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
------- |