oEPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Environmental Monitoring
            and Support Laboratory
            P.O. Box 15027
            Las Vegas NV 89114
EPA-600/3-79-079
July 1979
            Research and Development
Phytoplankton Water
Quality Relationships
in U.S. Lakes, Part VII:

Comparison of Some
New and Old  Indices
and Measurements of
Trophic State

-------
                  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 a maximim interface in related fields.  The nine sereies 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-600/3-79-079
                                                   July 1979
PHYTOPLANKTON WATER QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS IN U.S.  LAKES,
   PART VII:  Comparison of Some New and Old Indices
           and Measurements of Trophic State
                           by
              W. D. Taylor, L. R. Williams,
              S. C. Hern, and V.  W.  Lambou
             Monitoring Operations Division
     Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
                Las Vegas, Nevada  89114
     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 A
-------
                                   FOREWORD


     Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions  that
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  envi-
ronment.  Because of the complexities involved, assessment of specific pollu-
tants in the environment requires a total systems approach that 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
monitoring data base for exposure assessment through 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 compares and evaluates the relative abilities of 38 indices
and measurements of trophic state to rank a test set of 44 eastern and south-
eastern U.S. lakes, representing 17 states.  Results of the comparisons will
aid researchers, monitors, and watershed managers in the selection of the prop-
er trophic index to meet their specific requirements.  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 individ-
uals 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.
                           / £»/-> T^
                         ^    George B. Morgan
                                   Director
               Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
                                  Las Vegas
                                     m

-------
                                   SUMMARY

     The purpose of this report is to describe several new phytoplankton com-
munity-based indices to lake trophic state and rate their performance against
indices and measurements already in use.  Indices and measurements of trophic
state are highly desirable to aid states in meeting lake classification re-
quirements under Section 305b and monitoring the success of Clean Lakes res-
toration efforts under Section 314 of the Water Bill (PL92-500).   The large
variety of indices and measurements which are available makes it  difficult
for users to choose the best one for specific lake monitoring or  classifica-
tion applications.  A selection aid was developed using rank correlation pro-
cedures to rate the relative ability of each index or measurement to rank a
test set of 44 lakes according to two trophic standards, mean summer total
phosphorus and chlorophyll _a.

     Included among the indices and measurements tested are ten new community-
based phytoplankton indices developed at EPA's EMSL-Las Vegas; Vollenweider1s,
Dillon's, and Larsen and Mercier's loading models for estimation  of lake am-
bient phosphorus; multivariate indices including Boland's PC1-, and PClp and
the CERL TSI; single parameter measurements including Secchi disk transparency,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll _a, conductivity; algal
community-descriptive indices including Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices,
Nygaard's Indices, Number of phytoplankton species, Shannon-Wiener's Diversity
Index, and Pielou's Evenness Component of Diversity; transformed  single param-
eter indices by Carlson; and N/P ratio.

     The new phytoplankton indices were developed as a direct result of an
extensive investigation of phytoplankton relationships to environmental con-
ditions in 250 lakes from 17 eastern and southeastern States.  Although sev-
eral of these indices performed relatively well, all should be considered
preliminary in nature, as refinements and more extensive testing  are in pro-
gress.

     Phosphorus is generally considered to be the most important  nutrient
associated with eutrophication of fresh waters, while chlorophyll  jj is con-
sidered the primary parameter for measuring the manifestations of nutrient
enrichment, but results from calculation of the various indices and measure-
ments tested showed important differences relative to the two standards.  With
the exception of total Kjeldahl nitrogen, which had agreement with both stand-
ards, indices and measurements that correlated well with the phosphorus stand-
ard showed poor rank correlation with the chlorophyll  a^ standard.   The con-
verse was also true, those that correlated well with chlorophyll  a_ did poorly
with total  phosphorus.

-------
     Phosphorus loading models were quite successful  in ranking lakes  rela-
tive to the phosphorus standard rankings but were unsuccessful  when  compared
to the chlorophyll a_ rankings, i.e., they did not predict the primary  mani-
festation of eutrophication.  Secchi disk measurements closely approximated
the rank orders of the loading models.  High mineral  turbidity, which  binds
phosphorus in a form unavailable to the algae and reduces the light  reaching
them, constitutes the primary reason for the poor correlation of loading
models and Secchi measurements with the chlorophyll  a^ standard.

     Such widely-used biological indices as Palmer's Organic Pollution Index,
Nygaard's Trophic State Indices, Shannon-Wiener's Phytoplankton Diversity
Index, and Pielou's Evenness Component of Phytoplankton Diversity were gen-
erally ineffective for lake trophic state assessment.  However, several
phytoplankton community-based trophic indices introduced in this study were
shown to be more effective in trophically ranking lakes, relative to the
chlorophyll ^ standard, than most of the widely used trophic indices or mea-
surements tested.  The strong performance of phytoplankton community-based
indices suggests that the basic approach is sound and that further development
and refinement of these indices is warranted.

     The phytoplankton community-based indices developed here show promise as
biological monitoring and lake trophic state assessment tools to aid area-
wide planners responding to Section 208 of PL92-500.

-------
                                   CONTENTS

Foreword	ill
Summary	iv
Tables	ix
Introduction 	    1
Conclusions  	    2
Recommendations  	    3
Materials and Methods  	    4
Description of Test Lakes  	    6
Descriptions of Indices and Measurements of  Trophic State  	   11
  Single Parameter Measurements of Trophic State 	   11
    Secchi depth 	   11
    Carlson's trophic state indices  	   11
    Total phosphorus	12
    Chlorophyll a	12
    Total KjeldaFl nitrogen	12
    Specific conductance 	   13
    Algal Assay Control yield  	   13
    Phytoplankton concentration  	   13
    Number of phytoplankton spectes  	   13
    Number of phytoplankton species (modified) 	   13
    Phytoplankton Biovolume  	   14
  Multiple Parameter Measurements of Trophic State 	   14
    Models predicting ambient lake phosphorus concentrations 	   14
    Nitrogen to phosphorus ratio 	   15
    Nygaard's trophic state indices  	   15
    Palmer's organic pollution indices 	   16
    Phytoplankton species diversity  	   17
    Evenness component of phytoplankton diversity  	   18
    CERL trophic state index	t	18
    Multivariate trophic state indices 	   19
  Proposed Phytoplankton Indices to Trophic  State  	   19
    Development of phytoplankton trophic values  	   20
    Application of phytoplankton trophic values  	   24
      Phytoplankton trophic state index calculations
      without cell counts	24
      Phytoplankton trophic state index calculations
      with cell counts	25
        Total community phytoplankton trophic state index  	   25
        Dominant community phytoplankton trophic state index 	   27
Results and Discussion 	   29
References	36
Bibliography 	   40
Appendix A	42

                                     vii

-------
Appendix AT:
Appendix A2:
Appendix A3:
Appendix A4:
Appendix A5:
Appendix A7:
Appendix A8:
Test Lakes with Index Values and Measurements of Trophic
State and with Ranks for the following:  TOTALP, CHLA,
SECCHI DEPTH, N/P, KJEL, Specific Conductance, and
CERL TSI	

Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
following:  Carlson's Chlorophyll _§_, Carlson's Total
Phosphorus, Carlson's Secchi Depth  	
Test Lakes with Index Values and Measurements of Trophic
State and with Ranks for the following:  Palmer's Genus
and Species Indices, H, J, Algal Assay Control Yield. . .

Test Lakes with Measurements of Trophic State and Ranks
for the following:  Number of Phytoplankton Species,
Number of Phytoplankton Species (modified),
Phytoplankton Concentration, Phytoplankton Biovolume. . .

Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
following Indices:  Nygaard's Myxophycean,
Chlorococcalean, Euglenophycean, Diatom, and Compound . .
                                                                          44
                                                                          45
                                                                          46
                                                                          47
                                                                          48
Appendix A6:   Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
               following Indices:   Boland PC^  Boland PC12

               Vollenweider Trophic Ratio, Dillon Trophic Ratio,  and
               Larsen-Mercier Trophic Ratio  	
Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
following Indices:  TOTALP(PD), CHLA(PD), KJEL(PD)
TOTALP/CONC(P), and CHLA/CONC(P)  	
                                                           49
                                                                          50
Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
following Indices:  KJEL/CONC(P), TOTALP/CONC(PD),
CHLA/CONC(PD), KJEL/CONC(PD), and Multivariate Algal
Index (PD)	
                                                                          51
                                     VTM

-------
                                    TABLES

Number                                                    •-             Page


  1   Test Lakes Ranked by Mean Summer Secchi  Depth  with  County,
       State,  STORET-Code Number,  Date Sampled,  Trophic  State,
       and Lake Problems  Information 	      7
  2  Test Lake Morphometry Data,  Lake  Type,  and  NES  Working  Paper
       Number  	

  3  Summary of the Summer Photic Zone Physical  and  Chemical
       Characteristics of the  Test Lakes  	
  4  Mean Summer Test  Lake Data  for  Chemical  and  Physical
       Parameters	     10

  5  Nygaard's  Trophic State  Indices Adapted  from Hutchinson  (1967).     16

  6  Algal  Genus Pollution Index (Palmer  1969)  	     17

  7  Algal  Species  Pollution  Index  (Palmer  1969)  	     17

  8  Trophic  Values of Selected  Genera  Based  Upon Mean  Parameter
       Values Associated  with  their  Occurrence  as Dominants   ....     21

  9  Procedure  for  Calculating the TOTALP(PD) Phytoplankton TSI
       Using  Fox Lake, Illinois, as  an  Example	    25

 10  Procedure  for  Calculating the TOTALP/CONC(P) Phytoplankton
       TSI  Using Fox Lake, Illinois, as an  Example	    26

 11   Procedure  for  Calculating the TOTALP/CONC(PD) Phytoplankton
       TSI  Using Fox Lake, Illinois, as an  Example	    27

 12  Indices  and Measurements  of Trophic  State  Ranked by their
       Correlation  with Summer Ambient  Mean Phosphorus  Levels  ...     30

 13  Indices  and Measurements  of Trophic  State  Ranked by their
       Correlation  with Summer Ambient  Mean Chlorophyll a_ Levels  .  .     31
                                      IX

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION

     As a direct result of an extensive investigation of phytoplankton  rela-
tionships to environmental  conditions several  phytoplankton  community-based
indices have been developed for classifying lakes  by trophic condition.  The
primary purpose of this report is to describe  these indices  and  compare them
with other techniques already in use.  Thirty-eight indices  and  measurements,
including 10 described here for the first time,  are rated according  to  their
ability to rank lakes by trophic state.

     The need for classifying lakes was mandated by Congress with  the  passage
of Public Law 92-500, Section 305, which declares  that,  "Each State  shall
prepare ... an identification and classification according to  eutrophic
condition of all publicly owned fresh water lakes  in such State."   Numerous
methods for trophic state determination had been developed prior to  passage
of PL 92-500 and further development has continued.  Trophic classification
techniques vary from complex multivariate models using combinations  of biolo-
gical, chemical, and physical data, to something as simple as Secchi disk
measurement.  Expensive and time consuming data  gathering programs are gener-
ally associated with increased model complexity, which severely  limits their
utility for routine use.

-------
                                 CONCLUSIONS

1.  Indices and measurements of trophic state that correlated well  against the
phosphorus standard did poorly against the chlorophyll  .a standard,  and con-
versely, those that did well against chlorophyll  _§_ did  poorly against total
phosphorus.  Only total Kjeldahl nitrogen had good agreement with both stand-
ards.

2.   Several phytoplankton community-based trophic indices, introduced in this
study, were shown to be more effective in trophically ranking a test set of
44 lakes, relative to chlorophyll _§_ standard, than most of the widely-used
trophic indices or indicator parameters tested.

3.   Such widely-used biological indices as Palmer's Organic Pollution Index,
Nygaard's Trophic State Indices, Shannon-Wiener's Phytoplankton Diversity
Index, and Pielou's Evenness Component of Phytoplankton Diversity were gener-
ally ineffective for lake assessment.

4.   Phosphorus loading models containing a phosphorus-retention component
(Dillon and Larsen/Mercier) predicted the phosphorus-standard rank of the
test lakes better than did the model (Vollenweider) not containing a
phosphorus-retention component.

5.   Secchi disk measurements provide a high measure of success in trophically
ranking lakes relative to phosphorus levels.

6.   Phosphorus loading models and Secchi Disk measurements did not success-
fully rank lakes relative to chlorophyll a_ levels thus  limiting their
abilities to predict a manifestation of eutrophication.

7.   Total Kjeldahl nitrogen can provide effective trophic ranking relative to
nutrient-manifestation criteria.

-------
                               RECOMMENDATIONS

1.  The strong performance of phytoplankton community-based  indices  suggests
that the basic approach used is sound and that  further  development and  refine-
ment of these indices is warranted.

2.  The phytoplankton data base, from which the index values are  derived,
should be expanded to provide more precise estimates of parameter values
for optimal growth and hence improve the predictive reliability of the
community-based indices.

3.  Secchi disk transparency is recommended as  a strong and  simple surrogate
parameter for the estimation of total phosphorus in lakes and of  chlorophyll  d_
in lakes with low inorganic turbidity levels.

4.  Trophic classification "criteria" to be applied (whether nutrient-  or
response/manifestation-based) should be determined before selecting  the
most appropriate trophic index.

-------
                            MATERIALS AND METHODS

     Data used in the development of the new phytoplankton trophic state
indices presented in this report are from the first five parts of the
series "Phytoplankton Water Quality Relationships in U.S.  Lakes"  (Taylor
et al. 1979a; Williams et al. 1979; Hern et al. 1979; Lambou et al.  1979;
Morris et al. 1979).  These publications present environmental statistics
(ranges, means, and standard deviations for the major nutrients, chlorophyll  <^,
temperature, pH, turbidity, Secchi depth, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity,  and
nitrogen to phosphorus ratio) based on photic zone data that were associated
with the occurrences of 180 phytoplankton genera in 250 lakes from 17 States
in the eastern and southeastern portion of the United States.  The statistics
associated with each genus are organized by season (spring, summer,  and  fall),
and on an annual basis, addressing dominant and non-dominant occurrences within
individual community structures.

     Except for those indices and measurements of trophic  state requiring
annual data input, calculations of lake index values were  based on summer data.
Summer data were used because the biological  response to nutrients (as measured
by chlorophyll a) generally is greatest during that season.  Data used in
calculating the indices and measurements of trophic state  other than the phy-
toplankton indices addressed here are from one or another  of the following
reports:  Taylor et al. 1979a; individual lake reports, e.g., Report on  Lake
Lulu, Florida (EPA 1976); or from one of the  State phytoplankton distribution
summaries, e.g., Distribution of Phytoplankton in Alabama  Lakes (Taylor  et al.
1977).  A complete list of "Distribution of Phytoplankton  in Lakes"  reports,
one per State, is given in the bibliography.

     Forty-four lakes and reservoirs were selected from the 250 sampled  during
1973 to compare the 38 indices and measurements of trophic state.  These lakes
were selected on the basis of mean summer Secchi  depth values so that the
"test lakes" represent the full  range of water clarity. Most of the lake data
used in this report have been entered into STORET (STOrage and RETrieval),
the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency's computer system which processes
and maintains water quality data.  Each lake  was assigned  a four-digit STORET
number.  The first two digits of the STORET number identify the State; the
last two digits identify the lake.  Lakes and reservoirs from each of the fol-
lowing 17 States are represented in the test  set:  Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,  and West
Virginia.

     In order to compare the various indices  and measurements of trophic
state, summer ambient mean total  phosphorus and chlorophyll a^ values were
used as standards of trophic state in the test lakes for ranking purposes.

-------
Total phosphorus was chosen since it is generally considered to be the  most
important nutrient associated with the measurement of eutrophication  in
freshwater, while chlorophyll _a concentration is considered the most  reliable
measurement of response to eutrophication.   Williams et al. (1978) and  Jones
and Bachman (1976) support these choices for standards where strong correla-
tions between total phosphorus and chlorophyll  £ were presented (r=0.81,
N=318 and r=0.95, N=146, respectively).  The former study used annual mean
lake data while the latter was restricted to summer values.

     Results from the calculation of each index and measurement of trophic
state to be compared were used to rank the test lakes.  Spearman's rank cor-
relation coefficients (Siegel 1956) were calculated in order to compare the
rankings resulting from the use of the 38 indices and measurements of trophic
state with the rankings resulting from the use  of the total phosphorus  and
chlorophyll a^ standards.  In instances where tied observations were encoun-
tered, the procedures described by Siegel (1956) to "correct" for these ties
were used.  Lakes where data were missing for one of the 38 indices or
measurements of trophic state were not used in  the comparisons and calculation
of the correlation for that index or measurement of trophic state.

-------
                          DESCRIPTION OF TEST LAKES

     The 44 test lakes ranked from lowest to highest  Secchi  disk  transparency
are presented in Table 1.  Trophic class assignments  from individual  lake
reports (e.g., Report on Lake Lulu, Florida [EPA 1976])  as well as  eutrophic
related lake problems, when known, are included.

     Morphometric data for each of the test lakes (surface area,  drainage
area, mean depth, maximum depth, volume and retention time)  are provided in
Table 2 along with the National Eutrophication Survey Working  Paper numbers
for corresponding lake reports.  A summary of the summer photic zone's  phys-
ical and chemical characteristics for the test lakes  is  provided  in Table  3.
Mean summer photic zone values for chemical and physical  parameters are given
for each of the test lakes in Table 4.

