EPA-600/3-78-027
January 1978
Ecological Research Series
             DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON  IN
                                      DELAWARE LAKES
                                Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
                                        Office of Research and Development
                                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                              Las Vegas. Nevada 89114

-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. “Special” Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic. terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tión Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                            EPA-600/3-78-027
                                            January 1978
   DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN DELAWARE LAKES


                      by
S. C. Hern, J. W. Hilgert*, V.  W. Lambou, F. A. Morris*,
     M. K. Morris*, L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor,
                and F. A. Hiatt*

           Monitoring Operations Division
   Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
              Las Vegas, Nevada   89114

         *Department of Biological Sciences
         The University of Nevada, Las Vegas
              Las Vegas, Nevada   89154
   ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
         OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              LAS VEGAS, NEVADA   89114

-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory—Las Vegas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or cormiercial products does not constitute
endorsement or reconinendation for use.
ii

-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions
which are based on sound technical and scientific information. This infor-
mation must include the quantitative description and linking of pollutant
sources, transport mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man
and his environment. Because of the complexities involved, assessment of
specific pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach
which transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas contributes to the formation
and enhancement of a sound integrated monitoring data base through multi-
disciplinary, multimedia programs designed to:
develop and optimize systems and strategies for moni-
toring pollutants and their impact on the environment
demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies
by applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs
of the Agency’s operating programs
This report presents the species and abundance of phytoplankton in the
6 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
Delaware, along with results from the calculation of several cormionly used
biological indices of water quality and conii unity structure. These data
can be used to biologically characterize the study lakes, and as baseline
data for future investigations. This report was written for use by Federal,
State, and local governmental agencies concerned with water quality analysis,
monitoring, and/or regulation. Private industry and individuals similarly
involved with the biological aspects of water quality will find the document
useful. For further information contact the Water and Land Quality Branch,
Monitoring Operations Division.
George B. Morgan
Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas
111

-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Lakes and Site Selection
Sample Preparation
Examination
Quality Control
Results
Nygaard’s Trophic State Indices . .
Palmer’s Organic Pollution Indices
Species Diversity and Abundance Indices
Species Occurrence and Abundance .
Literature Cited
Appendix. Summary of Phytoplankton Data
Page
111
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
7
8
9
10
V

-------
I NTRODUCT ION
The collection and analysis of phytoplankton data were included in the
National Eutrophication Survey in an effort to determine relationships
between algal characteristics and trophic status of individual lakes.
During spring, sumer, and fall of 1973, the Survey sampled 250 lakes in
17 States. Over 700 algal species and varieties were identified and enumerated
from the 743 water samples examined.
This report presents the species and abundance of phytoplankton in the
6 lakes sampled in the State of Delaware (Table 1). The Nygaard’s Trophic
State (Nygaard 1949), Palmer’s Organic Pollution (Palmer 1969), and species
diversity and abundance indices are also included.
TABLE 1. LAKES SAMPLED IN THE STATE
OF DELAWARE
STORET
#
LAKE NAME
COUNTY
1002
Killen Pond
Kent
1005
Moores Lake (Pond)
Kent
1007
Noxontown Pond
New Castle
1008
Silver Lake
New Castle
1009
Williams Pond
Sussex
1010
Trussum Pond (Moores
Pond)
Sussex
1

-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
LAKE AND SITE SELECTION
Lakes and reservoirs included in the Survey were selected through
discussions with State water pollution agency personnel and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Regional Offices (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1975). Screening and selection strongly emphasized lakes with actual or
potential accelerated eutrophication problems. As a result, the selection
was limited to lakes:
(1) impacted by one or more municipal sewage treatment plant outfalls
either directly into the lake or by discharge to an inlet tributary
within approximately 40 kilometers of the lake;
(2) 40 hectares or larger in size; and
(3) with a mean hydraulic retention time of at least 30 days.
Specific selection criteria were waived for some lakes of particular State
interest.
Sampling sites for a lake were selected based on available information
on lake morphometry, potential major sources of nutrient input, and on-site
judgment of the field limnologist (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1975). Primary sampling sites were chosen to reflect the deepest portion
of each major basin in a test lake. Where many basins were present, selection
was guided by nutrient source information on hand. At each sampling site,
a depth-integrated phytoplankton sample was taken. Depth-integrated samples
were uniform mixtures of water from the surface to a depth of 15 feet
(4.6 meters) or from the surface to the lower limit of the photic zone
representing 1 percent of the incident light, whichever was greater. If
the depth at the sampling site was less than 15 feet (4.6 meters), the
sample was taken from just off the bottom to the surface. Normally 1 a lake
was sampled three times in 1 year, providing information on spring, summer,
and fall conditions.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Four milliliters (ml) of Acid-Lugol’s solution (Prescott 1970) were
added to each 130-mi sample from each site at the time of collection for
preservation. The samples were shipped to the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, where equal volumes from each site
were mixed to form two 130-ml composite samples for a given lake. One
composite sample was put into storage and the other was used for the
examination.
2

-------
Prior to examination, the composite samples were concentrated by the
settling method. Solids were allowed to settle for at least 24 hours prior
to siphoning off the supernate. The volume of the removed supernate and the
volume of the remaining concentrate were measured and concentrations determined.
A small (8 ml) library subsample of the concentrate was then taken. The
remaining concentrate was gently agitated to resuspend the plankton and
poured into a capped, graduated test tube. If a preliminary examination of a
sample indicated the need for a more concentrated sample, the contents of the
test tube were further concentrated by repeating the settling method. Final
concentrations varied from 15 to 40 times the original.
Permanent slides were prepared from concentrated samples after analysis
was complete. A drop of superconcentrate from the bottom of the test tube
was placed in a ring of clear Karo®Corn Syrup with phenol (a few crystals of
phenol were added to each 100 ml of syrup) on a glass slide, thoroughly
mixed, and topped with a coverglass. After the syrup at the edges of the
covergiass had hardened, the excess was scraped away and the mount was
sealed with clear fingernail polish. Permanent diatom slides were prepared
by drying sample material on a coverglass, heating in a muffle furnace at
400 C for 45 minutes, and mounting in Hyrax®. Finally, the mounts were
sealed with clear fingernail polish.
Backup samples, library samples, permanent sample slides, and
Hyrax mounted diatom slides are being stored and maintained at the
U.S. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas.
EXAMINATION
The phytoplankton samples were examined with the aid of binocular
compound microscopes. A preliminary examination was performed to precisely
identify and list all forms encountered. The length of this examination
varied depending on the complexity of the sample. An attempt was made to
find and identify all of the forms present in each sample. Often forms were
observed which could not be identified to species or to genus. Abbreviated
descriptions were used to keep a record of these forms (e.g., lunate cell,
blue-green filament, Navicula #1). Diatom slides were examined using a
standard light microscope. If greater resolution was essential to accurately
identify the diatoms, a phase-contrast microscope was. used.
After the species list was compiled, phytoplankton were enumerated using
a Neubauer Counting Chamber with a 40X objective lens and a lox ocular lens.
All forms within each field were counted. The count was continued until a
minimum of 100 fields had been viewed, or until the dominant form had been
observed a minimum of 100 times.
®Regi stered Trademark
3

-------
QUALITY CONTROL
Internal quality control checks on species identifications and counts
were performed on a regular basis between project phycologists at the rate of
7 percent. Although an individual had primary responsibility for analyzing a
sample, taxonomic problems were discussed among the phycologists.
Additional quality control checks were performed on the Survey samples
by Dr. G. W. Prescott of the University of Montana at the rate of 5 percent.
Quality control checks were made on 75 percent of these samples to verify
species identifications while checks were made on the remaining 25 percent of
the samples to verify genus counts. Presently, the agreement between quality
control checks for species identification and genus enumerations is satisfactory.
4

-------
RESULTS
The Appendix summarizes all of the phytoplankton data collected from
the State by the Survey. It is organized by lake, including an alphabetical
phytoplankton species list with concentrations for individual species given
by sampling date. Results from the application of several indices are
presented (Nygaard’s Trophic State, Palmer’s Organic Pollution, and species
diversity and abundance). Each lake has been assigned a four digit STORET
number. [ STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s computer system which processes and maintains water quality data.]
The first two digits of the STORET number identify the State; the last two
digits identify the lake.
NYGAARD’S TROPHIC STATE INDICES
Five indices devised by Nygaard (1949) were proposed under the assumption
that certain algal groups are indicative of levels of nutrient enrichment.
These indices were calculated in order to aid in determining the surveyed
lakes’ trophic status. As a general rule, Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta, centric
diatoms, and members of the Chiorococcales are found in waters that are
eutrophic (rich in nutrients), while desmids and many pennate diatoms
generally cannot tolerate high nutrient levels and so are found in oligotrophic
waters (poor in nutrients).
In applying the indices to the Survey data, the number of taxa in each
major group was determined from the species list for each sample. The
ratios of these groups give numerical values which can be used as a biological
index of water richness. The five indices and the ranges of values each
for Danish lakes by Nygaard for each trophic state are presented in Table 2.
The appropriate symbol, (E) eutrophic and (0) oligotrophic, follows each
calculated value in the tables in the Appendix. A question mark (?) was
entered in these tables when the calculated value was within the range of
both classifications.
PALMER’S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
Palmer (1969) analyzed reports from 165 authors and developed algal
pollution indices for use in rating water samples with high organic pollution.
Two lists of organic pollution-tolerant forms were prepared, one containing
20 genera, the other, 20 species (Tables 3 and 4). Each form was assigned
a pollution index number ranging from 1 for moderately tolerant forms to 6
for extremely tolerant forms. Palmer based the index numbers on occurrence
records and/or where emphasized by the authors as being especially tolerant
of organic pollution.
5

-------
TABLE 2. NYGAARD’S TROPIIIC STATE INDICES ADAPTED FROM HUTCHINSON (1967)
Index
Calculation
Oligotrophic
Eutrophic
Myxophycean
Myxophyceae
0.0-0.4
0.1-3.0
Desmi deae
Chiorophycean
Chlorococcales
0.0-0.7
0.2-9.0
Desmideae
Diatom
Centric Diatoms
0.0-0.3
0.0-1.75
Pennate Diatoms
Euglenophyte
Euglenophyta
0.0-0.3
0.0-1.0
Myxophyceae + Chiorococcales
Compound
Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales +
Centric Diatoms + Euglenophyta
Desmi deae
0.0-1.0
1.2-25
TABLE 3. ALGAL GENUS POLLUTION INDEX
TABLE 4. ALGAL
SPECIES
POLLUTION
(Palmer 1969)
INDEX
(Palmer
1969)
Genus
Pollution
Index
Anacystis
Ankistrodesmus
2
Chi4wnydomonas
4
Chiorella
3
Closteriwn
1
Cyclotell-a
1
Euglena
5
Gomphonema
Lepocinclis
1
Meiosira
Micractiniwn
1
Navicula
3
Nitzschia
3
Oscillatoria
5
Pandorina
1
Phacus
2
Phormidiwn
1
Scenedessnus
4
Stigeocioniwn
2
Synedr’a
2
Species
Pollution
Index
Ankistrodesmus falcatus
3
Art hrospira jenneri
2
Chioreila vulgaris
2
Cyclotella rneneghiniana
2
Euglena gracilis
1
Euglena viridis
6
Gonrphonema parvuiwn
1
Melosira varians
2
iVavicuia cryptocephala
1
Nitzschia acicuZaris
1
Nitzschia palea
5
Oscillatoria chiorina
2
Oscillatoria limosa
4
Oscillatoria princeps
1
Oscillatoria putrida
1
Oscillatoria tenuis
4
Pandorina morwn
3
Scenedesmus quadricauda
4
Stigeoci-onium tenue
3
Syndra ulna
3
6

-------
In analyzing a water sample, any of the 20 genera or species of algae
present in concentrations of 50 per milliliter or more are recorded. The
pollution index numbers of the algae present are totaled, providing a genus
score and a species score. Palmer determined that a score of 20 or more for
either index can be taken as evidence of high organic pollution, while a
score of 15 to 19 is taken as probable evidence of high organic pollution.
Lower figures suggest that the organic pollution of the sample is not high,
that the sample is not representative, or that some substance or factor
interfering with algal persistence is present and active.
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
“Information content” of biological samples is being used commonly by
biologists as a measure of diversity. Diversity in this connection means the
degree of uncertainty attached to the specific identity of any randomly
selected individual. The greater the number of taxa and the more equal their
proportions, the greater the uncertainty, and hence, the diversity (Pielou
1966). There are several methods of measuring diversity, e.g., the formulas
given by Brillouin (1962) and Shannon and Weaver (1963). The method which is
appropriate depends on the type of biological sample on hand.
Pielou (1966) classifies the types of biological samples and gives the
measure of diversity appropriate for each type. The Survey phytoplankton
samples are what she classifies as larger samples (collections in Pielou’s
terminology) from which random subsamples can be drawn. According to Pielou,
the average diversity per individual for these types of samples can be
estimated from the Shannon-Wiener formula (Shannon and Weaver 1963):
S
H = logy 1
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 ti’ e tot l number of individuals per ml; and S is the total number of
taxa.
However, Basharin (1959) and Pielou (1966) have pointed out that H
calculated from the subsample is a biased estimator of the sample H, and if
this bias is to be accounted for, we must know the total number of taxa
present in the sample since the magnitude of this bias depends on it.
Pielou (1966) suggests that if the number of taxa in the subsample falls
only slightly short of the number in the larger sample, no appreciable error
will result in considering S, estimated from the subsample, as being equal to
the sample value. Even though considerable effort was made to find and
identify all taxa, the Survey samples undoubtedly contain a fair number of
rare phytoplankton taxa which were not encountered.
7

-------
In the Shannon—Wiener formula, an increase in the number of taxa and/or
an increase in the evenness of the distribution of individuals among taxa
will increase the average diversity per individual from its minimal value of
zero. Sager and Hasler (1969) found that the richness of taxa was of minor
importance in determination of average diversity per individual for phytop]ank-
ton and they concluded that phytoplankton taxa in excess of the 10 to 15 most
abundant ones have little effect on H, which was verified by our own calcula-
tions. Our counts are in number per milliliter and since logarithms to the
base 2 were used in our calculations, H is expressed in units of bits per
individual. When individuals of a taxon were so rare that they were not
counted, a value of 1/130 per mililiter or 0.008 per mililiter was used in
the calculations since at least one individual of the taxon must have been
present in the collection.
A Survey sample for a given lake represents .a composite of all phytoplank-
ton collected at different sampling sites on a lake during a given sampling
period. Since the number of samples (M) making up a composite is a function
of both the complexity of the lake sampled and its size, it should affect the
richness—of-taxa component of the diversity of our phytoplankton collections.
The maximum diversity (MaxH) (i.e., when the individuals are distributed
among the taxa as evenly as possible) was estimated from log 9 S, the total
diversity (0) was calculated from HN, and the evenness compohent of diversity
(J) was estimated from HfMaxH (Pielou 1966). Also given in the Appendix are
L (the mean number of individuals per taxa per milliliter) and K (the number
of individuals per milliliter of the most abundant taxon in the sample).
Zand (1976) suggests that diversity indices be expressed in units of
“sits”, i.e., in logarithms to base S (where S is the total number of taxa in
the sample) instead of in “bits”, i.e., in logarithms to base 2. Zand points
out that the diversity index in sits per individual is a normalized number
ranging from 1 for the most evenly distributed samples to 0 for the least
evenly distributed samples. Also, it can be used to compare different
samples, independent of the number of taxa in each. The diversity in bits
per individual should not be used in direct comparisons involving various
samples which have different numbers of species. Since MaxH equals log S,
the expression in sits is equal to loge S, or 1. Therefore diversity in sits
per individual is numerically equivaleflt to J, the evenness component for the
Shannon-Wiener formula.
SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND ABUNDANCE
The alphabetic phytoplankton species list for each lake, presented in
the Appendix, gives the concentrations of individual species by sampling
date. Concentrations are in cells, colonies, or filaments (CEL, COL, I lL)
per milliliter. An “X” after a species name indicates the presence of the
species on that date in such a low concentration that it did not show up in
the count. A blank space indicates that the organism was not found in the
sample collected on that date. Column S is used to designate the examiner’s
subjective opinion of the five dominant taxa in a sample, based upon relative
size and concentration of the organism. The percent column (%C) presents, by
abundance, the percentage composition of each taxon.
8

-------
LITERATURE CITED
Basharin, G. P. 1959. On a statistical estimate for the entrophy of a
sequence of independent random variables, pp. 333-336. In N. Artin
(ed.), Theory of Probability and Its Applications (translation of
“Teoriya Veroyatnose I ee Premeneniya”) 4. Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
Brillouin, L. 1962. Science and Information Theory (2nd ed.). Academic
Press, New York. 351 pp.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1967. A Treatise on Limnology. II. Introduction to Lake
Biology and the Limnoplankton. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
1,115 pp.
Nygaard, G. 1949. Hydrobiological studies of some Danish ponds and lakes.
II. (K danske Vidensk. Selsk.) Biol. Sci. 7:293.
Palmer, C. M. 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution.
J. Phycol. 5:78—82.
Pielou, E. C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of
biological collections. J. Theor. Biol. 13:131-144.
Prescott, 6. W. 1970. How to Know the Freshwater Algae. William C. Brown
Company, Dubuque. 348 pp.
Sager, P. E. and A.D. Hasler. 1969. Species diversity in lacustrine phyto-
plankton. I. The components of the index of diversity from Shannon’s
formula. Amer. Natur. 103(929):51-59.
Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Coninun-
ication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 117 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophication Survey
Methods 1973—1976. Working Paper No. 175. Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada, and Corvallis Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 91 pp.
Zand, S. M. 1976. Indexes associated with information theory in water
quality. Journal WPCF. 48(8):2026—2031.
9

-------
APPENDIX. SUMMARY OF PHYTOPLANKTON DATA
This appendix was generated by computer. Because it was only possible
to use upper case letters in the printout, all scientific names are printed
in upper case and are not italicized.
The alphabetic phytoplankton lists include taxa without species names
(e.g., EUNOTIA, EUNOTIA #1, FLAGELLATE, FLAGELLATES, MICROSYSTIS INCERTA ?,
CHLOROPHYTAN COCCOID CELLED COLONY). When species determinations were not
possible, symbols or descriptive phrases were used to separate taxa for
enumeration purposes. Each name on a list, however, represents a unique
species different from any other name on the same list, unless otherwise
noted, for counting purposes.
Numbers were used to separate unidentified species of the same genus. A
generic name listed alone is also a unique species. A question mark (?) is
placed inii ediately after the portion of a name which was assigned with uncer-
tainty. Numbered, questioned, or otherwise designated taxa were established
on a lake—by-lake basis; therefore NAVICULA #2 from lake A cannot be compared
to NAVICULA #2 from lake B. Pluralized categories (e.g., FLAGELLATES, CENTRIC
DIATOMS, SPP.) were used for counting purposes when taxa could not be properly
differentiated on the counting chamber.
10

-------
IAKF NAME: K!LLEI POND
STCPET NUMBER: 1002
DATE
MYXOPHYCE AN
C HL OROP H YC F AN
EUC-L ENOPhYTE
C! ATCM
COMPOUND
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
07 20 73 09 28 73
04/0 F 04/0 F
05/0 E 11/0 E
0/09 ? 0/15 ?
01/0 F 0.43 F
10/0 E 18/0 E
PALMER’S CRGANIC PCLLUT!CN INDICES
DATE 07 20 73 09 28 73
GENUS 12 ii
SPECIES 04 04
AVERAGE DIVEPS!TY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER CF SAMPLES CCMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
TOTAL DIVERSITV
TOTAL NUMBEP CF INDIVTDUALS/ML
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER CF IN!JIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNCANCE INDICES
DATE 07 20 73 09 28 73
1.70 2.91
S 10.00 30.00
M 1.00 1.00
MAXH 3.32 4.91
D 9480.90 6477 .60
N 5577.00 22260.00
J 0.51 0.59
L 557.70 742.00
K 2853.00 639 .00
-j
—I

-------
LAKE NAPE: KILL PCND
S’CR T NUMBER: 1002
CCN1!NUEC
ACHNAN1 S LANCECLA’A
V. cuet*
CHLA ! VDC MC NAS
C0EL STRUM CAMBRICUM
CR ’PTOM0NAS
CYANOPH’YTAN F1LAM NT
C vCL0TELLA STFLIIGEPA
C1CTYCSP1 AERIUM PULCI-ELLUM
FUOCRI NA
EUDORINA ELF.GANS
EUNOTIA FLEXUOSA
FLAGELLATES
t E10S1PA 02
I EL0S1R# CISTANS
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
NAVICULA CONFERVACEA
NAVICULA t’INTMA
P4AVICULA RHYNCHOCEPPIALA
NT ZSCH1A #1
N!TZSCHI& #2
CCC YSI! S
CCCYSIIS PARVA ?
CSCTLLAICRIA SUBEREVIS
PECIASTRUM CUPLFX
V. ?
PECIASTRUM DUPLEX
V. RETICULATUM
PEDIASTRUM TETRAS
V. TETRA000N
PICRMiCIUM MUCTCCLA
5C!NEDESI US
SCENFOESMUS ABUNDANS
01 20 73 09 28 73
———-‘
I ALGAL I ALGAL
UN1 S I UNI1S I
,S IC PER ML IS C PER ML I
II I II I I
I I II I X I
II I II I x I
I $ I I I 0.31 63 I
I I I 141 4.81 1066 I
141 4.41 247 I I 1.11 251 I
I I I I I 0.31 63 I
II I X II I
I $ I I I 0.31 63 I
II I II I X I
II I II I X I
I I I I I 3.41 752 I
151 2.01 110 I I 3.71 815 I
II I II I x I
11151.21 2858 11126.21 5831 I
II I II I X I
II I II I X I
II I II I X
I I I 12128.71 6395 I
It I II I x I
I I I I I 2.31 502 I
II I II I X I
131 5.91 330 I I I x I
II I II I
II I x II I I
II I II I I
I I I I I 0.31 63 I
II I II I
II I II I x I
I 134.51 1923 I 113.21 294 I
I I 0.51 27 I I I
I I I 15110.11 2257 I
FCRM
CEL
CEL
CCL
CEL
F IL
CE L
CCL
CCL
CCL
CEl
CEL
CEL
CEL
CCL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEI..
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CCL
CCL
CCL
CCL
CO L
CCL

-------
—4
Cj )
LAKE NAME: KILLFN POM)
STCRE’ MJMBER: 1002
SCENEC’ESMUS BICAUCATUS
SCENEDESMUS B1JU •A
!CENEDESMUS DISPAR
SCENEDSSMUS QUADRICAUDA
SCI R DEDERTA SETICERA
IC TA I
CCNTI U D
07 20 73 09 28 73
I ALGAL I ALGAL I
I UNITS I UNITS I
F RU I C PER ML IS C PEP ML I
CCI I I I I I 2.91 627 I
cc i I I I I I 0.3$ 63 I
coi I I I I I 1.1$ 251 I
Cal I I 1.51 32 I I 0.81 188 I
CEL I I I X I I 0.31 63 I
5577
22260

-------
LAKE N*FE: MOORES 1AK
STCRET MJMqER: 1005
NYGAARC TRCPHIC STATE INCICES
0AC 07 20 73 09 28 73
MYXCPHTC AN 1.00 E 1.33 9
CHLOROPHYCFAN 7.00 F 9 . 7 E
FUGLENCPHYTF 0.09 7 0.06 7
DIATCM 1.25 E 1.00 E
COMPOUNC 10.0 E 14.0 E
PALMER’S ORGANIC PCLIUTICN INDICES
CA 9 07 20 73 09 28 73
GFNLS 22 19
SP5C!ES 04 11
S°ECIFS DIVFRSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
DA’E 07 20 73 09 29 73
AVERAGE D!VFRSITY -4 2.31 2.88
NUMBER OF TAXA S 55.00 53.00
NUMBER OF SAMPLES CCMPOSITEC N 1.00 1.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAX 5.78 5•73
TOTAL DIVERSITY 0 153116.1? 300549.16
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/NI N 66741.00 104357.00
EVENESS COMPONENT J 0.41 0.50
MEAN NUMB5R CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA 1 1213.4? 1969.00
NUMBER/MI OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXOK K 3g004.0O 48693.00

-------
CCN”! NUE
O 20 73 09 28 72
A t. C At.
I UNITS
FORM IS C PFR ML
CCL I I 4.01 2646
FIL I I I
85
01
L ALGAL I
I UNI T S I
IS C PER ML
I 1.51 16CC I
0.71 686 I
I I I
I I X I
I 0.41 457 I
I I x I
t.AKE NAME: MODRES LAKE
STCRET UM8EP: 1005
TAXA
ACTINA RUM HANtZSCI- II
A EN A
ANKI STRODE SMtJS
A S1E RI C NEL LA
ASTERIONELLA FORMOSA
ATTFiEYA LACHARIASI
CARTER IA
CHIAMYDCMCNAS #1
Cf4LAMYDCMDNAS 2
COEL ASTRUM
COELASTRUM SPHAERICUM
COSMAP.I UM
CRUC IGEN IA
CRUCIGENIA APICULATA
CR VP ‘TWO NA S
CYANOPHYTAN 9LMMENT
C V CL C’ F LI A
CYCIOTELIA MEL 4 HINIANA
CYCLCTELL,A STELLIGERA
OICTVCSPHAERIUM PULC EILUM
EUDORINA ELEGANS
EUGLENA
EUGLENA #1
EUNOTIA INCISA
FLAGELLATES
FRAG ILARIA
FRANCETA CROESCI ER.I
FRISTULTA RHOMEOIDES
V. SAXONICA
C-CIENKINI6
GOLENKINIA RADIATA
GCMPHO EMA ACUMINATUM
V. COFCNA1A
II
II
I I
II
I 0.1
41 5.6
I 0.3
I O.5
I 1.4
I 0.1
0.1
3. 3
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
(EL
CCL
Col
CEL
CC I
C OL
CEL
F l L
C EL
CEL
CEL
CDL
CDL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
X
X
x
x
X
85
X
3756
171
342
939
X
85
85
6231
x
X
0.3
3.2
0.5
5.0
0.21
2.3
0.2
II
II
II
II
II
151
II
II
II
131
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
342
X
3315
572
5258
x
229
x
2400
229
x
x
x

-------
LAKE NAt E: MOORES LAKE CONTINUED
TCRET NUMBERS 1C05
07 20 73 09 28 73
I ALGAL I ALGAL I
I UNITS I UNITS I
TAXA FORM IS C PER Ml IS C PER ML I
MELOSIPA ? #4 CEL I I 141 3.9! 4115 I
MELOSIPA #2 CEL H. 15e.4 1 39004 11146.71 48893 I
PELOSIPA #4 CEL 121 9.5! 6316 I I I I
MELOSTRA DISTANS CEL 15! 4.11 2731 I I 2.01 2057 I
MELOSTRA VARIANS CEL I I I I I I X I
MERISMOPEDIA MINIMA CCL I I 0.5! 342 I I I I
MICRACTINTUM cot. I 0.1! 85 I I
ICRAC11NTLM PUSILLUM C CL I I I I I 0.5! 572 I
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA CCL I I I I I 3.11 114 I
MICROCYSTIS INCERTA COt. I I I X I I o.II 114 I
MCUGEOTIA ? Fit. I I I X I I I I
NAVICULA CEL I I I X I I 0.1! 114 I
NITZSCP4IA CEL I I 0.1! 85 I I I
NITZSCHIA PAIEA CEL I I I I I 1.8! 1829 I
CSCI ILA’TOPIA Fil I I 0.1! 85 I I I
PECIASTRUM CUPLEX I I I I I I I
V. CLATHRATUM CCL I I I X I I $ X I
PECIASIRUM DUPLEX I I I I I
V. RE’ICULATUM CDL I I I X 0.1! 114
PEDIASIRUM SIMPLEX CCL I I I I I 0.11 114
FECIAS!PUM TETRAS I I I I I
V. TETRACCCN C DI I I I x I I I X
PENNATE DIATOM CEL I I 0.11 85 1 I I
PHACUS CEL I I I I I I x
SCENEDESMUS CCL I I 0.9! 7 I
SCENEOESMUS ABUNDANS Cal I 0.54 342 I I 0.7! 686
SCENEDESMUS ACUMINATUS cot I I I X I I 0.2! 229
SCENEDESMUS BICAUDATUS Cal I I I I .3I 342
SCENFOFSMUS BIJUGA CDL I I I x I I 1.6! 1715
SCEP ECESMUS DISPAR CCL I I I I I 0.54 572
SCENEDESMUS ECORNIS I I I I I I
V. DISCIFORMIS COt. I I 0.1! 85 I I I

-------
LAKE NAfrE: MOcRES LAKE CCNT INUE O
E10PE MJMPER: 1005
07 20 13 09 28 73
I ALGAL I ALGAL I
I UNITS I UNITS I
TAXA FORM C PER M l IS W PER ML I
SCENEDESMUS INTERMFOIUS I I I I I
V. 81C UCATUS COL 1.01 683 I I 1.8 1829
SCENEDESMIJS OPOLIENSIS C CL 0.11 95 I 1.21 1257
SCENEDESMUS QUADR!CAUDA CCL I I 1.71 1109 I 1.01 1029
SC PCEDEPIA SETIC-ERA CEL I 0.31 171 I 0.21 229
SELENASTRUM MESh! C DL I 3.1 85 I I I
SELENASTRIJM WEST!! 7 CCL I I I 1 0.1, 114 I
STAURASTRUM #1 CEL I I I X 1 0.11 114 I
STAURASTRUM #2 CEL I I X I I I
S AURASTRUM PARACOXUM CEL I I I X 0.1 114 I
STEPHANCO!SCUS CEL I I I 12121.0 21946 I
TETRAECRON I CEL I I I I 0.2 229 I
TETRAEDRCN #2 CEL I 0.11 95 I I 0.7 00686 I
TETRAEDPON #3 CEL I I I X I I I
TETRAEDRON CAUDATUM CEL I 0.31 171 I I
TETPAECRCN MINIMUM CEL I 0.11 95 X I
TEIRAEDQDN MUTICUM CEL I 0.11 85 I
TETRAFOPOM PLANCTONICUM CEL I I X 0.3 342 I
TETPAECPCN TR!GCP UM I I I I I
V. GRACIL! CEL I I I I X I
TETRASTRUM HETERACANTHUM CCL I I I X I X I
TEIRASTRUM STAUPCGENIAEFORME CDL I I I I I I x I
TRACHELCM( NAS SIMILIS CEL I I I X I I I I
TREUBAPIA CEL I I I X I I I X I
TOTAL
66741
104357

-------
1.AKE NAME: NOXONTCWN POND
!‘ORE” MJMEER: 1007
-J
03
DATE
MY XC PH YCE AN
CN.OROPHYCE AN
EUGLENCPHYTE
0! ATC
COMPOUND
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
NUMBER OF TAXA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES CCMPOSITED
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
TOTAL DIVERSITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/MI
EVENESS COMPONENT
MEAN NUMBER OF INCIVIDUALS/TAXA
NUMBER/MI OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
.YGAARC TRCPHIC STATE INCICES
34 10 73 07 20 73 09 29 73
0/01 C 2.00 E 1.40 E
4.00 E 8. 7 E 5.80 E
1.50 E 0.22 F 0.22 F
0.83 F 05/0 F 3.00 E
15.0 F 14.6 F 10.0 F
SPEC!ES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INCICES
DATE 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 29 73
H 2.74 4.08 4.21
S 27.00 52.00 60.00
M 2.00 2.00 2.00
MAXH 4.75 5.70 5.91
0 94816.70 45732.72 57563.33
N 30955.00 11209.00 13673.00
J 0.58 0.72 0.71
I 1146.48 215.56 227.88
K e411.O0 2265.00 2362.00
DA T F
GENIS
SPEC! ES
PALMER’S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
04 10 73 07 20 73 09 29 73
14 14 17
00 04 06

-------
LAKE NAME: NOXON!O N POND CC TINUED
5TCRET hUMBER: lO )7
04 10 73 07 20 73 09 29 73
ALGAL I ALGAL I ALGAL I
UNITS I UNITS I UNITS I
TAXA FORM IS C PER ML IS C PER ML IS ZC PER ML I
ANABAENA FIL I I I I I I 1.1 151
ASTERICNEL.LA FO MOSA I I I I
V. GRACIILTMA CEL 141 6.61 2056 I I
CLCSTERIDIUM CEL I I I X I I I I
CLCSTERIUM CEL I I I I 1.7 189 I 0.7 101 I
COELASTRUM RETICULATUM COL I I I I 0.71 75 I
CCELASTRUM SPHAEPICUM C DL I I I 0.31 38 I 1.8 251 I
CCEIOSPHAERIUM CCLLINSII ? CDL I I I I I I 2.2 302 I
COSMARIUM Ca I I I I x I 1.5 201 I
CRUCIGENIA APICULATA CDL I I I 3.01 340 2.2 302 I
CRUCIGENIA TETRAPEDIA COl. I I I I I X
CR’YFTOMONAS CEL I 3.61 1122 I I I I I
CRYPTOMCNAS #1 CEL I 13112.81 1434
CVANOPHYTAN FILAMENT 1 FIt I I I I I p x 4.4 603
CYANOPHVTAN FILAMENT #2 FIL I I I I I I X I I X
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT #3 FIL 1 I I 1.31 151
CYCLOTELLA #1 CEL I I I .3 38 1
CYCLOTELLA #2 CEL I I I X I I
CYCLOTELLA MENEGI IN!ANA CEL I I I I I I 2.61 352
CYCLOTELLA STELLIGERA CEL i i i x I 1.51 201
CYMBELIA TURGIDA CEL I I I x I I I I
CACTYLCCCCCCPSIS CEL I I I 3•4 377 I I 2.61 352 I
DICTYOSPI1AERIUM PULCHELLtJM COL I I I I I 1.1, 151
DINCBRYCN CEL I I X I I I I I
DINOFLAGELLATE CEL I I 0.6 194 I I I I
DINOFLAC.ELLATE #1 CFL I I I x I I I X I
OTNOFLAC.FLIATE #2 CEL I I I 1.01 113 I I I
ELAKATOTHRIX CCL I I X I I I
EUASTRUM CEL I I I I I I I I X
EUGLENA CEL I I 0.6 187 I I I I I I
EUGLENA #1 GEL 1 I I x I I x I I 1.51 201
EUGLENA #2 CEL I I I X I I 3.71 415 I I I

-------
LAKE NAME: hOXONTOWN POND CONTINUED
STORET uMeER: 1007
04 10 73 07 20 73 09 29 73
I ALGAL I ALGAt. 1 Al_GAL I
I UNITS I UN1’ S I UNITS I
TAXA FORM 1$ C PER ML IS *C PER ML IS *C PEP ML I
EUGLENA ACUS CEL I I I I X
EUGLENA ACLTISSTMA CEL I I X I
FLAGELLATES CEL l 5.2 2523 1 20.2 2265 15 9.61 1307
C•0LEI KIPiI* PAUCISPINA CEL I I X I I I
GYRCSIGMA SPENCERTI CEL I I 3.6 194 I I I I
KIRCHNERIELLA CEL I I I I I X
KIRCHNEPIELLA LUNARIS CEL I I I 0.7 75 I
KINCIINERIELLA LUNARTS i i I I I
V. IRREGULARIS CEL I i I x 4 I I I
LAGERI4EIMIA SUBSALSA CEL 1 I x I I I X
LUNATE CELL CEL 0.91 280 I I I I I
PALLCMCNAS CEL I I 0.41 50
MALLCMCNAS PSEUCCCOPCNATA CEL X I I I
MELOSIPA 2 CEL 1127.2 8411 3.0 340 I I 2.61 352 I
MELOSIRA 5 CEL I 14 6.44 717 4 5.5 754 I
WELCSIRA DTSTANS CEL 3 22.6 7009 12113.11 1472 12117.3 2362
MERISMOPEOTA MINIMA CCL I I 0.31 38 I I
NEPISMOPEDIA TENLJTSSIMA C DL I I I I 4 x I
MICROC’1STIS INCEPTA C C L I I 4 2.44 264 I 1 2.2 302
COCYSTIS CEL I I 1.01 113 I 1.51 201
PEDIASIRUM BIRADIATUM I I I I
V. LONC•ECORNUTUM CCL I I I I I X
PECTASTRUM flORYANUM CDL I I I I I X
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX I I I I
V. RETICULATUM CDL I I I 0.31 38 I X
PECIASTRUM SIMPLEX C CL I I I x I I I X
PEOTASTRUM SIMPLEX I I I I I
V. DUODENARIUM CCL I I 1 I X I I
PECIASTRUM TE7RAS I I I I I
V. TETRA000N CDL I I I I 0.34 38 I I
PENNATE DIATOM CEL I I I x I I I
PMACLS CEL I I I I I I I I X

-------
LAKE NAME: NCXONTCWN PCND CCNT!MUED
ST0R NUMBER: 1C07
04 tO 73 01 20 73 09 29 73
ALGAL I ALGAL I ALGAL
I UNITS I UNITS I UNITS
TAXA FORM ) C PER ML IS C PER ML IS C PER ML
PHACUS #1 CEL I 0. I 187 I I X I I 151
PHACUS 2 CEL I I X I I
PHACUS $ ELIK0I0ES tEL I I I I I 1 0.4) 50
PHACUS LtNGICAUD CEL I I I 0.7) 75 I X
PF4ACUS PYRUM CEL I I I I I I X
PHACUS TORTUS CEL I I X I
RHIZCSCLEN!A GEL I 4 I X I I I I
PHIZOSOLENIA ERIENSIS CEL I I I I I 1.51 201
SCENEDESMUS CCL I I 1.91 561 I I I I
SCENEDESMUS #1 CCL I I I I I X
SCENEDESMUS #2 CCL I X I I I I I
SCENEDESMUS ABUNCANS CCI I I I 0.31 38 I 1.1 151
SCENEDESMUS ABUNOANS I I I I I I
V. BICAUDATUS CCL I I X I I X
SCENEDE5MUS ACUMINATUS CCL I I I I I X
SCENEDESMUS BICAUDATUS CCL I I I I I 0.4) 50
SCENEDESMUS BIJUGA CCI 3.4) 311 13)11.8 1608
SCENEDESPUS D!SPAR CCL I I I 0.7) 75 I
SCENEDESMLJS GRANULAILS I I I I
F. DISCIFORMIS CCL I I I I I X
SCENEDESMUS INTERMEDIUS I I I I
V. BICAUCATUS CCL I I I I X
SCENEDESMUS CPCL! NSIS CCL I I I I 0.4) 50
SCENEDESMUS QUADRICAUCA CCL I I I I 1 2.7I 302 I I .2I 302
SCHRCEDER!A SETIC-ERA CEL I I 1.71 189 I I
SPHAER CCYSIIS CCL I I IS 6.7) 155 I I
STAURASTRUM CEL I I p I I X
S1AURASTRUM #2 CEL I I 0.71 75 I I I
STAURASIRUM PA ACCXUM ? GEL I I 0.61 194 I I X
S1 EPHANOOISCUS CEL I I I X I I I I
SYNEDRA #1 GEl 12123.61 7290 I I 4.01 553
SYNEDRA ACUS CEL I I 2.4) 747 I I I I I

-------
LAKE NAME: I 0X1NT0WP PCNO CCNTTNUCC
ST0 FT NUMBER: 1007
04 10 73 07 20 73 09 29 73
I ALGAL ALGAL AIC-AL
I UNITS I UNITS I UNITS
TAXA FORM I! C PER ML (S C PER ML IS *C PER ML
SYNEOPA DELICATISSIMA CEL i i I I I 1 12.5 1709
TETRAEC ON #1 CEL I I I I 0.7 101
TETRAEDPON #3 CEL I I I X
IErRAEORON #4 CEL I I
TETRAE0R0P LIMNETICUM CEL I I X I
TEIRAEDRON MINIMUM I I I I I
V. SCROBICULATUP CEL 1 I 0.31 38 C.? 101
TETRAEDPCN MUTICUM CEL I I I I I 0.4 50
TETPAEOPCN PENTAEOR!CUM tEL I I 0.41 50
TETRAEDRON PLANCIONICUM CEL I I X
TETPAECRON TRIGCNUM CEL I I I I I I I X
IEIPAEDPON TRIGONUM
V. GRACILE CEL I I I 0.31 38 I I
TEIRASTRUM HETEPACANTHUM COL I I I I 0.31 38 I I X
TRACHELOMOPIAS #1 CEL. I I I 2.1 302 1 I
TRACHELfJMONAS #2 CEL I I I I I 2.41 264 I I
TRACHEICMCNAS GRANULCSA CEL I I I 0.71 75 I I
TREUBARIA CEL I I I I I 0.31 38 I 0.41 50
TOTAL 30955 11209 13673

-------
LAKE NAME: STIVER LAKE
STORET NUMBER: 1008
NYGAARD TROPHIC STA’E INDICES
Dt. E 07 2’) 73 09 29 73
MYXOPHYCEAN 1.00 E 0/03 C
CHLOPOPHYCEAN 22.0 E 3.33 E
EUGLENOPHY E 0.09 7 0.10 7
D!AT M 1.50 E 0.50 E
CCMPCUND 28.0 E 6.00 E
PALMER’S CRGAN!C POLLUTION INDICES
DA F 07 20 73 09 29 73
r GENUS 13 04
SPECIES 06 00
E°ECIES OP/ERSITY AN ) ABUNDANCE INDICES
DATE 07 20 73 09 29 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY H 2.70 2.03
NUMBER CF TAXA S 34.00 18.00
NUMBER CF SAMPlES COMPOSITED M 1.00 1.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXI- 5.09 4.1w
TOTAL DIVERSITY C 51512.70 5915.42
TOTAL sUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/MI N 21301,00 2914.00
EVENESS CMPCNENT J 3 ,53 0.49
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA L 626.50 161.89
NUMBER/MI OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXOM K 11031.00 1623.00

-------
LAKE NAME: SILVER LAKE CCN1INUFO
STORET NUMBER: 1008
07 20 73 09 29 73
I ALGAL ALGAL
UN!TS UNITS
TAXA FORM $S C PER ML XC PER ML
ANKIS RCDESMUS CEL 1.9$ 411 I I
CAPTERIA CEL I I 0.8 1 6 I I I
CHICROPHYTAN CELL CEL 3.9 821 I I I
CLCSTERIUM tEL I I X
COELASTPUt4 CCL I I 0.31 59 I I
COELASTRUM RETICULATUM CCL I 12 9.61 279
CCSMARIUM #1 CEL I X 1 3.51 lOt $
CRUCIGENIA APICULATA CCL I X I I I
CYCLOTELLA CEL 2.51 528 I I X
CYCLOTELLA MENEGHINIANA CEI. 15$ 2.2$ 469 I
C CL01ELLA STELLIGERA CEL I .8I 58 ? I I
CICTYOSPF4AERIUM PULCI ELLUM CCL I 0.3 59 1 I
EUGIENA #1 CEL $ I I X
EUGLENA 2 CEI. 15$ X I
FLAGELLATES CEL $1151.81 11031 3 20.91 609
GOLEP KXNI* CEL I I 1.1 235 I I
LAGERHEIMIA C1TR1F0Rt IS CEL $ X
LAGERHEIMIA LONGISETA CEL $ 0.8 176
MICRACTZNIUM C DL 2111.6 2464
NTTZSCHIA $1 CEL 4$ 6.61 1408 I X
CCCYS’flS CEL I I X I I 2.6 76
OSCILLATOPIA F!L X I
PEOTASIRUM BORYANUM CCL 0.3$ 59 I I 0.9 25
PEDIASTRLM OUPLEX I
V. CLATHRATUM CCL I X
PECIASTRUM CUPLEX I I I I
V. RETICULATUM CDL I 0.3 59 I I
PEDIASTRUM TETRAS I I
V. TETRA000N COL I 0.3 59 I $
SCENEDESMUS ABUNDANS COL I I 0.91 25
SCENEDESMUS ACUMIMATUS CCL I I 0.3 59 I I X
SCENEDESMUS ANOMALUS CCL I 1.91 411 I $ 0.9 25

-------
LAKE NAP E: SILVER LAKE CON1INUEC
STORET NUMBER: 1C09
0. 20 13 09 29 13
I ALGAL I ALGAL I
I UNITS I UNITS I
TAXA FCRM IS C PER ML (S C PER ML I
SCENEDES?’US BICAUDATUS cot. I 0.91251
SCENEDE5 LS 0!SPAR CDL I I I X 1155.71 l 23 I
SCENEDESMUS OPOLI NSIS CaL I I X I I I
SCENEDESMUS CUADRICAUCA CDL I 1.11 235 ( I I
N.) SCHRCEDERIA CEL 31 8.01 1702 1 I I
SCHROEDERIA SETIC•ERA CEL I I I x I I
STAURASTRUM NI CEL I I 141 3.5 101
S rNEORA #1 CEL I I 0.31 59 I I
SYNEDRA N2 CEL I I I I X
TETRAEDRCN LIMNETICUM CEL I I I X I
TETRAEDRCN MUTICUM CEL I 0.51 117 I 0.9 25
TETRAFORON PENTAEDRICUM CEL. I I I x I I
TRACHELCI4ONAS CEL 0.51 117 I I
TOTAL 21301 2914

