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) ------- |