer around the time of planting and in mid-June at typical rates for the region (Table 1). No P fertilizer was applied to the perennial grassland or poplar systems (Table 1). All perennial grasses (except restored prairie) were provided 56 kg N ha−1 year−1 of N fertilizer in early summer between 2010 and 2016; an additional 77 kg N ha−1 was applied to miscanthus in 2009. Poplar was fertilized once with 157 kg N ha−1 in 2010 after the canopy had closed. Sampling of subsurface soil water and soil for P determination Subsurface soil water samples were collected beneath the root zone (1.2 m depth) using samplers installed at approximately 20 cm into the unconsolidated sand of 2Bt2 and 2E/Bt horizons (soils at the site are described in Crum and Collins54). Soil water was collected from two kinds of samplers: Prenart samplers constructed of Teflon and silica (http://www.prenart.dk/soil-water-samplers/) in replicate blocks 1 and 2 and Eijkelkamp ceramic samplers (http://www.eijkelkamp.com) in blocks 3 and 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The samplers were installed in 2008 at an angle using a hydraulic corer, with the sampling tubes buried underground within the plots and the sampler located about 9 m from the plot edge. There were no consistent differences in TDP concentrations between the two sampler types. Beginning in the 2009 growing season, subsurface soil water was sampled at weekly to biweekly intervals during non-frozen periods (April–November) by applying 50 kPa of vacuum to each sampler for 24 h, during which the extracted water was collected in glass bottles. Samples were filtered using different filter types (all 0.45 µm pore size) depending on the volume of leachate collected: 33-mm dia. cellulose acetate membrane filters when volumes were less than 50 mL; and 47-mm dia. Supor 450 polyethersulfone membrane filters for larger volumes. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) in water samples was analyzed by persulfate digestion of filtered samples to convert all phosphorus forms to soluble reactive phosphorus, followed by colorimetric analysis by long-pathlength spectrophotometry (UV-1800 Shimadzu, Japan) using the molybdate blue method60, for which the method detection limit was ~ 0.005 mg P L−1. Between 2009 and 2016, soil samples (0–25 cm depth) were collected each autumn from all plots for determination of soil test P (STP) by the Bray-1 method61, using as an extractant a dilute hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride solution, as is recommended for neutral to slightly acidic soils. The measured STP concentration in mg P kg−1 was converted to kg P ha−1 based on soil sampling depth and soil bulk density (mean, 1.5 g cm−3). Sampling of water samples from lakes, streams and wells for P determination In addition to chemistry of soil and subsurface soil water in the BCSE, waters from lakes, streams, and residential water supply wells were also sampled during 2009–2016 for TDP analysis using Supor 450 membrane filters and the same analytical method as for soil water. These water bodies are within 15 km of the study site, within a landscape mosaic of row crops, grasslands, deciduous forest, and wetlands, with some residential development (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S2). Details of land use and cover change in the vicinity of KBS are given in Hamilton et al.48, and patterns in nutrient concentrations in local surface waters are further discussed in Hamilton62. Leaching estimates, modeled drainage, and data analysis Leaching was estimated at daily time steps and summarized as total leaching on a crop-year basis, defined from the date of planting or leaf emergence in a given year to the day prior to planting or emergence in the following year. TDP concentrations (mg L−1) of subsurface soil water were linearly interpolated between sampling dates during non-freezing periods (April–November) and over non-sampling periods (December–March) based on the preceding November and subsequent April samples. Daily rates of TDP leaching (kg ha−1) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg L−1) by drainage rates (m3 ha−1 day−1) modeled by the Systems Approach for Land Use Sustainability (SALUS) model, a crop growth model that is well calibrated for KBS soil and environmental conditions. SALUS simulates yield and environmental outcomes in response to weather, soil, management (planting dates, plant population, irrigation, N fertilizer application, and tillage), and genetics63. The SALUS water balance sub-model simulates surface runoff, saturated and unsaturated water flow, drainage, root water uptake, and evapotranspiration during growing and non-growing seasons63. The SALUS model has been used in studies of evapotranspiration48,51,64 and nutrient leaching20,65,66,67 from KBS soils, and its predictions of growing-season evapotranspiration are consistent with independent measurements based on growing-season soil water drawdown53 and evapotranspiration measured by eddy covariance68. Phosphorus leaching was assumed insignificant on days when SALUS predicted no drainage. Volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations in leachate for each crop-year and for the entire 7-year study period were calculated as the total dissolved P leaching flux (kg ha−1) divided by the total drainage (m3 ha−1). One-way ANOVA with time (crop-year) as the fixed factor was conducted to compare total annual drainage rates, P leaching rates, volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations, and maximum aboveground biomass among the cropping systems over all seven crop-years as well as with TDP concentrations from local lakes, streams, and groundwater wells. When a significant (α = 0.05) difference was detected among the groups, we used the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons among the groups. In the case of maximum aboveground biomass, we used the Tukey–Kramer method to make pairwise comparisons among the groups because the absence of poplar data after the 2013 harvest resulted in unequal sample sizes. We also used the Tukey–Kramer method to compare the frequency distributions of TDP concentrations in all of the soil leachate samples with concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater wells, since each sample category had very different numbers of measurements. Individual spreadsheets in “data table_leaching_dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen.xls” 1.    annual precip_drainage 2.    biomass_corn, perennial grasses 3.    biomass_poplar 4.    annual N leaching _vol-wtd conc 5.    Summary_N leached 6.    annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc 7.    growing season length 8.    correlation_nh4 VS no3 9.    correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Each spreadsheet is described below along with an explanation of variates. Note that ‘nan’ indicate data are missing or not available. First row indicates header; second row indicates units 1. Spreadsheet: annual precip_drainage Description: Precipitation measured from nearby Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Weather station, over 2009-2016 study period. Data shown in Figure 1; original data source for precipitation (https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/7). Drainage estimated from SALUS crop model. Note that drainage is percolation out of the root zone (0-125 cm). Annual precipitation and drainage values shown here are calculated for growing and non-growing crop periods. Variate    Description year    year of the observation crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” precip_G    precipitation during growing period (milliMeter) precip_NG    precipitation during non-growing period (milliMeter) drainage_G    drainage during growing period (milliMeter) drainage_NG    drainage during non-growing period (milliMeter)      2. Spreadsheet: biomass_corn, perennial grasses Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass and restored prairie plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2.   Variate    Description year    year of the observation date    day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 station    stations (S1, S2 and S3) of samplings within the plot. For more details, refer to link (https://data.sustainability.glbrc.org/protocols/156) species    plant species that are rooted within the quadrat during the time of maximum biomass harvest. See protocol for more information, refer to link (http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/36) For maize biomass, grain and whole biomass reported in the paper (weed biomass or surface litter are excluded). Surface litter biomass not included in any crops; weed biomass not included in switchgrass and miscanthus, but included in grass mixture and prairie. fraction    Fraction of biomass biomass_plot    biomass per plot on dry-weight basis (Grams_Per_SquareMeter) biomass_ha    biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying column biomass per plot with 0.01 3. Spreadsheet: biomass_poplar Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Note that poplar biomass was estimated from crop growth curves until the poplar was harvested in the winter of 2013-14. Variate    Description year    year of the observation method    methods of poplar biomass sampling date    day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 diameter_at_ground    poplar diameter (milliMeter) at the ground diameter_at_15cm    poplar diameter (milliMeter) at 15 cm height biomass_tree    biomass per plot (Grams_Per_Tree) biomass_ha    biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying biomass per tree with 0.01 4. Spreadsheet: annual N leaching_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) of nitrate (no3) and dissolved organic nitrogen (don) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen leached and volume-wtd mean N concentration shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Note that ammonium (nh4) concentration were much lower and often undetectable (<0.07 milliGrams_N_Per_Liter). Also note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, data from some replicates are missing.    Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year    year of the observation replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 no3 leached    annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached    annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd no3 conc.    Volume-weighted mean no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) vol-wtd don conc.    Volume-weighted mean don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 5. Spreadsheet: summary_N leached Description: Summary of total amount and forms of N leached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and the percent of applied N lost to leaching over the seven years for corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen amount leached shown in Figure 4a and percent of applied N lost shown in Figure 4b. Note the fraction of unleached N includes in harvest, accumulation in root biomass, soil organic matter or gaseous N emissions were not measured in the study. Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” no3 leached    annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached    annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) N unleached    N unleached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) in other sources are not studied % of N applied N lost to leaching    % of N applied N lost to leaching 6. Spreadsheet: annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_Per_Liter) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for DOC leached and volume-wtd mean DOC concentration shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b, respectively. Note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, water samples were not available for DOC measurements.     Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year    year of the observation replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 doc leached    annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd doc conc.    volume-weighted mean doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 7. Spreadsheet: growing season length Description: Growing season length (days) of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Date shown in Figure S2. Note that growing season is from the date of planting or emergence to the date of harvest (or leaf senescence in case of poplar).   Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year    year of the observation growing season length    growing season length (days) 8. Spreadsheet: correlation_nh4 VS no3 Description: Correlation of ammonium (nh4+) and nitrate (no3-) concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data shown in Figure S3. Note that nh4+ concentration in the leachates was very low compared to no3- and don concentration and often undetectable in three crop-years (2013-2015) when measurements are available. Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” date    date of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 nh4 conc    nh4 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 conc    no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter)   9. Spreadsheet: correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Description: Correlations of don and nitrate concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter); and doc (milliGrams_Per_Liter) and don concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data of correlation of don and nitrate concentrations shown in Figure S4 a and doc and don concentrations shown in Figure S4 b. Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year    year of the observation don    don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3     no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) doc    doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 

