U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
CONCORDIA U\KE
CONCORDIA PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA EGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 536
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
CONCORDIA LAKE
CONCORDIA PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 536
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION
AND THE
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON CONCORDIA LAKE
CONCORDIA PARISH, LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Quality Branch
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Special Studies Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Working Paper No. 536
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Louisiana Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake Characteristics 3
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
V. Literature Reviewed 10
VI. Appendices 11
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicatlon Survey was Initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concen-
trations, and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for
formulating comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and
state management practices relating to point source discharge
reduction and nonpoint source pollution abatement in lake water-
sheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts
that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be
constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized
model can be transformed into an operational
representation of a lake, its drainage basin, and
related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and
watershed data collected from the study lake and its drainage
basin is documented. The report is formatted to provide state
environmental agencies with specific information for basin
flanninq [§303(e)], water quality criteria/standards review
§303(c)], clean lakes [§314(a,bj], and water quality monitoring
[§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
m
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condition
are being made to advance the rationale and data base for refine-
ment of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's freshwater
lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the relationships
between land use, nutrient export, and trophic condition, by lake
class or use, are being developed to assist in the formulation of
planning guidelines and policies by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Louisiana Wild Life and
Fisheries Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control for
professional involvement, to the Louisiana National Guard for
conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to
those Louisiana wastewater treatment plant operators who pro-
vided effluent samples and flow data.
Robert A. Lafleur, Chief; J. Dale Givens, Assistant Chief;
Lewis R. Still, Biologist; Louis Johnson, Biologist; Lee Cau-
barreaux, Biologist; Darrell Reed, Engineer; Dempsey Alfcrd,
Biologist; and Elwood Goodwin, Water Quality Control Technician,
all of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, Division
of Water Pollution Control reviewed the preliminary reports and
provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this
Working Paper Series.
Major General O'Neil Daigle, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Louisiana, and Project Officer Colonel Lawrence P. Dupre, who
directed the volunteer efforts of the Louisiana Nations! Guards-
men, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to
the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF LOUISIANA
LAKE NAME
Anacoco Lake
Lake Bistineau
Black Bayou
Black Lake
Bruin Lake
Bundick Lake
Caddo Lake
.*
Cocodrie Lake
Cocodrie Lake (Lower)
Concordia Lake
Cotile Lake
Cross Lake
D'Arbonne Lake
False River Lake
Indian Creek Reservoir
Saline Lake
Turkey Creek Lake
Lake Vernon
Lake Verret
PARISH
Vernon
Bienville, Webster
Caddo
Natchitoches and Red River
Tensas
Beauregard
Caddo (Menon and Harrison
in Texas)
Concordia
Rapides
Concordia
Rapides
Caddo
Union
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
LaSalle
Franklin
Vernon
Assumption
-------
LAKE CONCORDIA
X Lake Sampling Site
-------
REPORT ON LAKE CONCORDIA, LOUISIANA
STORE! NO. 2209
I. INTRODUCTION
Lake Concordia was included in the National Eutrophication
Survey (NES) as a water body of interest to the Louisiana Stream
Control Commission and Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission,
Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and this report
relates only to the data obtained from lake sampling.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
On the basis of field observations and Survey data, Lake
Concordia is considered eutrophic, i.e., nutrient rich and
highly productive. Whether such nutrient enrichment is to
be considered beneficial or deleterious is determined by its
actual or potential impact upon designated beneficial water
uses.
Chlorophyll a^ levels were high, ranging from 15.6 yg/1
to 54.9 pg/1, with a mean of 32.9 yg/1. Dissolved oxygen
was nearly depleted in the hypolimnion during the summer; .
Secchi disc visibility was low and potential for primary
production as measured by algal assay control yield
*See Appendix C.
-------
was high. Of the 19 Louisiana lakes sampled in 1974, 8 had
higher median total phosphorus values, and 14 had higher median
inorganic nitrogen levels than Lake Concordia.
Field limnologists observed scattered water hyacinths
around sampling site 01.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Lake Concordia was limited
by available nitrogen levels during the spring. Spikes with nitro-
gen, or nitrogen and phosphorus simultaneously resulted in increased
assay yields. Addition of phosphorus alone did not stimulate a
growth response. The assay results for the fall however, suggest
near-col imitation of phosphorus and nitrogen in Lake Concordia
at that time.
Total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus (N/P) ratios in
the lake data were 8/1 or less on all three sampling occasions,
further indicating nitrogen limitation.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:*
2
A. Surface area: 4.25 km .
B. Mean depth: 6.1 meters.
C. Maximum depth: 15.2 meters.
D. Volume: 25.925 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation:
A. Year of sampling: 155.8 cm.
B. Mean annual: 127.5 cm.
*Provided by the State of Louisiana.
