U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON
IN MARYLAND LAKES
WORKING PAPER NO. 634
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

-------
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON
IN MARYLAND LAKES
WORKING PAPER NO. 634

-------
DISTRIBUTION OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN MARYLAND LAKES
by
1	P	1	o
Victor W. Lambou , F. A. Morris , R. W. Thomas , M. K. Morns'1,
L. R. Williams1, W. D. Taylor1, F. A. Hiatt2,
S. C. Hern1, and J. W. Hilgert2.
Water and Land Quality Branch
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
2
Department of Biological Sciences
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
Working Paper No. 684
National Eutrophlcation Survey
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 1977

-------
i i
Table of Contents
Foreword 		111
Introduction 		1
Materials and Methods 		3
Lake and Site Selection 		3
Sample Preparation 		4
Examination 		5
Quality Control 		5
Results 		6
Nygaard's Trophic State Indices 		6
Palmer's Organic Pollution Indices 		8
Species Diversity and Abundance Indices 		9
Species Occurrence and Abundance 		11
Literature Cited 		12
Appendix: Summary of Phytoplankton Data 		13

-------
111
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was Initiated in 1972 In
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nationwide
threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and reservoirs.
The Survey was designed to develop, 1n 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 1n lake watersheds.
The 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.

-------
1
INTRODUCTION
The collection and analysis of phytoplankton data were Included
in the National Eutroph1cat1on Survey In an effort to determine
relationships between algal characteristics and trophic status
of individual lakes.
During spring, summer, and fall of 1973, the Survey sampled
250 lakes in 17 states. Over 700 algal species and varieties were
Identified and enumerated from the 743 water samples examined.
This report presents the species and abundance of phytoplankton
1n the 4 lakes sampled 1n the State of Maryland (Table 1). The
Nygaard's Trophic State (tyygaard 1949), Palmer's Organic Pollution
(Palmer 1969), and species diversity and abundance Indices are
also included.

-------
2
Table	1. Lakes Sampled In the State of Maryland
STORET #	LAKE NAME COUNTY
2402	Deep Creek Lake	Garrett
2403	Liberty Reservoir	Carroll, Baltimore
2408	Loch Raven Reservoir	Baltimore
2409	Johnson Pond	Wicomico

-------
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
LAKE AND SITE SELECTION
Lakes and reservoirs Included In the Survey were selected through
discussions with State water pollution agency personnel and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices (U.S. EPA 1975).
Screening and selection strongly emphasized lakes with actual or
potential accelerated eutrophlcation problems. As a result, the
selection was limited to lakes:
(1)	Impacted by one or more municipal sewage treatment plant
outfalls either directly Into the lake or by discharge to an
inlet tributary within approximately 40 kilometers of the
lake;
(2)	40 hectares or larger 1n size; and
(3)	With a mean hydraulic retention time of at least 30 days.
Specific selection criteria were waived for some lakes of particular
State interest.
Sampling sites for a lake were selected based on available
Information on lake morphometry, potential major sources of nutrient
input, and on-site judgment of the field Hmnologlst (U.S. EPA 1975).
Primary sampling sites were chosen to reflect the deepest portion of
each major basin 1n a test lake. Where many basins were present,
selection was guided by nutrient source Information on hand. At each
sampling site, a depth-Integrated phytoplankton sample was taken.
Depth-Integrated samples were a uniform mixture of water from the
surface to a depth of 15 feet (4.6 meters) or from the surface to the
lower limit of the photic zone representing 1 percent of the Incident
light, whichever was greater. If the depth at the sampling site was
less than 15 feet (4.6 meters), the sample was taken from just off the
bottom to the surface. Normally, a lake was sampled three times 1n 1
year, providing Information on spring, summer, and fall conditions.

-------
4
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Four milliliters (ml) of Ac1d-LugoVs solution (Prescott 1970)
were added to each 130-ml sample from each site at the time of
collection for preservation. The samples were shipped to the
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada,
where equal volumes from each site were mixed to form two 130-ml
composite samples for a given lake. One composite sample was put Into
storage and the other was used for the examination.
Prior to examination, the composite samples were concentrated by
the settling method. Solids were allowed to settle for at least 24
hours prior to siphoning off the supernatant. The volume of the
removed supernatant and the volume of the remaining concentrate were
measured and concentrations determined. A small (8 ml) library
subsample of the concentrate was then taken. The remaining
concentrate was gently agitated to resuspend the plankton and poured
into a capped, graduated test tube. If a preliminary examination of a
sample Indicated the need for a more concentrated sample, the contents
of the test tube were further concentrated by repeating the settling
method. Final concentrations varied from 15 to 40 times the original.
Permanent slides were prepared from concentrated samples after
analysis was complete. A drop of superconcentrate from the bottom of
the test tube was placed In a ring of clear Karo Corn Syrup with
phenol (a few crystals of phenol were added to each 100 ml of syrup)
on a glass slide, thoroughly mixed, and topped with a coverglass.
After the syrup at the edges of the coverglass had hardened, the
excess was scraped away and the mount was sealed with clear fingernail
polish. Permanent diatom slides were prepared by drying sample
material on a coverglass, heating In a muffle furnace at 400 C for 45
minutes, and mounting in Hyrax. Finally, the mounts were sealed with
clear fingernail polish.
Backup samples, library samples, permanent sample slides, and
Hyrax-mounted diatom slides are being stored and maintained at the
U.S. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas.