-------
TABLE 1.   TEST LAKES RANKED BY MEAN SUMMER SECCHI  DEPTH WITH COUNTY,
          STATE, STORET-CODE NUMBER, DATE  SAMPLED,  TROPHIC STATE,  AND
          LAKE PROBLEMS INFORMATION
GROUPED
BY SECCHI
DEPTH LAKE NAME


g
_j





>-
_i
UJ
h-
< 3
o; o
UJ _J
a
o






a
UJ
z



>•
_J
UJ
1—
ss
UJ l—
0 =C
i




__
0
I



Hovey Lake
loramie Lake
Depue Lake
Highland Lake (Silver)
Slocum Lake
Lake Lulu
Lake Charleston
Fox Lake
Horseshoe Lake
Lake Apopka
Lake Effie
Lake Hancock
Crab Orchard Lake
Alligator Lake
Duhernal Lake
Arkabutla Res.
Kill en Pond
Saluda Lake
Lake Yale
Lay Lake
Lake Eufaula
Lake Hickory
Lake Chesdin
Barren River Res.
Marsh Lake
Lake Moultrie
East Loon Lake
Lake Minnehaha
Cherokee Lake
Lake Murray
Lake Maxinkuckee
Martin Lake
Lake Hopatcong
Tims Ford Res.
Chatuge Lake
Dale Hollow Res.
Tygard Res.
J. W. Flannagan Dam
Deep Creek Lake
Liberty Res.
Lake Wallenpaupack
Wanaque Res.
Summersville Res.
Harveys Lake
COUNTY (S)
Posey
Shelby*
Bureau
Madison
Lake
Polk
Coles
Lake
Madison
Orange*
Polk
Polk
Jackson*
Columbia
Middlesex
Desoto*
Kent
Greenville*
Lake
Chilton*
Quitman*
Alexander*
Dinwiddie
Allen*
Steuben
Berkley
Lake
Orange
Jefferson*
Lexington*
Marshall
Elmore*
Morris*
Moore*
Towns
Cumberland*
Taylor
Dickenson
Garrett
Carroll*
Pike
Passaic
Nicholas
Luzerne
STATE
Ind.
Ohio
111.
111.
111.
Fla.
111.
111.
111.
Fla.
Fla.
Fla.
111.
Fla.
N.J.
Miss.
Del.
S.C.
Fla.
Ala.
Ga.
N.C.
Va.
Ky.
Ind.
S.C.
111.
Fla.
Tenn.
S.C.
Ind.
Ala.
N.J.
Tenn.
Ga.
Ky.
W. Va
Va.
Md.
Md.
Pa.
N.J.
W. Va
Pa.
*Extends Into additional county(s)
**E » eutrophic, H » hypereutrophlc. M = roesotrophic.
F -
flshkills, D.O. » dissolved
oxygen depression,
STORET
NUMBER
1849
3917
1752
1740
1758
1227
1708
1755
1766
1202
1209
1217
1712
1201
3412
2801
1002
4515
1246
0106
1314
3705
5111
2105
1856
4512
1757
1229
4707
4507
1843
0107
3415
4724
1303
2102
5404
5105
2402
2403
4229
3423
5403
4222
A = algae
N.R. » none
SECCHI
DEPTH TROPHIC
DATE (INCHES) STATE** PROBLEM(S)**
08/11/73
08/01/73
08/07/73
08/10/73
08/07/73
09/06/73
08/09/73
08/07/73
08/10/73
09/06/73
09/05/73
09/04/73
08/08/73
08/31/73
07/22/73
08/28/73
07/20/73
09/18/73
09/06/73
08/29/73
08/30/73
07/07/73
07/13/73
08/11/73
08/06/73
07/09/73
08/07/73
09/05/73
08/23/73
07/07/73
08/03/73
08/25/73
07/23/73
08/15/73
09/17/73
08/18/73
07/28/73
07/18/73
07/23/73
07/20/73
07/23/73
07/22/73
07/18/73
07/23/73
blooms, W *
reported
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
11.6
12.0
12.0
22.7
23.0
24.0
25.3
26.0
27.0
40.0
41.0
43.3
45.0
47.3
48.6
50.0
52.7
54.0
55.0
55.6
85.7
87.0
90.6
90.8
94.7
122.7
125.0
126.0
144.0
144.0
150.0
171.0
184.0
216.0
222.0
nuisance

E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
H
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
E
E
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
weeds,

A
A,W
F
N.R.
A
A.H.F
N.R.
N.R.
A,F
A.W.F
A.W.F.D.O.
A.W
A
A,W
W
N.R.
A,W
N.R.
A
N.R.
N.R.
U
N.R.
F
A
N.R.
A,W
F
A.F
W
N.R.
N.R.
A.W, D.O.
A
N.R.
D.O.
N.R.
D.O.
D.O.
A
A, D.O.
A
N.R.
A, 0.0.



-------
                           TABLE 2.    TEST LAKE  MORPHOMETRY  DATA,  LAKE TYPE,  AND  NES  WORKING PAPER NUMBER
                          STORE!
                          NUMBER  KAMI
  NES
 WORKING
PAPER NO.
      SURFACE
       AREA
TYPE*   (ta.2)
DRAINAGE
  AREA
 (to*)
                                                                                              MEAN
                                                                                             DEPTH
HAX1MUM
 DEPTH
           VOLUME
          (xlO6.3)
  RETENTION
    TIME
(D-dayi, Y-y«ar«)
00
0106
0107
1002
1201
1202
120)
1217
1227
1229
1246
130}
1314
1708
1712
1740
1752
1755
1757
175«
1766
1843
1849
1856
2102
210;
2*02
2403
2801
3412
3415
3423
3705
3917
4222
4229
4507
4512
4515
4707
4724
3105
5111
3403
3404
LAY LAKE
MARTIN LAKE
KILLEN POND
ALLIGATOR LAKE
LAKE APOPKA
LAKE EFFIE
HANCOCK
LAKE LULU
LAKE MINNEHAHA
LAKE YALE
CHATUCE LAKE
EUFAULA (WALTER T. GEORGE)
LAKE CHARLESTON
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
HIGHLAND SILVER LAKE
DEPUE LAKE
FUI LAKE
EAST LOON LAKE
SLOCUM LAKE
HORSESHOE LAKE
LAKE NAXINKUCKEE
UOVEY LAKE
HARSH LAKE
DALE HOLLOW RESERVOIR
BARREN RIVER RESERVOIR
DEEP CREEK LAKE
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
ARKABUTLA RESERVOIR
DUHERNAL LAKE
LAKE UOPATCONC
UANAQUE RESERVOIR
HICKORY LAKE
LAKE LORAMIE
HARVEYS LAKE
LAKE WALLCNPAUPACK
LAKE HURRAY
LAKE NOULTRIE
SALUDA LAKE
CHEROKEE LAKE
TIMS FORD RESERVOIR
JOHN U FLANNACAM RES.
LAKE CHESDIN
SUHHERSVILLE RESERVOIR
TYCART RESERVOIR
230
231
237
243
244
224
__
263
265
280
286
	
299
301
306
303
305
304
316
308
335
329
333
352
350
355
357
359
365
368
376
380
405
419
428
436
435
438
445
455
463
458
469
470
I
I
I
N
N
N
N
X
N
N
I
I
I
I
I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
I
I
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
48.56
157.83
.30
1.37
125.40
.41
18.29
1.22
.39
15.95
28.94
186.10
1.45
28.19
2.99
2.12
6.76
0.67
.87
8.78
7.54
.98
.23
108.62
40.47
15.78
12.59
48.04
.38
10.87
9.35
16.63
3.18
2.67
23.31
205.58
263.05
2.25
122.62
42.90
4.63
12.95
11.02
7.08
23387.7
7674.2
46.4
39.9
476.6
— — -
— —
20.1
4.3
. — — —
489.5


2035.7
520.6
122.0
«._.-
3120.9
25.9
22.6
83.1
35.5
......
38.6
2424.2
2434.6
167.6
424.8
2590.0
245.0
66.3
234.1
3392.9
201.2
17.3
590.5
6268.0
38850.0
753.7
8878.5
1370.1
572.4
3457.6
2082.4
3537.9
10.1
12.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
3.7
10.6
6.2
.9
3.0
4.2
1.2
2.4
1.8
1.2
2.1
7.3
1.2
6.1
14.4
5.8
8.1
13.0
9.1
1.4
5.5
11.3
9.5
1.5
11.0
8.5
12.7
5.7
4.0
14.9
15.2
18.0
7.0
21.0
17.4
25.00
37.00
2.70
2.40
5.50
1.50
1.5
2.70
4.00
4.60
36.90
29.3
1.50
6.10
7.30
3.10
4.00
>6.4
1.50
0
26.80
15.50
11.60
36.00
18.60
21.90
0
14.70
3.00
17.70
27.40
25.90
5.10
29.30
13.40
57.80
23.00
12.20
49.70
43.60
46.00
14.00
82.30
53.90
492.884
2036.007
.450
2.055
213.180
.410
18.29
1.830
1.170
58.290
306.764
1154.192
1.305
84.570
12.358
2.544
16.244
1.229
1.044
18.193
55.042
1.194
1.403
1569.000
234. 708
127.842
159.926
437. 164
.532
59.785
105.655
157.000
4.770
29.370
198.135
2608. 000
1494.373
9.000
1900.824
749.968
33.340
90.650
231.420
123.192
14
176
8
50
2.5
•
96
235
97
1.)
296
47
1
288
189
—
23
89
121
420
6.7
• -•
45
1.2
81
1.1
413
108
2
623
218
33
29
1.6
229
348
42
6
190
379
118
31
50
20
D
D
D
D
r

D
D
D
Y
D
D
D
D
0

D
D
D
D
Y

D
Y
D
Y
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Y
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
                          *I • artificial Impoundment, N • natural lake

-------
         TABLE 3.   SUMMARY OF THE SUMMER  PHOTIC  ZONE'S  PHYSICAL AND
                   CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS  FOR  THE TEST  LAKES
Number of
Parameter Lake Values Mean
Total Phosphorus
(yg/1)
Orthophosphorus
(yg/1)
Nitrite-Nitrate-N
(yg/D
Ammonia-N
(yg/D
Total Kjeldahl-N
(yg/D
Secchi Depth (inches)
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D "
Turbidity
(% transmission)
PH
Alkalinity
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
43
44
44
212
83
405
133
1695
65
70.5
66
7.8
76
Standard
Deviation
357
188
748
125
1890
60
125
34
1.0
78
Minimum
Value
5
3
32
36
228
6
1.4
4
5.4
10
Maximum
Value
1600
950
4275
720
7150
222
595
121*
10.1
293
(mg/1 as CaC03)

Dissolved Oxygen        43           7.5       1.8         4.1        13.5
  (mg/1)

Temperature             44          26.7       2.7        20.1        30.5
(degrees Celsius)

Inorganic N**   (N/P)   44          11.9      22.1         0.3       129.6
Total Phosphorus


  * One data point was recorded which exceeded a theoretical maximum of 106
    percent light transmission in water with transmissometer calibrated for
    100 percent transmission in air.

 ** Inorganic N = Nitrite-Nitrate-N + Ammonia-N.

-------
         TABLE  4.   MEAN  SUMMER  TEST LAKE  DATA FOR CHEMICAL AND  PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
STORIT
l» UMBER
0106
0107
1002
1201
1202
1209
1217
1227
1229
12*6
1303
131*
1708
1712
17*0
1752
1755
1757
1758
1766
1843
18*9
1856
2102
2105
2*02
2*03
2801
3*12
3*15
3*23
3705
3917
4222
4229
4507
4)12
4515
4707
4724
5103
3111
3403
3404
DATE
730829
73082S
730720
730831
730906
730905
730904
730906
730905
730906
730917
730830
730809
730808
730810
730807
730807
730807
730807
730810
730803
730811
730806
730818
730811
730723
730720
730828
730722
730723
730722
730707
730801
730723
730723
730707
730709
730918
730823
730813
730718
730713
730718
730728
TOTALP
(•g/1)
0.039
0.013
0.216
0.429
0. 161
1.600
0.607
1. 120
0.022
0.027
0.017
0.030
0. 164
0. 184
0.258
1.030
0. 322
0.073
0. 882
0.256
0.014
0.868
0. 115
0.013
0. 049
0.011
0.015
0.058
0. 179
0.025
0.014
0. 034
0. 204
0.009
0.013
0.021
0.025
0.073
0.037
0.025
0.011
0.040
0.010
0.003
ORTHOP
(«8/D
0.016
0.009
0.046
0.237
0.032
0.950
0. 135
0.590
0.013
0.018
0.006
0. 008
0. 076
0.043
0.060
0.556
0. 119
0.029
0. 385
0.026
0. 003
0.037
0.080
0.007
0.01*
0. 007
0.006
0.009
0.026
0.008
0.008
0.006
0. 016
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.018
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.003
N02N03
(mg/1)
0.087
0.047
1.500
0. 152
0. 193
0.210
0.425
0. 190
0.050
0.062
0.034
0. 164
4.275
0.124
0.9*6
1. 720
0. 172
0. 113
0. 175
0. 252
0.063
0. 150
0. 072
0. 121
0. 202
0. 252
1.823
0.073
0.975
0.051
0.032
0. 107
1.200
0.070
0.055
0.076
0.087
0. 1*0
0.355
O.Ofl*
0.089
0.088
0.507
0. 266
NK3
(•g/1)
0. 0*3
0.05*
0. 190
0. 112
0. 140
0. 200
0. 250
0. 170
0.050
0.05*
0. 038
0.092
0.095
0. 135
0. 307
0. 720
0. 195
0.233
0. 150
0. 180
0.063
0. 130
0. 1*2
0.059
0.090
0. 0*1
0.070
0.089
0.505
0.077
0.036
0. 121
0. 175
0.071
0.057
0.085
0.089
0.070
0.099
0.066
0.059
0. 119
0.06*
0.044
KJEL
(ng/1)
0.556
0. 507
1.200
2.925
4. 850
5. 700
6. 350
7. 150
1.200
1.375
0.329
0.667
1. 150
2. 328
1.639
3.700
2.917
1.633
6.250
4.300
0.400
3.600
1. 150
0.417
0.539
0.262
0.546
1.050
1.200
0.570
0.311
0.467
2.250
0.300
0.333
0.462
0.762
0.475
0.643
0.333
0.411
0.8*4
0.306
0.226
SECCHI
(Inches)
41
91
26
23
12
12
12
9
55
40
123
43
9
23
8
6
9
54
8
10
87
6
50
125
49
14*
150
25
24
91
184
*5
6
222
171
86
53
27
56
95
1*4
*7
216
126
CHLA
(wg/1)
10. 7
5.8
101.2
155.8
77.9
595.0
166.8
456.6
11.9
56.2
5.8
11.8
15.3
106.8
5.4
112.7
108.8
28.0
312.0
258. 7
5.8
206. 7
19.*
6.4
9.5
7.9
7. 7
4. 9
8.6
10.0
8. 2
6. 3
103.*
7.3
8. 8
7. 1
7. 6
1.4
13.6
7. 7
10. 6
U.9
13.*
1.5
TURB
(I trana.)
91
92
(
79
35
11
7
42
88
84
95
81
18
29
19
4
*6
74
26
5
92
5
92
95
89
95
91
76
57
9*
93
87
13
88
87
86
95
61
83
9*
81
61
121*
93
PH
7.*
7.0
8. 4
9. 3
8. 8
7. 2
10. 1
9.5
8.0
8.6
6. 2
7. 9
7. 9
8.4
7. 3
8.3
8. 7
8.2
9.3
9. 3
8. *
8.0
8. 1
7.3
8.3
6.6
8. 1
6. 8
5.4
6.9
7. 1
7.4
8.3
7. 1
6.7
7. 5
7.5
6.4
8.5
7.9
6.3
7.4
7.0
6.3
ALK
(•g/1 at
C«C03)
54
12
25
52
127
123
73
73
39
108
11
20
237
59
63
240
239
172
293
49
140
141
275
64
74
11
25
26
10
23
13
12
130
25
17
18
25
12
78
ol
27
39
11
13
DO
(•g/1)
4.9
7.
8.
9.
8.
.
10.
7.
7.
8.
7.0
6.9
6. 8
8.0
4. 1
7.4
6. 7
4.4
13.5
8.6
8.5
7.4
11.7
7.9
6.3
8. 1
8. 1
4. 2
6. 5
6.6
8.9
6. 7
7.2
8.6
8. 1
6. 8
7.2
7.0
7. 1
4.5
8. 9
5.7
7. 8
7.6
TEMP
CO
29.
28.
25.
29.
28.
28.
28.
28.
30.
29.
25. 5
29.0
25. 8
29.2
26. 2
30.3
25. 1
24.0
25.2
28.3
23.9
30. 1
21. 5
28.4
28. 3
23. 9
23.4
28. 5
22.9
25.0
24.9
26.
24.
20.
24.
29.
30.
21.
26.
28.
27.
28.
23.
26.
M/P
3.4
9.*
7. 8
0. 7
2.3
0.3
1. 2
0.3
4.5
4.4
5.0
8.0
26.6
2.3
5.3
2.4
1. 1
4. 7
0.4
1.9
9.0
0. 3
1. 9
13.2
3.8
26. *
129.6
2. 8
8. 3
5.2
5.2
7. 3
6. 7
IS. 7
8.8
9. 1
7.2
*. 0
13.8
6. 2
15. 9
6.0
57. 2
62.0
On* data point vee recorded which exceeded a theoretical maxlnua of 106 percent light trancniaaion in water with trananiatoaeter
calibrated for 100 percent tranereieaion in air.