   more » « less
2. Worldwide Maize and Soybean Yield Response to Environmental and Management Factors Over the 20th and 21st Centuries

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006304  

   Lin, Tzu‐Shun ; Song, Yang ; Lawrence, Peter ; Kheshgi, Haroon S. ; Jain, Atul K. ( November 2021 , Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences)

   A land process model, Integrated Science Assessment Model, is extended to simulate contemporary soybean and maize crop yields accurately and changes in yields over the period 1901–2100 driven by environmental factors (atmospheric CO₂level ([CO₂]) and climate), and management factors (nitrogen input and irrigation). Over the twentieth century, each factor contributes to global yield increase; increasing nitrogen fertilization rates is the strongest driver for maize, and increasing [CO₂] is the strongest for soybean. Over the 21st century, crop yields are projected under two future scenarios, RCP4.5‐SSP2 and RCP8.5‐SSP5; the warmer temperature drives yields lower, while rising [CO₂] drives yields higher. The adverse warmer temperature effect of maize and soybean is offset by other drivers, particularly the increase in [CO₂], and resultant changes in the phenological events due to climate change, particularly planting dates and harvesting times, by 2090s under both scenarios. Global yield for maize increases under RCP4.5‐SSP2, which experiences continued growth in [CO₂] and higher nitrogen input rates. For soybean, yield increases at a similar rate. However, in RCP8.5‐SSP5, maize yield declines because of greater climate warming, extreme heat stress conditions, and weaker nitrogen fertilization than RCP4.5‐SSP2, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, suggesting that application of advanced technologies, and stronger management practices, in addition to climate change mitigation, may be needed to intensify crop production over this century. The model also projects spatial variations in yields; notably, the higher temperatures in tropical and subtropical regions limit photosynthesis rates and reduce light interception, resulting in lower yields, particularly for soybean under RCP8.5‐SSP5.

    

   more » « less
3. Precipitation versus temperature as phenology controls in drylands

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3793  

   Currier, Courtney M. ; Sala, Osvaldo E. ( July 2022 , Ecology)

   Cycles of plant growth, termed phenology, are tightly linked to environmental controls. The length of time spent growing, bounded by the start and end of season, is an important determinant of the global carbon, water, and energy balance. Much focus has been given to global warming and consequences for shifts in growing‐season length in temperate regions. In conjunction with warming temperatures, altered precipitation regimes are another facet of climate change that have potentially larger consequences than temperature in dryland phenology globally. We experimentally manipulated incoming precipitation in a semiarid grassland for over a decade and recorded plant phenology at the daily scale for 7 years. We found precipitation to have a strong relationship with the timing of grass greenup and senescence but temperature had only a modest effect size on grass greenup. Pre‐season drought strongly resulted in delayed grass greenup dates and shorter growing‐season lengths. Spring and summer drought corresponded with earlier grass senescence, whereas higher precipitation accumulation over these seasons corresponded with delayed grass senescence. However, extremely wet conditions diluted this effect and caused a plateaued response. Deep‐rooted woody shrubs showed few effects of variable precipitation or temperature on phenology and displayed consistent annual phenological timing compared with grasses. Whereas rising temperatures have already elicited phenological consequences and extended growing‐season length for mid and high‐latitude ecosystems, precipitation change will be the major driver of phenological change in drylands that cover 40% of the land surface with consequences for the global carbon, water, and energy balance.

    

   more » « less
4. Modeling the Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Yield and Irrigation in the Monocacy River Watershed, USA

   https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8120139  

   Paul, Manashi ; Dangol, Sijal ; Kholodovsky, Vitaly ; Sapkota, Amy R. ; Negahban-Azar, Masoud ; Lansing, Stephanie ( December 2020 , Climate)

   null (Ed.)

   Crop yield depends on multiple factors, including climate conditions, soil characteristics, and available water. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of projected temperature and precipitation changes on crop yields in the Monocacy River Watershed in the Mid-Atlantic United States based on climate change scenarios. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was applied to simulate watershed hydrology and crop yield. To evaluate the effect of future climate projections, four global climate models (GCMs) and three representative concentration pathways (RCP 4.5, 6, and 8.5) were used in the SWAT model. According to all GCMs and RCPs, a warmer climate with a wetter Autumn and Spring and a drier late Summer season is anticipated by mid and late century in this region. To evaluate future management strategies, water budget and crop yields were assessed for two scenarios: current rainfed and adaptive irrigated conditions. Irrigation would improve corn yields during mid-century across all scenarios. However, prolonged irrigation would have a negative impact due to nutrients runoff on both corn and soybean yields compared to rainfed condition. Decision tree analysis indicated that corn and soybean yields are most influenced by soil moisture, temperature, and precipitation as well as the water management practice used (i.e., rainfed or irrigated). The computed values from the SWAT modeling can be used as guidelines for water resource managers in this watershed to plan for projected water shortages and manage crop yields based on projected climate change conditions. 