-------
5
EXAMINATION
The phytoplankton samples were examined with the aid of binocular
compound microscopes. A preliminary examination was performed to
precisely Identify and 11st all forms encountered. The length of this
examination varied depending on the complexity of the sample. An
attempt was made to find and Identify all of the forms present 1n each
sample. Often forms were observed which could not be Identified to
species or to genus. Abbreviated descriptions were used to keep a
record of these forms (e.g., lunate cell, blue-green filament,
Navicula #1). Diatom slides were examined using a standard light
microscope. If greater resolution was essential to accurately
Identify the diatoms, a phase-contrast microscope was used.
After the species 11st was compiled, phytoplankton were
enumerated using a Neubauer Counting Chamber with a 40x objective lens
and a lOx ocular lens. All forms within each field were counted. The
count was continued until a minimum of 100 fields had been viewed, or
until the dominant form had been observed a minimum of 100 times.
QUALITY CONTROL
Internal quality control checks on species identifications and
counts were performed on a regular basis between project phycologlsts
at the rate of 7 percent. Although an Individual had primary
responsibility for analyzing a sample, taxonomlc problems were
discussed among the phycologists.
Additional quality control checks were performed on the Survey
samples by Dr. G. W. Prescott of the University of Montana at the rate
of 5 percent. Quality control checks were made on 75 percent of these
samples to verify species Identifications while checks were made on
the remaining 25 percent of the samples to verify genus counts.
Presently, the agreement between quality control checks for species
identification and genus enumerations is satisfactory.

-------
6
RESULTS
The Appendix sunrnarizes all of the phytoplankton data collected
from the State by the Survey. It 1s organized by lake, Including an
alphabetical phytoplankton species 11st with concentrations for
Individual species given by sampling date. Results from the
application of several Indices are presented (Nygaard's Trophic State,
Palmer's Organic Pollution, and species diversity and abundance).
Each lake has been assigned a four-digit STORET number. [STORET
(STOrage and RETrleval) 1s the U.S. EPA's computer system which
processes and maintains water quality data.] The first two digits of
the STORET number Identify the State; the last two digits Identify the
lake.
NYGAARD'S TROPHIC STATE INDICES
Five Indices devised by Nygaard (1949) were proposed under the
assumption that certain algal groups are Indicative of levels of
nutrient enrichment. These Indices were calculated 1n order to aid in
determining the surveyed lakes' trophic status. As a general rule,
Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta, centric diatoms, and members of the
Chlorococcales are found 1n waters that are eutrophlc (rich 1n
nutrients), while desmids and many pennate diatoms generally cannot
tolerate high nutrient levels and so are found 1n ollgotrophlc waters
(poor 1n nutrients).
In applying the indices to the Survey data, the number of taxa 1n
each major group was determined from the species 11st for each sample.
The ratios of these groups give numerical values which can be used as
a biological Index of water richness. The five indices and the ranges
of values established for Danish lakes by Nygaard for each trophic
state are presented 1n Table 2. The appropriate symbol, (E) eutrophlc
and (0) oligotrophy, follows each calculated value 1n the tables 1n
the Appendix. A question mark (?) was entered 1n these tables when
the calculated value was within the range of both classifications.

-------
7
Table 2. Nygaard's Trophic State Indices
adapted from Hutchinson (1967)
Index
Calculation
Myxophycean
Chlorophycean
Diatom
Euglenophyte
M
ae
)esm1deae
Chlorococcales
Desmldeae
Centric Diatoms
Pennate Diatoms
Euqlenophyta	
Myxophyceae + Cnlorococcales
Compound Myxophyceae + Chlorococcales +
Centric Diatoms + Euqlenophyta
Desmldeae
OHgotrophlc
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.7
0.0-0.3
0.0-0.2
0.0-1.0
Eutrophlc
0.1-3.0
0.2-9.0
0.0-1.75
0.0-1.0
1.2-25

