UnUed States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
536 South Clark Stree
Chicago, Illinois 6060E
EPA-905/3-79-002
Green Bay
Phyto plankton
Composition, Abundance,
And Distribution

-------
                                               EPA-905/3-79-002
           GREEN BAY PHYTOPLANKTON

           COMPOSITION, ABUNDANCE ,

              AND DISTRIBUTION
     E. F. Stoermer and R. J. Stevenson
        Great Lakes Research Division
         The University of Michigan
         Ann Arbor, Michigan  48109
            Grant No. R 005340 01
               Project Officer

              David C. Rockwell
     Great Lakes National  Program  Office
           536 South Clark Street
          Chicago, Illinois  60605
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  REGION V
          CHICAGO, ILLINOIS  60605

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.  Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                    FOREWORD
     The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency was established in Region V, Chicago to
focus attention on the significant and complex natural resource represented
by the Great Lakes.

     GLNPO implements a multi-media environmental management program drawing
on a wide range of expertise represented by Universities, private firms, State,
Federal, and Canadian Governmental Agencies and the International Joint
Commission.  The goal of the GLNPO program is to develop programs, practices
and technology necessary for a better understanding of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable the
discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes system.  The Office also coordi-
nates U.S. actions in fulfillment of the Agreement between Canada and the
United States of America on Great Lakes Water Quality of 1978.

     This study was supported by a GLNPO grant to the University of Michigan
at Ann Arbor for investigating the phytoplankton assemblages of northern
Green Bay.
                                     111

-------
                                   ABSTRACT









     This project was initiated to evaluate the water quality of northern Green




Bay on the basis of physicochemical and phytoplankton data.  Emphasis was




placed upon the interpretation of phytoplankton population spatial distri-




butions and the diversity and dissimilarities of community composition with




respect to the physicochemical qualities of the water.




     Green Bay phytoplankton assemblages were characterized by high abundances




and domination by taxa indicative of nutrient rich conditions.  The most signi-




ficant components of the communities were diatoms ad cryptomonads in May and




blue-green algae in August and October.  Anacystis incerta, Rhodomonas minuta,




microflagellates, Gloeocystis planetonica, and Cyclotella  comensis were the




most abundant taxa.




     Two main regions of different water quality were determined by phyto-




plankton population and community analysis.  These regions are approximately




delineated as north and south of Chambers Island.  Phytoplankton and physico-




chemical indications of eutrophication were generally greater in the southern




region.  Local evidence of more severe perturbation was noted in Little Bay de




Noc near the Escanaba River and Escanaba, and near the Menominee River.  More




naturally eutrophic shallow water communities were found in Big Bay de Noc and




along the northwest shore of Green Bay.  Less eutrophic conditions along the




Lake Michigan interface with Green Bay probably resulted from dilution of Green




Bay water due to exchange with Lake Michigan water.  Although the magnitude of




this exchange cannot be quantitatively estimated from the  results of the




present investigation it must result in the export of nutrients and biological




populations adapted to eutrophic conditions to Lake Michigan  proper.
                                        iv

-------
                                   CONTENTS







Foreword	..«.«....«.	ill



Abstract	Iv



Figures.	vi



   1.  Introduction.......... 	 1



   2.  Materials and Methods 	 5



   3.  Results ........ 	 ...... 	 ..... 6



            Physicochemical conditions 	 6



            Phytoplankton	10



   4.  Discussion	?4



   5.  Conclusions and Recommendations 	  ........  .79



References 	 . 	 ...........  .82



Appendices



   A.  Physicochemical data for May composite and August and October



       discrete samples from Green Bay, 1977	  .  .86



   B.  Summary of phytoplankton species occurrence in the near-surface



       waters of Green Bay during 1977 sampling season  	87



   C.  Phytoplankton density and species diversity of Green Bay, 1977.  .99



   D.  Euclidian distances and cluster diagrams of the  August and



       October phytoplankton assemblages 	  100

-------
                                    FIGURES








     Number



Figure  1. The sampling locations and geography of Green Bay	  2



Figure  2. Surface phytoplankton community densities	12



Figure  3. Population densities of blue-green algae 	 15



Figure  M. Proportional abundance of blue-green algae 	 16



Figure  5. Population densities of green algae	17



Figure  6. Proportional abundance of green algae. ... 	 19



Figure  ?. Population densities of diatoms	 20



Figure  8. Proportional abundance of diatoms	 21



Figure  9* Population densities of golden brown algae ......... 22



Figure 10. Proportional abundance of golden brown algae ........ 23



Figure 11. Population densities of cryptomonads ............ 25



Figure 12. Proportional abundance of cryptomonads ..... 	 26



Figure 13. Population densities of dinoflagellates	 27



Figure 14. Population densities of haptophytes. . . 	 28



Figure 15. Proportional abundance of dinoflagellates	29



Figure 16. Cluster association of phytoplankton communities ...... 31



Figure 17. Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 7



           during August and October	33



Figure 18. Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 16



           during August and October	.34



Figure 19« Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 17



           during August and October. ....... 	 .... 35



Figure 20. Population densities of Anacvstis Injpejrfea. ......... 37



Figure 21. Population densities of Qomphosphaeria |gpaujgfcrls ...... 38



                                       vi

-------
     Number                                                            Page



Figure 22. Population densities of Gloeocvstis planctonica  	 40



Figure 23. Population densities of Scenedesmus denticulatus var.



           linear is. .	41



Figure 24. Population densities of Sqenedeamus quadrj-cayd^  .  .  .  .  .  ,42



Figure 25. Population densities of Cvclotella stellj-gera  «	44



Figure 26. Population densities of CvQ}ofreJ,?.a cQm.en.sl?	 45



Figure 27. Population densities of CvoloteJ4a ooiflta	  . 47



Figure 28. Population densities of Stepfranodisqi^ ipinu^MS	49



Figure 29. Population densities of Stepfranodisqii^ niaaarae	50



Figure 30. Population densities of Stephanodiscus sp. 8	51



Figure 31. Population densities of Asterionelj-a  formQsa	53



Figure 32. Population densities of fabe34arj.a fenestrata,	54



Figure 33. Population densities of fab.?Maria flpcou^osa  var.



           linearis	56



Figure 34. Population densities of Fragilaria oapucina  	 57



Figure 35. Population densities of Fraeilar^a Qrotonensls.  	 59



Figure 36. Population densities of Synedra  filiformis	60




Figure 37. Population densities of AfflB.fa4iPJv9Jff.ft PfrilMMa  ....... 62



Figure 38. Population densities of Nj^schia acj,cul^riodes	63



Figure 39. Population densities of Chrvsosphaere^la ].ongisDina ....  64




Figure 40. Population densities of Mallomonas pse^dP,?or'Qn^^a•	66



Figure 41. Population densities of Chroomcmas spp	  67



Figure 42. Population densities of Rhodomonas minutus	68



Figure 43. Population densities of Cryptomon^s spp	70



Figure 44. Population densities of Qymnpd^n^uffi SPP	  71



Figure 45. Population densities of Microflagellates.  .  .  	  73



                                        vii

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION








     Green Bay, the largest bay of Lake Michigan, is one of the most



culturally impacted areas in the upper Great Lakes.  There is, however, much



spatial and temporal variability in apparent water quality within the bay.



The heavily loaded extreme southern tip of Green Bay contrasts with the



somewhat naturally eutrophic waters of Big Bay de Noc and the clearer deeper



water in the north-central portion of the bay.



     This project was initiated by the United States Environmental Protection



Agency, Region V, to document the water quality of Green Bay as suggested by



physicochemical and phytoplankton data.  This information is essential for



management of the bay.  Quphasis was placed upon interpretation of the



phytoplankton population spatial distributions and the diversity and



dissimilarities of the community compositions with respect to physicochemical



conditions of the water.  The sampling locations were located in northern



Green Bay, the southernmost location being in the center of the bay east of



the Oconto River.



     Green Bay is an elongate body of water with a northeast to southwest



longitudinal axis stretching 190 km from the Fox River in the south to Big Bay



de Noc in the north and a mean width of about 35 km (Fig. 15.  Depth maxima



are over 60 m in the north-central part of the bay, with most depths less than



40 m and the complete western inshore area less than 20 m deep (Moore and



Meyer, 1969).



     The hydrodynamics of Green Bay are extremely variable and are generally



controlled by geostrophic, wind and barometric forces.  The bay's long,



narrow, and relatively shallow morphometry enables considerable seiche

-------
                                      Rapid
                                       R/ver,
FIG. 1.  fhe  sampling locations and geography of Green Bay,

-------
activity which enhances this variability and increases diffusivity of regional



loading in the central bay.  Currents in the bay tend to be counterclockwise



with two main gyres separating the lower and upper reaches of the bay at a



transect between the Menominee River and Sturgeon Bay.  Pox River water



concentration usually decreases to 25% 25 km from the river mouth (Ahrnsbrak,



1971) in the southern gyre, about 15 km south from our most southern sampling



location.



     Water movements in the northern gyre are not as well documented.  They



are susceptible to discontinuities due to exchange with Lake Michigan waters.



Green Bay tends to have a relatively isolated water mass due to its limited



and interrupted interface with Lake Michigan.  However, substantial exchange



may exist because the Bay de Noc complex alone has been estimated to



contribute 13 X 103 kg P0^~3/yr. or 12$ of the total PO^'3 loaded to Lake



Michigan (Upchurch, 1972).  Water that does escape from the bay most commonly



flows south along the Wisconsin shore.  However, high conductivity values in



north-central Lake Michigan have been attributed to Green Bay.



     The Green Bay watershed comprises one third of all the land that drains



into Lake Michigan.  Nutrients, organic wastes, heavy metal ions, chlorinated



pesticides, and PCBs flush into Green Bay from domestic, agricultural, and



industrial sources in its watershed (Bertrand et al., 1976).



     The most severe impact comes from Fox River loadings to southern Green



Bay in the form of industrial and domestic wastes from about 1/2 million



people and one of the largest pulp and paper industry complexes in the world



along the lower Fox River.  Pulp and paper mills are also located on the



Oconto River, Peshtigo River, and Menominee River (Bertrand et al., 1976).



Mill effluents are major sources of nutrients and oxygen-demanding compounds,

-------
especially to the southern half of the bay.  Domestic wastes are responsible



for the moderate loading of these same contaminants into central and northern



Creen Bay with wastevater treatment plants discharging into the Escanaba and



Menominee Rivers and Little Bay de Hoc plus many other smaller sources around



the bay (Tierney et al.f 1976).  Agricultural sources throughout the Green Bay



watershed contribute animal wastes, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and



pesticides.



     The eutrophication of Green Bay has resulted from the nutrient and



organic waste inputs.  Schelske (1975) reports total soluble phosphorus



loadings to Green Bay as 5.0 metric tons/day from the Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo,



Menominee, Ford, Escanaba, Rapid, and Whitefish Rivers.  Approximately 609 of



this load enters the Green Bay basin via the Pox River,  Schelske and



Callender (1970) noted lower silica concentrations and transparency in Green



Bay, especially in the extreme southern end, than in the rest of northern Lake



Michigan.  Howmiller and Beeton (1973) report 02 depletion in the hypolimnion



of southern Green Bay.  The generally eutrophic conditions increase from north



to south from southern loadings and east to west because of the general



current pattern and the inherently nutrient rich, shallow western shore.  It



should be noted that spatial and temporal variations result from point source



loadings and irregular hydrodynamics of this system.



     Algal research has an intense history in Green Bay with a concentration



in the south end.  In southern Green Bay, Holland  (1968,1969) studied the



plankton diatoms, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.  (Wisconsin Public



Service Corp., 197^) studied phytoplankton and periphyton in relation to the



Pulliam Power Plant, Adams and Stone  (1973) studied pladonnora g|gmerata



photosynthetic rates in relation to temperature, light, and Fox River inputs

-------
and Sager (1971) and Patterson et al., (1975) examined phytoplankton



assemblages in relation to Fox River loading.  Vanderhoef et al., (1972,1971*)



took advantage of the eutrophic conditions and substantial blue-green algal



populations of southern Green Bay to research phytoplankton nitrogen



fixation.  Holland and Claflin (1975) mapped the horizontal distribution of



planktonic diatoms throughout the bay.  Tierney et al. (1976) reported



enumerations of phytoplankton samples from eight locations in central and



northern Green Bay.



                            MATERIALS AND METHODS








     Phytoplankton samples were collected from 25 locations in Green Bay (Fig.



1) in May, August, and October.  In May, before thermal stratification, single



composite-depth samples were collected at each location by Michigan Department



of Natural Resources personnel.  The composite type sampler was lowered to



twice Secchi disc reading and raised to the surface.  This sampler responds to



increased water pressure, thus biasing the samples to deeper depths.  The



August and October samples were discrete and taken from near surface, near



bottom, and usually one intermediate depth by U. S. EPA personnel.  We



received 25 samples from the May cruise, 70 samples from the August cruise and



73 samples from the October cruise.



     Samples were preserved in Lugol's solution.  Semi-permanent  slides of the



material were prepared by concentration of the material from 50 ml of water



onto 25 mm "AA" Millipore filters, dehydration with a series of ethanol



washes, and placement in clove oil on 50x70 mm glass slides.  Prepared filters



were covered with 43x50 mm #1 cover glasses and allowed to clear  for

-------
approximately four weeks.  Any clove oil lost by volatilization was replaced



and the edges of the cover glasses were sealed with paraffin.



     Enumerations of the algal community were executed for all May samples and



near surface and near bottom samples of August and October.  A Leitz Ortholux



microscope with a fluorite oil immersion objective giving about 1250X



magnification and numerical aperature of 1.32 was used for counting.



Population densities were determined as the average counts from two radial



transects, corrected for volume.  The raw counting data were coded for entry



into computer files and subsequent analysis.  Throughout this report, density



refers to the number of algal units, whether cells or colonies, in a given



volume of water.



     Physicochemical water properties were measured by personnel of the



agencies responsible for the field sampling and given to us.  The May



information is less complete compared to the August and October data.  It



should also be noted that May phytoplankton abundance estimates are not



directly comparable to the other sampling periods because of the different



sampling procedures used.  Analysis of these samples was also limited by the



fact that some of the samples were obviously decomposed when we received



them.  Even samples from sets which did not contain obvious fungal and



bacterial growth are somewhat suspect in that some of the more delicate



species may have been lost.








                                   RESULTS








PHYSICOCHEMICAL CONDITIONS



     Appendix A is a table of the physicochemical data.

-------
,|-.£*_*',A. ritl. iiia,
 iay ,j,iri'ac'3 wa.-s:.-  tttreratures varied  from  2.3  C  at  locations near the
Menominee River mouth Hay 3rd to  18.0  and 18.4°C  at  locations 17  and 18 in
Sturgeon Bay and east of Chambers Island May  18th.   May temperatures varied
substantially but were generally  higher in  nearshore areas.   August water
temperatures ranged  from the exceptional 10.0°C at location  1? in Sturgeon Bay
to 22.5°C at location 7 in mid-bay west of  Washington Island, and were usually
about 20°C.  October  temperatures were lowest,  11.5°C,  at location 1 in
northern Little Bay  de Hoc and highest, 14.5°C, at locations 13f  14, 15, and
16 in the southern region of the  sampled bay.   Water temperatures were
approximately the  same throughout the  bay.
JOEL.
May values varied  from 7.8 to 8.9 with no distinct spatial patterns.  August
measurements ranged  from 7.6 at location 17 in  Sturgeon Bay  to 8.6 along the
Lake Michigan interface.  October measurements  ranged from 8.2 to 8.5.  No
areal patterns were  recognized.
Alkalinity
No measurements accompanied the May  phytoplankton samples.  August surface
values were generally 3-4 ppm CO- higher than October and were about 110 ppm
CO .  No spatial pattern was discernible.
Conductivity
May surface measurements were substantially greater  and varied much more than
those of August and  October.  Values ranged from  238 mohms at location 1 in
northern Little Bay  de Noc to 460 and  440 mohms at  locations 17 and 18 in
Sturgeon Bay and east of Chambers Island.   Most other May measurements were
between 300 and 400  mohms.  August and October  conductivity had a mean 275

-------
mohms with most measurements within 10 mohms of the mean.  August and October



conductivity values gradually decreased from south to north.
No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples.  August surface



turbidity was fairly uniform and generally 1.0 or less.  October measurements



were more variable and ranged from the unusually high 5,3 at location 1 in



northern Little Bay de Noc to less than one at several scattered sampling



locations surrounding St. Martin Island.  October turbidity was somewhat lower



in a band from Chambers Island to along the Lake Michigan interface.



