r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory
P 0 Box 15027
Las Vegas NV89114
Research and Development
Phytoplankton
Water Quality
Relationships in
U.S. Lakes, Part VI:
Working
Paper 710
The Common
Phytoplankton
Genera From Eastern
and Southeastern Lakes
-------
PHYTOPLANKTON WATER QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS IN U.S. LAKES,
PART VI: The Common Phytoplankton Genera
From Eastern and Southeastern Lakes
by
W. D. Taylor, S. C. Hern, L. R. Williams, V. W. Lambou,
M. K. Morris*, and F. A. Morris*
Water and Land Quality Branch
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
*Department of Biological Sciences
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
Working Paper No. 710
National Eutrophication Survey
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
January 1979
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed
Support Laboratory—Las Vegas, U.S.
approved for pubflcation. Mention
does not constitute endorsement or
by the Environmental Monitoring and
Environmental Protection Agency, and
of trade names or commercial products
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey (NES) was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration con itment to investigate the nationwide
threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and reservoirs.
The survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with State environmental
agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations, and impact on
selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating comprehensive and
coordinated national, regional, and State management practices relating to
point-source discharge reduction and nonpoint—source pollution abatement in
lake watersheds.
This survey collected physical, chemical, and biological data from
815 lakes and reservoirs throughout the contiguous United States. To date,
the Survey has yielded more than two million data points. In-depth analyses
are being made to advance the rationale and data base for refinement of
nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s freshwater lakes.
iii
-------
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to identify environmental conditions
associated with more common phytoplankton genera and to evaluate their use
as indicator organisms for monitoring water quality and/or trophic condition
of lakes. Such indicators are highly desirable to aid states in meeting
lake classification requirements under Section 305b and monitoring the
success of Clean Lakes restoration efforts under Section 314 of the Water
Bill (PL92-500). The study follows the basic premise that identification
of the environmental conditions surrounding the occurrence of phytoplankton
is implicit in their development for, and application to, advanced biological
monitoring of lakes. To determine the conditions associated with the
absence, presence and dominance of the 57 most common algae genera identified
from 250 lakes in 17 eastern and southeastern states during 1973, approxi-
mately 25,000 phytoplankton records and 750,000 physical and chemical data
points were analyzed and compared.
An ideal indicator organism for a given set of environmental conditions
would always be present when all conditions in the set were within estab-
lished tolerances and never be present when any or all conditions were
outside these ranges. The results of this study clearly indicate that
the more common phytoplankton genera are found to thrive over sucha
broad range of environmental conditions that no one genus emerges as a
dependable indicator of water quality or trophic condition in lakes.
As a result of this finding it is recommended that individual phytoplankton
genera not be used as sole or primary indicators of water quality/trophic
state iiflikes. However, tendencies of some of the genera toward high
or low ends of specific parameter ranges suggest an opportunity for
development of community—based trophic classification indices which effect-
ively “sum the individual probabilities” of the genera in a community to
increase the resolution of trophic state estimates. Preliminary evalua-
tions of tentative community-based indices suggest that these Indices offer
higher potential for water quality assessment than any of the commonly-used
phytoplankton—based water quality indicators and that further development
and refinement of their potential is warranted.
Most phytoplankton genera showed no distinct seasonality to their
general occurrence, although some forms achieved numerical importance
only during certain seasons. Flagellates and diatoms tend to dominate
the spring plankton while blue-green and coccoid green genera are most
common in summer and fall. The high nutrient levels in the spring were
not, in our study findings, accompanied by high phytoplankton populations,
F bably as a result of seasonal sub—optimal light and temperature condi-
tions.
iv
-------
Blue-green algae, both nitrogen—fixing genera and non—, represented
9 of the 10 common genera which attained numerical dominance in waters
with mean inorganic nitrogen/total phosphorus ratio (N/P) of less than
10 (usually suggestive of nitrogen limitation). Note that low N/P in the
study lakes was invariably associated with high “P ” rather than low “N’
values.
The physical and chemical lake data associated with the various
occurrence categories of common phytopl an kton genera (non—occurrence,
non-dominance and dominance) are summarized. These summaries indicate
the environmental “requirements” for each taxon and can be used to develop
biological tools for monitoring and predicting lake water quality or trophic
state (e.g., community-based Indices, above) and to suggest environmental
control methodologies for problem algal forms.
The information on phytoplankton environmental relationships derived
by this study constitutes valuable input for the development and periodic
update of water quality criteria required by the Agency under Section 304
and for prediction of biological responses to nutrient and other environ-
mental parameters to aid areawide planners responding to Section 208
of PL92-500.
V
-------
. . . S • S S • 5 5 5 • S iii
• . . . . . . . . iv
• . . . . • . . . viii
• S S I I I S S I 1X
• I S S • S • 5 5
• . I • S • S I S
• S . 4
• I • • 5 I S I 5 4
• . 4
• . . • . • • . . 6
• 6
• . . . . . . . . 14
• S • • S I • I • 19
• . . . • . . • • 38
• • . . • . . . . 38
• . . S 5 I I • • 39
• . • • . . . . • 40
• . • . . • . . . 41
• . • . . • . . • 42
42
• I I S S • • S S 43
• . • . • . • . . 43
• 5 . . I I S S • 44
• 5 I S • • I S I 45
• . . S S • S S • 45
• . • . • • • • . 46
• • • . . • • • . 46
• . I S I I S S 5 47
48
• • . . • • . . . 48
• . . . . . . . . 49
• I • • • S S • I 49
• . . • . . • • . 50
• • . . . • • . • 50
• . . . . • . . • 52
: : : : : : : : : 58
• . • . • . . • . 60
CONTENTS
Foreword . . • • • . • . • • . . . • .
SuniTlary • . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . • • .
Figures andTables. • • • .
List of Abbreviations and S mbo1s . . • • • .
Introduction . . . • • . • . • . . . • . . .
Conclusions . • • . . . • • • • • •
Recon endations . . . • • • . . . . • • • •
MaterialsandMethods •15•S••
General . • • . • • • •
Data Selection • . . . . . • • . • . . •
Results . • . • • . . • . . . • • . . • • • • •
Conmion Phytoplankton Genera . • • . . .
Seasonal ity . • • . . • . • . • . . . •
Environmental Requirements . . . . . . . .
DominantGenera • . . ..
Anabaena . . . • • • . • . • . . • . . . .
Aphan1,.zcb nenon • . • • . • . • . . . • . • .
Aeteri.oneZ.Z.a . . • . . • • . . • . . • • •
. . . . • . • . . • • • • • • • •
Cryp tomonaa • • . • • . . . • • • • • • • •
Cyciotel.la . . . • • . • • . . • • . .
Da,otylococccpal_8 . • . . . • • . • • • • •
D’vnobryon . . . • • . , • . . • . . . . . .
Fr ag1.larva • . . . • . . . • • • • • • • •
L lngbya . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . • . .
Meloai.ra . . . . • . . • . . . . . . • . .
Merl.Bn2opedla . . . • . . . . . . • . . . .
l’?IlIJrOc!4’8t1..8 . • . . . . . • • . • . . . .
Ni,tzachi.a • • . . . • . . • . • . . . . • •
O8c1,Z.ZatOz’-va S I S • • 5 I
Raphi_d’z.opsi s . . . • • . • . . . • . .
Scenede8ln.ue . . . • • . • . . . . . . . .
Stepha/nod’zBcuB • . . . . . . • . . . • . •
Synedra . . . . • • •
Tabeli ’va . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • .
Discussion . . . • . . . . • • •
References • • • . . • . • •
Bibliography • . • • . • • . . . . •
Appendix A . . • . • . • • . . • . • •
A—l. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
total phosphorus levels . . .
vi
61
-------
A—2. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
total Kjeldahl nitrogen levels 65
A—3. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
chiorophyllalevels 69
A-4. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
N/P ratio values . . 73
Appendix B. Range of parameter values within three occurrence
categories for Anabaena, cryptcinonas, and
Dinobriyon 78
vii
-------
F I GU RES
Number Page
1—3 Illustrations of the common phytoplankton genera observed
In NES samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 7
4 Percent occurrence of each genus by season . . . . . . . . . . 15
5 Percent dominant occurrence of each genus by season . . . 17
TABLES
Number Page
1 Common Phytoplankton Genera by Division . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 The Number of Lake—Date Composite Samples in which a Genus
Occurred as a Dominant (DaM), Non-dominant (NONDOM),
and Irrespective of Dominance (0CC) during 3 Sampling
Seasons and Cumulatively (Annual) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Phytoplankton Genera Ranked by Frequency of Occurrence
and Associated Mean Parameter Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4 Selected Genera Ranked by their Frequency of Dominant
Occurrence and the Mean Parameter Values Associated
with theirDominance . . . . . . . . . . 28
5 Comparison of Dominant, Non—dominant, and Non-
occurrence Mean Parameter Values for the 20 most
Common DominantGenera . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . 34
viii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
SPRING — data collected during the first sampling round (March 7 - July
1, 1973)
SUMMER — data collected during the second sampling round (July 5 -
September 18, 1973)
FALL — data collected during the third sampling round (September 19 —
November 14, 1973)
ANNUAL — cumulative data collected through the three sampling rounds
0CM - (numerical dominance) — genus constituted 10 percent or more of the
numerical total cell concentration of each lake_date* sample in this
category.
NONDOM — (non—dominance) - genus was detected but constituted less than
10 percent of the numerical total cell concentration of each
lake—date sample in this category
0CC - (occurrence) - genus was detected in each lake—date sample repre-
sented In this category
NONCCC — (non—occurrence) - genus was not detected in any of the lake-date
samples represented in this category
MIN - minimum value of a given parameter for the nature of occurrence
indicated
MAX — maximum value of a given parameter for the nature of occurrence
indicated
MEAN — mean value of a given parameter for the nature of occurrence indicated
STDV — standard deviation of the mean
CHLA — chlorophyll a ( tg/l)
TIJRB — turbidity (% transmission)
*Lake_date (sample, value, infonnation, etc.) denotes specificity for a
given lake on a single sampling date.
ix
-------
SECCHI - Secchi disc (Inches)
PH - standard pH units
DO - dissolved oxygen (mg/i)
TEMP — temperature (degrees Celsius)
TOTAL P - total phosphorus ( ig/1)
ORTHOP — dissolved orthophosphorus ( .ig/1)
N02N03 — nitrite—nitrate nitrogen (pg/i)
NH3 — amonia nitrogen (pg/i)
KJEL - total K.jeldahi nitrogen ( ig/1)
ALK - total alkalinity (expressed as CaCO 3 , mg/i)
N/P - inorganic nitrogen (N02N03 + NH3)/totai phosphorus (TOTALP)
CONC — number of cells, colonies, or filaments/mi
PERC — percent composition of numerical total
x
-------
INTRODUCT ION
During the spring, summer, and fall of 1973, the National Eutrophication
Survey (NES) sampled 250 lakes in 17 states, and collected approximately
750,000 physical and chemical data points. About 180 genera and over 700
phytoplankton species and varieties were observed In the 692 water samples
examined, resulting in nearly 25,000 phytoplankton occurrence records. To
determine phytoplankton water quality relationships in eastern and south-
eastern lakes, the physical, chemical, and biological data collected were
merged. From this merger it has been possible to establish the ranges of
environmental conditions determining the occurrence and relative importance
of phytoplankton taxa.
The physical and chemical lake data were summarized on a seasonal basis
and organized according to phytoplankton numerical dominance or non-dominance
and occurrence or non-occurrence. The summaries provide knowledge of the
specific environmental requirements for each taxon and are useful for the
development of biological tools for monitoring and predicting of water
quality or trophic status.
Summaries of these data were published as a series. Part I (Taylor et
al., 1978) was the first publication of the series “Phytoplankton Water
Quality Relationships in U.S. Lakes.u It presents the methods used, rationale
under which the study was carried out, and limitations of the data. Parts
Il—V (Williams et al., 1978; Hem et al., 1978a; Lambou et al., 1978; Morris
et al., 1978) present environmental conditions associated with absence,
occurrence, and dominance of specific genera in lakes sampled by the NES
in 1973. The purpose of this report is to analyze and summarize the environ-
mental relationships of the 57 most comon phytoplankton genera presented
in Parts IL—V of this series. A future report, Part VII, will investigate
the utility of information presented here in the development of biological
trophic state indices. Additional interpretative reports and water quality
relationships by species will be published later.
1
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. Phytoplankton genera thrive over such a broad range of environmental
conditions that they cannot be used as indicator organisms.
2. No phytoplankton genera emerged as dependable indicators of one
or combination of the environmental parameters measured. Some taxa,
however, showed mean values for a number of parameters which
consistently reflected either nutrient—enriched or nutrient—poor
conditions.
3. Tentative trophic classification indices based upon phytoplankton commu-
nity composition show strong early promise for trophic state assessment.
Preliminary analyses suggest that these new phytoplanktOfl community-based
indices provide more dependable water quality assessment than any of the
commonly-used biological water quality indicators.
4. Some taxa, e.g. pediaetrwn and E gZ.ena, were very frequent components of
phytoplankton communities, but rarely achieved high relative numerical
importance within those communities.
5. Most phytoplankton genera were found in samples from all three seasons
and showed no distinct seasonal preference to their occurrence. The
attainment of numerical dominance by a few genera did show strong
seasonality.
6. Flagellates and diatoms were the most common springtime plankton genera,
while the blue—green and coccoid green genera were most common in the
summer and fall.
7. High spring nutrient levels are generally not accompanied by high phyto—
plankton populations. Light and temperature conditions in spring are sub—
optimal for most phytoplankters encountered, and are probably responsible
for this unfulfilled potential.
8. Blue-green algal forms, including several not known to fix elemental
nitrogen, contributed 9 of the 10 genera which attained numerical
dominance in water with a mean inorganic nitrogen/total phosphorus
ratio (NIP) of less than 10 (generally suggestive of nitrogen—limitation).
2
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The occurrence of specific phytoplankton genera, even in high relative
concentration, should not be used as a sole or primary criterion in water
quality assessment or trophic classification of lakes.
2. The potential of phytoplankton comunity-based trophic indices should be
actively explored, developed and refined. Relationships between phyto-
plankton comunity structure and composition and environmental conditions
should be examined to determine if they can provide useful indices for
water quality prediction and trophic state characterization.
3
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
GENERAL
This report is based entirely on the information presented in
Parts Il-V of the report series Phytoplanktofl Water Quality Relationships
in U.S. Lakes , which contain data collected during the 1973 NES sampling
year from 250 lakes in 17 states. The states include Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Vlrgi.nia. For a more complete description of NES methods
and the process by which the sunmiary reports (Parts II-V) were developed
see Taylor et al., 1978. Parts 11—V suirmarize in tabular form the range of
physical and chemical conditions associated with the occurrence of each
genus. Four occurrence categories were established for each genus to allow
for comparison between numerical dominance, non-dominance and total occur-
rence, as well as a non-occurrence category which suimlarizes data associated
with all samples where the genus was not found. Numerical dominance was
assigned to a genus when it constituted 10 percent or more of the numerical
total cell concentration in a lake sample. Non—dominance was assigned to
a genus when it constituted less than 10 percent of the numerical total
cell concentration in a lake sample. Total occurrence is a category which
included all occurrences of each genus whether they be dominant or non—
dominant.
DATA SELECTION
Fifty—seven genera were selected for comparative analysis in this
report (Table 1). Their Inclusion and designation as “coninon” is based
upon their occurrence in at least 10 percent of the 692 samples obtained
during 1973.
This report relies primarily on “ANNUAL” data (all data from all
seasons), from the photic zone. Using data restricted to the photic zone
effectively eliminates extreme conditions from greater depths which have
uncertain short-term effects on the phytoplankton comunity structure.
4
-------
TABLE 1. COMMON PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA BY DIVISION
CHLOROPHYTA Ochrcnionadal es
Chi orococcales Di wbryon
Actinastrwn Mal L ,nvnaa
Anki8tDode8lmw
CoelaBtrwl CYANOPHYTA
Cruc- genia Oscillatoriales
Dictyoephaeriwn L n bya
Go lenkinia Oaci 1 iatort.a
Kirchnerie 1 la
Iagerheinria Nostocales
Oocy8tis Anc2’aena
Pediaatrwn Anabaenopsia
Scenede8rau8 . Aphanizomenon
Schroederi-a Raphidiopeis
Tetr th’on
1’euhar i.a Chroococcales
Chroococcua
Vol vocal es Coeloaphaeriu7n
Chiomydomonas Dacty lococcop8i8
Chiorogoniwn Meriwnopedia
r,’ dorina Microcl/sti8
Zygnematales PYRROPHYTA
Cloeteriwn Ceratium
Coemarium Gienodi. niwn
Et aetrwn G mnodin iwn
Stauraetrwn Per diniwn
CHRYSOPHYTA EUGLENOPHYTA
Centrales E g lena
Cylotelia Phacue
Melo eira Trachelomonas
Ste phanodi8cu e
CRYPTOPHYTA
Pennal es Crypt omonas
Achnant he a
A sterionel la
Cocconeia
Cynbe ha
Fr’agi lana
Gonrphoneina
Gyro e ma
Navioula
Nitzachia
Sza’ire l ha
Synedra
Tabe 1 lana
5
-------
RESULTS
COMMON PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA
Table 1 lists the 57 coninon phytoplankton genera by taxonornic division
which were selected for discussion In this report. Figures 1-3 provide
illustrated examples of representative species of each genus. That green
algae (Chiorophyta) contributed the most genera of any division is not sur-
prising, as It is a large and diverse grouping. Most of the genera, however,
were from one order, the Chiorococcales, widely recognized for Its cor.tri-
butlon to planktonic communities. Several flagellated and desmid genera were
also coninon planktonic green algae.
The pennate diatoms are much more diverse than the freshwater centric
diatoms at the generic level as well as the species level, hence, the
seemingly disproportionate number of pennate diatom genera on the list. It
should be noted, however, that Meloeira, a centric diatom, was the most
common genus encountered in the survey. It occurred In 88 percent of the
samples examined (Table 2). Other Chrysophyta included the flagellated genera
Dinobr ion and Malloinonac.
The blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) were also widely distributed, often
forming dominant constituents in the phytoplankton coninunity structure.
Several genera from each of three major orders (Oscillatoriales, Nostocales,
and Chroococcales) were represented in the lake samples.
The two remaining algal divisions, Euglenophyta and Cryptophyta, were
represented by just four genera between them. Eugiena and Cryptomonaa,
however, were among the ten genera most commonly encountered (Table 2).
Table 2 is an alphabetical list of the 57 genera under discussion
including the number of samples within which each occurred. It is organized
by season (spring, summer, and fall) with an additional catetory (annual)
listing the total number of sample occurrences. Each seasonal category is
subdivided to show the number of times a given genus occurred as a dominant,
a non-dominant, and without regard to dominance. The category CCC RANK denotes
the taxon’s relative position in a ranking of the 57 genera from highest
frequency of total occurrence to lowest.
Melo8ira was the most common genus encountered In NES lakes sampled in
1973 (Table 2). Other genera of Importance, In descending order of total
sample occurrences are Scenede8mus, Syned.ra, CycZLoteZ ia, OeciiZatoria
Iuglcna 3 Cryptcrnonas, Navicula) Nitzechia., Ana aena, and Microcystie. All
occurred In 50 percent or more of the samples examined. Pediaetrwn,
Meriamopedia, Tetraëdron, Coelaetrwn, Dact jiococcopaie and Lyngbya occurred
in 40 to 50 percent of the samples examined.
6
-------
Figure 1. Illustrations of the common phytoplankton genera observed
in NES samples.
1. Aotinastrwn 12, Schroeder a
2. Ankistrodesrnue 13. TetDa? th’0fl
3. CoeZastrwn 14. T2’eubar a
4. Ci’ucigenia 15. Chiwn ydomonas
5. D i ctyosphaeri urn 16. Chiorogon wn
6. Go jenkinicz 17. P idor na
7. Kirchnerieiia 18 Ciosteriwn
8. Lager eiiirza 19. Cosm wn
9. Oocystis 20, EuastrzOn
10. Pediaetrwn 21. Stauraetrwn
11. Scenedesmus
1 from “The Freshwater Algae of the United States” by G. M. Smith
Copyright 1950 by McGraw-Hill Book Company, mc , Used wtth per-
mission of McGraw-Hill Book Company.
2, 5, 7-9, and 19 from Taylor (In press).
17 from “Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area” by G. W. prescott.
Copyright 1962 by G. W. Prescott. Used with permission of the
author.
20 from “A Synopsis of North American Desmids” by G. W. Prescott,
H. 1. Croasdale, and W. C. Vinyard. Copyright 1977 by University
of Nebraska Press. Used with permission of the author.
18 and 21 from “The Algae of Illinois” by L. H, Tiffany and M E,
Britton. Copyright 1952 by Mrs. L. H. Tiffany. Used with per-
mission of the administrator of Mrs. L. H, Tiffany’s estate.
7
-------
r
?
/
*360
*720
3
x l 000
9
*560
*560
12
*720
13
D
i 1 :
10
x720
x 300
*7
•
2
/
I
7
x880
20
j 8o
*880
*470
8
-------
Figure 2. Illustrations of the cor non phytoplankton genera observed
in NES samples.
1. Cycl telia 9. Goniphonema
2. Melosira 10. GyroBigflTa
3. Stephizwdiscus 11. Navioula
4. Achnanthes 12. Nitzschia
5. Asterionella 13. Surirella
6. Cocconeis 14. Synedz’a
7. Cyinbella 15. Tabeli ’ia
8. .Pragilc.ria
1, 2, 8, and 11-13 from ‘Weber 1966.
3-6, 9, 10, and 14 from “The Algae of Illinois” by L. H. Tiffany
and M. E. Britton. Copyright 1952 by Mrs. L. H. Tiffany. Used
with permission of the administrator of Mrs. L. H. Tiffany’s
estate.
15 from “The Freshwater Algae of the United States” by G. M.
Smith. Copyright 1950 by McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company.
9
-------
.1 2 *720
OLWJfI
*720
Ox:
*720
9 i2
it ..
*720
x120
0•0
*720
L I
8
*720
14
*720
11
*720
*360
15
*720
10
-------
Figure 3 I1lu strationS of the common phytoplanktofl genera observed
in NES samples.
1. Dinobryon 12. Microcyatis
2. Mallomonas 13. Merismopedia
3. Anabaenop8is 14. Ceratiwn
4. Raphidiop8is 15. Gienodiniwn
5. Osciilatoria 16. Gynrnodiniwn
6. Anc.baena 17. Trachelon7onas
7. Aph zizonTenOfl 18. Peridiniuin
8. Lyngbya 19. Cryptoiflonas
9. CfrZ’OQOOCCUB 20. Thacus
10. CoeZ oephaeriW77 21. Euglena
11. Dactyl000000PBi S
1, 2, 7—10, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 21 from “Algae of the Western
Great Lakes Area” by G. W. Prescott. Copyright 1962 by G. W.
Prescott. Used with permissiOfl of the author.
3 from “The Freshwater Algae of the United States” by G. M.
Smith. Copyright 1950 by McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Used
with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company.
5 and 17 from Taylor ( in press).
6 and 20 from “The Algae of Illinois” by L. H. Tiffany and
M. E. Britton. Copyright 1952 by Mrs. L. H. Tiffany. Used
with permission of the administrator of Mrs. L. H. Tiffany’s
estate.
16 from “Handbook of Algae° by H. S. Forest. Copyright 1954 by
The University of Tennessee Press. Used with permissiOn of The
University of Tennessee Press.
11
-------
1
z 60
*470 *600
*540
7
I & B
*500
x720
17 19
*560 \X720 *940
*500
x 200
5
2
•x360
6
8
*890
14
U
*880
21
12
-------
TABLE 2. THE NUMBER OF LAKE-DATE COMPOSITE SAMPLES IN WHICH A GENUS OCCURRED
AS A DOMINANT (DOM), NON-DOMINANT (NONCOM), AND IRRESPECTIVE OF
DOMINANCE (0CC) DURING 3 SAMPLING SEASONS AND CUMULATIVELY (ANNUAL).
A RANKING (0CC RANK) OF THE GENERA BY CCC, HIGHEST TO LOWEST, IS
PRESENTED FOR EACH SEASONAL GROUPING.
SP .1NG (202
SON
sa plt )
0CC
50 5
DON DOW
0CC
0CC RASM
DOW
50 5
DOW
0CC
CCC U.’
NON
DON 004
CCC
0CC
2A5
GZ SUS 0 C M
DO n
0CC
RA5
AcIDuv , hss
0
41
41.
32
5
0
44
29
49
29
40
33.
1
0
33
38
54
38
38
46
6 138
2 93
144
95
40
47
Ac inastr a1
2
26
2$
47
133
147
8
14
128
142
7
33 323
356
10
A,iabar a
5
62
67
17
4
36
40
46
3.
