EPA-600/3-78-013
January 1978
Ecological Research Series
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN
KENTUCKY LAKES
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-78-013
January 1978
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN KENTUCKY LAKES
by
W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt*, S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert*,
V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris*, M. K. Morris*,
and L. R. Williams
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
*Department of Biological Sciences
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory-Las Vegas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions
which are based on sound technical and scientific information. This infor-
mation must include the quantitative description and linking of pollutant
sources, transport mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man
and his environment. Because of the complexities involved, assessment of
specific pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach
which transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas contributes to the formation
and enhancement of a sound integrated monitoring data base through multi-
disciplinary, multimedia programs designed to:
• develop and optimize systems and strategies for moni-
toring pollutants and their impact on the environment
• demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies
by applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs
of the Agency's operating programs
This report presents the species and abundance of phytoplankton in the
5 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
Kentucky, along with results from the calculation of several commonly used
biological indices of water quality and community structure. These data
can be used to biologically characterize the study lakes, and as baseline
data for future investigations. This report was written for use by Federal,
State, and local governmental agencies concerned with water quality analysis,
monitoring, and/or regulation. Private industry and individuals similarly
involved with the biological aspects of water quality will find the document
useful. For further information contact the Water and Land Quality Branch,
Monitoring Operations Division.
George B. Morgan
Di rector
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Introduction 1
Materials and Methods 2
Lakes and Site Selection 2
Sample Preparation 2
Examination 3
Quality Control 4
Results 5
Nygaard's Trophic State Indices 5
Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices 5
Species Diversity and Abundance Indices 7
Species Occurrence and Abundance 8
Literature Cited 9
Appendix. Summary of Phytoplankton Data 10
-------
INTRODUCTION
The collection and analysis of phytoplankton data were included in the
National Eutrophication Survey in an effort to determine relationships between
algal characteristics and trophic status of Individual lakes.
During spring, summer, and fall of 1973, the Survey sampled 250 lakes in
17 States. Over 700 algal species and varieties were identified and enumerated
from the 743 water samples examined.
This report presents the species and abundance of phytoplankton in the
5 lakes sampled in the State of Kentucky (Table 1). The Nygaard's Trophic
State (Nygaard 1949), Palmer's Organic Pollution (.Palmer 1969), and species
diversity and abundance indices are also included.
TABLE 1. LAKES SAMPLED IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
STORET #
LAKE NAME
COUNTY
2101
2102
2103
2104
Lake Cumberland
Dale Hollow Reservoir
Herrington Lake
Kentucky Lake
Pulaski, McCreary, Russell,
Wayne, Clinton
Cumberland, Clinton (Clay,
Pickett, Overton in Tenn.)
Boyle, Mercer, Garrard
Marshall, Lyon, Trigg,
Livingston, Galloway (Henry,
Stewart, Benton, Houston,
Humphreys, Perry, Decatur
tn Tenn.)
2105
Barren River Reservoir
Allen. Barren
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
LAKE AND SITE SELECTION
Lakes and reservoirs included in the Survey were selected through
discussions with State water pollution agency personnel and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Regional Offices (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1975). Screening and selection strongly emphasized lakes with actual or
potential accelerated eutrophication problems. As a result, the selection
was limited to lakes:
(1) impacted by one or more municipal sewage treatment plant outfalls
either directly into the lake or by discharge to an inlet tributary
within approximately 40 kilometers of the lake;
(2) 40 hectares or larger in size; and
(3) with a mean hydraulic retention time of at least 30 days.
Specific selection criteria were waived for some lakes of particular State
interest.
Sampling sites for a lake were selected based on available information
on lake mcrphometry, potential major sources of nutrient input, and on-site
judgment of the field limnologist (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1975), Primary sampling sites were chosen to reflect the deepest portion
of each major basin in a test lake. Where many basins were present, selection
was guided by nutrient source information on hand. At each sampling site,
a depth-integrated phytoplankton sample was taken. Depth-integrated samples
were uniform mixtures of water from the surface to a depth of 15 feet
(4.6 meters) or from the surface to the lower limit of the photic zone
representing 1 percent of the incident light, whichever was greater. If
the depth at the sampling site was less than 15 feet (4.6 meters), the
sample was taken from just off the bottom to the surface. Normally, a lake
was sampled three times in 1 year, providing information on spring, summer,
and fall conditions.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Four milliliters (ml) of Acid-Lugol's solution (Prescott 1970) were
added to each 130-ml sample from each site at the time of collection for
preservation. The samples were shipped to the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, where equal volumes from each site
were mixed to form two 130-ml composite samples for a given lake. One
composite sample was put into storage and the other was used for the
examination.
-------
Prior to examination, the composite samples were concentrated by the
settling method. Solids were allowed to settle for at least 24 hours prior
to siphoning off the supernate. The volume of the removed supernate and the
volume of the remaining concentrate were measured and concentrations determined.
A small (8 ml) library subsample of the concentrate was then taken. The
remaining concentrate was gently agitated to resuspend the plankton and
poured into a capped, graduated test tube. If a preliminary examination of a
sample indicated the need for a more concentrated sample, the contents of the
test tube were further concentrated by repeating the settling method. Final
concentrations varied from 15 to 40 times the original.