-------
8
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
Palmer (1969) analyzed reports from 165 authors and developed
algal pollution indices for use in rating water samples with high
organic pollution. Two lists of organic pollution-tolerant forms
were prepared, one containing 20 genera, the other, 20 species (Tables
3 and 4). Each form was assigned a pollution index number ranging
from 1 for moderately tolerant forms to 6 for extremely tolerant
forms. Palmer based the index numbers on occurrence records and/or
where emphasized by the authors as being especially tolerant of
organic pollution.
Table 3. Algal Genus Pollution Index (Palmer 1969)
Pollution	Pollution
Index	Index
Anacy8tie
1
Micractinium
1
AnkistrodeemuB
2
Navicula
3
Chlamydomona8
4
Nitzschia
3
Chlorella
3
Oecillatoria
5
Clo8terium
1
Pandorina
1
Cyclotella
1
Phacus
2
Euglena
5
Phormidium
1
Gomphonema
1
Scenede8mu8
4
Lepocincli8
1
Stigeoclonium
2
Melosira
1
Synedra
2
Table 4. Algal Species Poll
Pollution
Index
Anki8trodesmu8 falcatue	3
Arthroepira jenneri	2
Chlorella vulgaris	2
Cyclotella meneghiniana	2
Euglena gracilis	1
Euglena viridis	6
Gomphonema parvulum	1
Melosira various	2
Navicula cryptocephala	1
Nitz8chia acicularis	1
Index (Palmer 1969)
Pollution
Index
Nitzachia palea	5
Oscillatoria ohlorina	2
Oscillatoria limosa	4
Oecillatoria princeps	1
Oscillatoria putrida	1
Oscillatoria tenuis	4
Pandorina morion	3
Scenedesmue quadrioauda	4
Stigeoclonium tenue	3
Synedra ulna	3

-------
9
In analyzing a water sample, any of the 20 genera or species of
algae present 1n concentrations of 50 per ml or more are
recorded. The pollution Index numbers of the algae present are
totaled, providing a genus score and a species score. Palmer
determined that a score of 20 or more for etther Index can be taken as
evidence of high organic pollution, while a score of 15 to 19 1s taken
as probable evidence of high organic pollution. Lower figures suggest
that the organic pollution of the sample 1s not high, that the sample
is not representative, or that some substance or factor Interfering
with algal persistence 1s present and active.
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES
"Information content" of biological samples Is being used
commonly by biologists as a measure of diversity. Diversity 1n this
connection means the degree of uncertainty attached to the specific
Identity of any randomly selected Individual. The greater the number
of taxa and the more equal their proportions, the greater the
uncertainty, and hence, the diversity (Plelou 1966). There are
several methods of measuring diversity, e.g., the formulas given by
Br1llou1n (1962) and Shannon and Weaver (1962). The method which 1s
appropriate depends on the type of biological sample on hand.
Pielou (1966) classifies the types of biological samples and
gives the measure of diversity appropriate for each type. The Survey
phytoplankton samples are what she classifies as larger samples
(collections 1n Pielou's terminology) from which random subsamples can
be drawn. According to Plelou (1966), the average diversity per
Individual for these types of samples can be estimated from the
Shannon-Wiener formula (Shannon and Weaver 1962):
S
H = -E P. log P.,
1=1 1 x 1
where P is the proportion of the 1th taxon 1n the sample, which is
calculated from n./N; n^ 1s the number of Individuals per ml
of the 1th taxon, N 1s the total number of Individuals per ml and S 1s
the total number of taxa.
However, Basharln (1959) and Plelou (1966) have pointed out that
H calculated from the subsample 1s a biased estimator of the sample H,
and if this bias 1s to be accounted for, we must know the total number
of taxa present In the sample since the magnitude of this bias depends
on 1t.

-------
10
Pielou (1966) suggests that if the number of taxa 1n the
subsample falls only slightly short of the number 1n the larger
sample, no appreciable error will result 1n considering S, estimated
from the subsample, as being equal to the sample value. Even though
considerable effort was made to find and identify all taxa, the Survey
samples undoubtedly contain a fair number of rare phytoplankton taxa
which were not encountered.
In the Shannon-Wiener formula, an increase 1n the number of taxa
and/or an increase 1n the evenness of the distribution of individuals
among taxa will increase the average diversity per Individual from Its
minimal value of zero. Sager and Hasler (1969) found that the
richness of taxa was of minor importance in determination of average
diversity per Individual for phytoplankton and they concluded that
phytoplankton taxa 1n excess of the 10 to 15 most abundant ones have
little effect on H, which was verified by our own calculations. Our
counts are 1n number per ml and since logarithms to the base
2 were used 1n our calculations, H 1s expressed 1n units of bits per
Individual. When Individuals of a taxon were so rare that they were
not counted, a value of 1/130 per ml or 0.008 per ml was used in the
calculations since at least one Individual of the taxon must have been
present 1n the collection.
A Survey sample for a given lake represents a composite of all
phytoplankton collected at different sampling sites on a lake during a
given sampling period. Since the number of samples (M) making up a
composite is a function of both the complexity of the lake sampled and
its size, 1t should affect the richness of taxa component of the
diversity of our phytoplankton collections. The maximum diversity
(MaxH) (i.e., when the individuals are distributed among the taxa as
evenly as possible) was estimated from log2 S, the total diversity (D)
was calculated from HN, and the evenness component of diversity (J)
was estimated from H/MaxH (Pielou 1966). Also given in the Appendix
are L (the mean number of Individuals per taxa per ml) and K
(the number of Individuals per ml of the most abundant taxon 1n the
sample).
Zand (1976) suggests that diversity Indices be expressed 1n units
of "sits", I.e., 1n logarithms to base S (where S is the total number
of taxa 1n the sample) instead of 1n "bits", I.e., 1n logarithms to
base 2. Zand points out that the diversity index 1n sits per Individual
is a normalized number ranging from 1 for the most evenly distributed
samples to 0 for the least evenly distributed samples. Also, it can
be used to compare different samples, independent of the number of