32
33
49
7 76
83
51
Anaba cptCi
A,tkiaC?OdBV ?u8
Aphw i.wrnw on
Aat.rt.o, .Ua
2
5
7
27
6
11
19
37
10
76
26
314
56
14
48
9
1.
19
6
0
84
43
38
77
83
64
4.4
77
24
34
43
28
3
13
2
2
91.
49
38
63
94
64
40
65
26
34
42
33
9 246
41 113
3.5 163
2 1.56
253
154
198
153
20
38
29
37
C.r ti , z
C7iL &d ,’ za
Coi qc’ i t
.1UUOCOCCUS
0
0
0
0
1.6
33
1.1
30
16
33
13.
30
32
42
53
43
2
0
7
1
44
29
67
90
46
29
74
91
41
32
31
22
2
0
1.2
2
59
36
63
100
61
36
73
102
36
48
28
20
4 1.36
0 76
19 1.60
4 234
140
76
119
238
4].
55
32
23
C3.ost.r u’,
Cacacnr.a
1
0
44
45
43
43
28
29
0
39
113
39
123
47
14
0
1
31.
U6
31.
117
33
16
0 13.5
6 281
113
287
45
13
CsLaat2w?
C.io6ph4tr 4’?
Coss’ r w’!
0
0
1
41
U.
34
47
11
35
26
34
40
2
1
32
103
104
34
1.04
104
49
13
19
4
1
1.
35
96
98
39
97
99
45
22
23.
6 18
3 233
2 240
86
236
242
52
24
22
crtiaig.n a
& ,cpto’ ncs
cLo . lZa
4 mb. 1 2a
Oco iococcopei
Dtyo.phr.u
D ,tobv . jon
1
36
18
0
7
0
15
33
100
1.03
77
69
41.
71
39
136
123
77
76
41.
36
35
4
6
1.3
1.3
32
U
16
38
0
20
1
1
0
1.12
130
42
72
66
53
26
1.25
168
42
92
67
60
26
12
3
64
21.
33
33
54
19
21
0
31
0
9
0
110
123
51.
88
77
66
40
129
130
51.
119
77
73
40
1.3
S
39
13
26
23
43
71. 322
83 338
0 110
58 229
1 184
31 190
0 71
393
4.41
170
287
185
221
77
7
4
33
16
29
26
36
E1 a.t , mT
0
U.
11
35
2
142
164
9
3
155
138
3
8 400
608
6
E ql47Ia
F gil i4
Gtvvdi,ijta
3
13
0
103
61
33
106
76
33
10
16
43
16
3
61
43
39
71
46
59
29
42
36
16
1
0
43
31
43
62
32
45
33
53.
40
43 170
4 107
2 1.26
23.5
U I
126
27
4.6
42
(OZ4l ki’ti42
2
20
22
30
1
16
19
57
0
20
20
37
1 76
77
37
G JrCaig !c
X rcvt i 4&Za
Laq.1ht m 4
L9 , gb4ca
Uoviiaa
M.icsirc
0
2
0
1
0
15
2
92
38
34
30
31
21
39
49
87
38
36
30
32
21
54
51
179
36
38
46
46
31
21
23
1
0
0
2
0
49
1
76
22
28
34
31
70
51
132
138
22
28
36
31
119
32
206
148
35
53
37
30
13
38
1
6
0
0
5
0
33
3
89
11
29
22
10
32
78
56
133
121
29
22
73
32
113
39
222
1.33
33
36
29
52
17
37
1
12
2 85
0 79
8 155
0 84
99 181
6 1.36
253 332
22 306
87
80
163
84
286
162
607
328
50
34
34
53
17
36
1
1.3
K.rien ped’.a
M4oroc 9tia
?12ta4
6 tal4$ d
1
6
3
4
46
43
134
119
47
49
137
123
27
24
3
7
10
22
2
11
126
115
117
11
3.48
1.17
1.28
73
7
1.6
13
32
23
1
13
1
124
136
108
68
149
137
3.21.
69,
6
10
14
31
53 293
6 385
28 344
3 117
346
391
372
182
11
8
9
33
0005StiS
O8 ,iZZatorig
2
21
38
99
40
1.20
34
8
2
51
0
103
41
154
41
5
45
33
0
121
37
154
37
4
41
103 323
0 1.16
428
116
5
44
P id rCna
hdiestivr
0
0
38
61
38
61
37
19
0
130
15
130
78
Li.
26
0
1.
162
39
142
60
8
64
0 333
6 148
333
134
12
39
Pdin .
2
34
36
39
3
0
98
98
20
2
109
111
18
2 253.
253
21
Phacu,
RphidtoprLa
S a.n.disnrus
5a , daria
S6 St1tá
St.ph iodiacu.
Suw ..r .ila
5 ç ii
D.cra .dzon
0
2
12
1.
0
30
0
18
7
1
44
24
124
33
32
66
48
1.37
34
56
44
26
136
34
32
96
48
1.35
41
57
30
49
3
4
22
13.
23
2
33
20
23
17
1
0
26
0
22
10
1.
53
186
75
3.08
16
20
143
28
130
84
73
203
76
108
32
20
163
38
131
86
27
2
30
17
23
36
6
43
10
23
18
21.
0
1
17
0
8
3
3
0
55
1.93
69
110
80
31
J .34
40
133
80
73
214
69
111
97
31
142
43
136
80
30
2
32
19
23
54
9
41
11
23
43 132
30 503
2 177
1 270
73 202
0 99
45 61t.
20 102
5 319
4 226
117
333
179
271
275
99
462
1.22
326
228
30
2
33
19
1.8
48
3
43
14
23
Daho,r, aa
2
60
62
18
2
51
31
39
0
33
33
30
0 94
94
9
-------
The number of samples in which a genus is detected is not necessarily an
indication of its ability to attain community dominance. While Meiosira
occurred more frequently than any other genus both as a dominant and non—
dominant, Scenedesinus, the second most common genus, attained dominance only
9 percent of the time. Several other genera, (Eug ena, Navicula, Pediastruin,
Tetraêdron, and Coelaetrwn), are of special interest because they occurred
in mcre than 40 percent of the samples (> 277/692), but were dominant in less
than 2 percent of the samples. Pediastru’n never occurred as a numerical
dominant.
SEASONALITY
All 57 genera occurred during each season (Table 2), SPRING (3/7—7/1),
SUMMER (7/5-9/18), and FALL (9/19—11/14) of 1973. In fact, many of the genera
occurred as dominants in all three of the seasons. The lack of clear seasonal
preferences by various genera may be the result of several factors: (1) Data
presented at the generic level, in many cases, lumps species with wide differ-
ences in environmental requirements, resulting in seasonal occurrence overlap,
(2) Because of abnormal weather conditions in the south during 1973, several
lakes received their first sampling as late as July 1, (3) Also, the length
and nature of seasons vary between states, e.g., Florida versus Pennsylvania,
(4) A wide range of lake—types were encountered in the study, varying consider-
ably with respect to morphometry, residence time, turbidity, heat budget, and
other lake-type descriptors, and perhaps the most important reason that many
forms were less than discriminating with respect to seasonal occurrence is
that, (5) The ranges of conditions permitting at least limited growth of most
phytoplankton genera are very broad and reflect the range of normal lake
conditions encountered In a particular season.
There are, however, some seasonal trends for each genus which are infor-
mative when examined closely. To illustrate seasonal preference, percent
occurrence and percent dominant occurrence were calculated for each genus by
season and are presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. The percentages
should be interpreted in conjunction with the total number of occurrences (N)
since the total number of samples containing specific forms varied consider-
ably, e.g., 76 for ChZorogoniwn, 607 for Meloe ra (Figure 4).
Only 5 genera (Aeterioneila, GGnphonema, Surirella, Cynthelia, and
Gynrnodiniwn) had at least 40 percent of their occurrences in spring samples
(Figure 4). This is in sharp contrast with summer and fall samples where 21
and 25 genera, respectively, had at least 40 percent of their occurrences.
These data reflect the more restrictive environmental conditions found in
spring which are conducive to good growth for a limited range of phytoplankton
organisms occupying lake systems. Light conditions during the summer and
temperature conditions during summer and fall generally favor a greater
variety of forms.
AaterioneZ la and Raphidiopeis are the only forms among those showing
strong seasonal preferences in their general occurrence (Figure 4) which fre-
quently appeared as dominants. Seventy—seven percent of the Asterionella
dominant occurrences were in spring samples (Figure 5). By comparison,
Oacil atoria did not show strong seasonal preference in general occurrence
14
-------
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Achnanthee
Actinaet?wn
Anabaena
Anahaenop8ia
Ankietrodee inus
Aphanizamenon
Aster’i onelZa
Ceratiwn
Chl z7TydomonaB
ChZ orogoniwn
Chr0000ccu8
Cloeteriwn
C0000nei8
CoeZaa1z cn
Coe loephaeriwn
Cownariuin
cruc
C1’yptOFflOl2i28
Cyclotella
Cyinb elia
Dacty lococcopeie
Df.atyoephaeriwn
Dinobryon
Euastrwn
Euglena
Fragilai ia
Glenodiniwn
GoZ4nkinia
nema
Figure 4.
: 34%
J ! 3’
41 1 r-”
1 48 4 0
: *i 33 1
42 1
..-
!: SS 7 r ä : • I 22 2
41 49
z ::4 33 1 4:
38 :. .
F 41 L.Z
38 4 .3
—I, 9% *:!i 34 ( 27
‘C t 41
40 j
.‘
. . .( .
44
33
2$; 38 34
25
, Is L
s 1 32
22 36 42
27
14 34
35 39.
? 36 as
41
1 47
25
N
144
95
356
83
255
‘54
198
158
140
76
179
238
115
287
84
236
242
393
441
170
287
185
221
77
408
215
lii .
126
77
Percent occurrence_of
LIIJ , and FALL
the genus was detected. (Continued on page
each genus by season: SPRING J , SUMMER
N is the total number of samples in which
)
15
-------
Oz
25Z 50Z 75%
100% N
87
80
163
84
286
162
607
328
346
391
374
182
428
116
333
154
253
177
553
179
271
275
99
462
122
324
228
94
. Gyiirnodiniwn
Gyrosigma
Kirchner eUa
Lagerheimia
Lyngbya
Mallomonas
Me losira
Meriemopedia
MicrOCy8tiB
NavicuZ.a
NitZBCh14
Oocyetia
Oeoill..atoria
Pandorz na
Pediaetru7n
Paridiniun7
PhacuB
Rcrphidiopsi
Scenedes znua
Sohroe.deria
Staurastrwn
Stephanodiáoua
Surirella
Synedra
Tabeliaria
Tetraeth’on
TrachelomonaB
25%
rI: % 35
‘.. 34
•: 37
: :; 42 40
32
34
45 6 .
43 4$
30 35
‘ : 34
40 3B
36
35
39 .
>
5].
39 1j 4
44
37
:: s r 42
40
• ;..
. 30 .35
20
36
31 3.
:
40
38
.
Figure 4. (Contin 4J Percent occurrence of each genus by season: SPRING
SUMMER L11.J , and FALL N is the total number of samples in
which the genus was detected.
16
-------
N
25%
75%
1092
1 83%
t1fl id mir : ’ 4OO msaia
42
57 1 k l
11 3:3
rrr SI 46 3.7
17
L4
Achnanthea
Actinaat2’Wfl
Anahaena
Anabaenopsi e
AnkietrodBBfl lUB
Aphrzizornenon
Aatertone tic
Ceratizen
Chtaitydornonae
cthroooocoua
Ciosteriwn
Co o lastrwn
Coo loaphaeriwn
Coerncciwn
Crucigenia
Cry ptcvnonaa
Cyolote tic
Dacty locoooopsis
Dictyoephaeriwfl
Dinobryon
Eugtena
Fragilaria
Gienodini urn
Go lenkinia
Goirrphonerna
Gyrrrnodiniwn
Kirohneriei1 a
Lynghya
Mat ionionae
Me losira
Figure 5.
6
2
33
7
9
41
35
2
4
19
.4
6
6
3
2
71
83
58
1
31
8
45
4
2
1
2
8
99
6
255
100
kLw
I 50 1
I I ‘ 63
l 25 1 o
t 8
I 33
k gs in 33 1
l t m!*j 50
__________________________________ — —
46 32
...
[
$ffi 1 1 W8h 23 23
25
36 31
75
r 100
iM* a( 3 oO
S: : & :: ::: . : :
17 So
29 t ; ;: ::: :: .3
Percent dominant occurrence of each genus by season: SPRING EJ ,
SUMMER ITJI and FALL G::: . N is the total number of samples in
which the genus represented 10% or more of the total cell count.
(Continued on page )
17
-------
N
22
53
6
28
5
105
6
2
45
50
2
1
73
48
20
5
4
Figure 5. (Continued) Percent_dominant occurrence of each genus by season:
SPRING , SUMMER E U , and FALL G: . N is the total number of
samples in which the genus represented 10% or more of the total cell
count.
0% 25%
50%
75% 100%
‘12
m
39 46
40
st
H tn z c \J 50 IT
Meriarnopedia
Miorocystie
Navioula
Nitasohia
Oooyetia
Oeeiiiatoria
Peridinium
PhacuB
Raphidiopeie
Soenedetnius
Schroederia
Staurastrum
Ste phanodiscus
Synedra
Tabelloria
Tetraedron
Trache loinonas
56
4*
-r
34
42
50
3130
p ti i• I
36
a & &adI 46 f t
P t 0 1 1 *4 1 I L 3 1 . 3* l—ll]iffiiirt 4ta
50 m m ’
20
lJJSsoaatiSt M 50
18
-------
but as a dominant is an important summer form. Similarly, the preference of
Dir.obryon for spring conditions is only apparent in data from it’s occurrence
as a dominant (Figure 5). It should be noted that little can be inferred
from apparent “uniseasonal” relationships (e.g., Actinastrwn and Ceratiwn)
derived from only one or a few occurrences.
Flagellates and diatoms were the most common springtime plankton genera
while blue-green and chiorococcalean genera were most common In the summer
and fall. Diatoms were quite important in all three seasons. However, their
outstanding prevalence over other groups In the spring is most probably due
to the relative inability of members of the other groups to grow as well as
diatoms under springtime conditions. As mentioned earlier, nutrient levels
in the spring would generally support higher phytoplankton populations than
were noted.
ENV I RONMENTAL REQIJ I REMENTS
As would be expected, most genera were found to occur over extremely wide
ranges or conditions. To illustrate the point, range diagrams for the respec-
tive occurrence categories of each genus have been prepared for the following
parameters: total phosphorus (TOTALP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (KJEL),
chlorophyll a (CHLA), and Inorganic nitrogen/total phosphorus ratio (NIP)
(Appendices -l through A-4, respectively). Direct comparisons of the ranges
of conditions in which a genus occurred or attained numerical dominance with
those conditions under which it was not detected at all, clearly den’onstrate
the breadth of both the conditions favorable to the phytoplankton genera and
the overlap of conditions supporting widely dissimilar genera. In many cases
the ranges of conditions supporting a given genus were no different than
those under which that genus was not detected. In Appendix B, the range of
all available parameter values associated with dominance, non-dominance, and
occurrence (general occurrence without respect to dominant status) are pre-
sented using Anabaena, C’ryptonvnas, and Dinohryon as representative examples.
To illustrate the range overlap typically encountered when making
generic comparisons, the two genera having the largest and smallest mean
total phosphorus values were examined. Actinaotrwn had the highest mean
TOTALP (287 pg/liter) associated with its distribution while Tabel.Z.ar-ia had
the lowest mean TOTALP (42 ijg/liter) of the 57 genera considered in this
report (Appendix A—i). Even though they represent the extremes in mean
total phosphorus, enough overlap occurred in tt eir ranges to substantially
reduce their usefulness as general indicators of either high total phosphorus
in the case of Actinaet2’wn or low total phosphorus in the case of Tabeflc.ria.
Considering dominant occurrence, ScenedealnuB and Tabellaria were the
genera with the largest and smallest TOTALP values, 351 pg/i and 22 pg/i
respectively (Appendix A—i). One might expect ranges to narrow appreciably
since attaining dominance presumably requires near optimal conditions for
growth and reproduction. What was found, however, is that the range of TOTALP
values for the two genera overlapped. Although the upper end of the Tabellaria
range was well below the mean value of Scenedu8mua, the entire range of
TaheUaria was encompassed by the range of Scenedesmue.
19
-------
The wide bands of overlap, even with genera seemingly at opposite ends
of the spectrum, practically eliminate the more conmion phytoplankton genera
as effective, stand—alone indicators of environmental conditions. A number
of genera appear to have a narrow range of TOTALP values as doniinants (e.g.,
Achnanthes Aetinaatrwn 3 and G pnnodiniwn). The narrow ranges may have
resulted from the small number of dominant occurrences recorded rather than
truly restrictive requirements. If an organism has such unique requirements
or is only able to outcompete other organisms under very unusual conditions
it will generally be quite rare In the “normaP range of lake conditions and
therefore relatively useless in classifying most lake waters.
It is desirable to identify trends in the physical and chemical conditions
associated with specific genera and to provide means for comparative analysis
among genera. To accomplish these, a series of tables were constructed which
rank the 57 genera by mean parameter values (Table 3).
The first column in Table 3 presents, in rank order, the total number
of occurrences of each of the genera. There is a total of 692 sairple possi-
bilities in which each genus could have occurred. In subsequent columns the
genera are ranked by their mean values on a parameter-by-parameter basis.
Assuming total phosphorus levels to provide a general index of nutrient
enrichment, and chlorophyll a levels as a best estimate of the biological
manifestations of such nutrients, several interesting trends can be noted.
Based upon these criteria two groups of genera, one at each extreme for both
parameters, were identified. Each group with few exceptions, retained its
integrity for the remaining parameters as well.
The 7 genera associated with levels of TOTALP >200 j g/1 (see Table 3)
were tracked through the other physical and chemical factor rankings. Note
that they represent 7 of the 8 hIghest CHLA values. Similarly, 5 genera
associated with levels of TOTALP <70 ugh (the same 5 represent the 5 lowest
CHLA values) were tracked. These two groups will be referred to as the nutri-
ent-rich and nutrient—poor groups, respectively. The final group specifically
tracked through the various rankings of mean parameter values is comprised
of the blue—green algal representatives. The blue—greens are well-known in
their role as problem algae in lakes and reservoirs.
Miong the 7 nutrient-rich genera, Actinaetrwn and A i.ahaenopsis were in
the top 10 for 10 of 13 parameters, Schroederia and Ra-phidiops’z8 for 9,
Chiorogoniwn for 8, and Golenkin a and Lagerheirnia for 7 of the 13 parameters.
Raphidi p8ie was the only genus among the seven that occurred con nonly as a
numerical dominant (45 dominant occurrences). The others, although quite
conunon, rarely attained numerical dominance.
The nutrient—rich group consists of 4 chiorococcaleans (Chiorophyta),
1 green flagellate (Chiorophyta) and 2 filamentous blue-green (Cyanophyta)
genera. While cagerheimia has about 10 species reported in the United
States, the other genera have very few species and not all of these were
detected In NES samples. Therefore data trends suggested at the genus
level often times may be attributed to the influence of only 1 of 2 species.
All 7 genera were summer and fall forms while Actinastrum and Lagerheimia
also occurred equally in spring.
20
-------
TABLE 3. PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA RANKED BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND
ASSOCIATED MEAN PARAMETER VALUES
FREQUENCY TOTALP ORTHOP
GENUS OF OCCURRENCE ( 1 jg/1) GENUS (i.ig/1)
607 Actinaa wn 287 Aotinaatrwn 149
Scenede a 553 C7 lorogoniwn 271 C7 rogoniwn 147
Synedra 462 @ C.oZenkinia 245 ® Go nkinia 142
CycZo eUc 441 Lag6rheimia 243 @Laqerhai nria 126
•Csciliatoria 428 4A1abaen pa e 238 ®3 kroede ia 115
Euglena 408 @Sehroederia 227 ® Anabaenopeie 114
Cruptcnvnae 393 ®4Raph diOp8 8 212 ® Raphidiopeie 109
ZiavicuZ.a 391 C1Z V7TJd fl 28 199 • occua 107
Nitaechia 374 DtJo6phae riwJT 197 Chydan nae 105
4Anabc.wla 336 Pha ua 192 D .ot oephaerizan 105
•MicrQcyet 8 346 4CTivOCOccua 191 KiromerieUa 94
Pediaetrw,i 333 Xi chn erie 1a 3 .84 4Meriamopedia 87
•keriwnopedia 328 4MQriamope4ia 176 .ctylococcepeia 87
Tatraedron 324 4 i’OOy8V B 167 4rncrceijat e 83
Coe aa rwi 287 Pediaet. ta’i 3.66 Tetr iedron 81
4DactyLQcoCCapeia 287 Th ’acd .ron 165 Pediae wn 80
4lyngcya 286 4A zctyZoaoaoop8i8 164 79
Steph wdiecue 275 Ciaetw z&n 156 C3.o etariwn 71
Ste rwi? 273. Etigt4na 153 pr . ndorina 70
AnkiB od . e Aa 255 2 eub ia 146 64
Thacus 253 CoeZae wii 142 A gl.na 63
COiG’enia 242 Pa ,dori na 3.38 Scenede nus 63
CZea ert.wn 238 135 Coo l.a ion 63
Cosncxiwn 236 r roJA .a 135 4014to?ia 62
1oheZ ano,zaa 228 4080iZZato29 .a 135 Cyo otelia 60
E inobr cn 223. Ci ” . oigenia 133 * .4nabae,,a 58
?ragiZ ia 215 A&is z d insa 129 37
Aa eri nei1.a 198 OvXyBti8 129 57
Dict eephaer- wn 185 4Anabasno 127 ia odg nue 56
Cocyatis 182 Cyciotella 126 Co&rc ri n 53
•C oococaus 179 Stephwwdisous 126 c yotia 52
@Schroederia 179 COW’ IW 125 4Lyngbya 50
®4Raphidiopa io 177 T ach ela’ronaa 11.8 Stephw odi8cus 49
Cynbella 170 Cpto na8 116 Cocooncie 49
Kirchner-telia 163 Iá’itzechia 116 Cptcvicnao 48
l nonaa 162 GZencdiniwn 113 ffitaechia 47
Ceratiwn 158 COdccflaie 112 45
4Aph T izanenon 154 •Lyn bya 110 Gt4nsdiniwn 43
1.34 Me1 oewa 109 £t aetiwn 41
Achnvithse 144 4Aphani non 103 41
Cilanydononae 140 Gyrinodiitiwn 101 CoeLcap ’iwn 40
® Cotenkinia 126 98 4Aphiziiaanenon 38
Tate LZ ia 122 GyI’O*i 1 95 Ste 35
P dsrina 116 NavicuZa 94 y ,jj Z. a 34
Cocconeia u s •Coe eephaatiwn 93 CynbQlZ4 34
C i a nodiniwn 111 St. zjrc8t?Wfl 91 Synotha 34
S .tireLia 99 Cynbetia 91 Fragil ia 31
®Aitir.aetrwn 95 Gafl OflO1a 91 Gyroei nu 30
21eub ia 94 Euas W1? 89 Achnant hoe 29
Gynnodiniwn 87 Ma lsnona8 85 aLZ. n onaa 29
4Coe Z osphaeriwn 84 Fg iZ ia 82 Gc!nphonana 28
@Lagerhsimia 84 Ac 7mant has 74 dini 27
®4Anaba snop ia 83 €Peridiniwn 66 Paridirciwn 26
80 Car tiwn 62 E C eratiwi 24
L’JCB W ’T 77 € DinobrL4On 60 24
m phonena 77 €ABte?’ionsila 56 €Aater i snalZd 17
Chlcrogoniwn 76 €Tabeli ia 42 €Tab iZo. 14
(Continued)
® nutrient-rich grøup: n ean TOIALP 200 ugfl
jnutr1en —poor group: meen TOTALP 70 ugh
.s blue—green a’gae
21
-------
S irir 1 la
Canph nana
Gyroaiqr
Staph iodi.ecua
® Actinae ’wn
G mnodiniwn
chekr ona8
Cry ptanonae
Synedr
Navicula
Nitaechia
Cycls teLla
€ Aate iongL1.a
Gieriodinium
Cymbe ha
Chl nydo naa
P aua
rina
Mahoeira
*DactyZocoacopeie
Coccon ia
Cloeterf wn
Anki a vdewinia
gi a
*Caojl Zatoria
Coa T.aOt2’Wfl
® S&zroedaria
Scengdesmua
eDinobryon
*Aphwtiza?Tenon
Achnanthea
@ ChlorogonlunT
KirchnariehZa
Cra
® Lag9rhQlmia
diaab
*Mariamopedia
Maltomonas
C ratiwn
Oocyetio
T eub ia
1 belZ ia
® *Raphidiapaie
*Anabaena
Dictyoephaer iwn
* ficrocye tta
Tet raethcn
@Golenkinia
Sta uraatrwn
*Lzjngbya
Cowrvj.riwn
*Coeleephaarwir
@
D tastrwn
1146
963
925
850
799
714
701
693
683
634
634
629
611
605
599
572
568
565
558
531
523
320
512
508
499
496
492
489
481
478
464
456
433
434
425
423
422
413
406
383
379
371
363
361
351
348
347
335
334
330
325
310
287
274
239
197
145
fCont üid
® nutrient-rich group:
j nutrient-poor group:
blue—green algae
157
154
149
145
137
136
133
132
132
130
130
128
128
128
126
123
124
124
123
122
122
121
119
119
118
Ui
116
116
116
116
116
115
115
114
114
113
113
113
113
113
112
Lu
110
108
108
106
106
106
103
103
100
100
99
96
95
91
91
®Lag?E ia
®*AnabaenOp al.8
@ChZorogon .wn
‘Clwcococcua
@ Sohroederi.a
c 4Ictina8 w7T
( Colenkinia
Die t oephaeriwn
®*Raphidiopeia
Oocyatie
*Miemoyetia
*Meriamopedia
Xirn ieUa
Te aedron
Phacue
Pediastrwn
2 aubar ia
Cown iw7?