Permanent slides were prepared from concentrated samples after analysis
was complete. A drop of superconcentrate from the bottom of the test tube
was placed in a ring of clear Karo®Corn Syrup with phenol (a few crystals of
phenol were added to each 100 ml of syrup) on a glass slide, thoroughly
mixed, and topped with a coverglass. After the syrup at the edges of the
coverglass had hardened, the excess was scraped away and the mount was
sealed with clear fingernail polish. Permanent diatom slides were prepared
by drying sample material on a coverglass, heating in a muffle furnace at
400 C for 45 minutes, and mounting in Hyrax®. Finally, the mounts were
sealed with clear fingernail polish.
Backup samples, library samples, permanent sample slides, and
Hyrax®.mounted diatom slides are being stored and maintained at the
U.S. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas.
EXAMINATION
The phytoplankton samples were examined with the aid of binocular
compound microscopes. A preliminary examination was performed to precisely
identify and list all forms encountered. The length of this examination
varied depending on the complexity of the sample. An attempt was made to
find and identify all of the forms present in each sample. Often forms were
observed which could not be identified to species or to genus. Abbreviated
descriptions were used to keep a record of these forms (e.g., lunate cell,
blue-green filament, Navicula #1). Diatom slides were examined using a
standard light microscope. If greater resolution was essential to accurately
identify the diatoms, a phase-contrast microscope was used.
After the species list was compiled, phytoplankton were enumerated using
a Neubauer Counting Chamber with a 40X objective lens and a 10X ocular lens.
All forms within each field were counted. The count was continued until a
minimum of 100 fields had been viewed, or until the dominant form had been
observed a minimum of 100 times.
®Registered Trademark
-------
QUALITY CONTROL
Internal quality control checks on species identifications and counts
were performed on a regular basis between project phycologists at the rate
of 7 percent. Although an individual had primary responsibility for analyzing
a sample, taxonomic problems were discussed among the phycologists.
Additional quality control checks were performed on the Survey samples
by Dr. G. W. Prescott of the University of Montana at the rate of 5 percent.
Quality control checks were made on 75 percent of these samples to verify
species identifications while checks were made on the remaining 25 percent
of the samples to verify genus counts. Presently, the agreement between
quality control checks for species identification and genus enumerations is
satisfactory.
-------
RESULTS
The Appendix summarizes all of the phytoplankton data collected from
the State by the Survey. It is organized by lake, including an alphabetical
phytoplankton species list with concentrations for individual species given
by sampling date. Results from the application of several indices are
presented (Nygaard's Trophic State, Palmer's Organic Pollution, and species
diversity and abundance). Each lake has been assigned a four digit STORET
number. [STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's computer system which processes and maintains water quality data.]
The first two digits of the STORET number identify the State; the last two
digits identify the lake.
NYGAARD'S TROPHIC STATE INDICES
Five indices devised by Nygaard (1949) were proposed under the assumption
that certain algal groups are indicative of levels of nutrient enrichment.
These indices were calculated in order to aid in determining the surveyed
lakes' trophic status. As a general rule, Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta, centric
diatoms, and members of the Chlorococcales are found in waters that are
eutrophic (rich in nutrients), while desmids and many pennate diatoms
generally cannot tolerate high nutrient levels and so are found in oligotrophic
waters (poor in nutrients).
In applying the indices to the Survey data, the number of taxa in each
major group was determined from the species list for each sample. The
ratios of these groups give numerical values which can be used as a biological
index of water richness. The five indices and the ranges of values established
for Danish lakes by Nygaard for each trophic state are presented in Table 2.
The appropriate symbol, (E) eutrophic and (0) oligotrophic, follows each
calculated value in the tables in the Appendix. A question mark (?) was
entered in these tables when the calculated value was within the range of
both classifications.
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
Palmer (1969) analyzed reports from 165 authors and developed algal
pollution indices for use in rating water samples with high organic pollution.
Two lists of organic pollution-tolerant forms were prepared, one containing
20 genera, the other, 20 species (Tables 3 and 4). Each form was assigned
a pollution index number ranging from 1 for moderately tolerant forms to 6
for extremely tolerant forms. Palmer based the index numbers on occurrence
records and/or where emphasized by the authors as being especially tolerant
of organic pollution.
5
-------
TABLE 2. NYGAARD'S TROPHIC STATE INDICES ADAPTED FROM HUTCHINSON (1967)
Index
Myxophycean
Chlorophycean
Di atom
Euglenophyte
Compound
Calculation
Myxophyceae
Desmideae
Chlorococcales
Desmideae
Centric Diatoms
Pennate Diatoms
Euglenophyta
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales +
Centric Diatoms + Euglenophyta
Desmideae
Oligotrophic
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.7
0.0-0.3
0.0-0.3
0.0-1.0
Eutrophic
0.1-3.0
0.2-9.0
0.0-1.75
0.0-1.0
1.2-25
TABLE 3. ALGAL GENUS POLLUTION INDEX
(Palmer 1969)
TABLE 4. ALGAL SPECIES POLLUTION
INDEX (Palmer 1969)
Genus
Anaaystis
Ankis trodesmus
Ch lamydomonas
Chlorella
Closteriian
Cyalotella
Euglena
Gomphonema
Lepocinalis
Uelosiva
Mtcvaeti-nium
Navieula
NitssoM-a
Oseillatoria
Pandorina
Fhaeus
Fhormid'i'um
Seenedesmus
Stigeootoniion
Synedva
Pollution
Index
1
2
4
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
1
2
1
4
2
2
Species
Pollution
Index
Ankistpodesmus falaatus
Chlorella vulgapis
Cyolotella menegTvin-iana
Euglena gvaailis
Euglena viridis
Gomphonema parvulim
Melosira varians
Navieula aryptoaephala
Nitssahia aeioulapis
Nitzsahia palea
Osaillatoria ahlorina
Ose-illatovia limosa
Oseillatoria prineeps
Oscillatovia putrida
Qscillatovia tennis
Pandorina morion
Soenedesmus quadiri-eauda
Stigeoolon-ium tenue
Syndva ulna
2
2
2
1
6
1
2
1
1
5
2
4
1
1
4
3
4
3
3
-------
In analyzing a water sample, any of the 20 genera or species of algae
present in concentrations of 50 per milliliter or more are recorded. The
pollution index numbers of the algae present are totaled, providing a genus
score and a species score. Palmer determined that a score of 20 or more for
either index can be taken as evidence of high organic pollution, while a
score of 15 to 19 is taken as probable evidence of high organic pollution.
Lower figures suggest that the organic pollution of the sample is not high,
that the sample is not representative, or that some substance or factor
interfering with algal persistence is present and active.
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
"Information content" of biological samples is being used commonly by
biologists as a measure of diversity. Diversity in this connection means the
degree of uncertainty attached to the specific identity of any randomly
selected individual. The greater the number of taxa and the more equal their
proportions, the greater the uncertainty, and hence, the diversity (Pielou
1966). There are several methods of measuring diversity, e.g., the formulas
given by Brillouin (1962) and Shannon and Weaver (1963). The method which is
appropriate depends on the type of biological sample on hand.
Pielou (1966) classifies the types of biological samples and gives the
measure of diversity appropriate for each type. The Survey phytoplankton
samples are what she classifies as larger samples (collections in Pielou's
terminology) from which random subsamples can be drawn. According to Pielou,
the average diversity per individual for these types of samples can be
estimated from the Shannon-Wiener formula (Shannon and Weaver 1963):
H = J P. logx P.
where P is the proportion of the ith taxon in the sample, which is calculated
from n./N; n. is the number of individuals per milliliter of the ith taxon;
N is the total number of individuals per ml; and S is the total number of
taxa.
However, Basharin (1959) and Pielou (1966) have pointed out that H
calculated from the subsample is a biased estimator of the sample H, and if
this bias is to be accounted for, we must know the total number of taxa
present in the sample since the magnitude of this bias depends on it.
Pielou (1966) suggests that if the number of taxa in the subsample falls
only slightly short of the number in the larger sample, no appreciable error
will result in considering S, estimated from the subsample, as being equal to
the sample value. Even though considerable effort was made to find and
identify all taxa, the Survey samples undoubtedly contain a fair number of
rare phytoplankton taxa which were not encountered.
-------
In the Shannon-Wiener formula, an increase in the number of taxa and/or
an increase in the evenness of the distribution of individuals among taxa
will increase the average diversity per individual from its minimal value of
zero. Sager and Hasler (1969) found that the richness of taxa was of minor
importance in determination of average diversity per individual for phytoplank-
ton and they concluded that phytoplankton taxa in excess of the 10 to 15 most
abundant ones bave little effect on H, which was verified by our own calcula-
tions. Our counts are in number per milliliter and since logarithms to the
base 2 were used in our calculations, H is expressed in units of bits per
individual. When individuals of a taxon were so rare that they were not
counted, a value of 1/130 per mililiter or 0.008 per mililiter was used in
the calculations since at least one individual of the taxon must have been
present in the collection.
A Survey sample for a given lake represents a composite of all phytoplank-
ton collected at different sampling sites on a lake during a given sampling
period. Since the number of samples (M) making up a composite is a function
of both the complexity of the lake sampled and its size, it should affect the
richness-of-taxa component of the diversity of our phytoplankton collections.
The maximum diversity (MaxH) (i.e., when the individuals are distributed
among the taxa as evenly as possible) was estimated from log? S, the total
diversity (D) was calculated from HN, and the evenness component of diversity
(J) was estimated from H/MaxH (Pielou 1966). Also given in the Appendix are
L (the mean number of individuals per taxa per millilHer) and K (the number
of individuals per milliliter of the most abundant taxon in the sample).
Zand (1976) suggests that diversity indices be expressed in units of
"sits", i.e., in logarithms to base S (where S is the total number of taxa in
the sample) instead of in "bits", i.e., in logarithms to base 2. Zand points
out that the diversity index in sits per individual is a normalized number
ranging from 1 for the most evenly distributed samples to 0 for the least
evenly distributed samples. Also, it can be used to compare different
samples, independent of the number of taxa in each. The diversity in bits
per individual should not be used in direct comparisons involving various
samples which have different numbers of species. Since MaxH equals log S,
the expression in sits is equal to logs S, or 1. Therefore diversity in sits
per individual is numerically equivalent to J, the evenness component for the
Shannon-Wiener formula.
SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND ABUNDANCE
The alphabetic phytoplankton species list for each lake, presented in
the Appendix, gives the concentrations of individual species by sampling
date. Concentrations are in cells, colonies, or filaments (CEL, COL, FIL)
per milliliter. An "X" after a species name indicates the presence of the
species on that date in such a low concentration that it did not show up in
the count. A blank space indicates that the organism was not found in the
sample collected on that date. Column S is used to designate the examiner's
subjective opinion of the five dominant taxa in a sample, based upon relative
size and concentration of the organism. The percent column (%C) presents, by
abundance, the percentage composition of each taxon.
8
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Basharin, 6. P. 1959. On a statistical estimate for the entrophy of a
sequence of independent random variables, pp. 333-336. In N. Artin
(ed.). Theory of Probability and Its Applications (translation of
"Teoriya Veroyatnose i ee Premeneniya") 4. Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
Brillouin, L. 1962. Science and Information Theory (2nd ed.). Academic
Press, New York. 351 pp.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1967. A Treatise on Limnology. II. Introduction to Lake
Biology and the Limnoplankton. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
1,115 pp.
Nygaard, G. 1949. Hydrobiological studies of some Danish ponds and lakes.
II. (K danske Vidensk. Selsk.) Biol. Sci. 7:293.
Palmer, C. M. 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution.
J. Phycol. 5:78-82.
Pielou, E. C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of
biological collections. J. Theor. Biol. 13:131-144.
Prescott, G. W. 1970. How to Know the Freshwater Algae. William C. Brown
Company, Dubuque. 348 pp.
Sager, P. E. and A.D. Hasler. 1969. Species diversity in lacustrine phyto-
plankton. I. The components of the index of diversity from Shannon's
formula. Amer. Natur. 103(929):51-59.
Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Commun-
ication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 117 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophication Survey
Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175. Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada, and Corvallis Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 91 pp.
Zand, S. M. 1976. Indexes associated with information theory in water
quality. Journal WPCF. 48(8)=2026-2031.
-------
APPENDIX. SUMMARY OF PHYTOPLANKTON DATA
This appendix was generated by computer. Because it was only possible
to use upper case letters in the printout, all scientific names are printed
in upper case and are not italicized.
The alphabetic phytoplankton lists include taxa without species names
(e.g., EUNOTIA, EUNOTIA #1, FLAGELLATE, FLAGELLATES, MICROSYSTIS INCERTA ?,
CHLOROPHYTAN COCCOID CELLED COLONY). When species determinations were not
possible, symbols or descriptive phrases were used to separate taxa for
enumeration purposes. Each name on a list, however, represents a unique
species different from any other name on the same list, unless otherwise
noted, for counting purposes.
Numbers were used to separate unidentified species of the same genus. A
generic name listed alone is also a unique species. A question mark (?) is
placed immediately after the portion of a name which was assigned with uncer-
tainty. Numbered, questioned, or otherwise designated taxa were established
on a lake-by-lake basis; therefore NAVICULA #2 from lake A cannot be compared
to NAVICULA #2 from lake B. Pluralized categories (e.g., FLAGELLATES, CENTRIC
DIATOMS, SPP.) were used for counting purposes when taxa could not be properly
differentiated on the counting chamber.
10
-------
LAKE NANE: LAKE CUMBERLAND
STCPET NUMBER: 2101
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INGICES
DATE 05 25 73 08 21 73 10 25 73
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENCPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
02/0 F
01/0 E
0/03 ?
0.30 E
07/0 E
3.00 E
1.00 E
0.25 E
0.25 ?
6.00 E
03/0 E
Cl/0 E
0.25 E
0.33 E
07/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 29 73 08 21 73 10 25 73
GENUS
SPECIES
00
00
03
00
03
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 05 29 73 08 21 *3 10 25 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
H
S
M
H
0
N
J
L
K
2.29
17.00
7.00
4.09
2665.32
1169.00
0.56
68.76
447.00
1.13
15.00
7.00
3.91
7133.69
6313.00
0.29
420.37
5132.00
2.34
17.00
7.00
4.09
2686.32
1148.00
0.57
67.53
628.00
-------
LAKE NAME: IAKE CUMBERLAND
STCRET NUMBER: 2101
CONTINUED
ro
05 29 73
08 21 73
10 25 73
TAXA
ANABAENA
ANABAEKA #1
ANABAENA #2
ANCMCECNEIS
APHANOTHECE
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
CERATIUM H1RUNOINELLA
CCSMARIUM
CRYPTOMONAS
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT
CYCLOTELLA
CYMBELLA
DINCBRYCN
DINOBRYON DIVERGENS
DINCFLAGELLATE #1
DINOFLAGELLATE #2
FLAGELLATES
FPAGILARIA CROTCNENSIS
MALLCMCNAS PSEUOOCORONATA
MELOSIRA #2
MELOSIRA 01STANS
MELOSIRA VAR1ANS
NAVTCULA
MAVICULA SALINAR1UM
V. INTERMEDIA
NITZSCHIA
OSCILLATORIA
CSCILLATORIA #1
PANDOR1NA MQRUM
PHACLS
SCENEDESMUS
STEPHANOOISCUS
FORM
F!L
FIL
FIL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
FIL
COL
CEL
COL
CEL
ALGAL
UNITS
S tC PER ML
4
5
2
1
1.1
6.8
9.0
38.2
33.7
2.2
1.1
X
13
X
79
105
447
394
X
X
26
X
x ^
13
X
3| 5.6! 66
ALGAL
UNITS
S ?C PER ML
1
3
4
2
5
0.31 19
\
81.31 5132
0.31 19
0.31 19
3.9| 248
1
0.31 19
2.11 133
9.1
0.9
X
572
57
X
X
0.31 19
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
I
4
3
5
X
X
54.7 628
5.3| 61
X
1.31 15
1
2.7! 31
1
9.31 107
8.01 92
i.3| 15
4.01 46
1.3
X
15
X
-------
LAKE NANE: LAKE CUMBERLAND
STORET NUMBER: 2101
CONTINUED
TAXA
SYNECRA #1
SYNEDPA DELICATISSIKA
V. ANGUSTISSIMA ?
TETRAEDRCN KINIMUM
TRACHELOMONAS
05 29 73
08 21 73
10 25
FORM
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S *C
1 1.11
1 1
1 1
1 1.11
1 1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
13
13
S *C
1 0.91
1 1
! 1
1 1
1 0.31
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
57
19
S
21
1
1
1
1
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
9.31 107
1
1 x
2.71 31
1
TOTAL
1169
6313
-------
LAKE NAME: DALE HOLLOW RE*.
STCRET NUMBER: 2102
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 05 18 73 08 18 73 10 24 73
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
04/0 E
01/0 E
0.20 ?
0.40 E
08/0 E
0/0 0
02/0 S
0/02 ?
1.00 E
06/0 E
01/0 E
04/0 E
0/05 ?
0/05 ?
05/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 IS 73 08 18 73 10 24 73
GENUS
SPECIES
00
00
01
00
00
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 05 18 73 08 18 73 10 24 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY H
NUMBER OF TAXA S
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED M
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY D
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML N
EVENESS COMPONENT J
PEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAX A L
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON K
2.12
16. 00
6.00
4.00
493.56
233.00
0.53
14.56
112.00
2.28
17.00
6.00
4.09
2948.04
1293.00
0.56
76.06
817.00
2.13
14.00
6.00
3.81
1433.49
673.00
0.56
48.07
4U.OO
-------
LAKE NAME: DALE HOLLCH RES.
STCRET NUMBER: 2102
CONTINUED
05 18 73
08 18 73
10 24 73
TAXA
ACHMANTHES MICROCEPHALA ?
ANA6AENA
ANCMCECNEIS VITREA
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
CEMTRIC DIATOM ^~
2
*
3
I
5
1
1.31 3
1
6.M 15
1
2.11 5
1 X
1
1
1
1
1
4.31 10
1 X
l.3| 3
1
30.51 71
1
1
1 X
1
48.11 112
2.11 5
1. 3 1 3
X
1.3 3
1.3 3
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
1
2
4
3
5
1
1
63.21 817
4.61 59
0.9| 12
1
1.91 24
1.9
6.4
1.9
3.6
1.9
5.5
0.9
1.9
24
S3
24
47
24
71
12
24
X
1.91 24
0.9 1 12
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
3
4
5
I
3.9| 26
1
7.3f 49
7.3
1.3
2.5
5.2
61.2
1.3
49
9
n
35
412
X
9
1.31 9
1.3f 9
-------
LAKE NAME: DAL* t-OLLCW RES,
STRET NUMBER: 2102
CONTINUED
TAXA
SCENEDESMUS #3
SYNECPA
SYNEORA #1
SYNECPA #2
TOTAL
05 18 73
08 18 73
10 24 73
FORM
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
1 ALGAL
1 UNITS
IS *C PER ML
T 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
II 1 X
233
ALGAL
UNITS
S ?C PER ML
1 1
1 1
1 1.91 24
1 0.91 12
1293
1 ALGAL
I UNITS
IS %C PER ML
III X
|2| 7.3| 49
III X
1 1 1
673
-------
LAKE NAME: HERRINGTON LAKE
STCRET NUMBER: 2103
NYGAARC TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 05 26 73 08 20 73 10 23 73
MYXCPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATCM
COMPOUND
04/0 E
05/0 E
0/09 ?
0.60 E
12/0 E
10.0 E
3.00 E
0.03 ?
0.25 ?
15.0 E
03/0 E
OS/0 E
0.27 E
0.40 E
18/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 26 73 08 20 73 10 23 73
GENUS
SPECIES
11
00
04
10
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 05 26 73 08 20 73 10 23 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBEP OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
6VENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF POST ABUNDANT TAXCN
H
S
M
H
D
N
J
L
K
1.48
21.00
4.00
4.39
15696.88
10606.00
0.34
505.05
4970.00
2.90
24.00
4.00
4.58
16173.30
5577.00
0.63
232.38
1711.00
1.70
32.00
4.00
5.00
17715.70
10421.00
0.34
325.66
7501.00
-------
LAKE NAME: HARRINGTON LAKE
STCRET NUMBER: 2103
CONTINUED
00
TAXA
ACHNANTHES MICROCEPHALA ?
