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) ------- |