Nitrate plus Nitrite



No measurements accompanied the May samples.  August surface nitrate



concentrations were very low south of Washington Island being 20 ppb except in



Sturgeon Bay, and up to 100 ppb along the Lake Michigan interface.  October



nitrate values also generally decrease from north to south ranging from about



50 to 130 ppb.  Low nitrate concentrations were noted at location 25 in Big Bay



de Noc.
No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples.  August  ammonia



concentrations were about 4 ppb throughout most of the bay with much higher  40



and 50 ppb values in the vicinity of the Menominee River and a 150  ppb



concentration near Escanaba.  October values varied between 1 and 10 ppb



throughout the bay with no apparent spatial patterns.



Silica



No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples.  August  silica



concentrations were 0.1 and 0.2 ppm throughout most of the bay except in



northern Little Bay de Noc and Sturgeon Bay where values were about 1 and 2

-------
ppm.  October silica measured about 1.0 ppm along the Lake Michigan interface,



Increased in the northern bay to about 1 . 3 ppm , and dropped below 1 . 0 ppm south



of Peshtigo River.



Secchi
May depths varied from 1.0 m in Little Bay de Noc to 6.0 m along the Lake



Michigan interface,  Secchi depths were generally substantially less in Little



Bay de Noc and south of Chambers Island.  August depths, between 2.5 and 5.5 m,



were generally less south of Chambers Island,  October depths averaged less



than May and August, being from 1.5 to 4.0 m,



         f Phvs.GCfaeia.ca. 001  1 ions
Phosphorus concentrations were less than 2 ppb during August and October.  May



conditions delineated a region from Sturgeon Bay along the east coast of the



bay to at least Chambers Island which included locations 17 and 18.



Substantially higher conductivity values and water temperatures were noted



here.  These conditions were also observed in northern Big Bay de Noc at



location 25.  May Secchi depths were lower in Little Bay de Noc and south of



Chambers Island than in the rest of the bay.



     A slight consistent decrease in conductivity and a general increase of



water transparency and SiO? and NO,, concentrations from southern to northern



Green Bay were observed in August.  Comparatively low nutrient concentrations



in an area of higher nutrient loading and low water transparencies usually



indicate greater algal assimilation.  This pattern was more weakly represented



in October with the same south to north, but also a noticeable west to east,



gradient.  Low water transparencies but higher nutrient concentrations were the



general October conditions in Little Bay de Noc.



     The impacts of point source loading are difficult to detect when sampling

-------
is done on as large a scale as this, but unusually high or low physicochemical



measurements were common in Sturgeon Bay, in the Menominee River area, and near



the Escanaba River and Iscanaba in Little Bay de Hoc.  For example, in May the



2.3° C at location 12 by the Menominee demonstrated the cool spring runoff.



Consistently low water transparency and generally lower pH characterized



location 3 near the mouth of the Iscanaba River.  The high ammonia



concentration at location 4 was suspected to be associated with the Escanaba



wastewater treatment facility,  fhe unusually high 40 and 50 ppb HH



concentrations at locations 13 and 14 were suspected impacts of the Menominee



River loading that escaped detection at location 12, near the mouth.








PHYfOPLANKTON



     The Green Bay phytoplankton assemblage comprised 400 algal taxa and about



80 genera from 8 divisions:  Cyanophyta, Chlorophyta, Bacillariophyta,



Chrysophyta, Cryptophyta, Pyrrophyta, Haptophyta, and Euglenophyta (Appendix



B).  The average density was 5293 cells/ml, with a range of 515 to 12,962



cells/ml.  Due to severe deterioration of some of the May samples, only diatoms



were counted for locations 8 and 17.








Community Analyses



Total Phytoplankton Distribution--



     Only diatom densities are reported for May because of the previously



discussed problems with sample decomposition.  May diatom densities averaged



about 400 cells/ml, with a range from 25 to 1070 cells (Appendix C).  A



transect of low diatom density was evident from location 16 to west of Chambers



Island, and a region of high density paralleled that transect from Sturgeon Bay
                                       10

-------
to east of Chambers Island.  Unusually high diatom densities of 871 and 1070



cells/ml were observed at location 25 in Big Bay de Hoc and location 3 near the



Iscanaba River.



     Surface phytoplankton averaged about 7500 cells/ml in August (Fig. 2),



ranging from 2580 to 12,608 cells/ml.  Assemblage densities usually decreased



from south to north, but were highest at location 25 in Big Bay de Hoc and



lowest at location 2 in Little Bay de Hoc and location 17 in Sturgeon Bay.



August bottom densities, contrarily, showed an increase from the shallow



western shore to the Lake Michigan interface.  August bottom densities ranged



from 1447 to 12,608 cells/ml, with a 4914 average.  The deeper locations (7, 9,



19, and 20) had lower densities of about 2000 cells/ml, whereas northern Big



Bay de Noc had the highest density of 12,608 cells/ml.



     October surface communities (Fig, 2) averaged about 6800 cells/ml and



ranged from 2584 to 12,862 cells/ml.  Maximum density was observed at location



16 in southern Green Bay and a minimum at location 1 in Little Bay de Noc.



Surface densities were generally lowest in the northcentral bay and along the



Lake Michigan interface.  High densities, 10,206 and 11,697 cells/ml, were



noted at locations 24 and 25 in Big Bay de Noc.  Bottom densities were lower,



averaging 5432 cells/ml, ranging from 281? to 8049 cells/ml.  A general south



to north and east to west decrease in density was observed.  A corridor of low



algal density extends from Little Bay de Noc to the Lake Michigan boundary.



Overall August and October phytoplankton densities were about the same.



Species Diversity—



     The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (Shannon and Weaver, 1963) was



calculated for use as a community parameter.  We have not intended to use it as



a measure of Green Bay community stability.  The use of species diversity as a
                                      11

-------
                                                                     1977
totrwrr
                                                           ' TOT run
                         FIG. 2,   Surface phytoplankton community densities.

-------
measure of community stability is not necessarily valid (Hendrickson and




Ehrlich, 1971).  Species diversity indices are a function of the number of




species and their proportional abundances in an assemblage.  These measures are




based on the assumptions that all pairs of species are equally different




ecologically, and that the individuals of a species have the same physiological




and ecological weight.  The first assumption can be criticized, as Pielou




(1974) suggests, because not all species niche hypervolumes are equal.  All




species are not of equal taxonomic rank, they exhibit various degrees of




morphological variation.  Conceptually this can be related to niche




hypervolume.  The niche of a species could be large because all individuals of




the species have the same broad tolerance of environmental conditions.  The




niche could also be large because It Is actually the union of the subniches of




subpopulations of a species, as Stoermer and Yang (1969) have suggested of the




eurytopic Fragilaria crotonensis and Asterionella formosa.  In addition to the




species equality complication, if relative abundances are included in the




index, the ranks of physiological potential of the individuals of different




species should be equal.  These generalities may average out when analyzing




phytoplankton communities with their large number of species.  However, species




diversity must be studied more thoroughly before its relationship to community




structure and stability is fully realized.




     May diatom diversity (S/N) averaged 0.100 and ranged from 0.018 in




Sturgeon Bay to 0.301 at location 5 at Little Bay de Hoc and 0.319 at location




11 near the Menominee River (Appendix C).  Diversity in most of the bay was




about 0.05, however, isolated groups of stations around the Menominee River and




in Little Bay de Noc were substantially higher,




     August surface phytoplankton diversity averaged 2.4, ranging from 1.9 to
                                       13

-------
3.0.  Surface diversity was lowest north of Chambers Island.  Higher values



were found in the Big Bay de Hoc, Little Bay de Hoc and southern Green Bay.



Bottom phytoplankton diversity averaged 2.7 and ranged from 1.732 to 3.334.  No



areal pattern of bottom diversity was recognized.



     October surface diversity also generally decreased from south to north and



was lowest near the Lake Michigan boundary.  Diversity averaged 2.4 and ranged



from 1.5 to 3.4.  Higher values were noted in the October bottom communities,



which averaged 2.6 and ranged from 1.2 to 3«4.  Again diversity was highest



overall in south-central Green Bay, decreasing in the northern bay region.



Distribution of Algal Divisions—



     Blue-green algal densities (Fig. 3) were very low in May, averaging less



than 100 cells/ml.  Cyanophyte densities increased to an average of 3771



cells/ml in August, and were highest in the northern bay region at locations 6,



7, 9, 19, and 20.  In October blue-green densities averaged about the same as



August, 4060 cells/ml, but the areal distribution shifted to lowest densities



in the north-central bay and high densities in the nearshore areas.  Blue-green



algae numerically comprised about 50% of the Green Bay assemblage in August and



October (Fig. 4).  fheir numerical percent of the community was reduced in May



to about 3J*  Anacvs|is inqfrta was the predominate Cyanophyte in August and



October.



     May green algae densities (Fig. 5) averaged 234 cells/ml and these



populations were distinctly more abundant south of Chambers Island.



Chlorophyte abundance increased in August to an average of  1188 cells/ml with a



relatively uniform distribution throughout the main bay.  The October average



dropped to 753 cells/ml with higher densities evident south of Chambers Island,



nearshore at Location 8, and in Big and Little Bays de Noc.  Green algae

-------
                                     Oct  1977
                                                                     0
                                ' BSD
FIG. 3-  Population  densities of blue-green algae.

-------
KX
                       FIG. 1.   Proportional  abundance of blue-green algae.

-------
                                                                     1977
' GRO
                               • BID
                                                            010
                            FIG. 5.  Population densities of green algae.

-------
constituted a relatively consistent fraction of the community during all



sampling periods, 11-159 (Fig. 6).  Reduced percentages were common at the



north-central bay locations.  OJ.ogoofstj.s pj.anctonica and Oocy,sMg SPP» were



the most abundant taxa in both August and October.



     May diatom densities (Fig. 7) averaged 391 cells/ml with no apparent



differential distribution,  A diatom bloom in Big Bay de Hoc (2507 and 5582



cells/ml) and elevated densities around the Menominee River mouth (over 1000



cells/ml) characterized the August areal distribution.  October diatom



densities increased from the August average of 891 to 1458 cells/ml.  October



abundances were greatest, averaging over 2000 south of Chambers Island,



nearshore at location 8, and in the Bay de Noc region.  In August and October



densities were depressed in the north-central Green Bay region.  Diatoms were



the most dominant division during May in Green Bay, averaging 30$ (Fig. 8).



Reduced percent compositions were especially apparent at most locations south



of Chambers Island in May (poor sample quality of the Sturgeon Bay and



northwest nearshore collections dictated counting only diatoms), and in the



north-central bay area during August and October.  August and October



proportions, 12 and 16$, were much lower than May,  gyp^ptelja cpmensis.



As^er.lon.eAla fQrmgsa^ FragtJ._g,rAa caoucina. and Fragi3.ar|a cro^onensis were the



most common species noted in this study.



     Chrysophyte densities averaged 153 cells/ml in May  (Fig, 9).  In August



golden brown algal densities averaged 493 cells/ml with  the greatest



concentrations south of Chambers Island.  Pinobryon diYfrgenjg was abundant,



October densities decreased to  138 cells/ml and Ch,rYJ93J?faaer?14-% longisoina was



common.  Qcfrromonas spp. was numerically dominant in  August and October.



Chrysophytes were proportionally more abundant, 7$, in May  (Fig.  10), and  in
                                       18

-------
V0
                                       FIG. 6.  Proportional  abundance  of green  algae,

-------
IV)
o
                                                                                  1977
             01 0
                                           DI 0
                                                                        ' 01 0
                                          FIG. 7.  Population densities of diatoms.

-------
                                                                                                0
                                                                     1977
' BIX
                              01 X
                                                            01 X
                             FIG.  8.   Proportional abundance of diptoms,

-------
ro
                                                                          Oct  1377
                                                                     • wo
                                    FIG. 9>  Population densities of golden brown algae.

-------
                                         Oct  1377
                                     CHX
FIG. 10.  Proportional abundance  of golden brown algae.

-------
August sustained that percentage only at locations south of Chambers Island.



Their relative occurrence was low, about 2%t throughout the rest of the bay in



August and throughout the bay in October.



     Cryptophycean densities (Fig. 11) were unusually high at locations 16 and



18 in May, with densities greater than 2500 cells/ml compared to a seasonal



average of 153 cells/ml.  August and October densities averaged 527 and 656



cells/ml, respectively, with noticeably higher densities south of Chambers



Island.  Cryptophytes were apparently best represented in the May assemblages,



especially south of Chambers Island and in Little Bay de Hoc averaging 26$



(Fig. 12).  fheir proportions were reduced in August and October to about 10$,



but were noticeably larger in the same areas of the bay as in May.  Rhodomonas



       averaged as the most abundant member of this division.
     Dino flagellates and haptophytes were relatively minor components of the



phy toplankton .  Dino flagellate densities (Fig. 13) were highest in nearshore



areas.  Pyrrophycean densities averaged less than 15 cells/ml throughout the



year.  Haptophyte densities (Fig. 14) were very variable, ranging from average



densities of 4, 100, and 24 cells/ml on the three sampling dates to over 400



cells/ml at locations 2, 24, and 25 in Little and Big Bays de Noc in August and



location 16 in southern Green Bay in October.  Dinoflagellates were



proportionally best represented in May as 1$ (Fig. 15), especially in the



northern areas of the bay.



Community Similarity —



     Euclidean distances were calculated between all surface phytoplankton



communities designating the variables as 25 taxa that were generally the most



abundant during August and October.  The general formula (Sneatb. and Sokal,




1973) is:
                                      24

-------
ro
ui
                                                                                 1977
                                                                                                            0
              010
                                            '  CUD
                                                                      • oio
                                       FIG.  11.   Population densities of cryptomonads.

-------
ro
a\
                                                                                  1977
              Oil
                                          Oil
                                                                         QIX
                                        FIG. 12.  Proportional abundance of cryptomonads.

-------
rg
                                                                                1977
                                              'mo
                                                                      ' wo
                                     FIG.  13.   Population densities of dinoflagellates,

-------
rvj
o>
              HPO
                                        FIG. 1H.  Population  densities of haptophytes.

-------
to
ID
                                    FIG, 15.  Proportional abundance of dinoflagellates.

-------
                                (V     Y  }
                       D » U Z  IA1J " Aik;
where X is the density of the i   taxa at the j   and k   locations, and S is


the total number of species used as variables.  Cluster analysis was then used


to group similar assemblages.  A minimum variance algorithm was used for


clustering.  This algorithm split the locations into successively smaller


groups by minimizing the variance or distance within the groups.  Note that


distance is inversely proportional to the similarity value squared.  The half


matrix of euclidean distances and the cluster diagrams are in Appendix D.


     May communities were not analyzed because poor sample preservation


rendered taxonomic identification questionable.  August surface phytoplankton


communities clustered into three main regional groups (Fig. 16), Green Bay


south of Chambers Island, the northern bay, and Little Bay de Hoc.  The region


south of Chambers Island has fairly large distances between the locations


within the cluster.  The smallest distance associates location 16 in the


extreme south and location 12 by the Menominee River mouth.  Sturgeon Bay is


the most dissimilar assemblage.  The north-basin cluster is also divided into


two clusters, essentially north and south of Washington Island.


