We have a pond about 80 feet long by 25 feet wide. Fed by rainwater run-off
from the fields above it and probably excavated between four and five
hundred years ago as a water supply (and fish source?) for our house, it was
in a bad way when we moved in - totally masked from sunlight by trees and
bushes. We've cleared all that away, but the bottom is thick with leaves and
sludge. We are putting in oxygenating plants, etc, though it would be
prohibitively expensive to plant enough in one go to conquer the damage of
years. We don't intend to keep fish in it (unlike its builders) but would
love to see frogs (no spawn this season) and newts as soon as possible.
Mallard ducks and Moorhens have already visited often, but the stench of
ammonia and methane when raking out debris from the margins isn't pleasant.

Does anyone have any suggestions to accelerate the process of restoration?

Thanks,

Chris Lovett

"CJ" wrote:


Does anyone have any suggestions to accelerate the process of restoration?

How deep is the water above the sludge/sediment?

If there's enough, and you have already provided sunlight, Nature will do
the rest. Some hardy lilies potted in plastic pails would put on a nice
flower show this season, and a few larger (1-bushel, more or less) plastic
tubs with lotus tubers should bloom next year.

I don't know what fish species are OK in the UK, but I'd stay away from
carp and catfish that can root in the bottom and roil things up. Sounds
like you have enough water for large-mouth bass if they're legal there.

Enjoy!


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at www.albany.net/~gwoods
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1200' elevation. NY WO G

CJ wrote:

We have a pond about 80 feet long by 25 feet wide. Fed by rainwater run-off
from the fields above it and probably excavated between four and five
hundred years ago as a water supply (and fish source?) for our house, it was
in a bad way when we moved in - totally masked from sunlight by trees and
bushes. We've cleared all that away, but the bottom is thick with leaves and
sludge. We are putting in oxygenating plants, etc, though it would be
prohibitively expensive to plant enough in one go to conquer the damage of
years. We don't intend to keep fish in it (unlike its builders) but would
love to see frogs (no spawn this season) and newts as soon as possible.
Mallard ducks and Moorhens have already visited often, but the stench of
ammonia and methane when raking out debris from the margins isn't pleasant.

Does anyone have any suggestions to accelerate the process of restoration?

Thanks,

Chris Lovett

If is is really thick with dead leaves and sludge, you may have a real
problem getting anything to grow. An aquaintance had a similar problem
and ended up draining the pond and removing the sludge with a JCB.
Following this approach, your pond probably has a clay liner which
you'll need to keep intact.
--
Larry Stoter

Chris wrote in message
We have a pond about 80 feet long by 25 feet wide. Fed by rainwater
run-off
from the fields above it and probably excavated between four and five
hundred years ago as a water supply (and fish source?) for our house, it
was
in a bad way when we moved in - totally masked from sunlight by trees and
bushes. We've cleared all that away, but the bottom is thick with leaves
and
sludge. We are putting in oxygenating plants, etc, though it would be
prohibitively expensive to plant enough in one go to conquer the damage of
years. We don't intend to keep fish in it (unlike its builders) but would
love to see frogs (no spawn this season) and newts as soon as possible.
Mallard ducks and Moorhens have already visited often, but the stench of
ammonia and methane when raking out debris from the margins isn't
pleasant.

Does anyone have any suggestions to accelerate the process of restoration?


You could have a serious problem with all the decomposing material at the
bottom of the pond causing toxic gasses.
All ponds try to fill themselves in and steps have to be taken every so
often to clear out debris to stop this happening if you want the pond to
continue, it's another reason why we have lost so many old ponds in this
country since WW2. Too costly to maintain.
Two choices, either drain, clear out mechanically and refill as it would
have been done in the past or there is a modern system to clean out ponds
which uses a small dredger that pumps the sludge out of the pond but I don't
know the name of the firm.

--
Bob

www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.

CJ wrote:

We have a pond about 80 feet long by 25 feet wide. Fed by rainwater run-off
from the fields above it and probably excavated between four and five
hundred years ago as a water supply (and fish source?) for our house, it was
in a bad way when we moved in - totally masked from sunlight by trees and
bushes. We've cleared all that away, but the bottom is thick with leaves and
sludge. We are putting in oxygenating plants, etc, though it would be
prohibitively expensive to plant enough in one go to conquer the damage of
years. We don't intend to keep fish in it (unlike its builders) but would
love to see frogs (no spawn this season) and newts as soon as possible.
Mallard ducks and Moorhens have already visited often, but the stench of
ammonia and methane when raking out debris from the margins isn't pleasant.

Does anyone have any suggestions to accelerate the process of restoration?


The pond sounds a bit large for newts and frogs. Obviously, if you want to
be successful with these species, you musn't introduce any fish. The fact
that its big enough to attract waterfowl is a bad sign too: they will eat
newts and tadpoles. Your best chance is to establish an area of shallower
water with dense vegetation in it (rushes, reeds etc) to provide a more
sheltered area for the frogs. Toads like depper water but also go for
rushes and reeds to wrap their spawn round. Newts need broad-leaved
marginal vegetation for laying thier eggs on. Great crested newts: don't
know where you are, the chances of getting these are dependent on the
presence of a local population. However, our much smaller two-year old pond
has a breeding pair in this year, and there have been no previous records
for our locailty. They are said to prefer extensively vegatated ponds with
about two-thirds cover of submerged veg and emergent/floating cover of
about one quarter to one half of the pond. Leaving the pond to colonise
naturally will take a long time. Since you want to use mainly native
species, contacting your local wildlife Trust may yield some possible
sources of material. You must be careful when introduing plants that you
don't inadvertently introduce any aline invasives such as Azolla (fairy
moss) and New Zealand stonecrop, which will cause problems later. You will
also only be successful in establishing a healthy amphibian popualtion if
you remember that they are in fact amphibious and spend most of their life
on land: if the surounding habitat isn't suitable, they won't use the pond.

The other possible problem related to the rainwater rub-off from fields.
Depending what goes on the fields, the run-off could be rich in nutrients
which means you'll have an ongoing problem with algae and are unlikely to
be able to build up a very healthy wildlife pond.

Anita

The pond sounds a bit large for newts and frogs. Obviously, if you want to
be successful with these species, you musn't introduce any fish.

we have (gold)fish but lots and lots of frogs and toads (and I know that
they do not eat all the tadpoles as the garden was awash with baby frogs
last year ).
Hayley