-------
lAKE NAI’E: WTIIIfMS POND
STORE’ NUMBER: 1C09
NYGAARD IRCPHIC STA1 E INCICES
DATE 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
MYXOPHYCEAN 0/01 C 0.75 E 2.20 E
CH10RDPHYCEA . 6.00 E 2.50 E 4.20 E
EUGI!NCPHY’E 0/06 ? 0.08 ? 0.22 E
DIATOM 0.50 E 1.00 E 0.57 E
CCMPCUND 9.00 E 3.81 E 8.60 E
PALMEQIS ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
CA’E 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
GENUS 05 U 19
SPECIES 00 00 04
SPFCIES DIVERSIIY ANO A8UNDANCE INDICES
DATE 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY H 2.37 3.08 3.80
NUMBER OF TAXA S 20.00 49.00 60.00
NUMBER 0 SAMPLES COMPOSITEC M 2.00 2.00 2.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH 4.32 5.61 5.91
TOTAL DIVERSITY D 1996 .51 104424.32 22663.20
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/MI N 8423.00 33904.00 5966.00
EVENESS COMPCNEN J 0.55 0.55 0.64
MEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA 1 421.15 691.92 99.40
NUMBER/MI OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON K 3438.00 8050.00 1484.00

-------
LAKE NAME: WILLIAMS POND CON INU O
5TCRET NUMBER: ICCO
04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
ALGAL 1 ALGAL I ALGAL
I LNITS I UNITS I UNITS
TAXA FORM IS C PER ML IS C PER ML IS ZC PEP Ml
ANABAENA Fit. I I I I I 0.0, 56
ANABAENA #1 Fil I I 1.51 516 I
ANABAENA #2 ElI I I I I 2.71 930 I I
ANKISTRODESMUS FALC TUS CEL 1 0.51 43 I
APHANOTHECE CCL I I I I I I X
ASTERIONELLA CEL I I I I I I X
ASTERICNEILA FORMOSA CEL 13117.01 1504 I I I I I
CHIAMYO CMONAS CEL I I I I I X I I
CHLAMYDCMONAS GIOBOSA ? CEL I 3119.5 6614 I I
CHIDROCOCCALEAN C !ICNY CCL 1 I I I I X I I I
CHLCROGCNIUM CEL I I $ x I I I
COELASTRUM RE1 ICULATUM CDL I 111 4.3 1447 I I X
COEIASTRtJM SPHAERICUM CDL I I I I 0.31 103 I I 0.51 28
COSMARIUM Ni CEL I I I I 0.3 103 I I 1.41 84
CCSMARIUM *2 CEL I I I I I 1 x I I X
CRUC GEN!A APICULATA CCL I I I I I X I I I
CRUCIGENIA QUADRATA CCL I I 0.51 43 I I I I I
CRYPTOMCNAS CEL I I I I I I I X
C VANOPWr1AN COCCCIO CELLED CCICNY GEL I I I I X I
CIANOPHY’AN FILAMENT FIL I I I I x I I 1
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT #1 FIL I I I 3.0 1030 I X
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT #2 FIL I I 8.0$ 476
CYCLOTELLA CEL 1.51 129 I I I
CVCLCTELLA #1 CEL I I I I I X
CYCIOTELLA *2 CEL I I I I 6.11 364
CYCLOTELIA STELLIGERA CEL I I I X I I
CACTY IOCCCC OPSIS CEL I I 15 21.31 72.33 I I 6.11 364
DICTYOSPHAERIIJM PULCt ELLUM CCL 1.51 129 I I I I 0.91 56
DTNQBRYCN BAVARICUM CEL I I I I 2.81 168
DINOBRYCN SERTULARIA CEL I X I I I I I
CINCF IAGELLATFS GEL 1.01 86 I I I I I I
ECHINOSPI-IAEREILA ? CEL I I I I 1 0.31 103

-------
LAKE NAME: ILL1AMS POND CONTINUEC
STORET NUMBER: 1C09
04 tO 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
I ALGAL I ALGAL I ALGAL
I UNITS I LNVTS I UNITS
TAXA FORM IS V PER Ml IS %C PER ML IS C PER ML
EUC-LENA CEL I I I I I X I 1.41 84
EUNOIIA CEL I I I I I I I I
FLAGELLATE ? #3 CEL I I X I I I
FLAGELLATE #3 CEL U 40.81 3438 I I
FLAGELLATES CEL $4 15.31 1289 12 23.81 8060 12124.91 1484
FRAGIL#RIA CEL I I I 0.31 103 I I
FRAGILARIA CROTCNENSIS CEL I I I I X
C.OIENKINIA RADIATA CEL I I I I 0.61 201 I 2.8$ 168
GOLENKINIA PADIATA I I I I
V. BREVISPINA CEL I I 0.9$ 310 I
C•CNIUM PECTORALE CCL I X
KIPCHNERIELLA CEL 0.51 43 1 I I I
KIRCHNERIELLA OBESA CEL I I I X
LAGFRI’EIMIA LONGISETA CEL I I X
LUNATE CELLED CCLONY CDL I I I 0.3$ 103 I
MELOSIRA #2 CEL 2 17.91 1504 I I X II 7.5 448
MELOSIRA DISTANS CEL X 0.9 56
MERISMOPEDIA TENUISSIMA CDL I I 1.9 112
MICPACTINIUM PUSILLUM I
V. ELECANS CDL I X
MICROCYSTIS AERUC-INOSA CDL 5 1.91 112
MICROCYSTIS INCERTA CCL I I I 4 6.11 364
NAVICULA CEL 5 1.51 129 I X I I
NTTZSCHIA CEL I 0.3$ 103 I I
OSCILLATORIA FIL I I I 13 13.61 812
OSCILLATORIA SUBTILISSIMA FIL I I I I X
PANDORINA MORUM CCL I I I X
PEDIASTRUM CUPLEX CDL I I I I X
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX I I I I I
V. GRACILI UM CCL I I I I I x I I
PECIASTRUM CUPLEX I I I I I I
V. RFIICULATUM CCL I i I I I I 1 I x

-------
LAKE NAME: WILLIAMS POND CCNTTNUED
STCRET NUMBER: 1C09
04 10 73 07 20 13 09 28 13
I ALGAL I ALGAL ALGAL
I UNITS UNITS UNITS
TAXA FORM IS C PER ML IS C PER ML IS 2C PEP ML
PEDIASTRtJM TETRAS I I I I
V. TETRA000N C CL I I I 0.3 103
PEPIDINIUM INCONSPICUUM CEL I I 1.3 430 0.9 I 56
PHACLS CEL I I I I I I X
PI -IACUS CURVICAUDA CEL I ( X I X
PHACLS I Et.!KOIDES CEL I I I I I X
PNACLS LONGICAUDA CEL 1 I I I X
PHACUS PYRUM CEL I I I I X
PHACLS SUECICUS CEL I I I I I X
PINNULARIA c i I I I 0.5f 28
PINNULARIA ABAUJENSIS I I I I I
V. LINEAR!S CEL I I I )(
PINNULARIA MESOLEPTA CEL I I x I
RHIZCSCLENIA LONGISETA CEL I I I I 0.3 103 I
SCENEDESMUS COL I I I X
SCENEDESMUS ABUNCANS COL I I X 3.8 224 1
SCENFOESMUS ACUMINATUS COL I I I I 1 x I
SCENFOESMUS DENTICULATUS CCL I I I 0.31 103 I I
SCENEDESMUS DISPAR COL I I I I I I 0.5 28 I
SCENEDESMUS ECORNIS I I I I I I I I
V. DISCIFORMIS COL I I 0.31 103
SCENEDESMUS INTERMEDIUS COL I X I I I I I I
SCENEDESMUS OPOLTENSIS CDL I 0.31 103 I I I
SCENEDESMUS QUACRICAUDA CCL I 0.5 43 I X I I 0.9 56 I
SCENEDESPUS SPP. COL 4U5.2 5167 I I I I
SCHROEDERIA SETIGERA CEL I I I 0.6 207 I X I
SELENASTRUM WEST!! CDL I I I I I X 1
ETAUPASTRUM CEL 1 X I I I I I
STAURASTRUM Hi CEL I I I I I I I 1.41 84 I
STAUPASTRUM #2 CEL I 0.3 103 I 0.5 28
STAUPASTRUM #3 CEL I I I 0.31 103 I I X $
STAURASTRUM #4 CEL I I I I x I I I I

-------
C CNT I NUED
LAKE NAME: WILLIAMS FOND
5TCP!’ UMBFP: 1009
04 10 73
ALGAL I ALGAL I
UNITS I UNITS I
PEP ML IS ZC PEP ML I
x II
x II I I
x II I I
II I I
I I 3.31 196 I
II I I
II I I
x II I I
II I ( I
II I X I
x II I X I
207 II
II I x I
I I 0.51 28 I
II I X I
207 II I
07 20 73 09 28 73
L )
Q
TAXA
STAURASTRUM 5
STAURASTRUM 6
STAUPASTRUM SE’ TGEPUM
SUPIRELLA BRIG 4T mELLI1 ?
S’YNE CPA
SYNEDRA DELICATISSIMA
TABELLARIA
IETRAEDRCN
TETRAEORC N *1
TETRAECRON HAS’A’UM
IETPAEDPON LIMN TICUM
TETRAFORON MUTICUM
TETRAEDPCN TRIGCNUM
TETRASTRUM HE’ERACANTHUM
TREIJØAPI A
TREUSARIA TRIADPENDICULATA
TOTAL
I ALGAL I
I UNI’S
FORM f C PER ML IS C
CEL II I It I
CEL II I II I
CEL II I II I
CEL I I I x I I 1
CEL II I II I
CEL I I 0.51 43 I I I
CEL I I 1 X I I I
CEL II I II I
CEL II I It I
CEL Ii I II 1
CEL II I II I
CEL I I I I 0.61
CEL II I II I
C CL II I II I
CEL II I II I
CEL I I I I I 0.61
8423
33904 5964

-------
LAKE KANE: TRUSSUM POND
5!CRET NUMBER: 1010
YG ARC TRCPH!C STATE INDICES
DATE C l 20 73
MYXCPHYCE*N 0.12 ?
CHLUROPHYCEAN 0.31 ?
EUGLENCPHYTF 0/07 ?
DIATOM 0.25 ?
COMPOUND O. 2 0
P4LMERS ORGANIC PCLLUTICN INDICES
DATE 07 20 73
—a
GENUS 00
SPECIES 00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
CATE 07 20 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY H 3.07
NUMBER OF TAXA S 43.00
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED M 1.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY MAXH 5.43
TOTAL DIVERSITY C 4833.25
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/MI N l5 5.0O
EVENESS COMPONENT J 0.57
MEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA L 3e.63
NUMBER/MI OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON K 361.00

-------
LAKE NAME: TRUSSt. M POND CCNT!NUEC
SYCRET MJMBER: 1010
07 20 73
ALGAL
I UNITS I
TAXA FCRM S C PEP Mt. I
ANABAENA Fit. I I X I
ANKISTROCESMUS CEL I I 1.71 26 I
*P K1StPCOESMUS CCTOCCRNIS CEI. I I X I
CENTRIC DIATOM CEL 15 4.9 77
COELASTRUM RETICULATUM Cot I X
COELASTRUM SPHAERTCUM COL I X
COSMARIUM Il CEL 4 16.4 258
COSMARIUM $2 CEL 1 X 1
CCSMARIUM MARGAPITATUM CEL I I X
COSMARIUM ORThOS1ICHUM CEL I X I
CYMPELLA CEL I I 3.31 52
CYMBELLA VEN1RICCSA CEL I I X
DESMID I L CEL I X
DE5MID #2 tEL I I X I
DINCBRYCN SERTULARIA CEL I I X I
OINCFLAC ELLATE CEL 3 13.1 206 I
EUDORZNA ELEGANS Cot. X I
FLAGELLATES CEL 2122.9 361 1
FPAGILAPIA CEL f X
GCNATOZYGCN CEL X I
GYROSIGMA CEL I X I
MELOSIRA #2 CEL I X
PELCSIPA #5 CEL I I I X
NAVICULA $1 CEL 1.7 26
NAVICULA #2 CEL I I X I
CSCItLA.TORIA FIt. I I I X I
PENN*’E DIATOM IL CEL I I 3.3 52 I
PENNaTE DIATOM #2 CEL I I 1.7 26 I
PINNULARII CEL I I I X I
SCENEDESMUS CDL I I I x
SPCP DYLC5IUM PLAI UM CEL l1i22. 361
STAURASIRUM Ii CEL I I Lu 26

-------
çn
C)
0
rn
2
m
z
2
LAKE N*ME: RUSSUM FCND CCNT!NUE
STCRET KUMBER: 1010
C)
m
0? 20 73
ALGAL I
o I UNITS I
TAXA FCRM IS C PER ML I
TAURASTRUM #2 OEL I I I X I
T#URASTRUM #3 CEL I I X I
S’AURASTRUM #4 CEL I f I X I
STAURASTRUM BIFICUM CEL I I 1.7 1 26 I
S1*URASTRUM CERASTES CEL I I I X I
SflURASTRUM CILATATUM I I I I
c V. HIBERNICUM CEL I I X
STAURAS1RUM MUTICUM CEL I I 1.71 26 I
S’ AURASTRUM SIMONVI ? CEL I I I X I
SY ECRA CEL I I X I
TABELLARIA FENESTRAIA CEL I 1 3.31 52 I
TABELIARIA FLOCCULOSA CEL I I I X I
TOTAL 1575

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA—600/3—78-027 2.
3. RECIPIENT’S ACCESSIO NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
January 1978
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN DELAWARE LAKES 6.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONCODE
REPORT NO.
7 AUTHOR(S)
S.C. Hem, J.W. Hilgert, V.W. Lambou, F.A. Morris
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
M.K.Morris, L.R. Williams, W.D. Taylor, F.A. Hiatt
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
ELEMENT NO.
10. PROGRAM
1BA6O8
11.CONTRACT/GRANTNO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 89114
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
03-07-73 to 11-14-73
14.SPONSORINGAGENCYCOOE
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89114
EpA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Previously released in limited distribution as No. 678 in the Working Paper Series
for the National Eutrophication Survey.
16. ABSTRACT
This is a data report presenting the species and abundance of phytoplankton
in the 6 lakes sampled by the National Eutrophication Survey in the State of
Delaware. Results from the calculation of several water quality indices are also
included (Nygaard’s Trophic State Index, Palmer’s Organic Pollution Index, and
species diversity and abundance indices).
7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
k. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C, COSATI FieldfGroup
*aquatic microbiology
lakes
*phytoplankton
water quality
Delaware
lake eutrophication
Nygaard’s trophic indic.
Palmer’s organic pollu-
tion indices
Species diversity and
abundance indices
06 C, M
08 H
13 B
21. NO. OF PAGES
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThiS Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
40
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220.1 (9.73)

-------