-------
11
taxa 1n each. The diversity 1n bits per Individual should not be used
1n direct comparisons Involving various samples which have different
numbers of species. Since MaxH equals log S, the expression 1n sits
1s equal to logs S or 1. Therefore diversity 1n sits per individual
Is numerically equivalent to J, the evenness component for the Shannon
Wiener formula.
SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND ABUNDANCE
The alphabetic phytoplankton species 11st for each lake,
presented 1n the Appendix, gives the concentrations of Individual
species by sampling date. Concentrations are 1n cells, colonies, or
filaments (CEL, COL, FIL) per ml. An "X" after a species name
Indicates the presence of the species on that date 1n such a low
concentration that 1t did not show up 1n the count. A blank space
Indicates that the organism was not found 1n the sample collected on
that date. Column S 1s used to designate the examiner's subjective
opinion of the five dominant taxa 1n a sample, based upon relative
size and concentration of the organism. The percent colimin (%C)
presents, by abundance, the percentage composition of each taxon.

-------
12
LITERATURE CITED
Basharin, G. P. 1959. On a statistical estimate for the entrophy of a
sequence of Independent random variablesi pp. 333-336. In N.
Artln (ed.), Theory of Probability and Its Applications
(translation of "Teorlya Veroyatnosel 1 ee Premenenlya") 4.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
Brlllouin, L. 1962. Science and Information Theory (2nd ed.).
Academic Press, New York, 351 pp.
Hutchinson, 6. E. 1967. A Treatise on Limnology. II. Introduction
to Lake Biology and the Limnoplankton. John WHey and Sons,
Inc., New York. 1,115 pp.
Nygaard, G. 1949. Hydrob1olog1cal studies of some Danish ponds and
lakes. II. (K danske Vldensk. Selsk.) B1ol. Sc1. 7:293.
Palmer, C. M. 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic
pollution. J. Phycol. 5:78-82.
Plelou, E. C. 1966. The measurement of diversity 1n different types
of biological collections. J. Theor. B1oT. 13:131-144.
Prescott, G. W. 1970. How to Know the Freshwater Algae. William C.
Brown Company, Dubuque. 348 pp.
Sager, P. E. and A. D. Hasler, 1969. Species diversity 1n laucustrine
phytoplankton. I. The components of the index of diversity from
Shannon's formula. Amer. Natur. 103(929): 51-59
Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. 1962. The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 117 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutroph1cat1on
Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada, and
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallls, Oregon.
91 pp.
Zand, S. M. 1976. Indexes associated with Information theory In water
quality. Journal WPCF. 48(8): 2026-2031.

-------
13
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF PHYTOPLANKTON DATA
The Appendix format was computer generated. Because it was only
possible to use upper case letters 1n the printout, all scientific
names are printed 1n upper case and are not Italicized.
The alphabetic phytoplankton lists Include taxa without species
names (e.g., EUNOTIA, EUNOTIA #1, EUNOTIA ?, FLAGELLATE, FLAGELLATES,
MICROSYSTIS INCERTA ?, CHLOROPHYTAN COCCOID CELLED COLONY). When
species determinations were not possible, symbols or descriptive
phrases were used to separate taxa for enumeration purposes. Each
name on a 11st, however, represents a unique species different from
any other name on the same list, unless otherwise noted, for counting
purposes.
Numbers were used to separate unidentified species of the same
genus. A generic name listed alone is also a unique species. A
question mark (?) is placed immediately after the portion of a name
which was assigned with uncertainty. Numbered, questioned, or
otherwise designated taxa were established on a lake-by-lake basis;
therefore NAVICULA #2 from lake A cannot be compared to NAVICULA #2
from lake B. Pluralized categories (e.g., FLAGELLATES, CENTRIC
DIATOMS, SPP.) were used for counting purposes when taxa could not be
properly differentiated on the counting chamber.