Claet iwn
Cit Liznythnonaa
CoaZ.aa ’wn
*Lyngbija
*Aphanizanenon
Crucig nia
*Coelesphaeriwn
*Dactylococcopeia
Gienodiniw’n
Scened ssJ7u a
ghena
Stauras wn
Ankia d& n tsB
*Oeoi ltatc ia
Cyolotal ha
Stephanodiacua
T achehartonas
C’rypt nonae
Meioeira
SWiz’ahla
Pragil ia
ilitsachia
Cocconais
aca a ’wn
Gyroaigna
Mahicer nas
Navicu ha
5—
€ Caratiw,t
Pandorir.a
Peridiniw
Achnant has
€ Dinobryon
€ AeteriOnalta
i 2tbelZ ia
1717
1697
1592
1529
1526
1523
1515
1398
1386
1380
1367
1363
1347
1326
1307
1307
1300
1285
1279
1232
1207
1202
1175
1155
1146
1141
1138
1133
1125
1109
1104
1087
1081
1032
1018
1016
1006
1001
999
996
990
975
938
930
923
923
921
870
850
845
830
828
818
807
707
627
582
TABLE 3. PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA RANKED BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND
MEAN PARAMETER VALUES (Continued)
ASSOC IATED
N02N03
NH3
KJEL
GENUS ( g/1) GENUS ( ugh) GENUS ( 1 .ig/1)
@ Aotinat Wo
S oireUa
®Lagerha iJlTia
® *Ra hidiopBi8
@ Nakrcedaria
d rina
Coelaetrwn
Cit l dononaa
Pediaa wn
Dict 1 je apha a riwn
T .cchaZ nonaa
*uor iwitopedia
0 0 0y ati S
a giena
®Gobankinia
*Aphaniaemen on
* Cacihtatoria
Cy roc
Clootariwn
*MicrOey sti8
*t .ctyhococcc’pei8
*Aji ba ana
Cychota lie
Tatraethon
Crypt
Stauraa w”
*Chro oo occua
llavici4a
MeZceirs2
Soenedeanrua
Cecooneis
Xirohnari.Lia
Cr LniQOnia
Anki atrOdJsJ7 tu e
synodra
Cymbe lid
Nitsachia
nodiniwn
®*Anabaen op oia
Coaiiariwn
Fragiloria
® Chiorogoniwn
Staphanodiscua
*Coel2sphaBriwfl
Mah i nae
*Lyngbya
Ceratiwn
GynTn odiniwn
Ach it)wa
G Cinobryon
7 eub ’- ia
A8tg2’isfl8 lie
1libe lZ ia
)Peridiniwfl
nean TOTALP 200 ugh
eean TOTALP 70 g/l
22
-------
TABLE 3. PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA RANKED BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND
MEAN PARAMETER VALUES (Continued
ASSOCIATED
CHLA
GENUS
ALK
(mg/i as CaCO )
GENUS ( 1 .ig/1) GENUS
N/P
®C1tl roganiwn
@ Schroedaria
c Aotjnae tjn
®Laqe?hBlm ’ .d
*Anaba9nop8 Le
@Gol ,ik,id
fraub 6
@*Raphidiopeia
*CI ooccc isa
Didtyoephaeriwfl
Tetr edron
Ki.rc?re clia
*Microcyati.B
Phacue
* Mwiancpedia
Pedias wn
OoC etia
Coe Laa
ChL n j& nonaB
Coar ’jw ’ 1
CZ.oatertun
Cruelg9flla
Anktatrodcwm a
G , ,Tmodir iwfl
*Aphaniacnt6nofl
Etiglcna
Cianodiniwi’
5teph wdiecuo
SCCtIBdCWIIUB
*Daoty iococccpsia
*OaciUctoria
*Coeloephaerii&n
*Anabaona
*Lyngbya
Staza’astrw i i
Tchal nO7 ia9
Nitzechl4
eur iraii4
Cyolote iia
CrVptcmonaa
Uontcnaa
1e1caira
Mzuicul.a
Gyroaiglr
Cocconais
Fragil ia
Synadra
C mbg 1 La
Achn ’it)w8
Ga irphonen
& aet um
Pw idorina
GPo dir iw it
GCerati,w? I
GAstor iOnBlid
GDincb2yon
GTahelZ €a
54.6
52.8
52.3
52.0
50.6
50.2
44.1
43.6
42.4
39.9
37.9
37.8
37.5
37.5
37.1
37.0
36.9
34.0
33.1
33.0
32.9
31 • 1
30 • 7
30.7
30.2
30.0
29.9
29 • 6
29.6
29.4
29.0
28.9
28.5
28.2
26.9
26.7
26.7
26.2
25.9
25.3
24.8
24.8
23.3
22.7
22.3
21.8
21.4
19.8
18.5
18.4
18.3
18.0
17.9
16.6
13.4
12.9
10.5
®*Anaba9ltOpli
*C1u ødoc ua
®COlGMkifltd
®*Ra hidWp8t4
Dietyoepha izan
® Lagerheimia
2 .eub ia
Tgtzaethon
Co&i iwi’
®Sc oeder a
P diaa w’i
Xire)nBrieUd
®4atinae wn
ChlydCflIOflL72
*M riar opadia
*MWIOCYBtL8
*Lyngbya
C11ZQrQgO7? W i ’
*Aj , Zaena
*Da tyZ ceCCOpU.8
3tau aa Wfl
Oocyetia
Phacua
CioBtO28WlI
Cruoigeirta
P AdoriPb2
*OeoilZatoDia
CodacnBiB
ScenadQ $7 48
Coe Z4r wn
Ankio Od9 al?u9
EtLglena
*Aphaciz nenofl
*Coeioepharn .twi?
Ao)u tthe8
Tch LO11Oflac
Ziitza&tia
MeZ .oaira
Z 1Ona8
Cyroai ma
G imnodiniWl?
pagitaria
C2 . JptomeOna8
Nauicut .a
CL Ir baUa
(!J ?ardiniwi
Stephanodiecua
CyclotOild
Syrwdra
32a1r9 1ia
cienodi,n.w’ i
GCeratiwn
GQi’phow!z
GA8terlGneiid
Grab. Uaria
G .}DiflObr!J071
•3
4•7
6.0
6.0
7.1
7.1
7 • 6
7.9
7.9
8 • I
8.3
8.4
8.6
8.9
9.1
9.1
9.3
9,4
9.7
9.8
9.9
9.9
10 • 1
10.2
10.3
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.9
11.1
11 • 3
33•3
12.2
12.2
12.3
12.3
12.5
12.8
13.0
13.4
13.4
14.3
14.3
14.6
14.6
14.7
14.7
14.9
14.9
15.1
15.2
15.4
15.7
16.3
16.9
18.0
19.2
a4phwzizoner .on
Stephanodiscua
Coccr.’n8is
Oooye ia
Cioeteriw ’T
Thacue
® Suoedaria
®Chlorcgor iwn
Actifla9 ?Wfl
Cr jp nona8
®Lagerheimia
€ Ceratiwii
Gc phon a
G inncdi tiw’i
SurirelZa
Gi.ncdiniwn
FragiV.wia
Dictyoephaeriwfl
*Mj ci C CtiB
Coe laatrwn
*CooZosphaeriw’T
ChT n jda i ’ona8
Tr aohgianonaa
Cyi itb lZ4
E gL tta
uOac,tiatcrta
®*Raphidiopaia
Gyroeigma
NavicuZ4
Crucigania
jj n onaa
*Meriiinopedta
CycicteUc
Se nedaciiue
Pediaatrwm
Dinabryon
Ritaaohia
Me iceira
Ank . rOdg8fl .L8
*Ana en0pei8
Syned1’ a
*DaotlJi000cC0p8i8
Co n iw”
*4,uzbae,ia
Achnanthee
*Lyngbya
Xi c tar ieZZd
Tat ’aedDcn
*Cu 0 000cctie
Treub ia
St aaetr W i ’
)Aete ic n alZa
GPeridiniwn
@nkinia
P edo2 ’Wi
Etiaet? W i ’
( )Tabe ta
111
101
95
94
92
90
90
87
86
86
85
85
85
84
84
84
83
81
80
79
79
79
79
79
79
78
78
77
76
76
75
75
73
73
73
72
71
71
70
70
70
69
68
68
68
68
68
68
63
59
59
59
36
54
52
39
34
(Continued)
® nutrient—rich group: mean 7DTALP , 200 ugh
Gnutrlent.pOOr group: mean TOTALP 70 ug [ l
blue—groan algae
23
-------
TABLE 3. PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA RANKED BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND
ASSOCIATED MEAN PARAMETER VALUES (Continued)
T MP
GENUS ( C) GENUS PH
DO
GENUS (mg/i)
Th ub ia
25.0
®Lag rhetmia
8.3
Eua wn
6.9
®*Ana aenopaie
enkinic
E aotmm
*tleriamopedia
*C oococcu8
24.9
24.8
24.1
24.0
24.0
@*Anabaenope a
C1iZ ogoniwn
®CoZ.ankinia
*Aphw iaomenon
€ Ac inaatrw’t
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
®*Raphidiopeio
* e 1 peie
*Mex- nopedia
7.2.
7.3
7.3
7.3
7•4
Co r iwn
€P idiniw7T
@*Raphidi*,pei8
*L pzgb a
*Anabae,ia
23.8
23.7
23.7
23.6
23.4
Fgii a
*Microcyetie
S&wcederl 4
Ooo jetie
CeeZaa rwn
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
T.z cch8 l mont e
P 244iniwn
*Lyngbya
Criscigein a
Phaoisa
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
Tetracthon
23.4
Phacua
7.9
$t 17
7.4
Fediaatrwn
CO Z48t?Wfl
*Microoyetie
®Schroeder a
23.2
23.2
23.2
23.2
Ste ph wdieoua
*CoeZO8phae 2!iWfl
ChaZ iythnonaa
1’re*th a
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
T eubaria
C iwn
Aohnø thee
CocZ ae ’.a
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Xir&t,wr .ella
C ucigenia
Stazaaatrwii
C er tiwn
®Chlorogoniw’t
23.1
23.1
23.0
23.0
23.0
*MeT 7Cpedia
*Raphidi p8ie
Padiaetrwn
*C ’ooaoccu8
Diotyoephaariwn
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
Ci eter wn
Gyroa ’ 7na
c chlor’ogortiwn
*Da tyLoeoccepai8
Pandorina
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
®Zagerheimia
Pandoz’ina
22.8
22.8
Co r iwn
Te ’c. edrcn
7.9
7.9
*Aphani7.O7fl nOfl
*C7 oocoocue
7.5
7.6
*Daotyl.ococcopeia
Citeiizan
Dictyo8phaer wn
22.7
22.5
22.4
Kir&m rieZZa
E zsgZ4na
Ankia od6smue
7.8
7.8
7.8
Cyclote Z.a
glena
Tetraeth’on
7.6
7.6
7.6
P cue
22.4
Nauieuia
7.8
*Oeaillatoria
7.6
Sce nedc ’rrua
22.3
,lehnwzthee
7.8
SaenBdgaznu8
7 • 6
000!Jatie
22.3
Nitzschia
7.8
Pediaetz- .en
7.6
ChiQnydomonaa
CyoZotelia
22.2
22.2
.
Cioaterii&n
*Anabae,
7.8
7.8
*Microcys tie
Xirchneriel!a
7.6
7.6
Actinaetrwn
*O ec ia
E glena
*Aph iz nenon
22.1
22.1
22.0
21.8
GCex ti.w ’v
Coc on.ia
Scen uniua
*Azotyl.ooocoopeia
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
*C0682- iwn
Dictzjoephaer’w”
Syn edr
MeZoair
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
G2.enodiniwn
21.8
CrWpt nas
7.8
c ceder a
7.7
Zo, , o n a
Meloaira
ZJituchia
Aohnant)we
Syn.&’
*Coelosphaeriu .m
Anki8trodesmua
21.7
21.7
21.6
21.6
21.4
21.4
21.4
*Lynqbya
*Oeoillatoria
Gy v?vdiniw7l
Gl enodiniw t
Ganphon
Synsdr’
Szaircila
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
ChZ nydcmonaa
Cr ptcmonae
Nav icula
G , , odiniwn
Genodiir iw77
Ankis ode e1m a
jZ mo, aa
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
alZ. ,nonaa
21.3
P,indori..na
7.7
Nituchia
7.8
Crijptonvnae
21.1
ilanonaa
7.7
®GoZenkinia
7.9
Gyro8i n
?lauicui.a
20.9
20.8
St a’ atrwn
Cruaigenia
7.7
7.7
Oocyeti
Tab6l7. ia
7.9
8.0
Tabe l ia
agiZ ia
Gyr wdiniwn
20.7
20.4
20.4
Traoh elo nonae
c pnbeUa
C roeig7lu
7.7
7.7
7.7
$ ephar.odiecue
Dinobryon
Cocconsia
8.0
8.1
8.1
Stepha wdie a
20.4
MeZcai
7.7
® Aotinaatrw’t
8.1
Cocconeis
€ Dinobr yen
C&enbe Za
G nphonwiie
S airalia
20.2
19.8
19.3
19.0
18.6
Cyolote Za
Dinobryon
€7Paridiniwl?
aiaa W’T
c Aat erion eLZa
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.5
@Lagerheimia
P ”agi l ia
Comphon ezm z
C be ia
3.f .ra la
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
7Aetar- ieneLia
18.5
Qjj ’ i a
7.1
jAet8rieflelZ4
8.6
(Continued)
® nutrlent-rlcfl group: mean TOTALP 200 t,g/l
( 7nutr1ent-poor group: meen TOTALP 70 g/1
.i blue-green algae
24
-------
tSA tinaet2 w’?
ogont wn
.S ei2eLia
e *A, abaenopeia
ch Zanonaa
wo dart a
*R hidiop8i8
Thaoue
Kirohneri ila
Lageiheimta
*Mor 1Topedia
Pgdiae wn
*Dactyl ooccop8i9
Cloetoriwn
Goi.onkinid
Diotyoaphaei’twfl
*Oeo lZatoi a
Nitaeohia
Steph wdiaoue
Coei4o wn
C uo gon ’ a
*Nicrooyetis
Co iwt
Tetxaedron
Scenthaamua
CZe,iodiniwn
Ooc etie
*C3oococ ua
N cuia
pt nae
Coceonsia
*Lyngbya
Aohr - tt he n
M nZoeira
C i,nbnZZa
—i n
CyoZote Zd
Synath’a
St ariat2wi7
*Anabaena
*Aphimiwnenon
•AoterioneU4
M Uononaa
•Per din wn
*CoaZoephaar wn
•D nobr ion
Tabeli a
30
32
33
33
34
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
44
44
44
44
44
45
46
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
48
49
51
57
57
57
62
62
65
66
69
CJtloi’ogoniwii
Aotinaet wn
Surirelia
Pha
*Anabaonopa e
® Solwocderia
fraoheZ ’vnaa
Gyroeig
Ganphonnn
Stnphanod scus
€*Raphidiopeia
GylTln Odini w iT
Lager hei. iia
CZeeteri. wfl
*Merj&nopedl.a
Gienodi7 li Wi T
Anki8trCde fluB
*Oec latoria
Dict y es phanri
Pedias n
Nitasehia
Tet sth’on
Crypt ronas
C imbn Za
*M ierocldstis
*Daoty ococcOp8ie
ChLwnydnmonas
Coconeia
Treub a
Navicula
Oocye tie
*C7wooo 00 0ua
CycioteLla
Scenedanmus
Con Zaatrwn
Coan iwn
*4ph izom anOfl
Melcaira
3-
Aolmant hen
Go l..nkinia
MaLlc rcmaa
St ’flQ .9t1Wfl
*&yngbya
Aatgyioneila
ori a
•C’o aLo aphaeriz an
A taa wn
e Peridiniwn
Dinobryon
CBr ’1* 3& T?
be ler ia
62
62
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
66
67
67
67
68
69
69
69
69
69
70
70
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
76
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
® nutrient—rich group: mean T0TAL 00 ugII
nutrfent-pcor group: ‘ean TOTALP 70 ugIl
blue—green e gae
TABLE 3. PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA RANKED BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND
ASSOCIATED MEAN PARAMETER VALUESJ Continued)
SECCHI
GENUS (Inches)
TURB
GENUS (% transmission)
25
-------
There is a strong tendency for the group to cluster at or near the top
of the nutrient parameter lists. The outstanding exception was with nitrite—
nitrate—nitrogen (N02N03) where the genera scatter from top to bottom. Lake
N02N03 concentrations were found to be considerably higher in spring than in
summer or fall. This may explain the scatter of the nutrient—rich group for
this parameter since they were primarily summer and fall forms. The associ-
ation with high CHLA values is interesting since all of the genera are small
forms and, with the possible exception of Raphidiopei8 , a fairly common
dominant, they were not responsible in themselves for the high CHLA levels
associated with their distribution. As such, these genera must be associ-
ates of bloom formers during times of high production.
Algae responsible for high CHLA concentrations exhibit periodic popu-
lation fluctuations resulting in short-term high production periods where
CHLA values may be quite high. Usually these same common algal forms are
found as relatively low umaintenance populations not associated with extreme
CHLA values. Therefore mean CHLA values resultingl om a random collection
of these algae will often be lower than that associated with forms only
encountered during high produ tion periods even if the latter forms are not
themselves responsible for the high CHLA levels. Attempts to correlate
combinations of up to 7 of the nutrient—rich genera in a sample with visible
algal blooms reported by field limnologists at the time of collection were
unsuccessful (unpublished data). The 7 genera were less clustered with
respect to the physical parameters. In the case of ALK and DO they were
spread throughout the full range of mean values.
Of the five genera composing the nutrient-poor group, Asterioneiia was
among the lowest 10 genera for 12 of 13 parameters. Dinobryon, Tabellaria,
and Peridiniwn fell in this select category 10 times, while Ceratiw’n occurred
7 times among the lowest 10 genera. Asterionella was the only genus with
primarily spring occurrences. The two dinoflagellates, Peridiniwn and
Ceratiwn, were summer and fall forms, while Dinobryon and Tabel1 aria occurred
equally through the seasons.
The genera in this group remained tightly packed at the lower mean values
for all of the nutrient series parameters except N02N03 where, as with the
group at the high end, they generally scattered throughout the range. The
association of Asterionella with particularly high N02N03 levels appears to
be a consequence of its seasonal “preference.”
The nutrient-poor group elements retained position among the lower values
for the physical and chemical parameters more consistently than was found with
the nutrient-rich genera. A notable exception is the association of Ceratiura
and particularly Peridiniwn with high temperature (TEMP) and dissolved oxygen
(DO). The TEMP and DO values were consistent with the seasonal preference
(summer and fall) of the two genera. These data suggest that Ceratiwn and
Peridir .ium compete successfully in a low nutrient, higher temperature niche.
Certain of the blue—green algae are notorious for creating periodic
problem blooms manifested in the formation of thick surface scums, DO
depletion, and production of toxic substances, either metabolically or in
the course of decay. Eleven blue—green algal genera were quite common in
26
-------
the study (Table 3). NIne of these were important doniinants (genera achieved
dominance at least 10 times in samples from eastern and southeastern lakes)
(Table 4). All can be classified as sumer and fall forms except Dactylo—
coccopei.a and OsaiUatoria, which occurred equally In spring as well.
As a group, the blue—green algae are scattered throughout the upper and
middle range of mean values for all the parameters (Table 3). Except for
N02N03, SECCHI, and TURS they never appear at the extreme low end. The blue—
green algae completely reversed their trend for N02N03 with most of the genera
falling into the lower half of the list. The phenomenon cannot be readily
explained on the basis of nitrogen fixation since only 1 of 5 blue—green
genera associated with the lowest mean N02N03 values Is an acknowledged
nitrogen-fixer (Anabaenopais).
The 3 genera listed which have heterocystS and are known to contain
species which fix nitrogen are Anahaena, Aphanizomenon , and Anabaenopsis
(Fogg, 1974). Nitrogen fixation, an extremely important physiological
process [ in algae associated uniquely with the blue—greens (Fogg et al., 1973)]
is a characteristic which might be expected to form a natural group having
similar environmental requirements. These data do not support that premise.
In fact, scatter among the 3 genera is great, with mean values differing
con nonly by a factor of 2 (Table 3). Nor is there a clear relationship with
N/P ratio, since 5 non—heterocystouS genera have lower N/P ratio values than
Anabaena and 7 show lower values than Aphtzn aoinenon. Similar N/P ratio trends
occurred with dominance (Table 4).
Most of the con on planktonic blue—green algae have been reported as
hard water forms (e.g., Hutchinson, 1967 and Prescott, 1962). In fact,
Prescott indicated that Aphcaiizoinenon is so consistently related to hard water
lakes that it may be used as an index organism for high pH. Many species of
Qeciiiatoria, Anahaena, L jngbya, and Mic ooy8tia were cited by Prescott as
associates of hard water while species of Meri mopedia and Dactylococcopeis
(where indicated), were soft water forms. The corm on planktonic species of
Ciwoococcue are reportedly found under both conditions (Prescott, 1962) while
such information on .Raphidiopsia is generally unavailable from the literature.
A test of hard water requirements can be made by comparing total alka—
unity (ALK) values among the occurrence categories for each of the blue—green
algae genera (Table 5). Aphanizomenc’n, OaciUatoria, and Me2’isrr7opedia showed
upward trends in ALK from non-occurrence to non-dominance to dominance. Nota-
bly high alkalinities corresponded to the dominance of Aphanizol’fleflcfl and
Meri8mopedia. Recall that the literature indicated a soft water preference
for Mei’ismopedia. M c2’ocy8ti8, another very cormion probi em form, showed no
difference in ALK values between dominance and non—dominance, though both
exceeded the mean level associated with non—occurrence. Microcystis, as a
dominant, did have the highest pH value among the genera presented in this
report. All of the other blue—green algae genera showed lower ALK values with
dominance than non—dominance or non—occurrence. The merit of including non-
occurrence values (values associated with the sampled waters In which the
genus was not detected) becomes readily apparent in attempting to interpret
trends in conditions “favoring ’ or discriminating against a specific genus.
27
-------
(Continued)
*Each genus selected achieved dominance at least 10 times in samples from eastern and southeastern
lakes.