-------
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Concordia was sampled three times during the open-
water season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey
helicopter. Each time, samples for physical and chemical para-
meters were collected from three stations on the lake and from
one or more depths at each station (see map, page v). During, each
visit, depth-integrated samples were collected from each stat-ion
for chlorophyll a_ analysis and phytoplankton identification and
enumeration. During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-
integrated samples were 2.7 meters at Station 01 and 5.2 meters at
Station 02. For a more detailed explanation of NES methods, see
NES Working Paper No. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in IV-A for waters at the surface and at the maxi-
mum depth .for each site. Results of the phytoplankton counts
and chlorophyll a_ determinations are included in IV-B. Results of
the limiting nutrient study are presented in IV-C.
-------
CONCORDIA LAKt
STRUCT CODE 3209
PHYSICAL AND CnE"ICAL CHASACTE^IST I CS>
( 5/30/74 )
( 11/11/74 )
MAX
PA.AyETEP
TEMPERATu-E (DEC;
0.-1.5 M i.EPTn
MAX DEPTH**
DISSOLVED QAY'3EN
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
N-
LENT)
4
(MG/L)
2
2
CONDUCTIVITY (UMHGM
0.-1.5 M DEPTH 4
i*AX DEPTH** 2
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
0.-1.5 M CE^TH 3
MAX. DEPTH** 2
TOTAL ALKALINITY
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
TOTAL P
0.-1.5 M UtPTH
MAX DEPTH**
DISSOLVED OWTHO P
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
N02*N03 (MG/L)
O.-i.S M OE-'TM
MAX DEPTH**
AMMONIA (MG/L)
O.-l.S " DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
KJEL^HL M (MG/L)
O.-l.'' M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
(MG/L)
3
2
3
(MG/L)
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
S**«
WANGE
19.6- 20.1
19.3- 20.0
7.6- 3.4
7.4- 8.2
283.- 304.
281.- 304.
7.8- B.I
7.7- 7.9
147.- 155.
146.- 152.
0.060-0.067
0.059-0.075
0.009-0.010
0.012-0.014
0.030-0.040
0.040-0.050
0.030-0.040
0.030-0.040
0.600-0.700
0.600-0.700
MEDIAN
19.9
19.6
8.1
7.6
297.
293.
7.9
7.8
148.
149.
0.066
0.067
0.010
0.013
0.030
0.045
0.03d
0.035
0.600
0.650 '
DEPTH
(fETEHS)
0.0-
2.4-
0.9-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
l.b
4.6
N«
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
KANGE
27.3- 29.4
26.3- 28.8
4.0- 7.6
0.2- 6.8
323.- 344.
325.- 341.
8.0- 8.7
7.6- 8.1
147.- 155.
150.- 154.
0.067-0.092
0.076-0.109
0.005-0.010
O.OOd-0.030
0.020-0.040
0.030-0. 060
0.030-0.040
0.060-0.140
0.700-1.400
0.700-1.000
MEDIAN
28.5
27.6
5.8
3.5
335.
333.
6.5
7.9
151.
152.
0.078
0.092
O.OOH
0.019
0.020
0.045
0.030
0.100
0.850
0.850
DEPTH
RANGE
(METEKS)
0.0-
2.4-
1.5-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
S»*» = 2
N» SANGE MEDIAN
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
i.
4
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
ld.1- 18.4
18.0- 1M.3
7.4- 9.0
7.0- 7.6
246.- 256.
247.- 254.
7.7- 8.0
7.6- 7.9
131.- 137.
134.- 134.
0.068-0.161
0. 093-0. 110
0.007-0.014
U. 009-0. 022
0.020-0.020
0.020-0.020
0.050-0.080
0.070-0.090
0.600-1.100
O.bOO-1.000
18.3
18.1
8.5
251.
251.
a.o
7.8
135.
134.
0.090
0.101
0.008
0.015
0.020
0.020
0.060
0.080
0.900
0.900
DEPTH
RANGE
(METERS)
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
Z.I- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0,0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
0.0- 1.5
2.7- 4.6
SECCHI DISC (METEHS)
0.8- 0.9
0.8
0.7- 0.7 0.7
0.9- 0.9 0.9
* iN = NO. OF SAMPLES
** waxlMUM DEPTH SAMPLED AT EACH SITE
»«« 5 = NO. OF SITES SAMPLED ON THIS DATE
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/19/74
05/30/74
11/11/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Melosira
2. Dactylococcopsis
3. Cyclotella
4. Flagellates
5. Cryptomonas
Other genera
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Dactylococcoj>sis
Nitzschia
Merismopedia
Flagellates
Anabaenopsis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Other genera
Total
Dactylococcopsis
Cyclotella
Melosira
Cryptomonas
Oscillatoria
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
36,811
2,271
847
373
373
1,288
41,963
3,889
2,608
2,150
2,105
1,098
5,079
16,929
11,286
3,587
2,678
1,099
1,005
1,578
21,233
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
03/19/74
05/30/74
11/11/74
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Chlorophyll a
(ug/D
15.6
17.9
49.4
22.9
54.9
37.0
-------
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. 03/19/74
Inorqanic N
Conc.(mg/l)
0.043
0.043
1.043
1.043
Inorqanic N
Conc.(mg/1)
0.166
0.166
1.166
1.166
Spike(mg/l)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
Ortho P
Conc.(mg/l)
0.020
0.070
0.070
0.020
b. 11/11/74
Spike(mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
Ortho P
Conc.(mg/l)
0.040
0.090
0.090
0.040
Maximum yield
(mg/1-d'ry wt.)
2.8
3.1
17.8
7.6
Maximum yield
(mg/l-dry wt.)
7.2
10.9
23.8
9.5
-------
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential for primary productivity
was high in Lake Concordia during the spring sampling season.
Increased growth of the test alga in response to an addition of
nitrogen indicates that the lake was nitrogen limited at the time
of sampling. Spikes with nitrogen and phosphorus simultaneously
resulted in maximum yield. The addition of phosphorus alone did
not produce a significant increase above the control yield.
The potential for primary productivity was also high during
fall sampling. At this time assay data suggest near col imitation
of both nitrogen and phosphorus. Individual spikes of nitrogen
and phosphorus resulted in similar increases of assay yields.
N/P ratios in the lake data were 8/1 during autumn sampling,
and 7/1 during spring and summer, indicating nitrogen limitation.
(A mean N/P ratio of 14/1 or greater is considered necessary for
phosphorus limitation to occur.)
It should be noted that significant changes took place in
Louisiana lake samples between collection and algal assay. The
assay data should be considered in this context and until such
differences are resolved, used with caution for any prediction of
actual lake conditions. Such chemical changes are likely to alter
the assay control yield as well as modifying the N/P ratio.
-------
10
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophica-
tion Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175. National
Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Pacific
Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
11
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10~4 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205= pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STu-'tT
.'.,«TL EuTriOP-iICiTIO'--
75/12/11
DATE
F'JQ!.;
TO
OF
U 0 0 1 0
r- ..ATE*
TEw*
r CENT
00300
DO
•*<3/\_
74/UJ/19
74/05/30
74/11/11
13
13
13
11
11
11
16
16
16
15
15
I1?
30
30
30
20
20
20
0000
0003
000*
0000
0005
oooe
oooo
0005
0009
20
20
20
29
29
28
1*
IB
18
.1
.1
.0
.4
.0
.6
.4
.1
.0
8
8
7
6
9
7
7
.4
.2
.6
.6
.0
.4
.0
T t-
30
000*-
C.MUUCTVY
FIELD
304
304
304
344
J4J
341
256
255
254
31 40 43.0 OVI 24 17.0
CONCOxOIA LAr.E
22 LOUISIANA
llr>.
3
[> 4 0 0
•* r4
il;
h.10
7.90
P. 70
8.60
h.10
7.94
7.7*
7.62
ft.L-tS
00^10
T AL*
CAC0.1
Ml,/L
155
152
155
154
154
137
13o
134
?n:
0012
0 0 ft 1 U .
•\M3-fJ
TOTAL
M'J/L
0.040
0.040
o.mo
0.030
0.060
0.0^0
. o.o^o
0.070
[<>•>£
FEET
oo-
TUl iv
rv
Mfj/
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
I.
1.
1. 1-
\'i.~-
JI.L
L
V 00
oOO
900
700
700
000
100
000
r-
i'i (1650
'\i0^k,N03
\-rOTtt
^fi/L
D.040
O.ObO
n.o^O
0.020
o. o*n
0.02"
0.020
0.020
n o M 7 1
•'HOS-DIS
O^TdO
MG/L J
0.009
0.014
o.oo«
0.005
0.008
0.007
0.014
0.022
DATE
FRO1'
TO
74/03/19
74/05/30
74/11/11
TIME DEPTH
Of
DAY FEET
13 IB 0000
13 15 0008
11 30 0000
11 30 OOOS
11 30 oooe
ib ?o ooon
16 20 OOOS
1ft 20 000-<
006bS
PriOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.060
0.05^
0.067
0.076
U . 0 7 1,
0.068
0.161
0.110
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
15.6
49.4
54.9
00031
INCOT LT
"F.MNlNG
PEKCEWT
-------
STOnET
VEGAS
7a/l?/H
31 37 '•<..:
CUNC0.4UIA
OATE
TO
OF
DAY FEE.T
74/03/19 13 40 0000
13 40 OOOS
13 40 001=1
74/05/30 11 10 OOoO
11 10 000?
11 10 0017
74/11/11 16 45 0000
16 45 0005
16 45 0015
01, 0 1 0
Tt'-'H
Ct IT
00^110
DO
19.7
19.6
19.3
28.1
27.3
26.3
1H.3
1*. 3
1H.3
7.8
7.4
4.0
0.2
8.6
a. 4
7.6
FIELD
35
:TV>
i
2b9
283
281
3^7
323
325
?4b
247
247
3
00-00 O'lM!)
CAC03
7.
7.
7.
8.
*.
7.
7.
7.
r.
oO
90
70
bO
03
6b
98
98
89
148
14?
146
147
148
150
133
131.
134
0121 FfLT
TOTAL M
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
030
0.-50
010
040
030
140
oso
0*0
090
0
0
1)
1
0
1
0
0
0
v C-Tn
*JtL N(Jc'kN()3 f
. 'On
.•soo
. ?00
.400
.^00
.000
.tMIO
.MOO
.800
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
030
030
o<*n
040
020
030
020
020
020
oxTr-
wj/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'0
010
OlU
012
009
010
030
OOH
008
009
00665
DATE TIME DEPTH PMOS-TOT
KP.Ofci OF
TO DAY FEET mG/L P
32217
CHLKPHYL
A
74/03/19
74/OS/30
74/11/11
13
13
13
11
11
11
16
16
16
40
40
40
10
10
10
45
45
45
0000
OOOS
0015
0000
000^
0017
0000
000^
001S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.067
.066
.075
.oeo
.092
.109
.094
.OB6
.09 3
17
22
37
.9
.9
.0
00031
INCUT LT
-------
APPENDIX C
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF LOUISIANA
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO LAKE
2202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE bISTHEAU
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 BUNDICK LAKE
2207 COCOORIE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODRIE
4807 CAODO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.031
0.057
0.061
0.04
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES iilTH HIGHEP VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO LAKE
3202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE BISTINEAU
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 B'JNOICK LAKE
2207 COCODPIE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
22U SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCOORIE
4807 CADDO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
92 (
61 (
50 (
72 (
11 (
28 (
83 (
44 (
56 (
78 (
33 (
92 (
17 (
0 (
6 (
100 (
39 (
22 (
67 (
16)
11)
9)
13)
2)
5)
15)
8)
10)
14)
6)
16)
3)
0)
1)
18)
7)
4)
12)
MEDIAN
INORG N
83
11
58
72
33
0
58
83
83
58
39
28
6
17
58
44
22
100
94
( 14)
( 2)
( 9)
( 13)
( 6)
( 0)
( 9)
( 14)
( 14)
( 9)
( 7)
( 5)
( 1)
( 3)
( 9)
( 8)
( 4)
( 18)
( 17)
500-
MEAN SEC
m (
83 (
61 (
78 (
33 (
11 (
94 (
39 (
28 <
56 (
89 (
50 (
0 (
22 (
6 (
100 (
72 (
17 (
44 (
12)
15)
11)
14)
6)
2)
17)
7)
5)
10)
16)
9)
0)
4)
1)
18)
13)
3)
8)
MEAN
CrlLOSA
89 (
61 (
72 (
56 (
44 (
11 (
83 (
22 (
6 (
94 (
28 (
39 (
67 (
33 (
0 (
100 (
78 (
17 (
50 (
16)
11)
13)
10)
8)
2)
15)
4)
1)
17)
5)
7)
12)
6)
0)
18)
14)
3)
9)
15-
MIN DO
83
0
42
50
78
100
33
14
72
42
6
14
94
22
56
28
67
61
89
( 15)
( 0)
( 7)
( 9)
( 14)
( 18)
( 6)
( 2)
( 13)
( 7)
< 1)
( 2)
( 17)
( 4)
( 10)
( 5)
( 12)
( 11)
( 16)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTr.0 P
94
50
33
81
0
17
61
81
69
56
28
69
22
11
6
100
39
44
69
( 17)
( 9)
( M
( U)
( 0)
( 3)
< 11)
( 14)
( 12)
( 10)
( 5)
( 12)
( 4)
< 2)
( 1)
( 18)
( 7)
( 8)
< 16)
------- |