-------
LAKE NAME: DEEP CREEK LAKE
STORET NUMBER: 2402
NYGAARO TROPHIC STATE INDICES
DATE
04 21
73
07 23
73
10 04
73
MYXOPHYCEAN
0/01
0
05/0
P
2.00
E
CHLOROPHY CE AN
I.00
E
04/0
i
l.CO
E
EUGLENOPHYTE
1.00
E
0.11
?
0.33
E
DIATOM
0,20
?
1.67
E
0.50
E
COMPOUND
3.00
E
15/0
E
6.00
E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 04 21 73 07 23 73 10 04 73
GENUS	02	01	01
SPECIES	03	00	00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNOANCE INDICES

DATE
04 21 73
07 23 73
10 04 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
H
2.56
2.89
2.45
NUMBER OF T AX A
S
14o00
24.00
16.00
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
M
4.00
4.00
4.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
MAXH
3.81
4.58
4.00
TOTAL DIVERSITY
D
2391;.04
7742.31
5902.05
TOTAL NUMBER OF INOIVIOUALS/ML
N
934,00
2679.00
2409.00
EVENESS COMPONENT
J
0.67
0.63
0.61
MEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
L
66.71
111.63
150.56
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
K
334.00
686.00
821.00

-------
LAKE NAME: DEEP CREEK LAKE
STOFET NUMBER: 2402
CONTINUED
TAXA
FORM
IS
%C
ANABAENA
fTl"


AMI STPCDE SMUS FALCATUS
CEL
1 5
7.4
APHANOC AP S A
COL
1

ARTHRODESMUS
CEL
1

ARTHRODESMUS INCUS

1

V. RALFSII
CEL
1

ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA

I

V. GRACILLIMA
CEL
12
13.7
CENTRIC CI ATOM
CEL
1

CHRYSOCAPSA ? PLANCTCNICA
CEL
1

CRUCIGENIA TETRAPEDIA
COL
1

CRYPTOHQNAS
CEL
1 3
13. 7
DINCBRYON SERTULARIA
CEL
I 4
17.9
CINOBRYON SOCIALE
CEL
1

OINOFLAGELLATE
CEL
1
5-2
EUGLENA
CEL
1
l-I
FLAGELLATES
CEL
11
35. 8
LYNGBYA
FIL
1

MELOSIRA #2
CEL
1

MELOSIRA #3
CEL
1

MELOSIRA DISTANS
CEL
1

MERISMOPEDIA
COL
1

MICROCYSTIS
COL
1

MICROCYSTIS INCERTA
COL
1

NAVICULA #1
CEL
1

NAVICULA #2
CEL
I

PFDIASTRUM TETRAS

1

V. TETRAODON
COL
1

PENN/JTE DIATOM #1
CEL
I

PERIDINIUM WISCONSTNENSE
CEL
1

SC ENEDESfUS ABUNDANS
COL
1

SC ENEDESMU S BIJUGA
COL
1

04 21 73	07 23 73	10 04 73
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
69
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
X
128
128
167
X
49
10
334
ro
•
GO
74
1
i
0.9 |
1
21
1 1.2 1
32
I
1
1
1

1 1
1 1
fl 1

1
1
1
1
1
i
X
1 1
1 1
1 1
X
1
1
1 5
1
1
4.11
98
1 0.4 |
10
1
1

125.61
6 86
1
1
X
1 0.4 1
10
1
1
X
1 1

1
2.6|
63
122.11
1 i
591
1 2
1
26.71
1
692
1 1
f 1
X
1
1
1
1

1 1
X
1
1
X
119.71
528
1 4
13.11
315
1 1
X
1
1

1 1
X
1
I
X
1 4.3|
116
13
9.6 1
231
1 0.8|
21
1
1

1 7*31
195
1
1

1 1
X
1
1

1 1

1
0.9|
21
1 1
1 1

1
1
1
1
X
1 1
I t
X
1
1
1
1

1 0.4|
10
1
1
X
1 2.8|
74
1
1

( t
X
1
1

1 1
X
1
1

ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML

-------
LAKE NAPE: DEEP CREEK LAKE
STCRET NUMBER: 2402
CONTINUED
TAXA	FORM	|S
STEPHANCDISCUS DUBIUS	CEL	"T~
SYNEDRA	CEL	I
SYNURA	CEL	I
SYNURA ?	CEL	I
TABELLARIA	CEL	j
TABELLARIA FENESTRATA	CEL	I
TOTAL
04 21 73
07 23 73
10 04 73
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
IS
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
5.2
X
49
14|10.0
1	I
I	I
I	I
1	I
I	t 2.4
269
X
63
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
I
I
I 6.1
I
I
1134.1
147
821
934
2679
2409