     In October the phytoplankton assemblages again grouped into two main


clusters, separated at Chambers Island (Fig. 16).  Location 16 in southern


Green Bay and location 12 near the Menominee River mouth grouped again, while


the remaining stations south of Chambers Island clustered and included Sturgeon


Bay, location 17 , among them. The northern bay cluster north of Chambers Island


was again subdivided north and south of Washington Island with another cluster
                                      30

-------
         August
                                                CfcfODer
FIG. 16.   Cluster association  of phytoplankton communities.
                               31

-------
surrounding Washington Island.  This season both Big and Little Bays de Noc



remained separated from the two main bay clusters.  The Little Bay de Noc



cluster also incorporates locations 6 and 8 along the northwestern nearshore



area of Green Bay.  It is interesting to note the similarities between



locations 22, 23, and 8 in August and locations 22 and 5 in October which



extend from the Lake Michigan interface to the western shore of Green Bay.



     Locations ?, 16, and 17 were strategically chosen to provide phytoplankton



assemblages typical of the less and more impacted areas of Green Bay and



Sturgeon Bay.  Contour plots were constructed utilizing the distances between a



chosen location and all other sampling locations.  Smaller dissimilarities in



relation to location 7 (Fig. 17) were oriented in more of a northern direction



in August, whereas in October dissimilarities were smallest to the south.  In



both cases, most of the north-central basin of the bay was included within the



1.0 contour.  Location 8 is an exception in October, when it apparently has a



very different community.  Distances from location 16 (Pig. 18) are much



greater in October than in August.  Note the intruding dissimilar assemblages



oriented around Sturgeon Bay in August.  Utilizing Sturgeon Bay (Fig. 19) as



base location, it is evident that very dissimilar phytoplankton assemblages



surround it in August, but in October the surrounding locations are more



similar.








Population 4nfl].v3,is



          incerta (Lemm.) Drouet ejfc: Daily—
     These organisms are known to cause nuisance blooms because of their  large



colony size and ability to form gas vacuoles  (Drouet and Dailey,  1956).



Stoermer et al. (1975) observed large populations at various times in different
                                       32

-------
          Augusf
FIG. 17.  Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 7
during August and October..
                                  33

-------
             August
FIG. 18.  Euclidian distance  contours oriented around Location 16
during August and October.

-------
                                                October
FIG. 19.  Euclidian distance  contours oriented around Location 17
during August and October.
                                   35

-------
locations in Lake Ontario.  They suggest A« £n?eyta is most common in silica



depleted phytoplankton associations.  In northern Lake Michigan 3000 to 6000



cells/ml were present in late August and lower densities observed in



•id-September (Schelske et al., 1976).



     This taxon was very abundant in August and October throughout Green Bay



(Fig. 20) with population densities commonly as great as 7000 cells/ml.  The



Irregular densities of this organism prohibit identification of any clear



preferential distribution.








GomDhosphafrj.3 lacustris Chod . — •



     Skuja (1956) described it as numerous but seldom dominating with a



widespread distribution.  It  is apparently eurytopic in the Great Lakes, having



been observed in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Ontario (Schelske et al. 1976;



Stoermer et al., 1975).  It reportedly is an abundant component of sparse



silica-limited summer phytoplankton populations in the upper Great Lakes.   Its



distribution in Lake Huron demonstrates reduced populations in the more



perturbed areas of Saginaw Bay (Stoermer and Kries, in press).



     In Green Bay (Fig. 21) populations first appeared in  August samples.   The



number of colonies/ml increased markedly in October.  In August and October its



distribution was relatively uniform throughout the bay.
Gloeocvstis planQtot^|.ga  (West  e.^  West)  Leorn.--



     Skuja  (1956) described  this  taxon  as  numerous  at  various  times  of the



year.  Great Lakes  populations indicate a  summer maximum (Stoermer et al.,



1975j Schelske et al., 1976; Stoermer and  Kreis, in press).  It has  been



described as a characteristic  component of silica limited phytoplankton
                                        36

-------
u>
                                                                                     1977
                                                                                                                 0
                                            ' HTINCCa
                                                                          ' MTtKCO
                                       FIG. 20.   Population densities of AnacVstis incerta.

-------
u>
GO
                                                                                   1377
                                                                                                                0
              ' aucu
                                           ' QtflCU
                                                                         ' WU«J
                                   FIG.  21.   Population densities of GomphO3Dhaerj.a lacustris.

-------
associations in southern Lake Michigan.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 22) this taxon was scarce in flay, most abundant in



August, and uniformly present at low densities in October.  Slightly  increased



population densities were observed south of Chambers Island in August.
Scenedesiffus dent4.c.vJAti&£ var * linearis Hansg . --



     The taxonomic obscurity of this organism may be the reason for the



limited number of reports of its occurrence in the literature.  Green  Bay



populations (Fig. 23) were very low in May and much greater in August  and



October.  The highest densities were recorded in August at the northwest



nearshore location and in Big Bay de Hoc.








gcenede smus giadr j._o_ajl4l. (Turp.) Breb. —



     Skuja (1956) describes this as a sporadic component of larger lake



phytoplankton assemblages.  It has been reported from  Lake Erie  (Taft  and



Taft, 1971) and fairly abundant offshore in Lake Ontario  (Stoeraer et  al.,



1975).  It does not appear in the offshore waters of the upper Great Lakes



(Stoermer and Ladewski, 1976) but has been recorded as important  near  the



mouth of the Grand River in Lake Michigan (Kopczynska, 1973).  This species



appears to respond postively to eutrophic habitats.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 24) it was rare in May, but increasing population



densities were noted in August to October.  The one unusually high value  in



May may be a result of the unseasonally high water temperature at locations 18



and 17.  Non-diatom algae were not counted at location 17, so no  record  is



available.  August and October abundances are markedly reduced in the  open  bay



north of Chambers Island.
                                        39

-------
-tr
O
                                                                                  1977
              uuw
                                            oru*
                                                                       ' RAW
                                  FIG. 22.  Population densities of Gloeocystj.?

-------
                   SCOEW.
                                                 3CTS8.
FIG, 23.   Population  densities of  gQgngd,fsmus  deqtag'^3.a{;us var. }^nearls.

-------
ro
                                                                                   1977
                                                                                                               0
               scam
                                            scan
                                                                         • sceuo
                                   FIG. 24.  Population densities of ScenedesmUs ouadricauda.

-------
Cvo^ptella atelligera (Cl. sli Grun.) V.H.—



     Densities of this taxon have decreased in Lake Erie from 1938 to 1965



(Hohn, 1969)«  Stoermer and Ladewski (1976) assign it a double temperature



optimum of 8 and 18°C.  It had highest population densities in September in



northern Lake Huron (Schelske et al., 1976) and seems to have a fall maximum



(Lowe, 1972*).  Cholnoky (1968) says this taxon grows in eutrophio waters,



however, it was less abundant in highly eutrophic Saginaw Bay than in less



eutrophic nearshore waters (Schelske et al., 1974) and was more common in



offshore waters of northern Lake Huron.  It was reportedly most abundant in



the north and western region of Green Bay  (Holland and Claflin, 1975).



     In 1977 its Green Bay populations (Fig. 25) were observed sporadically in



August and October and absent in Kay.  Its largest populations were found in



the northern bay region in Big Bay de Noc  and along the Lake Michigan boundary.
           oomens4s Grun .
     Described as euplanctonic from lakes of subalpine and alpine regions



(Huber-Pestalozzi, 19^2), it was formerly found in primarily oligotrophic



areas.  It has been reported as a minor component of plankton assemblages  in



Lake Superior and northern Lake Huron  (Schelske et al. 1972,1974; Lowe,  1976).



It was reported from nearshore areas in southern Lake Huron with an August



bloom less than 2500 cells/ml (Stoermer and Kreis, in press).   It was, however,



absent from Saginaw Bay.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 26), May populations were greater than  100 cells/ml in



Big Bay de Noc and absent through most other parts of the Green Bay system.



Average densities increased in August  throughout the bay, especially  in  Big Bay

-------
                                                                   1977
CtSTCL
                                                         * emu.
                    FIG. 25.  Population densities of Cvclotella stelliaera.

-------
                                                                  Oct 1977
CfCQC
                                 orcoc
                                                              erase
                       FIG.  26.   Population densities of Cvclotella  gojaeggj.g.

-------
de Hoc where a bloom of greater than 5000 cells/ml was encountered.  The Big



Bay de Noe bloom subsided in October, but substantial densities remained at



most locations north of Chambers Islands, especially in the Bay de Noc complex.
                 (Ihr.) Ku'tz. —
     Busted t (1957) describes the taxon as an oligohalobic , sapoxenous



alkaliphil.  It has been recognized to be a component of oligo-mesotrophio



waters (Hutchinson, 1967; Schelske et al., 1976) which is substantiated by its



absence in Lake Erie (Hohn, 1969) and its low density populations in Lake



Ontario,  It has been found frequently in the upper Great Lakes (Schelske et



al., 1972,197**) where its range may be becoming more restricted due to



increased levels of eutrophication (Stoermer and Yang, 1970).  It apparently



has a seasonal optimum from August to October, but is present from at least



April to December in southern Lake Huron (Schelske et al.,  1976; Stoermer and



Kreis, in press).



     Low population densities of this species were observed in Green Bay (Fig.



27) during May, increasing in August and October with populations commonly



exceeding 30 cells/ml.  It did not respond positively to conditions south of



Chambers Island as did several other diatom taxa, but higher densities were



observed in the northwest nearshore area and in the Bay de  Noc complex.








Steohanodj-scus minutus Grun. gx Cleve and MB11. —



     This species was commonly found in eutrophied nearshore areas and harbors



in Lake Michigan (Stoermer and Yang, 1969) and with high densities in Lake



Ontario from March to June (Stoermer et al., 19755.  Populations apparently



develop best in eutrophic to mesotrophic conditions.  Stoermer et al. (1978)

-------
                                                                        1977
                                                                                                     0
' nturr
                                CYCOHT
                                                             ' CTCCHT
                         FIG. 27,   Population densities of gyg^o'tella comta.

-------
have found that it responds opportunistically with nutrient enrichment.



     In Green Bay (Pig. 28) an unusually large population, about 150 cells/ml,



developed at location 9 in May, while densities in the rest of the bay were



less than 10 cells/ml.  Its numbers increased slightly by August, exclusively



at stations south of Chambers Island.  October densities were the largest,



remaining substantially larger in the southern half of the sampling region.



Consistent positive correlations with alkalinity, .77 and .55, were found in



August and October.








Stephanodiscus niagarae Ehr.—



     Substantial populations have been reported from Green Bay.  Its July



distribution was restricted to the nutrient rich area from the Fox Biver to



Chambers Island (Holland and Claflin, 1975).  A northern Green Bay study



reported sizable densities south of Chambers Island, near Portage Marsh, and in



the Bay de Hoc complex (Tierney et al.f 1976).  This taxon apparently grows



best in eutrophic conditions.



     In our sample (Fig. 29) it was sporadically recorded south of Chambers



Island and in Little Bay de Noc during May and August.  Its densities developed



substantially in August to 150 to 350 cells/ml south of Chambers Island and in



Little Bay de Noc.








Stephanodiscus sp. 8.—



     This entity is very similar to and may be a form of SteDhanodj.jggpg aj-pinug



Bust, ex Huber-Pestalozzi.  This taxonomic relationship is currently being



investigated.  In Green Bay (Fig. 30) populations were only observed in



October, primarily south of Chambers Island and at several stations in Little

-------
VO
                                                                                     1977
                                                                                                                 0
              '  SI«NU
                                             ' SWIHU
                                                                          ' S1HIHU
                                    FIG. 28.   Population densities  of g^eDhanbdiscus minutus.

-------
Ul
o
                                                                                Oct  1977
               STK1RG
                                            ' STHIH5
                                                                          " STNlfB
                                    FIG. 29.   Population densities of Stephanodiscua

-------
srsrs
                             sisra
                       FIG. 30.  Population densities of Stephanodiscys sp. 8,

-------
Bay de Hoc.  It seems to respond to more eutrophic conditions.








Asterionella formosa Hass.—



     Described as eurytopie (Schelske et al., 1976) and abundant in the Straits



of Mackinac and northern Lake Huron nearshore areas in September and October,



this taxon is truly ubiquitous.  Huber-Pestalozzi (19**2) reports its occurence



in a wide variety of habitats.  Hohn (1969) observed no change in its absolute



abundance in Lake Erie from 1938 to 1965.  Lowe (197*0 summarizes it as



alkaliphilous, tolerant of small amounts of total dissolved solids,



cosmopolitan, oligosaprobic to beta-mesosaprobic with a summer maximum.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 3D population densities are sporadic and low in May.



In August it is present throughout the bay, with populations regularly



exceeding 100 cells/ml only south of Chambers Island.  In October it reached



its maximum average density and was noticeably more abundant near the Menomimee



Biver mouth, nearshore in northwest Green Bay, and in the Bay de Noc complex.








Tabellaria fenesfrra^a (.Lyngb.) Kfftz.—



     Abundant throughout most of the Great Lakes and other freshwater systems,



this taxon is apparently eurytopie.  Its abundance has not changed in Lake



Erie from 1938 to 1965 (Hohn, 1969).  Stoermer and Ladewski (1976) assign it a



wide temperature tolerance with an optimum in southern Lake Michigan of 15°C.



It has been suggested that this taxon suffers depressed populations in



severely perturbed areas such as southern Green Bay (Stoermer and Yang,



1970).  Koppen (1978) assigns this taxon to oligo-dystrophic waters.



     In Green Gay (Fig. 32) this taxon was most abundant around the Menominee



liver in August.  At all other locations and during the other sampling periods
                                      52

-------
(Jl
uo
                                                                              Oct  1977
                                                                                                               0
               term
                                            nrtm
                                                                        1 ssrau
                                     FIG.  31.   Population densities of A3terione|J.fl fopposa.

-------
                                                             u
                                                            Jv
                                            1977
       ' tsrac
                                   WBC
FIG.  32.   Population densities of T^frq3.1arlfl

-------
population densities were much less.
           fj.occul,osa var. ^.inearis Koppen —
     This taxon has a peak abundance in May and June in Lake Huron, primarily



nearshore (Stoermer and Kreis, in press). Koppen (1978) suggests this is a



hard water species that develops best in mesotrophic to eutrophic habitats.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 33), populations were very low in May, increased in



August, and declined again in October.  The largest densities, some exceeding



160 cells/ml, were observed at locations south of Chambers Island in August.








Fragllaria capucin^ Desm. —



     Described as an important component of littoral phytoplankton in eutrophic



lakes (Huber-Pestalozzi, 1942), this taxon has been abundant in western Lake



Erie since 1950 (Hohn, 1969).  Historically, densities of this taxa have been



low in Lake Michigan (Stoermer and Yang, 1969).  It has been noted as abundant



in eutrophic areas of the Great Lakes such as southern Green Bay (Holland and



Beeton, 1970; Holland and Claflin, 1975), Saginaw Bay (Schelske et al., 1974;



Stoermer and Kreis, in press) and Lake Ontario (Stoermer et al., 1975).  It is



apparently most abundant during the summer.  Lowe (1974) siailarily describes



it as alkaliphilous, eutrophic, indifferent to low levels of total dissolved



solids, oligosaprobic , and eurytheraal with a spring maximum.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 3^0, it was only abundant in August and October and



south of Chambers Island.  Strong correlations with conductivity were noted in



all three seasons.
                                      55

-------
Ul
                                                                                     1977
               IDTLVL
                                              ' TflfLVL
                                                                           WLW.
FIG. 33-   Population densities of
                                                                             flocc^losa var.

-------
                                                                  1977
nwru
                              Finn
                                                        ' now
                     FIG. 34.  Population densities of Frqgilar|a caoucina.