TABLE 4. SELECTED GENERA* RANKED BY THEIR FREQUENCY OF DOMINANT OCCURRENCE AND THE MEAN
PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DOMINANCE
Treq ué Tof
Dominant
Occurrence
TOTALP
GENUS GENUS (pg/i) GENUS
ORTHOP
(pg/i)
MeZo8ira
255
SoenedeBmus
351
Soenedeamua
194
110
OaoiiZatoria
105
Cycloteiia
185
Cyciotelia
108
Lyngbya
99
Anabaena
183
Dactyio00000pai8
92
Cyoloteila
83
MeriBmopedia
183
Anabaena
89
Stephanodiacus
73
Dacty iococcopaia
178
Meriamopedia
76
Cryptomonan
72
Stephanodiacu8
166
Chr0000 00uB
66
Daotyiococcopai8
58
Chroocoocue
163
StephanodiacuB
63
Microcyatia
53
Microcyatia
148
Aphanizomenon
62
Soenedeamua
50
Aphanizomenon
147
Microcyatia
53
$ jnedra
48
Oaciiiatori-a
125
Cryptomonaa
43
Raphidiopaia
45
Cryptomona a
115
Synedra
41
Fragilaria
45
Raphidiopai8
106
OaoiUatoria
38
Aphanizoinenon
41
Lyngbya
99
Meioaira
38
Aaterionella
36
Meloaira
94
Lyngbya
27
Anabaena
33
Nitzaohia
92
Raphidiopei a
26
lXnobryon
31
Synedra
82
FragiZ aria
25
Plitzachia
29
Fragilaria
64
Nitzachia
11
MeriBmopedia
22
Aaterione 1 -ia
36
Dinobryon
11
Tabeilaria
20
Dinobryon
27
Aeterionelia
-------
TABLE 4. SELECTED GENERA* RANKED BY THEIR FREQUENCY OF DOMINANT OCCURRENCE AND THE MEAN
PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DOMINANCE (Continued)
L,
N02N03
GENUS (iig/1) GENUS
NH3
(pg/i) GENUS
(pg/i)
Stephanodiaouo 1201 Aizabaena 208 Scenedeamua 1826
Cryptofl2oflaa 970 Oaoiflatoria 127 Chroococoua 1630
Synedra 905 Cyciotelia 120 Lyngbya 1488
l’feioeira 715 Stephaflodl.8OUB 120 Microcyatia 1457
Aeterioneita 621 Synedra 120 Aphani2omenon 1437
Fragiiaria 601 Raphidiop8ia 119 MeriBmopedia 1387
avjtaechia 592 ScenedeBmue ill Oeciiiatoria 1356
Cyoloteila 587 Fragilaria 115 Stephanodiecue 1112
MeriBmopedul 510 CryptomonaB 112 Raphidiopeie 1073
Scenedeaimw 502 Aphaniaonzenon 112 Cyciotelia 1053
Oaciiiatoria 381 Lyngbya 110 DaOtyioaoccOpaiB 1041
Aphanizomenon 311 Meri8mopedia 110 Anabaena 1015
Raphidiopaia 303 Meioaira 103 Nitz8chia 883
Miorocystia 302 Nitasehia 101 FragiZaria 843
Dinobryon 298 M icrocya tie 98 Crypt omonae 798
Anabaena 252 Chroocoocnsa 90 Synedra 797
Dactyiocoooopaie 186 Tabeliaria 86 Me ioaira 774
Chroococcue 161 Dactyioooccopaia 82 Dinobryon 594
Tczbeflaria 133 Aeterionelia 74 A8terioneiia 491
r yngbya 107 E’inobryon 65 Tabeilaria 455
(Continued)
*Each genus selected achieved dominance at least 10 times in samples from eastern and southeastern
lakes.
-------
TABLE 4. SELECTED GENERA* RANKED BY THEIR FREQUENCY OF DOMINANT OCCURRENCE AND THE MEAN
PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DOMINANCE (Continued)
CIlIA — ALK
GENUS (pg/i) GENUS N/P GENUS (mg/i as CaCO )
Soen de8mu8 60.4 Chroocoooua 4.3 Aphani2ornenon 138
Chrooaocouo 46.6 Lyngbya 4.6 StephanodiacuB 125
Oscillatoria 39.2 Mer’iamopedia 6.1 Meriamopedia 103
AphaniBomenon 37.6 Dactyioooooopaia 6.9 Oaciliatoria 89
Microcyatia 37.5 Anabaena 7.1 Microoya*ia 80
Stephanodiaoua 37.0 Aphanizomenon 7.5 Nitzechia 80
Meri8mopedia 33.6 Scenedearl7uB 8.5 Fragi 1 -aria 78
Raphidiopaia 30.5 Oaciuiatoria 9.0 Cyciotella 76
Cyciotelia 29.9 Miorooyotia 9.7 Cryptomonao 75
Lyngbya 29,5 Raphidiopaia 9.8 Meioaira 71
Nitzechia 26.5 Nitzeohia 10.4 Dinobryon 7 1
Dactylococoopsia 25.0 Tabeilaria 11.3 Synedra 67
Anabaena 19.7 Cryptomona a 14.2 Aaterioneiia 65
Synedra 19.0 Meioaira 14.4 Scenedeamus 64
Meiosira 18.1 Cycioteila 17.7 Lyngbya 62
Fragi 1-aria 17.5 Stephanodiacu8 17.8 Raphidiopaia 57
Ci’yptomonaa 16.5 Synedra 21 .0 Dacty lococcopai -a 52
Aaterioneiia 9.6 Asterioneil-a 22.4 Anabaena 50
Dinobryon 8.1 Fragilaria 22.9 cliroocoocus 47
TabeiZaria 7.7 Dinobryon 28.5 Tabeliaria 21
(Continued)
*EacI genus selected achieved dominance at least 10 tImes in samples from eastern and southeastern
lakes.
-------
(Continued)
*Each genus selected achieved dominance at least 10 times In samples from eastern and southeastern
lakes.
TABLE 4. SELECTED GENERA*
PARAMETER VALUES
TEMP
(°C)
RANKED BY THEIR FREQUENCY OF DOMINANT OCCURRENCE AND THE MEAN
ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DOMINANCE (Continued)
GENUS (mg/fl
GENUS GENU _ PH
Raphidiopaia
25.4
Microcyatia
8.2
8.1
Meriemopedia
6.6
7.0
Lyngbya
25.1
Soenedeemua
8.1
Anabaena
7.1
Chroocoocua
24.2
Aphanizomenon
7.2
L)actyioc0000paia
24.0
Stepharzodiacua
7.2
Anabaena
23.9
Oeciiiatoria
8.0
Cycloteila
Nit achia
7.4
Miorocyatie
23.5
Chrooooocua
8.0
7.4
Scenedeamue
23.3
Lyngbya
7.9
Aphanizoinenon
74
Oaciiiatoria
23.2
Nitaaohia
7.9
Lyngbya
OBailiatoria
7.4
Cyolotelia
23.1
Meriamopedia
MeriBmopedia
23.1
Daotyi000 0 00p8i8
7.8
7.8
? ttzaohia
22.4
Raphidiopaia
7.8
Synedra
Scenedearnue
7.8
TabeUaria
22.1
Fragilaria
Tabeilaria
7.9
Aphaniaomenofl
21.5
Synedra
7.9
Synedra
21.1
Aaterioneiia
7.6
Cryptomonaa
8.0
Meioaira
21.0
Meioaira
Miorocyatia
8.1
Fragiiari-a
19.8
Cryptomonaa
Fragiiaria
Chrooaoccua
8.2
Cryptomona a
19.7
Dinobryon
8.5
Stephanodiacua
19.6
Cyclotelia
7.5
7.5
Stephanodiacue
8.7
Dinobryon
18.3
Anabaena
Dinobryon
9.5
-------
GENUS
TURB
GENUS
UNITS
GENUS
SECCHI
(inches)
f%
transmission)
PER ml —
Oacillatoria
36
Stephanodi8oz48
56
58
Lyngbya
Raphidiopaia
12,948
11 0 19
Nitzaohia
36
Merismopedicz
64
Oeciiiatoria
9,070
StephanodiacUa
37
Nitzaohia
66
DactylocoocoPaia
6,814
Scenedeamua
38
oaoiiiatoria
67
Soenedeamue
6,029
Meriarnopedia
39
Scenedeamun
71
Chroococcu a
5,751
DactyioaocCOPBia
41
Aphanizomenon
72
Stephanodiacua
3,662
Chroocoocua
42
Meioaira
73
Fragilaria
3,413
MicroCy8ti8
43
Synedra
73
Meriamopedia
3, 127
Meioeira
43
Cyciotelia
75
Synedra
3,051
Lyngbya
46
Raphidiopai a
75
Meioaira
2,793
Raphidi opaia
46
Miorocy atia
75
Microoy ati e
2,663
cryptomoflaa
46
Daotyi 0 00 0 00PBiB
75
AphaniaOmeflOfl
2,527
Synedra
47
Cryptornonaa
75
Cyoiotell-a
2,519
Aphanizomenon
53
Lyngbya
76
Nitzachia
2,198
Cycioteikz
54
Chr000003uB
80
Anabaena
1 ,863
Anabaena
55
Fragil -aria
81
Aeterioneila
1,583
Fragiiaria
70
Anabaena
81
Tabeilaria
1 ,483
Aaterioneiia
71
Aaterioneiia
88
Crypton7ona a
1 , 123
Dinobryon
90
Dinobryon
90
iz n
633
Tabeiiaria
106
(Continued)
*Each genus selected achieved dominance at least 10 times In samples from eastern and southeastern
lakes.
TABLE 4. SELECTED GENERA* RANKED BY THEIR FREQUENCY OF DOMINANT OCCURRENCE AND THE MEAN
PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DOMINANCE (Continued)
r’)
-------
TABLE 4. SELECTED GENERA* RANKED BY THEIR FREQUENCY OF DOMINANT OCCURRENCE AND THE MEAN
PARAMETER VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DOMINANCE (Continued)
GENUS - PERC _____
RaphidiopBi8 38.9
Aphanizomenon 32.2
Melosira 32.1
Lyngbya 31 .0
A8terionella 30.9
Fragilaria 30.9
Tabellaria 30.8
OaciUatoria 29.0
Dinobryon 26.1
Stephanodiacue 24.8
I•1 Anabaena 23.8
Cryptomonaa 23.1
Cycloteiia 23.1
Dactyiocoocopsia 21 .9
Mic rooy8ti8 20.4
Nitzaohia 20.4
Scene.deamua 19.6
Synedra 19.6
Chroococcus 18.7
Merismopedia 16.2
*Each genus selected achieved dominance at least 10 tImes In samples from eastern and southeastern
lakes.
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF DOMINANT, NON-DOMINANT, AND NON-OCCURRENCE MEAN PARAMETER VALUES
FOR THE 20 MOST COMMON DOMINANT GENERA
CA )
.4nabaana
Aphania ’wn
Aetari.one t Za
NON
Chroocoacue
HON HON
Cypto ’m ’nae
NON NON
C o totet ta
NON HON
Aza ty ioaoooopaie
NON NN
Paraaeter
DON
NON
DON
NON
0CC
NON
0014 1)011
NON
0CC
0011
0014
0CC
0014
DON
0CC
0014 DON
CCC
0014
0011
0CC
0014
DO l l
0CC
TOTALP
(pg/liter)
183
121
147
147 87
146
36
61
167
163
194
120
115 116
161
185
110
112
48
154
60
178
108
161
82
120
43
ORTHOP
(pg/liter)
92
55
62
63 29
66
11
19
75
76
111
45
53 47
587
617
506
186
608
599
11021103
(pg/liter)
252
362
769
311 511
597
621
602
556
161
248
675
970 619
120
119
111
82
131
113
11113
(pg/liter)
208
110
114
112 129
114
14
101
123
90
119
116
112 118
1053
1010
1079
1041
1166
981
KJEL
(pg/liter)
1015
1151
956
1437 1082
1009
491
657
1194
1630
1511
888
198 1046
1090
17.7
14.2
13.0
6.9
10.6
16.8
li/P
7.1
10.1
18
7.5 13.8
14.6
22.4
15.7
13.1
4.3
6.2
16.7
14.2 14.6
13.6
26.6
25.0
30.5
24.2
CHI.A
(pg/liter)
19.7
29.4
24.1
37.6 27.6
25.1
9.6
14.2
30.9
46.6
41.9
21.0
16.5 27.2
27.2
29.9
73
72
72
75
70
78
TUftS
(5 trans-
mission)
61
74
70
11 73
12
81
75
71
76
71
73
75 70
47
41
38
53
S(CCH I
(inchet)
55
48
46
53 50
47
71
54
44
42
42
49
46 45
50
54
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
17
PH
7.5
7.8
7.7
8.1 7.9
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.8
8.0
1.9
7.7
7.6 7.9
7.7
8.1
7.2
7.5
8.0
00
(ag/liter)
1.1
7.4
8.1
7.4 1.5
7.9
9.5
8.4
7.5
8.2
7.5
7.0
1.9 7.7
7.8
7.2
22.4
20.7
TLMP (°C)
23.9
23.4
19.7
21.5 21.9
21.4
15.1
19.2
22.6
24.2
24.0
20.7
19.7 21.4
22.0
23.1
22.0
20.4
71
24.0
52
74
74
ALK
(ag/liter
as CaCO3)
50
69
76
138 101
62
65
50
77
47
67
74
75 88
57
76
21.9
2.9
PERC
23.8
1.7
—
32.2 2.3
-
30.9
1.8
-
18.7
2.0
-
23.1 3.2
-
23.1
2.6
•
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF DOMINANT. NON-DOMINANT, AND NON-OCCURRENCE MEAN PARAMETER VALUES
FOR TIlE 20 MOST COMMON DOMINANT GENERA (Continued) ________
( ‘I
Paroaieter
TOTAL P
(iig/ llter)
URTIIOP
(pg/Uteri
1102 1103
(pg/uteri
11113
( pgf liter)
K .JEL
(pg/Uteri
N/P
CIlIA
(ugh iter)
TURU
(% trans—
a issIon)
SECCIII
(inches)
P 1 1
Do
(mg/flier)
TEMP (°C)
ALK
(mg/flier
as CaCO3)
PERC 26.1 1.4
(Continued)
Dinobr,jOsi
HON NON
Fragilarl a
NON NON
Lyngbya
NON
lION
NON
NON
NON NON
004 0014 0CC
NON NON
DON 0014 DCC
N0 lf NON
DON DON 0CC
0014
0014
DCC
DON
DON
0CC
0014
00 )4
0CC
0014
0014
122
256
183
176
106
148
170
111
92
118 159
27
66
170
64
87
160
99
116
154
94
121
89
87
18
62
87
40
25
48 73
11
26
75
26
32
72
38
56
66
38
52
510
406
693
302
355
763
592
632 509
298
507
608
601
472
598
107
418
732
715
429
110
129
101
98
127
111
101
114 119
65
106
123
115
108
119
110
104
123
103
125
1228
1387
1362
789
1457
1350
761
883
983 112
594
726
1185
843
1029
1064
1488
1051
943
774
1162
18.8
6.1
9.3
18.1
9.7
9.3
18.3
10.4
13.0 15.4
28.5
17.7
12.0
22.9
12.0
14.0
28.0
4.6
29.5
12.5
27.5
17.1
24.9
14.4
18.1
12.4
29.5
32.3
33.6
37.4
17.5
37.5
37.4
16.3
26.5
26.7 25.7
8.1
13.6
31.8
17.5
22.9
71
58
70
75
75
71
73
64
71 75
88
80
69
80
75
71
75
77
70
72
72
36
41 55
90
62
40
70
53
44
46
46
48
43
48
54
7.9
39
7.9
38
7.9
55
7.6
43
8.2
42
8.0
7.5
7.9
7.8 7.7
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
8.0
1.7
7.6
7.9
7.4
7.7
7.3
7.7
8.0
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.3
6.6
7.4
8.1
8.0
7.5
7.9
7.4
7.8 7.8
8.7
8.0
7.6
8.1
8.3
20.7
23.1
24.1
19.5
23.5
23.2
20.0
22.4
21.6 21.4
18.3
20.0
22.2
19.8
20.6
21.9
67
25.1
62
22.8
71
20.2
75
21.0
71
22.2
73
76
103
72
70
80
80
65
80
70 73
71
72
72
78
85
- 30.9 1.7
— 31.0 2.1
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF DOMINANT, NON-DOMINANT, AND NON-OCCURRENCE MEAN PARAMETER VALUES
FOR THE 20 MOST COMMON DOMINANT GENERA (Continued)
OeoiiiaCoria
NON HON
Raphidiopais
NON NON
Soenedean ae
NON NON
Staphw .odieou6
NON NON
SL,nodra
HON NON
Tabailaria
NON NON
Parameter
0014
0GM
0CC
GUM
0014
0CC
DON
DON
0CC
DON
DON
0CC
DON
0GM
0CC
0014
0014
0CC
TOTA I.P
(ugh tter)
125
139
140
106
248
114
351
114
142
166
111
144
66
82
43
100
33
202
102
22
5
46
15
156
69
ORTHOP
(M g! l Iter)
41
69
57
27
136
45
194
50
50
66
43
404
905
602
464
133
408
610
14021 (03
(ugh iter)
381
534
669
303
380
635
502
419
827
1201
120
112
122
86
97
120
HI l l
(uig/1 Iter)
127
122
106
119
153
101
117
116
116
120
103
797
879
1326
455
606
1134
KJEL
(pgjl iter)
1356
992
991
1073
1492
936
1826
1055
805
1112
98)
1059
21.0
14.4
12.5
11.3
19.3
13.3
I l/P
9.0
11.1
19.0
9.8
6.2
16.3
8.5
11.3
23.0
17.8
13.8
13.1
34.1
7.7
11.1
29.3
CIlIA
( ig/1 Iter)
39.2
25.6
22.4
30.5
48.0
20.7
60.4
26.5
16.2
37.0
26.9
24.2
76
19.0
73
73
71
90
81
70
TURE
(% trans-
m Ission)
66
71
16
75
64
74
67
12
75
56
48
46
106
62
43
S(CCHI
(Inches)
35
43
56
46
33
51
38
44
59
37
44
51
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.9
6.9
7.2
7.9
PH
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.8
8.0
7.7
8.1
7.8
7.6
8.1
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.7
DO
(eq/i iter)
7.4
7.6
8.0
7.0
7.4
7.9
7.8
7.6
8.2
8.5
7.8
7.6
22.1
20.5
21.6
T(MP (°C)
23.2
21.8
20.6
25.4
23.2
20.8
23.3
22.2
19.0
19.6
20.6
22.2
55
21.1
67
21.5
70
21.6
76
21
37
80
AIK
(eq/liter
89
74
65
57
85
70
64
73
70
125
PERC 29.0 2.0
38.9 3.0 - 19.6 2.1 — 24.8 2.6 - 19.6 2.0
- 30.0 1.2 -
-------
In an attempt to determine the major constituents within phytoplankton
coninunities, dominant status was attached to those genera which accounted for
10 percent or more of the numerical total cell count in a given sample. The
10 percent cut-off point Is arbitrary and resulted in an average of about 3
dominant genera in each sample. Dominance as defined here often Includes
each of multiple forms in “codominance’ within a single sample. With this
approach every sample had dominant members regardless of the total cell
count. One advantage to this approach is that it recognizes forms of rela-
tive importance in each sample. Several problems are inherent in the inter-
pretation of data using this scheme. Equivalent weight in the environmental
requirements sun ary is given to an Astericnella representing 10 percent or
more in a sample of 100 cells per milliliter (ml) as one representing an
equivalent percentage in a sample containing 10,000 cells per ml. It is the
relative importance, based upon cell count, which characterizes the dominant
forms. It should be noted that large forms (e.g., Pediaatrwn) which might
constitute a substantial fraction of the biomass , often fell short of
numerical dominance.
In Table 4, each genus which achieved dominance at least ten times Is
ranked by its frequency of dominant occurrence and the mean level for each of
the parameters addressed, found associated with the occurrence of the genus
as a dominant. The “flagellates, 1 ’ a general category which crosses broad
taxonomic lines, had about 300 dominant occurrences associated with It. This
group, the members of which are often difficult to accurately identify, was
not included among the Table 4 entries but was obviously an important compo-
nent of many coim unitles.
The genera represented in Table 4 Include 9 blue—greens (Myxophyceae),
8 dIatoms (Chrysophyta), 2 flagellates (1 Cryptophyta and 1 Chrysophyta),
and one chiorococcalean (Chlorophyta). Obviously blue-green and diatom genera
numerically dominated a majority of the samples. Meiceira was by far the most
coninon dominant genus followed by Oeoiliatoria and Lyngbycz. Scerzedea7nue,
second only to Meicaira in total occurrences, was considerably less important
among dominant forms.
Aeterionelia can be considered a spring dominant, while Stephanodiscus,
Synedzxz, and TaheiZ a are spring and su ner dominants. Cr ptomonaa and
Dinobr ion are spring and fall dominants. Fragiiaria occurred equally
throughout the seasons as a dominant. The remaining genera were summer
and fall doininants.
As expected, the dominance category tended to narrow the ranges of
associated environmental conditions for most of the genera (Appendices
Al-4) by eliminating data associated with passive or chance occurrences of
genera within a given sample, and by using data associated with “healthy”
populations. It should be noted that a dominant population at the time
of sampling may have been in growth, stationary, or decline phases. Natu-
rally, “environmental requirements” would vary accordingly. Therefore
there is no assurance that the conditions detected at the time of sampling
were, in fact, optimal for growth of that genus.
37
-------
DOMINANT GENERA
This section sun iiarizes our findings for the 20 phytaplanktofl genera most
frequently recorded as numerical dominants in our samples. Although, within
the literature, a great deal of data are available describing environmental
conditions associated with the presence of a large variety of freshwater
algae, the data are scattered, Inconsistent, and difficult to extract and
summarize. Several authors have begun the arduous review process (Reimer,
1965; Palmer, 1969; Lowe, 1974) and their findings are used here where
possible, in conjunction with our results. Reimer presented detailed physical
and chemical ranges for & common diatom species, while Lowe’s summaries were
more subjective in nature, and again done at the species levels which limits
their usefulness here. Palmer addressed both genera and species and provides
the most directly comparable Information.
Genus—by—genus discussions found in this section elaborate further on
the summary Table 5. The emphasis on dominant/non—dominant comparisons is
based upon the assumption that those conditions under which a genus achieves
high numerical importance are more reflective of “optimal” environmental
ranges than those conditions under which that genus is merely detected at
relatively low levels. Attention is also called to substantive differences
noted between conditions of dominant/non-dominant occurrence and those asso-
ciated with waters in which specific genera were not detected.
Anabaena
Anabaena was the 10th most common phytoplankton genus encountered in
the NES lakes sampled during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered dominant in
33 (9 percent) of the 356 samples in which it occurred. Most of the dominant
occurrences were recorded from summer and fall samples. According to
Hutchinson (1967), Anabczena is most often found in abundance during the
warmest time of the year in eutrophic localities. A positive relationship
between occurrence of Anabaena and temperature is supported by our data
(Table 5). Palmer (1969), ranked Anahaena 22nd in ability to tolerate
organic pollution.
Relative to the other dominant genera, Ana aena was associated with a
high mean TOTALP value, the highest NH3 value (207 .tg/liter) and a low mean
N/P ratio (Table 4). For the remaining parameters, Anabaena was not associ-
ated with extremes.
Occurrence of Anabaena as a dominant was associated with distinctly
higher mean TOTALP, ORTHOP, and NH3 than non-dominant occurrence or waters
in which Anabaena was not detected (non-occurrence). However, the strong
downward trend in N02N03 noted in comparing conditions associated with non-
38
-------
occurrence (769 pg/i), non—dominance (362 pg/i) and dominance (252 pg/i)
(Table 5) suggests that Anabaena competes more successfully in waters
containing lower nitrite/nitrate levels. This finding supports information
previously reported (e.g., Williams, 1975). The high levels of NH3 associ-
ated with dominance are not sufficient to offset the impact of the combined
effects of lower N02N03 and higher TOTALP of the M/ P ratio (quite low at 7.1
for dominance). The natural inclination to ascribe competitive advantage to
Anabaena, at low N/P ratios (or just low N02N03 levels, for that matter), as
a function of nitrogen fixation must be approached with care, however. Other
blue—greens, heterocystous and non-heterocystous alike, showed modest to dra-
matic reductions In N/P associated with their general occurrence and still
greater reductions associated with their dominance, e.g., Chroococcue, rela-
tive to waters in which they were not detected. It should be noted that in
the lakes sampled in 1973 low N/P ratios were usually a consequence of high
phosphorus levels rather than of low nitrogen levels.
Additional trends noted in comparing dominance, non—dominance, and non-
occurrence conditions (Table 5) for 00 (7.1, 7.4, and 8.1 mg/i, respectively)
and ALK (50, 69 and 76 mg/i, respectively) suggest that Anabaena is hlfavoredil
by conditions of lower dissolved oxygen and “softer” waters.
Productivity, as measured by Kjeldahl nitrogen and particularly
chlorophyll a, showed a relative decrease where Anabaena achieved dominance.
Keep in mind that dominance, as defined here, Is not necessarily synonymous
with “bloom” conditions.
Aphanizon enon
While only the 38th most common genus encountered in the NES lakes
sampled during 1973, 41 (27 percent) of the 154 sample occurrences of
Aphaniaomenon were classified as dominant (Table 2). A. fioe—aquae was by
far the most common species of Aph zizomenon in the study. Aphani.zomenon was
numerically one of the most important constituents with a mean percent
composition (PERC) of 32.2 percent as a dominant. For the nutrient series
and remaining parameters, Aph izomenon was not associated with the extremes
of the ranges (Table 4).
Aphanizorne.non Is a well-known bloom—former in productive lakes of
temperature regions during the warmest months and can be considered an
indicator of eutrophy (Hutchlnson, 1967). Prescott (1962) indicates that
Aphanizomen n is hardly ever found unless in eutrophic waters or polluted
streams, and is so consistently related to hard water lakes that it may be
used as an index organism for high pH and usually high nitrogen as well.
These reports of conditions associated with the occurrence of Aphanizoinenon
received mixed support from our data. Most dominant occurrences do coincide
with the warm water periods (summer and fall) but Aph zizomenon achieved
dominance in colder waters, on an average, than any of the other blue-green
algae (Table 4). Indeed, extensive Aphc.nizomenon growths have been recorded
on the under—surface of ice in lakes (F. B. Trama, personal communication).