-------
LAKE NAME: LIBERTY RES.
STORET NUMBER: 2403
NYGAARD TROPHIC STATE INDICES
CATE
04 11
73
07
20
73
10 01
73
MYXOPHYCEAN
0/0
0
2.
.50
E
05/0
E
CHLOROPHYCEAN
02/0
E
0.
.50
?
0/0
0
EUGLENOPHYTE
0/02
?
0,
t 33
E
0/C5
?
DIATOM
0.30
?
1,
,00
E
0. 86
E
COMPOUND
05/0
E
6.50
E
11/0
E
PALMER'S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
OATE 04 II 73 07 20 73 10 01 73
GENUS	01	03	02
SPECIES	00	00	00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INDICES

DATE
04 11 73
07 20 73
10 01 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
H
2.08
2. 19
2.83
NUMBER OF TAXA
S
20.00
28.00
22.00
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
M
4.00
4.00
4.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
MA XH
4.32
4. 81
4.46
TOTAL DIVERSITY
D
3178. 24
7513.89
11090.77
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
N
1528.00
3431.00
3919.00
EVENESS COMPONENT
J
0. 48
0.46
0.63
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
L
76.40
122.54
178.14
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
K
765.00
1643.00
1421.00

-------
LAKE NAME: LIBERTY RES.
STCRET NUMBER: 2403
CONTINUED
TAX A
FORM
S %C
ANABAENA
ANKISTROOESMUS
ASTERIONELLA FORMOSA
V. GRACILLIMA
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
COELASTRUM
CC'ELOS PHAERIUM NAEGELIANUM
CRYPTOMONAS
#1
#2
FILAMENT
STELLIGERA
CRYPTOMONAS
CRYPTOMONAS
CYANOPHYTAN
CYCLOTELLA
CYCLOTELLA
CYMBELLA
DIN08RYON
DINOBRYCN BAVARICUM
DINCBRYON DIVERGENS
CI NOFLAGELLAT E
EUGLENA #1
EUGLENA 02
FLAGELLATE #1
FLAGELLATES
FRAG IL ARIA
FR^GILARIA CROTONENSIS
GCMPHOSPHAERIA ? LACUSTRIS
LYNGBYA
MALLCMCNAS PSEUCCCOPONAT A 1
MELOSIRA #2
MELOSIRA OISTANS
MELOSIRA ITALICA
MERISMOPEDIA
MICROCYSTIS
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
0.0
0.0
2
5
16.4
0.0
0.0
50.1
21.3
OA 11 73
07 20 73
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
1.4
1.4
4.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
47.9
23.6
48
X
48
X
143
X
X
48
48
X
X
X
48
1643
X
X
810
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
0.5
5.1
36.3
9.2
0.5
6.4
22.0
2.8
1.8
6.9
1.4
18
198
1421
360
X
X
18
249
863
X
108
72
X
270
54
X

-------
LAKE NAME: LIBERTY RES.
STORET NUMBER: 2403
CONTINUED
TAXA
NAVICULA
NAVICULA CRYPTOCEPHALA
NAVICULA HAMBERGII
NITZSCH1A
0 SCILL ATORIA
PENNATE DIATOMS
PER IDINIUM
SELENASTRUM ?
STAURASTRUM #1
STAURASTRUM #2
STE PHANOOISCUS
STEPHANCDISCUS ? DUBIUS
STEPHANODISCUS DUBIUS
SYNEDRA
?
#1
U2
ULNA
SYNEDRA
SYNEDRA
SYNECRA
SYNEDRA
TABELLARIA
TABELLARIA
TABELLARIA
FENESTRATA
FLOCCULOS A
FORM
cir
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
S %C
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
04 11 73
07 20 73
ALGAL


ALGAL I

ALGAL I
UNITS


UNITS 1

UNITS |
PER ML
S
JSC
PER ML IS
JC
PER ML f



X I 1
I
1
31


X 1 1
1
X 1
X


1 1
I
1
X


1 1
x 1 I
1 1
1
1
l.8|
1
1
72 1
X


x 1 1
1
1
X


1 1
x 1 1
x 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10


( 1
1
1

4
3.5 1
119 f 1
1 1
x 1 1
1
5.11
!
x I
198 I
1
X


1 1
1
1
X


1 1
1
\

3
13.9 |
476 1 1
0.51
13 I
10


1 1
1 1
1
1
1
X 1
X


1 1
1
1
X


1 1
1
1
1528	3431	3919

-------
LAKE NAME: LCCH RAVEN RES.
STORET NUMBER: 2408
NYGAARD trcPHIC STATE INOICES
DATE
04 11
73
07 21
73
10 01
73
MYXOPHYCEAN
02/0
E
6.00
E
7.00
E
CHLOROPHYCEAN
0/0
0
6.00
c
4.00
E
EUGLENOPHYTE
0/02
?
0/12
?
0/11
?
DIATOM
0.42
E
1.00
c
I. 00
E
COMPOUND
07/0
E
16.0
E
16.0
E
PALMER«S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 04 II 73 07 21 73 10 01 73
GENUS	07	02	01
SPECIES	00	00	00
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE INOICES