-------
           DESERT PfTIOMSS OFF INmC£Sr AMT ME&SSiGIMENTS': OFF TRflWIC, STATE:

         fectti onn off i hrid cess aandi measu'.neeieatlss off tirapihli cc statist- Gompiacredi i n i ttifi ss
repporrtt wass nestirri cctedd btyy thee daiaa biases a-vai H abfl tee ffomn auir^ 1 aktee sampl !i ngc
( UU SS . Etnivti nonmeat a3 1 Piroctfeetl bun A§facg»y 1 975:) \ .  OoroBqaieirtfl fa , several i appnoacdile
couG dd noctt btee ttstfedci , ea gg , , Sfilajwniowi aamdd BftTezDiiri kf!fes ( 0 992^ ) Rni nicd pjl fee couippmefflrtt
tlncxpihh' tc sttaitee i ndtex f tarr 1 fefikk off "II g^ittt btoxJ1 ' ' ponodnliffictti i/ti tfty diilaa aanidd Pfeaansa^ 1 f !ss
catti txnn natti t)Q , aandd bti borasss nraasaireeraetlss ssucthh ass chhyy annkl asfeh-f feee


S3 NBLEL PPWUSMffiBIER MfiMDREMEINT5.S OFf TRCOTIIC STATE

SBcchh'  Depttih
             d&pithh (SECCHIJ) '< i s a a measwre: of waifefr tramparencyj,, , the  va] ue1 txei n
             pajntlctilaieaiidj dissolved: matter in the water act itwj; to block  the.
tramsmi ssa oro i ocf r 1 ii ghft;. .  PihiytORl feuuktonn and/orr swspeiwlecH sedl ments are: i mpfortan
factors., acf f feotl nig j the- measureeieart;, ea g^  aw ^ aJ g^tl 1 M 6om wi ii 1 ! resti 1 1  i n- a. ne3 a.-*
1 1 ve:l yy 1 owv Sjecchrt i depth; , nea«t1 mt4 •  Mean  summer! Sfeccfti  d^thi va3 lues  ( Tafel te1 4-1 ;
f orr the tiesti. 1 akes we«re ranikfed ' 1 ow/ 1& hi gfc rajwjn'ngc from 6 to 222 i richest*
Carl son * s TrophH cc State* Indi ces

      Card son),i ((I&77)  d&valbpedia/trophiic, state? indfex  that is a transformation
off Stecehii disk tranisparewcyy suohhthat' eachr major  unit  on the? seal ten has hal ff
the  transparency of  the next lower  unit.   This index will  be identified!as
Carlson's SecchiiDepth  Index and is  derived from  Secchi  disk transparency as
f Ol 1 ows:

      CaHson's Secchi Depth Indfcx =10(6  - 1 og? SECCHI),

where Secchii; depth > va.l ues are i n meters (fn) (the  mean  Secctiri: de-pth' val Lies
listed in the tables of our report  are in inches).   The  scale of  values is
such i that zero has a transparency of 64 m, greater than  the highest  value
reported for any lake in the world.   The  next major  unit,  10, would  have a
transparency half that  found at zero, or  32 m, and so  on up to and beyond a
Carlson's Secchi Depth  Index value  of 100 which represents a transparency of
0.062 m.

      Furthermore, Carlson used empirically determined  relationships  between
total  phosphorus  (TOTALP) and transparency, and between  chlorophyll  a^ (CHLA)
and  transparency, to arrive at approximately the  same  trophic state index

*A11  Secchi disk measurements were  made in inches.

                                         11

-------
regardless of whether Secchi depth, total phosphorus or chlorophyll  ^ was the
variable measured.

     Chlorophyll a_ values for each of the test lakes (Table 4) were  converted
to Carlson's Secchi Depth Index using Carlson's (1977) formula, which is as
follows:

         Carlson's Chlorophyll a Index = 10(6 - log, 7.7 rm . n >ft )
                               "~"~                   C.     l^nLrA U« UO


where chlorophyll a^ values are in wg/1.

     Total phosphorus values (Table 4) for each of the test lakes were con-
verted to Carlson's Secchi Depth Index using Carlson's (1977) formula, which
is as follows:

           Carlson's Total Phjosphorus Index = 10(6 - log,, 48   1   x
                                                        c    TOTALP;

where total phosphorus values are in yg/1.

     The results of Carlson's three indices are ranked from high to  low and
presented in Appendix A2.  These indices may not agree with each other in
lakes where biological productivity is limited by non-nutrient related fac-
tors such as temperature or toxic chemicals.  Carlson (1977) states  that
differences in his indices can be used to direct research towards understand-
ing the divergence from otherwise strong relationships.

Total Phosphorus

     Total phosphorus (TOTALP) is a measure of all phosphorus including dis-
solved and particulate forms of inorganic and biological origin.  Mean summer
TOTALP values (Table 4) for the test lakes were ranked high to low,  ranging
from 1600 to 5 ug/1 (Appendix Al).

Chlorophyll a

     Chlorophyll j[ (CHLA) is a widely used and accepted index of algal bio-
mass.  CHLA has been found to be highly correlated with phosphorus,  partic-
ularly in lakes and reservoirs with retention times greater than 14  days
(Williams et al. 1978;  Lambou et al. 1976).  The correlation does not hold
for systems with less than 14-day retention times in which inadequate time is
available for full response.  Mean summer CHLA values (Table 4) for  the test
lakes were ranked high to low, ranging from 595.0 to 1.4 wg/l (Appendix Al).

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

     Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (KJEL) is a measure of ammonia plus all organ-
ically derived nitrogen.  KJEL can be used as an indicator of biomass since
ammonia usually accounted for less than 10 percent of the values. KJEL has
been demonstrated to be highly correlated with CHLA in eastern U.S.  lakes


                                      12

-------
(Williams et al.  1978).    The KJEL  value  for  any  given lake would also include
KJEL from allochthonous  sources,  including  sewage treatment plants.  Mean
summer KJEL values (Table 4)  for  the  test lakes were  ranked from high to low,
ranging from 7150 to 228 ug/1 (Appendix Al).

Specific Conductance

     Specific conductance (COND)  is a measure of  a water's capacity to convey
an electric current at 25° C  and  is related to the total concentration of
ionic substances  in the  water (APHA 1971).  COND  can  be used to estimate total
dissolved solids  (APHA 1971)  which  has been shown by  Beeton (1965) to be cor-
related with eutrophication.   Freshly distilled water would have a COND value
between 0.5 and 2 ymho.   Mean summer  COND values  for  the test  lakes were
ranked high to low, ranging from  877  to 23  ymho  (Appendix Al).

Algal Assay Control Yield

     Algal assay control yield (AACY) is  a  measure of the primary production
potential within a water sample.   It  was  determined as part of an assay
procedure designed to establish nitrogen  or phosphorus limitation in the test
lakes (U.S. EPA 1971).  Samples for the assays were collected  during the
spring since lake waters are thought  to have  their greatest algal growth po-
tential at that time.  Theoretically, it  should  provide an estimate of the
maximum algal biomass producible  in lakes under  near  optimal conditions.  AACY
values for the test lakes were ranked high  to low, ranging from 25.2 to
0.1 mg/1 dry weight (Appendix A3).

Phytoplankton Concentration

     Phytoplankton concentration  was  determined  by counting cells,  filaments,
or colonies depending upon the cellular  organization  of each  species.  Pre-
sumably, water with high nutrients  can support larger populations than water
with low nutrients.  As such, phytoplankton concentrations for the  test lakes
were ranked from high to low, ranging from  166,883 to 183  algal  units per
ml (A.U./ml) (Appendix A4).

Number of Phytoplankton Species

     The number of phytoplankton species  is perhaps the  simplest measure of
diversity in a lake.  The number of phytoplankton species  estimated for the
test lakes were ranked from  high to low,  ranging from 56  to 6  taxa  per lake
(Appendix A4).

Number of Phytoplankton Species (modified)

     This modification of the previous measurement does  not  Include those
species encountered only in  preliminary sample examination or once in  the
enumeration process (phytoplankton sample analyses include a  preliminary
examination for species identification,  followed by a separate procedure  for
enumerating the organisms by species).  This measurement  is  included  to  assess
the  effects of eliminating rare species  (Pielou  1975) upon diversity estimates,


                                      13

-------
TTtee rmiurateer odf p|W)3fctx)i)|3tewttktoin s^pectss ((-raodff tdd) eeiti treated ffjor tttee tteit lliaJees
wweriee naaiWeed ffxwm hh'^ph tto Ibuw, nMnggtigg f from 322 tto 22

                BB fared luree
                      tti imxj kirae i ts aam eeiti iraate off tti fwraass .  BB txmJ lumss tea1 ten] tiifc-
eeti ff»r tttee i twd i/vi tided 1 ccoippxMaeirtts ( fojpeo iss^ ) wwtth tin eeadih ssamj} te wweee ttd Tli ted
tto ppmvi ikte aam ee$ti Jraite orff tttee tti ixmJLarae ccrccpp ted b^y tttee t trttd 1 [jjbib^txpi} taiililttxDin
(TpxpipLl tit ixwi .   PWx^txp^'haiililttoin tti ixrailmrae cedlciG "biti ixuiras wweiee biassed ui^axDin ooiurr nraea-
sauneeraertts cxff ad tjgid 1 inuiri tt ss tze aawlcl ccoixKcerttiait ixmn .  PWjJtqi^ taiidtttxan bb ixy«dliuraes f fxtr
tttee tts$t IMtees vwejee naaiWeeld ffrorolihMih tto 1t«w, wwtth bb ixmJlmrae vwdlaes n0a»5gti?g
ffwrni 1M#6JT>5 xx ItO0 ttoOO.TK xx 1TXT mP?/nll ( f ^pjKrid xx .
           PWfflMWIETBR f fflMSBREHHrBS 05F TRIWH EC SSWEE

         liheeldi fettling /^ftrfabfeettt IJadctee Ifihxsyifaiteorigs C£y (xff IMteesaawdeevidliiJite tttee Tbe^l orff i^jbiteop^kwinaas llxaaidTii^gttol'bilees.
HO f T ton ( (I W[$ ) uttt 1 li tied ^)|b*KJ?)|biteoiaus aaieed 1 1 "hoad tii^g ( CU ) , tttee nEAteirtti torn coatff fi to tcrtt
ffnrr [)|W(Ks?)(bil(K)rii$s ({$),, t:ttee htxyiohEiaiil li tc ff Ijaiih tig i wate ( W i , aawd nmeam ck^iith ( C3 ) 1 tin aa
i^tttt ocff tttee 'form
        TL, , tto eeit iiraAte ttnoqtibih tc sitite .  VVxJ 1 l«wwe tkter ( (I P9HJ ) rt»vi tseid hh ts wrri tjg iiad 1
f fxjfrml ta tto i trod liukte IT > ^i>yichoaiil Ti tc nees tcteroee tti i me, , sso i tbdt aat^ed 1 i^teopibikKinnas
llxsadtii^g ((lv) its^lxlttedc,a]9citnitnrBeaaici(ite^ith (0) ddi/viii<4eabkyTT.   Lbaisfiein aairtd
f Iterc t«r ( ^ 1)97^ ) iiprov ii<4e aam <;d Itenradti i«e ( (to t ttee < >prrf torr 1 "boad tppg cauraceifiit^ ) wtah ixbh
97t)) J ttadt tttee cdffexttf d f aam irailwirm 1 Toad wpon  a 1 lake ddefjeirtds ,  i tm ; parrt , iwpon i^teetteer ttteit i tirccieeafie
neesxllts ffrom liracipea&es itn i tirif luaeint 'fljow5> ccoineeittratixiJiris, oor ttoth.  TTitee
i bar.sen ,ia«d 'Iterbwr ifjormiila : plots meain tribilitaTjy i p!te
-------
     Solution analyses based  on  20  ug/1  were  employed to place the three for-
mulas on an equivalent basis  by  dividing the  appropriate theoretical minimum
eutrophic "loading" rate (i.e.,  that  which  would  produce an ambient lake con-
centration of 20 wg/1) for a  given  lake  into  the  actual  "loading" rate deter-
mined for that lake.   Hereafter, these ratios will  be referred to as the
Vollenweider, Dillon, and Larsen and  Mercier  "trophic ratios."  Trophic ratios
which exceed or equal 1.0 represent eutrophic loading, whereas trophic ratios
extending from 0.5 to less than  1.0 represent mesotrophic  loadings and trophic
ratios below 0.5 represent oligotrophic  loadings, regardless of the formula
employed (Hern et al. 1978).   Lakes were ranked from high  to low by trophic
ratio with values ranging from:  75.62 to 0.18 for the Vollenweider trophic
ratio; 74.00 to 0.38 for the  Dillon trophic ratio;  and 259.90 to 0.39 for the
Larsen and Mercier trophic ratio (Appendix  A5).

Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio

     The nitrogen to phosphorus  ratio (N/P) is a  measure of the relative
concentrations of inorganic nitrogen  (NOpNO,  and  NHo) to total  phosphorus.
Various estimates have been proposed  as  to  what constitutes that ratio of
nitrogen to phosphorus at which  the addition  of either results  in the limi-
tation by the other.   Such estimates  have been reported  as low  as 5/1 and as
high as 30/1 or more, by weight, generally  centering about 12/1 to  14/1.
These are in reasonable agreement with theoretical  needs based  upon  stoichi-
ometric equations of algal constituents  (Vollenweider 1968).  Evaluation of
eastern lakes (Lambou et al.  1976;  Williams et al.  1978) suggests that low
N/P ratios reflect, in most cases,  high  ambient phosphorus levels,  rather
than low ambient inorganic nitrogen levels.  As such, N/P  ratios would be
expected to mimic, to a large extent, the ambient total  phosphorus  levels
of the systems tested.  The N/P  ratio values  (Table 4) for the  test  lakes
were ranked low to high, ranging from 0.3 to  129.6 (Appendix Al).

Nygaard's Trophic State Indices

     Nygaard (1949) developed five phytoplankton  indices (myxophycean,
chlorophycean, diatom, euglenophyte,  and compound) of trophic  state under the
assumption that certain algal groups  are indicative of  various  levels of
nutrient enrichment.  His assumption  is  that  Cyanophyta,  Euglenophyta, cen-
tric diatoms, and members of the Chlorococcales are found  in waters that are
eutrophic, while desmids and many pennate diatoms generally  cannot  tolerate
high nutrient levels and so are found in oligotrophic waters.

     In applying Nygaard's indices, the number of taxa  in  each  major group  is
determined from the  species list for each summer sample.   The  ratios of these
groups give numerical values which are used as biological  indices  of water
richness.  The five  indices and the ranges of  values established  by Nygaard
for each trophic state are presented in Table  5.   Wherever the numerator  or
denominator was zero  for any given index, a useful value could not  be calcu-
lated and that lake  was eliminated from the test.

     Values were ranked from high to low for each of Nygaard's indices
(Appendix A5).  Ranges for each of the indices are given in Table 5.

                                      15

-------
            TABLE 5.  NYGAARD'S TROPHIC STATE INDICES ADAPTED FROM
                      HUTCHINSON (1967)

Index
Nygaard's
Myxophycean Index
Nygaard's
Chlorophycean Index
Nygaard ' s
Diatom Index
Nygaard's
Fuglenophyte Index
Nygaard' s
Compound Index

Calculation OHgotrophlc
Myxophyceae 0.0 - 0.4
Desinldeae
Chlorococcales 0.0 - 0.7
Desmldeae
Centric Diatoms 0.0 - 0.3
Pennate Diatoms
Euglenophyta 0.0 - 0.2
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales +
Centric Diatoms + Euglenophyta 0.0 - 1.0
Desmideae
Test Lake
Ranges
Futrophlc Mln Max
0.1 - 3.0 0.67 9.00
0.2 - 9.0 0.33 15.50
0.0 - 1.75 0.07 5.00
0.0 - 1.0 0.03 1.20

1.2 -25 2.00 38.00
Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices

     Palmer (1969) analyzed reports from 165 authors and developed two algal
pollution indices (genus and species) 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 6 and 7).
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 on findings of especially high tolerance of
organic pollution reported by other researchers.

     In analyzing a water sample, any of the 20 genera or species of algae
present in concentrations of 50/ml or more are recorded.  The pollution
index numbers of the algae present are totaled, providing a genus score
(Palmer's Genus Index) and a species score (Palmer's Species Index).
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.

     In this study, each index was applied to summer phytoplankton data,
where the total of the pollution index numbers were used to rank the test
lakes from high to low (Appendix A3).  Genus index values ranged from 25
to 1 while species index values ranged from 9 to 1.  Since the  explanation
for absence of all index taxa (species or genus) in a sample may be due to
factors other than organic-pollution, lakes scoring zero were eliminated
from the rank correlations.
                                      16

-------
TABLE 6.  ALGAL GENUS POLLUTION
          INDEX (Palmer 1969}
TABLE 7.  ALGAL SPECIES POLLUTION
          INDEX (Palmer 1969)
Genus
Anaoystie
Ankistrodesmua
Chlamydomonas
Chlorella
Closterium
Cyolotella
Euglena
Gomphonema
Lepooinalis
Melosira
Micraatinium
Naviaula
Nitzschia
Osaillatoria
Pandorina
Phaaus
Phormidium
Saenedesmus
Stigeoa Ionium
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  faloatus
                                         Arthrospira jenneri
                                         Chlorella vulgaris
                                         Cyalotella meneghiniana
                                         Euglena gracilis
                                         Euglena viridis
                                         Gomphonema parvulum
                                         Melosira vaviana
                                         NavCaula cryptocephala
                                         Nitzsahia acicularis
                                         Nitzschia palea
                                         Osaillatoria chlorina
                                         Osaillatoria limosa
                                         Osaillatoria princeps
                                         Osaillatoria putrida
                                         Osaillatoria tenuis
                                         Pandorina morum
                                         Saenedesmus quadricauda
                                         Stigeoalonium 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
Phytoplanktori Species Diversity

     "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
that is appropriate depends on the type of biological sample on hand.   We  are
testing phytoplankton diversity as a method for establishing lake trophic
state.

     Pielou p966) classifies the types of biological samples and gives the
measure of diversity appropriate for each type.  Our 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
                                     17

-------
from the Shannon-Wiener formula (Shannon and Weaver 1963):

                                 S
                          H = - Z  PT log  P.
                                1=1  1    x  n

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 tne total number of individuals per ml; and S is the  total  number  of
taxa.  We used Iog2 in our calculations.  Values of H for  the test  lakes were
ranked from low to high, ranging from 0.67 to 4.31 (Appendix A3).

Evenness Component of Phytoplankton Diversity

     The evenness component of phytoplankton diversity (J)  is a  ratio which
shows how closely H (diversity) approaches the  maximum diversity (MaxH) in a
sample.  J is approximated by the  formula H/MaxH, where MaxH is  estimated
from Iog2 S (S is the total number of taxa in the sample)  (Pielou 1966).  The
possible range of values for J is  0 to 1, where values near zero are  indica-
tive of the least evenly distributed communities and values nearing 1 are
indicative of the most evenly distributed communities i.e., those approaching
maximum diversity.  In using this  index, we are testing the relationship
between J and trophic state.  Values of J for the test lakes were ranked from
high to low, ranging from 0.79 to  0.14 (Appendix A3).

CERL Trophic State Index

     The Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL) developed a nu-
merical trophic index designed to  provide a more realistic  assignment of tro-
phic condition than the relatively inflexible categorizations of oligotrophic,
mesotrophic, eutrophic, or hypereutrophic (U.S. EPA 1974).   The  CERL  TSI is a
multi-variate index in which a percentile ranking procedure is used.  In this
procedure, for each of the unweighted parameters used, the  percentage of the
250 lakes (lakes sampled by the U.S. EPA during 1973) exceeding  Lake  X  in that
parameter, e.g., level of chlorophyll a^ was determined.   The final lake
ranking value (CERL TSI) is simply the sum of the percentile ranks  for  each
of the parameters used.

     Parameters used in calculating the index include: annual  median  total
phosphorus, inorganic nitrogen (N02-N03 + NH3), dissolved  orthophosphorus,
annual  mean Secchi disk, chlorophyll a_, and the minimum dissolved oxygen
value recorded during the year. The values for Secchi disk transparency and
minimum dissolved oxygen are subtracted from fixed values  so that all param-
eters  contribute in a positive way to the ranking.  The units are  of no con-
sequence since all index values are expressed as a percentage.  The complete
list of CERL TSI values for lakes  sampled in 1973 has not  been published.

     With the CERL TSI, high numbers correspond to the oligotrophic end of
the spectrum while low numbers correspond to the eutrophic  end.   CERL TSI
values for the test lakes were ranked from low to high, ranging  from  76 to
499 (Appendix Al).

                                      18

-------
Milltivariate Trophic State Indices

     Two multivariate trophic state indices were developed  through  principal
components analysis, a mathematical  technique that can  be used  to reduce the
dimensionality of a multivariate system by representing the original  attri-
butes as functions of the attributes.   The basic objective  is to summarize
most of the variance in the system of lake water quality variables  by using
a lesser number of "artificial" variates (i.e.,  principal components).  The
first index, Boland PCI,, incorporated the trophic indicators:  chlorophyll a^
conductivity, inverse Secchi disk transparency,  total  phosphorus, total or-
ganic nitrogen and algal assay control yield, using annual  mean values.  The
second index, Boland PClp, resulted from an analysis of similar parameters
except that total Kjeldanl nitrogen was substituted for total organic nitro-
gen and summer mean values were used instead of annual  data. Algal  assay
control yield was determined on spring samples in both  cases.   These analy-
ses were calculated in a manner similar to that of Boland (1976).   In each
case, the data values were first transformed using natural  logarithms and
then the correlation (R) matrix was developed.  Next,  the first normalized
eigenvector was extracted and evaluated for each of the lakes,  resulting  in
342 and 44 trophic index values, one per lake for Boland PCI, and Boland  PC12»
respectively (Boland PCI, was calculated with a data base of 342  lakes).
The numeric value defines where along the first principal axis  the  lake  is
located.  The larger the number, the closer the water body  is to  the eutrophic
end of the water quality scale.

     The numerical values resulting from both Boland PCI, and Boland PClp  were
ranked from high to low, ranging from 4.83 to -2.54 and 4.36 to -2.75, re-
spectively (Appendix A6).
PROPOSED PHYTOPLANKTON INDICES TO TROPHIC STATE

     The magnitude and scope of our study provided a unique opportunity to
examine the physical and chemical conditions associated with phytoplankton
occurrence.  The study resulted in more than 2.5 million physical, chemical,
and biological data points from 815 lakes throughout the 48 contiguous states.
Although the lake sampling took 4 years to complete (1972-1975), a consistent
methodology was maintained for most aspects of the program throughout the
study period.  All of the data, including phytoplankton species lists and
counts, are in computer files where statistical data analyses are performed
most efficiently.

     Analyses of information contained in the phytoplankton environmental
summaries  (Taylor et al. 1979a; Williams et al. 1979; Hern et al. 1979;
Lambou et  al. 1979; Morris et al. 1979) that were calculated from data col-
lected for 250 lakes during the 1973 sampling year, are presented by Taylor
et al. (1979b).  Trends identified in that report led to the exploration of
methods for application of the knowledge to biological trophic classification
of lakes and reservoirs.
                                       19

-------
     Two important findings were included in the report.   First,  most  phyto-
plankton genera were found to occur over wide ranges of conditions,  effectively
eliminating most of the genera from consideration as indicator organisms.
Second, central tendencies expressed as mean parameter values  (e.g.,
Scenedesmus, with 50 dominant sample occurrences, had a mean CHLA value  of
60.4 ug/1) showed trends that reflected trophic association, if not  preference.
Genera that, as dominants, were associated with relatively high mean CHLA
values were similarly related to other parameters, e.g.,  high  TOTALP,  ammonia
and 1/Secchi depth values.  Similar relationships occurred at  the opposite
(low mean parameter value) end of the scale as well.  Since data  are available
describing the central  tendencies of more than 80 genera  that  attained domi-
nance in at least one sample, it seems reasonable to explore the  possibilities
of using that information for classifying lake waters.

     While no universal agreement on an entirely suitable definition of
eutrophication has been reached (Stewart and Rohlich 1967; and Brezonik  et  al.
1969), or even agreement on parameters to measure, most workers would  agree
that eutrophication is a complex process of lake evolution tied directly to
nutrient enrichment.  To the phytoplankton, eutrophication is  just one more
of many changes continuously occurring in their environment.   As  lake  condi-
tions change, so the phytoplankton change; communities constantly adjust to
take advantage of available conditions.  Phytoplankton can be  considered inte-
grators of numerous physical and chemical  conditions found in  lake waters,  and
that integration is reflected in community structure.  The approach  presented
here attempts to analyze specific communities, in terms of our knowledge about
the generic components, to arrive at a biological statement of trophic state.

Development of Phytoplankton Trophic Values

     The basic element in our approach to the development of phytoplankton
indices was the assignment of "trophic values" to each genus based upon  mean
parameter values associated with the dominant occurrences of each genus  as
found in the 250 lakes sampled during spring, summer, and fall  of 1973 (see
Hern et al. 1979; Lambou et al. 1979, Morris et al.  1979, and  Williams et al.
1979).  Trophic values assigned to genera on the basis of relationships
established from analysis of a large data base were applied to the taxa
occurring within the lake to be trophically evaluated.  Mean parameter
values for dominant occurrences of phytoplankton forms were used  in  establish-
ing trophic values because they approximate advantageous  conditions  for  the
growth of these forms.

     All genus-trophic-values used in formulating the phytoplankton  trophic
indices are presented in Table 8.  The genus-trophic-values, total phosphorus
(TOTALP), chlorophyll .a (CHLA), and total  Kjeldahl nitrogen (KJEL) in  Table 8,
are simply mean photic zone values associated with the dominant occurrences of
each genus.  TOTALP/CONC, CHLA/CONC, and KJEL/CONC were calculated by  dividing
the TOTALP, CHLA, and KJEL values by the corresponding mean cell  count.  Also
given in Table 8 is a genus-trophic-multivariate-value (MV) calculated for
each genus using the following formula:

             MV = Log TOTALP + Log CHLA + Log KJEL - Log  SECCHI

                                      20

-------
TABLE 8.   TROPHIC VALUES OF SELECTED GENERA BASED UPON MEAN PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
           OCCURRENCE AS DOMINANTS
GENUS
Achnanthes
Actinaetrwn
Anabaena
Anabaenopsis
Ankistrodeemus
Anamoeoneis
Aphanizamenon
Aphanoaapsa
Aplianothece
Arttooepira
Aetevionella
Attheya
Binuelec&ia
Botryococeue
Carter ia
Ceratiwn
Chlamydomonae
Chlorella
Chromulina
Chrooooooue
Chroomonae
Chpyeoeapea
Chryeoooocue
Cloeterium
Coelastrum
Coe losphaeriwn
Coecinodiecue
Coemarium
Crucigenia
DOMINANT
OCCURRENCES
6
2
33
7
9
3
41
4
3
2
36
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
1
19
1
1
2
4
6
6
3
3
2
TOTALP
29
56
183
70
75
10
147
242
65
51
36
70
42
56
509
140
847
70
8
163
116
10
1580
20
60
44
138
14
361
CHLA
11.5
3.5
19.7
32.9
17.9
5.4
37.6
21.1
32.4
21.0
9.6
1.4
6.7
10.3
44.5
5.2
55.1
53.1
TO.O
46.6
32.9
7.9
75.0
19.8
13.4
11.7
62.7
9.9
11.8
KJEL
734
594
1015
1393
573
364
1437
1427
1493
1227
491
473
425
1049
1513
1046
3143
991
348
1630
1421
261
4631
698
1208
888
1267
586
1048
TOTALP
CONC
.027
.142
.098
.008
.082
.005
.058
.034
.009
.022
.023
1.892
.038
.013
.176
3.784
.162
.015
.008
.028
.084
.015
.197
.007
.077
.097
.053
.003
.696
CHLA
CONC
.001
.009
.011
.004
.020
.002
.015
.003
.004
.009
.006
.038
.006
.002
.015
.141
.011
.012
.010
.008
.024
.012
.009
.007
.017
.026
.024
.002
.023
KJEL
CONC
.689
1.508
.545
.165
.626
.166
.569
.200
.203
.519
.310
12.784
.384
.250
.523
28.270
.601
.215
.336
.283
1.032
.380
.576
.249
1.549
1.965
.488
.115
2.019
MV
3.53
3.62
4.82
5.01
4.25
2.32
5.18
5.04
4.98
4.37
3.87
3.23
3.37
4.20
6.04
3.84
6.75
5.13
2.46
5.37
5.50
2.16
7.32
3.60
4.36
3.82
5.25
3.27
4.67
Continued

-------
      TABLE 8.  TROPHIC VALUES OF SELECTED GENERA BASED

                OCCURRENCE AS DOMINANTS  (Continued)
UPON MEAN PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
ro
ro
GENUS
Cryptcmonae
Cyclotella
Doc ty locoooopsis
Die tyoBphaerium
Dinobryon
Euglena
Eunotia
Frag-ilaria
Glenodin-Lim
Gloeooysti-e
Gloeotheae
Golenkinia
Gomphonema
Gomphosphaeria
Gymnodiniwn
Kirohneriella
Lyngbya
Mallomona.8
Meloeiva
Meriemopedia
Meeostigma
Micractinium
Microcysti,8
Mougeotia
Navicula
Nitzeehia
Oocystis
Oscillator ia
Peridiniwn
Fhacus
DOMINANT
OCCURRENCES
72
83
58
1
31
8
1
45
4
6
2
2
1
4
2
8
99
6
255
22
1
1
53
2
6
29
5
105
6
2
TOTALP
115
185
178
18
27
318
178
64
8
35
9
615
10
25
9
139
99
87
94
183
57
101
148
76
74
92
38
125
16
2523
CHLA
16.5
29.9
25.0
10.8
8.1
24.5
8.6
17.5
6.4
10.9
4.0
26.9
7.4
8.3
2.8
7.6
29.5
6.0
18.1
33.6
12.8
52.8
37.5
29.2
8.2
26.5
14.0
39.2
8.4
22.8
KJEL
798
1053
1041
949
594
1481
1199
843
403
639
412
1040
782
1270
256
755
1488
642
774
1387
571
1098
1457
990
490
883
1098
1356
595
4049
TOTALP
CONC
.102
.073
.026
.050
.043
.190
3.296
.019
.020
.057
.069
.195
.019
.123
.053
.123
.008
.798
.034
.059
.131
.041
.056
.058
.127
.042
.005
.014
.054
3.955
CHLA
CONC
.015
.012
.004
.030
.013
.015
.159
.005
.016
.018
.031
.009
.014
.041
.016
.007
.002
.055
.006
.011
.029
.021
.014
.022
.014
.012
.002
.004
.029
.036
KJEL
CONC
.711
.418
.153
2.658
.938
.884
22.204
.247
1.025
1.034
3.169
.330
1.507
6.225
1.506
.669
.115
5.890
.277
.444
1.310
.446
.547
.757
.838
.402
.157
.150
2.024
6.346
MV
4.53
4.10
5.05
3.45
3.16
5.70
4.88
4.13
2.34
3.50
2.23
5.60
__
3.65
1.68
4.15
4.98
3.62
4.49
5.34
4.04
5.22
5.27
5.09
3.93
4.78
3.97
5.27
3.01
7.59
      Continued

-------
       TABLE 8.   TROPHIC VALUES OF SELECTED GENERA BASED UPON MEAN PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
ro
CO
OCCURKEIN

GENUS
Phormidiim
Pinnularia
Raphidiopsis
Rhizoeolenia
Poya
Scenedesmus
Sckroederia
Selenastmm
Spermatozoopsis
Sphaere Z lops-is
Sphaerocys tis
Sphaerozosma
Spondylosiwn
Staurastrum
Staurone-Ls
Stephanodisoue
Synedra
Synura
Tabellaria
Tetra&dron
Tetrastrwn
Trachelomonae
GENERAL CATEGORIES
centric diatoms
pennate diatoms
flagellate
flagellates
chrysophytan
Ith Ab UUMlNANi:
DOMINANT
OCCURRENCES
3
1
45
1
1
50
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
73
48
1
20
5
1
4

32
17
108
199
5
> Itontinue

TOTALP
172
4
106
31
7
351
17
99
65
57
46
13
21
13
79
166
82
131
22
18
28
97

142
254
154
99
54
cu

CHLA
113.2
0.5
30.5
15.9
2.4
60.4
4.1
9.3
8.8
6.4
11.3
16.6
6.4
16.6
1.9
37.0
19.0
8.9
7.7
5.2
6.9
6.0

24.9
46.8
13.7
14.6
10.5


KJEL
1955
264
1073
1161
332
1826
552
465
1631
532
1274
750
599
750
557
1112
797
1449
455
384
625
867

1000
1615
882
749
635

TOTALP
CONC
.102
.400
.010
.014
.030
.058
.063
.116
.085
.594
.032
.002
.058
.004
9.875
.045
.027
1.056
.015
.040
.043
.292

.033
.036
.075
.054
.010

CHLA
CONC
.067
.050
.003
.007
.010
.010
.015
.011
.012
.067
.008
.003
.018
.006
.238
.010
.006
.072
.005
.012
.011
.018

.006
.007
.007
.008
.002

KJEL
CONC
1.164
26.400
.097
.519
1.437
.303
2.060
.546
2.132
5.542
.897
.128
1.659
.251
69.625
.304
.261
11.685
.307
.859
.963
2.611

.234
.227
.427
.411
.118


MV
5.77
0.78
4.88
4.19
1.68
6.01
2.54
4.13
4.13
3.56
4.23
3.61
—
3.61
3.62
5.27
4.42
5.11
2.86
2.66
3.53
4.38

4.97
5.81
4.55
4.30
3.73

-------
 where  TOTALP,  CHLA,  KJEL, and SECCHI are again, mean values associated with
 dominant  occurrences of each genus.

 Application  of Phytoplankton Trophic Values

     We have formulated 10 phytoplankton trophic state indices based upon
 varying application  procedures using the genus-trophic-values given in
 Table  8.  These  indices can be placed in 2 categories, those using cell
 counts and those not using cell counts in their application.  The indices
 not  using cell counts are the simplest to calculate, and will be described
 first.
Phytoplankton Trophic State Index (TSI)  Calculations  Without  Cell  Counts

     The four phytoplankton trophic state indices  not requiring  cell  counts  in
their application are designated as TOTALP(PD),  CHLA(PD),  KJEL(PD), and MV(PD)
where TOTALP, CHLA,  KJEL,  and MV refer to the  genus-trophic-values given  in
Table 8, and PD (phytoplankton-dominant)  indicates that  the phytoplankton
index is calculated  on the basis of the  dominant genera  (rather  than  all  gen-
era detected) in a test lake.  These indices are calculated according to  the
following generalized formula:

                                           n

                                          1=1
                                                  /
                     Phytoplankton TSI =  £  y. / n                      (l)
                                          1=1   1 /
where Phytoplankton TSI is the phytoplankton trophic state index for the lake,
n is the number of dominant genera in the sample (concentration >^ 10 percent
of the total sample concentration), and V is the trophic value, for each
dominant genus in the sample.  A demonstration of the procedure for calcula-
ting the TOTALP(PD) phytoplankton TSI on Fox Lake, Illinois (STORET No.  1755)
using formula 1 is given in Table 9.

     Three genera are listed as dominants in Table 9, i.e., Aphanizomenon.
Melosira. and Stephanodiscus.  The sum of the TOTALP trophic values (V)  for
each of the dominant genera is divided by n, (i.e., 3) the number of dominant
genera in the sample, to arrive at a  TOTALP(PD) phytoplankton TSI for the lake
equal to 135.6.

     TOTALP(PD),  CHLA(PD), and KJEL(PD) TSI values for the test lakes were
ranked from high  to low, ranging from 268 to 10,  75.0 to 5.4, and 1706 to 364,
respectively (Appendix A7).  MV(PD) TSI values for the test lakes were ranked
from high to low, ranging from 5.64 - 2.32 (Appendix A8).
                                      24

-------
             TABLE 9.   PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE TOTALP(PD)
                       PHYTOPLANKTON TSI  USING FOX LAKE,  ILLINOIS,
                       AS AN EXAMPLE
Dominant Genera
in Fox Lake                         Percent                      V
(STORET No. 1755)                  Occurrence         (TOTALP,  from Table 8)

Aphanizomenon                         41.2                      147

Meloeira                              15.9                       94

Stephanodieaus                        15.5                      166
                                                    Sum Total = 406

                        TOTALPCPD) phytoplankton TSI = ^-  = 135.6
Phytoplankton Trophic State Index Calculations Kith Cell Counts


     Two variations in the application of each of the genus-trophic-values
designated as TOTALP/CONC, CHLA/CONC, and KJEL/CONC CTable 8) have been pro-
posed for use as phytoplankton trophic state indices.  One variation uses
the entire phytoplankton community in its calculation while the second vari-
ation uses only the dominant phytoplankton community in its calculation.

              Total Community Phytoplankton Trophic State Index

     The three phytoplankton trophic state indices requiring cell count data,
which are calculated using the entire phytoplankton community, are designated
TOTALP/CONC(P), CHLA/CONC(P), and KJEL/CONC(P), where TOTALP/CONC, CHLA/CONC,
and KJEL/CONC refer to the genus-trophic-values given in Table 8, and P (phy-
toplankton)  indicates that the indices are calculated on the basis of the
entire  phytoplankton community.  These indices are calculated according to
the following formula:

                                             n
                      Phytoplankton TSI =   £ y.  C.                   (2)

                                            1=1
where phytoplankton TSI  fs the phytoplankton trophic state index  for the lake,
n is the number of genera in the sample, V Is the  appropriate trophic-value
for each genus, and C is the concentration of the  genus  1n the sample.  A
demonstration of  the procedure for calculating the TOTALP/CONC(P) phytoplank-
ton TSI using formula 2  is presented 1n Table 10.
                                       25

-------
TABLE 10.  PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE TOTALP/CONC(P)
           PHYTOPLANKTON TSI  USING FOX LAKE,  ILLINOIS,
           AS AN EXAMPLE
Genera Counted In
Fox Lake, Illinois
CSTORET NO. 1755)
Anabaena
Aphani zomenon
CloBterium
Crucigenia
Cyclotella
Flagellates
Glenodiniwn
Gomphoephaeria
Melosira
MicTocyetie
Oooyetie
Oscillatoria
Phormidiion
Soenedesmue
Sphaeroayetia
Stephanodieous
Synedra
Percent of
Count

3.7
41.2
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.3
1.7
1.7
15.9
5.1
4.1
4.1
0.3
3.7
0.7
15.5
C
CAlgal Units
per ml)
237
2631
22
22
65
22
108
108
1014
324
259
259
22
237
43
992
0.3 22
TOTALP/CONCCP) phytoplankton TSI
V
(TOTALP/CONC,
Table 8)
.098
.058
.007
.696
.073
.054
.020
.123
.034
.056
.005
.014
.102
.058
.032
.045
.027

SUM TOTAL =
= 332
V x C
23
153
0
15
5
1
2
13
34
18
1
4
2
14
1
45
1
332
                          26

-------
     In the example (Table 10) the concentration  (C)  of each genus  In the
sample, regardless of dominant status,  is  multiplied  by its  TOTALP/CONC tro-
phic value (V).  The sum of all such products  (332)  is the TOTALP/CONC(P)
phytoplankton TSI for Fox Lake.

     TOTALP/CONC(P), CHLA/CONC(P), and  KJEL/CONC(P)  values for the  test lakes
were ranked from high to low, ranging from 17,332 to  10 (Appendix A7), 12,160
to 2 (Appendix A7), and 62,081 to 132 (Appendix A8),  respectively.


            Doiiii nant Commuhi ty Phytopi ariktoh Trophi c  State I ndex

     The three phytoplankton trophic state indices requiring cell count data,
which are calculated using only dominant genera,  are designated TOTALP/CONC
(PD), CHLA/CONC(PD), and KJEL/CONC(PD), where TOTALP/CONC, CHLA/CONC, and
KJEL/CONC refer to the genus-trophic-values given in Table 8, and PD
(phytoplankton-dominantl indicates that the phytoplankton index is  calculated
on the basis of the'dominant genera (rather than  on all genera detected) in a
test lake.  These indices are calculated using formula 2.

     This group of phytoplankton trophic state indices differs from the last
group in that only trophic-values (V; and concentrations  CC) for dominant
genera in the sample are used.  A demonstration of the procedure for calcula-
ting the TOTALP/CONC(PD) phytoplankton  TSI using  formula  2  is presented in
Table 11.
          TABLE 11.  PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE TOTALP/CONC(PD)
                     PHYTOPLANKTON TSI USING FOX LAKE, ILLINOIS, AS
                     AN EXAMPLE
Dominant Genera in                        C                 V
Fox Lake,  Illinois      Percent of   (Algal Units     (TOTALP/CONC
(STORET No.  1755)         Count          Per ml)        Table 8)       V x C
Aphaniaomenon
Meloaivct
Stephonodiaoua

41.2
15.9
15.5

2631
1041
992

.058
.034
.045

153
34
45

                                                             SUM TOTAL  *  232

                    TOTALP/CONCCPD), phytoplankton TSI  =  232
                                     27

-------
     In the example (Table 11) the concentration (C) of each  dominant  genus
in the sample is multiplied by its TOTALP/CONC trophic-value  (V).Tfie sum of
all such products (232) is the TOTALP/CONC(PD) phytoplankton  TSI for Fox
Lake.

     TOTALP/CONC(PD),  CHLA/CONC(PD),  and KJEL/CONC(PD)  values for  the  test
lakes were ranked from high to low, ranging from 7,438  to  4,  797 to 2,  and
27,947 to 132, respectively (Appendix A8).
                                     28

-------
                            RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

     Values calculated for each index and measurement of trophic  state  and
the corresponding rankings for each of the test lakes are presented  in  Appen-
dices Al through A8.   The ranking of lakes by each of the indices is compared
in turn against that  produced by trophic ranking standards,  total  phosphorus
and chlorophyll _a.  Tables 12 and 13 list the various indices  and measure-
ments of trophic state by the strength of their relationship (Spearman  rank
correlation coefficient) with the total phosphorus and chlorophyll a^ stand-
ards.

     The Larsen and Mercier, Dillon, and Vollenweider trophic  ratios predict
ambient lake phosphorus levels, which is supported by their  high  rank cor-
relations with the total phosphorus standard (rs = 0.94, 0.92, and 0.82,  re-
spectively).  However, they do not predict relative chlorophyll a^ levels  as
well (rs = 0.64, 0.50, and 0.49, respectively).  In fact, m± indices or mea-
surements or trophic  state did well in matching the trophic  rankings based
upon chlorophyll a^.  Total phosphorus- and chlorophyll ^-based rankings showed
only modest agreement (rs = 0.71), which indicates that there  may indeed  by
differences in relative trophic ranking whether primary nutrients or biologi-
cal manifestations are used as the ranking mechanism.

     One of the primary reasons for these differences becomes  evident when
the relative ranking successes of Secchi disk transparency and Secchi-based
indices such as Carlson's Secchi Depth index are evaluated.   Note how effec-
tively Secchi depth was able to rank the test lakes relative to the  phosphorus
ranking (rs = 0.93) (Table 12).  Simple transformation of the  Secchi depth
values to Iog2 does not, of course, alter the relative ranking and an identi-
cal rs is therefore obtained by the Carlson scheme.  However,  the Secchi-based
trophic rankings, when compared with the chlorophyll £ standard rank, show
similar performance drop-offs to those noted with phosphorus loading trophic
ratios.

     Phosphorus is a component of biological particulates, such as phyto-
plankton, which reduce light penetration as their density (and hence the
phosphorus concentration) increases.  However, phosphorus is also an impor-
tant component of most inorganic particulates found in natural waters.  As
a result, decreased light penetration  in water, regardless of the turbidity
source, is nearly always accompanied by concomitant increases in  total
phosphorus levels.  At the same time,  it is well known that decreased light
penetration, particularly in heavily sediment-laden waters, can result  in low
phytoplankton  populations and hence low chlorophyll a^ levels.   Where phyto-
plankton growth is limited by restricted light penetration, we often encounter
the paradox of negative correlation between chlorophyll a^ and total  phosphorus.
In addition to reducing light penetration, inorganic  suspensoids often  contain

                                       29

-------
TABLE 12.   INDICES AND MEASUREMENTS OF TROPHIC STATE  RANKED  BY THEIR
             CORRELATION WITH SUMMER AMBIENT MEAN PHOSPHORUS LEVELS
SPEARMAN'S RANK
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
INDEX (rs)
Larsen & Herder Trophic Ratio
Boland PCI 2
Secchl Depth
Carlson's Secchl Depth Index
CERL TSI
Dillon Trophic Ratio
Boland PCI]
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
Vollenwelder Trophic Ratio
Algal Assay Control Yield
N/P Ratio
+ Mult1var1ate Algal Index (PD)
Chlorophyll a
Carlson's Chlorophyll a Index
+ KJEL/CONC(PD)
+ TOTALP/CONC(PD)
Specific Conductance
+ KJEL(PD)
+ CHLA(PD)
+ TOTALP/CONC(P)
+ KJEL/CONC(P)
+ CHLA/CONC PD)
+ CHLA/CONC(P)
+ TOTALP(PD)
Phytoplankton Concentration
Palmer's Genus Index
Phytoplankton Blovolume
Nygaard's Compound Index
Nygaard's Chlorococcalean Index
Number of phytoplankton species
Number of phytoplankton species (modified)
Nygaard's Myxophycean Index
Nygaard's Euglenophycean Index
Phytoplankton Species Diversity (H)
Evenness Component of Phytoplankton
Diversity (J)
Nygaard's Diatom Index
Palmer's Species Index
.94
.93
.93
.93
.92
.92
.91
.91
.82
.80
.77
.72
.71
.71
.68
.67
.66
.66
.64
.63
.62
.62
.61
.58
.55
.54
.52
.47
.45
.35
.31
.24
.19
-.18

-.15
.12
-.06
t-value
14.438 **
14.437 **
15.872 **
15.872 **
14.800 **
13.035 **
9.299 **
14.200 **
8.486 **
7.139 **
7.930 **
6.818 **
6.462 **
6.462 **
5.948 **
5.916 **
5.697 **
5.647 **
5.337 **
5.302 **
5.152 **
5.048 **
4.944 **
4.628 **
4.221 **
3.935 **
3.928 **
2.873 **
2.721 *
2.435 *
2.117 *
1.314
0.914
-1.206

0.960
0.740
-0.231
DEGREES
OF
FREEDOM
37
30
42
42
42
33
18
42
34
29
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
~fc
42
42
38
42
30
30
42
42
29
23
42

42
39
14
+  New biological Indices based on the phytoplankton community structure.
** significant at the 0.01 level.
*  significant at the 0.05 level.
                                         30

-------
 TMHUEE1B3.   IMOI£BSMI80NWMSW1EEMEITBS(WTTII^
               COMBttMT DDN ^ rm SSBMMBR AMH EEm
  IIRBIX
     SBHAWWNSSRJWNK
 COGRREMTdONCOeEFFlIC [BIT
	(M)	
                        ttvriloe
                  DDEBBEES
                    06F
                  FRBEBOBM
  T7«ta1 KMeidafcl NBtteggen

++CBHWOQHW)
  PBJtftpplahWonCeooeefttration
  SSpedffdcCfioddottaoee
  TJdtalPRbeppboras
  CEBRLTJSI
++MNiU*«aMateAAlgalliddix((BO)
  LtBF8Bn44MMecd*erTTcppftdcR8litdo
  BBftladdPeCli
  WPRRaMo

  SSecbilDBepkh
  C6aHsoh4 sSSecbftl DBppth I iddtx
  AA}galAAsa«yC6ofitr*lYTield
  DBIlJonTTcppldcRRltdo

  NllygaaiMisCehlorooocealeanliddex
   PMtae^isS^ecics I iMcx
   Phytpplahkton'Specles Diversity (H)
.299
.288
.2E6
.285

.225
.2Z2
.222
.271

.271
.271
.271
.200

.688
.667
.666
.644

.644
.663
.682
.611

.660
.660
.566
 .553

 .560
 .560
  449
 .446

 .337
 .335
 .332
 ,2K

-T285
 .004
  .01
882888***
881777***
776631***
773804***

772860***
662140***
666448***
666WO***

665S80***
664460***
664460***
662290***

559847***
552997***
552337***
445885***

550049***
552866***
333993***
550880***

448846***
448846***
336443***
338860***

332B65***
333386***
332880***
228833***

226601**
224486**
1188B6
115609

114445

116888
001$88
002244

  00635
                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442

                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442

                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442

                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      330

                                                      337
                                                      442
                                                      138
                                                      442

                                                      442
                                                      442
                                                      229
                                                      388

                                                      442
                                                      333
                                                      344
                                                      330

                                                      442
                                                       442
                                                       390
                                                       P23

                                                       229

                                                       442
                                                       144
                                                       339

                                                        42
     New biological  Indices based on the phytoplankton community structure.
     Significant at  0.05 level.
     Significant at  0.01 level.
                                                 31

-------
high levels of phosphorus in a biologically unavailable form.   In such cases,
the biological response (chlorophyll  a_) will  be lower than that predicted
from total phosphorus levels.  These  factors therefore contribute to diminish
the effective "interchangeability" of Carlson TSI's (Secchi-,  Total  phosphorus-
and chlorophyll  ja-based).

     Had the test lakes not been comprised of a broad range of lake  types,
including some highly turbid (low Secchi  disk) lakes, we might expect the
ranking by total phosphorus to be in  close agreement with that obtained with
chlorophyll _§_.  There is abundant evidence for the high correlations between
phosphorus and chlorophyll a^ in lakes not carrying a heavy silt load
(Sakamoto 1966,  Dillon and Rigler 1974, Jones and Bachmann 1976,  and others).
We do not feel that extrapolation of  such relationships to populations of
lakes carrying heavy inorganic particulate loads (river-run reservoirs,
shallow wind-driven lakes, etc.) is appropriate (see Hern et al.  1978).

     In addition to Secchi depth, only Kjeldahl nitrogen, among the  other
single-parameter "indices," provides  noteworthy rank correlation with the
phosphorus standard rank (rs = 0.91).  Indeed, Kjeldahl nitrogen and
Kjeldahl-based phytoplankton indices  largely dominate the "successful"
trophic rankings relative to that of  the chlorophyll a^ standard.   The high
rank correlation of total Kjeldahl nitrogen to chlorophyll a^ (rs = 0.78) is
not unexpected as the chlorophyll-containing autotrophs are primary  sources
of the organic nitrogen in surface waters.  Williams et al. (1978) tested a
large set of lake data (277 lakes) and found the correlation between Kjeldahl
nitrogen and chlorophyll a_ to be r =  0.82.  Kjeldahl nitrogen may prove to
be a very important parameter in refining nutrient/response relationships in
surface waters.

     Other single parameter measurements of trophic state that may have some
utility or potential application, although not highly ranked,  include chlor-
ophyll a^ (and its Carlson-transformed analog) (rs = 0.71 against phosphorus
standard); conductivity (rs = 0.66 against phosphorus, 0.72 against  chloro-
phyll ji); phytoplankton concentration (rs = 0.55 against phosphorus, 0.72
against chlorophyll a); and phytoplankton biovolume (rs = 0.52 against phos-
phorus, 0.66 against chlorophyll a).

     The performances of phytoplankton concentration and biovolume relative
to the chlorophyll  £-based standard (rs = 0.72 and 0.66, respectively) may,
at first, appear disappointingly low.  However, when the wide variation in
the phytoplankton cells and colonies  counted is considered, the total count
(concentration)  performance is actually quite good.  That phytoplankton
concentration exceeded biovolume in ability to rank the test lake set, rela-
tive to both of the standards, is rather surprising and may reflect, in part,
relative differences in the chlorophyll a_ contents of various phytoplankton
taxa.

     Conductivity was rather effective in predicting the trophic ranking of
lakes by the chlorophyll a^ standard (rs = 0.72) and slightly less so for the
phosphorus-standard ranking (rs = 0.66).   The relative success of this esti-
mate of total dissolved solids (reported by Beeton, 1965 to be positively
related to trophic condition) suggests that soluble nutrients generally vary

                                      32

-------
with the total dissolved load.   The relationship to total  phosphorus  is  not
stronger and reflects differences among waters in both  the ionic  constituents
and the fractions of the phosphorus in bound and soluble  form.

     The use of Algal Assay Control Yield to trophically  rank the test lake
gave creditable agreement with  the phosphorus-standard  rank (rs = 0.80),
but gave disappointing results  against chlorophyll  a^ (rs  = 0.56).  This  re-
sponse may represent the antithesis of the nutrient/response relationship
problem previously discussed.   Under conditions of the  assay, yields  should
approach theoretical optima based upon nutrient availability.  Therefore,
water samples, from lakes in which the maximum response was not reached
because of light limitation, are essentially freed to achieve their yield
potentials.  As a result, the strength of the relationship between natural
systems and assay yields is diminished.

     The three multivariate indices utilizing various combinations of physi-
cal and/or chemical data, e.g., Boland's PCI, and PC1?, and the CERL  TSI,
were, as expected, among the better performers in relation to the phosphorus-
standard lake ranking.  All three utilize ambient total phosphorus and one or
more additional highly phosphorus-correlated parameters.   However, while the
three approaches also share chlorophyll a_ as a common component,  the  best
performance among these indices against the chlorophyll ^-standard ranking
(CERL TSI), yielded an rs of only 0.68.

     The success of N/P ratio in ranking the test lakes relative  to the
phosphorus-standard rank (rs =  0.77) was expected, based  upon knowledge  of
the overall population of lakes from which the test set was extracted.   Vir-
tually all of the eastern and southeastern lakes with low N/P ratios  had an
abundance of phosphorus rather  than a paucity of nitrogen (see Williams
et al. 1978).   Inclusion of a  higher percentage of low-nutrient, low N/P
ratio lakes, as found in the western U.S., would likely diminish  the  strength
of the N/P ratio ranking noted  here.

     Some of the indices were especially ineffective at trophically ranking
the test lakes.  This group includes some widely-used indices based upon the
nature of, and/or the distributional patterns of phytoplankton species,  genera,
or higher taxonomic groupings.

     Nygaard's indices assume a degree of uniformity within various phyto-
plankton taxonomic groups that  extensive phytoplankton  analyses at EMSL-Las
Vegas have not substantiated (Hern et al. 1979, Lambou  et al. 1979, Morris
et al. 1979, Williams et al. 1979, Taylor et al. 1979b).   In many cases,
within-group variability (the range of environmental conditions associated
with the group's occurrence) was so great that it masked  any real differences
that might have existed among groups.

     The poor performance of Palmer's Genus and Species Indices  in trophi-
cally ranking the test lakes was not surprising.  First,  the information used
to compile the listings of pollution tolerant genera and  species  came from  a
broad range of sources and geographical areas and the reported data were not
independently confirmed.  Second, although the indices  have been  extrapolated
for trophic evaluations in the  past, Palmer's intent was  to provide indices


                                      33

-------
f forr na±ti tiigg waiterr saarpfl ess w/? ttih hli gfrh oong^fflri tc ppd 1 liftti txrin 1 fear«4 fes .  A/I thtaxwigtih oongaari tc
Pfod H littti txran aandd nmitlni eartt eami cthtoaartt, , i tin mauryy waters^ , maotir' naaktf tiigg 1 fektess a«s meastitnedd biyy ed ttilearr stiandiiandJ namikli iigg i hi i thri s: stud^y .
Thtee modd f fi tatti orati , ed li Jmi tiattj TWJO tbie ; ranerr speed ess compponiMitlss off t hiet: cooimurari ty,
ffxwin conisa tkiratd bmri , hiadd 1 li tt ] et ef f ecctl OM ; the: nanik1 psnedi clatoli 1 !i tyy ml atti vee tdc
ea ttitearr1 naanikti nif^staandiaixk i . Th© tota.l ;  nwmbier of f speed ess i dtet 1 f S ed i i ir a : sampl fei
IBS IbngtdyydfcfJiwidiinrt'  uppnr;thie. compeienc>Eeocfrthie:^ ^^wankierr and ithfe Itenicftfoiof time;
uaedd i tin ttite; a»a^ fa<3 si .  As ., pp.i tit fed 1 outl biy;, Kia 1 ff f and  Kfioechiel '<  ( (1 978) \ , a are pre*
1 linui hraary/ and! 1 ii ttl e : attempt  Was been  made- to  refine, them : for predl cti ve cap;-
ateli 1 li ti esi . Etvenn so^ , ttitei r general performance i h troph!i cal 1 y ranki ng q 1 akes
nel atti vee t&j ttiiee' ch>l orop^iyl 1 j.-sta.ndard \ was  a  veriy p;l easanrt surprri se *   SI x of
thtectopijlO..! indices:*,, incdudlhg^1 of: the top; 5  positions,, are  represented: by
ttiteser: nem indices- (tsc val lies  ranginigi from  0^71 1 to OQ7&).  Those indices-; appl led
tc<; thie. ditioil nanftt phiytbpl ankton ctsmmunity: compionents  (XI 6, percent of  the total ;
oel H ! oouiurt4- i hn a>; sampl fe) ; general 1 y had ; hi gher  correl at i ons tha n  the  ana 1 ogous
indices7, a|)pil lied I tt> ; aljj phyjktxpl ankton'i commun,ity components:, , al though- the: dif-
fereacess were? small I   the •inclusion'  of cell  count as a component in index
compotatl on;i improved i index performance [e.g.,  CHLA/COKC(PD:) yielded an  rs of
(X) 76  versus OHtAtPO') ;  with rs  =  0. 70].
          performance  of r the  new indices, in trophically ranking the test lakes
relativerto  the -phosphorus-standard  rank was  not impressive,  although one
of the indices [Moltivariate Algal  Index (PD)] slightly outperformed  the
ranking accomplished  by chlorophyll  a^ (rs = 0.72 versus 0.71,  respectively).
Conisidering  the broad ranges of environmental  conditions noted for most gen-
era  studied  (Taylor et al. 1979b), even this level of  performance is extremely
encouraging  and suggests that further refinement and  development are  warranted.


                                           34

-------
     Comparing the overall  performance of the new indices against  other
phytoplankton-based indices (Palmer's, Nygaard's, Diversity Indices)  suggests
that the new indices can perform with distinction in competition with the
best-known and most widely-used indices for ranking lakes relative to the
standard of trophic manifestation, chlorophyll  _a.  Further testing of the
indices against totally independent sets of lakes is planned to verify the
method.

     While the general performance of the more useful indices presented in
this report is higher with respect to predicting phosphorus- than
chlorophyll a^-based trophic rankings, it is important to differentiate be-
tween these ranking standards.  Phosphorus represents an important driving
variable in the process of eutrophication in most freshwaters,  while
chlorophyll a^ represents an index to the manifestations of that process.
Phosphorus levels represent a potential for growth that may or may not be
realized in a natural system (see Williams et al. 1978).  Chlorophyll _a
levels represent, to a large degree, the realization of this potential for
growth.  The selection of a standard that best represents the eutrophic com-
ponent of greatest import to the researcher, monitor, or watershed manager
can in turn dictate the selection of a trophic index that best meets specific
requirements.
                                       35

-------
                               REFERENCES

APHA, 1971.  Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.
     13th ed.  American Public Health Association.  Washington, D.C.  874 pp.

Beeton, A. M.  1965.  Eutrophication of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes.  Limnol,
     Oceanogr.  10:240-254.

Boland, D. H. P.  1976.  Trophic classification of lakes using Landsat-1
     (ERTS-1) multlspectral scanner data.  EPA-600/3-76-037.  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Corvallis, Oregon.  244 pp.

Brezonik, P. L., W. H. Morgan, E. E. Shannon, and H. D. Putnam.  1969.
     Eutrophication factors in north central Florida lakes.  Water Resources
     Research Center.  Publ. No. 5, Bull. Series No. 134, Fla. Eng. and
     Indus. Exper. Sta.  101 pp.

Brillouin, L.  1962.  Science and information Theory (2nd ed.).  Academic
     Press, New York.  351 pp.

Carlson, R. E.  1977.  A trophic state index for lakes.  Limnol. Oceanogr.
     22(2):361-369.

Dillon, P. J.  1975.  The phosphorus budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario:  The
     Importance of flushing rate to the degree of eutrophy of lakes.  Limnol.
     Oceanogr.  20:28-39.

Dillon, P. J., and F. H. Rigler.  1974.  The phosphorus-chlorophyll relation-
     ship in lakes.  Limno.  Oceanogr.  19:767-773.

Edmondson, W. T.  1970.  Book review (Water management research).  Limnol.
     Oceanogr.  15:169-170.

Hern, S. C., V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, W. D. Taylor,
     and L. R. Williams.  1979.   Phytoplankton water quality
     relationships in U.S. lakes.  Part III:  Genera Dactylococcopsis
     through Gyrosigma.  EPA-600/3-79-023.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.   85 pp.

Hern, S. C., V. W. Lambou, and L. R. Williams.  1978.  Comparisons of models
     predicting ambient lake phosphorus concentrations. National Eutrophi-
     cation Survey Working Paper No. 704.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas,
     Nevada.  9 pp.


                                      36

-------
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.

Jones, J. R. and R. W. Bachmann.  1976.  Prediction of phosphorus and
     chlorophyll levels in lakes.  J. Hater Pollut. Control  Fed.   48(9):2176-
     2182.

Kalff, J. and R. Knoechel.  1978.  Phytoplankton and their dynamics in oligo-
     trophic and eutrophic lakes.  Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.  9:475-495.

Lambou, V. W., L. R. Williams, S. C. Hern, R.  W. Thomas, and J. D.  Bliss.
     1976.  Prediction of phytoplankton productivity in lakes. _In_:  Environ-
     mental Monitoring and Simulation.  W. R.  Ott (ed).  EPA-600/9-76-016.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.  pp. 696-700.

Lambou, V. W., F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, W.  D. Taylor, L.  R. Williams, and
     S. C. Hern.  1979.  Phytoplankton water quality relationships in U.S.
     lakes.  Part IV:  Genera Hantzschia through Pteromonas.
     EPA-600/3-79-024.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Las Vegas, Nevada.  105 pp.

Larsen, D. P. and H. T. Mercier.  1976.  Phosphorus retention capacity of
     lakes.  J. Fish. Res. Board Can.  33:1742-1750.

Morris, M. K., W. D. Taylor, L. R. Williams, S. C. Hern, V.  W. Lambou, and
     F. A. Morris.  1979.  Phytoplankton water quality relationships in
     U.S. lakes.  Part V:  Genera Quadrigula through Zygnema.
     EPA-600/3-79-025.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Las Vegas, Nevada.  99 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.

Pielou, E. C.  1975.  Ecological diversity.  John Wiley and Sons.  New York.
     165 pp.

Rawson, D. S.  1956.  Algal indicators of trophic lake types.  Limnol.
     Oceanogr.  1:18-25.

Sakamoto, M.  1966.  Primary production by phytoplankton community in some
     Japanese lakes and its dependence on lake depth.  Arch. Hydrobiol.
     62:1-28.                                          	*	
                                      37

-------
Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver.  1963.  The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
     University of Illinois Press, Urbana.  117 pp.

Shannon, E. E. and P. L. Brezonik.  1972.  Eutrophication analysis:  a multi-
     variate approach.  J^. Sanit. Eng. Div. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng.  SA1 :37-58.

Siegel, S.  1956.  Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
     McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.  New York.  312 pp.

Stewart, K. M. and G. A. Rohlich.  1967.  Eutrophication - A review.  Calif.
     State Water Qual. Control Bd. Publication.  No. 34.  188 pp.

Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F.  A.
     Morris, R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris, and L. R. Williams.  1977.  Distri-
     bution of phytoplankton in Alabama lakes.  EPA-600/3-77-082.  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.  51 pp.

Taylor, W. D., L. R. Williams, S. C. Hern, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris,
     and M. K. Morris.  1979a.  Phytoplankton water quality relationships
     in U.S. lakes.  Part I:  Methods, rationale, and data limitations.
     EPA-600/3-79-021.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
     Nevada.  68 pp.

Taylor, W. D., S. C. Hern, L. R. Williams, V. W. Lambou, M. K. Morris, and
     F. A. Morris.  1979b.  Phytoplankton water quality relationships in
     U.S. lakes.  Part VI:  The common phytoplankton genera from eastern
     and southeastern lakes.  EPA-600/3-79-051.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.  82 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1971.  Algal assay procedure bottle
     test.  National Eutrophication Research Program, Corvallis, Oregon.
     82 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1974.  An approach to a relative
     trophic index system for classifying lakes and reservoirs.  National
     Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 24.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.  45 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1975.  National Eutrophication Survey
     Methods 1973-1976.  National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 175.
     Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, and
     Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Con/all is, Oregon.  91 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.  Report on Lake Lulu, Florida.
     National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 263.  Environmental
     Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Corvallis
     Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.  30 pp.
                                      38

-------
Vollenweider, R. A.  1968.  Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of
     lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and
     phosphorus as factors in eutrophication.  Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev.,
     Paris. Tech. Rep.  DAS/SCI/68.  27.  159 pp.

Vollenweider, R. A.  1975.  Input-output models with special reference to the
     phosphorus loading concept in limnology.  Schweiz. jA. Hydro!.  37:58-83.

Williams, L. R., S. C. Hern, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris,
     and W. D. Taylor.  1979.  Phytoplankton water quality relationships in
     U.S. lakes.  Part II:  Genera Acanthosphaera through Cystodinium.
     EPA-600/3-79-022.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Las Vegas, Nevada.  119 pp.