ACTINASTRUM HANTZSCt-II
AMFHCRA
ANABAENA
ANABAENA #1
ANAEfAENCPSIS
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
COELASTRUM NICRCPORUM
COELASTRUM SPHAERICUI*
COSMARIUM
CYCLOTELLA
CYCLOTELLA STELLIGERA
CACTYLOCOCCOPSIS
DINCFLAGELLATE
DINOFLAGELLATE #1
CINOFLAGELLATE t2
EUGLENA #1
EUGLENA #2
FLAGELLATES
FRAGILARIA CRDTOMENSIS
GCNIUM PECTORALE
HANTZSCHIA
KIRCHNERIELLA
LYNGBYA LIMNETICA
fELCSIRA #2
MELOSIRA #A
t'ELOSIRA DISTAMS
MERISMOPEOIA HAPSSONII
MERISMOPEOIA TENUISSIMA
MESOSTIGMA
fICRGCYSTIS INCERT»
NAVICULA #1
05 26 73
08 20 73
10 23 73
FORM
CEL
COL
CEL
Fit
FIL
FIL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CCL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CCL
COL
CEL
COL
CEL
S
4
I
2
5
*C
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
46.9
46.9
0.6
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
22
89
X
89
22
22
4970
4970
X
67
S
5
1
*C
4.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.5
0.8
0.3
26.9
0.5
1.3
0.5
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
2«2
29
14
14
86
43
X
14
1498
29
71
29
S
4
I
2
5
*C
1,7
2.4
1.7
0.7
0.3)
72.0
0.3
1.4
9.3
2.0
1
1.0
1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
1*5
X
X
246
176
X
X
70
35
7501
X
35
141
1021
211
106
1 X
X
-------
LAKE NAME: HERRTNGTON LAKE
SECRET NUMBER: 2103
CCNTINUED
05 26 73
CB 20 73
10 23 73
TAXA
NAVICULA #2
NITZSCHI* 7 02
NITZSCH1A #1
NITZSCHIA HOLSATICA ?
OSCILLATORIA
OSCILLATOR I A LIMNETICA
PAKDORINA NCRUM
PHACUS ALATUS ?
PAPHIDIOPS1S
SCENEOESMUS #1
SCENEDESHUS #2
SCENEDESMUS #3
SCENEOESMUS DIMORPHIS
SCENEDESMUS QUACRICAUDA
STEPHANCOISCUS
STEPHANOOISCUS ?
SUPIRELLA
SYNECRA #1
SYNEDRA #2
SYNE DP A #3
SYNEDRA DELICAT1SS1MA
TETRAEDRCN MINTMUM
TETPAEOPCN MUT1CUM
TCTAL
FORM
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
FIL
COL
CEL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CCL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
3
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
1.3
X
X
X
67
X
39
44
22
133
X
X
ALGAL
UNITS
S K PEP ML
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1.51 S6
1 X
10.51 585
1 X
1
30.71 1711
1
I
1
1
1.8) 100
1
11.51 642
1
4.3| 242
1
1.01 57
0.31 14
1.31 71
1
ALGAL
UNITS
S %C PER ML
3
1 X
0.71 70
I X
C.3
0.3
5,4
35
X
35
X
X
563
X
X
X
X
10606 5577 10421
-------
LAKE NAME: KENTUCKY LAKE
STCPET NUMBER: 2104
NYGAARD TPQPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 05 16 73 08 13 73 10 20 73
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
4.00 E
8.00 E
0.33 E
1.00 E
24.0 E
1.33 E
2.67 f
0.25 £
1.20 E
6.00 e
1.43 E
1.57 E
0.14 ?
1.17 E
4.43 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
CATE 05 16 73 08 13 73 10 20 73
GENUS
SPECIES
04
00
15
02
17
01
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUKBER CF INOIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 16 73 08 13 73 10 20 73
H
S
M
;H
D
N
J
L
K
2.37
39.00
17.00
5,29
13049.22
5506.00
0.45
141.18
2225.00
3.64
52.00
10.00
5.70
21752.64
5976.00
0.64
114.92
1002.00
3.42
46.00
9.00
5.52
26555.72
7766.00
0.62
168.83
2943.00
-------
LAKE NAME: KENTUCKY LAKE
STORET NUMBER: 210*
CONTINUED
05 16 73
09 13 73
10 20 73
TAXA
ACHNANTHES MICROCEPHALA ?
ANABAENA #1
AKABAENA #2
ANABAENA #3
ANABAENOPSIS
ANABAENOPSIS PHIL!PPINENS1S
ANKISTP.QDESMUS
APHAMZCPENCN
APHANIZCMENCN ?
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
CENTRITRACTUS ?
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
CLCSTERIOPSIS ?
CLCSTERIUM ? #1
CLCSTERIUH 7 #3
CLCSTERIUM #2
COPLASTRUM RETICULATUM
COELASTRUM SPHAERICUM
CCSMARIUM
CCSMARIUM #1
CCSHARIUM «2
CRUCIGEMA APICULATA
CRYPTOMCNAS
CYCLOTELLA fENEGHINIANA
CYCLOT^LLA STELLIGERA
CYMBELLA
DACTYLPCOCCOPSIS
DICTYOSPHAERIUM PULCHELLUM
DINCBRYON
DINCBRYCN EAVARICUM
DINOFLAGELLATE
DINOFLAC-ELLATES
FORM
CEL
FIL
FIL
FIL
FIL
FIL
CEL
COL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S
*c
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
"
42
X
X
X
20
11
X
30
6
X
X
S
%c
1.5
5.4
0.5
0.5
3.0
0.5)
ALGAL
UNITS
PEP ML
I 88
324
X
29
X
X
X
X
X
29
X
X
X
177
X
29
S
4
*C
1.6
6.6
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
2.2
0.6
0.6
1.1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
1 128
512
1 35
1 43
I 43
1 43
1 43
1 171
X
X
43
X
X
43
85
X
X
-------
LAKE NAME: KENTUCKY LAKE
STOPET DUMBER: 2104
CONTINUED
05 16 73
08 13 73
10 20 73
ro
ro
TAXA
EUASTRUM DENTICUIATUM
EUASTRUM DENTICULATUM ?