If eutrophy is considered roughly synonymous with high levels of TOTALP and
inorganic nitrogen (N02N03 + NH3), the broad range of nutrient conditions
(Figure A—l) under which it was found and trends in conditions associated with
39
-------
the categories of occurrence do not support Aphanizomenon as a reliable
indicator of eutrophy. Mean TOTALP for general occurrence (103 ugh, Table
3) is well below the average level for those lakes in which it was
detected (146 i.ig/l, Table 5). And while the TOTALP level associated with
dominance (147 ugh) is substantially higher than non-dominance (87 ugh),
it is virtually indistinguishable from the non-occurrence value. The inorganic
nitrogen mean value for Aphwzizomenon dominance is approximately 40 percent
lower than that for lakes in which it was not detected. The NH3 levels are
essentially constant across the occurrence categories, while the N02N03 compo-
nent ranges from 597 1.Lg/l to 517 ugh to 311 ugh for non-occurrence, non—
dominance and dominance, respectively. This trend clearly suggests that
Aphanizomenon is ‘favored” at lower N02N03 levels (as we also noted for
Anabaena, another heterocystous blue-green rather than higher, as previously
reported. The low N/P ratio (7.5, Table 5 associated with dominance of
Aphanizoinenon reflects the differences in N02N03 and TOTALP noted. The
relationships of Aphanizoirzenon to “hard” waters and high pH, suggested by
Prescott (1962), are supported by trends In ALK (138, 101, and 62 mg/i) and
pH (8.1, 7.9, and7T7) for dominance, non-dominance, and non-occurrence,
respectively. The ALK value of 138 mg/i with dominance was the highest such
value recorded among the 20 dominant genera.
Productivity, as estimated by CHLA, and standing crop, as reflected by
both CHLA and KJEL, are both considerably higher In association with
Aphanizomenon dominance than with non-dominance or non-occurrence. While
Hutchinson (1967) indicated that Aphanizoinenon is favored by low turbidity
(high light transmission) neither absolute values of TURB and SECCHI nor
trends across the occurrence categories (Table 5) support that relationship.
Aeterione ha
AeterionelZa was the 28th most con non genus encountered In the NES lakes
sampled during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered dominant In 35 (18 percent)
of the 198 samples In which it occurred. Most of the occurrences were of one
species (A. formosa). Among the very coninon genera, Asterionehia was the
most seasonally restricted, with 58 percent of its total sample occurrences
and 77 percent of its dominant occurrences in spring.
Aeterionella was one of the few genera consistently associated with lower
nutrient and productivity parameter values for general occurrence as well as
dominance (Table 4). Most of the mean parameter values for Asterionehia were
still within the mesotrophic range. This is not inconsistent with the findings
of other workers (Patrick and Reimer, 1966; Lowe, 1974; Pearsall, 1932), in
which Aeter-foneiia was reported to prefer mesotrophic and eutrophic waters. It
Is highly likely that mean nutrient values associated with the occurrence
(Table 3) and particularly the dominance (Table 4) of this genus would have
been considerably lower in a test set of lakes containing truly oligotrophic
representatives (virtually absent among the 273 lakes sampled in 1973) consid-
ering the data trends (Table 5) and apparent affinity of the genus for the
lowest nutrient waters in our study group. Indeed, Rawson (1956) demonstrated
a strong preference for the genus in Canada’s western oligotrophic lakes.
Asterioneiha occurred in samples with low values of TOTALP, ORTHOP, NH3, KJEL,
and CHLA. For all of these parameters distinct trends are noted (Table 5) in
40
-------
which the lowest mean values are associated with the dominance of Aster92’nelia
while the highest values are associated with those waters in which the genus
was not detected. Non—dominant occurrence values are intermediate in all cases.
Also consistent with a preference for more “pristine t ’ water conditions
are the trends (see Table 5) in DO (9.5, 8.4, and 7.5 mg/i), SECCHI (71, 54,
and 44 inches), TURB (81, 75, and 71 percent transmission), N/P (22.4, 15.7,
and 13.1), and TEMP (15.1, 19.2, and 22.6) for the respective occurrence
categories (dominance, non—dominance, and non-occurrence). The high N02N03
value associated with dominance of Asterionella may, in part, reflect spring
lake conditions when N02N03 concentrations were found to be significantly
higher than in other seasons. It also suggests a competitive advantage for
AsterioneZia under high N/P conditions. That Aeterionella has a low temper-
ature optimum for high relative success is evidenced by the mean TEMP at
dominance (15.1°C, lowest among the algae presented) and the greater than 4°C
difference between that value and the mean TEMP for non—dominance (19.2°C).
The TEMP mean for lakes in which Asterionella was not detected was 22.6°C.
C u’oococcus
C ’oococcu8 was the 32nd most common genus encountered in the NES lakes
sampled during 1973. Although it was identified in 179 samples, it was
found to be a dominant in only 19 (11 percent) of the samples (Table 2).
C 1 nr0000ccUB is a common phytoplankton genus with species exhibiting
requirements ranging from soft to hard water, while some species do well
under both conditions (Prescott, 1962). Values for ALK across the occurrence
categories (Table 5) suggest some preference for “softer” waters, particularly
with dominance. Palmer (1969) ranked Anacystis (Chroococcus, In part) 19th in
ability to tolerate organic pollution. There is however, no way to determine
If his results were based on data associated with the C7woococcus form or
not.
C’nxoococcus was associated with several extreme conditions as a dominant
(Table 4). Both CHLA and KJEL values were among the highest while the N02N03
value was at the low end. C 1 nr0000ccuB was associated with relatively high
mean phosphorus values and had the smallest N/P ratio, as a dominant, (4.3) of
the 20 genera under discussion. Chroococcus was associated with high TEMP
(24.2°C) and low ALK (47 ig/1).
TOTALP, ORTHOP, N02N03, and NH3 levels were lower with dominance than
non—dominance (Table 5). The N02N03 levels associated with both non—dominance
and dominance are far lower than those found for the waters in which Chroocoacue
was not detected. These findings are further reflected in the extremely low
N/P value calculated for this genus (note that Chroococcus Is not a known
nitrogen-fixer). Productivity and standing crop, as estimatedTh CHLA and KJEL,
showed similar patterns when evaluated across the occurrence categories (Table
5). With both parameters the highest mean values were associated with dominance
and were followed closely by non—dominance levels. The CHLA and KJEL levels
in waters in which Ciwoococcue was not detected (non—occurrence) were only
one—half those in which the genus was found.
41
-------
C1’yptomona8
Cryptonzonas was the 7th most common genus encountered in NES lakes
during 1973 (Table 2). It was found to be dominant in 72 (18 percent) of
the 393 samples containing the genus. Although Cryptoinonaa dominated primarily
in spring samples, it was an important major constituent in summer and fall
as well. Hem et al. (1978b), found Cryptomonaa to be the second most common
phytoplankter In the Atchafalaya Basin where it showed no seasonal preference.
In that study it dominated under high nutrient, low light (due to inorganic
turbidity) conditions. Soeder and Stengel (1974) indicate a low light
intensity preference for Cryptomonas. Hutchinson (1967) classified both of
the common species as eurytopic (having a wide environmental range of toler-
ance) while Palmer (1969) rated Cryptomonas 23rd on his genus organic
pollution tolerance list.
Cryptomonaa was not associated with extremes for any of the parameters
when compared to the other dominant genera under discussion (Table 4). It
had values which uniformly fell in the middle ranges of mean values. The few
exceptions included a high N02N03 value (970 g/l), and CHLA and TEMP values
which approached the low end of the range. The clear association with lower
CHLA and KJEL, seen with dominance, is not evident in the non—dominant
occurrence of Cryptomonas. Hutchinson (1967) cites Fidenegg’s (1943) finding
of an optimal upper limit for temperature of 12—15°C for C. erosa. This is
considerably below the mean value of 19.7°C calculated from our data (Table
4) for the genus, but the TEMP trend (22.0, 21.4, and 19.7°C) across the
non—occurrence, non—dominance, and dominance categories, respectively, support
a cool water optimum for this genus.
Notable differences in mean parameter values among dominance, non—
dominance, and non-occurrence were few (Table 5). There was a substantially
higher level of N02N03 with dominance than in waters in which Cryptornonae
was not detected (non—occurrence). Non-dominance N02N03 levels were inter-
mediate. Dominant occurrences of Cryptomonae were associated with low pro-
ductivity compared to the other genera under discussion.
Cyclotella
Cyci teila meneghini a and C. etelligera were by far the rrost common
species of the genus in this study. Both were considered eutrophic by Lowe
(1974). Cyclotelia was the 4th most common genus encountered in NES lakes
during 1973 (Table 2). It was found to dominate in 83 (18.8 percent) of the
441 samples containing the genus. It was most important as a dominant in the
summer and fall but was a strong spring contributor also. Palmer (1969) ranked
Cyciotelia 15th in ability to tolerate organic pollution.
The association of Cycioteila as a dominant with the second highest
TOTALP and ORTHOP values (185 and 110 .zg/l respectively) of the 20 genera
under discussion (Table 4) support the genus as a more eutrophic form.
At the same time, however, the trend In N/P ratio across the occurrence
categories (17.7 for dominance; 14.2 for non—dominance; and 13.0 for non-
occurrence) suggests that higher relative success of Cyciotelia is associated
with higher N/P ratios. While Cycioteila fell within the mid-range of mean
42
-------
values for the other parameters, trends across the occurrence categories
(Table 5) for TEMP and DO suggest that higher relative success is associated
with warmer waters and lower dissolved oxygen levels, not Inconsistent with
a eutrophic classification.
There were very little differences associated with the various nitrogen
parameters by occurrence category (Table 5). Except for CHLA, which was
slightly higher with dominance, there were no noteworthy differences among
the remaining parameters.
Dacty lococcope’va
Dactylococc pBi8 was the 16th most common genus encountered in NES
lakes during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered dominant in 58 (20 percent)
of the 287 samples in which it occurred. Dactylococcopais can be considered
primarily a summer and fall dominant form.
While Dactyl000000pei8 as a dominant was associated with TOTALP and
ORTHOP values near the high end of the range, Its N02N03 and NH3 values were
among the lowest of the 20 genera listed (Table 4). As with all of the blue—
green algae genera In this study, its N/P ratio was low (6.9). Dactylo—
00000pBi8 was associated with warm water (24°C) and low ALK (52 .ig/1iter).
Significantly lower N02N03 and NH3 values were noted with dominance
which reflected in a decreased N/P ratio as well (Table 5). Dominant and
non-dominant occurrence showed very little difference in phosphorus levels
although both were associated with considerably higher levels than the waters
In which Dactyiococcopeia was not detected. As with C ’oococcua and Ap1 .ani—
zomenon, the inorganic nitrogen (N02N03, NH3) values are moderate to low and
phosphorus is in abundant supply. Nitrogen fixation has not been demonstrated
in Dactyiococcopsis. Summarizing the mean data trends across occurrence
categories in Table 5, Dact7dl00000c’p8i8 appears to achieve higher relative
success In “softer, warmer waters with lower dissolved oxygen and inorganic
nitrogen levels and with high phosphorus (low N/P) - in short, conditions
typically found in enriched temperate lakes during late-summer, early—autumn.
Dinobryon
Dinobryon was the 26th most common genus encountered in NES lakes during
1973 (Table 2). It was considered dominant in 31 (14 percent) of the 221
samples in which it occurred. One—half of the Dinobryon dominant occurrences
were In spring samples while the others were equally divided between summer
and fall samples.
Dinobryon, as a dominant, was one of just a few genera consistently
associated with low mean values for the nutrient series, Including the lowest
NH3 value (65 g/1) (Table 4). In addition, it had by far the highest N/P
ratio (28.5). Trends in nutrient levels across the occurrence categories
(Table 5) reinforce the ttpreference of Dinobryon for less enriched waters.
The dominance of Dinobryon is generally associated with cool, clear, highly
oxygenated waters (oligo— to mesotrophic). Notably, Dinobryon had the
smallest mean cell count of any dominant; this reflects the low productivity
43
-------
associated with its presence as a successful competitor.
Dinobryon dominance was associated with substantially lower mean KJEL
and CHLA and higher SECCHI values compared with non—dominant and particularly
non-occurrence mean values (Table 5). TOTALP and ORTHOP values were less than
half of the non—dominant values, while N02N03 and NH3 were lower by 209 and
41 ugh respectively. The N/P ratio for non—dominance, high at 17.7 was
higher yet (28.5) with dominance (N/P level for lakes in which Dinobr on was
not detected was only 12.0). Indeed, Rodhe (1948) found D. divergens to
5 inhibited at phosphate concentrations greater than 5 ugh in culture
studies. Furthermore, Pearsall (1932) concluded that V. divergens appears
when the N/P ratio rises, which was the usual case in English lakes in the
spring. Even though it has long been recognized as an oligotrophic form
(Nauma , 1919; Rawson, 1956), it will appear in productive lakes when nutrients
have been reduced to levels unacceptable for continued growth of other forms
(Hutchinson, 1967). Indeed, our data suggest that waters favorable to the
success of Dinobryon are low in productivity, temperature, and nutrients and
high in clarity.
Fragilaria
Fr giiaria was the 27th most comon genus encountered in NES lakes
durIng 1973 (Table 2). Although several species were identified, F.
crotonensis was easily the most common encountered In the study. The genus
was considered dominant In 45 (20.9 percent) of the 215 samples in which it
occurred. Fragilaria showed no seasonal preference as a dominant, occurring
equally in spring, summer, and fall. Palmer (1969) ranked it 29th in ability
to tolerate organic pollution.
As a dominant, Fragilaria had relatively low TOTALP and ORTHOP values,
while the nitrogen mean values were mid-range (Table 4). Fragiloi’ia was
associated with one of the highest N/P ratios, second only to Dinobryon.
Fragiiaria tended toward that end of the mean parameter ranges, for most of
the physical and chemical parameters, generally associated with low nutrient
levels and productivity.
TOTALP and ORTHOP values were lower while N02N03 and NH3 values were
higher with Fragilc.ria dominance than with non—dominance (Table 5). Al-
though the phosphorus levels associated with dominance and non-dominance
were close, they were far lower than the respective levels associated with
non—occurrence. The N/P ratio also reflected the changes in nitrogen and
phosphorus levels (it doubled to 22.9 with dominance) although little dif-
ference was noted between the N/P ratios associated with non—dominance and
non—occurrence. CHLA and KJEL values were lower when dominant, reflecting
the lower nutrient levels. This trend was followed for most of the parameters
addressed here.
In summary, relative success of Fragilaz’ia appears to be associated
with lower phosphorus levels, indifference to inorganic nitrogen levels,
higher water clarity and modest levels of productivity.
44
-------
Lyngbya
r,yngbya was the 17th most common genus encountered In NES lakes during
1973 (Table 2). It was considered dominant in 99(34.6 percent) of the 286
samples in which It occurred. Most dominant occurrences of £yngbya were in
summer and fall, with a small fraction occurring in spring.
Although TOTALPI ORTHOP, and NH3 values were near center within the
total ranges as a dominant, £yngbya showed an N/P ratio of 4.6, the second
lowest calculated for the 20 genera (Table 4). Lyngbya had the largest cell
count (CONC) among the dominants, with an average sample containing nearly
13,000 filaments per milliliter.
Levels of TOTALP and ORTHOP were slightly lower with dominance than
with non—dominance and much lower than those associated with lakes in which
L rzgb a was not detected. Levels of N02N03 associated with dominance were
only about 25 percent of non—dominance levels and 15 percent of non-occurrence
levels (Table 5). KJEL, CHLA, and TEMP levels associated with dominance were
higher than with non—dominance or non-occurrence. The N/P ratio with dominance
was only about 30 percent of the non-dominant and 25 percent of the non-
occurrence values, likely primarily due to the changes in N02N03 noted.
£ agbya, at least one species of which has recently been shown to reduce
acetylene (a criterion for nitrogen—fixing activity) by Stewart (1971),
appears to favor a low inorganic nitrogen (N02N03 + NFI3) environment. Again,
as with other blue-green algae, TEMP trends across the occurrence categories
(Table 5) suggest increased temperatures are associated with increased rela-
tive success. These findings are similar to Hutchinson’s (1967) summary in
which Lyngbya was included in an important group of planktonic blue-green
algae genera usually found in great abundance in productive lakes in sun ner,
when nutrient concentrations are relatively low and temperature and produc-
tivity are high.
Meloeira
Melosira was the most common genus encountered in NES lakes during
1973 (Table 2). It was considered a dominant form in 255 (42 percent) of
the 607 samples in which it occurred. Me7 csira was equally important in
each of the three seasons, both as a non-dominant and dominant constituent.
Palmer (1969) rated it 13th in ability to tolerate organic pollution. The
most frequently encountered species were, respectively, M. distczna, M.
granuZata, M. grcrizuZata angustisaima, M. itaU a, and M. vai o.ns.
Melosira was uniquely common and, as might be expected, mean parameter
values calculated for its occurrence, both as a non-dominant and dominant,
were similar to the mean values calculated for the entire data base. An
examination of Table 4 reveals that MeZoaira as a dominant was not associ-
ated with the extreme mean values for any of the parameters. However,
examination of Table 5 reveals that mean parameter values for dominance and
non—dominance are, in many cases, quite different from those conditions under
which f4eloeira was not detected (non-occurrence). In addition, there were
notable differencesT several of the parameter means between non-dominant
and dominant occurrences (Table 5).
45
-------
TOTALP and ORTHOP levels show similar trends; those associated with
dominance are lowest (94 and 38 i.igIl, respectively), with non—dominance
somewhat higher (122 and 52 ig/l), and non—occurrence substantially higher
(256 and 121 g/l). Although little difference is noted between the levels
of N02N03 associated with non—occurrence and dominance, the non—dominance
related mean level was much lower (731, 715, and 429 ig/l 1 respectively).
General occurrence (dominant and non-dominant) was associated with lower
N/P.
MeloBira was associated with lower productivity as indicated by the
distinct trends in KJEL and CHLA values across the occurrence categories
(Table 5). As a dominant, Melosira, on the average, accounted for about
1/3 of the total numerical sample count, which further illustrates its
unique position in phytoplankton communities.
Meri8lncpedia
Merieinopedi.a was the 13th most common genus encountered in NES lakes
during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be dominant in 22 (6.7 percent)
of the 328 samples in which it occurred. Merisrnopedia was more common both
as a dominant and non—dominant in the summer and fall than it was during
spring. Even though Merismopedia was obviously common in the NES lakes, and
is considered an important blue-green algae plankter elsewhere (Hutchinson,
1967), very little substantive environmental data are available. Palmer
(1969) did, however, rank it 36th in ability to tolerate organic pollution.
Me isrnopedia was found in more enriched waters as a dominant (Table 4).
It was associated with one of the lowest N/P ratios (6.1) and clearly the
lowest DO value of the 20 genera under discussion. SECCHI and TURB values
indicated that Merismopedia dominated in some of the most turbid water
encountered in the survey. Meris7nopedia was rarely a strong dominant having
a mean percent composition of only 16.2.
Differences in the mean parameter values between non-dominance and
dominance were generally small (Table 5) but differences in many parameters
were clear between occurrence (dominant and non-dominant) and non-occurrence
conditions. KJEL and CHLA values (Table 5) suggest that occurrence of
MeDisinopedia is associated with high productivity. N/P ratio with dominance
was sharply lower (typical for all the blue—green algae genera) while CHLA
was only slightly lower than non-dominant conditions. In general, the data
support warm, turbid, highly productive, high nutrient conditions to favor
the success of Meriamopedia. The low DO value (6.6 mg/i) suggests strong
impacts when 14erismopedia is dominant.
MicrocyatiB
The principle species encountered in this study were 14. incerta and
14. aeruginosa. The former species appeared in twice as many samples as
the latter. M. aeruginoea is considered to be an indicator of eutrophy,
usually occurring in lakes during the warmest season (Hutchinson, 1967).
Palmer (1969) ranked Miorocystie (Anacystis in part) 19th in ability to
tolerate organic pollution.
46
-------
Microcyatis was the 11th most common genus encountered in NES lakes
during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be dominant in 53 (15.3 percent)
of the 346 samples in which it occurred. Microcyatis occurred primarily in
summer and fall. However, the occurrence of Microcysti3 in 49 first round
samples qualifies it as an important spring form as well.
On the whole, Microcyatia was not distinguished by extremely high or
low mean values for any of the parameters (Table 4). CHLA and KJEL values
fell toward the high ends of their respective ranges.
Differences in mean values between non—dominant and dominant occur-
rences of Microcijetis were minimal (Table 5). WIth dominance, levels of
TOTALP, ORTHOP, N02N03, and NH3 were consistently lower. Comparison of
conditions across the occurrence categories (Table 5) indicates that
occurrence is associated with lower inorganic (N02N03 + NH3) nitrogen
and higher organic (KJEL-NH3) nitrogen levels than were found for waters
in which Microcystia was not detected. N/P ratios for dominant and nOn—
dominance occurrence (9.7 and 9.3, respectively) were much lower than the
mean for non—occurrence (18.3), while the inverse relationship was true
with respect to CHLA and K 1 JEL. Both dominant and non-dominant occurrence
was associated with more turbid waters. SECCHI relationships were also
quite consistent with standing crop and productivity estimates from KJEL
and CHLA.
To generalize, “typical’ 1 waters favoring the success of Microcystis can
be characterized as relatively warm, turbid, moderate to low in inorganic
nitrogen (particularly as N02N03), relatively high in phosphorus, with
moderate to high ALK and pH, and with high levels of organic production.
The conditions generally reflect those found in enriched temperate waters
during late summer and early fall.
Nita achia
Nitsechia was the 9th most common genus encountered in NES lakes during
1973 (Table 2). This diatom was considered to be dominant In 28 (7.5 percent)
of the 374 samples in which it occurred. Nitaechia occurred equally in each
of the 3 seasons but achieved dominance more frequently in summer and fall.
Palmer (1969) ranked Nitasohia 9th in ability to tolerate organic pollution.
As a dominant, Njtzechia was associated with the lowest water transparency
(SECCHI values of 36 Inches) of the 20 genera under discussion (Table 4). While
the TURB value was similarly low, and TOTALP and ORTHOP values were toward the
low end of the range, most mean parameter values were mid-range.
The most notable difference between conditions associated with non—
dominance and dominance was a lower level of ORTHOP with dominance (Table 5).
Both ORTHOP and TOTALP were lower where Nitzschia occurred than in those
waters in which it was not detected. Upward trends across the occurrence
categories (dominance, non—dominance and non—occurrence, respectively) were
noted in the values of NH3, KJEL, NIP, TURB, and SECCHI (Table 5). A slightly
lower level was noted for N02N03 with dominance than with non-dominance. Large
47
-------
between—species differences (to be presented in a future report) reduce the
value of genus—level generalizations for Nitzschia.
Oaciliator-ia
OscilZ toria was the 5th most comon genus encountered in NES lakes
during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be dominant in 105 (24.5 percent)
of the 428 samples in which it occurred. Oecillator’ia was slightly more
common in the summer and fall than during the spring. Palmer (1969) ranked
Osciiiatoria 2nd in ability to tolerate organic pollution.
While Osciilat r-ia rarely had extreme mean parameter values (Table 4),
it shared with NitzBchia the distinction of being associated with the most
turbid waters. This is consistent with Baker et al., (1969) who found
0. ag c zii to be easily injured by intense illumination. It should be noted
that 0. limr.etica was by far the most common 0eoi iatoria species encountered
in our study. However, some evidence, as discussed by Hutchinson (1967),
indicates that in Lake Erie, during the autumn pulse, 0sc iiatoria favors
low turbidity and therefore high illumination. In Tables 4 and 5 0ecil7 ator a
is shown to be associated with relatively high cell concentration, CHLA, and
NH3 values.
Differences in mean parameter values between non-dominant and dominant
occurrences were slight (Table 5). The most notable differences were the
lower N02N03 levels and higher KJEL and CHLA levels with dominance. Across
the occurrence categories (Table 5), upward trends are noted in SECCHI, TUP.B,
DO, N02N03, and N/P, while downward trends were noted for the mean values of
CHLA, K .JEL, TEMP and ALK.
Raphidiop8ia
Raphid Op8is was the 30th most comon genus encountered In NES lakes
durIng 1973 (Table 2). It was considered a dominant in 45 (25.4 percent) of
the 177 samples in which it occurred. Raphidlopsi8 was most common in summer
and fall, particularly as a dominant. Only 2 dominant occurrences were noted
in spring samples. Again, as with Mer 8mopedia , the environmental requirements
of-Raphidiopsl8 are rarely mentioned in the literature, even though it is one of
the more common phytoplankton genera.
Raphidiopeis was associated with two extreme mean parameter values
(Table 4). It had the highest TEMP (25.4°C) and the highest PERC value
(38.9 percent) as a dominant. In addition, Raphidiopeie was near the low
end of the range of dominant values for ORThOP.
There were important differences in mean values among the conditions
associated with the occurrence categories in Table 5. With dominance, the
ORTHOP value was among the lowest of the 20 genera compared. By contrast,
the non—dominance mean value for ORTHOP was approximately 5—fold higher. The
N02N03 level for general occurrence (dominance and non—dominance) was about
one—half that found in waters in which Raphidiopeis was not detected. Little
can be inferred, from the inconsistent trends noted across occurrence categories,
48
-------
with respect to those conditions favoring ‘success” of Raphtdiopeis. Non-
dominance values, with few exceptions, suggested more highly enriched (eutro-
phic) conditions than were associated with either dominance or with waters
in which Raphidi paia was not detected. That the N/P ratio was higher with
dominance is of particularThterest, as all but one of the other blue-green
forms showed lower N/P ratios with dominance than with non—dominance. The
other genus, Oacillatoria, remained essentially unchanged with respect to
N/P ratio.
Scenede8mue
Scenedesmue was the 2nd most common genus encountered In NES lakes during
1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be dominant however, in only 50 ( 9 per-
cent) of the 553 samples in which it occurred. Scenedesnv s was quite common
in each of the 3 seasons sampled.
Scenedesinue was especially noteworthy among the 20 most dominant genera,
with unusually high mean values for several parameters (Table 4). The TOTALP
value was 166 .zg/1 greater than the next highest value. The ORTHOP value for
Scenedesinus was similarly extreiTie. Scenadesinus as a dominant was also associ-
ated with the highest CHLA and KJEL values. In Hutchinson’s (1967) review,
Scenede mus was considered to be a faculative heterotroph and thought to require
higher concentrations of inorganic nutrients when l1vin autotrophically than
do strictly phototrophic species. In addition, Palmer (1969) ranked Scenedee,rzus
4th in ability to tolerate organic pollution.
While Scenedesmus was obviously associated with highly enriched and
productive water, on the average it accounted for only about 20 percent of the
total count. In most cases its presence alone could not account for the high
CHLA values. Scenedesmue was the only non—blue—green algal genus with a domi-
nant N/P ratio less than 10. However, Scenedesnnw is frequently associated
with pre—blue—green algal—bloom communities (Williams, 1975).
Significant differences between non-dominant and dominant occurrences
of Seenedesmus were seen in the exceptionally higher values for TOTALP and
ORTHOP with dominance (Table 5). Differences in phosphorus levels between
non-dominance and non—occurrence were far less pronounced. Also important
were the larger (by about 800 .ig/l and 40 j ag/i) values for KJEL and CHLA
respectively, with dominance. Once again, non—dominance values more nearly
approximated non—occurrence than dominance values.
Ste phancdiscuB
Stephanodi.8cue was the 18th most common genus encountered in NES lakes
during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be a dominant in 73 (26.5 percent)
of the 275 samples in which It occurred. Steph wdiscua occurred commonly in
each of the 3 seasons sampled. Palmer (1969) ranked Stephcrncdiscus 32nd in
ability to tolerate organic pollution. Although S. astr ea was the most
commonly identified species among the samples, several small Stephanodiscu8
forms were commonly noted for which species designations remain unconfirmed.
49
-------
$tephanodisews can be noted for association with clearly the highest
N02N03 values (1201 jig/i) of the 20 genera under consideration (Table 4). It
was also associated with very turbid water of high ALK and relatively low
TEMP.
Stephan d scue showed higher values for TOTALP, 0RTH0P NH3, KJEL, and
especially N02N03, with dominance than with non—dominance (Table 5). The
N02N03 value with dominance (1201 j. g/l) was nearly 3 times as high as that
in waters in which Stephanodiacus was not detected (404 jig/i). The higher
N/P ratio, with dominance, is a reflection of the large difference in N02N03.
A substantially higher mean value (about 10 jig/i higher) for C LA occurred
with dominance. Little difference was noted between non-dominance and non-
occurrence values for CHLA. A strong trend in the ALK values noted across the
occurrence categories (Table 5) suggests that increased relative success of
Stephanodiscus is associated with high alkalinity values.
Synedi’a
Synedra was the 3rd most common genus encountered in NES lakes during
1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be a dominant in 48 (10.4 percent) of
the 462 samples in which it occurred. S jnedra was equally common in each of
the 3 sampling seasons. Most of the species of Synedra conu ionly encountered
in this study have been reported by Lowe (1974) to prefer eutrophic conditions.
Synedra ulna and S. delicatis8ilna were the species most commonly identified
in the samples, although it should be noted that many of the Syned.ra encoun-
tered were not taken to species when positive identification could not be
made. Palmer (1969) also considered the genus high in its ability to tolerate
organic pollution (ranked 9th).
As with some 0 f the other extremely common genera, the mean parameter
values tended to mimic the mean values calculated for all the lake data.
Syned.ra mean values tended to be centrally located within the various para-
meter ranges (Table 4). TOTALP and ORTHOP values were slightly towards the
low end, while N02N03 and NH3 values were slightly shifted towards the high
end. The net result of these shifts is a high N/P ratio of 21.
The most significant difference between non-dominant and dominant occur-
rence mean values was with N02N03 which with dominance was more than 300 jig/l
higher and nearly double that noted in waters in which Syned.ra was not detected
(Table 5). TOTALP was slightly lower with dominance (and less than one—half
the non—occurrence value), and the combination resulted in a higher N/P ratio
with dominance. CHLA and KJEL data trends (Table 5) suggest that Synedra
success is associated with lower productivity and phytoplankton standing
crops.
Tabe ZZ ’ia
Tabeilca ia was only the 43rd most common genus encountered in NES
lakes during 1973 (Table 2). It was considered to be dominant in 20
(16.4 percent) of the 122 samples in which It occurred. TabelZ. ’ia
fenestrata accounted for 19 of the dominant occurrences and 80 of the total
occurrences. It occurred often in each of the 3 seasons but attained domi-
50
-------
nance largely in spring or surmier. Lowe (1974) indicated a spring and fall
maxima for T. fenestrr2ta. Rawson (1956) included Tabellcrta in a small group
of diatoms that are most usually found in oligotrophic waters of western
Canadian lakes.
TabeU ’ia as a dominant was frequently at or near the extreme mean
values for many of the parameters (Table 4). It had the lowest TOTALP,
ORTHOP, CHLA, KJEL, PH, and ALK values, while the N02N03 value was the
second lowest calculated. A pH value of 6.9 is consistent with Lowe’s
(1974) optimum range of 5.0—7.1 for the species. The association of
Tabe l ’ia with clear water is evidenced by the highest SECCHI and TURB
values recorded among the 20 genera. Tabellc a occurred as a dominant in
relatively low concentrations (about 1500 cells/ml) and yet, on the average,
accounted for about 30 percent of the total count (one of the higher PERC
values).
Tabellcrt’ia, in dominance, was associated with much lower levels of
TOTALP, ORTHOP, N02N03, and KJEL, as compared to non-dominance conditions
(Table 5). On the other hand, the non-dominance values still remain lower
than those noted for non—occurrence. N/P ratio and CHLA values were also
lower with dominance. Productivity and phytoplankton standing crop, as
estimated by CHLA and KJEL, are far lower for general occurrence (dominance
and non-dominance than for non—occurrence. TEMP was higher with dominance
(22.1 vice 20.5°C , which seems high in light of the upper limit of the
optimal temperature range established by Findenegg (1943) of 12 to 15°C for
A8terionella in Austrian lakes. A discussion of the various opinions concern-
ing the controlling influence of temperature on the development of various
taxa is presented in Hutchinson (1967). A sharply higher value (by 44 inches)
of SECCHI depth over the non—dominant condition suggests a high water—trans-
parency requirement for optimal growth of Tabe7 Zar a. Even the non-dominance—
related SECCHI mean (62 inches) is one of the higher values recorded among
the 20 genera evaluated.
51
-------
DISCUSSION
Environmental conditions associated with the occurrence of various phy—
toplankton genera are examined in this report to determine the usefulness of
genus level data for Identifying indicators of water quality. Severe criti-
cisms of lirnnological investigations conducted at the genus level have been
primarily directed towards the variability in environmental requirements of
the species comprising many genera. Weber (1971) provided a graphic illu-
stration citing Cycloteli z as an example of a genus with individual species
having requirements at all levels of the trophic scale. He concluded that it
is pointless to discuss diatom populations at the genus level. Our data, for
the most part, supports this point of view, especially the data defining
ranges of environmental conditions associated with specific genus occurrence,
whether it be dominant or not. The value of the criticism Is not restricted
to the diatoms, as we have shown similar results for most of the major groups
occurring in freshwater plankton communities. There are, however, a number
of genera which are either nionospecific, have just a few species, or were only
represented in NES lakes by a few species in the South and East. Data asso-
ciated with these would reflect nionospecific requirements and should be use-
ful (even at the genus level) on at least a regional basis.
We have found very few environmental restrictions for the common phyto-
plankton genera discussed in this report. Ast rioneUa showed the clearest
seasonal preference, particularly as a dominant, occurring mostly in the
spring. Although no genus, unless exceptionally rare, was completely absent
during any of the seasons, many preferred summer and fall conditions where
temperature and/or light were more suitable for their growth. The range—dia-
grams in Appendix A illustrate the extremely wide ranges of chemical and
physical conditions associated with the occurrences of most genera. Although
dominance—related data for some genera were considerably modified, the
ranges were still quite wide.
The ranking schemes (Table 3 and 4) used for comparing the differences
between central tendencies of the various genera are important to illustrate
trends with potential application in lake water quality assessment. Many of
the genera followed consistent patterns, ranking them similarly for many of
the parameters. Shifts In conditions associated with dominance were often
consistent in direction. Scgnede6n 8, one of the most common genera encoun-
tered, had mean values calculated from total occurrence data which consis-
tently placed it mid-way down the ranked lists (Table 3). Conditions asso-
ciated with dominant occurrence of Scenedesn s on the other hand are charac-
terized by extremely high mean values for certain key parameters (TOTALP,
ORTHOP, KJEL, and CHLA) reflecting highly enriched conditions during times of
important Scenedesmus growth (Table 4). If these relationships, particularly
dominant occurrence trends, reflect conditions of competitive advantage for
52
-------
the genera, then the information may be used to evaluate or even predict
water quality.
Of considerable interest is the consistent relationship noted between
the occurrence of blue—green algae and low N/P ratios. The attainment of
high relative importance (dominance) among the blue-green genera represented
was invariably associated with very low N/P ratios. The competitive advantage
of nitrogen—limiting (low NIP) conditions to a nitrogen—fixing blue—green
algae seems obvious. What is far less clear Is the similar affinity of the
low N/P waters for the non—nitrogen-fixers. Certainly these waters are, for
the most part, highly enriched with phosphorus. The facility of some of the
blue-greens for luxury uptake of phosphorus under such enriched conditions
may provide a partial clue. It should be noted that low N/P ratios (Table 5)
were invariably associated with higher KJEL values and, with a notable excep-
tion (Anabaena), with average or lower NH3. Therefore organic nitrogen
(KJEL—NH3) Is high with low N/P ratios. A possible key to the nitrogen nutri-
tion of the blue-greens (particularly the non—nitrogen-fixers) may indeed lie
in the organic nitrogen component either through direct assimilation by the
blue-greens (see Williams, 1975) or as a source for conversion by the bacteria
often intimately associated with blue-green colonies and filaments.
To this point in the report, genera have been discussed on an individual
basis. In nature, It is an exceedingly rare event to find just one species
or genus forming a community. As such, biological prediction and/or inter-
pretation of water quality should not be based upon the presence of one taxa
but should instead consider the community of organisms.
An effort is being undertaken to develop and test several phytoplankton
water quality indices using mean parameter values calculated for the dominant
occurrences of each genus. Fundamental to the application of each index is
the consideration of community structure. Indices have been developed from
our data using the following key parameters: TOTALP, KJEL, C LA, SECCh’I, and
cell count (CONC). Multivariate and single parameter indices are being
tested. The Indices of our own development, and some 28 others (both biolog-
ical and physical), presently in common use, are being tested for their abil-
ity to rank lakes according to trophic state.
TOTALP and CHLA were chosen as standards for comparison purposes since
total phosphorus Is considered to be the most important nutrient associated
with eutrophication in freshwaters, and chlorophyll a, the most reliable
indicator of eutrophic biological response. The Spearman rank correlation
coefficient (rs) was calculated for each index-standard combination. The
correlation coefficient is then used to rate the effectiveness of each index
in predicting the reference standard ranking.
The preliminary results are encouraging. The phytoplankton Indices have
correlation coefficients as high as 0.72 against the TOTALP standard and 0.79
against the CHLA standard (0.79 was the best correlation achieved against
the CHLA standard). Two well known indices, Nygaard’s trophic state (Nygaard,
1949) and Palmer’s organic pollution indices (Palmer, 1969) did not fair as
well, since the highest correlation for the series of indices against stand-
ard was 0.55. A report, soon to be published in this series, will evaluate
53
-------
the study results, and con iient further on the application and usefulness of
phytoplankton indices of water quality calculated at the genus level.
54
-------
REFERENCES
Findenegg, I. 1943. Untersuchungen öber die 5ko1ogie und die
produktionsverh 1tnisS des planktons in kärntner Seengeblete.
mt. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 43:368—429.
Fogg, C. E., W. D. P. Stewart 1 P. Fay, and A. E. Walsby. 1973.
The Blue—Green Algae. Academic Press, New York, N.Y. 459 pp.
Forest, H. S. 1954. Handbook of algae. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 467 pp.
Hem, S. C., ‘I. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, W. 0. Taylor,
and L. R. Williams. 1978a. Phytoplankton water quality
relationships In U. S. lakes. Part III: Genera Dactylococcopsis
through Gyros i gma. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 707. vii + 85 pp.
Lambou, V. W., F. A. Morris, 1. K. Morris, W. 0. Taylor, L. R. Williams,
and S. C. Hem. 1978. Phytoplankton water quality relationships in
U. S. lakes. Part IV: Genera H tzschia through Pterornonaa.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Eutrophication
Survey Working Paper No. 708. vii + 105 pp.
Lowe, R. L. 1974. Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of
freshwater diatoms. EPA—670/4-74—005. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 334 pp.
Morris, M. K., W. D. Taylor, L. R. Williams, S. C. Hem, V. W. Lambou, and
F. A. Morris. 1978. Phytoplankton water quality relationships in
U. S. lakes. Part V: Genera Quadri u a through Zygnema.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Eutrophication
Survey Working Paper No. 709. vii + 105 pp.
Hem, S. C., W. D. Taylor, L. R. Williams, V. W. Lambou, M. K. Morris,
F. A. Morris, and J.. W. Hilgert. 1978b. Distribution and importance
of phytoplankton in the Atchfalaya Basin. EPA-600/3-78-O0l.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 194 pp.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1967.
to lake biology and
New York. 1,115 pp.
A treatise on limnology. II.
the limnoplankton. John Wiley
Introduction
and Sons, Inc.,
55
-------
Naumann, E. 1919. Nagra synpunkter angaende planktons okolgi.
Med sarskild Hansyn till fytoplankton. Svensk. bot. Tidskr.
13:129—158.
Palmer, C. M. 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating
organic pollution. 3. Phycol. 5:78—82.
Pearsall, W. H. 1932. Phytoplankton in the English Lakes. II.
The composition of the Phytoplankton in relation to dissolved
substances. J. Ecol. 20:241-262.
Prescott, G. W. 1962. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area.
2nd Ed. tim. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 977 pp.
Prescott, G. W., H. T. Croasdale, and W. C. Vinyard. 1977. A
synopsis of North American Desmids. Part II. Desmidiaceae:
Placodermae. Section 2. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, Nebraska. 411 pp.
Rawson, D. S. 1956. Algal indicators of trophic lake types.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 1:18—25.
Reimer, C. W. 1965. Diatoms and their physico-chemical environment.
In: Biological Problems in Water Pollution (3rd seminar, 1962),
C. M. Tarzwell (ed.). U. S. Public Health Service publication
No. 999—WP-25. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 19—28.
Rodhe, W. 1948. Environmental requirements of freshwater plankton
algae. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 10(1):l—149.
Smith, G. M. 1950. The fresh—water algae of the United States.
(2nd ed.). McGraw—Hill Book Company, New York. 719 pp.
Soeder, C. J., and E. Stengel. 1974. Physico—chemical factors
affecting metabolism and growth rate. In: Algal Physiology
and Biochemistry. W. D. P. Stewart (edT. Botanical Monographs,
Volume 10. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.
pp. 714-740.
Stewart, W. D. P. 1971. Physiological studies on nitrogen—fixing
blue—algae. Plant and Soil, Special Volume (1971) pp. 377-391.
Taylor, W. 0., L. R. Williams, S. C. Hem, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris,
and M. K. Morris. 1978. Phytoplankton water quality relation-
ships in Ii. S. lakes. Part I: Methods, rationale, and data
limitations. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National
Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 705. vii + 68 pp.
Taylor, W. D. (in press). Freshwater algae of the Rae Lakes Basin,
Kings Canyon National Park. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
56
-------
Tiffany, L. H. and M. E. Britton. 1952. The algae of Illinois.
Hafner Publishing Company, New York. 407 pp.
Weber, C. I. 1966. A guide to the common diatoms at Water Pollution
Surveillance Systems Stations. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 98 pp.
Weber, C. I. 1971 (unpublIshed). The relationship between water quality
and diatom distribution. Presented at the S mposium “Plankton
Organisms as Indicators of their Environment”, Sponsored by the
American Microscopic Society and held at the 22nd annual Meeting
of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, August 30 - September 3. 32 pp.
Williams, L. R. 1975. HeteroinhibitiOn as a factor in Anabaena
f1 ,B-w ae waterbloom production. In: Proceedings; Blo-
stimulation — nutrient assessment workshop. EPA —660/3-75—034.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
pp. 275—317.
Williams, L. R., S. C. Hem. V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris,
and W. 0. Taylor. 1978. Phytoplankton water quality relationships
In U. S. lakes. Part II: Genera Ac thoephaera through
Cy8todin’z.wfl. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National
Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 706. vii + 119 pp.
57
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of reports containing all phytoplankton data
collected in 1973 which was used in the series
“Phytoplankton Water Quality Relationships in U.S. Lakes.’
Corresponding U.S. EPA NES Working Paper (WP) numbers in parentheses.
Hem, S. C., J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, 14. K. Morris, L. R.
Williams, W. D. Taylor, and F. A. Hiatt. 1977. Distribution of
PhytopIankton in South Carolina Lakes. EPA—60013—77—102, Ecological
Research Series. v + 64 pp. (WP No. 690)
Hem, S. C., J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M.
L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, and F. A. Hiatt. 1978.
of Phytoplankton in Delaware Lakes. EPA—600/3—78-027,
Research Series. V + 33 pp. (WP No. 678)
Hiatt, F. A., S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris,
M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, and W. D. Taylor. 1977. Distribution
of Algae in Pennsylvania. U.S. EPA National Eutrophication Survey
Working Paper No. 689. iv + 74 pp.
Hiatt, F. A., S. C. I 1 ern, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, M. K.
Morris, L. R. Williams, and W. D. Taylor. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in Tennessee Lakes. EPA—600178-016, Ecological Research
Series. v + 40 pp. (WP No. 692)
Hilgert, J. W., V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris,
L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, and S. C. Hem. 1977.
Distribution of Phytoplankton in Virginia Lakes. EPA—600/3—77—100,
Ecological Research Series. v + 40 pp. (WP No. 692)
K. Morris,
Distribution
Ecological
Hilgert, J. W., V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, 14. K. Morris, L. R. Williams,
W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, and S. C. Hem. 1978. Distribution of
phytoplankton in Ohio Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—0l5, Ecological Research
Series. V + 94 pp. (WP No. 688)
Lambou, V. W., F. A. Morris, R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams,
W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem, and J. W. Hilgert. 1977.
Distribution of Phytoplanktan in Maryland Lakes. EPA—600/3—77—124,
Ecological Research Series. v + 24 pp. (WP No. 684)
58
-------
Lambou, V. W., F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor,
F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem, and J. W. Hilgert. 1977. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in West Virginia Lakes. EPA—600/3-77-103, Ecological
Research Series. v + 21 pp. (WP No. 693)
Morris, F. A., M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, W. D. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt,
S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert, and V. W. Lambou. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in Indiana Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—078, Ecological Research
Series. v + 70 pp. (WP No. 682)
Morris, F. A., M. K. Morris, L. R. Williams, W. 0. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt,
S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert, and V. W. Lambou. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in Georgia Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—C1l, Ecological Research
Series. v + 63 pp. (WP No. 680)
Morris, M. K., L. R. Williams, W. 0. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem,
J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, and F. A. Morris. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in Illinois Lakes. EPA—600/3—78-050, Ecological Research
Series. v + 128 pp. (WP No. 681)
Morris, M. K., L. R. Williams, W. 0. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem,
J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, and F. A. Morris. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in North Carolina Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—051, Ecological
Research Series. v + 73 pp. (WP No. 687)
Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou,
F. A. Morris, R. W. Thomas, M. K. Morris, and L. R. Williams. 1977.
Distribution of Phytoplankton in Alabama Lakes. EPA-600/3—77-082,
Ecological Research Series. v + 51 pp. (WP No. 677)
Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou,
F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, and L. R. Williams. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in Florida Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—085, Ecological Research
Series. v + 112 pp. (WP No. 679)
Taylor, W. D., F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou,
F. A. Morris, M. K. Morris, and L. R. Williams. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton in Kentucky Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—0l3, Ecological Research
Series. v + 28 pp. (WP No. 683)
Williams, L. R., W. 0. Taylor, F. A. Hiatt, S. C. Hem, J. W. Hilgert,
V. W. Lambou, F. A. Morris, R. W. Thomas, and M. K. Morris. 1977.
Distribution of Phytoplankton In Mississippi Lakes. EPA-600/3—77—101,
Ecological Research Series. v + 29 pp. (WP No. 685)
Williams, L. R., F. A. Morris, J. W. Hilgert, V. W. Lambou, F. A. Hiatt,
W. D. Taylor, M. K. Morris, and S. C. Hem. 1978. Distribution of
Phytoplankton In New Jersey Lakes. EPA—600/3—78—0l4, Ecological
Research Series. v + 59 pp. (WP No. 686)
59
-------
APPENDIX A
A—i. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to total phosphorus
levels.
A—2. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to total Kjeldahl
nitrogen levels.
A—3. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to chlorophyll a
levels.
A—4. Occurrence of-57 phytoplankton genera as related to N/P ratio values.
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.
Using total phosphorus (Appendix A—i) as an example, the various terms,
symbols and layout are defined as follows. The range, mean, and twice the
STDV are plotted against a logarithmic scale for dominance (DOM), non-domi-
nance (NONDOM) and non-occurrence (NONOCC) categories. The symbol (+) fol-
lowing scale-numerals locates the proper position of each value. The range
limits are delineated in most cases with a vertical bar. An “X” indicates
the mean value for the respective occurrence categories, while HMIS is the
mean value for all occurrences of the genus. US, gives the positions of 2
standard deviations on either side of the mean. Values of S below zero were
omitted. Occasionally S fell on the position of the vertical bar designating
the range limit in which case S replaced the bar. Inii ediately following the
genus name is the mean occurrence parameter value (M) in g/l. For the
remaining categories, DOM, NONDOM, and NONOCC, the mean parameter value (X)
in g/l is given, followed in parentheses by the number of occurrence values
or, in the case of NONOCC, the number of non-occurrence values in the cate-
gory.
60
-------
A—i. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
total phosphorus levels.
ACR. ’.AIIThCS 74
DON Z9( 6> ___________ __________
008 76(138) ______________ ______________ _______________
‘.08 0CC 132(598)
4cr zoksm’x 287
Dcx 36( 2) ______________________ ____________ _______
O$ DON 2911 93) ______________ ________________
O8 0CC 113(647)
AMZAUA 127 __________ _____
DON 1831 33) ____________ _________
!.ON DON 121(322) _______________ ______________
1.08 0CC 147(387)
A5A8ALI,OPSDS 238
108 70( 7) _________
‘.0 ’, D a t 2331 76) ________ _______________
‘.00 0CC 125(639)
4.KISTR000SNUS 129
Dat 75( 9) _____________ _________
‘.08 DC)t 131(246) ______________ ________
‘406 0CC 142(487>
4PLZ08ENOPI 103 __________
308 141( 40) ________ ________
.09 DON 87(113) ______________ _______
‘.06 DCC 146(389)
A TCR10N0LU 56
DON 36( 36)
‘.08 DON 61(162) ____________________ ________ ______
‘.0’ 0CC 167(94 -1.)