Williams, L. R., V. W. Lambou, S. C. Hern, and R. W. Thomas.  1978.
     Relationships of productivity and problem conditions to ambient nutrients:
     National Eutrophication Survey findings for 418 eastern lakes.
     EPA-600/3-78-002.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
     20 pp.
                                      39

-------
                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY

        A list of reports containing all  phytoplankton data collected
         in 1973 is given below.   These data were used in the series
          "Phytoplankton Water Quality Relationships in U.S.  Lakes."
    Corresponding U.S. EPA NES Working Paper (WP) numbers in parentheses.
Hern, S. C., J. W. Hilgert, V.  W.  Lambou,  F.  A.  Morris,  M.  K.  Morris,  L.  R.
     Williams, W. D. Taylor, and F. A.  Hiatt.  1977.   Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in South Carolina Lakes.   EPA-600/3-77-102, Ecological
     Research Series.  64 pp.  (WP No.  690)

Hern, S. C., J. W. Hilgert, V.  W.  Lambou,  F.  A.  Morris,  M.  K.  Morris,
     L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, and  F.  A.  Hiatt.   1978.   Distribution
     of Phytoplankton in Delaware Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-027, Ecological
     Research Series.  33 pp.  (WP No.  678)

Hiatt, F. A., S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, V.  W. Lambou, F. A. Morris,
     M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, and  W.  D.  Taylor.   1977.  Distribution
     of Algae in Pennsylvania.   U.S. EPA National Eutrophication Survey
     74 pp.  (WP No. 689)

Hiatt, F. A., S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, V.  W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M. K.
     Morris, L. R. Williams, and W. D.  Taylor.  1978.  Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in Tennessee Lakes.   EPA-600/78-016,  Ecological Research
     Series.  40 pp.  (WP No. 692)

Hilgert, J. W., V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris,  R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris,
     L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt,  and S. C. Hern.  1977.
     Distribution of Phytoplankton in Virginia Lakes.  EPA-600/3-77-100,
     Ecological Research Series.  40 pp.  (WP No. 692)

Hilgert, J. W., V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris,  M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams,
     W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, and S.  C.  Hern.   1978.  Distribution of
     phytoplankton in Ohio Lakes.   EPA-600/3-78-015,  Ecological Research
     Series.  94 pp.  (WP No. 688)

Lambou, V. W., 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.  1977.
     Distribution of Phytoplankton in Maryland Lakes.  EPA-600/3-77-124,
     Ecological Research Series.  24 pp.  (WP No. 684)
                                      40

-------
Lambou, V. W., F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, W.  D.  Taylor,
     F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hern, and J. W. Hilgert.  1977.   Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in West Virginia Lakes.  EPA-600/3-77-103,  Ecological
     Research Series.  21 pp.  (WP No. 693)

Morris, F. A., M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F.  A.  Hiatt,
     S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, and V. W. Lambou.  1978.   Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in Indiana Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-078,  Ecological  Research
     Series.  70 pp.  (WP No. 682)

Morris, F. A., M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F.  A.  Hiatt,
     S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, and V. W. Lambou.  1978.   Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in Georgia Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-011,  Ecological  Research
     Series.  63 pp.  (WP No. 680)

Morris, M. K., L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S.  C. Hern,
     J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, and F. A. Morris.  1978.  Distribution  of
     Phytoplankton in Illinois Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-050,  Ecological Research
     Series.  128 pp.  (WP No. 681)

Morris, M. K., L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S.  C. Hern,
     J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, and F. A. Morris.  1978.  Distribution  of
     Phytoplankton in North Carolina Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-051, Ecological
     Research Series.  73 pp.  (WP No. 687)

Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, V. W.  Lambou,
     F. A. Morris, R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris, and L. R.  Williams.   1977.
     Distribution of Phytoplankton in Alabama Lakes.  EPA-600/3-77-082,
     Ecological Research Series.  51 pp.  (WP No. 677)

Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, V. W.  Lambou,
     F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, and L. R. Williams.  1978.  Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in Florida Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-085,  Ecological  Research
     Series.  112 pp.  (WP No. 679)

Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert, V. W.  Lambou,
     F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, and L. R. Williams.  1978.  Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in Kentucky Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-013,  Ecological Research
     Series.  28 pp.  (WP No. 683)

Williams, L. R., W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hern,  J. W.  Hilgert,
     V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, R. W. Thomas, and M. K.  Morris.  1977.
     Distribution of Phytoplankton in Mississippi Lakes.   EPA-600/3-77-101,
     Ecological Research Series.  29 pp.  (WP No. 685)

Williams, L. R., F. A. Morris, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Hiatt,
     W. D. Taylor, M. K. Morris, and S. C. Hern.  1978.   Distribution of
     Phytoplankton in New Jersey Lakes.  EPA-600/3-78-OH, Ecological
     Research Series.  59 pp.  (WP No. 686)
                                      41

-------
                                  APPENDIX A

     The following tables (Appendices A1-A8) contain all  of the index and
measurement of trophic state values and corresponding rank positions for each
of the 44 test lakes.  The lakes are listed according to the rank order, high
to low, of the mean summer lake total phosphorus concentrations.

     In some instances two or more lakes had the same index or measurement of
trophic state value, in which cases rank values were assigned according to the
method described by Siegle (1956) for tied observations,  e.g., under TOTALP in
Appendix Al two lakes (STORET numbers 1757 and 4515) had TOTALP values of 73;
each was assigned the average rank (18.5) of the consecutive rank positions
(18 and 19).  Lakes where data were missing for one of the 38 indices or mea-
surements of trophic state, were not used in the comparisons and  calculation
of the correlation for that index or measurement of trophic state.
Appendix Al:
Appendix A2:
Appendix A3:
Appendix A4:
Appendix A5:
Test Lakes with Index Values and Measurements of Trophic
State and with Ranks for the following:   TOTALP, CHLA,
SECCHI DEPTH, N/P,  KJEL, Specific Conductance, and
CERL TSI	
                                                                          44
Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
following:  Carlson's Chlorophyll  ^, Carlson's Total
Phosphorus, Carlson's Secchi  Depth  	   45
Test Lakes with Index Values and Measurements of Trophic
State and with Ranks for the following:   Palmer's Genus
and Species Indices, H, J, Algal Assay Control  Yield.  . ,

Test Lakes with Measurements of Trophic  State and Ranks
for the following:  Number of Phytoplankton Species,
Number of Phytoplankton Species (modified),
Phytoplankton Concentration, Phytoplankton Biovolume.  . .

Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks  for the
following Indices:  Nygaard's Myxophycean,
Chlorococcalean, Euglenophycean, Diatom, and Compound  . .
                                                                          46
                                                                          47
                                                                          48
Appendix A6:   Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
               following Indices:  Boland PCI,  Boland PC19
               Vollenweider Trophic Ratio, Di
               Larsen-Mercier Trophic Ratio
                               Ion Trophic Ratio,  and
                                                           49
                                      42

-------
Appendix A7:   Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
               following Indices:  TOTALP(PD), CHLA(PD), KJEL(PD)
               TOTALP/CONC(P), and CHLA/CONC(P)  	   50

Appendix A8:   Test Lakes with Trophic Index Values and Ranks for the
               following Indices:  KJEL/CONC(P), TOTALP/CONC(PD),
               CHLA/CONC(PD), KJEL/CONC(PD), and Multivariate Algal
               Index (PD)	51
                                      43

-------
APPENDIX Al.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  TOTALP, CHLA, SECCHI DEPTH, N/P, KJEL,
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, AND CORVALLIS TSI
STORE!
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
TOTALP
(pg/D
1600
1120
1030
882
868
608
429
322
258
256
216
204
184
179
164
161
115
73
73
58
49
40
39
37
34
30
27
25
25
25
22
20
17
15
14
14
13
13
13
11
11
10
9
5
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.5
18.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
29
29
31
32
33
34
35.5
35.5
38
38
38
40.5
40.5
42
43
44
CHLA
(H9/1)
595.0
456.6
112.7
312.0
206.7
166.8
155.8
108.9
5.4
258.7
101.2
103.4
106.8
8.6
15.3
77.9
19.4
28.0
1.4
4.9
9.5
14.9
10.7
13.6
6.3
11.8
56.2
7.6
10.0
7.7
11.9
7.1
5.8
7.7
8.2
5.8
6.4
8.8
5.8
10.6
7.9
13.4
7.4
1.5
RANK
1
2
8
3
5
6
7
9
41
4
12
11
10
28
17
13
16
15
44
42
26
18
23
19
37
22
14
33
25
31.5
21
35
39
31.5
29
39
36
27
39
24
30
20
34
43
SECCHI
DEPTH RANK
(inches)
12.0
9.0
6.0
8.0
6.0
12.0
23.0
9.0
8.0
10.0
26.0
6.0
22.7
24.0
9.0
11.6
50.0
54.0
27.0
25.3
48.6
47.3
41.0
55.6
45.0
43.3
40.0
52.7
90.8
94.7
55.0
85.7
122.7
150.0
184.0
87.0
125.0
171.0
90.6
144.0
144.0
216.0
222.0
126.0
11.5
7
2
4.5
2
11.5
14
7
4.5
9
17
2
13
15
7
10
25
27
18
16
24
23
20
29
22
21
19
26
33
34
28
30
35
40
42
31
36
41
32
38.5
38.5
43
44
37
N/P
0.3
0.3
2.4
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
1.1
5.3
1.9
7.8
6.7
2.3
8.3
26.6
2.3
1.9
4.7
4.0
2.8
5.8
6.0
3.4
13.8
7.3
8.0
4.4
7.2
5.2
6.2
4.5
9.1
5.0
129.6
5.2
9.0
15.2
8.8
9.4
15.9
26.4
57.2
15.7
62.0
RANK
2
2
12
4
2
7
5
6
22
8.5
29
26
10.5
31
41
10.5
8.5
18
15
13
23
24
14
36
28
30
16
27
20.5
25
17
34
19
44
20.5
33
37
32
35
39
40
42
38
43
KJEL
(uq/i)
5700
7150
3700
6250
3600
6350
2925
2917
1639
4300
1200
2250
2328
1200
1150
4850
1150
1633
475
1050
539
844
-556
643
467
667
1375
763
570
333
1200
462
329
546
311
400
417
333
507
411
262
308
300
228
SPECIFIC
CONDUC-
RANK TAMCE RANK
(pmho)
4
1
7
3
8
2
9
10
13
6
17
12
11
17
19.5
5
19.5
14
31
21
29
22
27
25
32
24
15
23
26
37.5
17
33
39
28
40
36
34
37.5
30
35
43
41
42
44
353
328
877
755
437
300
178
576
224
613
150
404
274
141
548
388
525
475
27
78
199
92
171
243
57
69
328
72
161
130
192
64
23
96
71
348
172
49
38
232
53
50
80
95
11
13.5
1
2
8
15
22
4
19
3
26
9
16
27
5
10
6
7
43
33
20
31
24
17
38
36
13.5
34
25
28
21
37
44
29
35
12
23
41
42
18
39
40
32
30
CERL
TSI
122
76
119
182
195
198
158
172
151
200
127
156
231
300
162
234
234
274
399
193
333
304
263
234
356
322
393
420
381
359
439
382
456
351
466
499
466
437
423
434
426
420
473
465
RANK
3
1
2
10
12
13
7
9
5
14
4
6
15
21
8
16.5
16.5
20
31
11
24
22
19
16.5
26
23
30
32.5
28
27
38
29
39
25
41.5
44
41.5
37
34
36
35
32.5
43
40
       44
                 44
                          44
                                    44
                                  44
                                                         44
                                                       44
                                     44

-------
APPENDIX A2.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  CARLSON'S CHLOROPHYLL a_ INDEX, CARLSON'S
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS INDEX, AND CARLSON'S SECCHI DEPTH INDEX
STORET
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
CARLSON'S
CHLOROPHYLL a
INDEX
93.23
90.63
76.90
86.89
82.85
80.75
80.08
76.57
41.10
85.05
75.85
76.06
76.38
51.66
57.31
73.28
59.64
63.24
33.85
46.14
52.64
57.05
53.80
56.16
48.61
54.76
70.08
50.45
53.14
50.58
54.85
49.78
47.80
50.58
51.19
47.80
48.76
51.89
47.80
53.71
50.83
56.01
50.19
34.53
RANK
1
2
8
3
5
6
7
9
41
4
12
11
10
28
17
13
16
15
44
42
26
18
23
19
37
22
14
33
25
31.5
21
35
39
31.5
29
39
36
27
39
24
30
20
34
43
CARLSON'S
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
INDEX
110.59
105.44
104.23
102.00
101.77
96.63
91.60
87.46
84.26
84.15
81.70
80.87
79.39
78.99
77.73
77.46
72.61
66.05
66.05
62.73
60.30
57.37
57.00
56.24
55.03
53.22
51.70
50.59
50.59
50.59
48.74
47.37
45.03
43.22
42.22
42.22
41.15
41.15
41.15
38.74
38.74
37.37
35.85
27.37
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.5
18.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
29
29
31
32
33
34
35.5
35.5
38
38
38
40.5
40.5
42
43
44
CARLSON'S
SECCHI DEPTH
INDEX
77.14
81.29
87.14
82.99
87.14
77.14
67.75
81.29
82.99
79.77
65.98
87.14
67.94
67.14
81.29
77.63
56.55
.55.44
65.44
66.38
59.96
57.35
59.41
55.02
58.07
58.62
59.77
55.79
47.94
47.34
55.18
48.78
43.60
40.70
37.75
48.56
43.33
38.81
47.98
41.29
41.29
35.44
35.05
43.22
RANK
11.5
7
2
4.5
2
11.5
14
7
4.5
9
17
2
13
15
7
10
25
27
18
16
24
23
20
29
22
21
19
26
33
34
28
30
35
40
42
31
36
41
32
38.5
38.5
43
44
37
             44
                                     44
                                                             44
                                     45

-------
APPENDIX A3.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  PALMER'S GENUS AND SPECIES, H, J, AND
ALGAL ASSAY CONTROL YIELD
STORE!
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
PALMER'S
GENUS
INDEX
21
5
23
6
23
'll
13
8
2
24
12
25
21
5
6
6
6
11
.
2
16
15
9
5
11
17
3
22
1
6
12
14
6
3
1
3
1
-
3
-
1
4
1
-
PALMER'S
SPECIES
RANK INDEX RANK
6.5
27
3.5
22.5
3.5
16
12
19
34.5
2
13.5
1
6.5
27
22.5
22.5
22.5
16
-
34.5
9
10
18
27
16
8
31.5
5
38
22.5
13.5
11
22.5
31.5
38
31.5
38
-
31.5
-
38
29
38
-
6
4
4
.
7
4
2
2
-
5
4
7
9
-
1
_
.
2
-
-
_
.
6
-
-
4
-
7
-
-
_
.
_
.
-
^
-
-
-
-
_
-
.
-
5.5
10
10
-
3
10
14
14
-
7
10
3
1
-
16
_
-
14
-
-
_
_
5.5
-
-
10
-
3
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
.
-
-
_
.
.
-
H
3.92
2.34
3.73
0.67
2.94
2.64
4.31
2.77
2.91
2.96
1.70
3.13
3.41
2.67
2.02
2.31
2.56
3.30
2.93
2.46
1.71
2.26
3.59
0.90
3.63
2.53
3.07
3.56
2.79
3.44
2.64
3.65
2.68
2.19
2.48
3.25
2.28
1.90
3.68
1.80
2.89
1.76
2.86
1.92
RANK
43
14
42
1
29
19.5
44
23
27
30
3
32
35
21
9
13
18
34
28
15
4
11
38
2
39
17
31
37
24
36
19.5
40
22
10
16
33
12
7
41
6
26
5
25
8
J
0.68
0.57
0.68
0.14
0.51
0.54
0.79
0.52
0.63
0.51
0.51
0.54
0.64
0.62
0.44
0.44
0.72
0.67
0.65
0.54
0.37
0.42
0.63
0.19
0.72
0.47
0.67
0.67
0.55
0.69
0.49
0.66
0.50
0.46
0.51
0.68
0.56
0.50
0.72
0.54
0.63
0.68
0.69
0.74
ALGAL ASSAY
CONTROL YIELD
RANK (rag/1 dry weight) RANK
9.5
22
9.5
44
31.5
26.5
1
29
18
31.5
31.5
26.5
16
20
39.5
39.5
4
12.5
15
26.5
42
41
18
43
4
37
21
12.5
24
6.5
36
14
34.5
38
31.5
9.5
23
34.5
4
26.5
18
9.5
6.5
2
.
25.2
-
20.7
4.7
16.7
-
-
23.3
20.7
15.9
15.5
-
0.1
1.7
_
.
-
0.2
-
4.4
2.8
9.0
2.5
3.9
1.7
_
2.6
.
0.1
_
3.5
0.1
2.2
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
_
1
-
3.5
9
5
-
-
2
3.5
6
7
-
26.5
17.5
_
-
-
20
-
10
13
8
15
11
17.5
_
14
_
26.5
_
12
26.5
16
-
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
20
26.5
20
26.5
         40
        16
44
44
31
                                      46

-------
APPENDIX A4.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  NUMBER OF PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES, NUMBER
OF PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES (MODIFIED), PHYTOPLANKTON CONCENTRATION,
AND PHYTOPLANKTON BIOVOLUME
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
PHYTOPLANKTON PHYTOPLANKTON PHYTOPLANKTON
STORE! SPECIES SPECIES (MODIFIED) CONCENTRATION
NUMBER (taxa/sample) RANK (taxa/sample) RANK (algal units/ml)
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
54
17
46
26
55
29
43
40
25
55
10
56
40
20
24
38
12
31
23
24
25
42
53
47
33
42
33
39
34
32
43
47
41
28
30
28
17
14
35
10
24
6
18
6
4
37.5
8
28
2.5
25
9.5
14.5
29.5
2.5
41.5
1
14.5
35
32
17
40
23
34
32
29.5
11.5
5
6.5
20.5
11.5
20.5
16
19
22
9.5
6.5
13
26.5
24
26.5
37.5
39
18
41.5
32
43.5
36
43.5
32
10
26
10
26
14
20
12
10
21
6
31
24
4
10
20
4
20
9
8
11
13
20
12
16
15
16
17
10
17
19
14
20
5
8
15
12
5
20
19
11
4
8
2
1
31
3.5
31
3.5
21.5
9.5
25
31
6
38
2
5
42
31
9.5
42
9.5
34
36
27.5
23
9.5
25
17.5
19.5
17.5
15.5
31
15.5
13.5
21.5
9.5
39.5
26
19.5
25
39.5
9.5
13.5
27.5
42
36
44
150,737
27,313
12,298
31,927
154,639
166,883
41,553
6,212
1,980
127,447
4,352
38,280
110,262
234
4,852
105,280
397
9,857
183
1,214
14,544
7,165
12,736
32,610
2,103
24,946
48,308
13,603
3,723
2,025
33,784
11,228
8,053
3,431
2,082
1,055
1,290
1,983
5,226
2,067
2,481
735
966
208
PHYTOPLANKTON
BIOVOLUME
RANK (^3x 106/ml)
3
13
18
12
2
1
8
23
35
4
26
9
5
42
25
6
41
20
44
37
15
22
17
11
30
14
7
16
27
33
10
19
21
28
31
38
36
34
24
32
29
40
39
43
1202.73
381.40
71.00
13.62
65.15
346.46
392.81
179.48
0.90
86.67
1496.15
19.54
29.99
0.32
2.84
1376.81
5.19
9.15
0.54
1.53
2.62
5.73
4.36
1.51
3.55
3.55
59.39
9.77
6.52
1.05
18.88
10.79
6.66
3.47
5.35
5.02
3.76
1.38
2.51
11.15
4.58
0.71
10.90
0.16
RANK
3
5
9
15
10
6
4
7
40
8
1
13
12
43
33
2
25
20
42
36
34
23
28
37
30.5
30.5
11
19
22
39
14
18
21
32
24
26
29
38
35
16
27
41
17
44
           44
               44
                                                  44
                                                      44
                                       47

-------
APPENDIX A5.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  NYGAARD'S MYXOPHYCEAN, CHLOROCOCCALEAN,
EUGLENOPHYCEAN, DIATOM, AND COMPOUND
STORE!
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
NYGAARD'S
MYXOPHY-
CEAN
INDEX
6.50
_
6.00
1.67
9.00
7.00
-
2.50
5.00
6.50
_
3.50
4.50
-
-
4.33
5.00
3.00
0.67
-
_
4.50
4.00
1.50
7.00
2.25
2.33
3.00
1.67
4.00
4.33
2.20
-
2.50
5.00
6.00
-
6.00
0.80
—
-
-
6.00
-
RANK
4.5
.
7.5
27.5
1
1.5
-
22.5
11
4.5
_
19
13.5
-
-
15.5
11
20.5
31
-
_
13.5
17.5
29
1.5
25
24
20.5
27.5
17.5
15.5
26
-
22.5
11
7.5
-
7.5
30
-
_
.
7.5
-
NYGAARD'S
CHLOROCOC-
CALEAN
INDEX
15.50
.
12.00
2.67
15.00
14.00
-
3.25
2.00
9.50
_
9.50
5.50
_
-
5.33
1.00
1.67
0.33
-
_
4.00
9.50
3.50
9.00
3.25
0.50
4.67
3.33
5.00
6.33
1.80
-
0.50
10.00
5.00
-
1.00
1.20
1.00
.
_
3.00
-
RANK
1
_
4
22
2
3
-
19.5
23
7
—
7
11
_
-
12
28
25
32
-
.
16
7
17
9
19.5
30.5
15
18
13.5
10
24
.
30.5
5
13.5
_
28
26
28
_
_
21
.
NYGAARD'S
EUGLENO-
PHYCEAN
INDEX
0.07
_
0.44
-
0.46
0.10
0.06
.
0.86
0.09
_
0.31
0.15
0.50
1.00
_
.
_
0.33
1.20
0.80
0.41
0.04
-
-
1.4
.
.
0.07
0.11
0.03
0.15
0.17
0.33
-
0.09
_
-
-
0.11
.
.
_
RANK
21.5
,.
7
-
6
18
23
-
3
19.5
_
11
13.5
5
2
_
-
_
9.5
1
4
8
24
-
-
15
_
.
21.5
16.5
25
13.5
12
9.5

19.5
_
-
-
16.5

.
_
NYGAARD'S
DIATOM
INDEX
2.00
_.
0.62
1.00
0.50
0.25
3.00
0.75
2.00
0.50
_
1.33
1.67
0.07
0.80
0.20
1.00
0.33
0.75
5.00
0.50
0.43
0.67
1.25
1.33
1.00
0.40
0.67
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.37
0.36
1.00
1.00
0.43
1.00
0.50
0.86
0.50
1.67
1 .00
0.33
.
RANK
3.5
_
25
14
28.5
39
2
21.5
3.5
28.5
.
7.5
5.5
41
20
40
14
37.5
21.5
1
28.5
32.5
23.5
9
7.5
14
34
23.5
14
14
28.5
35
36
14
14
32.5
14
28.5
19
28.5
5.5
14
37.5
.
NYGAARD'S
COMPOUND
INDEX
24.50
_
31.00
5.67
38.00
24.00
_
7.25
17.00
20.00

19.00
14.00

-
10.00
7.00
5.33
3.33


13.50
17.00
7.50
20.00
7.50
3.17
9.00
6.33
11.50
11.30
5.20

6.50
18.00
15.00

8.00
3.20
2.00


10.00

RANK
3
_
2
26
1
4
_
22
9.5
5.5

7
12

-
16.5
23
27
29


13
9.5
20.5
5.5
20.5
31
18
25
14
15
28

24
8
11

19
30
32


16.5

       31
                      32
                     25
                                                41
                                                  32
                                      48

-------
APPENDIS A6.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  BOLAND PCIl, BOLAND PC12, VOLLENWEIDER

TROPHIC RATIO, DILLON TROPHIC RATIO, AND LARSEN-MERCIER
TROPHIC RATIO
STORE!
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1220
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
BOLAND
PClj
.
4.83
3.49
4.67
-
3.91
3.13
2.76
1.35
3.40
2.50
3.35
1.73
-1.12
1.17
2.37
1.48
~
-
-0.73
-1.87
-1.23
-2.36
-2.54
-
RANK

1
4
2
-
3
7
8
13
5
9
6
11
16
14
10
12
-
-
15
18
17
19
20
-
BOLAND
PC12

4.27
_
4.36
3.64
3.56
_
1.91
3.63
1.84
3.02
0.23
1.71
-
-1.45
0.09
-0.02
0.19
0.10
-0.65
-0.43
-0.51
-0.94
-1.45
-0.98
-2.40
-1.10
-1.25
-2.45
-2.18
-1.98
-1.46
-2.16
-2.24
-2.14
-2.75
RANK

2
_
1
3
5
_
7
4
8
6
10
9
-
22
13
14
11
12
17
15
16
18
23
19
30
20
21
31
28
25
24
27
29
26
32
VOLLEN-
UEIDER
TROPHIC
RATIO

75.62
_
29.42
-
.
_
12.66
5.43
1.96
9.25
5.02
7.42
18.92
15.91
3.94
4.54
5.07
2.58
2.10
2.24
5.72
3.61
3.13
3.44
1.70
0.34
1.11
1.49
0.56
0.18
0.48
0.75
0.49
0.50
1.35
1.72
0.34
1.28
0.54
2.02
RANK

1
_
2
-

_
5
9
21
6
11
7
3
4
13
12
10
17
19
18
8
14
16
15
23
34.5
27
24
29
36
32
28
33
31
25
22
34.5
26
30
20
DILLON
TROPHIC
RATIO

.

74.00
-

_
3.40
15.38
12.00
5.67
18.67
7.33
3.33
7.50
22.00
5.92
11.39
1.88
2.32
2.21
4.20
2.43
1.74
3.25
1.55
1.00
2.70
1.56
1.10
0.76
0.96
1.33
0.47
1.12
0.96
0.69
0.38
0.83
0.59
0.04
RANK



1



12
4
5
10
3
8
13
7
2
9
6
19
17
18
11
16
20
14
22
26
15
21
25
31
27.5
23
34
24
27.5
32
35
30
33
29
LARSEN-
MERCIER
TROPHIC
RATIO

259.90

61.77

79.90
38 92
wU . Jt.
10.81
14.61
11.81
5.58
18.57
7.40
3.17
8.57
19.17
5.80
1.84
11.28
2.35
2.20
4.84
2.28
2.04
3.12
1.51
1.32
2.22
2.11
1.52
1.06
0.71
1.13
1.20
0.49
1.10
1.04
0.66
0.39
0.83
0.55
0.95
RANK

1

3

2
4
10
7
8
14
6
12
16
11
5
13
24
9
18
21
15
19
23
17
26
27
20
22
25
31
35
29
28
38
30
32
36
39
34
37
33
         20
                      32
                                   36
                                                  35
                                                                39
                                      49

-------
APPENDIX A7.  TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
              FOLLOWING INDICES:  TOTALP(PD), CHLA(PD), KJEL(PD),
              TOTALP/CONC(P), AND CHLA/CONC(P)
STORE!
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
TOTAL P(PD).
268
250
223
147
190
204
174
136
159
116
160
154
152
97
134
99
109
75
82
96
103
94
139
106
136
142
91
97
76
63
152
154
95
80
100
134
10
74
153
107
86
118
134
92
RANK
1
2
3
14
5
4
6
17.5
8
23
7
9.5
12.5
30.5
20
29
24
41
8
32
27
34
16
26
17.5
15
36
30.5
40
43
12.5
9.5
33
39
28
20
44
42
11
25
37
22
20
35
CHLA(PD)
45.0
49.0
30.5
37.6
43.0
46.0
38.0
30.9
29.0
35.0
75.0
25.8
32.0
18.0
23.0
29.5
22.0
25.0
9.0
12.0
30.0
18.1
19.0
30.5
23.0
28.0
24.0
24.0
13.3
10.4
32.0
22.0
28.0
18.2
17.0
23.0
5.4
18.6
24.7
20.0
17.0
16.0
23.0
16.0
RANK
4
2
12.5
7
5
3
6
11
16
8
1
19
9.5
35
25.5
15
28.5
20
43
41
14
34
31
12.5
25.5
17.5
22.5
22.5
40
42
9.5
28.5
17.5
33
36.5
25.5
44
32
21
30
36.5
38.5
25.5
38.5
KJEL(PD)
1440
1642
1215
1437
1486
1648
1342
1108
1136
1215
1706
931
1199
963
878
1488
946
1358
571
821
1281
774
895
1073
973
1057
1143
1131
682
622
1199
958
1191
805
789
878
364
842
1181
819
679
762
995
681
RANK
6
3
11.5
7
5
2
9
22
18
11.5
1
28
13.5
25
30.5
4
27
8
43
33
10
37
29
20
24
21
17
19
39
42
13.5
26
15
35
36
30.5
44
32
16
34
41
38
23
40
TOTALP/CONC(P)
12251
1371
3894
1802
17332
5210
3399
332
198
5042
393
3073
5353
190
524
1430
44
817
85
115
324
369
642
569
349
830
980
466
186
120
2581
1816
149
107
423
73
124
47
290
107
151
56
404
10
RANK
2
13
6
11
1
4
7
26
29
5
23
8
3
30
19
12
43
16
39
36
27
24
17
18
25
15
14
20
31
35
9
10
33
37.5
21
40
34
42
28
37.5
32
41
22
44
CHLA/CONC(P)
1470
303
164
490
1072
1008
462
100
21
667
1751
442
704
9
71
430
8
12160
2
32
63
188
245
131
34
161
217
310
33
17
188
185
31.4
44
55
13
10.1
10.4
49
21
36
15
25
2
RANK
3
13
19
8
4
5
9
22
34.5
7
2
10
6
41
23
11
42
1
43
31
24
16.5
14
21
29
20
15
12
30
36
16.5
18
32
27
25
38
40
39
26
34.5
28
37
33
44
         44          44            44            44               44
                                      50

-------
APPENDIX A8.
TEST LAKES WITH TROPHIC INDEX VALUES AND RANKS FOR THE
FOLLOWING INDICES:  KJEL/CONC(P), TOTALP/CONC(PD),CHLA/CONC(PD),
KJEL/CONC(PD), AND MULTIVARIATE ALGAL INDEX(PD)
STORET
NUMBER
1209
1227
1752
1758
1849
1217
1201
1755
1740
1766
1002
3917
1712
3412
1708
1202
1856
1757
4515
2801
2105
5111
0106
4707
3705
1314
1246
4512
3415
4724
1229
4507
1303
2403
3423
1843
2102
4229
0107
5105
2402
5403
4222
5404
KJEL/CONC
(P)
62081
11662
12564
17565
55885
39083
19671
2903
1104
25994
3917
17578
22189
1258
3104
16379
389
5933
572
943
3150
2688
4377
4842
2179
4489
10497
3785
1631
1099
9610
13319
1431
1051
2810
1030
1057
505
2264
1369
1382
345
3144
132
RANK
1
12
11
8
2
3
6
24
34
4
19
7
5
33
23
9
42
15
40
39
21
26
18
16
28
17
13
20
29
35
14
10
30
37
25
38
36
41
27
32
31
43
22
44
TOTALP/CONC
(PD) ) RANK
4744
1133
849
1644
7438
2671
683
232
133
2917
353
1964
3386
185
410
656
21
57
79
60
112
153
203
286
111
366
615
188
140
74
1733
996
39
69
369
52
4
30
152
69
115
49
55
10
2
9
n
8
1
5
12
' 20
27
4
18
6
3
23
15
13
42
36
31
35
29
24
21
19
30
17
14
22
26
32
7
10
40
33.5
16
38
44
41
25
33.5
28
39
37
43
CHLA/CONC
(PD)
797
266
86
425
476
771
148
83
11
258
169
281
210
9
62
164
6
19
2
26
33
158
192
86
18
64
145
171
21
13
104
108
11
39
49
9
2
7
19
17
26
14
9
2
RANK
1
6
18.5
4
3
2
14
20
35.5
7
11
5
8
38
22
12
41
29.5
43
26.5
25
13
9
18.5
31
21
15
10
28
34
17
16
35.5
24
23
38
43
40
29.5
32
26.5
33
38
43
KJEL/CONC
(PD)
26080
10024
4182
16153
16931
27947
5074
2082
433
9027
3803
11328
7882
1227
2263
9022
187
1049
531
528
1173
1299
1763
2856
521
2340
6745
1744
1108
811
3913
6073
534
761
2215
298
139
353
898
983
1019
292
398
132
RANK
2
6
13
4
3
1
12
20
37
7
15
5
9
24
18
8
42
27
34
35
25
23
21
16
36
17
10
22
26
31
14
11
33
32
19
40
43
39
30
29
28
41
38
44
MULTIVARIATE
ALGAL INDEX
(PD) RANK
5.56
5.64
5.36
5.18
5.54
5.45
5.24
4.98
5.00
5.08
5.52
4.79
5.16
4.29
4.69
4.98
4.52
4.68
3.80
4.44
4.93
4.49
4.67
4.88
4.72
4.97
4.70
4.74
3.76
3.50
5.16
4.81
4.40
4.35
4.31
4.69
2.32
3.92
4.95
4.19
3.72
4.40
4.67
3.97
2
1
6
8
3
5
7
13.5
12
n
4
20
9.5
36
24.5
13.5
29
26
40
31
17
30
27.5
18
22
15
23
21
41
43
9.5
19
32.5
34
35
24.5
44
39
16
37
42
32.5
27.5
38
        44
                      44
                        44
                                                    44
                                                                44
                                      51

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/3-79-079
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 PHYTOPLANKTON WATER QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS  IN  U.S.  LAKES,
 PART VII:   Comparison of Some New and Old  Indices  and
 Measurements of Trophic State
             5. REPORT DATE
              July  1979
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
W.D.  Taylor, L.R. Williams, S.C. Hern,  and  V.W.  Lambou
                                                           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 REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
              03-07-73 to 11-14-73
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
              EPA/600/07
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
      Thirty-eight indices and measurements of trophic state were  compared to evaluate
 their relative abilities to trophically rank a test set of 44 eastern  and southeastern
 U.S.  lakes, representing 17 states.   Lake rankings based upon total  phosphorus and
 chlorophyll a^ levels served as  standards for evaluation of the  indices by Spearman Rank
 Correlation procedures.  Included  among the indices and measurements tested are:  ten
 new phytoplankton community-based  indices developed at EPA's EMSL-Las  Vegas; Vollen-
 weider's, Dillon's, and Larsen  and Mercier's loading models for estimation of lake
 ambient phosphorus; multivariate  indices including Boland's PC1-,  and PC1? and the CERL
 TSI;  single parameter  indicators  including Secchi disk transparency, total Kjeldahl
 nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a_, conductivity, alga.1  assay control yield and
 phytoplankton concentration; and  algal  community-descriptive indices including Palmer's
 Organic Pollution Indices, Nygaard's Indices, number of phytoplankton  species, Shannon-
 Wiener's Diversity Index, and Pielou's  Evenness Component of Diversity; transformed
 single parameter indices by Carlson; and N/P ratio,
      The new phytoplankton community-based indices turned in 4  of the  top 5 performance
 against the chlorophyll a_ standard, while Secchi disk transparency,  phosphorus loading
 models, multivariate analyses,  and total Kjeldahl nitrogen provided  strong rank correla
 tions with total phosphorus.
 17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                             COS AT I F ield/Group
 *aquatic microbiology
  lakes
 *phytoplankton
  water quality
.ake trophic state
'hytoplankton genera
Jiological indices
Environmental requirements
06 C,
08 H
13 B
M
 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report I
JNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES

                                                          ASS IThbpagt)
                                  64
                           22. PRICE

                                 A04
 EPA F«wm 2220-1 (R»v. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
                                                                U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 683-O91/22O8

-------
     List of completed parts in the series "Phytoplankton Water Quality
Relationships in U.S.  Lakes."  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada  89114.


Part I:  Methods, rationale, and data limitations.  EPA-600/3-79-021.
     68 pp.

Part II:  Genera Achanthosphaera through Cystodinium collected from
     eastern and southeastern lakes.  EPA-600/3-79-022.  119 pp.

Part III:  Genera Dactylococcopsis through Gyrgsigma collected from
     eastern and southeastern lakes.  EPA-600/3-79-023.  85 pp.

Part IV:  Genera Hantzschia through Pteromonas collected from eastern
     and southeastern lakes.  EPA-600/3-79-024.  105 pp.

Part V:  Genera Quadrigula through Zygnema collected from  eastern and
     southeastern lakes.EPA-600/3-79-025.  99 pp.

Part VI:  The common phytoplankton genera from eastern and  southeastern
     lakes.  EPA-600/3-79-051.  82 pp.

Part VII:  Comparison of some new  and old indices and measurements of
     trophic state.  EPA-600/3-79-079.  51 pp.

-------