DATE
04 11 73
07 21 73
10 01 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
H
2. 50
1. 76
2.36
NUMBER OF T AX A
S
23.00
25.00
25.00
NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITED
M
3.00
3.00
3.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
MAXH
4.52
4.64
4.64
TOTAL DIVERSITY
D
5265.00
9396.64
5354.84
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
N
2106.00
5339.00
2269.00
EVENESS COMPONENT
J
0.55
0.38
0.51
MEAN NUMBER CF INDIVIDUALS/TAXA
L
91.57
213.56
90.76
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
K
712.00
3659.00
1198.00

-------
LAKE NAME: LCCH PAVEN RES
STORET NUMBER: 2408
CONTINUED
TAXA
FORM
S %C
ANABAENA #1
ANABAENA #2
ASTERICNELLA FORMOSA
ATTHEYA
CENTRIC DIATOM
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
CHROOCOCCUS LIMNETICUS
COELASTRUM RETICULATUM
COELOSPHAERIUM
COELOSPFAERIUM NAEGELIANUM
CRUCIGENIA APICULATA
CRYPTOMONAS ?
CYCLOTELLA STELLIGERA
CYMBELLA
DINOBRYCN EAVARICUM
DINCBRYON DIVERGENS
OINOFLAGELLATE
FLAGELLATES
FRAGILARIA CROTCNENSIS
GCMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
IYNGBYA eiPGEI
MELOSIRA #2
MELOSIPA #3
MELOSIRA DISTANS
MELOSIRA ITALICA
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
NAVICULA
NAVICUL A CAPITATA
NAVICULA CRYPTOCEPHALA
NAVICULA VULPINA
NITZSCHIA PALEA
OOCYSTIS
fil
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
FIL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
18. 7
1.2
6.6
3
1
2.4
33. 9
28.3
0. 6
10 01 T3
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
394
25
140
X
51
712
597
12
X
X
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
l.l
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
10.7
3o 9
69.51
0.6
1.7
7.3
3.4
60
60
30
X
30
X
X
30
570
X
X
210
3659
30
90
390
X
X
180
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
1.5
3.0
0.7
4.5
1.5
8.3
52.8
5.3
15.9
34
69
X
X
17
103
34
X
189
1198
X
X
120
X
360
X
X

-------
LAKE NAME: LCCH P4VEN RES
STQRET NUMBER: 2408
TAXA
CSCILLATCRTA
CSCILLATORIA #1
PEDIASTRUM SIMPLEX
V. DUCDENARIUM
PEDIASTRUM TETRAS
V. TETRAOCON
PENNATE 01 ATOM
PENNATE CI ATOM #1
PENNATE 01 ATOM U2
PENNATE DIATOM #3
PEP I DIN IUM
SC ENEDESPliS BIJUGA
SCENEDESMUS DISPAR
STAURASTRUM
STAURONEIS ANCEPS
F. LINEARIS
ST EPHANODISCUS
STEPHANODISCUS ? DUBIUS
SYNEDRA
SYNEDRA ULNA
TABELLARIA
TETRAECRON MINIMUM
V. SCROBICULATUM
TOTAL
04 11 73
07 21 73
10 01 73
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
ALGAL
L'NITS
SC PER ML
ALGAL
UNITS
SC PER ML
63
X
C.7
2.6
12
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
38
X
25
25
3,0
X
2106
5339
2269

-------
LAKE NANE: JCHNSCN POND
STORET NUMBER: 2409
NYGAARC TROPHIC STATE INCICES
DATE
o
o
73
07 20
73
09 28
73
MYXOPHYCEAN
2.00
E
07/0
E
2.00
E
CHLOROPHYCEAN
1.00
E
25/0
E
5.00
E
EUGLENOPHYTE
0.33
E
0.09
?
0.C7
?
DTATOM
0.27
?
0.20
?
1.50
E
COMPOUND
8.00
E
36/0
E
9.00
E
PALMER1S ORGANIC POLLUTION INDICES
DATE 04 10 73 07 20 73 09 28 73
GENUS	01	21	07
SPECIES	00	07	04
SPECIES DIVERSITY AND ABUNCANCE INCICES

DATE
04 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
AVERAGE DIVERSITY
H
3.28
4.07
2.74
NUMBER OF TAXA
S
32.00
46.00
2 8.00
NUMBER OF SAFPLES COMPOSITED
M
2.00
1.00
1.00
MAXIMUM DIVERSITY
MAXH
5.00
5. 52
4.81
TOTAL DIVERSITY
D
2384.56
19552.28
12475.22
TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/ML
N
727.00
4804.00
4553.00
EVENESS COMPONENT
J
0.66
0. 74
0.57
MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/TAX A
L
22.72
104.43
162.61
NUMBER/ML OF MOST ABUNDANT TAXON
K
231.00
683.00
1422.00