-------
           crofronens4.s Kitton —
     This species is tolerant of a wide range of ecological conditions.  It has



been proposed that this morphological entity may actually comprise several



physiolgical races (Stoermer and Yang, 1969) » enabling it to be so eurytopic.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 35 )( its populations were sporadic, but fairly uniform



throughout the bay during all sampling periods.








gynedra fi34formis Grun. —



     This taxon is apparently eurytopic.  It has been noted in Lake Huron from



May to early June and October in nearshore areas and around the mouth of



Saginaw Bay tSehelske et al., 1974, 1976; Stoermer and Kreis, in press).  Its



Lake Michigan populations have primarily been offshore {Stoermer and Yang,



1969) and as part of the spring maximum in Grand Traverse Bay (Stoermer et



al., 1972).  Holland and Claflin (1975) found it in Big Bay de Noc region of



Green Bay in June.  Tierney et al. (1976) listed it with large densities in



May.



     In Green Bay (Fig. 36) population densities were high in the north in



May, high in the south in August and abundant throughout most of the bay in



October.  Lower densities were characteristic for the central open bay region



along the Lake Michigan interface.








Amohipleifira pelJ|.uc|4a Kutz . —



     Stoermer and Yang (1970) report this taxon as widespread in Lake Michigan



with low densities.  Stoermer and Ladewski (1976) assign it a double



temperature optimum of 3-6 and 15-17°C.  It has been reported as planktonic in



Green Bay (Holland, 1969; Holland and Claflin, 1975), with densities reaching
                                      58

-------
VJ1
VD
                                                                                Oct  1977
                                                                                                                 0
                FRCKT
                                            ' Ttcnn
                                                                           Fncnor
                                    FIG.  35.   Population densities of Fraailaria crotorpnsis.

-------
                                                                                                 0
                                                                Oct  1977
siriu
                             StflU
                                                          1 SffJU
                       FIG. 36.  Population  densities of Sypedra fj4if
-------
15-20 cells/ml in the area east and south of Chambers Island during July.



Hustedt (1937-1939) describes this taxon as eutrophic.



     In Green Bay (Fig, 37) this species was absent in May.  It appears south



of Chambers Island almost exclusively in August with low densities averaging



about 10 cells/ml.  October populations occur throughout the bay but are



distinctly greater around and south of Chambers Island, surpassing densities



of 70 eells/iil.  This taxon apparently responds to more nutrient rich



environments .
    -. a^jculariodes Archibald —



     Populations of this taxon have been observed in Lake Michigan near



Waukegan.  It is probably more abundant than is reported in the literature



because of its taxonomic obscurity.  In Green Bay, (Fig. 38) populations were



observed sporadically in May and only south of Chambers Island in August.  In



October it was present at lower population densities than August throughout



the bay.
                            Lautb, —
     Skuja (19^*8) reported this species from more or less dystrophic lakes and



predominately in the summer and fall.  He amended its distribution to numerous



everywhere (Skuja, 1956) especially in the summer.  This taxon was reported



from northern Lake Huron (Schelske et al., 1976) and was sporadically abundant



in Saginaw Bay in August to October (Stoermer and Kreis, in press).



     In Green Bay (Fig. 39) it was most abundant in August in the



south-central part of the bay at location 16, near the Menominee River, and in



the Bay de Hoc complex.  Slightly lower August densities were recorded for
                                      61

-------
a\
ro
                                                                                 1977
                                         ' (WfU.
                                                                      " WKU.
                                   FIG. 37'  Population densities of Amohioleura pellucida.

-------
to
               ' NUKIlt
                                    FIG.  38.   Population densities  of Nl

-------
                                                                   1977
BUNCO
                                                         ' COXMCD
                 FIG. 39.  Population densities  of Chrvsosphaerella longi3Dj.na.

-------
north-central Green Bay.  Moderate densties were observed of the species in



October, being slightly higher in nearshore waters around the northern shores



of Green Bay.  This taxon apparently has an affinity for more eutrophic



conditions, especially during the summer.








Mfl,}lomonfr3 oseudQcprongta, Presc.--



     This taxon has been described as fairly rare with predicted maximum



densities of 20 cells/ml in a 1T-18°C temperature optimum (Stoermer and



Ladewski, 1976).  It was not observed in the May samples from Green Bay (Fig.



40), but did occur sporadically in August and October.  The largest population



densities were recorded in October at locations south of Chambers Island.








ghroomQna.s spp.—



     These organisms have only recently been recognized as part of the Great



Lakes flora.  They ware a common component in the phytoplankton of southern



Lake Michigan (Stoermer and Tuohman, manuscript).  In Green Bay (Pig. 41) it



was sporadically represented in May and August.  October populations were more



uniform and were consistently greater in the area of the bay south of Chambers



Island.








Rhodomonas minuta Skuja—



     Skuja (1948, 1956) reported it as often abundant and usually with many



other phytoplankton.  This species has been observed throughout the Great



Lakes.  In Green Bay (Fig. 42) it was a primary component of the phytoplankton



assemblages throughout the bay during all sampling periods.  Only two blooms



greater than 2000 cells/ml were recorded, both in August in the southern part
                                      65

-------
                                                                      1977
' MIUU
                                ' HLTLEU
                                                             ItftHJ
                   FIG.  HO.   Population densities of Mallomonas pseudocoronafrg.

-------
                                                                                                  0
nor
                              maer
                         FIG. 41.  Population densities of £JarjMfflQiE3a spp.

-------
CD
                                                                                  1977
              KHIW
                                           ' MWW
                                                                       ' HKNU
FIG. 42.  Population densities of
                                                                                   minutus.

-------
of the bay.  Populations tended to be reduced north of Chambers Island  in  the



open bay area.








Crvptomonas spp.--



     £.. marssonii. £.. pyjata. £.• erosa. and £. grjclle were  identified members



of this group.  Due to ^axonomic uncertainties these taxa were lumped for



final analysis.  They were present during all sampling periods in Green Bay



(Pig. 43) with greatest densities south of Chambers Island.   As a group they



apparently are most abundant in more eutrophlc waters.  These organisms



correlated positively with conductivity in August and October with  values  of



.79 and .64.








Gvmnodin|un spp.—



     This taxonomic group comprised various small dinoflagellates,  probably



from the genera Gvmnod^nj.ujp.f Qj-^noflinttiffl a°d Peri d i nj.um.  In  Green  Bay  (Fig.



44) they were abundant during May in the northern part of the Bay and in



Little and Big Bays de Hoc.  Large population densities persisted through



August, but were notably higher south of Chambers Island and  more moderately



abundant throughout the rest of the bay.  October densities were lower.








Microflagellates—



     This group of organisms contains a taxonomic labyrinth of small



flagellated solitary cells that probably include haptophytes, taxa  of the



genera Pedinomonas and Och.roffionagf and various other Chlorophycean,



Cryptophycean and Chrysophycean forms.  Such a group has been observed  in  Lake



Ontario with lower densities from April to June, when they  bloomed  to
                                      69

-------
                                                                 Oct 1977
CRYPT CO
                              * OltfT CO
                                                            * OltfT CO
                          FIG. 43«   Population densities  of Cryptomonas spp.

-------
                                                               Oct  1977
' (TWO CO
                                cmw cn
                        FIG. 44.  Population densities of Gvmnofllnium spp.

-------
densities as great as 5000 cells/ml (Stoeraer et al. 1975).



     In Green Bay (Fig. 45) they were observed with densities of up to 1000



cells/ml in May and October, but were most abundant in August, surpassing 2000



cells/ml densities.
                                      72

-------
U3
                                                                               Oct  1977
               rurrco
                                               ' n»f CD
                                                                          rusrpcs
                                      FIG.  15.   Population densities of Microflagellates.

-------
                                  DISCUSSION








     Green Bay receives the discharge of 1/3 of the total drainage basin of



Lake Michigan and could be an important buffer for polluted water flushing into



the relatively oligotrophic to mesotrophic water of northern Lake Michigan.



Many of the undesirable properties of water pollution are the direct result of



nutrient addition and the subsequent response of increased growth of



phytoplankton.  Strong evidence suggests that phosphorus is the nutrient



limiting algal densities in the Lake Michigan basin.  The distribution of the



usable form of this nutrient is difficult to trace because phytoplankton



assimilate it quickly and can utilize concentrations of phosphorus that are



lower than can be readily detected.  The distribution of variables in the



system that are dependent upon phosphorus concentrations must therefore be



examined.  These variables Include levels of other nutrients, phytoplankton



community density, diversity, and composition, and phytoplankton population



density.



     Green Bay is apparently one of the most eutrophic areas of Lake Michigan.



Holland (1968) describes the bay as eutrophic compared to the oligotrophic



Wisconsin shore and the intermediate conditions on the Michigan shore of Lake



Michigan.  Tarapchak and Stoermer (1976) suggest the only regions more



eutrophic than Green Bay would be a few harbors receiving heavy nutrient and



industrial waste loadings directly from rivers.  A southern Lake Michigan study



(Stoermer and fuchman, manuscript) which was done concurrently with this



revealed an average phytoplankton density about 20$ lower than the average for



Green Bay.



     The sampling regime in Green Bay was limited to north of the Oconto

-------
River.  Physicochemical variables such as pH, temperature, and ammonia and



silica concentrations did not demonstrate recognizable patterns.  This was



more or less expected because only silica and nitrogen would have been



directly affected by phytoplankton density.  August and October conductivities



did demonstrate a slight decreasing gradient from south to north.  This could



reflect either assimilation of the biologically active portion of the total



dissolved solids or dilution with lower conductivity Lake Michigan water.



This same gradient is evident for turbidity with an inverse gradient of the



same distribution for Secchi depth and nitrate concentrations.  The increased



water transparency along the south to north longitudinal axis of the bay is



probably due to a reduction of suspended solids.  It does not correlate with



phytoplankton density.  The increase in nitrate is most likely a result of



intrusion of Lake Michigan water which is less depleted in nitrate due to



lower phosphorus loading and consequent lower phytoplankton densities.



     The regions north and south of Chambers Island were recognized as major



areas supporting substantially different phytoplankton associations.  Little



Bay de Noc also separated as a minor entity.  The northwest nearshore area



around Cedar River and Big Bay de Noc also displayed unique characteristics.



     The northern bay region was characterized by regularly reduced



populations of many species.  Particularly, diatom densities were lower in



August and October.  Smaller abundances of the apparently eutrophic



Scenedesmus ouadricauda in August and October were also recognized.



Blue-green algal densities were higher in August and lower in October than the



other areas of the bay.  Community similarity cluster associations clearly



isolated this region from the south-central bay region.



     The northwest nearshore area primarily separated from the northern bay
                                       75

-------
region on the basis of community similarity measured as euclldean distances.



Unusually greater population densities of Cvc3.QteJ4a pomfea and Scenedesmus



denticulatus var. linearis in August and October, ghrysoaphaerella longisoina



in October, and gvneflra filj.formis in Hay and October delineated this station,



     Big Bay de Hoc featured indications of eutrophication, but without



abundances of the species that usually characterize severely disturbed areas.



Relatively higher abundances of chlorophycean algae, diatoms and the eurytopic



Asterionalla formosa in October were apparent.  Ample populations of



Chrysosphaerella longispina accompanied the bloom of mesotrophic Cvolol^ella



comensis in August.  Location 25 was always considerably different than the



rest of the bay, but location 24, closer to the main bay, clustered with the



northern bay region in August.



     Little Bay de Hoc apparently suffered greater disturbance from waste



loading than any other northern bay area.  Large populations of green algae



were observed here in October.  The distinctly eutrophic gtephanodj.sctia



niaearae and Crvptomonas spp. were very abundant in August, the latter in May



and October, also.



     The south-central bay region, south of Chambers Island, was characterized



by the higher phytoplankton community abundance and eutrophic species



densities throughout most of the sampled periods.  The following distinctly



eutrophic species were present in substantially higher density populations



than the rest of the bay in August and/or October:  Steohanod jspus mi nut us .



Steohanodiscus niaearae . AmDhj.ple^ra cellUGida T CjryD^ompnjs spp . , and



Fragilaria capuc ina .  Green algae , total diatoms , Asterionej.la f ormosa .



           f^occu^osa var. linearia. Chrvspspfraerella ^ongispina. Qhroomonas
spp., and Ma^lomonas pseudocoronata also displayed higher densities  south of
                                      76

-------
Chambers Island than in the northern open bay during their optimum season.



     These surface phytoplankton associations do not agree entirely with the



areas defined by Holland and Claflin (1975).  It is significant that the upper



bay was divided into two regions.  Many of the diatoms reported as



characteristic of the regions which Holland and Claflin delineated tend to



agree with the flora of regions defined in this study.  The spatial



differences noted may be the result of a different hydrodynamic status of the



bay due to transient meteorological conditions.



     Examination of the phytoplankton community distributions utilizing



euclidian distances and cluster analysis reveals temporally different balances



within the large regional groupings.  The northern and south-central bay



regions are very dissimilar, being the last clusters to associate in August



and October, but the magnitude and orientation of the dissimilarity distances



are quite different within the groups for the two sampling periods.  The



August northern bay cluster extends into Big Bay de Hoc to location 24 and



seems to trap the Little Bay de Hoc cluster tightly with the bay.  In October



the northern bay cluster does not include location 24 of Big Bay de Hoc, and



the Little Bay de Hoc cluster spreads south with a north to south longitudinal



axis along the northwest nearshore area.  Long axes are also apparent in the



three minor associations within the northern bay cluster.  The respective



presence and absence of these axes in October and August are substantiated by



the shape of the euclidian contours oriented around location 7.  These axes



are oriented in a manner suggesting a circular circulation for the bay north



of Chambers Island.  The absence of these axes in August suggests this



circulation was modified, possibly as a result of seich activity.



     If a northern transport of water did exist as a result of a seiche,
                                       77

-------
several conditions could be expected. First, the water in the Bay de Hoc areas



would become isolated resulting from the movement of water toward them.  This



appears to be the situation in August, but not October.  Second, water would



exit Green Bay into Lake Michigan along the northern boundary.  This can not



be substantiated because of the lack of sampling locations in Lake Michigan.



fhird, the movement of water from south to north would decrease community



dissimilarity distances between the southern and northern locations.  These



distances between location 16 and northern bay locations are indeed smaller in



August than October.  Last, if the water level lowered in southern Green Bay,



Lake Michigan water and its phytoplankton assemblage would enter the bay from



Sturgeon Bay.  This is suggested by the greater August dissimilarities between



location 17 and surrounding sampling locations compared to much smaller



October dissimilarities.  The phytoplankton communities seemed to have mapped



a demonstration of substantially different hydrodynamic structures of the bay.



     Green Bay remains as a eutrophlc extremity of Lake Michigan.  It seems to



respond rapidly to different temporal hydrodynamic situations that develop.



Waters of the south-central bay and Little Bay de Noc demonstrate symptoms of



considerable eutrophication.  The northern bay region is apparently less



perturbed, which may be the result of biological reclamation of the water or



dilution with Lake Michigan water.
                                       78

-------
                       CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS








     The results of this investigation epitomize some serious problems in our



current approach to water quality management.  Although the phytoplankton



assemblages of northern Green Bay are generally characteristic of nutrient rich



conditions, there are several different phytoplankton associations present



which indicate response to varying types and intensity of perturbation.  It is



clear that development of most efficient management strategies depends on



detection and proper evaluation of these more subtle system responses.  On the



basis of our results, several levels of effect can be recognized.



     The flora of Big Bay de Noc is characteristic of naturally productive



regions within the Great Lakes system.  Although such regions maintain



relatively high primary production rates and large phytoplankton standing



stocks, they are generally not associated with water quality problems.



          •Since such naturally productive areas furnish important nursery



          areas for some fish species and are important to the function of the



          entire system, further study should be undertaken to understand their



          trophic dynamics.  Big Bay de Noc would be an appropriate area for



          such a study since it is one of the few remaining such areas in the



          Great Lakes system which have not suffered extensive anthropogenic



          modification.