ATIIJN 62
DON 1401 2)
‘:08 008 61(156)
.C”I 0CC ( 0)
çHL.4 )TDO 1 IONAS 199 _________________ _______
Dat 3471 4) __________
‘O Il DON 180(136) ______ _________
‘.07 1 CCC 123(602)
CIJLO&OCONIUN 271
0 0 8 C 0)
‘.418 0416 2111 76) ________ _________
‘1011 0CC 122(666)
‘J4P0UCOC US 191
oat 16]( 19) ___________
.OM DOlt 194(160) _______
1 ’4J8 0CC 120(863)
Ct0ST!PZ 8 136
Dat 20( 4) _________________________
‘108 006 138(233) ________________
lION CCC 128(305)
ç CcoNCI5 112
Dcx ( 0) _______________________ __________
‘408 0044 112(115) _______________
908 0CC 142(627)
r ,QEL .A5T8IJfl 142
Dat 601 6) ____________ _____________
‘408 DON 144(280) _____________________________
7105 0CC 134(436)
GoacsrMAI.&0W6 93 _________
0074 841 6) ________________ ____________
1.06 DOlt 97( 77) _____________
‘.06 DCC 143(639)
c05t ’ .ALt N 123
o i 11.1 3) ____________________________ ____________
‘1014 0074 126(232) _______________
908 0CC 143(507)
CRUCICE’11A 133 ___________________________________
DON 3611 2) ______________
“ON 208 131(240) ___________________________
1.06 0CC 139(300)
10+ 100+
It
S I———— ————S
1000+ 100004’
— z s
I
N
S I—z—I S
I I S I
I— S I
I—
N
———— 0— S I
x- S I
I— 0 —5———— I
It
I—Z1 S
I— I
I —— 0- — 5-
K
I 0— SI
S - (
I
0- S ——I
I-
.4
K-——-- -s ——I
I ———— ——-— —X— S
I —1- -5————— I
It
-—-—-X —S—I
I
I——— - x—_-- ———3— ——I
‘I
I — — —x———I S
—X————————S—————— I
N
I—— — ‘C —IS
— —i-
l—-— ——I
It
I——
I — — x_ ——————5
It
I—— — I——SI
I - —_—x - —s—I
I — 5———-- —
N
0—I $
I-
I x s—I
I— — —I S— I
N
I I S —I
I— — —E— S — I
71
S
—__s ..._—————_I
I $ —I
I
N
I —
—— —- ——--- $ —I
I—
I — — x— 5— I
x
I—s—I S
I I
s —I
N
I— s—I S
I———————— —— S I
I——— — 0— — — -- —I
61
-------
1004’
10004 100004
DICTIOSPBALRLUI I 197
Doll 18( I)
1408 DON 198(683)
‘4014 0CC 111(398)
51808 15014 61
Doll 27( 31)
‘4014 DON 66(190)
6014 0CC 170(521)
EbASTRUN 99
o a t I 0)
oN DON 89( 71)
6011 0CC 163(663)
CUCLZ8A 153
DON 318( 8)
NON DON 130(400)
lION 0CC 117(334)
rp . tLARLA 82
0044 64( ‘3)
DON X I I 87(170)
‘4014 0CC 180(927)
GI.E.’ 100U4 1U)4 113
8( 6)
‘4014 DON 117(107)
‘408 0CC 141(631)
C0L8N 1NLA 245
DON 613( 2)
‘.014 DON 239(124)
‘.0’4 DCC 619(616)
C0 14PH0UC ’A 91
0044 ICC 1)
‘.ON 0041 92( 76)
‘.0’. 0CC 163(665)
GYM2 .ODL61014 101
NC 2)
‘.011 0071 103( 89)
‘7011 0CC 1t.2(695)
CYROSICIIA 93
o at ( 0)
0041 95( 80)
‘4014 DCC 162(662)
KIPUI6CR )DI.L.A 186
DON 139( 8)
DON 186(195)
1.08 DCC 126(580)
I_kCCRHEUILA 243
UtIM ( 0)
‘Cr4 0048 243( 86)
‘408 0CC 126(698)
.4
.5-
CRTP’TONONAS 116
DON u SC 72)
‘.1 )9 00)4 116(321)
1407. 0CC 161(309)
CYCLOTEIJ.A 126
DON 180( 83)
‘tON 0044 112(397)
‘4014 0CC 134(302)
CY)455LL6 91
0 fll ( 0)
‘.014 00 )4 91(169)
9014 DCC 151(337)
DACTThOCOCCOPSIS 144.
Doll USC 58)
‘4014 DOll 161(228)
‘4011 0CC 120(456)
I. -—-
I— 5 —5—————
71
5- ———s——-I
I— 5— —.-s— —I
‘ l
I- S
S —s
I——-
‘4
I—— x———————— C—I
I—— 14———— s———————I
I — x —S
N
I
1— 9— I
14——— 5— —I
I—
N
I—— - —s—I
I ——Z ——5 I
I S —s —l
H
I——— 1— —— — (
I 1 5- I
N
I S S
I x———S I
I —I S -,
N
I I S—I
I x——————5 I
I — S - —s I
N
(—S——I S
I —x s—I
5— S —I
48
I —— —Z———I S
— — -. ————x————————S——I
‘ I
I
I — —x -—-S—I
I———-- —
I_I——I S
I —X—— —S*I
I— ———— — — — — — — ————S— ———I
‘8
I X S— I
I— — — 5— —5————!
N
—SI
—s——I
I —-— — —-— — 5—— ——I
N
I —————i — S I
I— — . — — ———————— ——S—
100004
62
-------
1+
lOO4
1000+ I0 0 00P
LYNCOTA 110
DON 99( 99)
SO I l DON 116(187)
1:08 0CC 154(456)
AL.CHONAS 85
DON 87( 6)
‘.01. DON 85(156)
‘.08 0CC 152(580)
949.0549.4 110
D Olt 94(254)
100 DON 122(352)
O8 DCC 236(142)
‘4ERIS200PEDLA 116
oat 183( 22)
900 DON 176(306)
oOO CCC 106(414)
tlcp.oCysns 167
Don 1481 53)
609 DON 110(292)
NON 0CC 111(391)
OAVDCCtA 94
DON 14( 6)
1.09 0031 94(385)
809 CCC 186(351)
OIIZSCHLA 116
DC X 921 29)
400 Doll L18(245)
‘.09 0CC L59(368)
OOCTSTIS 129
Dolt 381 5)
‘.08 Dolt 132(176)
108 CCC 140(561)
OSCILLATO9IA 136
DON 125(105)
SOIl DON 139(322)
1108 CCC 140(315)
PA6DOOINA 138
o at C 0)
‘109 5181 138(115)
:011 CCC 137(627)
PFDLASTRUN 166
D at C 0)
‘.08 5014 146(332)
NuN 0CC 114(410)
P2* 1 01 81 1 04 66
oat 16( 6)
608 Doll 68(145)
1.08 DCC 156(589)
7PACUS 192
oat 2523C 2)
IOM Dolt 173(250)
809 0CC 109(490)
P .APIIDD1OPSIS 212
Don 106( 45)
‘.09 2(3 ! 248(132)
1.011 0CC 114(563)
SCC1.W4SIIUS 135
0031 131( 50)
‘lOl l DON 114(502)
‘10 14 0CC 142(190)
SQIROC2RIA 223
Don 171 2)
808 DOlt 230(176)
‘109 CCC 109(564)
STAUT4ASTUWI 91
Doll DC 1)
‘.031 DOlt 91(269)
8011 0CC 163(472)
H
I —. - — I———— —— S I
N
I— —z —Is
S I
1——-—--—
I 4 5 I
N
I I S I
4— 5 —I
I
I 1— S —I
N
I— I S—I
i S I
I- I — S I
14
f—
I
I I -s —l
I - I —s I
It
—I—I S
4- 5— I
I x -s —I
I ,
I
8— —S——————I
1——-—— ————i— —s——————I
It
I I—I 5
I-
I
11
I—- x- 5—I
I— 4 —s —I
— -
I——
H
I—— ——— —X S —I
— —---———X S
9
———4- S I
I I S
It
I X— -5— I
--—-—-—4 ——— 5—— —I
N
$
‘----5--—— 7_I
I— .- ——
I—
‘1
—3—————— 1
I
N
4
— 5— —I
——s———————I
I-—
—
—----—————‘————
S
I—I—I
N
S
I—
S— .)
I—
I-
I
N
4—
4
S I
I———
I
———-——
S I
5————-— —I
63
-------
10+ 100+
1000. 10000+
STCPPIANODISCUS 112
D i hoC 13)
901 0CM 111(202)
.0N 0CC 126(215)
SLR1R LA 135
0( 0)
0CM 135( 98)
“09 0CC 137(644)
SYNED A 98
0CM 82( 48)
‘ lO S 0CM 100(413)
‘.09 0CC 202(281)
rCH .01 IIA$ 118
0014 97( 4)
808 DC I I 118(224)
0$ CCC 146014)
TRCURARLA 146
DON C 0)
408 DON 146( 94)
‘109 0CC 136(648)
I—
I—
I ————-—-——X
‘I
‘. 88 LAR LA
809 DON
h09 0CC
TET AEDR09
2011
‘109 0014
909 0CC
42
22( 20)
46(102)
136(620)
165
19( 5)
161(318)
116(419)
I-
—s———————I
‘I
s——I
I
—
I
I.
x
x————————s I
I
•1
X—
S—I
8—
I—
—8— ———5-
S
I
I—I—IS
14
8— —S ——I
8———————————s--—.-—————————I
H
k—I—IS
——X S I
I ————S ——-——I
14
8- S
8—— S—— —— ——— ——— — — 1
100+ 1000+
I—
I
S
I
I
I
10+
10000+
64
-------
A—2. Occurrence of 57 phytoplaflktOfl genera as related to
total Kjeldahl nitrogen levels.
1000. 10000+
ACHNAZITNLS $18
DON 734( 6) ___________
NON DON 822(138) ________________ ______________
NON 0CC 1091(598)
AcNLNASflU1I 1523
DON 59’.( 2) _______
NON DON 1543( 93) __________________ ________________
NON DC C 927(647)
AKkBACIIA 1138 _________
DON 1013( 33) ________________ _______
NON DON 1(5 1(322)
NON 0CC 956(387)
ANABAEZ4OPSIS 1697
DON 1393( 7) ____________
NON DON 1125( 76) __________________
NON 0CC 960(639)
% 1IKNSTRODNSMUS 1081
D 4 373( 9) ________________ ________________
‘108 DON 1)06(246) _________ _______________
lION 0CC 1020(437)
A1UA14IZ0NE1 N 1175 ________________ ______
DON 1437( 40)
NON DON 1082(113)
NON 0CC 1009(389)
AStULO 1INLLA 627
Da t 491( 36) _______
NON 00 )1 657(162) ___________
806 0CC 1197(344)
c AT1WI 831
D4 I 1046( 2) _______
108 D 1 648(136) ______ _____________
NON CCC 1095(58’.)
CHLAI(TDaWNAN 1232 ______________
DON 3143( 4)
NON DON 1176(136) ________________ ______________
l iON 0CC 999(602)
CIfl.OROGONIUII 1392
DON C 0) __________
NON DON 1592( 16) _________________ _________________
NON CCC 980(666)
cNROOCOCC1JS 1329 ________________
DC I I 1630( 19) ________ __________
NON DON 1517(160) _________________ ___________________
NON UCC 688(56])
CI_OStElltm 1279
Oat 698( 4) ________________
‘.oi. DOn 1289(233) ____________________
lION 0CC 932(505)
COCCONENS 958
Da N ( 0) ________________________
NON DON 956(113) _______ _______________
808 0CC 1039(627)
CCCLAS1ION 1207 _______ _______
oat 1209( 6) ________________ ____________
‘.014 DON 1207(280) __________________________ __________________
. 40 . 4 0CC 940(496)
cONLQSPNAERLWI 1146 _________________ ________
Dat 888C 6) _________________
NON DON L166( 77) _________________________ _________________
NON DCC 1030(639)
coS?U.21W4 1233
Dolt 586( 3) _________________________________ _________________
NON DON 1298(232) _________________________ ___________________
NON 0CC 931(501)
CRI1UCENIA 1133 ____________________ _______
Oat 10’.8( 2) ___________________________ _______________
NON 0014 1156(240) __________________
NON 0CC 969(600)
100+
S
S
I
N— S I
14
I—N———I S
N— S —I
I
$ I
I—
——N
-
N
1—— $ I
)
I
8—•—— 3— I
—•—Z— S —I
)
I
I
N
i—I S
I— S—I
I S I
It
I
I
I
I
I
x —s I
N—— S I
N
N S —I
I
I
I—
I-- S————I
N— s I
II
— I S—I
Z——— S I
I S —I
I I
N —I S
N S I
N—— S —‘
I
I
I
)_
I—
I—
I
II
I—— N- —I
—I— —S—I
N— S I
9
I
I— - 5—I
I S I
I——
I
I—
N
— -———N—— s—I
N— —s
I
I—
I
I
I
I—
N
N—I S
I
I
I
I-
4
I S ————1
I —S I
I I
IS
S
I
I____——I
—N 5— —I
N 5———-—— I
I
)
.4
I IS
N- S
I
I—
N S I
I I
S
I
—I—I
x S I
S
I
I
I
K
I— I S
5— I
I
I
N—
S
I
N
S
65
-------
100.
1000+
10000+
fpT01 NAS 1001
DON 793( 72)
NON 30) 1 1046(321)
80)1 0CC (090(349)
CICU7TELLA 1018
DO I 10S3( 83)
,Ob 70)1 10(0(337)
L )8 0CC 1079(302)
CThBZLLA 807
DaO ( 0)
NON 00)8 807(169)
NON XC 1112(373)
OACrTIOCOCCO7SZS 1141
D0)1 IO41( 38)
‘.0)1 00 ) 1 1166(228)
NUN 0CC 981(436)
DLCT 0SPHAZRI1J0I 1398
00)8 948( 7)
110)1 DUll 1400(183)
‘40)1 0CC 926(358)
DIqOIRTOM 707
DON 4( 31)
NON DON 726(190)
NON DCC 1185(521)
OUAS7RIIN 930
DON C 0)
‘ION DUO 930( 77)
NON 0CC 1056(665)
OUG )O2IA 1109
Dat 14.81( 8)
‘ION DON 1102(400)
‘ION 0CC 962(334)
FRACLLA&IA 980
oat 843( 43)
80)4 7018 10)9(170)
‘40 ) 1 0CC 1064(527)
GLt7.OOI IIUI )1 1)33
Dot 403( 4)
4.08 DON 1160(107)
80)1 0CC 1027(631)
COLZNKINIA ISIS
DON 1040( 2)
‘ION 00)1 1523(124)
lION 0CC 946(616)
CU1PHON (A 845
DUO 181( 1)
‘405 00 ) 1 846( 76)
30)1 0CC 1066(665)
C’CNNODZIIU ) 1 1032
DON 256( 2)
3018 00)1 )E)50( 85)
NON 0CC L0’.t.(63 5)
CYROSIQIA 923
DOOt ( 0)
‘108 DON 923( 80)
‘.0)1 CCC 1051(662)
018C)ERLELI—4 1344
DON 755( 8)
‘.0)1 DON 1374( 155)
‘40)8 CCC 958(380)
LAGEMEINXA 17)7
DON C 0)
‘4044 lOll 1717( 84)
NON 0CC 937(638)
100+
I
0
it
5— —I
S — ———I
I—
I S —I
I—
!
I I
x S —I
I S I
I
St
I S I
I
—0 S I
I-
—x S I
N
I
—1 S I
1————-——
I
I—
x
0 S —I
‘ I
— 5—I
I S I
1 —3 I
I
I
It
I-
X —S—— — — — —I
—0————— —s I
I
N
I— Is
I— — —
I
I— S
0— ——S —I
‘ I
I S
0- —S I
—S
I
I
I —
N
I
I
I
x—I S
I S-—I
I— —S I
I
S
8
(—0——I S
0 5 I
I S—
I—
)
I
‘1
I
z —3———— ,
0— 5— I
I I
S
I—I—I 3
—x— -5—————,
I
I——
0— —S— — I
I I
I
I-— ——
—
I S—I
1 —5——
I
I—
I
41
0—— 5
—I
—L — 5—— —I
N
—x S I
10000.
66
-------
1004
1000+
10000+
.r.C&yA (202
D’2t 14881 99)
sc,, .3a1 1051(187)
.0. DCC 943(456)
. .L’PU8AS 922
J,tt 442( 6)
•.o.. 3u 933(156)
SOS 0cC 1016(580)
.0S(RA 999
774(254)
.0. 009 1162(332)
%I)S DCC 1228(142)
1E.R15XOP .DX.A 1364
DON 1387( 22)
.OS 2014 1362(306)
‘(09 0CC 189(414)
91CROCTSTLS 1366
0014 1457( 53)
SON 0CM 1350(292)
.ON DCC 761(397)
SAc’CCUIA 921
DON 690( 6)
.OU DON 928(385)
‘.09 0CC 1179(351)
StTZScN!A 9
DON 883( 29)
SON DON 983(343)
‘.05 DCC 1112(368)
•OCTStIS 962
DON 1098( 5)
•.(J9 0018 938(126)
505 CCC 934(361)
OSCILLAIO$LA 1082
0014 1356(105)
50$ DON 992(322)
sO s 0CC 99 1(3L3)
PA DUR1NA 630
DON ( 0)
501 1 DON 830(113)
U 14 0CC 1082(627)
(‘CD(AST9UM 1307
DON ( 0)
SON DON 1307(332)
1CM 0CC 029(610)
PUID1MIUN 829
DON 595( 6)
NON DOll 838(148)
‘ (U N (i SO (099(588)
PHM.U5 307
( ( (It 4 1(494 2)
SON DOlt 1285(250)
‘(0(1 CCC 901(490)
R.APHIDIOPSIS 1385
DON 1073( 45)
.01 DON 1492(132)
‘(ON 0CC 936(568)
SCCNEDESHDS 1123
1011 1326( SO)
‘ ( ( ii. 0011 1003(502)
sON 0CC 8051)90)
SQ?000UZA 1526
DON 552( 2)
‘(ON 70)4 1837(174)
509 DCC 890(564)
STAIIRAST! 104 1104
0019 750C 1)
3ON 1105(269)
800 0CC 1008(472)
S——I
I
C—
5— ——I
I —— 5
I
‘4
C— —— —0
—1 —5- —I
4-—————— S
——
11
I S I
I S I
I S I
I
I
N
C S—I
S I
)
S I
I
C
I
I
-
N
C S I
C S I
K S —I
It
i——I S
z- s
s—-———-————I
I
I
I
—
I
I
I-
‘ t
1 5— I
s —I
-s
11
I C— I S
C————— S I
I
—
0— ———-—--.S I
1
I —
11
C- —S —t
I- — S —I
x— S I
N
I——
I—
1———-—-- —s I
X—.——S —I
N
I
I
I
I—
I
I
—z — s —I
C-— S -
t O
4— —s
S —s —1
I— S I
H
S —x——I S
I- -— ————S I
C —————5—— I
I
I I
— x S I
I—
I —s I
—I———— —s
I
I
I
I
N
z s—I
-—1 ——5— I
1 S———--- I
N
S
I
I—I—) S
I— S —I
S I
I—
N
C
I
—x 5— — l
I
—
67
-------
100+
1000+
) 0 0 00+
STEPRA.ODZSCLS t016
30i1 11l2( 73)
).0 . 0019 981(202)
0!l t CC 1059(467)
SURLR LLA 996
0011 ( 3)
‘.09 D0 9 996( 98)
‘ON 0CC 1030(664)
SY 0RA 970
G tE 797( 48)
‘.00 909 879(413)
• 0tI 0CC 1326(281)
TA8ELLARIA 581
2(81 4S5( 20)
1409 009 606(102)
ros 0CC 1134(620)
TEThA R014 1326
009 ]84( 5)
‘.05 0014 1341(318)
NON 0CC 923(419)
3 AC8EI.4jN09AS 1007
CI.I, 867( 4)
‘.08 5014 1009(224)
‘.041 0CC 1059(516)
TREtSA8IA 1300
41044 ( 0)
.ON 9044 1300( 94)
80 . 0CC 1006(648)
100+
I—
1—
—5— I
I
I——
—S.————— —I
N
I—
—————X————-
S —I
I
0
—S————————. .—I
I
I
74
—x
X—
S I
I
I
I
—
71
S.——,
S I
I
S ———I
)
I
— 0- 5—
I—
I——
I—
I
0—
19
IS
— 0—
0
s—— 1
S ——————I
I
‘ 9
9——I S
I
I
I
—0
S I
—S I
I—
• 1
I
S I
S
I 9 5
1000.
10000+
68
-------
A—3. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
chlorophyll a levels.
AOINAZ4TNES 18.3
3’ t 1t .5( 6) 5 _________
NON DON 18.8(138) _________ ________________ ________________
.0N 0CC 28(397)
ACX!NAStSU )4 52.3
D(P( 3.3( 2) _____________
Soli oat 33.3( 93) _________________ ___________
308 0CC 22.4(646)
A14AJALIIA 28.3 _____________
DON 19.7( 33) ______________ ______________
lION DON 29.4(323) ________________
1 10$ 0CC 21.1(385)
.UAL140P515 50.7 __________
Q( 32.9( 7) ____________
100 DON 32.3( 76) _________________ _________________
‘.00 0CC 23. 1(638) —
A.K1StP0D U8 30.7 _____________
DON 17.9( 9) _________________
ION DON 31.2(243) _________________ _______________
SON 0CC 23.8(68?)
APHAZI1.ZONI? 8ON 30.3 ______________
Oat 37.6( 11) _______________
0N DON 27.6(1)3) _________________ _________
809 0CC 23.1(387)
AStTJLON U.A 13.4 __________
DON 9.6( 33) ___________ _________
1.08 DON 14.2(163) __________
)0N 0CC 30.9(543)
CEP.ATIIDt 16.6
at 3.29 2) ___________
10$ DON 16.7(156) _____________________ _________________
‘.021 0CC 28.3(383)
ILTDONOI4S 33. 1 _________
oat 55.1( 4) ______________ ______
‘ IOU DON 32.3(136) ______________
1.08 0CC 24.6(601)
CHWPOCOIIIUN 54.6
DUn (0) __
‘.08 0001 34.6( 76) __________ ___________
2408 0CC 22.9(663)
CR000COCCUS 42.6 _____________
DOt 46.4( 18) _________________ _______
‘ON DOlt 41.99)60) ________________ ________________ _____________
1.08 0CC 21.0(362)
cLUSTI$1W4 32.9 __________
DON 19.8( 4) _______________
‘ION DOt 33.1(234) I’ ________________
11011 0CC 23(303)
COCCONULS 22.3
DON 9 0) ______ ______
.08 3001 22.3(113) _______
‘.08 DCC 26.9(626)
COC.ASTRWI 34.0 _______
oat 13.49 6) ________________
140$ 0001 34.4(261) I——— _________
1.0$ CCC 21.3(634)
rAc0s?0A LtD1 28.9
DOt 1t.1( 6) _______________________ _______________
21021 DON 30.29 18) ______________
1.08 XC 25.8(637)
CO tA31UN 33.0
DON 9.9( 3) _____________
1.0$ DON 33.3(233) _________________
08 0CC 23(305)
C*l.CLGCNIA 31.0
00111 11.89 2) _________________ _______________
‘ .01 DON 31.2(210) _________________ ____________
•3 0CC 23.8(499)
14
100+
K
I —1—I
J— £ —s —l
. — —1 — 5—
(000+
S )—Z——I S
I—
I
I I
S
S
—I
I
I
I
N
I
— I
S —I
5—
I
I— ———-
I
i
1
x
K
S—
IS
1 4—I
3-
—1
—I
I-
1—
I
N
I- I
. — -—-— I 5—
I —
N
I— I—
S—I
I
x_-______
—s—————I
I—
I
S — —
—i
N
I — 5—I
—1- —5
— —I
——I
I———-
———— — —• — —
It
SI
I——--—----— —1—
—————s
S—I
————_—————— 1——
5—
It
I— 5— Is
I —1 —I
I.———
I— —————-— 1 I
It
I—.——.————-- —s —I
I ——------ I——- —S —I
It
—2—
—z———S———————-- I
I S I
N
IS
— 4— -s
— —! —s —I
I—
H
—.——s— I
—4———————
—5————--
4— S
$ ——I
— — ——— —— — — — — — —
It
I ——X-————I S
I- 1 —5 I
4— S— I
I
——L—I S
1- —5-----— I
I— —I— — ‘ I — —— —I
II
—s—— .—- .—I S
I — —x———.—-— S
I S —I
I
69
-------
1+
CR PT0NO4AS 25.3
D 4 16.5( it)
‘.09 3026 27.2(322) I ’
7.09 0CC 27.3(348)
CYCLOTELLA 25.9
0114 29.9( 83)
‘.05. 0081 25(358)
‘.09 0CC 26.6(300)
C ’ ”8EL1 . .A 19.8
0 114 ( 0)
‘.0 ’? 0054 19.8(170)
‘.07. 0CC 28.1(571)
)Ac1YLOCOCCOPSIS 29.4
0084 Z3( 58)
‘ os. DUn 30.5(229)
‘.09 uCC 26.2(454) I.