   more » « less
5. Walleye spawning, ice phenology, and covariate data for Upper Midwestern Lakes: 1939-2019

   https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/f7a55f08dfe2a9514067e5c633313ef4  

   Feiner, Zachary S ; Barta, Martha ; Sass, Greg ; Reed, Jeffrey ; Cichosz, Thomas ; Shultz, Aaron ; Luehring, Mark ( January 2023 , Environmental Data Initiative)

   The phenology of critical biological events in aquatic ecosystems are rapidly shifting due to climate change. Growing variability in phenological cues can increase the likelihood of trophic mismatches, causing recruitment failures in commercially, culturally, and recreationally important fisheries. We tested for changes in spawning phenology of regionally important walleye (Sander vitreus) populations in 194 Midwest US lakes in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin spanning 1939-2019 to investigate factors influencing walleye phenological responses to climate change and associated climate variability, including ice-off timing, lake physical characteristics, and population stocking history. Data from Wisconsin and Michigan lakes (185 and 5 out of 194 total lakes, respectively) were collected by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) through standardized spring walleye mark-recapture surveys and spring tribal harvest season records. Standardized spring mark-recapture population estimates are performed shortly after ice-off, where following a marking event, a subsequent recapture sampling event is conducted using nighttime electrofishing (typically AC – WDNR, pulsed-DC – GLIFWC) of the entire shoreline including islands for small lakes and index stations for large lakes (Hansen et al. 2015) that is timed to coincide with peak walleye spawning activity (G. Hatzenbeler, WDNR, personal communication; M. Luehring, GLIFWC, personal communication; Beard et al. 1997). Data for four additional Minnesota lakes were collected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) beginning in 1939 during annual collections of walleye eggs and broodstock (Schneider et al. 2010), where date of peak egg take was used to index peak spawning activity. For lakes where spawning location did not match the lake for which the ice-off data was collected, the spawning location either flowed into (Pike River) or was within 50 km of a lake where ice-off data were available (Pine River) and these ice-off data were used. Following the affirmation of off-reservation Ojibwe tribal fishing rights in the Ceded Territories of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in 1987, tribal spearfishers have targeted walleye during spring spawning (Mrnak et al. 2018). Nightly harvests are recorded as part of a compulsory creel survey (US Department of the Interior 1991). Using these records, we calculated the date of peak spawning activity in a given lake-year as the day of maximum tribal harvest. Although we were unable to account for varying effort in these data, a preliminary analysis comparing spawning dates estimated using tribal harvest to those determined from standardized agency surveys in the same lake and year showed that they were highly correlated (Pearson’s correlation: r = 0.91, P < 0.001). For lakes that had walleye spawning data from both agency surveys and tribal harvest, we used the data source with the greatest number of observation years. Ice-off phenology data was collected from two sources – either observed from the Global Lake and River Ice Phenology database (Benson et al. 2000)t, or modeled from a USGS region-wide machine-learning model which used North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) meteorological inputs combined with lake characteristics (lake position, clarity, size, depth, hypsography, etc.) to predict daily water column temperatures from 1979 - 2022, from which ice-off dates could be derived (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/6206d3c2d34ec05caca53071; see Corson-Dosch et al. 2023 for details). Modeled data for our study lakes (see (Read et al. 2021) for modeling details), which performed well in reflecting ice phenology when compared to observed data (i.e., highly significant correlation between observed and modeled ice-off dates when both were available; r = 0.71, p < 0.001). Lake surface area (ha), latitude, and maximum depth (m) were acquired from agency databases and lake reports. Lake class was based on a WDNR lakes classification system (Rypel et al. 2019) that categorized lakes based on temperature, water clarity, depth, and fish community. Walleye stocking history was defined using the walleye stocking classification system developed by the Wisconsin Technical Working Group (see also Sass et al. 2021), which categorized lakes based on relative contributions of naturally-produced and stocked fish to adult recruitment by relying heavily on historic records of age-0 and age-1 catch rates and stocking histories. Wisconsin lakes were divided into three groups: natural recruitment (NR), a combination of stocking and natural recruitment (C-ST), and stocked only (ST). Walleye natural recruitment was indexed as age-0 walleye CPE (number of age-0 walleye captured per km of shoreline electrofished) from WDNR and GLIFWC fall electrofishing surveys (see Hansen et al. 2015 for details). We excluded lake-years where stocking of age-0 fish occurred before age-0 surveys to only include measurements of naturally-reproduced fish. 

   more » « less