EUCLENA
EUGLENA #1
EUGLENA #2
EUGLENA #3
FLAGELLATES
GYRC SIGMA
GYPOSIGNA 7
LYNGBYA HZ
LYNGBYA CCNTORTA
MALLCMONAS PSEUCCCCRONATA ?
MELOSIRA #2
MELOSIRA #3
MELOSIPA #4
KELCSIRA #5
MELOSIRA OISTANS
MELOSIRA VARIANS
MERISMOPEDIA
MEPISMOPEDIA MARSSONI!
MICRACTINIUM
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
NAVICULA
NITZSCHIA
NITZSCHIA #2
NITZSCHIA ACTCULARIS
OSCILLATCRIA
OSCILLATORIA LIMNETICA
PANDORINA MORUM
PEOIASTRUM BlRACtATUf
V. LCINGECORNUTUN
PEDIASTPUI" SIMPLEX
V. DUOOENARIUM
FORM
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
s
2
3
1
5
*C
31.3
1.0
9.1
40.4
4.5
0.4
0.5
1.3
0.1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
X
1753
X
1 56
1 503
1
1 2225
I 250
1 21
1 28
X
X
73
X
6
S
2
3
5
I
4
?C
0.5
0.5
15.3
12.3)
0.51
1
7.9
3.91
IS. 8
1
5.4
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
14.8
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
29
29
X
X
913
X
737
29
471
236
1002
324
29
59
29
88
X
884
X
X
X
s
3
2
5
1
*C
11.0
0.6
0.6
1
8.8
4.4
1.6
i.r
0.6
1.1
4.4
6.6
37.9
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
X
953
43
43
683
341
128
85
43
85
341
512
2943
X
-------
LAKE NAME: KENTUCKY LAKE
STCRET NUMBER: 2104
CONTINUED
r\s
05 16 73
03 13 73
10 20 73
TAXA
PEDIASTRUM TETRAS
V. TFTRAOCON
PENNATE CIATOM
PHACUS
PHACUS PYRUM
PHACUS 7CRTUS
RHIZOSOLENIA
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEDESMUS #1
SCENEDESMUS #2
SCENEDESML'S A8UNCANS
SCENEDESMUS BIJUGA
V. ALTERNANS
SCENEDESKUS DIMCPPHUS
SCENEDESMUS DISPAR
SCENEDESPUS PROTUBERANS
SCENEDESMUS QUADRICAUDA
SCENEDFSMUS QUADRICAUDA ?
V. ALTERNANS
SCHROEDERIA SETIC-ERA
STAURASTRUM #1
STAURASTRU* #2
STAURASTRUM #3
STEPHANODISCUS
SURIRELLA ANGUSTATA
SYNEDRA
SYNEDRA #1
TETRAEOPCN VINIMUM
V. SCROBICULATUH
TETRAEDRCN TRIGCNUM
V. G"ACUE
TETRASTRUM ELEGANS
FORM
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
S
*
%C
1.5
0.3
0.1
6. A
0.5
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
93
X
X
14
X
X
6
354
X
25
X
S
?c
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.9
1
ALGAL
UNITS
PEP ML
X
X
59
29
X
X
X
29
29
X
295
X
X
S
%c
1.1
0.6
2.7
0.6
0.6
ALGAL
UNITS
PEP ML
X
X
X
X
65
43
X
X
X
213
X
43
43
-------
ro
LAKE NAME: KENTUCKY LAKE
STCPET NUMBER: 2104
CONTINUED
TAXA
TRAC^LOMONAS #1
TRACHELCMOKAS <*2
05 16 73
08 13 73
10 20 73
FORM
CEL
CEL
1
1
IS
1 1
1 1
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
1 X
1 X
1
1
IS
1 1
1 1
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
1 X
1 x
1 ALGAL
1 UNITS
IS *C PER ML
III X
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
5506
5976
7766
-------
LAKE NAPE: BARPEK RIVER RES.
STORET NUMBER: 2105
NYGAARO TRCPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 05 18 73 08 11 73 10 23 73
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLORCPHYCEAN
EUGLENCPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
02/0 E
07/0 E
0.11 ?
0.80 E
18/0 E
04/0 E
01/0 E
0.80 E
0.50 E
14/0 E
2.00 E
4.67 E
0.20 ?
0.71 E
9.67 E
ro
en
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 18 73 08 11 73 10 23 73
GENUS
SPECIES
07
00
16
00
11
04
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 05 18 73 08 11 73 10 23 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAX A
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TCTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
H
S
M
;H
D
N
J
L
K
2.68
34.00
11.00
5.09
23043.52
10464.00
0.53
307.76
4402.00
1.71
25.00
11.00
4.64
24871.95
14545.00
0.37
581.80
9775.00
3.25
45.00
10.00
5.49
10959.00
3372.00
0.59
74.93
968.00
-------
LAKE NAME: BARREN RIVER R=S.
SECRET NUMBER: 2105
CONTINUED
tv
cn
TAX A
ACHNANTHES
ACHNANTHES LANCECLATA
ACHNANTHES MICRCCEPHAkA ?
ACTINASTRUP HANTZSCHII
ANABAENA
ANABAENA ?
ASTERIONELLA FORMOSA
CARTERIA
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
F. BRACHYCERAS
CHLOROGONIUM
CHPOOCOCCUS
COCCONEIS
COELASTRUM MICROPORUM
COELASTPUM RETICULATUM
CCSHARIUM
CRUCIGENIA APICULATA
CRUCIGEMA TETRAPEDIA
CRYPTOMONAS
CYCLOTELUA ATOMUS
CYCLOTELLA PENEGHINIANA
CYCLOTELLA MENEGHINIANA ?