C7YOSPIIAEZLWI 39.8
D114 10.8< 1)
• ?0N D C I I 60(184)
‘.09 0CC 21.6(556)
0181085009 12.8
DON 8.1( 31)
S In. 0081 13.6(189)
109 0CC 31.8(521)
tS Ui5 19.3
0 1381 ( 0)
‘.09 009 18.3( 77)
‘.O ’l DCC 27.1(66’)
E5.CLDIA 30.0
DON 24.)( 8)
1.07. DON 30.1(800)
$03 DCC 21.6(33])
F9. 1LARTA 21.8
ON 17.S( 43)
909 DON 22.9(170)
5.09 0CC 28(256)
CL.ZN00 17.I ?24 29.9
DON 6.4< 4)
7.08 DON 30.8(107)
5.08 DCC 25.5(630)
COLENKINIA 50.2
DON 26.9< 2)
‘ .03 DON 50.6(124)
‘.03 0CC 21.3(615)
CONPN0h lA 18.4
3084 i.6( 1)
SOD 3081 16.3( 76)
‘ .09 0CC 27.1(664)
C ’0.o0L91U7t 30.6
0014 2.8< 2)
‘ION DON 31.3( 83)
509 DCC 23.6(654)
CY 0S101tA 22.7
00 14 C 0)
505. DOll 22.i( 79)
‘.09 DCC 26.6(662)
“LRCH5.(RLEU .A 37.8
0 ( 14 1.6( 8)
509 DON 39.2(133)
6051 DCC 22.9(379)
I.ACERHEIMCA 52.0
DI II ( 0)
109 DON 32.0( 84)
SUM DCC 22.9(637)
1+
1o0
. —
——5— 9— —I
I—
I ———s ——I
I
14
— 0-——-— S— —I
I—
—
I————
————— —————————s—————————I
I—
11
————0——————— —s —I
N
. —————-
I————————— —s
51
I
I— 5—— S ——I
I— —— — 9——
H
I I S— I
I
-5— —I
S I
I- — —5 —5-
I £
31
I
0—
81
I I
S—I
— I
S —I
I --0
I— I
N
I- 5—
S—I
I —z
I —— —I——
5
I I
I I ——I S
I- 5—
S —I
S I
I— I
N
5.—I
I- I
I 8—
S
S —I
—s I
it
I
I--———— 5——
—0————
5 I
n
x—I S
I————— —I—
—————I
I— ——-—— — 5
Pt
—5—
—s .———I
s——-———.-—-I
I-— —5-——————
1 1
I-——— ————1 —s
. ———S——————— — — — — — —I
S
I- ——.5 I
St
—x
s———I
S —I
104 100 .
70
-------
1+
10 ’
100+ 1000•4
Lr.CflA 23.2
0CM 29.3( 99)
.01 0014 17.5(181)
‘.01. 0CC 24.9(455) I-
‘ ALL0$J1AS 24.9
X l 6( 6) S
‘.011 30$ 25.6(156) I ’
‘06 0CC 26.6(379)
‘IIIOSLR.A 24.7
3014 18.1(255)
:011 2074 29.5(350)
OS CCC 523(142)
LBISHOPCDIA 37.1
0 ( 14 33.6( 22)
:,07. Don 37.4(306)
.0N 0CC 17.5(413)
MICRDC ’YSTIS 37.4
004 37.5( 53)
10% D0’I 37.4(292)
‘.0(4 CCC 16.3(395)
1.AVtCULA 23.3
Don 8.2( 6)
• 4 0CM 23.5(383)
‘ .011 CCC 29.4(352)
\LTZSQ4T3 26.7
004 26. SC 28)
2014 0074 26.7(344)
‘.014 CCC 25.7(369)
Q , 35r 5 37.0
304 14.0( 5)
\0. 001 37.6(177)
‘.0’. 0CC 22.7(559)
OSCTLL.ATO6LP. 23.9
oat 39.2(109)
1 .014 DOlt 25.4(323)
:107. 0CC 22.4(3)3)
pAN009t11A La
3 C M ( 0)
‘.014 0014 18(116)
1.07. 0CC 27.7(625)
PEDIASTIWI 37.0
2 04 ( 0)
.Ql 0DM 37.0(393)
‘.011 0CC 17.4(408)
PCRIDIIIW4 17.9
Dat a.4( 6)
1.011 Dat 18.3(148)
‘.07. 0CC 28.4(587)
A vS 37.3
3i t 22.3( 2)
..0N 3014 37.9(251)
11011 0CC 20.3(488)
PAZ14IDZOPSLS 43.6
oat 30.5( 45)
:014 0014 48(132)
‘ 401 CCC Z0.7(364)
C.E’,CDt WS 2 .6
Don 60.4( SO)
SOIt DON 26.5(303)
‘0 ( 4 0CC 16.2(188)
SCU?0 ELXA 52.8
304 4.1( 2)
‘.011 0011 83.4(177)
‘.011 0CC 17.7(562)
STM.RASUWI 27.0
DIM 19.6( 1)
‘.011 3074 27(270)
10(4 CCC 23.8(470)
I x S
I
H
I—x——-S
I———
S — I
I
H
x—
$ I
—S
I
I
I—
—
I
N
— — —I
S—I
——S I
—5- I
S
I
—I -
1
I
‘4
-—I
I
—
1
5— I
I—--——---—-
I-——
S I
I
I—
74
I IS
—
—S
I—
— —
—————S I
:-
‘4
I—
S—I
5— I
—s ——I
I———-—
I-
—
— 8 -
x——
I
‘4
8— IS
——S——I
I-——
—-———!
I— ——---
—I--
It
S
I————
-—— —I
5— I
I—————
I—
I
I--
—x
It
————1
—s
—s I
5——-
1————---
-
I—— ———
7 ’
I
I-
— I
—I
—5— I
S
I
I
I ’
—I S
I
S
S I
S
—1 ——I
S
—S I
I —5————— I
S —I
I— S —I
—5
I—
—
I— --—-—
—8—
It
—— —— — I
———— 1
I—
I
I
I
I—
I—
I
—
—
N
I
—
I-— -
It
—
I—
I—
—8—— S I
It
I—
I
I—I—I
$
——— —
I— S I
S I
—— —---——
I—
I
It
I
— —x—
8—
5— I
5
71
-------
1+
104
1004 000+
SI1471IAI.ODISCIJ! 29.6
DON 37( 73) I
‘014 DON 26.9(202)
0tI 0CC 26. 2(466)
5U RELLA 26.2
308 ( 0)
.014 DON 26.2( 98)
‘.0?. 0CC 26.2(64])
SYS RA 2!.)
0041 19( 46)
505 DON 21.6(614)
14011 XC 34.1(291)
rA8ELLARD. 10.5
DON 7.?( 20)
‘.014 DON 11.1(102)
1.09 DCC 29.3(619)
TrT9AEDRON 37.9
DOl l 14.29 5)
‘.094 0041 38.4(319)
? 014 DCC 17.L(4 17 )
:9 aL14Jl AS 26.7
OUt 6.09 4) S
14014 DON 17.1(224) I—
‘4014 0CC 26(5!))
UU5A14 !.A 46.1
DON 9 0)
‘.014 DON 44.1( 94)
‘lOll 0CC 23.6(1.4?)
N
I ———
14—
S
— .9
H
I
14——
S I
I —
—1 ’ .
S
I
I
I—
‘1
14 5
14
I
S I
I—— ——
—14
S
—I
I
‘ 4
I——
——I
I—
—14
N
s—I S
I—————
X—
14—
- — -S
S
I
14
I —x———l S
—14 S
14 S
It
I 1— S
I 1. I
72
-------
A—4. Occurrence of 57 phytoplankton genera as related to
N/P ratio values.
1+ 40+ 1000+
AO NANTNS
DON 24.3( 6) 1 —
‘.06 DON 11.7( 138) I — I— S I
‘.09 0CC 14.6(598) I — — —I
AcIhAS180N 6.9 II
$ I—Il S
DON 1L5( 2)
I I S I
‘.09 DON 8.7(
606 0CC 64.9(647) I I S I
A148418a 9.8 N
I—---— $ I
0(1 1 7.1( 33)
— —s
‘O DON 10.1(322)
I— —— I S I
1418 CCC 16.0(387)
IA IAIS .OPSIS 3.2 N
I— X—I S
oat 4.6( 7)
I —S—I
‘.09 DON 3. IC 76) I
‘.08 0CC 15.5(659) I- I $ — ——I
A2 11&ST800ESNUI 11.3 N
I S—I
lION 14.0( 9)
‘ON DON 11.3(246) 1 S I
‘SO?’ 0CC 65.6(487) I— x s I
APNAND 10 11C N 12.2 ‘4
DON 7.5( 40) I —
‘.09 DON 13.8(113) )———— —— — — — —— — S — —I
(4.6(389) —— ———— I —S —I
‘109
ASTI9LODCLL.A 16.9 6
36) I — — —— — I— S—I
DON
‘.08 DON 15.7(162) I —————— 1— —5 I
I S—•— ——I
409 DCC (3. ((544) I— ———
C09ATIIN 15.7 ii
I———X—I S
DON 4.3( 2)
‘.0’. DO l l 15.8(656) —S
.O1 0 (0 13.7(584) I——— —. ... — ——— ..—X— 5- I
c9u NTDO.MONA$ 9.1 11
x——I S
at 2.7( 4) I—
—— —x S I
‘ . j• 006 9.3(136)
— — — — — — — — — — 5—
0CC 15.3(602)
CIILORUGO6IUN 9.1 11
DON (
‘.06 DOll 9.7( 79) I— . ————X-——— - S I
‘.09 0CC 14.6(666) —S————— —I
4.UROOCOCCUS 6.0 9
D t 6.3( 19) I
—————X $ I
UM DON 6.2(660) I—
‘.06 CCC 66. 7( 5 _3) - I — ——r ’ S —I
10.3 - - N
C1 .oStflLW
DIJI 45.9( 6) 1— — — — -x——-———I S
I— — — S—— I
0N 0064 9.7(233) I—
9064 0CC 65.9(503) I— x— s——I
CUCcO 1 1EIS 10.9 64
(
lor DON 10.9(113) I—•-———
9066 0CC 14.7(627) I 1— — I
COCLASTRUN 11.3 I I
Dat 29.2( 6) I— —-x—I $
ION DON 10.9(280) I——— — —————-— I— S — I
506 0CC 15.8(456) 1———---— x _— S——I
C0aOSPNAL1IWI 42.2 64
0(11 17.8( 6) I— I —SI
909 0064 1I.8( 17) I I —I
509 0CC 14.4(6S9) I 1------- —S
COS)IAIIIN 9.1 I I
Dal Z7.1( 3) I — 1————-—— I S
‘.064 DOll 7.8(232) I— I
608 0CC 16.9(307) I—————— I S I
CRUCIC09IA 10.6 9
DON 6.0( 2) I— ——-— I—I S
108 006 10.6(260) 1— 1 ——— — —S ——I
‘.09 0CC 13.8(500) I———----—— ——-—-- —— S —I
73
-------
1• ’
to. 100*
1000+
CaYPTONODAS 14.5
DON 14.2( 72)
MON DON 14.6(321) I——--
MON 0CC 13.6(369)
C (CLOTELL.A 14.9
ION 17.7( 83)
.0S DON 14.2(357) I
ON 0CC 20.3(302)
CThBCLL.A 14.7
DON ( 0)
ON DON 14.7(169)
has DCC 13.9(573)
DACTYI.OCOCCOPSIS 9.8
DON 6.9( 58)
03 DON 10.6(228) I .
.09 DCC 16.8(456) I .—-—-
DLCTTOSPMAtRIIOI 7.1
ON 4.O( 1)
00 )1 DOll 7.1(183)
.OD 0CC 16.4(058)
jj8wros 19.2
D’If Z8.5( 31)
ION 11.1(L90)
0CC 12.0(521)
!UAST7l.’t 4.7
laM ( 0)
.0 ! . ION 4.1( 77)
J) ) DCC 13.2(665)
CLC .A 12.2
DIN 20.N( 8)
109 DON 12.0(400)
‘‘. 16.5(334)
F9 LLA8LA 14.3
DON 22.9( 43)
os DOll 12.0(170)
0CC 16.0(527)
GU7ODLNIUN 15.9
DON 54.3( 4)
MON DON 16.0(107)
MO!. 0CC 13.9(631)
GOLEMKIMIA 6.0
0 (5 1 3.3( 2)
.ON DON 6.0(124)
403 CCC 13.8(616)
CONPHOSENA 16.3
104 3.O( 1)
,OM ION 16.3( 76)
‘08 0CC (3.9(665)
GY’.NODVJIUN 16.3
104 60.O( 2)
‘MM 1014 13.1( 85)
.O1 0CC 16. 1(633)
PUS1QMA 13.4
DON ( 0)
08 ION t3. 80)
05 0CC 14.2(662)
1pcIl ’4cR1aLA 8.6
10% 17.1( 4)
.00 3aM 8.2(135)
‘.09 DCC 15.1(580)
L .tC,ERHFIMLA 7.6
DIN ( 0)
‘ JI DON 7.6( 84) I .
.Q 5 0CC 14.9(638) I .
14•
‘4
.x.
.— I
—s—— —— I
i ——_________ 4—
‘4
.- —-——x —S—I
I:— — I:——
S I
It
———I-—
I______——————— 5——
s——I
S I
N
— —5 4
S
-———— ——5—
11
S
-—-—— 1———
—
N
I———— 5— S
I ——-— -—— — — —• —— - - —- --- 5— —I
N
i———— S I
I— S I
N
I 5— s-c
I I -s ——I
S S I
‘ I
S ——S —I
I—
I— S $
4— S
I——.——---—--
N
I— £—I S
I — 4— 5——— I
I— S. 5— I
11
I—— — — I S
I——— —— — ——S —I
4—I S
N
S
I—————— S s1
I——— — —4——
11
I— ————-- s——I s
————S—I
- 5—— ——-—I
N
2— ——S
I._ ——— —-——-5- —
H
.-——--—- ——————— —x ———IS
—__—_—_—————— ————x——————— S———
1 —s
.
.—————-—---
N
—x
—5—— I
S —————I
100
————_— — s
10.
L000.
74
-------
1004
LY”C3YA 9.4
7’)M 4.6( 99) I.
‘i, D4 4 12.0(181) I.
( iCC 11.1(436) N
‘L m 0’lAS 13.4
XII 7.81 8)
‘.O ’l DOt 13.6(156)
.0N XC 16.3(580)
Ei.0S1R.A 13.2
201 14.6(254)
0) , DOlt 12.4(352)
‘ ‘ CCC 18.8(142)
R151OP CA 9.1
DOl 6.11 22)
p.ot. DOll 9.3(306)
‘ 0N CCC 18.1C616
‘t1CRiX STt3 9.4
Dot 9.7( 53)
P.0 )4 D CII 9.3(292)
‘.01 0CC 18.2(391)
‘.AVICUU (4.6
304 18.l( 6)
‘.08 DOlt 16.9(383)
‘.09 CCC 13.6(351)
. ITZSC11 (.A 12.8
Oral 10.4( 29)
‘.05 DOt L3.0(343)
‘.05 CCC (5.8(368)
o0CT3 tS 10.0
004 36.2( 9)
‘.OU 0001 9.3(116)
,U!4 CCC (5.4(561)
osc1u.A oa1A 10.6
004 9.0(105)
0’. 004 11.L(322)
‘01 ( iCC 19.0(313)
PASDOIINA 10.6
Dull 1 0)
‘us DON 10.6(115)
‘.0K 0CC 14.8(627)
I ’CDLASTRL’II 8.4
( 0)
‘ (IN 0884 8.6(352)
9011 0CC 18.7(410)
PIRID IN(L )N 14.1
0414 9.81 6)
‘.4,6 001’ 14.9(168)
.4j CCC 14.0(588)
PHAL.US 10.2
204 2.01 2)
‘.011 004 10.3(250)
“(IN 0CC 16.1(490)
OAPIIIDIOP5LS 1.1
XII 9.8( 49)
0b DC I I 6.2(132)
CCC (6.3(565)
CC.LClSPtU5 11.0
0414 8.3( 50)
‘.CjM D’14 11.3(502)
‘.014 0CC 23.0(190)
sciito xaL& 8.2
‘Jot 11.3( 2)
MO ). 004 8.2(176)
8011 0CC 16.0(964)
srAl.’lAStlIM 9.9
Qol (1.01 1)
‘.011 XII 9.9(269)
‘.08 0CC 16.6(872)
N
— —i.---
(4
8—I S
c
—s
i
I
i—
—x—--—--——---
x—
I
‘1
—I—
S
——I
I—
I—
x
S
I———
s—I
I——
I ——
I I
S—I
I
S
I
—S————I
I—
I—.——
I——--—-——---
I — 8 —5
—8— S
11
— 8 S
I —x S —I
- —5— —
I-—————
•1
I — 8—————— 5 I
X
—1--— 5— —I
I——— -—
II
I- ———x——— -—I S
I——— —
)____ .._ _XS I
it
—x-—-—--——S 1
-———
I—— ——— S —I
I——--—
-—I—
—————
8
I—— x —S——I
I ’- L ——- S I
N
—x ———S I
I— 8— S I
(I
x—I 5
I
I —x
5— I
X———
.4
S
I —Z —I
—Z——- —S
—8- S I
I-—— --—
I
—z—-————— ——S
8—
—I
——S —I
S —— —I
S
x————----—-— —s —I
I——-—-
I
I
—
‘—______________
Pt
8—
——— 8—-
— - -—
II
S IX—IS
I —_-—--——— 8— S —I
I— — x S —I
i
x
—I — ———S —I
I—
— x- —s— —I
75
-------
I 0+
100+ 1000.
S CPI’J .1 0D1SCtS 14.9
D 1 17.e( 73)
.0. Don 12.8(202)
.U9 0CC 12.1(461)
LRLaaLA 13.2
C 0)
‘01. DOM 18.2( 98)
‘.ON 0CC 14.0(644)
5 ) ’.clJRA 15.1
DGt 21.0( 48)
•.09 DaM 14.4(4131
‘iOn 0CC 12.8(291)
rA5rl.LtRLA 18.0
DI 1 L1.3( 20)
‘. 1)9 009 19.3(102)
0l . 0CC 13.3(620)
T (1ACDRON 1.9
DOM 20.0( 5)
‘.0 11 009 7.7(318)
‘.09 0CC 18.9(419)
:R.Nfl0l.0 KAS 12.5
DI 14 b.3( 4)
‘.on DO ll 12.6(224)
,0N 0CC 14.9(514)
T .EUZARLA 7.9
C 0)
eon 7.9( 94)
‘.09 0CC 15.0(648)
H
I— — ———
I— — S————I
q
:—
..
K
0— 8———
I
I-
H
x- -—s ——I
0— 5—
I
I———---——
I —S—
I
I———
I-——-—
I
ft
n
K— S——I
I— --S
0— —S .—
—x —Is
I
—I
I
I——————————
.
I
—S————————I
-——X———————————————S——
•1
S
I S
I
S
I—
I
0—I
I
.
0— S
I
ft
I—
I—
1+
I S I
I— S
10+ 100+
—I
1000+
76
-------
APPENDIX B
RANGE OF PARAMETER VALUES WITHIN THREE OCCURRENCE
CATEGORIES FOR Anabaena 3 Cryptomonas AND Dinobryon
The ranges of CHLA, TURB, SECCHI, PH, DO, TEMP, TOTALP, ORTHOP,
N02N03, NH3, KJEL, ALK, and N/P associated with dominance (DOM), non—
dominance (NONDOM) and occurrence (CCC) are presented in tabular form
using data for Anabaena, Cryptomonas and Dinobryon as representative
examples.
77
-------
RANGE OF PARANETER VALUES WITHIN THREE OCCURRENCE CATEGORIES FOR
Anabaena, Cry ptomonas., AND Dinobryon
APPENDIX B.
PARAMETER
CATEGORY
4nahaena Cry ptomonas Dinobryon
OCCUR. RANGE
CHLA
( ig/1)
MIN
DOM
MAX
1.9 1.2 0.6
147.4 198.0 45.3
1.2 0.8 1.1
595.0 312.0 170.5
1.2 .8 0.6
595.0 312.0 170.5
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
0CC
MAX
T
(% trans.)
MIN
DON
MAX
39 17 58
95 100 100
5 1 1
100 98 100
5 1 1
100 100 100
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
CCC
MAX
SECCRI
(inches)
MIN
DON
MAX
11 2 19
144 222 252
6 5 2
252 185 185
6 2 2
252 222 252
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
CCC
MAX
PH
MIN
DOM
MAX
6.5 5.2 6.2
10.3 9.3 8.9
5.6 5.5 5.2
10.2 10.3 9.7
5.6 5.2 5.2
10.3 10.3 9.7
MIN
NONDOM
t x
MIN
0CC
MAX
(Continued)
78
-------
CATEGORIES FOR
RANGE OF PA.RAMETER VALUES WITBIN T1 REE OCCUR.RENCE
Anaha na, Cryptoraoflao 3 AND mnobryon (Continued)
APPENDIX B.
PARAMETER
CATEGORY
—
Anc.haena Cry ptorncnas Dinobryon
OCCUR. RANGE
DO
(uig/1)
MIN
DOM
2.8 3.5 6.2
16.0 15.5 11.3
1.9 1.9 1.6
15.5 15.2 12.8
1.9 ]..9 1.6
16.0 15.5 12.8
8.5 9.7
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
0CC
x
T
(°C)
MIN
DOM
MAX
14.9
30.2 29.5 29.0
7.2 6.8 7.2
32.2 32.2 31.4
7.2 6.8 7.2
32.2 32.2 31.4
MIN
NONDOM
x
MIN
CCC
MAX
.
TOT.ALP
( .zgI1)
MIN
DOM
10 7 4
3084 1159 137
7 6 5
1609 1609 1029
7 6 4
3084 1609 1029
1
MIN
NONDOM
t ic
MIN
CCC
MAX
ORTHOP
( g/1)
MIN
DOM
MAX
2
2009 851 85
1 1 1
1189 1189 555
1 1 1
2009 1189 555
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
0CC
MAX
(Continued)
79
-------
APPENDIX B. RAI GE OF PARA1 ETER VALUES WITHIN THREE OCCURRENCE CATEGORIES FOR
Anabaena 3 Cryptomonas . , AND Dinobrijon (Continued)
PARA TER
CATEGORY
Anabaena Cry ptomonas Dinobryon
OCCUR. RANGE
N02N03
( .ig/1)
HIM
DOM
MAX
20 21 19
3429 9745 989
17 17 17
9745 7557 7557
17 17 17
9745 9745 7557
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
0CC
MAX
NH3
(ugh)
HIM
DOM
MAX
35 3]. 31
3024 532 164
30 20 22
569 979 979
30 20 22
3024 979 979
MIN
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
CCC
MAX
(/1)
ug
MIN
DOM
MAX
—
204 243 207
8199 2949 1532
199 199 199
6349 6250 3699
199 199 199
8199 6250 3699
HIN
NONDOM
HIM
0CC
t x
ALK
(mg/i as CaCO )
3
MIN
DOM
MAX
10 10 10
275 261 198
10 10 10
283 334 281
10 10 10
283 334 281
HIM
NONDOM
MAX
MIN
0CC
MAX
(Continued)
80
-------
APPENDLX B. RANGE OF PARAMETER VALUES ‘ITHIN THREE OCCURRENCE CATEGORIES FOR
Anabaena, Cr jptomonas, AND Dinobryon (Continued)
PARM TER
CATEGORY
Anahaena
Cryptonionas
Dinobryon
OCCUR.
RANG
MIN
0.0
0.0
3.0
DOM
44.0
103.0
137.0
ic
N/P
0.0
0.0
0.0
MIN
NONDOM
130.0
MAX
MIN
130.0
0.0
210.0
0.0
0.0
MAX
130.0
210.0
137.0
81
-------
List of completed parts in the series “Phytoplankton Water Quality
Relationships in U.S. Lakes.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114.
Part I: Methods, rationale, and data limitations. NES Working Paper
No. 705. vii + 68 pp.
Part II: Genera Aeh thoaphaera through Cy8todl.niwn collected from
eastern and southeastern lakes. NES Working Paper No. 706.
vii + 119 pp.
Part III: Genera DactyLo& ccopaie through Gyrosign1a collected from
eastern and southeastern lakes. NES Working Paper No. 707.
vii + 85 pp.
Part IV: Genera H w tzachia through Pterozzvna8 collected from eastern
and southeastern lakes. NES Working Paper No. 708. vii + 105 pp.
Part V: Genera Quadriguia through Zygnema collected from eastern and
southeastern lakes. NES Working Paper No. 709. vii + 99 pp.
Part VI: The coninon phytoplankton genera from eastern and southeastern
lakes. NES Working Paper No. 710. x + 81 pp.
------- |