     Our data show local areas of extreme perturbation in Little Bay de Noc



near Escanaba, the Escanaba River, and on the western shore near the Menominee



River; areas where severe water quality problems associated with eutrophlcation



have occurred in the past.



          •Further remedial actions are necessary to reduce inputs from sources
                                      79

-------
          in these areas.



     Two primary zones of water quality are present in the open waters of Green



Bay.  Phytoplankton populations at stations south of the vicinity of Chambers



Island are characteristic of highly perturbed conditions.  Populations at



stations north of this area reflect the influences of both nutrient reduction



by loss to the sediments and dilution through exchange with Lake Michigan.



          •Further remedial action to limit nutrient input to southern Green



          Bay is clearly indicated.



          * Additional studies should be undertaken to quantify the exchange of



          water and dissolved and entrained materials between northern Green



          Bay and Lake Michigan proper.



          * Additional process oriented studies should be undertaken to



          quantify loss rates associated with phytoplankton populations



          generated in the highly eutrophic southern portion of Green Bay.



     Data from the current project indicate that Green Bay is a very dynamic



system and that it is highly probable that the temporal sequence of sampling is



not adequate to resolve some important events.



          * Any subsequent studies of this system should include sampling



          during the spring phytoplankton maximum.



          • Additional information should be gathered regarding time series of



          population change in areas of the bay receiving differing nutrient



          levels.



     The results of this project show continued population succession in the



Lake Michigan system.  Some phytoplankton populations now dominant (e.g.



C¥Gj.o|ella comensis) were either absent or very rare in the system until very



recently.  Other previously important populations have been effectively removed
                                      80

-------
from the phytoplankton assemblage.



          • Continued biological monitoring of the system is necessary to



          detect trends resulting from biotic interactions which will not be



          detected by chemical and physical measurements alone.
                                      81

-------
                                  REFERENCES

Adams, M. S. and W. Stone.  1973«  Field studies on photosynthesis of
     Claflophora alpmera^a (ehlorophyta) in Green Bay, Lake Michigan.  Ecology
     54(4): 853-862.

Ahrnsbrak, W. F.  1971.  A diffusion model for Green Bay, Lake Michigan.
     University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Technical Report No. 7.  81 pp.

Bertrand, G., J. Lang and J. loss.  1976,  The Green Bay Watershed, Past/
     Present/Future.  University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Technical
     Report No. 229.

Cholnoky, B. J.  1968.  Die Okologie der Diatomeen in Binnengewassern.
     J. Cramer, Lehre.

Drouet, F. and W. A. Daily.  1956.  Revision of the Coccoid Myxophyceae,
     Butler Univ. Bot. Studies, Vol. 12, 218 pp.  Butler Univ. Indianapolis,
     Ind.

Hendrickson, J. A. Jr. and P. R. Ehrlich.  1971.  An expanded concept
     of species diversity.  Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. No. 439, 6 pp.

Hohn, M. H.  1969.  Qualitative and quantitative analyses of plankton
     diatoms.  Bull. Ohio Biol. Surv. N. S., 3(1), 211 pp.

Holland, R. E.  1968.  Correlation of Melosira species with trophic
     conditions in Lake Michigan.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 13s 555-557.

Holland, R. E,  1969.  Seasonal fluctuations of Lake Michigan diatoms.
     Limnol. Oceanogr. 14: 423-436.

Holland, R. E. and A. M. Beeton.  1972.  Significance to eutrophlcation
     of spatial differences in nutrients and diatoms in Lake Michigan.  Limnol.
     Oceanogr. 17:88-96.

Holland, R. E. and L. W. Claflin.  1975.  Horizontal distribution of
     planktonic diatoms in Green Bay, mid-July 1970.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 20(3):
     365-378.

Howmiller, R. P. and A. M. Beeton.  1973.  Report on the cruise of the R/U
     Neeskay in central Lake Michigan and Green Bay, 8-14 July 1971.
     University Wisconsin—Milwaukee, Center for Great Lakes Studies Spec. Rep.
     13.  71 PP.

Huber-Pestalozzi, G.  1942.  Das Phytoplankton des Siisswassers.  Systematik
     und Biologie.  In A. Thienemann, ed. Die Binnengewasser.
     Sinzeldarstellungen aus Limnologie und ihren Nachbargebieten.  Vol.  16,
     pt. 2, 2nd half.  pp. 367-549.  E. Schweizerbartische Verlagsbuchhaulung,
     Stuttgart.
                                      82

-------
Hustedt, F.  1937-1939.  Systematische und b'kologische Untersuchungen uber
     die Diatomenflora von Java, Bali und Sumatra nach dem Material der
     Deutschen Limnologischen Sunda-Expedition.  Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 15:
     131-177, 187-295, 393-506, 638-790, 28 Taf; 16: 1-155.

Hustedt, F.  1957.  Die Diatomeenflora des Fliisssystems der Weser in Gebiet
     der Hanstadt Bremen.  Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen 34(3): 181-440.

Hutchinson, 0. I.  19&7.  A treatise on limnologie.  Vol. II.  Introduction
     to Lake Biology and the Limnoplankton.  J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
     1115 pp.

Kopczynska, 1. E.  1973.  Spatial and temporal variations in phytoplankton
     and associated environmental factors in the Grand River outlet and
     adjacent waters of Lake Michigan.  PhD. Dissertation, Univ. Michigan, Ann
     Arbor, Mi.  487 pp.

Koppen, J. D.  1978.  Distribution and aspects of the ecology of the genus
     TabeJAarja Ehr. (Bacillariophyceae) in the north central United States.
     Amer. Midi. Nat. 99(2): 383-397.

Lowe, R. L.  1974.  Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of
     freshwater diatoms.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
     Monitoring Series No. EPA-67Q/4-74-Q05.  333 pp.

Lowe, R. L.  1976.  Phytoplankton in Michigan's nearshore waters of Lake
     Huron and Lake Superior, 1974.  Michigan Dept. Nat. Res., Tech. Rpt.  30
     pp.

Moore, J. R. and R. P. Meyer.  1969.  Progress report on the geological-
     geophysical survey of Green Bay 1968.  University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
     Program Technical Report No. 1.  16 pp.

Patterson, D, J., E. Epstein and J. McEvoy.  1975.  Water pollution
     investigation: Lower Green Bay and Lower Fox River.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Region V.  Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program No.
     EPA-905/9-74-017.

Pielou, E. C.  1974.  Population and Community Ecology:  Principles and
     Methods.  Gordon and Breach, New York.

Sager, P. E.  1971.  Nutritional ecology and community structure of the
     phytoplankton of Green Bay.  University of Wisconsin—Green Bay Water
     Resources Center, Technical Completion Report.  Project No. OWRR A-017-WIS,

Schelske, C.  1975.  Silica and nitrate depletion as related to rate of
     eutrophication of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior,  pp. 277-278.  In
     A. D. Hasler, ed.  Coupling of Land and Water Systems.  Proc. Symp.
     Interactions Between Land and Water.  Intern. Assoc. Ecol. and Soc.
     Intern. Limnol. Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York.
                                      83

-------
Schelske, C. and E. Callender.  1970.  Survey of phytoplankton productivity
     and nutrients in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior.  Proo. 13th Conf, Great
     Lakes Res. 1970: 93-107.  Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.

Schelske, C. L., L. E. Feldt, M. A. Santiago and E. F. Stoermer.  1972.
     Nutrient enrichment and its effect on phytoplankton production and species
     composition in Lake Superior.  Proe. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res:  l49-l65f
     Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.

Schelske, C. L., L. E. Feldt, M. S. Simmons and E. F. Stoenner.  1974.
     Storm induced relationships among chemical conditions and phytoplankton in
     Saginaw Bay and western Lake Huron.  Proc. 17th Conf. Great Lakes Res.
     1974: 78-91.  Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.

Schelske, C. L., E. F. Stoermer, J. E. Gannon and Mila S. Simmons.  1976.
     Biological, chemical and physical relationships in the straits of
     Mackinac.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecol. Res. Series
     #EPA-600/3-75-004.  274 pp.

Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver.  1963.  The mathematical theory of
     communication.  University of Illinois Press, Urbana.  117 pp.

Skuja, H.  1948.  Taxonomie des Phytoplanktons einiger Seen in Uppland,
     Sweden.  Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 13: 3.  PP. 1-399.  *39 Tbl.

Skuja.  1956.  Taxonomische und Biologische Studien uber das
     Phytoplankton Schwedischer Binnengewasser.  Nova Acta Regiae Societatis
     Scientiarum Upsaliensis.  Ser. IV, Vol. 16, No. 3 pp.1-404. 63 Tbl.

Sneath, P. H. A. and R. R. Sokal.  1973.  Numerical Taxonomy.  W. H.
     Freeman and Company, San Francisco.  573 pp.

Stoermer, E. F., M. M. Bowman, J. C. Kingston and A. L. Schaedel.  1975.
     Phytoplankton composition and abundance in Lake Ontario during IFYGL.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Res. Ser. No.
     EPA-660/3-75-004.

Stoermer, E. F., B. G. Ladewski and C. L. Schelske.  1978.  Population
     responses to Lake Michigan phytoplankton to nitrogen and phosphorus
     enrichment.  Hydrobiologia 57(3): 249-265.

Stoermer, S. F. and I. G. Kreis, Jr.  In press.  Phytoplankton composition
     and abundance in Southern Lake Huron.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.

Stoermer, E. F. and T. B. Ladewski.  1976.  Apparent optimal temperatures
     for the occurrence of some common phytoplankton species in Southern Lake
     Michigan.  University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division Publ. No.
     18.  H9 pp.

-------
Stoeraer, S. F., C. L. Schelske, M. A. Santiago, L. E. Feldt.  1972.  Spring
     phytoplankton abundance and productivity in Grand Traverse Bay, Lake
     Michigan, 1970. Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1972: 181-191.  Intern.
     Assoc, Great Lakes Res.

Stoermer, E. F. and M. Tuchman.  (manuscript.)  Phytoplankton assemblages of
     the nearshore zone of southern Lake Michigan.

Stoermer, E. F. and J. J. Yang.  1969.  Plankton diatom assemblages in
     Lake Michigan.  Univ. Michigan, Great Lakes Res. Div. Spec. Hep. 17,
     286 pp.

Stoermer, E. F. and J. J. Yang.  1970.  Distribution and relative abundanaes
     of dominant plankton diatoms in Lake Michigan.  Univ. Michigan, Great
     Lakes Besearch Division Publ. No. 16.  64 pp.

Taft, C. E. and C. W. Taft.  1971.  The algae of western Lake Erie.  Bull.
     Ohio Biol. Surv., N.S., No. 4, Pt. 1.  185 pp.

Tarapchak, S. J. and E. F. Stoermer.  1976.  Environmental Status of the
     Lake Michigan Region.  Volume 4.  Phytoplankton of Lake Michigan.  Argonne
     National Laboratory Publ. No. ANL/ES-40 Vol. 4.  Argonne, Illinois.
     204 pp.

Tierney, D. P., R. Powers, T. Williams, and S. C. Hsu.  1976.  Actinomycete
     distribution in northern Green Bay and the Great Lakes.  Taste and odor
     relationships in eutrophication of nearshore waters and embayments.  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Region V.  Great Lakes Initiative
     Contract Program No. EPA-905/9-74-007.  167 pp.

Upchurch, S. B.  1972.  Natural weathering and chemical loads in the Great
     Lakes.  Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res.  1972; 401-415.  Internet.
     Assoc. Great Lakes Res.

Vanderhoef, L. N., B. Dana, D. inerich, and R. H. Burrls.  1972.  Acetylene
     reduction in relation to levels of phosphate and fixed nitrogen in Green
     Bay.  New Phytol. 71: 1097-1105.

Vanderhoef, L. N., C. Y. Huang, and R. Musif.  1974.  Nitrogen fixation
     (acetylene reduction) by phytoplankton in Green Bay, Lake Michigan, in
     relation to nutrient concentrations.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 19(1): 119-125.

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.  1974.  Effects of Wisconsin Public
     Service Corporation's Pulliam Power Plant on lower Green Bay, January
     1973-December 1973.  483 PP.
                                      85

-------
APPENDIX A.  Physicocheraical data for May composite and August and October
discrete samples from Green Bay, 1977.  It includes the location number (L),
collection date (CD), collection depth (D» m), bottle temperature (T,   C)»
alkalinity (A, ppm €03), specific conductivity (C, nohms),  turbidity (X),
nitrate and nitrite (N, ppm), ammonia (M, ppm)» reactive silica (SI, ppm), and
secchi depth (S, m).   Reactive phosphorus concentrations were less than 2  ppb.
_j,
001
002
003
00«
005
006
00?
008
009
010
011
012
013
01*
015
016
017
019
019
020
021
022
023
02«
025

001
001
002
002
003
003
001.
01*
005
005
006
006
007
007
008
003
009
009
010

-------
APPENDIX B.  Summary of phytoplankton species occurrence In the near-surface waters of Green Bay during
1977 sampling season.  Summary is based on all samples analyzed.   Summary includes the total number of
samples In which a given taxon was noted,  the average population density (cells/ml), the average relative
abundance (% of assemblage), the maximum population density encountered (cells/ml), and the maximum rela-
tive abundance (% of assemblage) encountered.

# Average

CYANOPHYTA
Agmenellum quadruplicatim (Menegh.) Breb,
Anabaena flos-aquae (Lyngb.) Breb.
A, eubaylindriaa Borge
Anaaystie ayanea (Kiitz.) Dr. & Daily
A. incerta (Lemm.) Dr. & Daily
A. themalie (Menegh.) Dr. & Daily
Chpooaoaaus dispersus var. minor G. M, Smith
Chpooaoaaus sp.
Gomphoephaeria aponina Kiitz.
G. laaustris Chod.
G. uiahurae (Hilse) Dr. & Daily
Mieroeoleus lyngbyaceus Kiitz.
Miaroooleus sp.
Oeaillatofia bopnetii Zukal
0. retzii Ag.
0. tenuia Ag.
Schizotkpix calaiaola (Ag,) Com.
Schizothfix spp.
Total for Division (18 species)
CHLOROPHYTA
Aotinastnan hantzschii Lag.
Actinastnan spp.
Ankia trade emus brdunii (NSg.) Brunnthaler
A. graailis (Reinsch) Kor¥.
A. nannoselene Skuja
Ankietrodeemue spp.
AnkistrodemuB etipitatue (Chod.) Kom.-Leg.
AB tepoaooauB sp.
Closteriopeis aaicularis (G. M. Smith) Belcher
e t . Swale
C, lonyieeima Lemm.
Clos tepiopsis sp .
Coelaetpwn oambriawn Archer
C. miapopopum N3g.
Coelastpum spp.
slides

56
55
13
38
102
96
94
1
31
86
17
2
1
15
37
1
19
2


1
1
94
3
50
7
10
1
28
18
2
2
13
2
cells/ml

32.421
79.402
2.061
124.423
1367.213
68.474
862.543
0.034
0.687
6.029
0.419
0.034
0.017
2.078
5.596
0.017
6.752
0.034
2558.231

0.117
0.117
11.310
0.101
2.631
0.168
8.411
0.017
1.056
0.519
0.034
0.402
3.552
0.419
% pop

0.482
1.125
0.027
1.767
21 . 983
1.132
12.456
0.000
0.012
0.109
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.038
0.109
0.001
0.085
0.001
39.335

0.001
0.002
0.211
0.005
0.046
0.003
0.421
0.000
0.019
0.011
0.000
0.008
0.068
0.006
Maximum
cells/ml

546.637
1746.724
98.436
2775,072
7567.043
291.121
5430.762
4.189
8.378
27.227
6.283
2.094
2.094
159.174
165.457
2.094
238.761
2.094


14.661
14.661
50.265
6.283
23.038
4.189
362.330
2.094
12.566
8.378
2.094
33.510
67.021
35.605
% pop

7.284
19.524
1.336
23.993
73.08?
4 . 318
54.377
0.044
0.167
0.552
0.104
0.024
0.024
1.670
2.982
0.070
2.704
0.072


0.155
0.195
0.969
0.410
0.424
0.059
12.673
0.021
0.252
0.189
0.037
0.703
1.468
0.485
                                                                                             (continued)
                                                     87

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).
# Average

Cosmarium angulosum Breb.
C. geometrician var. sueaiaim Borge
C. moniliforme (Turp.) Ralfs
Coemarium spp.
Cmcigenia. quadrata Morren
Dictyosphaeriutn ehrenbergiamun Nag.
Dictyosphaerium spp.
Elakatothrix gelatinosa Wille
Franoeia ovalis (France) Lemm.
Gloeocyetie planctonica (West & West)
Gloeocyetie sp.
Gloeocystis spp.
Golenkinia radiata (Chod. ) Wille
Kirchneriella contorta (Sehroidle) Bohlin
K. obeea (W. West) Schmidle
Kirchneriella sp.
Kirchneriella spp.
Lagerheimia citrifoims (Snow) G. M. Smith
L. subealea Letnm.
Miaractiniwn spp.
Monoraphidium 'contortion (Thuret ex Br£b.)
Kom. -Leg.
M. .aetiforme (Nag.) Kom. - Leg.
Monoraphidium spp.
Monoraphidium tortile (West ej West) Kon, - Leg.
Mougeotia sp.
Mougeotia spp.
Nephrocytium agardhianwn N3g.
Nephroaytium sp.
Nephrocytium spp.
Oocystis parva West & West
Oocystis sp.
Oocyetie spp.
Pediastrien biradiatum Meyen.
P. boryamm (Turp.) Menegh.
P. duplex Meyen
P. duplex var. rugulosum Racib.
P. duplex var. reticulatum Lag.
P. obtusum Lucks
slides
33
10
18
8
10
41
2
16
3
116
62
1
6
9
18
12
4
32
3
2
32
26
2
26
19
11
20
9
1
38
9
107
2
48
8
3
1
2
cells/ml
0.871
0.352
0.352
0.151
0.821
10.271
0.402
0.637
0.101
235.107
6.702
0.034
0.352
0.402
2.631
0.251
0.101
0.955
0.050
0.034
0,905
18,230
0.134
1.642
5.479
0.938
1.257
0.436
0.017
29.556
9.400
133.785
0.804
20.961
2.128
0.905
0.268
0.536
% pop
0.016
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.014
0.184
0.010
0.012
0.002
3.717
0,120
0.000
0.005
0.007
0.039
0.004
0.003
0.018
0.001
0.001
0.021
0.952
0.003
0.056
0.080
0.017
0.019
0.009
0.000
0.510
0.153
2.384
0.023
0.353
0.038
0.022
0.004
0.005
Max iraum
cells/ml
14.661
12.566
6.283
4.189
16.755
106.814
33.510
10.472
4.189
1750.913
190.590
4,189
23.038
25.133
83,776
4.189
4.189
14,661
2.094
2.094
16.755
594.808
8.378
39.793
117.286
27.227
25.133
16,755
2.094
345.575
198.967
563.392
67.021
201.062
60.737
39.793
33.510
58.643
% pop
0.149
0.265
0.088
0.071
0.362
1.656
0.766
0.179
0.102
23.048
3.689
0.061
1.178
0.297
1.141
0.076
0.146
0.264
0.053
0.067
0.363
23.203
0.194
1.914
1.948
0,463
0.438
0.226
0.031
5.753
3.919
12.889
2.379
2.930
1.216
1.540
0.488
0.501
                                                                                           (continued)
                                                    88

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).


Pediastnm simplex var. duodenafiiun
(Bailey) Rabh.
P. simplex (Meyen) Leiron.
Pediastnm spp.
Pediastnm tetras (Ehr.) Rails,
Pedinomonas minuta Skuja
Quadrigula alosterioides (Bohlin) Printz
Q. laeustris (Chod.) C. M. Smith
Quadrigula spp.
Scenedesmus aatminatus (Lag. ) Chod.
S. armatus (Chod.) G. M. Smith
S. armatus var. boglariensis Hortob.
S. bicaudatus (Hansg.) Chod.
5. bijuga (Turp.) Lag.
S. denticulatus var. linearis Hansg.
S. eoornis var. diaeifoTtnis Chod.
S. intermedius Chod.
S. minutus (G. M. Smith) Chod.
S. quadriaauda (Turp.) Breb.
S. aerratus (Corda) Bohlin
Soenedeamus sp.
Soenedestnus spinosus Chod.
Soenedesmus spp.
Stauraatpum ouspidatm (Breb.)
S. dejection var. inflatum W. West
5, pafadoxum Meyen
Staupastnm spp.
Tetraedron haatatum (Reinsch) Hansg.
f, minimum (A. Braun) Hansg.
tetpaedr-on sp.
TetKtedrpn spp.
Tetraedron trigonim (NSg.) Hansg.
Tetraatwrn staiacogeniaeforme (Schroeder) Lenan.
Ulotkrix Bubtilieaima (Rabh.)
Undetermined green individual
Total for Division (86 species)
t
slides
8
4
1
11
99
2
1
1
1?
1
1
45
10
102
2
1
39
89
13
2
34
6
1
6
32
8
4
66
1
3
1
1
48
70

Average
cells/ml
1,642
0.922
0.067
2.781
60.971
0.469
0.168
0.017
1.676
0.067
0.268
5.395
0.905
37.095
0.201
0.067
4.524
24.395
1.313
0.050
3.820
0.201
0.017
0.101
0.720
0.285
0.101
3.583
0.017
0.050
0.017
0.067
16.336
7.420
692.525
f. pop
0.024
0.016
0.005
0.039
1.354
0.008
0.002
0.000
0.028
0.003
0.004
0.093
0.019
0.627
0.003
0.001
0.090
0.423
0.019
0.001
0.056
0.014
0.000
0.002
0.014
0.004
0.001
0.052
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.302
0,166
12.986
Maximum
cells/ml
62.832
64.926
8.378
94.248
1086.990
33.510
20.944
2.094
37.699
8.378
33.510
50.265
25.133
247.138
16.755
8.378
46.. ">7
148.702
32.221
4U89
75.398
6.283
2.094
2.094
6.283
16.755
6.283
125.664
2.094
2.094
2.094
8.378
146.608
96.342

Z pop
0.978
0.974
0.602
1.119
17.418
0.527
0.294
5.035
0.571
0.324
0.491
1.350
0.892
2.360
0.277
0.130
1.447
3.156
0.402
0.081
0.614
0.478
0.039
0.059
0.170
0.133
0.062
1.074
0.028
0.071
0.033
0.065
3.945
2.211

                                                                                            (continued)
                                                     89

-------
APPENDIX_B(continued)

BACILLARIOPHYTA
Aahnanthes affinis Grun.
A. biaeolettiana (KUtz.) Grun.
A. biopeti Germain
A, olevei Grun.
A. olevei var. rostrata Bust.
A. deflexa Reim.
A. exigua Grun.
A. lanaeolata (Br4b.) Grun.
A. lanaeolata var. dubia Grun,
A. lapponiaa (Bust.) Hust.
A. lauenburgiana Hust.
A. levanderi Bust.
A. linearie (Win. Smith) Grun
A. microcephala (Kiltz.) Grun.
A. minutiesima KUtz.
A. peragalli Brun, et Herib.
A. pinnata Hust,
A, ploenengis Hust.
Aahnanthes spp.
Amphipleura pelluaida KUtz.
Amphora aalifnetioa (Thomas ex Wolle) M. Perig.
A. hemicyala Stoerm.
A. ovalis var. affinis (KUtz.) V. H.
A, ovalis var. pediaulus (Kutz.) V. H.
A, perpusilla Grun.
Amphora spp.
Amphora veneta var. capitata Basorth
Aaterionella formoaa Hass.
Attheya zaakariasi Brun,
Caloneis baaillarie var. thermalie (Grun.) A. Cl.
C. baaillum (Grun.) Cl.
Coceoneis diminuta Pant.
C, pedioulue Ehr.
C. plaaentula var. euglypta (Ehr.) Cl.
C. plaaentula var. lineata (Ehr.) V. H.
C. plaeentula Ehr.
Coaooneie sp. t2
it
slides

12
6
2
9
39
7
8
7
4
18
2
1
3
41
33
1
15
1
9
71
1
1
4
11
72
6
2
110
1
2
3
7
3
1
27
1
20
Average
cells/ml

0,318
0.268
0.034
0.251
1.388
0.318
0.251
0.151
0.067
0.754
0.034
0.017
0.050
3.368
1.776
0.017
0.318
0.017
0.486
12.039
0.034
0.017
0,117
0,620
5.036
0*117
0.034
82.348
0.017
0.050
0.050
0.117
0.101
0.034
0.670
0.034
0.737
	
% pop

0.008
0.008
0.001
0.005
0.036
0.016
0.007
0,005
0.002
0.041
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.168
0.033
0.000
0.010
0,000
0.013
0.206
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.007
0.147
0.003
0.001
1.590
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.024
0.001
0.017
Max imum
ceils/ml

10.472
23.038
2.094
6.283
20.944
20.944
8.378
4.189
2.094
23.038
2.094
2.094
2.094
92.094
25.133
2.094
8.378
2.094
37.699
104.720
4.189
2.094
6.283
52.360
75.398
4.189
2.094
320.442
2.094
4.189
2.094
2.094
6.283
4.189
8.378
4.189
10.472

2 pop

0.242
0.627
0.074
0.223
0.609
1.208
0.324
0,225
0.146
1.329
0.065
0.146
0.033
5.314
0.486
0.026
0.205
0,042
0.707
1.440
0.069
0.045
0.203
0.520
1.208
0.101
0,146
7.950
0.074
0.203
0.102
0.151
0.162
0.059
0.437
0.162
0.405
                                                                                            (continued)
                                                      90

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).

Cyelotella atomus Rust.
C. oomensis Grun.
C. aomta (Ehr.) KUtz.
C, kutzingiana Thw.
C, meneghiniana KUtz.
C. meneghiniana var. plana Fricke
C. miohiganiana Skv.
C. ooellata Pant.
C", peeudoetelligera Bust.
Cyolotella spp.
Cyelotella stelligera (Cl. et Grun.) V. H.
Cymatopleura eolea (Breb. et Godey) Wm. Smith
Cymatopleura sp.
Cymbella af finis KUtz,
C. aietula (Ehr.) Kirchn.
C. deliaatula KUtz.
C. huetedtii Krasske
C. laevie Nag.
C. miarocephala Grun.
C. tninuta Hilse
C. noroegica Grun.
C. pamula Krasske
C. prostrata var. -aueraualdii (Rabh.) Reim.
C. prostrata (Berk.) Cl.
C. proxima Reim.
C. einuata Greg,
Cymbella sp. #22
Cymbella sp.
Cymbella spp.
Cymbella aubaequalie Grun.
Cymbella tumida (Br6b. et KUtz.) V. H.
Dentiaula tenuia var. oraeaula (Nag. ex
KUtz.) Bust.
fl. tenure KUtz.
Diatoma ek^enbergii KUtz.
Diatoma spp.
Diatoma tenua Ag.
Diatoma tenue var. elongatum Lyngb.
D, tenue var. paohyoephata Grun,
Diploneie oaulata (Brib.) Cl.
#
slides
2
115
109
1
20
11
1
4
17
4
65
9
1
2
2
1
2
1
51
21
2
4
5
1
1
2
2
1
6
1
1
18
1
3
1
30
20
1
1
Average
cells/ml
0.034
292.252
17.875
0.017
0.617
0.352
0.017
0.101
1.642
0.151
12.164
0.201
0.017
0.067
0.034
0.017
0.034
0.017
2.932
0.519
0.034
0.084
0.117
0.017
0.017
0.034
0.084
0.017
0.101
0.017
0.017
0.586
0.050
0.955
0.017
4.318
0.503
0.017
0.017
% pop
0.001
4.822
0.358
0.000
0.010
0.008
0.000
0.005
0.032
0.003
0.399
0.010
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.083
0.028
0.000
0.004
0.006
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.001
0.020
0.001
0.403
0.012
0.001
0.001
Max imurn
cells/ml
2.094
5338.609
112.775
2.094
10.472
6.283
2.094
6.283
48.171
8.378
263.894
4.189
2.094
4.189
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
37.699
6.283
2.094
4.189
4.189
2.094
2.094
2.094
6.283
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
14.661
6.283
71.209
2.094
238.761
8.378
2.094
2.094
Z pop
0.121
42.342
2.350
0.045
0.223
0.176
0.046
0.277
0.967
0.201
11.634
0,813
0.033
0.292
0.046
0.070
0.081
0.046
1.626
0.813
0.029
0.242
0.292
0.026
0.081
0.169
0.118
0.021
0.102
0.031
0.027
0.302
0.118
1.402
0.081
15.756
0.434
0.101
0.070
                                                                                            (continued)
                                                    91

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).


Diploneis ovalia (Hilse £t Rabh.) Cl.
D. porma Cl.
Diploneie spp.
Entomoneia ornata (Bailey) Relm.
Epithemia spp.
Fragilaria brevistriata Grun. _ex V. H.
F. brevistriata var. inflata (Pant.) Bust.
F. aapuaina Desm.
F. aa.puei.na. var. tnesolepta (Rabh.) Rabh.
F. aonatruens (Ihr.) Grun.
F. oonetruene var. binadis (Ehr.) Grun.
F. oonetruens var. aapitata Herib.
F. canatruene var. minuta Temp, et Per.
F. oonetruens var. pumila Grun.
F. aonatruens var. subsalina Hust.
F. aonatruens var. venter (Ehr.) Grun.
F. arotoneneis Kit tan
F. intermedia Grun.
F. intermedia var. fallax (Grun.) A. Cl.
F. lapponioa Grun.
F. leptostauron (Ehr.) Hust.
F. pinnata var. lanoettula (Sebum.) Hust.
F. pinnata Ehr.
Fragilaria spp.
Fragilaria vauaheriae (KUtz.) Peters.
F. vauaheriae var. oapitellata (Grun.) Patr.
F. vauaheriae var. la.naeola.ta A. Mayer
Fruetulia weinholdii Hust.
Gamphonema anguetatwn (Kutz.) Rabh.
G. gracile Ehr.
G. intriaatvm var. diahotomum (Kiitz.) Grun.
«c V. H.
G.. .o"L.i>va.cewn (Lyngb.) KUtz.
G. parvulum (KUtz.) KUtz.
G. quadripunoatim (Ost.) Wis.
G&npnon&ncL spp.
Gypoeigma atfiminatum (KUtz.) Rabh.
G. eoalproidee (Rabh.) Cl.
Meloeiva distane (Ehr.) KUtz.
t
slides
1
1
2
11
1
9
12
72
3
27
3
1
18
5
9
8
113
7
3
3
3
4
72
14
11
26
1
1
6
1
15
6
3
1
2
3
1
1
Average
cells/ml
0.017
0.017
0.034
0.285
0.050
0.586
0.436
90.394
0.201
3.302
0.134
0.034
0.871
1.102
0.855
0.771
128.207
0.402
0.148
0.182
0.067
0.302
15.980
0.989
0.436
2.815
0.134
0.017
0.101
0.017
0.402
0.101
0.050
0.034
0.034
0.050
0.017
0.017
% pop
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.015
0.020
1.561
0.005
0.066
0.003
0.000
0.030
0.012
0.036
0.011
3.372
0.028
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.006
0.347
0.061
0.029
0.141
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.014
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
Maximum
cells/ml
2.094
2.094
2.094
8.378
6.283
16.755
8.378
1514.407
12.566
108.903
12.566
4.189
18.850
64.443
43.982
41.888
1159.972
20.944
8.055
8.378
4,189
29.322
186.401
25.133
14.661
111.003
16.755
2.094
2.094
2.094
8.378
2.094
2.094
4.189
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
7. pop
0.031
0.102
0.070
0.297
0.086
0.704
0.758
27.364
0.352
1.802
0.232
0.059
0.965
0.671
2,113
0.323
18.652
2.421
0.107
0.319
0.101
0.584
3.711
3.183
2.251
11.910
0.143
0.074
0.059
0.081
0.322
0.181
0.081
0.076
0.074
0.029
0.039
0.033
                                                                                            (continued)
                                                    92

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).

Meloaira granulata alpha status (Ehr.) Ralfs
M. granulata var. angustissima 0, Mull.
M. granulata (Ehr.) Ralfs
M. ielandiaa 0, MU11.
M, italiaa eubsp, subaratiaa 0. MU11.
M. vaviana Ag.
Kavioula aoaeptata Hust.
It. anglica var. aignata Hust.
S. anglica var. subsalsa (Grun.) Cl.
S. aurora Sov .
S. bryophila. Peters.
H. oapitata (Ehr.)
S. aapitata var. Jnmgariaa (Grun. ) Ross
H. aapitata var. luneburgensie (Grun.) Patr.
H. aooooneifomia Greg, ex Grev.
H. oonetane var. eynnetriaa Hust.
N. aryptooephala var. intermedia Grun.
H. eryptocephala var. veneta (Klltz.) Rabh.
N, cryptoaephala KUtz.
H. deoueeie Ostr,
H, exigua (Greg.) Grun. V. H.
S. exiguifoiwnie Hust.
It, explanata Bust.
N. gottlandiea Grun.
S. gregaria Donk.
W. jaemefeltii Hust.
S. lanceolata (Ag.) KUtz.
K. latene Krasske
S, luzoneneie Hust.
A', meniesulus Schum.
N. menieoulue var. obtusa Hust.
W. menieaulue var. upealieneie Grun.
JV. minima Grun. ex V. H.
N. paludoaa Hust.
N. plaaentula. var. rostrata Mayer
H. protraeta (Grun. In Cl. e^Grun.) Cl.
S. pupula KUtz.
S. pupula var. mutata (Krasske) Hust.
t
slides
3
10
60
27
64
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
12
2
1
15
27
18
3
1
4
4
3
6
1
5
1
16
4
7
1
4
4
1
1
8
1
Average
cells/ml
0.553
0.452
14.430
4.139
5.859
0.017
0.017
0.050
0.034
0.017
0.034
0.034
0.050
0.366
0.034
0.067
0.385
0.768
0.534
0.067
0.050
0.067
0.115
0.050
0.251
0.017
0.084
0.017
0.503
0.115
0.134
0.017
0.184
0.067
0.017
0.017
0.184
0.017
Z pop
0.006
0.011
0.295
0.361
0.331
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.012
0.001
0.001
0,012
0.017
0.013
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.001
O.Q11
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.005
0,001
Maximum
cells/ml
35.605
12.566
268.082
56.549
64,926
2.094
2.094
4.189
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
4.189
8.055
2.094
8.378
8.378
10.472
8.055
4.189
6.283
2.094
8.055
2.094
18.850
2.094
2.094
2.094
10.472
8.055
4,189
2.094
10.472
2.094
2.094
2.094
6.283
2.094
Z pop
0.326
0.243
6.240
10.976
5.263
0.027
0.039
0.242
0.018
0.033
0.102
0.081
0.149
0.407
0.151
0.168
0.305
0.405
0.322
0.203
0.223
0.081
0.239
0.074
1.087
0.026
0.081
0.081
0.301
0.084
0.084
0.031
0.405
0.101
0.151
0.151
0,162
0.074
                                                                                            (continued)
                                                      93

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).
11 Average

Saviaula pupula var. rectangular-La (Greg.) Grun.
N. radioaa var. parva Wallace
S. Kzdioaa var. tenella (BrSb.) Grun.
H. radioaa KUtz.
S. rhynehocephala KUtz.
S, fhynohosephala var. germanii (Wallace) Patr.
It, sautelloides MB. Smith
S. 8eminuloid.ee Hust.
S, seminulwn Grun.
ff, svnilie Krasske
Saaiaula sp, #8
Naviaula sp.
Saviaula splendiaula Van Landingham
Saviaula spp.
Saviaula stroemii Must.
W. atroeeei A. Cl.
ff. swirotufKiata Bust.
ff. eubtiliaaifia Cl.
ff. tantula Hust.
ff. tripunetata (0. F. Mull.) Bory
ff. tuasula fo, minor Hust.
If. tuasula fo. roatvata. Hust.
S, vividula var. avenasea (Br6b. ex Grun.) V. H.
H, zanoni Hust.
Neidium dubiwn fo. aonstrietwn Hust.
Seidiwn ap.
Nitzaahia, aaiaularioidee Arch.
S. aaiaularis (KUtz.) Wm. Smith
N. aauta H&ntz.
ff. adapta Huat.
S. amphibia Grun.
N. anguatata (Wro. Smith) Grun. jj> Cl. and Grun.
N. anguatata var. aauta Grun.
N. apiaulata (Greg.) Grun.
N. aapitellata Huat.
N. aonfinis Hust.
N. dissipata (KUtz.) Grun.
S. fantisola Grun.
*. fmatulwn var. tenella Grun. ex V. H.
slides
1
6
38
2
4
1
1
17
1
1
4
1
1
36
1
3
5
1
9
4
4
1
1
6
1
1
66
11
3
15
2
1
1
2
3
3
11
35
3
cells /ml
0.017
0.134
1.089
0.034
0.084
0.017
0.017
0.536
0.017
0.017
0.067
0.034
0.017
1.608
0.017
0.050
0.101
0.017
0.151
0.067
0.067
0.017
0.017
0.101
0.017
0.017
7.104
0.452
0.050
0.570
0.067
0.017
0.017
0.034
0.050
0.050
0.218
1.860
0.067
% pop
0.001
0.007
0.042
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.013
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.068
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.160
0.006
0.001
0.011
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.008
0.032
0.001
Maximum
cells/ml
2.094
4.189
10.472
2.094
4.189
2.094
2.094
12.566
2.094
2.094
2.094
4.189
2.094
31.416
2.094
2.094
4.189
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
73.304
31.416
2.094
14.661
6.283
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
6.283
31.416
4.189
% pop
0.074
0.242
1.626
0.041
0.478
0.239
0.074
0.487
0.070
0.106
0.121
0.074
0.018
1.220
0.021
0.121
0.301
0.066
1.146
0.102
0.065
0.205
0.102
0.067
0.074
0.021
3.659
0.249
0.036
0.372
0.062
0.018
0.029
0.101
0.081
0.145
0.407
0.573
0.092
                                                                                             (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).

t Average

Sitaaahia graoilis Hantz.
N, hantzsohiana Rabh.
N. holaatioa Must,
K. hungariaa Grun,
N. intermedia Hantz. ex Cl. et Grun,
N. kutzingiana Hilse
It. lauenbergiana Bust.
S. linearia Hm. Smith
X. miaroaephala Grun.
It, palea (KUtz.) MB. Smith
It. palea var. tenuirostris Must.
It. parvula Wm, Smith
S. vecta Hantz.
S. Tomana Grun.
N. eigma (KUtz.) MB. Smith
N* Bociabilie Must.
SitzBchia sp.
Nitzeohia spp.
Sitaschia eubacicularis Hust.
N. subaapitellata Hust,
N. aublinearia Hust.
Opephora martyi Herib.
Rhizoaolenia erieneis H. L. Smith
R. graailie H. L. Smith
Hhoicosphenia cvmata (KUtz.) Grun.
Skeletonema potcsnos (Weber) Hasle
Skeletonema sp.
Skeletonema spp.
Stawoneia emithii var. minima Haworth
S. emithii Grun.
Stephanodiaaus alpinus Hust.
S. binderanus (KOtz.) Krieger
S. dubius (Fricke) Hust.
S. hantzachii Grun.
S. minutus Grun.
5. niagorae Ehr.
StephanodisauB sp. #10
Stephanodiaoue sp. #14
Sfephanodieeue sp. #8
slides
36
3
16
1
1
1
16
5
1
56
2
1
6
16
1
9
8
48
16
8
1
3
52
3?
3
16
5
2
1
1
13
26
2
59
84
103
1
3
69
cells/ml
1.474
0.050
6.600
0.017
0.034
0.017
0.414
0.117
0.017
2.513
0.084
O.D17
0.134
0.804
0.017
0.218
0.567
1.994
0.385
0.151
0.017
0.084
4.370
3.561
0.101
1.424
1.089
0.115
0.017
0.017
0.402
3.998
0.034
14.600
24.312
38.732
0.017
0.838
21.651
% pop
0.049
0.001
0.097
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.013
0.002
0.000
0.080
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.016
0.001
0.009
0.009
0.073
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.139
0.105
0.003
0.021
0.024
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.068
0.001
0.283
0.673
0.822
O'.OOO
0.027
0.414
Max imuro
cells/ml
14.661
2.094
161,107
2.094
4.189
2.094
16.111
6.283
2.094
27.227
6.283
2.094
6.283
18.850
2.094
4.189
29.322
14.661
6.283
4.189
2.094
4.189
90.059
46.077
6.283
48.171
77.493
8.055
2.094
2.094
10.472
72.498
2.094
196.873
159.174
358.141
2.094
77.493
326.725
% pop
1.626
0.074
1.826
0.074
0.085
0.031
0.410
0.137
tf.022
1.608
0.117
0.074
0.202
0.324
0.070
0.478
0.291
2.033
0.242
0.057
0.029
0.061
6.223
3.039
0.153
0.502
1.709
0.223
0.028
0.026
0.363
1.042
0.092
3.859
20.159
12.714
0.039
2.998
8.023
                                                                                            (continued)
                                                     95

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).

Stephanadiaaus sp. #9
Stephanodieaue sp.
Stepfamodieaua spp.
StephanodisauB subtilis (Van Coor) A. Cl.
S. tenuie Must.
Su.riTeT.~la angusta KUtz.
S, ovata var. pinnata (Wo. Smith) Bust.
Synedra aaus. KUtz.
S. deliaatiseima Hm. Smith
S. deliaatisaima var. angustissima Grun.
S. filiformis var. exilis A. Cl.
S. filiformis Grun.
5. ostenfeldii (Krieger) A. Cl.
S. paPasitica var. subconstri-cta (Grun.) Hust.
S. paraaitiaa (Win. Smith) Hust.
S. nanpens KUtz.
5. mmpens var. fragilca*ioidee Grun. ex V. H.
Synedra sp. #17
Synedfa spp.
Synedra ulna var. ahaeetzna Thomas
S, ulna (Nltz.) Ehr.
Tabellafia feneatrata (Lyngb.) Kiitz.
T. floaaulosa (Roth) KUtz.
T. floaauloaa var. linearis Koppen
Thalassioaira. fluviatilis Hust.
Total for Division (255 species)
CHRYSOPHYTA
ChryaoaoeauB sp.
Chrysophyaean oyst
Chryaoephaerella longispina Lautb.
Dinobfyan oyst
D. aygta
D. divergena tahof
Dinobfyan sp.
Dinobfyon spp.
Dinobryon atakeaii var. epiplonotiawn Skuja
Hallomonae alpina Pasch. e£ Ruttn.
t
slides
1
1
3
41
5
3
1
3
1
30
6
95
36
1
5
1
2
1
11
2
10
85
1
106
1


1
1
39
92
1
46
2
18
24
52
Average
cells/ml
0.017
0.050
0.184
8.260
0.168
0.050
0.017
0.050
0.017
1.254
0.134
14.331
10.682
0.017
0.235
0.050
0.117
0.017
0.369
0.050
0.249
22.280
0.101
38.048
0.017
970.121

0.084
0.017
6.532
12.213
0.335
10.422
0.117
4.960
2.178
2.312
Z pop
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.537
0.013
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.083
0.005
0.393
0.834
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.025
0.001
0.013
0.371
0.002
0.919
0.000
22.084

0.001
0.000
0.102
0.552
0.004
0.183
0.005
0.263
0.031
0.043
Max imum
cells /ml
2.094
6.283
18.850
464.955
12.566
2.094
2.094
2.094
2.094
14.661
4.189
94.248
190.590
2.094
14.661
6.283
8.378
2.094
14.661
4.189
8.055
341.386
12.566
426.934
2.094


10.472
2.094
117.286
83.776
41.888
154.985
12.566
115.192
41.888
18.850
% pop
0.040
0.071
0.275
49.888
1.348
0.121
0.059
0.092
0.028
2.033
0.225
4.878
15.424
0.101
0.270
0.118
0.583
0.036
0.788
0.162
0.407
5.005
0.255
6.935
0.016


0.142
0.031
1.945
9.569
0.444
4.924
0.420
8.669
0.548
0.502
                                                                                            (continued)
                                                     96

-------
APPENDIX B (continued).


Mallamonas pseudocoronata Presc.
Mallcmona.8 sp.
Mallomonas spp.
Monoahfysis aphanaster Skuja
Ochromonas sp. #3
Ochromonas sp. #4
Oakpomonas spp.
Qakromonas vallesiaaa Chod.
Synura spp.
Synura uvella Ehr.
Total for Division (20 species)
CRYPTOPHYTA
Chroomonas spp.
Cryptomonaa erosa Ehr.
£. graailis Skuja
C. marssonii Skuja
C. ovata Ehr.
Rhodomonas minuta Skuja
Total for Division (6 species)
PYREOPHYTA
Cemtium hirundinella (0. F. MU11.) Schrank
GytmocKnium helvet-iawn Penard
Gymodinium spp .
Pemdtniim spp.
Total for Division (4 species)
EUGLEHOPHYTA
Phacua sp.
Traahe lamonaa B p .
Total for Division (2 species)
If
slides
48
3
12
96
71
47
5
90
2
9


118
1
35
120
123
122


36
20
90
57


2
1

Average
cells/ml
1.642
0.067
0.486
5.529
48.405
9.517
44,368
55.509
0.034
2.011
206.736

58.862
0.134
1.726
40.166
74.814
380.017
555.719

0.871
0.670
7.439
2.458
11.439

0.050
0.017
0.067
% pop
0.025
0.001
0.020
0.130
0.709
0.514
0.533
1.310
0.001
0.031
4.459

1.530
0.002
0.037
0.876
1.668
9.151
13.265

0.014
0.017
0.235
0.086
0.352

0.001
0.000
0.001
Maximum
cells/ml
23.038
4.189
14.661
25.133
869.173
98.436
1658.760
691.150
2.094
142.419


368.613
16.755
20.944
196.873
345.575
3579.319


10.472
12.566
48.171
20.944


4.189
2.094

% pop
0.242
0.045
1.020
1.746
11.793
9.631
18.754
9 • 234
0.042
2.205


11.149
0.295
0.661
5.584
6.603
47.393


0.142
0.428
2.590
1.844


0.044
0.021

                                                                                          (continued)
                                                    97

-------
 APPENDIX B (continued).
                                                  slides
                                                                  Average
          cells/ml
                                                                          % pop
                                                                                           Maximum
                         cells/ml
                         % pop
HAPTOPHYTA
Undetermined haptophyte sp. #1
Undetermined haptophyte sp. #2
Total for Division (2 species)
 56
 33
 28.867
  1.223
 30.090
0.485
0.018
0.503
475.427
 20.944
14.424
 0.391
UNDETERMINED
Undetermined flagellate sp. #3
Undetermined flagellate sp. #5
Undetermined ftagellate sp. #6
Undetermined flagellate sp. #7
Undetermined flagellate sp. #8
Undetermined flagellate sp. #9
Undetermined flagellate spp.
Total for Division (7 species)
  3
 25
 39
  9
 89
 48
123
  0.218
  2.295
  2.078
  0.302
 21.396
  6.618
234.773
267.680
0.017
0.048
0.059
0.004
0.373
0.109
6.402
7.013
 14.661
 56.549
 35.605
  8.378
178.023
 90.059
934.099
 1.857
 ll 744
 1.065
 0.108
 3.866
 1.186
33.666
                                                     98

-------
VO
VO
             APPENDIX C,  Phytoplankton density and species diversity of Green Bey, 1977.   It Includes total densities  and Shannon-Heaver diversity (1963)
             samples froa May, August and October and densities and S/N diversity of May diatoms.
for
Total Density (cells/ial)
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

May*
651.4
2063.0
1734.2
1436.8
875.5
1038.8
1235.7
- .-
789.6
1022.1
839.9
2081.8
1660.9
1966.6
1390.7
5166.9

7552.4
1105.8
1154.0
1154.0
865.0
1432.6
1859.8
2995.0
Surface
August
5663.2
2817.0
4689.3
5267.4
5355.4
9012.2
8783.9
7642.4
10463.6
7518.9
7370.2
8844.6
6821.4
8830.0
9433.1
9533.7
2580.3
8924.2
10214.4
9271.9
6978.5
5330.2
7328.3
7275.9
12608.3

Oc tober
2584.5
6335,5
8794.4
5885.2
6863.3
9315.9
4308.2
10067.8
5078.9
5698.8
6006.7
9873.0
4653.7
5682.1
6865.4
12962.2
6423.5
3705.0
6264.3
4308.2
5076.8
6354.4
5845.4
10206.0
11697.2
Bottom
Hay August
-.- 3168.8
3566.8
-.- 4109.2
3214.9
-.- 4768.9
-.- 8871.9
-.- J447.2
6624.6
2268.8
-.- 3675.7
6857.0
7763.9
7810.0
-.- 2496.5
-.- 2919.6
5426.6
-.- 2936.3
3256.8
2083.9
2268.2
2762.5
-.- 5485.2
-.- 2168.5
-.- 7164.9
-.- 12608.3
Species Diversity
Surface
October
2817.0
7123.0
4570.0
5022.4
4565.8
6044.4
3920.7
7342.9
3103.9
6438.2
7118.8
8048.8
4988.8
5024.4
4626.5
7504.2
7921.0
6618.3
4046.4
3939.6
4934.4
3568.8
3591.9
5434.9
7489.6
May*
2.166
2.581
3.319
3.065
2.631
2.670
2.948
-.-
2.584
2,831
2.016
2.480
2.040
2.172
2,209
1.887
...
2.208
2.562
2.745
2.682
2.677
2.652
2.546
2.509
August
2.510
2.677
2,581
2.604
2.605
1.983
2.105
2.003
1.930
2.161
2.898
2.656
2.631
2.737
2.444
2.629
3.039
2.048
1.980
1.969
2.092
2.363
2.153
2.456
1.947
October
3.355
2.487
2.090
2.368
2.501
2.020
2.354
2.441
2.361
2.435
2.773
2.827
3.091
2.903
3.033
2.971
3,192
2.948
1.827
1.982
2,073
1.545
1.565
1,778
1.795
Bottom
May August
3.027
2.584
2.752
2.626
2.638
1.732
2,995
2.373
2,403
3,125
2.763
2.959
2.721
2.821
3.029
2.722
2.856
2.791
3.334
2.738
2.887
2.483
2.806
2.529
1,933

Oc tober
3.424
2.407
2.847
2.916
2.889
2.467
2.579
2.582
2.764
2,403
2.566
2.990
3.242
2.893
3,033
3,340
2.910
2.176
2.614
1.198
2.329
1.266
2.340
2.502
2.420
MBY 01fl toss
(cells/ml) S/N
278.6
379.1
1070.2
368.6
56,5
104.7
628,3
515.2
360.2
228.3
25.1
393.7
31.4
67.0
88.0
56.5
932.0
883.8
337.2
387.5
374.9
301.6
465.0
584.3
871.3
0.089
0.121
0.055
0.106
0.301
0.096
0.038
0.058
0.028
0.092
0.319
0.089
0.255
0.239
0.193
0.053
0.018
0.024
0.053
0.052
0.048
0.050
0.041
0.039
0.041
             *May couponite depth samples In contrast to discrete depth  samples  In August  and  October.

-------
                APPENDIX P.  Euclidian distances (Sneath and Sokal, 1963) and cluster diagrams of the August and October phytoplankton assemblages.
O
o
Euclidian Distances, August
3 . 3*426
4 .27711
5 .44515
2 . «i0543
9 .95915
19 .59935
10 1.3102
18
6
7
20
8
22
23
24
21
25
11
12
16
13
14
15
17
toe.
8
22
23
24
21
25
11
12
16
13
14
15
17
Lpc.
15
17
Loc.
1.7674
1.3332
.80703
1.3891
1.2803
1.0519
•57719
1 . 0369
1.0824
1.1215
1.4f 84
1.4015
1.5297
2.6305
3.9314
1.6740
3. 7068
1
.46590
.178*5
.304*3
.69622
.61978
3.1592
2.62"8
7.1739
2.6349
1.1014
4.3251
4.0425
4.3763
20
I . 1662
3.7260
14
.41469
.3209?
.39026
I. 010?
.49142
1.2922
t.3763
1.3039
.7540?
1.17*1
1.5402
1.1134
.92371
1.0019
.99291
3.2901
1.5858
1.2,9)7
1.1892
2.9566
3.6537
3.7157
3.5042
3

.44474
.51784
.55459
1.1473
2.9441
2.471T
2.5923
2.9313
3.5066
4.8174
4.1716
4.5062
8

3.5363
15
.70137
.4649?
1.0663
.54416
1.1)96
1.1071
.57628
.71493
.94685
.63250
.326'»2
.54534
.879?9
2. W42
1.8221
I. 84" I
2.0134
2. 8«29
4.1117
4.114ft
3.607?
4


.32725
.59746
.651B7
3. 1811
2.5174
2.4678
2.9913
3.00B7
4.5166
4.7996
3.9216
22



.33576
.80713
.50?96
1*2761
1.177*
.69156
.33545
.^'549
.76134
. 37206
. 38 80 ?
.44690
.7*625
2.7771
1.7649
1.5166
1.7270
2.657?
3.111 1
3 .6031
3.4325
5



.459J6
.50919
2.6059
2, 161?
2.0780
2.4085
2.9261
4.1425
4.13?)
4.2610
23



1.364?
1.C423
1.5923
I . 51 75
1.4592
.91670
1.191J
1.2046
.72296
. 70642
.90660
1.1191
3.3590
1.6808
1.6769
1.6162
7.8515
3. 8310
3.6976
3.5H7
2




.90397
1.8071
I.S442
2 .0302
2.4374
3.C560
4. 3? 27
4. 1112
4.1895
24



.57375
.71336
.77941
1.0548
.68591
.1"637
.94845
1.1991
1.0390
1,7436
1.7JJ6
3.2333
1.7647
1.9J14
l.flldl
3.1031
3. 8224
3.1617
4.394J
9





2.54JT
2.3238
2.1639
2.475?
3.1435
4.4680
4.1366
4.4307
21



1.3163
I.J522
.99550
.50324
.71130
1.2619
1.1160
.67321
.94219
.85143
2.8310
1.3472
1.2135
1.4103
2.T526
3.7261
3.6980
3.9J55
19






3.9273
3.9669
4.2751
5.2470
6.4128
6.J66H
5.7724
25




.66141
1.8299
1.0646
1.5864
I.A736
1.6783
1.5797
1.6593
1.7643
3.3389
1.1993
1.5340
1.6677
2.181?
2.7219
2.5??5
2.7239
10







.91606
1.0282
2.0638
2. 7963
?.?980
3.2650
11





1.6961
.0194
.1963
.3214
.4756
.1592
.4349
1.7,501
3.3181
1.7074
1.6813
2.0456
2.7852
f.1053
2.8283
1.6626
22








.64175
1.0251
1.9172
1.7736
2.9015
12






.26169
.15224
.61801
.44512
.63099
.95093
.849*3
3.4741
2.8559
2.S908
2.6349
3.4758
4.5509
4.1918
4.5391
6









2.3969
2.1130
2.0731
3.2073
16







.11448
.51576
.34253
.36192
.57550
.617TI
2.995?
1.9647
1.6455
2.0913
2.5411
3.7682
1.4007
3.5911
7










2.0094
1.6547
3.1466
13



                                                                                                                                                     (continued)

-------
APPENDIX D (continued).

Cluster Diagram,
Locf.

3
4
5
2

19
10
18
6
20

22
23
24
21
25
11
12
16
13
14
15
17



August
2222211111
4321 ) 9 8 7 6 5
*.____—_.-__ T
*.— — — _____ f_ I
.___? I_f _ _
J.___T___ __ T T

.!.__ — ______ _ _ _t



«._____ f

+-! 	 1
*_— f
I

A. __.. « . «. T

« |1H||| ^u ^^








T 1223344555
S 1032457378
T 407747B235
\ 4382200670
M 870560445?
C
R
S

I 1 1 I I
43213987654311




•~ I

I
If f
I"——!

— I
T i
It ft
~ i i i
If _ _ _ f T
tf T
If
I


II IT







4659001 086933.
01 «16868722948
7437S237829452
51362633096707
                                        101

-------
APPENDIX D (continued).
Euclidian Distances, October
10 1.16QI
11 2.1176 .74515
13 1.7154 .72444
14 1.5251 .84907
15 1.5303 1.7MO
17 l."1"2 1.3449
12 J.7712 1.3737
16 4.7786 3. T293
2 l.47«l 1. J711
3
4
6
24
25
8
5
22
21
7
9
18
19
23
20
Loc.
6
24
25
8
5
22
21
7
9
18
19
23
20
Loc_._
23
20
2. 7291
7.0354
7.70-n?
2.7S37
3. 5454
'».•»& 10
7.1797
1.621J
2.156P
1.4091
1.9746
1.145&
1.9R13
1.5774
7.145*
1
.97711
. 1-»0 J3
."3111
7.4«&2
.1103?
1 .09%
. 7426ft
1.037?
.77046
.19365
.71352
1.7-396
Z.)425
4
.466)9
1.6521
1.7 >36
t.5457
1. 7193
7.1331
3.3517
4.1611
2.1128
1.936?
1.4745
.99403
.973",
1.1543
1.6716
Z.1219
1.F921
10

!.37*o
1.6445
2.5656
1.3731
1.960-i
1.2941
1.7114
1 .5631
7. >145
1.960)
?.?'«55
7.634}
6

1.1230
.'»?6*8
.15404
1.0901
1. 73)7
l.*393
3.ft751
.04592
1.3S55
1.0937
1. «13
?.?523
2. 1545
2.47*7
1.6618
1. 1'»17
1.467S
I. 0111
.75335
.70410
1. 1467
1.-)4
l.«»?f<5
2.4347
13



2.4003
1.99* f
2.0219
1.6761
•>.. 5677
7.08'?
2.4734
l.8':72
2.4719
3.221 )
25


.41764
.PP533
1.7740
?.3937
1. 1932
1.4948
1.255B
2.4325
I. 83 IP
2.6)77
3.R819
2.0674
1. 7450
1.&199
1.1311
1. Oi36
1.0311
1 .5593
l.<5415
7.6639
14




2.5707
3.9205
3.1521
3. 68 19
7.9409
3.2751
3.572?
4.4500
4.9793
8


.76618
2.0551
2.55*6
1.7540
2.1167
1.9971
3.0324
'.8009
3.53U
3.9343
2.*6b!>
2.24J7
7. tin
1.43H
I.64i5
1.4627
2 . 1 W J
2.3666
3.0370
15





. 62402
.938)6
.015/9
.88217
.89325
1.5193
1.2964
1.646)
5


1.9726
2.3403
1 .6503
2.1368
1.8637
2.933*
3.0036
3.4321
4.3434
2.4627
2.44*9
1.9756
1.642*
1.7*05
1.4669
2.1348
2.5S96
2.9025
17






.73400
.62117
1.0173
.851*6
1.1572
.54656
1.2620
22


2.71**
2.*92*
2.4038
2.1861
2.5244
2. 6397
3.3731
2.8534
2.8*00
3.5639
3.0987
2.93*8
2.3077
1.9266
2.6586
3.747?
*.*708
12







.55120
.840R4
1.0*39
1.0513
.93973
.939*8
21


4.2238
4.4638
4.4442
5.2543
5.0047
5.5819
6.6069
5.0145
5.2812
*.9537
*.5*93
*.*278
3.9896
5.1**7
5 ,7«9*
5.8238
16








.37786
.65282
1.1035
.88*9*
1.3*27
7



.55225
. 52353
.97579
1.3025
1.8671
3.3216
.95819
1.1135
.99332
.98556
.93975
.85668
.99873
1.2875
1.7286
2









.48813
1.0355
I.* 137
2.1851
9




.46872
.572*1
.921*7
1.399*
2.6251
.91178
1.2651
.839*6
.93720
.82963
1.3931
.98019
1.3*63
2.0449
3










1.0041
1.239*
1.6836
18


    Loc.
                       19
                                   23
(continue)

-------
APPENDIX D (continued).

Cluster Diagram,
Loc.
i
10



1 t:


Ifi





oc


99
«.<£
7

1 Q
lo
•»•»
20




October

* T
v «.v«|
• _ »

» 	


4 f






. T
"*"- — — — *_._ j

4— T


4-_— „_ f



I 34444566
S 712*6623
A 36807906
N 64Q82329
C
E
S


I*
I
f_ _ r r
If f *
1 I 	 1
t __ __ T r i
I 	 ~ 1 1 	 1
	 1 — 	 I I T
	 ' 1 I
I I


I
T T T
1 	 1 I
1 	 — — I" -- 1 1
	 	 	 J 1 111
	 	 | 	 , 	 | | T

I
~"~ 1 •* I
Ir
1

i 	 .... |


— -•" 1

R99 	 0
3>*31 266 1247*59.
76 1075221 7,-! 14609
4785577859844244
30 "36241553645693
                                       103

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-905/3-79-002
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Green Bay Phytoplankton, Composition, Abundance and
Distribution
7. AUTHOR(S)
Eugene F. Stoermer & R. J. Stevenson
9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes Research Division
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes Surveillance & Research Staff
Great Lakes National Program Office
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Mlinois 60&05
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
S. REPORT DATE
March 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODi
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPOP
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2 BA 645
11, CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant R005337-01
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVI
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA- GLNPO
Great Lakes National Progr
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES UTTJCe
16. ABSTRACT
  This  project was initiated to evaluate the water quality of northern Green  Bay.
  Green Bay phytoplankton assemblages were characterized by high abundances and
  domination by taxa Indicative of nutrient rich conditions.  The most significant
  components of the communities were diatoms and cryptomonads In May and blue-green
  algae in August and October.  Anacystis incerta, Rhodomonas minuta, microflagellat
  Gloeocystis planctonica, and Cyclotella comensis were the most abundant  taxa.

  Two main regions of different water quality were determined by phytoplankton popul
  tlon  and community analysis.  These regions are approximately delineated as north
  tooth of Chambers Island.  Phytoplankton and physico-chemical Indications of eutro
  phication were generally greater In the southern region.  Local evidence of more
  severe perturbation was noted in Little Bay de Noc near the Escanaba River and  Es-
  canaba, and near the Menominee River.  More naturally egtrophic shallow water comm
  ities were found in Big Bay de Noc and along the northwest shore of Green Bay.  Le
  eutrophfc conditions along the Lake Michigan interface with Green Bay probably  res
  from  dilution of Green Bay water due to exchange with Lake Michigan water.  The ex
  change must result qualitatively In the export of nutrients and biological popula-
  tions adapted to eatrophic conditions to Lake Michigan proper.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
phytoplankton populations,
water quality, microf lagel lates
monitoring, ni trogen, phosphorus, silica,
d i a toms
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Available through NTIS,
Springfield, VA 22161
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Green Bay
Lake Michigan
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Grc

21, NO. OF PAGES
I 04
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77}
                      PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
                                         104
                                                                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

-------