-------
LAKE NAME: JCHNSON PCND
STORET NUMBER: 2409
CONTINUED
TAXA
FORM
ACTINASTRUM HANTZSCHII
COL
ANABAENA
FIL
ANABAENA #1
FIL
ANKISTPOCES MUS FALCATUS
CEL
ARTHRODESMUS
CEL
CENTRIC DIATOM
CEL
CHLAMY DCMONAS
CEL
CLCSTERIUM
CEL
COCCONEIS PLACENTULA
CEL
COELASTPUM RETICULATUM
COL
COELASTRUM SPHAERICUM
COL
CGELOSPHAERIUM
COL
CCELOSPKAERIUM DUBIUM
COL
CRUC IGENIA APICULATA
COL
CRUC IGENIA TETRAPEDIA
COL
CRYPTCMCNAS
CEL
CRYPTOMONAS ?
CEL
CYANOPHYTAN FILAMENT
FIL
CYMBELLA
CEL
CACTYLOCOCCOPSIS
CEL
OINOERYCN 01VERGENS
CEL
DINOFLAGELLATE
CEL
EUOORINA
COL
EUDORINA ELEGANS
COL
EUGLENA
CEL
EUGLENA #1
CEL
EUNGTIA #1
CEL
EUNOTIA INC ISA
CEL
FLAGELLATE #1
CEL
FLAGELLATE #2
CEL
FLAGELLATE H3
CEL
FLAGELLATES
CEL
%C
2.6
2.6
5
1
2.6
5.2
15.8
31*8
2.6
04 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
4
5
6.9
7.8
4.0
3.4
2.9
0.5
0.5
3.9
1.0
0.5
14.2
X
330
377
194
X
X
165
141
23
X
X
23
188
X
47
23
6 83
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
2.4
25.8
31e2
6.2
10.1
X
X
X
107
1174
X
X
X
1422
284
462

-------
LAKE NANE: JCHNSCN FCND
STORET NUMBER: 2409
CCNTINUED
TAXA
FORM
S %C
FRAGILJRIA
FRAGILAPIA #1
FRAGILARIA *2
GCLENK1NIA
GOLENKINIA RADIATA
GOPFHONEMA
GYPCSIGMA
KIRC HNERIE LLA
LAGERHEIMIA
LAGERHEIMI A LONG IS ET A
LUNATE CELLED COLONY
MELOSIRA #2
MELOSIRA #3
MELOSIRA DISTANS
MELOSIRA VARIANS
FERISMOPEDIA
MICRCCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
NAVICULA
NAVICULA RHYNCHCCEPHALA
V. AMPHICEROS
NEIDIUM APICULATUM
V. CONSTRICTUM
NITZSCHIA
CSCILLATORIA GEM INAT A
PA NO OR I NA MO RUM
PEDIASTRUM BORYANUM
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX
PEDIASTRUM TETRAS
V. TETRAODON
PENNATE DIATOM #1
PHORMIDIUM MUCICOLA
PGLYEDRIOPSIS SPINULOSA
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
FIL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CEL
COL
CEL
10.6
2.6
2.6
5. 2
5.2
2.6
OA 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
ALGAL
UNITS
*C PER ML
6 • A
306
0.5
2.9
23
141
0.5
X
23
X
6.4
8.8
0.5
0.5
306
424
23
X
23
12.5
569
10.8
X
518
3.9
178
X
9.3
448
X
3.9
178

-------
LAKE NAHE: JCHNSCN PCNO
STORET NUMBER: 2409
CONTINUED
TAXA
FORM
SC
#1
02
#3
ABUNOANS
BIJUGA
01 SPAR
GUTVHNSKTI
PROTUBERANS
QUADRICAUDA
QUADRICAUDA
SCENEOESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEOESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEOESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEOESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
SCENEDESMUS
V. LCNGISPINA
SCHROEDERIA SETIGERA
STAURASTRUM PUNCTULATUM
SURIRELLA
SYNE OR A #1
SYNECRA DELICATISSIMA
SYNEDRA RUFPENS
V. SCOTIA
TABELLARIA #1
TETRAEORON
TETPAECRON
TETRASTRUM
TRACHELOMONAS
TREUBARIA
#1
HETERACANTHUM
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
COL
CCL
COL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
CEL
COL
CEL
CEL
2.6
5.2
TOTAL
04 10 73
07 20 73
09 28 73
ALGAL
UNITS
PER ML
ALGAL
UNITS
?C PER ML
ALGAL
UNITS
%C PER ML
19
X
X
38
X
X
1.0
1.0
0.5
3,.A
1.0
0.5
0.5 I
X
47
47
X
X
23
165
47
X
X
23
23
1
1
1
X
1
1
.81
36
1
1
1
X
1
1
• 6|
I
71
1
1
X
1
1
1
1
1
X
1
1
1
1
• 8|
36
• 8|
1
1
36
727
4e04
4553

-------