EPA-600/3-77-124
October 1977
Ecological Research Series
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN
MARYLAND 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-600/3-77-124
October 1977
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN MARYLAND LAKES
by
V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris*, R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris*,
L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt*,
S. C. Hern, and J. W. Hilgert*
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.
1.1
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory
actions which are based on sound technical and scientific information.
This information must include the quantitative description and linking
of pollutant sources, transport mechanisms, interactions, and re-
sulting 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 moni-
toring data base through multidisciplinary, 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 17 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the
State of Maryland, 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
Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword i i i
Introduction 1
Materials and Methods 2
Lake 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 9
Literature Cited 10
Appendix. Summary of Phytoplankton Data 11
-------
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 4 lakes sampled in the State of Maryland (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 MARYLAND
STORET No. Lake Name County
2402 Deep Creek Lake Garrett
2403 Liberty Reservoir Carroll, Baltimore
2408 Loch Raven Reservoir Baltimore
2409 Johnson Pond Wicomico
-------
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 morphometry, 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-Lugo!'s sollution (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 Protection Agency'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.
-------
TABLE 2. NYGAARD'S TROPHIC STATE INDICES ADAPTED FROM HUTCHINSON (1967)
Index
Calculation
Oligotrophic Eutrophic
Myxophycean
Chlorophycean
Diatom
Euglenophyte
Compound
Myxophyceae
Desmideae
Chlorococcales
Desmideae
Centric Diatoms
Pennate Diatoms
Euglenophyta
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales +
Centric Diatoms + Euglenophyta
Desmideae
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.7
0.0-0.3
0.0-0.2
0.0-1.0
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
Anacystis
Ankistrodesmus
Chlamydomonas
Chlorella
Closterium
Cyclotella
Euglena
Comphonema
Lepocinclis
Melosira
Micractiniwn
ffavicula
Nitzschia
Oscillatoria
Pandorina
Phacus
Phormidium
Scenedesmus
Stigeoelonvum
Synedra
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
Ankistrodesmus fatcatus 3
Arthrospira jenneri 2
Chlorella vulgaris 2
Cyclotella meneghiniana 2
Euglena gracilis 1
Euglena viridis 6
Gomphonema parvulum 1
Melosira varians 2
Navicula aryptocephala 1
Nitzschia acicularis 1
Nitzschiapalea 5
Oscillatoria chlorina 2
Oscillatoria linaysa 4
Oscillatoria princeps 1
Oscillatoria putrida 1
Oscillatofia tenuis 4
Pandorina rnorwn . 3
Scenedesmus quddricauda 4
Stigeoclonium tenue 3
Simedra ulna 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):
S
•I
1 = 1
H = -I PI logx PI.
Where P is the proportion of the ith taxon in the sample, which is cal-
culated from n./N; n- is the number of individuals per milliliter of the
ith taxon; N ii 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,
aad if this bias is to be accounted for, we must know the total num-
ber 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 phytoplankton and they concluded that
phytoplankton taxa in excess of the 10 to 15 most abundant ones have
little effect on H, which was verified by our own calculations. 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 milliliter or 0.008 per milliliter
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
phytoplankton 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 Iog2 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 milliliter) 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 ex-
pression 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.
8
-------
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.
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Basharin, G. 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 Veroyatnosei 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 laucustrine
phytoplankton. 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
Communication. 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 Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
91 pp.
Zand, S. M. 1976. Indexes associated with information theory in water
quality. Journal WPCF. 48(8):2026-2031.
10
-------
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, EUNOTIA ?, 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 uncertainty. 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.
11
-------
LAKE NAPE: DEEP CREEK LAKE
STORET NUMBER: 2402
NYGAARD TPOPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 04 21 73 07 23 73 10 04 73
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLORCPHYCEAN
EUGLENCPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
0/01 0
1.00 E
1.00 E
0.20 7
3.00 E
05/0 =
04/0 E
0.11 7
1.67 E
15/0 E
2.00 £
1. CO E
0.33 E
0.50 E
6.00 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 04 21 73 07 23 73 10 04 73
GENUS
SPECIES
02
03
01
00
01
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 04 21 73 07 23 73 10 04 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF' TAXfl
NUMBER OF SAMPLES CCMPOSITEC
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
H
S
M
;H
c
N
J
L
K
2.56
14.00
4.00
3.81
2391.04
934.00
0*67
66.71
334.00
2.89
24.00
4.00
4.58
7742.31
2679.00
0.63
111.63
686.00
2.45
16.00
4.00
4.00
5902.05
2409.00
0.61
150.56
821.00
-------
LAKE NAME: DEEP CREEK LAK =
STOPE-T NUMBER: 2402
CONTINUED
TAXA
ANABAENA
ANKISTPCDPSMUS FALCATUS
APHANOCAPSA
ARTHROCESMtlS
ARTHRODESMUS INCUS
V. RALFSII
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
V. GRACILLIMA
CENTRIC CIATOM
CHRYSOCAPSA ? PLANCTCNICA
CRUCIGENIA TETRAPEDIA
CRYPTOMCNAS
DINCBRYON S5RTULARIA
CINCBRYQN SOCIALE
CINOFLAC-ELLATE
EUGLENA
FLAGELLATES
LYKGBYA
MELOSIRA #2
PELOSIRA #3
MELOSIRA DISTANS
HERISMOPEOIA
PICPOCYSTIS
MICRGCYSTIS INCERTA
NAVICULA HI
NAVICULA #2
PFDIASTRtM TETRAS
V. TETRAODON
PEKNATE CIATCM #1
PERIDINIUM HISCONSINENSF.
SCENEDESPUS ABUNCANS
SCENEDESHUS BIJUGA
04 21 73
07 23 73
10 04 73
FORM
FIL
CEL
ecu
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
ALGAL
UNITS
S TC PER ML
1
51 7.4| 69
2
3
4
1
X
13.7 128
13.71 128
17.91 167
1 X
5.21 49
1.11 10
35.81 334
X
X
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
5
1
2
3
2. 8| 74
1.2
0.4
25.6
0.4
22.1
19.7
4.3
0.8
7.3
0.4
2.8
32
X
10
6S6
10
591
X
X
528
X
X
116
21
195
X
X
10
74
X
X
ALGAL
UNITS
S JC PER ML
5
2
4
3
0.9
4.1
2.6
2E.7
13.1
9.6
0.9
21
X
98
X
X
63
692
X
315
X
231
21
X
X
-------
LAKE NAME: DEEP CREEK LAKE
SECRET NUMBER: 2402
74XA
STEPHANCCI?CUS DUBIUS
SYNE OR A
SYNUPA
SYNURA 1
TABELLARIA
TABELLARIA FENESTRATA
CONT!NUED
04 21 73
07 23 73
10 04 73
FORM
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
1
1 X
1
1 X
5.21 49
S *C
4(10.0
1
1
1
1
1 2.4
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
269
1
1 X
63
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
... .
1 1
1 6.11 147
1 1
1 I
1(34.11 821
TOTAL
934
2679
2409
-------
LAKE NAME: LIBERTY RES.
SECRET NUMBER: 2403
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 04 11 73 07 20 73 10 01 73
MYXQPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
0/0 0
02/0 E
0/02 ?
0.30 ?
05/0 E
2.50 E
0.50 7
0,33 P
1. 00 E
6.50 E
05/0 E
0/0 0
0/05 ?
0.86 E
11/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 04 11 73 07 20 73 10 01 73
GENUS
SPECIES
01
00
03
00
02
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAHPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
WEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
04 11 73 07 20 73 10 01 73
H
S
M
;H
D
N
J
L
K
2.08
20.00
4.00
4.32
3178. 24
1528.00
0. 48
76.40
765.00
2.19
2B.OO
4.00
4.81
7513.89
3431.00
0.45
122.54
1643.00
2.83
22.00
4.00
4.46
11090.77
3919.00
0.63
178.14
1421.00
-------
LAKE NAME: LIBERTY RES.
STCRET NUMBER: 2403
CONTINUED
04 11 73
07 20 73
10 01 73
TAXA
ANABAENA
ANKISTRODESMUS
ASTERIONEULA FORMOSA
V. GRACILLIMA
GERANIUM HIRUNOINELLA
COELASTRUM
COELOSPHA?RIUM NAEGELIANUM
CRYPTOMONAS
CRYPTOMCNAS #1
CRYPTOMONAS 02
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT
CYCLOTELLA
CYCLOTELLA STELLIGERA
CYMBELLA
DINOBBYON
DINOBRYCN BAVARICUM
DINCBRYON DIVERGENS
CINOFLAC-ELLATE
EUGLENA #1
EUGLENA #2
FLAGELLATE #1
FLAG ELLA-IPS
FRAG ILARIA
FRAGILARIA CROTCNENSIS
CCMPHOSPHAERIA ? LACUSTRIS
LYNGBYA
VALLlMCNAS PSEUCCCOFONATA ?
MELOSIRA #2
fELOSIRA DISTANS
MELOSIRA ITALICA
MEPISMOPEDIA
MICRCCYSTIS
FORM
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CCL
COL
S
4
2
5
3
1
K
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.0
0.0
50.1
21.3
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
10
42
251
63
X
21
X
765
325
S
5
1
2
*C
1.4
1.4
4.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
47.9
23.6
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
48
X
48
X
143
X
X
A8
X
48
X
X
X
48
1643
X
X
X
610
S
I
4
5
2
3
*C
0.5
5.1
36.3
9.2
0.5
6.4
22.0
2.8
1.8
6.9
1.4
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
18
198
1421
360
X
X
18
249
863
X
108
1
72
1 X
1 270
54
1 X
-------
LAKE NAME: LIBERTY RES.
STOPET NUMBER: 2403
CCNTINUED
04 11 73
07 20 73
10 01 73
TAXA
NAVICULA
NAVICULA CRYPTOCEPHALA
NAVICULA HAMBER6TI
NITZSCHIA
OSCILLATORIA
PENMATE DIATOMS
PERIDINIUM
SELENASTRUM ?
STAUPASTRUM #1
S^AURASTRUM #2
STEPHANOOISCUS
STEPHANCDISCUS ? OUBIUS
STEPHANODISCUS DUBIUS
SYNEDRA
SYNEORA ?
SYNEORA «1
SYNECRA #2
SYNEORA ULNA
TABELLARIA
TABELLARIA FENESTRATA
TABELLARIA FLOCCULCSA
FORM
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S
XC
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
ALGAL
UNITS
PEP ML
31
X
X
X
X
10
X
X
10
X
X
S
4
3
SIC
3.5
13.9
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
X
X
X
X
X
119
X
476
S
*C
1.8
5.1
0.5
ALGAL
UNITS
PEP. ML
X
72
X
198
13
X
TOTAL
1528
3431
3919
-------
LAKE NAHE: LCCH RAVEN RES.
STORET NUMBER; 2409
NYGAARD TRCPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 04 11 73 07 21 73 10 Cl 73
MYXQPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
02/0 E
0/0 0
0/02 ?
0.42 E
OT/0 E
6.00 E
6.00 E
0/12 ?
1. 00 5
16.0 E
7.00 E
4.00 E
0/11 ?
1.00 E
16.0 E
00
PALMEP'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 04 11 73 07 21 73 10 01 73
GENUS
SPECIES
07
00
02
00
01
00
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 NUMBER CF INDIVIOUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
04 11 73 07 21 73 10 01 73
H
S
M
:H
D
N
J
L
K
2.50
23.00
3.00
4.52
5265.00
2106.00
0.55
91.57
712.00
1.76
25.00
3.00
4.64
9396.64
5339.00
0.33
213.56
3659.00
2.36
25.00
3.00
4.64
5354.84
2269.00
0.51
90.76
1193.00
-------
LAKE NAME: LCCH PAVEN RES.
STORET NUMBER: 2408
CONTINUED
04 11 73
07 21 73
10 01 73
TAXA
ANABAENA #1
ANABAENA #2
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
ATTHEYA
CENTRIC DIATOM
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
CHROOCCCCUS LINNETICUS
COELASTRUM RETICLLATUM
COELOSPHAERIUM
COELOSPHAERIUM NAEGELIANUM
CRUC1GENIA APICULATA
CRYFTOMONAS ?
CYCLOTELLA STELLIGERA
CYMBELLA
DINCBRYCN 6AVARICUM
DINCBRYCN OIVERGENS
DINOFLAGELLATE
FLAGELLATES
FRAGILARIA CROTCNENSIS
GCMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
LYNGBYA BIRGEI
MELOSIRA *2
HELOSIPA #3
MELOSIRA DISTANS
MELOSIRA ITALICA
HICRCCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
NAVICULA
NAVICULA CAP1TATA
NAVICULA CRYPTQCEPHALA
NAVICULA VULPINA
NITZSCHIA PALEA
OOCYSTIS
FORM
FIL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S
2
4
3
I
*C
13.7
1.2
6.6
2.4
33.8
2S.3
0.6
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
394
25
140
X
51
712
597
X
12
X
X
S
2
4
1
3
5
S5C
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
10.7
3.9
63.5
0.6
1.7
7.3
1 3.4
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
60
60
30
X
30
X
X
30
570
X
X
210
3659
30
90
390
x
X
1 ISO
S
4
5
1
3
2
?C
1.5|
3.0
0.7
4.5
1.5
S.3
52.8
5.3
15.9
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
34
65
x
X
17
103
34
X
X
189
1198
X
X
120
X
360
X
X
-------
LAKE NAME: LCCH RAVEN RES.
SECRET NUMBER.: 2408
CQNTINUED
ro
o
TAXA
CSCILLATCRIA
CSCULATORIA #1
PECIASTRUM SIMPLEX
V. DUCDENARiUM
PEDIASTRUM TETRAS
V. TETRAOCCN
PENNATE DIATOM
PENNATE CIATOM #1
PENNATE DIATOM #2
PENNAtE DIATOM #3
PERIDINIUM
SCENEOESPUS BIJUGA
SCENEDESMUS DISPAR
STAUPASTRUM
STAURONEIS ANCEPS
F. LINEARIS
STEPHANCDISCUS
STEPHANQDISCUS ? DUBIUS
SVNEDRA
SYNEDRA ULNA
TABELLARIA
TETRAECRON MINIMUM
V. SC'B'OBICt'LATUH
TOTAL
04 11 73
07 21 73
10 01 73
FORM
FIL
FIL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S
5
*C
3.0
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.2
1.2
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
63
X
12
X
12
X
X
X
38
X
25
25
2106
S
*C
>•
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
X
X
X
X
X
5339
S
%C
C.7
2.6
3.0
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
17
59
X
X
X
69
X
2269
-------
LAKE NAKE: JCHNSCN PCNO
STCRET NUMBER: 2409
NYGAARC TROPHIC STATE 1NCICES
DATE 0* 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
2.00 E
1.00 E
0.33 E
0.27 ?
8.00 E
07/0 E
25/0 E
0.09 ?
0.20 ?
36/0 E
2.00 E
5.00 E
O.C7 7
1.50 E
9.00 E
ro
PALMER'S ORGANIC PCLLUTICN INDICES
DATE 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
GENUS
SPECIES
01
00
21
07
07
04
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES CCMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAX A
NUMBF.R/ML OF HOST ABUNDANT TAXON
H
S
M
;H
D
N
J
L
K
3.28
32.00
2.00
5.00
2384.56
727.00
0.66
22.72
231.00
4.07
46.00
1.00
5.52
19552.28
4804.00
0.74
104.43
683.00
2.74
28.00
1.00
4.81
12475.22
4553.00
0.57
162.61
1422.00
-------
LAKE NAME: JCHNSON PCNO
STORET NUMBER: 2409
CONTINUED
ro
ro
04 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
TAXA
ACTINASTRUM HANTZSCHII
ANABAENA
ANABAENA #1
ANKISTPOCESMUS FALCATUS
ARTHRGDESML'S
CENTRIC DIATOM
CHLAMYDCMONAS
CLCSTERIUM
COCCONEIS PLACENTULA
COELASTPUM RETICULATUM
COELASTRUM SPHAERICUM
CQELOSPHAER1UH
COELOSPhAERIUM DUBIUM
CRUCI6ENIA APICULATA
CRUC1GENIA TETRAPEDIA
CPYPTCMCNAS
CRYPTOMONAS ?