CYCLOTELLA STELLIGERA
CYPBELLA
CYMBELLA AMPHICEPHALA
CACTYLOCCCCOPSIS
DINOBRYON BAVARICUM
DINOBRYON OIVERGENS
CINOBRYCN SOCIALE
.V. AMfRICANUM
CINOFLAGELLATE
CIW3FLAGELLATE #2
05 18 73
08 11 73
10 23 73
FORM
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
F!L
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S
%c
0.3
0.3
0.3
4.4
2.7
0.6
3.0
1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
32
X
32
X
X
32
255
X
X
287
X
1 64
319
1
S
3
5
*C
9.2
0.2
1.4
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
1333
X
30
X
207
X
S
4
*C
0.4
0.4
2.3
0.41
0.4
5.4
5.4
0.4
ALGAL
UNITS
PER HL
15
X
15
X
X
X
76
15
15
181
X
181
15
X
X
-------
LAKE NAPE: BARRFN RIVER RES.
STORE! NUMBER: 2105
CCNTINUED
ro
05 18 73
08 11 73
10 23 73
TAXA
EUASTRUN
EUGLENA
EU6LENA #1
EUGLENA 92
EUNOTIA
FLAGELLATES
GYRCSIGMA #1
GYROSIGMA #2
LYNGBYA LIMNETICA
HELOS1RA #2
MELOSIRA #4
PELOSIRA #5
MELOSIRA DISTANS
MELOSIRA VARIANS
PICRACTINIUM ?
NAVICULA #1
NAVICULA ANGLICA
V. SU8SALSA
NAVICULA TRIPUNC7ATA
NITZSCHIA
NITZSCHIA #2
NITZSCHIA HOLSATICA ?
OSCILLATCRIA
CSCILLATORIA GEHINATA
OSCILLATQRIA LIMNET1CA
PAKDORINA f»ORUM
PEDIASTRUM 6IRAOIATUK
PECIASTRUH SIMPLEX
PEDIASTRUM SIMPLEX
V. DUODENARIUM
PENNATE DIATOM
PENNATE DIATOM #3
FORM
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
FIL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
S
1
2
5
«
*C
0.3
42. 1
12.2
4.0
3.7
6.1
0.3
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
32
X
4402
1276
415
383
X
X
X
638
32
X
X
S
4
2
*C
0.4
6.1
12.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
1
1 59
839
X
X
1777
X
30
X
X
89
59
S
2
3
1
5
*C
0.4
27.8
0.4
5.4
28.7
3.1
0.9
1.8
ALGAL
UNITS
PER HL
X
15
X
938
15
181
X
963
X
106
30
X
X
X
61
-------
LAKE NAME: BARREN RIVER RES.
STORET NUMBER: 2105
CONTINUED
1X3
CO
05 18 73
08 11 73
W 23 73
TAXA
PHACLS
PAPHIDIOPS1S ?
SCENEDESMUS #1
SCENEOESMUS #2
SCENEDESMUS ABUNCANS
SCENEDESfUS OENTICULATUS
SCENEDESMUS DIMORPHUS
SCENEDESMUS GUADRTCAUCA
STAURASTRUM
STEPKANODISCUS
SYNEDRA ? #1
SYNEDRA #1
SYNEDRA OELKATISSIMA
SYNECRA CELICATISSIMA ?
TE7RAEDRON
TETRAEDPON MINIMUM
TETRAEDRCN TRIGOf-UM
V. GRACILE
TETPASTRUM STAUPQGENIAEFORME
TPACHELCMONAS
TRACHELCMONAS #1
TRACHELCMONAS SCHAUINSLANDII
TRACHELCMONAS VOLVOCINA
FORM
CEL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
CCL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
3
0.3
20.1
0.6
0.6
32
X
X
2105
64
64
X
ALGAL
UNITS
S S5C PER ML
1|67.2| 9775
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
89
89
59
30
0.21 30
1 X
ALGAL
UNITS
S ?C PER ML
1 X
4.51 151
1
1 x
1 x
0.41 15
1 x
2.31 76
1 X
0.41 15
1.81 61
1
2.7) 91
1
1 x
3.61 121
1
1 x
1
0.4| 15
1
1
1
TOTAL
10464
14545
3372
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-78-013
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN KENTUCKY LAKES
5. REPORT DATE
January 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
W.D. Taylor, F.A. Hiatt, S.C. Hern, J.W. Hilgert,
V.W. Lambou, F.A. Morris, M.K. Morris, L.R. Williams
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Environmental Monitorina and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 89114
11.
ACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
03-07-73 to 11-14-73
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/7
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Previously released in limited distribution as No. 683 in the Working Paper Series
for the National Eutrophication Survey.
16. ABSTRACT
This is a data report presenting the species and abundance of phytoplankton
in the 5 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
Kentucky. Results from the calculation of several water quality indices are
also included (Nygaard's Trophic State Index, Palmer's Organic Pollution Index,
and species diversity and abundance indices).
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
*aquatic microbiology
lakes
*phytoplankton
water quality
Kentucky
lake eutrophication
Nygaard's trophic indice
Palmer's organic pollu-
tion indices
Species diversity and
abundance indices
06 C, M
08 H
13 B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
36
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |