Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory
PO Box 15027
Las Vegas NV 89114
EPA-600/3-79-1
December 1979
Research and Development
Distribution of
Phytoplankton in
New Mexico Lakes
-------
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 categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and 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 species, and
materials. Problems are assessed for their long-and short-term influences. Investiga-
tions include formations, transport, and pathway studies to determine the fate of
pollutants and their effects. This work provided 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 Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/3-79-11!
December 1979
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN NEW MEXICO LAKES
by
V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris*, M. K. Morris*,
W. n. Taylor, L. R. Williams, and S. C. Hern
Water and Land Quality Branch
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitorinq and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
*Department of Biological Sciences
University of Nevada, Las Veqas
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.
11
-------
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 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 Lahoratory-Las Vegas contributes to the formation and
enhancement of a sound monitoring data base for exposure assessment through
programs designed to:
• develop and optimize systems and strategies for monitoring
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
8 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
New Mexico, 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
Page
Foreword ii""
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 A. Phytoplankton Species list for the State
of New Mexico ''
Appendix B. Summary of Phytoplankton Data 14
-------
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 1975, the Survey sampled 156 lakes in
11 States. Over 450 algal species and varieties were identified and
enumerated from the 430 water samples examined.
This report presents the species and abundance of phytoplankton in the
8 lakes sampled in the State of New Mexico (Tahle 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 NEW MEXICO
STORET No. Lake Name County
3501 Alamogordo Reservoir De Raca, Guadalupe
3502 Bluewater Lake Valencia, McKinley
3503 Conchas Reservoir San Miguel
3504 Eagle Nest Lake Colfax
3505 Elephant Butte Sierra
Reservoir
3506 El Vado Reservoir Rio Arriba
3507 Lake McMillan Eddy
3509 ute Reservoir Quay
-------
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
To preserve the sample 4 milliliters (ml) of Acid-Lugol's solution
(Prescott 1970) were added to each 130-ml sample from each site at the time of
collection. 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 ring of clear Karo® corn syrup with phenol (a few crystals of
phenol were added to each 100 ml of syrup) was placed on a glass slide. A
drop of superconcentrate from the bottom of the test tube was placed in the
ring. This solution was 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
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, phytopl ankton 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
Project phycologists performed internal quality control intercomparisons
regularly on 7 percent of the species identification and counts. 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
A phytoplankton species list for the State is presented in Appendix A.
Appendix B summarizes all of the phytoplankton data collected from the State
by the Survey. The latter is organized by lake, and includes 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 Appendix B. A question mark (?) following a
calculated value in these tables was entered when that 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
-------
TABLE 2. NVGAARD'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 +
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
Centric Diatoms + Euglenophyta
Desmideae
TABLE 3. ALGAL GENUS POLLUTION INDEX
(Palmer 1969)
TABLE 4. ALGAL SPECIES POLLUTION
INDEX (Palmer 1969)
Genus
Anacystis
Ankistrodesmus
Chlamydomonas
Chlorella
Closterium
Cyclotella
Euglena
Gomphonema
Lepocinclis
Melosira
Micractinium
Navicula
Nitzschia
Oscillatoria
Pandorina
Phacus
Phormidium
Scenedesmus
Stigeoclonium
Synedra
Pollution
Index
1
2
4
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
1
2
1
4
2
2
Species
Ankistrodesmus falcatus
Arthrospira .ienneri
Chlorella vulgaris
Cyclotella meneghiniana
Eugjena jjracilis
Euglena viridis
Gomphonema parvulum
Melosira varians
Navicula cryptocephala
Nitzschia acicularis
Nitzschia palea
Oscillatoria chlorina
Oscillatoria limosa
Oscillatoria princeps
Oscillatoria jnitrida
Oscillatoria tenuis
Pandorina morum
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Stigeoclonium tenue
Synedra ulna
Pollution
Index
3
2
2
2
1
6
1
2
1
1
5
2
4
1
1
4
3
4
3
3
-------
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.
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 (H) for these types of samples can be
estimated from the Shannon-Wiener formula (Shannon and Weaver 1963):
S
H = -Z PI logx PI
1=1
where P is the proportion of the ith taxon in the sample, which is calculated
from n-j/N; n-j 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
phytoplankton and they concluded that phytoplankton taxa in excess of the 10
to 15 most abundant ones have little effect on H. This 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 the 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
(Pielou 1966), while the minimum diversity (MinH), was estimated from the
formula:
MinH = - S£L ion 1 - N - (S-1) - N - (S-1)
mnM N I092 N N '°92 N
given by Zand (1976). The total diversity (D) was calculated from HN (Pielou
1966). Also given in Appendix B 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).
The evenness component of diversity (J) was estimated from H/MaxH
(Pielou 1966). Relative evenness (RJ) was calculated from the formula:
RJ = H-MinH
MaxH-MinH
given by Zand (1976). Zand suggests that RJ be used as a substitute for both
J and the redundancy expression given by Wilhm and Dorris (1968). As pointed
out by Zand, the redundancy expression given by Wilhm and Dorris does not
properly express what it is intended to show, i.e., the position of H in the
range between MaxH and MinH. RJ may range from 0 to 1; being 1 for the most
even samples and 0 for the least even samples.
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 taxa. Since MaxH equals log S, the expression
in sits is equal to logq 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
Appendix B, 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 that the species identified
in the preliminary examination was in such a low concentration that it did not
appear 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 entropy of a
sequence of independent random variables, pp. 333-336. In: Theory of
Probability and Its Applications (translation of "Teoriya Veroyatnosei i
ee Premeneniya"). N. Artin (ed). 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
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 Commu-
nication. 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.
Wilton, V. L., and T. C. Dorris. 1968. Biological parameters for water
quality criteria. Bio-Science. 18:477.
Zand, S. M. 1976. Indexes associated with information theory in water
quality. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 48(8):2026-2031.
10
-------
APPENDIX A
PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES LIST FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
11
-------
Achnanthes
Amphora
Andbaena
Anabaenopsis circularis
Anabaenopsis raciborskii
Ankistrodesmus falcatus
Ankistrodesmus falcatus
v. acicularis
Arikistrodesmus falcatus
v. mirabilis
Aphoniaomenon floe-aquae
Aphanothece
Arthrospira tenuis
Asterionella formosa
Binuclearia eriensis
Carteria
Ceratiitm hirundinella
Cerativm hirundinella
f. furcoides
Ch I amyd am anas
Closterium
Coelaetnm cambricum
V. intermedium
Coelastrum miaroporwn
Coelastrum retiaulatum
Coelastrwn sphaericum
Coelosphaeriwn
Cosmarium
Crucigenia rectangular>is
Cmcigenia tetrapedia
Cryptamcnas er>osa
Crypt ananas erosa
v. reflexa
Cryptomonas marssanii
Cryptomonas reflexa
Cyslotella meneghiniana
Cymatopleura elliptioa
Cymbella cuspidata
Dactyloaoccopeis irregularis
Dictyosphaerium ehreribergicmum
Uictyosphaerium pulchellum
Vinobryon divergene
Vinobryon soaiale
Vinobryon soaiale
V. americanum
Viploneis
Elakatothrix gelatinosa
Entomoneis ornata
Euglena aaus
Euglena oxyuris
V. minor
Euglena tripteris
Fragilaria capucina
v. mesolepta
Fragilaria erotaneneie
Franceia droescheri
Franaeia ovalis
Glenodinium edax
Glenodinium gymnodinium
v. bissutelliforme
Glenodinium oaulatum
Gyrosigma scalproides
Hantzsshia amphioxys
Lepocinalis playfairiana
Mall omonas aaaroides
Melosira distans
Melosira granulata
Merismopedia minima
Microcystis aeruginosa
Microcystis inserta
Nephroaytium
Nitzschia acicularis
Nitzschia longissima
v. reve rsa
Oedogonium
Ooayetis
Oscillatoria limnetiaa
Pasaherina tetras
Pediastrum bontanum
Pediastrum duplex
Pediastrum simplex
v. duodenarium
Peridinium quadridens
Phaaus acuminatus
Phacus acuminatus
v. dresepolekii
Phacus caudatus
Phacus megalopsis
Phacus pseudonordstedtii
Phormidium muciaola
Pinnularia
Planktoephaeria gelatinosa
Raphidiopsis curvata
Scenedesmus abundans
Scenedesmus bicaudatus
Scenedesmus bijuga
Scenedesmus dimorphus
Scenedesmus intermedius
v. bicaudatus
Scenedesmus quadriaauda
Schroederia eetigera
12
-------
Skeletonema potamos
Sphaeroeystis schroeteri
Spirulina sub salsa
Staurastrum
Stephanodiecus niagarae
Surirvlla ovata
Synedrct deliaatiss-ima
v. anguetissima
Synedra ulna
Tetraedrcn minimum
Tetraedrcn minimum
V. Borobiculatum
Tetrastman glabnm
Trachelcmanas hispida
Traehelananas intermedia
Tr>achelcmcnas ureeolata
I'racketamonas volvocina
13
-------
APPENDIX B. 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, EUNOTIAtfl, FLAGELLATE, FLAGELLATES, MICROCYSTIS 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.
14
-------
LAKE NAMEl
STOHET NUMBERl 3501
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE OS 0} 75 08 20 75 10 02 79
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLORUPHYCEAN
EUGLKNOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
01/0 E
04/0 E
0.40 K
0.33 E
08/0 E
07/0 E
12/0 E
0.42
0.40
29/0 E
05/0 C
06/0 E
0.18 7
1.00 E
15/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 01 75 08 20 75 10 02 75
(JENU8
SPECIES
02
03
15
04
10
03
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
IWF.hAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAX*
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIOUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML lir MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 01 75 08 20 75 10 02 75
H
S
M
XH
NH
0
N
J
RJ
L
K
1.70
16.00
3.00
4.00
0.10
3037.90
17B7.00
0.43
0.42
lll.*9
759.00
3.51
41.00
3.00
S.36
0.22
8139.69
2319.00
0.65
0.65
56.56
395.00
3,69
21.00
3.00
4.39
0.04
24844.77
6733.00
0.84
0.84
320.62
979.00
15
-------
LAKE NAME I AI.AMDGIIRDn
•TIIkCT NUMBER I 1501
CONTINUED
05 01 79
01 JO Tl
10 0] 71
TAXA
AMPHORA
ANABAKNOPSM
ANKISTRODCIMVa FALCATUB
ANKiaTRODEBMUB FALCATUB
V. ACICULARIS
ANKI8TRUDEBMUS FALCATU8
V. NIHABIL1S
ARTHROaPIRA TKNUIS
TARTERIA
CENTRIC DIATOM
CHI.ANYDUMONAS
CHKOOMDNAt T
COkXABTRUN BPHACRICUM
CRUC1UCNIA ICfRAPEGIA
CRyPTOMQNAB EflOBA
CRYPTOMUNAft MAR83DNII
CRTPTCNUNAa REFLEX*
CYCLOTELLA MENECHINIANA
DACTYLOCOCCOPBia
DICTTCISPHAFRIUM PULCNCLLUH
DIPLOHEla
EUGLENA II
LURtEHA I]
CUOLENA BPP,
EUGLCNA TRIPWRIB
FLAGEI.LATt 13
PRANCEIA DROEaCH£RI
rRANCEIA UVALU
IILCNODINIUM EDAI
HANTICCHIA
LEPOCINCLIC
NULLOMONAS ACARUIDEI
MKIIMOPLOIA MINIMA
NICROCtSTH AERUCINOtA
MICHOCIBTII INCCRTI
MtCROCYITII MINIMA
NCPHKtiCTIIUH
NITZ«CHIA ACICULAKia
NITtSCHIA ACICULAPI9 f
MITHCHIA LON6IS1IMA
I, BEYERS*
oocmis
OSCILLATORIA LIMNETIC*
P»»CHIRINA TETRAJ
PtCIAITRUM DUPLEX
PEKNATE DIATUM
PERIDIKIUM OUADRIDEKS
PHACU*
PHACU* II
PHACUI ACUHINATU8
V. ORCZEPOLSKII
PHACU5 MEQALOPIIS
PHORMIDIUM
PHORMIDIUM MUCICOLA
RAPIIIOIUPIII CURVATA
SCEMfOMMUl A1UNDANS
•CtNEDElMU« DIMORPHUI
•CENEDEBMIJ* OUADRICAUDA
•CNROEDERIA (ETIUERA
•KELETOMEMA POTAMO)
IUMIRELLA
•(NKDRA
ItNEDRA DELICATISaiNA
V. AN3U3TI3aiH«
TCTRAtnKQil MINIMUM
TCTRAEORUN MINIMUM
». ICHUBICULATUM
TRACMEI.OMONAa
TOtAI,
FORM
CEI.
PII.
CEI.
CEL
CEL
FIL
CKL
CCL
CCL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CKL
CEI.
CCL
cr.L
CEL
CEL
CCL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CCL
CCL
CCL
r.w.
CKL
PIL
COL
COL
CEL
CCL
CKL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
TIL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
CCL
CCI
MIL
CCL
CEI
cei
CCL
CEL
AI.GAL
UNIT8
a »c PER ML
1
1
40.
42.5
2.5
2.B
12.6
X
715
X
X
759
49
45
X
X
X
X
X
211
X
X
X
ALGAL
UNITI
B %C PER ML
1 X
I X
1
6.41 141
1
1
1
1 X
6.11 141
1 X
1
2.11 49
1 X
».4| 149
1
1 X
1
1
2.11 49
1 X
1 X
1 X
4.11 99
1 X
1
1 X
1
1
1
1 X
1
1 X
1 X
1
1 X
1
1
17.01 195
1
1 X
9.11 I9T
14.91 14*
1 X
2.11 49
4.1) 99
1 X
1
1 X
1
1 X
1 X
i
1 X
17.01 Id
1 X
1 X
1
2.11 49
4.11 99
1
1
1
1 X
1
1
2.11 49
1 X
ALGAL
UNITB
B tc PCR ML
1
1
1
1
1
5.51 171
1
l.SI 211
14.51 979
|
I
1 X
1
1
7.*l 111
11.11 74t
1
1
1 X
1
1
1
11.91 791
1
2.11 140
1
0.7| 47
1
1
10.01 «70
1
11.11 74t
1
1.41 91
1,91 197
1
1
1
1.51 211
1
1
I
1
1
1 X
1
I
1
2.11 140
I
1
I
1
1 I
2.91 1(7
9.11 MO
1
1
1
1
1.41 91
1
1
1
1717
2119
(711
16
-------
LAKE NAMEl BLUEWATtR
STCJRET SUKBERl J50J
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE OS 05 75 OB 19 75 10 01 75
HYXOMYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLCNOPHYTB
DIATOM
COMPOUND
01/0 E
01/0 E
0/02 1
0.33 E
03/0 E
03/0 E
0/0 0
0/03 »
1,00 C
04/0 E
01/0 E
01/0 E
0/02 T
01/0 E
03/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 OS 75 08 19 75 10 01 75
GENUS
SPECIES
08
oa
06
00
00
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
MINIHUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
tOTAL NUMREJK CJF INUIVIUUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER Of INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML UP MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
OS 05 75 08 19 75 10 01 75
H
8
M
XH
NH
0
N
J
RO
L
K
2.58
11.00
3.00
3.46
0.08
4117. te
1596.00
0.75
0.74
145.09
570.00
1.63
8.00
3.00
3.00
0.05
2906.29
17HJ.OO
0.54
0.54
222.88
1213.00
1.27
5.00
3.00
2.12
o.os
1062.99
837.00
0.55
0.54
167.40
432.00
17
-------
LAKE NAMFl BLUE'ATEK
STOkET NUMHERl 3503
TAJA
APHANIZOMCNON FLUS-AOIIAE
ABTERIONELLA FORMOSA
CHLAMYDOHC1HAB
CHROOMONAJ T
CRYPTOMUkAS IRflSA
CHTPTONONAI ER05A
V. REKLEXA
Ctci,Ott:Ll.«
CICLOTELLA HENCGHINIANA
DACTYLIICaCCtlPSIS
rLAGELLATt
MELOSIRA
HICKOCYSTIK ACRUGINOSA
NITtCCHIA
PHORHILUUM
•CHROKDERI* SETIGERA
OVATA
CONTINUED
OS OS 75
10 01 75
1 ALGAL 1 ALGAL
1 UNITS 1 UNITS
rrmn is %c pro ML n %c PER ML
riL i i i nui.oi nit
CEI, 1 1 | (II 1
CEL 191 7.11 114 131 8. 51 1»2
CEL 1)110,71 171 Ml I. SI 151
CCL | | | I HI 6.4| 114
III 1
CEL | | | XI
CKL III IS
CEL IIIJl, 4| 342 1
CEL 1 | 7,l| 114 1
CEL 13115,71 S70 I
CEL 1 | | |
COL 1 1 | |
CCL 1 1 ).«| 57 1
riL 1 1 1 1
CEL 14110,71 171 1
RCL 1 1 l,«l 57 1
4.1
4.1
7*
X
X
7«
ALCAL
UNITS
I »C PER ML
1141.91 151
2
)
31. t
6.5
4)2
54
X
X
TOTAL
1)11
117
18
-------
LAKE NAMEl CONCHAS RFS.
STCRET NUMBER I J503
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 05 01 75 08 21 75 10 03 75
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
0/0 0
04/0 E
0/04 ?
0.33 E
OS/0 E
4.00 E
3.00 E
0.29 E
0/03 T
9.00 E
1.50 E
4.00 E
0.82 E
0.33 E
10.5 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 01 75 06 21 75 10 02 75
GENUS
SPECIES
02
03
07
03
00
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER Of TAXA
NUMBER OK SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF IKDIVIDUAL8/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE: EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 01 15 08 21 75 10 02 75
32.00
4.00
9.00
1.01
682.69
293.00
0.47
0.34
9.16
118.00
H
8
M
XH
NH
0
N
J
RJ
L
K
1.36
11.00
4.00
3.46
0.08
1972.02
1429.00
0.40
0.39
129.91
915.00
2.24
20.00
4.00
4.12
0.24
1968.96
879.00
0.52
0.50
43.95
402.00
ia
-------
LAKE MlMll COHCHA4 BTB.
SIOHII NUNBEP-1 350)
CCINTIKUED
OS 01 79
01
10 0} 7S
t»X»
ANABACN*
kNKHIRODEBHUS
V. »C1CUL»R1*
V. N1RIBILI1
AITKHIOXELU FORMOSA
CHROOHCKAS 1
CL09TEP.IUH It
CLOSTEKIUM 11
CbdAATRUN C*"BRICU«
V. INTERMEDIUM
CTCLCTILU HENEOHINIAN*
CWATOPLEUfl. ELLIPTIC*
D»CT»LncOCCOPSIS 1RHECUL1RI1
DlNOIRtON DIVCtOENl
IT.
saCJiLt
M
IfHTINOS*
IUGLENA
OLtdODIKJUM
CtrMODINlUN
V.
LCPOCINCLI*
•»LLCHQ««»
KlCHDCYSTIt
NICJ)OC>«IIS INCERT1
•1TIICHII
LIMNETIC*
1IKPLEX
». OUOOEHARIUX
PHICUI *CU*INATU3
PHtCUl ACUHINATUS
V.
QUJlCKICIUQI
lPH«!flCCIiII9 BC«»Q«t'RJ
IPIKVLJNI SUiSALJA
KIICORI
II»«Om ULNA
KTRAEfJHON H]HINU«
r,
FORN
rii
CEL
CCL
CEb
CtL
CEL
CEL
CtL
CEL
CtL
CtL
CfL
CIL
CCL
CEL
CEL
CDL
CIL
tit
CEL
CEL
CtL
CEI,
CEL
CEL
CtL
CDL
COL
CtL
CIL
Pit
COL
CtL
CtL
CtL
ClL
rcL
C3L
C3L
COL
cet,
rit
CEL
CIl
CtF,
«M,
CIL
ALGIL
UNIT*
8 1C »CR ML
11,4
1.1
t».o
«.*
119
41
91!
I
II
I
I
11
114
X
I
)
1
*bg»L
QHtTB
I tC PER KL
1J.5
49.1
4.1
4,3
10,1
• .1
4.1
X
110
X
401
I
JT
I
X
X
X
X
I
X
«
til
71
X
X
I
17
kLCAL
UNIT*
1 1C PER XL
1
t
SI 9.9
1
a 40.1
1 30,1
».»
t 9f«
39
X
III
I
X
X
59
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
1
I
I
(
X
X
X
IV
I
at
I
X
»
I
X
X
I
ill g.vi l*
TOTAL
1119
291
20
-------
LAKE NAME I EAGLE NEST LftKK
STORET NUMBER I 3504
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE 05 06 75 08 21 75 10 07 75
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
0/0 0
01/0 E
0/01 ?
1.00 E
02/0 E
2.00 E
3.00 E
0/05 ?
0.50 E
6.00 E
04/0 E
02/0 E
0/06 ?
1,00 E
07/0 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 06 75 08 21 75 10 07 75
GENUS
SPECIES
00
00
00
00
05
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMPER OF TAXA
NUMBER Of SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OK INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 06 75 OB 21 75 10 07 75
H
3
M
XH
NH
D
N
J
RJ
L
K
0.94
5.00
2.00
2.J2
0.01
4460.30
4745.00
0.41
0.41
949.00
J042.00
1.96
11.00
3.00
3.46
0,16
1330.94
679.00
0.57
0.5S
61.73
389.00
1.44
13.00
3.00
3.51
0.03
9184.96
5684.00
0.40
0.40
473,67
3639.00
21
-------
LAKE NIMEl CAfltE NEST LAKE
STURET NUHBCHI 1504
TAXA
ANABAENA
ANABIKNUPSIS CIRCULAR!*
MKiaTRnocsMus I-ALCATUS
APHAHIZUNENON rLOS-AOJAt
CHRUONCINA3 T
CLOSttHUM
CHTPTOMUNAS EHOSA
CRYP-(OMr|MA« MXRSSUNII
CRYPTdMUNA* «PP,
CYMATOPLGURA
fRAOILAHIA CAPUCINA
CONTINUED
05 06 7S
01 II 79
10 07 7»
MICKUCY«TIS AERUCINIJSH
OOCYSTU
OSCILLATIJRIA T
PtNNIILAKIA
SCENKDEHMUg
•CH»aKDl:HIA aCTICERA
SPMXKROCYSTIS gCHHUKTEHI
IfEPNANDDIICUS NIASARAC
TOTAL
1 ALGAL | ALOAL
1 UNITS | UNITS
FORM 1* tC PER ML l« 1C PER ML
riL i
riL i
CSL 1
riL i
TEL 12
CKL 1
Cf L 1 1
CEL 1
CKL 1
CEL 1
1
CCL 1
CUL 1
CEL 1
rii. i
CKL 1
CI1L 1
CEL 1
COL. 1
CEL 1
15.9
64.1
1
1
1 I
II
1703 14
I
104] |1
1
1
I 1
1
1
1
1
1
I
|
S7.1
I».l
4.7
4.7
X
119
110
X
1]
X
13
X
4.71 11
151 4.7| 13
I 1 1
X 111 4.71 )3
ALGAL
UNITS
S tC PER NL
1
4
•i
)
%
64.0
JO. 7
1.0
11,*
o.t
I
1*19
1171
X
X
171
X
X
*S9
IS
X
X
474S
»79
5*14
22
-------
LAKE NAME I ELEPHANT BUTTF RES.
STOHET NUMBER! 3505
KYGAARD TROPHIC STATS INDICES
DATE 03 02 75 08 19 75 10 01 75
MtXOPHYCEftN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTI!:
CUMPOUND
0/01 0
5.00 K
0/05 ?
0.50 E
6.00 E
3.00 F.
3.00 f.
0/06 T
01/0 E
7.00 E
0/01 0
0/01 0
0/0 ?
0.50 C
1.00 0
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATC 05 02 75 08 19 75 10 03 75
GENUS
8PECIE3
02
03
02
00
00
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
HUMDSR Or 3AUPL.C3 COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER DP INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 02 75 08 19 75 10 03 75
0.93
5.00
4.00
2.32
0.47
57.66
62.00
0.40
0.25
12.40
41.00
H
S
M
XH
NH
D
N
J
RJ
L
K
1.39
12.00
4,00
3.58
0.09
200B.55
1445.00
0.39
0.38
120,42
722.00
2.83
12.00
4.00
3.58
0.09
4403.48
1556.00
0.79
0.7y
129.67
437.00
23-
-------
LAKE NAMEl ELEPHANT »UTTE RE«.
1IORET HUNKER I JSOS
TAX4
ANABAEMA
ANKISTRIinclMUI fALCATUS
V. ACICULARIB
CARTCRIA
CCKAT1UM HIRUWUJNELLA
r. fURCOIDES
CHROOMC1MAS ?
CLOSTKRtUM
COELXaTRUM MICROPORItM
CRYPTOHIINAC CR03A
CRYPTOMONAi MABSSOH11
CtMBELLA
mAGILAKIA CROTOHEN8IS
NEL08IHA CRANULATA
NERIflNOCEOIA MINIM*
MICRUCY6TI* INPtRT*
OOCT8TI5
PSDIASTPUH HORtANUH
RtKNATC DIATOM
ICCMEnCHMUB IHTCRMCOIUI
«. mcAUoATua
SCHROtnEBIA ttTICKtlA
fFHACROCYKTIB
8TCPHANUDTBCU3
ftNCDHA
TOTAL
CONTINUED
09 02
01 U IB
tO 01 15
ran*
rit
CEL
CCL
CKL
CEL
CM.
CUL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CKL
CEL
COL
COL
CXL
COL
CEL
COL
CEL
CKL
AtOAL
UNITS
* %C PER ML
4
a
]
>.«
42.]
).<
56
All
X
56
X
X
X
X
X
X
ALGAL
UNIT!
1 1C PER ML
!l 1.71 27
1
4
3
i
1
11.11 III
1
1 X
17. SI 271
J.Sl IS
i
5.31 11
1
1
1
1
7.01 10*
7.0| 10V
1.71 27
1
1
1
7.0| 10*
1 X
CEL 11150.01 79] I1IJ8.II 417
CEL 1 1 1 X|| I
ALOA1,
UNITS
8 *C PER HO
3
1
11. i
66.1
21
X
X
X
41
I44<
24
-------
LAKE NAME! El, VADO RES.
STORET NUMBER I 350*
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE OS OS 75 OB 19 75 10 01 75
MYXQPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUOLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
0/0 Q
0/0 0
0/0 7
O.JO ?
01/0 E
01/0 E
0/0 0
0/01 1
0/0 7
01/0 E
02/0 E
0/0 0
0/02 7
01/0 E
03/0 B
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 05 75 0« 1SI 7* 10 01 75
GENUS
SPECIES
00
00
00
00
00
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITE)
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OP INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIOUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MUST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 OS 75 OB 19 75 10 01 75
H
S
M
XH
NH
D
N
J
RJ
L
K
2.05
10.00
3.00
3.33
0.28
631.40
300,00
0.«2
0.59
30.80
123.00
0.33
2.00
3.00
1.00
o.oa
171.93
921.00
0.33
0.32
260.50
490.00
1.60
7.00
3.00
2. 8t
0.13
782.40
489.00
0.57
0.55
69.86
234.00
25
-------
LAKE K'HEl EL VAI>0 RFS.
ITONET NUMBER) 1106
ANABAENA
APHANIZONENON CLOS-AQUAE
CHROOHnms }
CHVPTOMONAa EROS*
CX(PTOHONA« MAPSSOMII
CYCbCTLubn
CLCNHDINIUM UCIILATUM
HANTIBCHIA
HANTZBCHIA AMPNtOxrs
NCIDIUN T
KITtBCHI*
eitPHANDDtlCUa
BURIRELL*
TOTAL
09 OS 78
01 19 IS
10 01 7S
roKH
PIL
TIL
CtL
CtL
CtL
CtL
CtL
CCL
CtL
CIL
CtL
CtL
CtL
i
a
l
1
11
II
2
4
S
1C
1
1
139.9
119.9
110. 1
10.1
10.1
ALOAl |
UNITS |
flu HL 19 1C
1 1
121 6.0
91 11194.0
131 1 1
31 1 1
11 1 1
X 1 1
X 1 1
< 1 1
I 1 1
11 1 1
1 1
X 1 1
ALGAL
UNIT!
PER ML
1 Jl
1 4UO
1
1
IS «C
1 1
11147.9
12136.0
11113.1
Ml 4.1
1
1
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
1 X
1 334
1 176
1 BV
30
X
X
531
419
26
-------
LAKE NAMEI LAKE MCMILLAN
8TORKT NUMBERl 3507
NYCAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICKS
DATE OS 01 75 08 20 75 10 03 75
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUGLENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
0/0 0
02/0 E
0/OJ f
0.25 ?
OJ/0 E
4.00 E
2.00 E
1.17 E
0,50 C
14.0 E
04/0 E
OS/0 E
O.S6 E
0/03 T
14/0 C
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 01 75 08 20 75 10 02 75
GENUS
SPECIES
01
00
13
00
11
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND AIUNDANCC INDICES
DATE 05 01 75 01 20 75 10 02 75
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINK
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RKF/ATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
H
S
M
XH
NH
D
N
J
RJ
L
K
2.11
10.00
3.00
3.12
0.02
15521,27
7357.00
0,44
0,44
718,70
2713.00
2.19
32.00
1.00
4.46
0.21
2571.25
1175.00
0.49
0,47
53.41
550.00
a. 41
21.00
1.00
4.39
0.06
105*0. 6J
4382.00
0.55
0.55
201.67
2280.00
27
-------
LAKE Mint I LAKE NCNILLAI
•TORET RUNIERI HOT
CONTINUED
PI 01 71
01 10 71
10 01 71
TAXA
ACHNANTHC*
ANAIAENA
ANAIAEIOPIU CIRCULARl*
ANARAENOPII* RACIIORIKII
ANKIITRODEtNIU fAtCAtUI
v. NIRABILII
•INUCLEARIA ERIENIII
CHLOROPHYTAN CELL •*
CHLOROPHITAN COCCOIO CELLED COLORI
CHLOROPHTTAN LUIATE CELL
CHRDONONAI T
COELOSPHAEMIUN
COINARIUN
CRTPTONOMAI EROIA
CtCLOIILH
OICTT01PHACRIUN PULCHELLUN
DirbONEIt
ERTQNONEU ORNAIA
EUOLENA It
IUOLEMA II
EUdbENA II
EUCLENA ACU«
EUGLENA QXTURIi
V. MINOX
EUGLEHA TRIPTCRII
OLENODINIUM OCULATUN
HANtt»CHIA ANPHIOXM
LCPOCINCUi PLA«PAIRIA«A
MItUCHIA
•ITIICHI) LONOI*IINA
OOCT8TII
OtCILLATOHIA
OCCILLATORIA LINHEIICA
PEDIAITRUN DUPLEX
PHtCUl ACUMIIATUI
PHACUf PfEUDONORDMEDTII
•CCNEOEINUI IIJUOA
•UHIRtLLA
TETRAtORON NIRINUN
V. ICROIICULATUN
TRACHELONONAI URCEOLITA
TOTAL
PORN
CEL
riL
riL
riL
CEL
PIL
CEL
CCL
CEL
CCL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CSL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
PIL
PIL
COL
CEL
CEL
CDL
CEL
CEL
CEL
•
t
1
1
1
4
tc
117.1
11.*
1.1
27. t
).»
4.1
ALGAL
UNIT*
PER ML
1 1711
1*11
410
tt(7
210
1
I
111
X
X
1
1
1*
1
a
i
>
4
»C
I.t
1.1
1.1
11.1
44.1
11.7
12.1
ALGAL
UMITI
PER ML
X
X
17
X
I
11
1?
X
147
X
X
X
X
X
ISO
120
X
147
X
X
X
X
•
4
1
1
1
2
tc
1 1.7
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.7
1.1
S2.0
10.0
0.7
14.0
0.7
0.7
0.1
ALOAL
UN Hi
PER NL
1
1 110
1 SI
1 11
I
141
11
X
X
117
a*
141
X
X
1210
411
2*
114
21
X
a*
21
71IT
till
4111
.28
-------
LAKE NAMEl UTE RES.
BTfiRET NUMBER I 3509
NYGA».RD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE OS 02 75 06 20 75 10 0] 75
MYXOPHYCEAN
CHLOROPHYCEAN
EUULENOPHYTE
DIATOM
COMPOUND
02/0 E
04/0 G
0,17 1
0,40 E
09/0 E
1.00 E
2.33 C
0.10 E
0.50 E
4.67 E
0.90 E
1.60 C
0.31 C
2.00 C
3.60 E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 05 02 75 08 20 75 10 OJ 75
GENUS
SPECIES
00
00
03
00
03
00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH
MINIMUM DIVERSITY MINH
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL Nl'HBFR OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
EVENNESS COMPONENT
RELATIVE EVENNESS
MEAN NUMBER Of INOIVIDUAL8/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
05 02 75 06 20 75 10 03 75
H
B
M
XH
NH
D
N
J
P.J
L
K
1,84
17.00
4.00
4,09
0,20
1654,16
899,00
0,45
0,43
52,60
490.00
3.19
28.00
4.00
4.81
0,23
4408,58
1382,00
0.66
0.65
49.36
280.00
2.93
27.00
4.00
4.75
0.53
1494,30
510.00
0.62
0,97
18.89
142.00
29
-------
LAKE KtHEl UTE HIS.
1TQRCT NUHtltRt 1401
TAXA
ANKISTRODtaNUa FALCATUa
V. M1HABIUB
APNANIIOHENON »L08-»IJU»E
APHANOTHECE
CCRATIUM HIRUNDINCLLA
CHLAMIDONONAa
CHHUOMOKX t
CLOaTCKlUM II
CLOaTERIUN 12
COELA1TRUM RITICULATUM
COINARIUM II
COBNARIUM 12
CfcUCICENU RECTANSULAIUS
CKUCIGCNI* TETRAPEDIA
CRIPTONONAI CRDSA
CRYPTOMONAB MARSSONII
CICLOTELLA
CICLOTtLLk NINrGHHUANA
CINIELLA
CYNBILLA CUBPIDATA
DACTILOrOCCOPSU IRRHJULARIS
DICTiruaiiHlEKtUH EHRENBCftCIANUN
DtCllOaPHAERIUH fULCMElLUK
DIHOBHYOM SOCItLE
IIMUNA
COUTIKUKD
OS 03 7J
01 90 79
10 01 71
GLINUDINIUM OHNODINIUM
*. HSCUTILHrURMt
CblNODINlUM UCULATUH
eLOEOCMTII T
OTRC»JGH» •CALI'HOIDCB
MCLOfIRt
MKKlillUPKDIA HINIH*
OCD060NIUH
OOCWI*
OSCILLATURZA LIHNETITA
PCDIAITRUK SIMPLEX
». DUODtMARIUN
PfRIDIMIUH OUADMICtNS
PHACUS ACIIMINATU5
V. DREICPOkaKII
PHACUI CAUDATUt
PHACUt NKOALOP1I8
•CCIlCDEaMlla BICAUOATU4
tCCNCDOMIIS BIJUCt
aCCNCDESNUIt UbAOHKAUDt
•TAU«*aTRUN
• riPrlANODlSCUS
((NCDRA
arOCDRA ULNA
TCTRAEDRON MINIMUM
*. ICROBICULATUM
TKTR*1TRUM CLABRUM
THACHCLOMONAS HIRPIDA
TRACHELOMONAS IHieRMCDIA
tKACHELOMONAa VOLVOCIH*
TOTAL
ORM
CEL
riL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CIL
COL
COL
CEI,
CKL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
Cll,
COL
COL
CIL
cn
CfL
CEL
CCL
CEL
CEL
ret,
CKL
COL
FIL
COL
riL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CCL
COL
COL
COL
cut
CCL
CEL
CEL
cct.
CEL
COL
CCL
CCL
CKL
ALGAL
UNIT3
a tc PER ML
4
1
2
B
1
«4.5
11. 1
11.7
4.t
'.1
X
490
111
191
41
X
X
X
12
X
I
X
X
X
X
i
X
ALGAL
URiia
a tC PER ML
4
1
1
S
2
J
1
1
1.41 19
1
20.11 210
1 X
1
1 X
t X
1
1.41 19
1 X
14.11 209
1
9.41 79
1
1
1
10.11 149
1
1
1 X
1
I
1
1 X
l.4| 19
1 X
1 X
1
1
14.21 224
1 X
4,11 S*
2.71 17
1 X
1
1 X
1
1 X
1
1
1 X
1.4| 19
|
1 X
1
It. 21 214
1
1
1.4) 19
1
2.7| 17
|
1
ALGAL
UNITS
a \C PER ML
1
1
S
I
4
2
)
11.2
9,9
27.1
9.9
11.2
11.2
9.9
9.9
U.7
X
X
X
87
X
211
X
142
21
X
X
X
I
X
57
ST
I
X
11
X
X
I
X
2*
19
I
X
• »» 1112 110
30
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-79-118
RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN NEW MEXICO LAKES
BEPORT DATE
ecember i979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
V.W. Lambou, F.A. Morris, M.K. Morris, W.D. Taylor,
L.R. Williams, and S.C. Hern
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 89114
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BD884
11. CONTRACT/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 FIEPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
02-21-75 to 12-11-75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This is a data report presenting the species and abundance of phytoplankton
in the 8 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
New Mexico. 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).
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Held/Group
*aquatic microbiology
lakes
*phytoplankton
water quality
New Mexico
lake eutrophication
Nygaard's trophic indices
Palmer's organic pollu-
tion indices
Species diversity and
abundance
T
08
13
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
.NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
> US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-683-282/2215
------- |