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT
CYHBELLA
DACTYLOCOCCOPSIS
DINOBRYCN DIVF.RGENS
DINOFLAGELLATE
EUDORINA
EUDORINA ELEGANS
EUGLENA
EUGLENiA #1
EUNQTFA #1
EUNOTIA INCISA
FLAGELLATE #\
FLAGELLATE #2
FLAGELLATE #3
FLAGELLATES
FOPM
COL
FIL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CDL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
ALGAL
UNITS
S SEC PER ML
2.6
2.6
X
19
19
X
X
2.61 19
1 X
5.21 38
5(15. SI 115
CEL 11131.81 231
CEL I
2.61 19
ALGAL
UNITS
S *C PER ML
X
41 6.91 330
1 I
51 7.81 377
1
4.01 194
3.4
2.9
0.5
0.5
3.9
1.0
0.5
X
X
165
141
23
X
X
23
188
X
47
23
14.21 683
ALGAL
UNITS
S %C PER ML
2
1
5
2.4
25.8
31.2
6.2
10.1
X
X
X
X
107
1174
X
X
X
1422
284
462
-------
LAKE NAME: JCHNSCN FCND
STORET NUMBER: 2409
CCNTINUED
PO
co
04 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
TAXA
FRAGILARIA
FRAGILAPIA #1
FRAGILARIA #2
GOLENKIMA
GOLENKINIA RADIATA
GOPPHONEMA
GYPCSIGMA
KIRCHNERIELLA
LAGERHEIMtA
LAGERHEIMIA LONGISFTA
LUNATE CELLED COLONY
MELOSIRA #2
MELOSIRA #3
MELOSIRA DISTANS
MELOSIRA VARIANS
VERISMCPEDIA
flCRCCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
NAVICULA
NAVICULA RHYNCHCCEPHALA
V. AMPHICEROS
NEIDIUM APICULATUM
V. CONSTRICTUM
NITZSCHIA
CSCILLATORIA GEMINATA
PANDORINA HORUM
PEDIASTHUM BORYANUM
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX
FEDIASTRUM TETRAS
V. TETRAODON
PENNATE DIATOM #1
PHORMIDIUM MUCICOLA
PCLYEDRICPSIS SPINULCSA
FORM
cil
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CCL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CCL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
COL
CEL
S
"
2
4
*C
1
10.61
2.6
2.6
5.2
5.2
2.6
ALGAL
UMTS
PER ML
77
X
19
X
19
39
X
X
38
X
X
X
X
19
S
1
2
*C
6.4
0.5
2.9
0.5
10.8
6.4
8.8
0.5
0.5
9.3
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
306
23
141
X
23
X
X
518
306
1 424
23
1 X
1 23
I
1
1 x
1 448
1 X
S
3
4
XC
12.5
3.9
3.9
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
X
569
X
178
X
X
1 178
1
-------
z
o
o
LAKE NAME: JCHNSCN PCND
STOR'ET NUMBER: 2409
CONTINUED
ro
04 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
TAXA
SCENEOESMUS
SCEN'EDESMUS #1
SCENEDESMUS #2
SCENEDESNUS #3
SCENEDESMUS ABUNDANS
SCENEDESMUS BIJUGA
SCENEDESMUS DISPAR
SCENEDESMIS GUTVilNSKII
SCENEDESKUS PROTUBERANS
SCENEDESMIS QUADRICAUDA
SCENEDESMUS QUADRICAUOA
V. LCNGISPINA
SCHROEDERIA SETIGERA
STAUPASTRUM PUNCTULATUM
SURIRELLA
SYNEDRA #1
SYNEDPA DELICATISSIMA
SYKEORA RUPPENS
V. SCOTIA
TA6ELLARIA #1
TETRAffcRON
TETPAECRON #1
TETRASTRUM HETERACANTHUM
TRACHELCMONAS
TREUBARIA
FORM
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CCL
COL
CCL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
S
3
*C
2.6
5.2
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
19
X
X
38
X
X
X
S
?C
1.0
1.0
3.5
3.4
1.0
0.5
0.5
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
X
47
47
X
X
23
165
47
X
X
X
23
23
S
%C
0.8
1.6
0.8
0.8
ALGAL
UNITS
PFR ML
X
36
X
71
X
X
36
36
TOTAL
727
4604
4553
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-77-124
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN MARYLAND LAKES
5. REPORT DATE
October 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
V.W. Lambou, F.A. Morris, R.W. Thomas, M.K. Morris, L.R.
Williams. W.D. Taylor. F.A. Hiatt, S.C. Hern. J.W. Hilgert
t DC a criDKyil Mfz nar? AMi"7 ATII"IM MAKAC AMr-» Annaccc
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
». PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
invironmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
)ffice of Research and Development
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA608
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, NV
Dffice of Research and Development
Invironmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
03-07-73 to ll-U-73
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
previously released in limited distribution as No. 684 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 4 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
Maryland. Results from the calculation of several water quality indices are also
included (Nygaard's Trophic State Index, Palmer's Organic Pollution Index, and
pecies 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
Maryland
lake eutrophication
Nygaard's trophic indices
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
32
20. SE
S/This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |