EPA-905/3-79-002 GREEN BAY PHYTOPLANKTON COMPOSITION, ABUNDANCE, AND DISTRIBUTION by F. Stoermer and R. J. Stevenson Great Lakes Research Division The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Grant No. R 005340 01 Project Officer David C. Rockwell Great Lakes National Program Office 536 South Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605 DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 11 FOREWORD The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency was established In Region V, Chicago to focus attention on the significant and complex natural resource represented by the Great Lakes. GLNPO Implements a multi-media environmental management program drawing on a wide range of expertise represented by Universities, private firms. State, Federal, and Canadian Governmental Agencies and the International Joint Commission. The goal of the GLNPO program Is to develop programs, practices and technology necessary for a better understanding of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants Into the Great Lakes system. The Office also coordi- nates U.S. actions In fulfillment of the Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on Great Lakes Water Quality of 1978. This study was supported by a GLNPO grant to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor for Investigating the phytoplankton assemblages of northern Green Bay. Ill ABSTRACT This project was initiated to evaluate the water quality of northern Green Bay on the basis of physicochemical and phytoplankton data. Emphasis was placed upon the interpretation of phytoplankton population spatial distri- butions and the diversity and dissimilarities of community composition with respect to the physicochemical qualities of the water. Green Bay phytoplankton assemblages were characterized by high abundanc'tes and domination by taxa indicative of nutrient rich conditions. The most signi- ficant components of the communities were diatoms ad cryptomonads in May and blue-green algae in August and October. Anacystis incerta ^ Rhodomonas minuta , microflagellates , Gloeocystis planctonica , and Cyclotella comensis were the most abundant taxa. Two main regions of different water quality were determined by phyto- plankton population and community analysis. These regions are approximately delineated as north and south of Chambers Island. Phytoplankton and physico- chemical indications of eutrophication were generally greater in the southern region. Local evidence of more severe perturbation was noted in Little Bay de Noc near the Escanaba River and Escanaba, and near the Menominee River. More naturally eutrophic shallow water communities were found in Big Bay de Noc and along the northwest shore of Green Bay. Less eutrophic conditions along the Lake Michigan interface with Green Bay probably resulted from dilution of Green Bay water due to exchange with Lake Michigan water. Although the magnitude of this exchange cannot be quantitatively estimated from the results of the present investigation it must result in the export of nutrients and biological populations adapted to eutrophic conditions to Lake Michigan proper. IV CONTENTS Foreword Hi Abstract . .iv Figures vi 1. Introduction « 1 2. Materials and Methods 5 3. Results 6 Physicochemical conditions . . 6 Phytoplankton 10 4. Discussion • 7^ 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 79 References , 82 Appendices A. Physicochemical data for May composite and August and October discrete samples from Green Bay, 1977 86 B. Summary of phytoplankton species occurrence in the near-surface waters of Green Bay during 1977 sampling season ... .87 C. Phytoplankton density and species diversity of Green Bay, 1977. .99 D. Euclidian distances and cluster diagrams of the August and October phytoplankton assemblages 100 FIGURES HUDJtlSIl Page Figure 1. The sampling locations and geography of Green Bay 2 Figure 2. Surface phytoplankton community densities 12 Figure 3. Population densities of blue-green algae 15 Figure 4. Proportional abundance of blue-green algae • . • 16 Figure 5. Population densities of green algae 17 Figure 6. Proportional abundance of green algae 19 Figure 7. Population densities of diatoms 20 Figure 8. Proportional abundance of diatoms 21 Figure 9. Population densities of golden brown algae 22 Figure 10. Proportional abundance of golden brown algae 23 Figure 1 1 • Population densities of cryptomonads ...... 25 Figure 12. Proportional abundance of cryptomonads ... 26 Figure 13. Population densities of dino flagellates 27 Figure 14. Population densities of haptophytes 28 Figure 15. Proportional abundance of dino flagellates 29 Figure 16. Cluster association of phytoplankton communities 31 Figure 17. Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 7 during August and October 33 Figure 18. Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 16 during August and October 34 Figure 19. Euclidian distance contours oriented around Location 17 during August and October 35 Figure 20. Population densities of Anacvstis incerta 37 Figure 21. Population densities of GQffiPh99Phagr4^ la 25 km from the river mouth (Ahrnsbrak, 1971) in the southern gyre, about 15 km south from our most southern sampling location. Water movements in the northern gyre are not as well documented. They are susceptible to discontinuities due to exchange with Lake Michigan waters. Green Bay tends to have a relatively isolated water mass due to its limited and interrupted interface with Lake Michigan. However, substantial exchange may exist because the Bay de Noc complex alone has been estimated to contribute 13 X 10^ kg PO^"^/yr. or 12$ of the total PO."^ loaded to Lake Michigan (Upchurch, 1972). Water that does escape from the bay most commonly flows south along the Wisconsin shore. However, high conductivity values in north-central Lake Michigan have been attributed to Green Bay. The Green Bay watershed comprises one third of all the land that drains into Lake Michigan. Nutrients, organic wastes, heavy metal ions, chlorinated pesticides, and PCBs flush into Green Bay from domestic, agricultural, and industrial sources in its watershed (Bertrand et al., 1976). The most severe impact comes from Fox River loadings to southern Green Bay in the form of industrial and domestic wastes from about 1/2 million people and one of the largest pulp and paper industry complexes in the world along the lower Fox River. Pulp and paper mills are also located on the Oconto River, Peshtigo River, and Menominee River (Bertrand et al., 1976). Mill effluents are major sources of nutrients and oxygen- demanding compounds, especially to the southern half of the bay. Domestic wastes are responsible for the moderate loading of these same contaminants into central and northern Green Bay with wastewater treatment plants discharging into the Escanaba and Menominee Rivers and Little Bay de Noc plus many other smaller sources around the bay (Tierney et al., 1976). Agricultural sources throughout the Green Bay watershed contribute animal wastes, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The eutrophication of Green Bay has resulted from the nutrient and organic waste inputs. Schelske (1975) reports total soluble phosphorus loadings to Green Bay as 5.0 metric tons/day from the Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo, Menominee, Ford, Escanaba, Rapid, and Whitefish Rivers. Approximately 605t of this load enters the Green Bay basin via the Fox River. Schelske and Callender (1970) noted lower silica concentrations and transparency in Green Bay, especially in the extreme southern end, than in the rest of northern Lake Michigan. Howmiller and Beeton (1973) report Op depletion in the hypolimnion of southern Green Bay. The generally eutrophic conditions increase from north to south from southern loadings and east to west because of the general current pattern and the inherently nutrient rich, shallow western shore. It should be noted that spatial and temporal variations result from point source loadings and irregular hydrodynamics of this system. Algal research has an intense history in Green Bay with a concentration in the south end. In southern Green Bay, Holland (1968,1969) studied the plankton diatoms. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. (Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 1974) studied phytoplankton and periphyton in relation to the Pulliam Power Plant, Adams and Stone (1973) studied Cladoohora glomerata photosynthetic rates in relation to temperature, light, and Fox River inputs and Sager (1971) and Patterson et al., (1975) examined phytoplankton assemblages in relation to Fox River loading. Vanderhoef et al., (1972,1974) took advantage of the eutrophic conditions and substantial blue-green algal populations of southern Green Bay to research phytoplankton nitrogen fixation. Holland and Claflin (1975) mapped the horizontal distribution of planktonic diatoms throughout the bay. Tierney et al. (1976) reported enumerations of phytoplankton samples from eight locations in central and northern Green Bay. MATERIALS AND METHODS Phytoplankton samples were collected from 25 locations in Green Bay (Fig. 1) in May, August, and October. In May, before thermal stratification, single composite-depth samples were collected at each location by Michigan Department of Natural Resources personnel. The composite type sampler was lowered to twice Secchi disc reading and raised to the surface. This sampler responds to increased water pressure, thus biasing the samples to deeper depths. The August and October samples were discrete and taken from near surface, near bottom, and usually one intermediate depth by U. S. EPA personnel. We received 25 samples from the May cruise, 70 samples from the August cruise and 73 samples from the October cruise. Samples were preserved in Lugol's solution. Semi-permanent slides of the material were prepared by concentration of the material from 50 ml of water onto 25 mm "AA" Millipore filters, dehydration with a series of ethanol washes, and placement in clove oil on 50x70 mm glass slides. Prepared filters were covered with 43x50 mm #1 cover glasses and allowed to clear for approximately four weeks. Any clove oil lost by volatilization was replaced and the edges of the cover glasses were sealed with paraffin. Enumerations of the algal community were executed for all May samples and near surface and near bottom samples of August and October. A Leitz Ortholux microscope with a fluorite oil immersion objective giving about 1250X magnification and numerical aperature of 1.32 was used for counting. Population densities were determined as the average counts from two radial transects, corrected for volume. The raw counting data were coded for entry into computer files and subsequent analysis. Throughout this report, density refers to the number of algal units, whether cells or colonies, in a given volume of water. Physicochemical water properties were measured by personnel of the agencies responsible for the field sampling and given to us. The May information is less complete compared to the August and October data. It should also be noted that May phytoplankton abundance estimates are not directly comparable to the other sampling periods because of the different sampling procedures used. Analysis of these samples was also limited by the fact that some of the samples were obviously decomposed when we received them. Even samples from sets which did not contain obvious fungal and bacterial growth are somewhat suspect in that some of the more delicate species may have been lost. RESULTS PHYSICOCHEMICAL CONDITIONS Appendix A is a table of the physicochemical data. lay J rfaei wa n bti: v eratures varied from 2.3 C at locations near the Menominee River mouth May 3rd to 18.0 and 18.4^C at locations 17 and 18 in Sturgeon Bay and east of Chambers Island May l8th. May temperatures varied substantially but were generally higher in nearshore areas. August water temperatures ranged from the exceptional lO.O^C at location 17 in Sturgeon Bay to 22.5^C at location 7 in mid-bay west of Washington Island, and were usually about 20^C. October temperatures were lowest, 11.5^C, at location 1 in northern Little Bay de Noc and highest, 14.5 C, at locations 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the southern region of the sampled bay. Water temperatures were approximately the same throughout the bay. m^ May values varied from 7.8 to 8.9 with no distinct spatial patterns. August measurements ranged from 7.6 at location 17 in Sturgeon Bay to 8.6 along the Lake Michigan interface. October measurements ranged from 8.2 to 8.5. No areal patterns were recognized. No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples. August surface values were generally 3-4 ppm CO^ higher than October and were about 110 ppm CO^. No spatial pattern was discernible. CgndUQtiYirtY May surface measurements were substantially greater and varied much more than those of August and October. Values ranged from 238 mohms at location 1 in northern Little Bay de Noc to 460 and 440 mohms at locations 17 and 18 in Sturgeon Bay and east of Chambers Island. Most other May measurements wer-e between 300 and 400 mohms. August and October conductivity had a mean 275 mohms with most measurements within 10 mohms of the mean. August and October conductivity values gradually decreased from south to north. Turi?idAtY No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples. August surface turbidity was fairly uniform and generally 1.0 or less. October measurements were more variable and ranged from the unusually high 5.3 at location 1 in northern Little Bay de Noc to less than one at several scattered sampling locations surrounding St. Martin Island. October turbidity was somewhat lower in a band from Chambers Island to along the Lake Michigan interface. Nj.1^r^t§ ply? Nirt^r^t^? No measurements accompanied the May samples. August surface nitrate concentrations were very low south of Washington Island being 20 ppb except in Sturgeon Bay, and up to 100 ppb along the Lake Michigan interface. October nitrate values also generally decrease from north to south ranging from about 50 to 130 ppb. Low nitrate concentrations were noted at location 25 in Big Bay de Noc. No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples. August ammonia concentrations were about 4 ppb throughout most of the bay with much higher 40 and 50 ppb values in the vicinity of the Menominee River and a 150 ppb concentration near Escanaba. October values varied between 1 and 10 ppb throughout the bay with no apparent spatial patterns. No measurements accompanied the May phytoplankton samples. August silica concentrations were 0.1 and 0.2 ppm throughout most of the bay except in northern Little Bay de Noc and Sturgeon Bay where values were about 1 and 2 ppm« October sllloa measurtd about 1.0 ppm along the Lake Michigan Interface, Increased In the northern bay to about 1*3 ppm» and dropped below 1.0 ppm south of Peahtigo River. SflCQhl depth May depths varied from 1.0 m in Little Bay de Noc to 6«0 m along the Lake Michigan interface. Secchi depths were generally substantially less in Little Bay de Noc and south of Chambers Island. August depths, between 2.5 and 5.5 m, were generally less south of Chambers Island. October depths averaged less than May and August, being from 1.5 to 4.0 m. SunmarY of phYalgochealoal gonditiona Phosphorus concentrations were less than 2 ppb during August and October, May conditions delineated a region from Sturgeon Bay along the east coast of the bay to at least Chambers Island which included locations 17 and 18. Substantially higher conductivity values and water temperatures were noted here. These conditions were also observed in northern Big Bay de Noc at location 25. May Secchi depths were lower in Little Bay de Noc and south of Chambers Island than in the rest of the bay. A slight consistent decrease in conductivity and a general increase of water transparency and SiOp and NO^ concentrations from southern to northern Green Bay were observed in August. Comparatively low nutrient concentrations in an area of higher nutrient loading and low water transparencies usually indicate greater algal assimilation. This pattern was more weakly represented in October with the same south to north, but also a noticeable west to east^ gradient. Low water transparencies but higher nutrient concentrations were^ the general October conditions in Little Bay de Noc. The impacts of point source loading are difficult to detect when sampling is done on as large a scale as this, but unusually high or low physicochemical measurements were common in Sturgeon Bay, in the Menominee River area, and near the Escanaba River and Escanaba in Little Bay de Noc. For example, in May the 2.3 C at location 12 by the Menominee demonstrated the cool spring runoff. Consistently low water transparency and generally lower pH characterized location 3 near the mouth of the Escanaba River. The high ammonia concentration at location 4 was suspected to be associated with the Escanaba wastewater treatment facility. The unusually high 40 and 50 ppb NH^ concentrations at locations 13 and 14 were suspected impacts of the Menominee River loading that escaped detection at location 12, near the mouth. PHYTOPLANKTON The Green Bay phytoplankton assemblage comprised 400 algal taxa and about 80 genera from 8 divisions: Cyanophyta, Chlorophyta, Bacillariophyta, Chrysophyta, Cryptophyta, Pyrrophyta, Haptophyta, and Euglenophyta (Appendix B). The average density was 5293 cells/ml, with a range of 515 to 12,962 cells/ml. Due to severe deterioration of some of the May samples, only diatoms were counted for locations 8 and 17. Total Phytoplankton Distribution — Only diatom densities are reported for May because of the previously discussed problems with sample decomposition. May diatom densities averaged about 400 cells/ml, with a range from 25 to 1070 cells (Appendix C) . A transect of low diatom density was evident from location 16 to west of Chambers Island, and a region of high density paralleled that transect from Sturgeon Bay 10 to east of Chambers Island. Unusually high diatom densities of 871 and 1070 cells/ml were observed at location 25 in Big Bay de Noc and location 3 near the Escanaba River. Surface phytoplankton averaged about 7500 cells/ml in August (Fig. 2), ranging from 2580 to 12,608 cells/ml. Assemblage densities usually decreased from south to north, but were highest at location 25 in Big Bay de Noc and lowest at location 2 in Little Bay de Noc and location 17 in Sturgeon Bay. August bottom densities, contrarily, showed an increase from the shallow western shore to the Lake Michigan interface. August bottom densities ranged from 1447 to 12,608 cells/ml, with a 4914 average. The deeper locations (7, 9, 19, and 20) had lower densities of about 2000 cells/ml, whereas northern Big Bay de Noc had the highest density of 12,608 cells/ml. October surface communities (Fig. 2) averaged about 6800 cells/ml and ranged from 2584 to 12,862 cells/ml. Maximum density was observed at location 16 in southern Green Bay and a minimum at location 1 in Little Bay de Noc. Surface densities were generally lowest in the northcentral bay and along the Lake Michigan interface. High densities, 10,206 and 11,697 cells/ml, were noted at locations 24 and 25 in Big Bay de Noc. Bottom densities were lower, averaging 5432 cells/ml, ranging from 2817 to 8049 cells/ml. A general south to north and east to west decrease in density was observed. A corridor of low algal density extends from Little Bay de Noc to the Lake Michigan boundary. Overall August and October phytoplankton densities were about the same. Species Diversity — The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (Shannon and Weaver, 1963) was calculated for use as a community parameter. We have not intended to use it as a measure of Green Bay community stability. The use of species diversity as a 11 CO 0) CO c 4^ c o c H a o 4^ o Oh S^ D CO c\j o M 12 measure of community stability is not necessarily valid (Hendrickson and Ehrlich, 1971). Species diversity Indices are a function of the number of species and their proportional abundances in an assemblage. These measures are based on the assumptions that all pairs of species are equally different ecologically, and that the individuals of a species have the same physiological and ecological weight. The first assumption can be criticized, as Plelou (1974) suggests, because not all species niche hypervolumes are equal* All species are not of equal taxonomlc rank, they exhibit various degrees of morphological variation. Conceptually this can be related to niche hypervolume. The niche of a species could be large because all individuals of the species have the same broad tolerance of environmental conditions. The niche could also be large because it is actually the union of the subnlches of subpopulatlons of a species, as Stoermer and Yang (1969) have suggested of the eurytoplc Fragllarla crotonensls and Asterlonella formosa . In addition to the species equality complication, if relative abundances are Included In the index, the ranks of physiological potential of the individuals of different species should be equal. These generalities may average out when analyzing phytoplankton communities with their large number of species. However, species diversity must be studied more thoroughly before its relationship to community structure and stability is fully realized. May diatom diversity (S/N) averaged 0.100 and ranged from 0.018 In Sturgeon Bay to 0.301 at location 5 at Little Bay de Noc and 0.319 at location 11 near the Menominee River (Appendix C). Diversity in most of the bay was about 0.05, however. Isolated groups of stations around the Menominee River and in Little Bay de Noc were substantially higher. August surface phytoplankton diversity averaged 2.4, ranging from 1.9 to 13 3.0. Surface diversity was lowest north of Chambers Island. Higher values were found in the Big Bay de Noc, Little Bay de Noc and southern Green Bay. Bottom phytoplankton diversity averaged 2.7 and ranged from 1.732 to 3.33^. No areal pattern of bottom diversity was recognized. October surface diversity also generally decreased from south to north and was lowest near the Lake Michigan boundary. Diversity averaged 2.4 and ranged from 1.5 to 3-4. Higher values were noted in the October bottom communities, which averaged 2.6 and ranged from 1.2 to 3.4. Again diversity was highest overall in south-central Green Bay, decreasing in the northern bay region. Distribution of Algal Divisions — Blue-green algal densities (Fig. 3) were very low in May, averaging less than 100 cells/ml. Cyanophyte densities increased to an average of 3771 cells/ml in August, and were highest in the northern bay region at locations 6, 7, 9, 19, and 20. In October blue-green densities averaged about the same as August, 4060 cells/ml, but the areal distribution shifted to lowest densities in the north-central bay and high densities in the nearshore areas. Blue-green algae numerically comprised about 50J of the Green Bay assemblage in August and October (Fig. 4). Their numerical percent of the community was reduced in May to about 3$. Anacvstis incerta was the predominate Cyanophyte in August and October. May green algae densities (Fig. 5) averaged 234 cells/ml and these populations were distinctly more abundant south of Chambers Island. Chlorophyte abundance increased in August to an average of 1188 cells/ml with a relatively uniform distribution throughout the main bay. The October average dropped to 753 cells/ml with higher densities evident south of Chambers Island, nearshore at Location 8, and in Big and Little Bays de Noc. Green algae 14 cd OJ C 0) 0) I (d r- to r-l r^ cd 22 g O O O C 0) o •o ^^^ 5 i-H o » )., * bO o CO Q) •H 4-> •H r- 00 r- 0) CO •o " c en o CE •H CO rH o ex ^ 5 £ ^' « ON • o M 22 0) CO o c •o O bO O O C CO CO CO C O •H -P O a o 04 23 August sustained that percentage only at locations south of Chambers Island. Their relative occurrence was low, about 2$, throughout the rest of the bay in August and throughout the bay in October. Cryptophycean densities (Fig. 11) were unusually high at locations 16 and 18 in May, with densities greater than 2500 cells/ml compared to a seasonal average of 153 cells/ml. August and October densities averaged 527 and 656 cells/ml, respectively, with noticeably higher densities south of Chambers Island. Cryptophytes were apparently best represented in the May assemblages, especially south of Chambers Island and in Little Bay de Noc averaging 26$ (Fig. 12). Their proportions were reduced in August and October to about 10$, but were noticeably larger in the same areas of the bay as in May. H1^9> o M (m ^ It''. 6 O 0) a c (0 § (0 rH CO C O •H 4^ r- r- a CD o ' an 3 CE • M • r). 5 a M 26 CQ 0) iH O c o GO DO C 0) C O •H 4^ (0 rH a o o M CX4 27 r- • r- 0} 0) CD 4^ *~" >> •M a U O 43 a e x: l! hpgPha?ria lacustris Chod . ~ Skuja (1956) described it as numerous but seldom dominating with a widespread distribution. It is apparently eurytopic in the Great Lakes, having been observed in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Ontario (Schelske et al. 1976; Stoermer et al., 1975). It reportedly is an abundant component of sparse silica-limited summer phytoplankton populations in the upper Great Lakes. Its distribution in Lake Huron demonstrates reduced populations in the more perturbed areas of Saginaw Bay (Stoermer and Kries, in press). In Green Bay (Fig. 21) populations first appeared in August samples. The number of colonies/ml increased markedly in October. In August and October its distribution was relatively uniform throughout the bay. Gloeocvstis planctonica (West £jt, West) Lemm.— Skuja (1956) described this taxon as numerous at various times of the year. Great Lakes populations indicate a summer maximum (Stoermer et al., 1975; Schelske et al., 1976; Stoermer and Kreis, in press). It has been described as a characteristic component of silica limited phytoplankton 36 u 0) a OQ •H +i OQ > a < Oh O OQ 0) OQ C 0) C O •H 4^ cd iH D a o o CO o M 37 •H O •H U Q) (d x: o CO o o o a Oh O CO 00 C T? C O •H cd a o a. C\J o M [1:4 38 associations in southern Lake Michigan, In Green Bay (Fig, 22) this taxon was scarce in May, most abundant in August, and uniformly present at low densities in October. Slightly increased population densities were observed south of Chambers Island in August. Scenedesmus denticulatus var. J,iR?ar49 Hansg.-- The taxonomic obscurity of this organism may be the reason for the limited number of reports of its occurrence in the literature. Green Bay populations (Fig. 23) were very low in May and much greater in August and October. The highest densities were recorded in August at the northwest nearshore location and in Big Bay de Noc. Scenedesmus ouadricauda (Turp.) Breb.— Skuja (1956) describes this as a sporadic component of larger lake phytoplankton assemblages. It has been reported from Lake Erie (Taft and Taft, 1971) and fairly abundant offshore in Lake Ontario ^Stoermer et al., 1975). It does not appear in the offshore waters of the upper Great Lakes (Stoermer and Ladewski, 1976) but has been recorded as important near the mouth of the Grand River in Lake Michigan (Kopczynska, 1973). This species appears to respond postively to eutrophic habitats. In Green Bay (Fig. 24) it was rare in May, but increasing population densities were noted in August to October. The one unusually high value in May may be a result of the unseasonally high water temperature at locations 18 and 17. Non-diatom algae were not counted at location 17, so no record is available. August and October abundances are markedly reduced in the open bay north of Chambers Island. 39 (d o •H o o c Of) •H 4J OQ > a o 00 (d •H c •o GO i 00 0) •o o c: •H 00 c c o •H (d •H a o CM o M ^2 CvGlQtella stelllieera (CI. ^ Grun.) V.H,— Densities of this taxon have decreased in Lake Erie from 1938 to 1965 (Hohn, 1969). Stoermer and Ladewski (1976) assign it a double temperature optimum of 8 and 18^C. It had highest population densities in September in northern Lake Huron (Schelske et al., 1976) and seems to have a fall maximum (Lowe, 1974) • Cholnoky (1968) says this taxon grows in eutrophic waters, however, it was less abundant in highly eutrophic Saginaw Bay than in less eutrophic nearshore waters (Schelske et al., 1974) and was more common in offshore waters of northern Lake Huron- It was reportedly most abundant in the north and western region of Green Bay (Holland and Claflin, 1975). In 1977 its Green Bay populations (Fig. 25) were observed sporadically in August and October and absent in May. Its largest populations were found in the northern bay region in Big Bay de Noc and along the Lake Michigan boundary. QyqIQ^^U^ (^omn9U Grun.— Described as euplanctonic from lakes of subalpine and alpine regions (Huber-Pestalozzi, 1942), it was formerly found in primarily oligotrophic areas. It has been reported as a minor component of plankton assemblages in Lake Superior and northern Lake Huron (Schelske et al. 1972,1974; Lowe, 1976). It was reported from nearshore areas in southern Lake Huron with an August bloom less than 2500 cells/ml (Stoermer and Kreis, in press). It was, however, absent from Saginaw Bay. In Green Bay (Fig. 26), May populations were greater than 100 cells/ml in Big Bay de Noc and absent through most other parts of the Green Bay system. Average densities increased in August throughout the bay, especially in Big Bay 43 0) cd 0) o iH O > o o OQ C 0) •o c o •H cd a o in CM a M 44 •H c § o o cd rH H 0) +:> o H O > o o GO 0) c TD C O •H 4^ CO r-\ D a o 04 o M Cx4 45 de Noc where a bloom of greater than 5000 cells/ml was encountered. The Big Bay de Noc bloom subsided in October, but substantial densities remained at most locations north of Chambers Islands, especially in the Bay de Noc complex. CYgi.Qt?J.l9^ gpmt^ (Ehr.) Kutz.~ Hustedt (1957) describes the taxon as an oligohalobic, sapoxenous alkaliphil. It has been recognized to be a component of oligo-mesotrophic waters (Hutchinson, 1967; Schelske et al., 1976) which is substantiated by its absence in Lake Erie (Hohn, 1969) and its low density populations in Lake Ontario. It has been found frequently in the upper Great Lakes (Schelske et al., 1972,1974) where its range may be becoming more restricted due to increased levels of eutrophication (Stoermer and Yang, 1970). It apparently has a seasonal optimum from August to October, but is present from at least April to December in southern Lake Huron (Schelske et al., 1976; Stoermer and Kreis, in press) . Low population densities of this species were observed in Green Bay (Fig. 27) during May, increasing in August and October with populations commonly exceeding 30 cells/ml. It did not respond positively to conditions south of Chambers Island as did several other diatom taxa, but higher densities were observed in the northwest nearshore area and in the Bay de Noc complex. St^gPhar]|0 a o C c o •H 4^ OJ iH D a o C\J o M CX4 47 have found that it responds opportunistically with nutrient enrichment. In Green Bay (Fig, 28) an unusually large population, about 150 cells/ml, developed at location 9 in May, while densities in the rest of the bay were less than 10 cells/ml. Its numbers increased slightly by August, exclusively at stations south of Chambers Island. October densities were the largest, remaining substantially larger in the southern half of the sampling region. Consistent positive correlations with alkalinity, .77 and .55, were found in August and October. §t^^pn^qo(3j,?9y? Pj,^gar^? Ehr.— Substantial populations have been reported from Green Bay. Its July distribution was restricted to the nutrient rich area from the Fox River to Chambers Island (Holland and Claflin, 1975). A northern Green Bay study reported sizable densities south of Chambers Island, near Portage Marsh, and in the Bay de Noc complex (Tierney et al., 1976). This taxon apparently grows best in eutrophic conditions. In our sample (Fig. 29) it was sporadically recorded south of Chambers Island and in Little Bay de Noc during May and August. Its densities developed substantially in August to 150 to 350 cells/ml south of Chambers Island and in Little Bay de Noc. St^pt>^nQ?gi;ar4a fgngstrata (Lyngb.) Kfftz.— Abundant throughout most of the Great Lakes and other freshwater systems, this taxon is apparently eurytopic. Its abundance has not changed in Lake Erie from 1938 to 1965 (Hohn, 1969). Stoermer and Ladewski (1976) assign it a wide temperature tolerance with an optimum in southern Lake Michigan of 15 C. It has been suggested that this taxon suffers depressed populations in severely perturbed areas such as southern Green Bay (Stoermer and Yang, 1970). Koppen (1978) assigns this taxon to oligo-dystrophic waters. In Green Gay (Fig. 32) this taxon was most abundant around the Menominee River in August. At all other locations and during the other sampling periods 52 to O s o (1) c o •H o < O «0 0) 0} C 0) •o c o •H -p •H a o o M 53 c vH U to H H 0) i3 cd H (m O OQ OQ C Q) T? C O •H -P OJ fH a o Ol4 CO on o M 54 population densities were much less* Tat)?lJLar4^ flog GO o iH O a o H cd 0) (d H o w CO c 0) c o •H 4J OJ iH D a o on on o M U4 56 c "J^."-' C •H O D O (d o (d •H (d H •H b( 03 Oh O (0 0) CO c •o c o •H iH a o on O M CZ4 57 FragJlaria grQtQn^nSlg Kitton— This species is tolerant of a wide range of ecological conditions. It has been proposed that this morphological entity may actually comprise several physiolgical races (Stoermer and Yang, 1969), enabling it to be so eurytopic. In Green Bay (Fig. 35), its populations were sporadic, but fairly uniform throughout the bay during all sampling periods. Svnedra f414f9rffii? Grun.— This taxon is apparently eurytopic. It has been noted in Lake Huron from May to early June and October in nearshore areas and around the mouth of Saginaw Bay (Schelske et al., 197^, 1976; Stoermer and Kreis, in press). Its Lake Michigan populations have primarily been offshore (Stoermer and Yang, 1969) and as part of the spring maximum in Grand Traverse Bay (Stoermer et al., 1972). Holland and Claflin (1975) found it in Big Bay de Noc region of Green Bay in June. Tierney et al. (1976) listed it with large densities in May. In Green Bay (Fig. 36) population densities were high in the north in May, high in the south in August and abundant throughout most of the bay in October. Lower densities were characteristic for the central open bay region along the Lake Michigan interface. Amphipleura oellucida Kutz.— Stoermer and Yang (1970) report this taxon as widespread in Lake Michigan with low densities. Stoermer and Ladewski (1976) assign it a double temperature optimum of 3-6 and 15-17^0. It has been reported as planktonic in Green Bay (Holland, 1969; Holland and Claflin, 1975), with densities reaching 58 OQ Q) C O -P O O OS •H u o 00 0) CO c 0) •o c o •H +:> 03 a o in en o M (X4 59 u 'O (D c > CO o CO 0) OQ c c o •H 4-> CO r^ :3 a o m O M Ex4 60 15-20 cells/ml in the area east and south of Chambers Island during July, Hustedt (1937-1939) describes this taxon as eutrophic. In Green Bay (Fig. 37) this species was absent in May. It appears south of Chambers Island almost exclusively in August with low densities averaging about 10 cells/ml. October populations occur throughout the bay but are distinctly greater around and south of Chambers Island, surpassing densities of 70 cells/ml. This taxon apparently responds to more nutrient rich environments. NHggQhj,^ ^QiPtiX^rJodg? Archibald- Populations of this taxon have been observed in Lake Michigan near Waukegan, It is probably more abundant than is reported in the literature because of its taxonomic obscurity. In Green Bay, (Fig. 38) populations were observed sporadically in May and only south of Chambers Island in August • In October it was present at lower population densities than August throughout the bay. ghrY$9?p)^^^r?;i^ tQnRjgpin^ Lautb.— Skuja (19^8) reported this species from more or less dystrophic lakes and predominately in the summer and fall. He amended its distribution to numerous everywhere (Skuja, 1956) especially in the summer. This taxon was reported from northern Lake Huron (Schelske et al., 1975) and was sporadically abundant in Saginaw Bay in August to October (Stoermer and Kreis, in press). In Green Bay (Fig. 39) it was most abundant in August in the south-central part of the bay at location 16, near the Menominee River, and in the Bay de Noc complex. Slightly lower August densities were recorded for 61 0) o CO u 0) H O •H x: o < Oh O CO 00 C (D X3 C o cd :s ex o Pu o M 1X4 62 CO 0) -o o •H u cd O •H O CO o w N Oh O OQ CO C 0) •o c o •H 4-> 03 rH D a o cx) on o M 63 c •H O CQ •H u a o (d 0) Ch 0) (U x: o OQ O CQ > o o CQ Q) CQ C Q) TJ C O •H 4J 03 rH :3 Q. O Pu. on O M 64 north-central Green Bay. Moderate densties were observed of the species in October, being slightly higher in nearshore waters around the northern shores of Green Bay. This taxon apparently has an affinity for more eutrophic conditions, especially during the summer. Mall9ffl9nag Pg^UdQQQrpnata Presc — This taxon has been described as fairly rare with predicted maximum densities of 20 cells/ml in a 17-18^C temperature optimum (Stoermer and Ladewski, 1976). It was not observed in the May samples from Green Bay (Fig. 40), but did occur sporadically in August and October. The largest population densities were recorded in October at locations south of Chambers Island. Chr99ffi9na? spp.— These organisms have only recently been recognized as part of the Great Lakes flora. They were a common component in the phytoplankton of southern Lake Michigan (Stoermer and Tuchman, manuscript). In Green Bay (Fig. 41) it was sporadically represented in May and August. October populations were more uniform and were consistently greater in the area of the bay south of Chambers Island. Rh9doB9nag jgilimyL Skuja— Skuja (1948, 1956) reported it as often abundant and usually with many other phytoplankton. "^his species has been observed throughout the Great Lakes. In Green Bay (Fig. 42) it was a primary component of the phytoplankton assemblages throughout the bay during all sampling periods. Only two blooms greater than 2000 cells/ml were recorded, both in August in the southern part 65 ^-> CO C o o o o (D OQ O OQ (d c o B o H H cd O CQ CD CO c 0) c o •H 4J CO nH a o o M 66 a a w (ti § B O o u u o 0) a 0) c o •H +5 CC iH a o o M El. 67 OQ Of] g O a o •o o 05 Oh O W OQ C 0) TD c o •H 4-> (d rH D a o o M (X4 68 of the bay. Populations tended to be reduced north of Chambers Island in the open bay area. CrYPtgfflQnag spp.— £.- ffiargg9n44, £- PYat^^> £.• ^rpsa, and £. gr^(?4;? were identified members of this group. Due to ^-axonomic uncertainties these taxa were lumped for final analysis. They were present during all sampling periods in Green Bay (Fig. 43) with greatest densities south of Chambers Island. As a group they apparently are most abundant in more eutrophic waters. These organisms correlated positively with conductivity in August and October with values of .79 and .64. QyfflnQ u Cm O CO Q) CO c 0) T3 C O •H 4^ OJ rH a. o PL. CO o M 70 a 00 B •H •H o q E > CD O CO 00 C Q) •o C O •H CO rH D a o 04 M 1X4 71 densities as great as 5000 cells/ml (Stoermer et slI. 1975). In Green Bay (Fig, 45) they were observed with densities of up to 1000 cells/ml in May and October, but were most abundant in August, surpassing 2000 cells/ml densities. 72 OQ Q) 0) to (0 rH Oh O u o o CO 0) c c o •H (d rH a o in o M 73 DISCUSSION Green Bay receives the discharge of 1/3 of the total drainage basin of Lake Michigan and could be an important buffer for polluted water flushing into the relatively oligotrophic to mesotrophic water of northern Lake Michigan. Many of the undesirable properties of water pollution are the direct result of nutrient addition and the subsequent response of increased growth of phy toplankton . Strong evidence suggests that phosphorus is the nutrient limiting algal densities in the Lake Michigan basin. The distribution of the usable form of this nutrient is difficult to trace because phytoplankton assimilate it quickly and can utilize concentrations of phosphorus that are lower than can be readily detected. The distribution of variables in the system that are dependent upon phosphorus concentrations must therefore be examined. These variables include levels of other nutrients, phytoplankton community density, diversity, and composition, and phytoplankton population density. Green Bay is apparently one of the most eutrophic areas of Lake Michigan. Holland (1968) describes the bay as eutrophic compared to the oligotrophic Wisconsin shore and the intermediate conditions on the Michigan shore of Lake Michigan. Tarapchak and Stoermer (1976) suggest the only regions more eutrophic than Green Bay would be a few harbors receiving heavy nutrient and industrial waste loadings directly from rivers. A southern Lake Michigan study (Stoermer and Tuchman, manuscript) which was done concurrently with this revealed an average phytoplankton density about 20$ lower than the average for Green Bay. The sampling regime in Green Bay was limited to north of the Oconto 74 River, Physicochemical variables such as pH, temperature, and ammonia and silica concentrations did not demonstrate recognizable patterns. This was more or less expected because only silica and nitrogen would have been directly affected by phytoplankton density. August and October conductivities did demonstrate a slight decreasing gradient from south to north. This could reflect either assimilation of the biologically active portion of the total dissolved solids or dilution with lower conductivity Lake Michigan water. This same gradient is evident for turbidity with an inverse gradient of the same distribution for Secchi depth and nitrate concentrations. The increased water transparency along the south to north longitudinal axis of the bay is probably due to a reduction of suspended solids. It does not correlate with phytoplankton density. The increase in nitrate is most likely a result of intrusion of Lake Michigan water which is less depleted in nitrate due to lower phosphorus loading and consequent lower phytoplankton densities. The regions north and south of Chambers Island were recognized as major areas supporting substantially different phytoplankton associations. Little Bay de Noc also separated as a minor entity. The northwest nearshore area around Cedar River and Big Bay de Noc also displayed unique characteristics. The northern bay region was characterized by regularly reduced populations of many species. Particularly, diatom densities were lower in August and October. Smaller abundances of the apparently eutrophic SQgn^d^gffy? Qti^drirg^ycag^ in August and October were also recognized. Blue-green algal densities were higher in August and lower in October than the other areas of the bay. Community similarity cluster associations clearly isolated this region from the south-central bay region. The northwest nearshore area primarily separated from the northern bay 75 region on the basis of community similarity measured as euclidean distances. Unusually greater population densities of Cvclotella comta and Scenedesmus dgPtl9\Alattig var. linearis in August and October, ChrvsosDhaer-=lla longisoina in October, and Svnedra filiformis in May and October delineated this station. Big Bay de Noc featured indications of eutrophication, but without abundances of the species that usually characterize severely disturbed areas. Relatively higher abundances of chlorophycean algae, diatoms and the eurytopic Asterionalla formosa in October were apparent. Ample populations of CtlirYgQgPhagrglla l9n«i9P4,na accompanied the bloom of mesotrophic Cvclotella comensis in August. Location 25 was always considerably different than the rest of the bay, but location 24, closer to the main bay, clustered with the northern bay region in August. Little Bay de Noc apparently suffered greater disturbance from waste loading than any other northern bay area. Large populations of green algae were observed here in October. The distinctly eutrophic Steohanodiscus niagarae and Crvotomonas spp. were very abundant in August, the latter in May and October, also. The south-central bay region, south of Chambers Island, was characterized by the h'^gher phytoplankton community abundance and eutrophic species densities throughout most of the sampled periods. The following distinctly eutrophic species were present in substantially higher density populations than the rest of the bay in August and/or October: Steohanodiscus minutus . Stgphan9d49 Amphipl^ura p^j,;ugj.aa, CrYPt^gmpna? spp. , and Fraffilaria QaPUQina* Green algae , total diatoms , Agt?riQn?li.a fSJCaafiSL, Tat>?lilari,a fioccuiosa var. iin?ar4gi ChrYg9gphagr?lla l9np;t§pina> Chr9QfflQna? spp., and Mail^lomonas pseudocoronata also displayed higher densities south of 76 Chambers Island than in the northern open bay during their optimum season. These surface phytoplankton associations do not agree entirely with the areas defined by Holland and Claflin (1975). It is significant that the upper bay was divided into two regions. Many of the diatoms reported as characteristic of the regions which Holland and Claflin delineated tend to agree with the flora of regions defined in this study. The spatial differences noted may be the result of a different hydrodynamic status of the bay due to transient meteorological conditions. Examination of the phytoplankton community distributions utilizing euclidian distances and cluster analysis reveals temporally different balances within the large regional groupings. The northern and south-central bay regions are very dissimilar, being the last clusters to associate in August and October, but the magnitude and orientation of the dissimilarity distances are quite different within the groups for the two sampling periods. The August northern bay cluster extends into Big Bay de Noc to location 24 and seems to trap the Little Bay de Noc cluster tightly with the bay. In October the northern bay cluster does not include location 24 of Big Bay de Noc, and the Little Bay de Noc cluster spreads south with a north to south longitudinal axis along the northwest nearshore area. Long axes are also apparent in the three minor associations within the northern bay cluster. The respective presence and absence of these axes in October and August are substantiated by the shape of the euclidian contours oriented around location 7. These axes are oriented in a manner suggesting a circular circulation for the bay north of Chambers Island. The absence of these axes in August suggests this circulation was modified, possibly as a result of seich activity. If a northern transport of water did exist as a result of a seiche, 77 several conditions could be expected. First, the water in the Bay de Noc areas would become isolated resulting from the movement of water toward them. This appears to be the situation in August, but not October. Second, water would exit Green Bay into Lake Michigan along the northern boundary. This can not be substantiated because of the lack of sampling locations in Lake Michigan. Third, the movement of water from south to north would decrease community dissimilarity distances between the southern and northern locations. These distances between location 16 and northern bay locations are indeed smaller in August than October. Last, if the water level lowered in southern Green Bay, Lake Michigan water and its phytoplankton assemblage would enter the bay from Sturgeon Bay. This is suggested by the greater August dissimilarities between location 17 and surrounding sampling locations compared to much smaller October dissimilarities. The phytoplankton communities seemed to have mapped a demonstration of substantially different hydrodynamic structures of the bay. Green Bay remains as a eutrophic extremity of Lake Michigan. It seems to respond rapidly to different temporal hydrodynamic situations that develop. Waters of the south-central bay and Little Bay de Noc demonstrate symptoms of considerable eutrophication. The northern bay region is apparently less perturbed, which may be the result of biological reclamation of the water or dilution with Lake Michigan water. 78 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this investigation epitomize some serious problems in our current approach to water quality management. Although the phytoplankton assemblages of northern Green Bay are generally characteristic of nutrient rich conditions, there are several different phytoplankton associations present which indicate response to varying types and intensity of perturbation. It is clear that development of most efficient management strategies depends on detection and proper evaluation of these more subtle system responses. On the basis of our results, several levels of effect can be recognized. The flora of Big Bay de Noc is characteristic of naturally productive regions within the Great Lakes system. Although such regions maintain relatively high primary production rates and I'arge phytoplankton standing stocks, they are generally not associated with water quality problems. •Since such naturally productive areas furnish important nursery areas for some fish species and are important to the function of the entire system, further study should be undertaken to understand their trophic dynamics. Big Bay de Noc would be an appropriate area for such a study since it is one of the few remaining such areas in the Great Lakes system which have not suffered extensive anthropogenic modification. Our data show local areas of extreme perturbation in Little Bay de Noc near Escanaba, the Escanaba River, and on the western shore near the Menominee River; areas where severe water quality problems associated with eutrophication have occurred in the past. •Further remedial actions are necessary to reduce inputs from sources 79 in these areas. Two primary zones of water quality are present in the open waters of Green Bay. Phytoplankton populations at stations south of the vicinity of Chambers Island are characteristic of highly perturbed conditions. Populations at stations north of this area reflect the influences of both nutrient reduction by loss to the sediments and dilution through exchange with Lake Michigan. •Further remedial action to limit nutrient input to southern Green Bay is clearly indicated. * Additional studies should be undertaken to quantify the exchange of water and dissolved and entrained materials between northern Green Bay and Lake Michigan proper. * Additional process oriented studies should be undertaken to quantify loss rates associated with phytoplankton populations generated in the highly eutrophic southern portion of Green Bay. Data from the current project indicate that Green Bay is a very dynamic system and that it is highly probable that the temporal sequence of sampling is not adequate to resolve some important events. * Any subsequent studies of this system should include sampling during the spring phytoplankton maximum. * Additional information should be gathered regarding time series of population change in areas of the bay receiving differing nutrient levels. The results of this project show continued population succession in the Lake Michigan system. Some phytoplankton populations now dominant (e.g. Cvclotella comensis ) were either absent or very rare in the system until very recently. Other previously important populations have been effectively removed 80 from the phytoplankton assemblage* * Continued blologloal monitoring of the system is necessary to deteot trends resulting from biotic interactions which will not be detected by chemical and physical measurements alone. 81 REFERENCES Adams, M. S. and W. Stone. 1973. Field studies on photosynthesis of CladoDhora glomerata (chlorophyta) in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Ecology 54(4): 853-862. Ahrnsbrak, W. F. 1971. A diffusion model for Green Bay, Lake Michigan. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Technical Report No. 7. 81 pp. Bertrand, G., J. Lang and J. Ross. 1976. The Green Bay Watershed, Past/ Present/Future. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Technical Report No. 229. Cholnoky, B. J. 1968. Die Okologie der Diatomeen in Binnengewassern. J. Cramer, Lehre. Drouet, F. and W. A. Daily. 1956. Revision of the Coccoid Myxophyceae, Butler Univ. Bot. Studies, Vol. 12, 218 pp. Butler Univ. Indianapolis, Ind. Hendrickson, J. A. Jr. and P. R. Ehrlich. 1971. An expanded concept of species diversity. Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. No. 439, 6 pp. Hohn, M. H. 1969. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of plankton diatoms. Bull. Ohio Biol. Surv. N. S. , 3(1), 211 pp. Holland, R. E. 1968. Correlation of Melosira species with trophic conditions in Lake Michigan. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13: 555-557. Holland, R. E. 1969. Seasonal fluctuations of Lake Michigan diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14: 423-436. Holland, R. E. and A. M. Beeton. 1972. Significance to eutrophication of spatial differences in nutrients and diatoms in Lake Michigan. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17:88-96. Holland, R. E. and L. W. Claflin. 1975. Horizontal distribution of planktonic diatoms in Green Bay, mid-July 1970. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20(3): 365-378. Howmiller, R. P. and A. M. Beeton. 1973. Report on the cruise of the R/U Neeskay in central Lake Michigan and Green Bay, 8-14 July 1971. University Wisconsin — Milwaukee, Center for Great Lakes Studies Spec. Rep. 13. 71 pp. Huber-Pestalozzi, G. 1942. Das Phytoplankton des Susswassers. Systematik und Biologie. Jji A. Thienemann, ed. Die Binnengewasser. Einzeldarstellungen aus Limnologie und ihren Nachbargebieten. Vol. 16, pt. 2, 2nd half. pp. 367-549. E. Schweizerbartische Verlagsbuchhaulung , Stuttgart. 82 Hustedt, F. 1937-1939. Systematlsche und okologische Untersuchungen uber die Diatomenflora von Java, Bali und Sumatra nach dem Material der Deutschen Limnologischen Sunda-Expedition, Arch, Hydrobiol. Suppl. 15: 131-177, 187-295, 393-506, 638-790, 28 Taf; 16: 1-155. Hustedt, ?• 1957. Die Diatomeenflora des Flusssystems der Weser im Gebiet der Hans tad t Bremen. Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen 3^(3): 181-440. Hutchinson, G. E. 1967. A treatise on limnologie. Vol. II. Introduction to Lake Biology and the Limnoplankton. J. Wiley and Sons, New York. 1115 pp. Kopczynska, E. E. 1973- Spatial and temporal variations in phytoplankton and associated environmental factors in the Grand River outlet and adjacent waters of Lake Michigan. PhD. Dissertation, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mi. 487 PP. Koppen, J. D. 1978. Distribution and aspects of the ecology of the genus Tabellaria Ehr. (Bacillariophyceae) in the north central United States. Amer. Midi. Nat. 99(2): 383-397. Lowe, R. L. 1974. Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of freshwater diatoms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Series No. EPA-670/4-74-005. 333 PP. Lowe, R. L. 1976. Phytoplankton in Michigan *s near shore waters of Lake Huron and Lake Superior, 1974. Michigan Dept. Nat. Res., Tech. Rpt. 30 pp. Moore, J. R. and R. P. Meyer. 1969. Progress report on the geological- geophysical survey of Green Bay 1968. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Technical Report No. 1. 16 pp. Patterson, D. J., E. Epstein and J. McEvoy. 1975. Water pollution investigation: Lower Green Bay and Lower Fox River. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program No. EPA-905/9-74-017. Pielou, E. C. 1974. Population and Community Ecology: Principles and Methods. Gordon and Breach, New York. Sager, P. E. 1971. Nutritional ecology and community structure of the phytoplankton of Green Bay. University of Wisconsin — Green Bay Water Resources Center, Technical Completion Report. Project No. OWRR A-017-WIS, Schelske, C. 1975. Silica and nitrate depletion as related to rate of eutrophication of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior, pp. 277-278. Jji A. D. Hasler, ed. Coupling of Land and Water Systems. Proc. Symp. Interactions Between Land and Water. Intern. Assoc. Ecol. and Soc. Intern. Limnol. Springer- Verlag, Inc., New York. 83 Sohelsket C. and E. Callender. 1970. Survey of phytoplankton productivity and nutrients in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Proc. 13th Conf« Great Lakes Res. 1970: 93-107 • Internet. Assoc. Oreat Lakes Res. Sohelske, C. L., L. E. Feldt, M. A. Santiago and E. F. Stoermer. 1972. Nutrient enrichment and its effect on phytoplankton production and species composition in Lake Superior. Proc. 15th Conf. Oreat Lakes Res: 149-1 65 t Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. Schelske, C. L., L. E. Feldt, M. S. Simmons and E. F. Stoermer. 1974. Storm induced relationships among chemical conditions and phytoplankton In Saginaw Bay and western Lake Huron. Proc. 17th Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1974: 78-91 • Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. Schelskei C. L., E. F. Stoermer, J. E. Gannon and Mlla S. Simmons. 1976. Biological, chemical and physical relationships in the straits of Mackinac. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecol. Res. Series #EPA-600/3-75-004. 274 pp. Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1963- The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 117 PP« Skuja, H. 1948. Taxonomie des Phytoplanktons elnlger Seen in Uppland, Sweden. Symbolae Botanicae Upsallenses 13: 3. PP. 1-399. ^39 Tbl. SkuJa. 1956. Taxonomlsche und Blologische Studlen uber das Phytoplankton Schwedlscher Binnengewasser. Nova Acta Reglae Socletatls Sclentlarum Upsallensls. Ser. IV, Vol. 16, No. 3 pp. 1-404. 63 Tbl. Sneath, P. H. A. and R. R. Sokal. 1973« Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 573 PP« Stoermer, E. F., M« M. Bowman, J. C. Kingston and A. L. Schaedel. 1975. Phytoplankton composition and abundance in Lake Ontario during IFYGL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Res. Ser. No. EPA.660/3-75-004. Stoermer, E« F., B. G. Ladewskl and C. L. Schelske. 1978. Population responses to Lake Michigan phytoplankton to nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment. Hydroblologla 57(3): 249-265. Stoermer, E. F. and R. G. Krels, Jr. In press. Phytoplankton composition and abundance in Southern Lake Huron. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stoermer, E« F« and T« B. Ladewskl. 1976. Apparent optimal temperatures for the occurrence of some common phytoplankton species in Southern Lake Michigan. University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division Publ. No. 18. 49 pp. 84 Stoermer, E. F., C. L« Sohelskei M. A. Stntltgo, L. E. Faldt. 1972. Spring phytoplankton ibundanoe and productivity in Orand Travarae Bay, Lake Mlohigan, 1970. Proo« 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1972: 161-191 « Intern. Assoo. Great Lakes Res. Stoermer, E. F. and M. Tuohman. (manusoript.) Phytoplankton assemblages of the nearshore zone of southern Lake Michigan. Stoermer, E. F. and J. J. Yang. 1969* Plankton diatom assemblages in Lake Michigan. Univ. Michigan, Great Lakes Res. Div. Spec. Rep. 47, 286 pp. Stoermer, E. F« and J. J. Yang. 1970. Distribution and relative abundanees of dominant plankton diatoms in Lake Michigan. Univ. Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division Publ. No« 16. 64 pp. Taft, C. E. and C. W. Taft. 1971. The algae of western Lake Erie. Bull. Ohio Biol. Surv., N.S., No. 4, Pt. 1. 185 pp. Tarapchak, S. J. and E. F. Stoermer. 1976. Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan Region. Volume 4. Phytoplankton of Lake Michigan. Argonne National Laboratory Publ. No. ANL/ES-40 Vol. 4. Argonne, Illinois. 204 pp. Tlerney, D. P., R. Powers, T. Williams, and S. C. Hsu. 1976. Actinomycete distribution in northern Green Bay and the Great Lakes. Taste and odor relationships in eutrophlcatlon of nearshore waters and embayments. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region V. Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program No. EPA-905/9-74-007. 167 pp. Upchurch, S. B. 1972. Natural weathering and chemic<«l loads in the Great Lakes. Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1972: 401-415. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. Vanderhoef, L. N., B. Dana, D. Enerich, and R. H. Burrls. 1972. Acetylene reduction in relation to levels of phosphate and fixed nitrogen in Green Bay. New Phytol. 71: 1097-1105. Vanderhoef, L. N., C. Y. Huang, and R. Muslf. 1974. Nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) by phytoplankton in Green Bay, Lake Michigan, in relation to nutrient concentrations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 19(1): 119-125. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. 1974. Effects of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's Pulllam Power Plant on lower Green Bay, January 1973-December 1973. 483 PP. 85 APPENDIX A. Physicochemical data for May composite and August and October discrete samples from Green Bay, 1977. It includes the location number (L) , collection date (CD), collection depth (D, m) , bottle temperature (T, C), alkalinity (A, ppm CO3), specific conductivity (C, mohms) , turbidity (X), nitrate and nitrite (N, ppm), ammonia (M, ppm), reactive silica (SI, ppm), and secchi depth (S, m) . Reactive phosphorus concentrations were less than 2 ppb. CO 001 002 003 00a 005 06 007 008 009 010 oil 012 13 om 015 16 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 02U 025 770505 770505 770505 770505 770505 770505 770517 770517 770519 770519 77050t» 770503 77050U 770503 770504 77050U 770518 770518 770518 770517 770517 770517 7-J0517 770517 770517 09 10 09 09. 11 10. 25 OB. 12 06. 30 05. 30 05. 15 09. 15 05 15 02 26 04 15 05 16 06 15 07 15 la 30 45 05 30 05 30 06 30 07 15 09 12 13 2 4 2 3 5 .0 ,0 .8 ,4 .0 .0 .5 .8 .0 8 1 238 305 320 310 320 300 318 342 365 344 310 310 000 315 280 000 460 440 380 330 320 320 338 348 362 001 001 002 002 003 003 OOU 0'i4 005 005 006 06 007 007 008 003 009 009 010 010 Oil Oil 012 012 013 013 014 014 015 015 16 OU 017 017 018 018 019 019 770811 770011 770011 770Q1 1 770811 770311 770811 770810 770811 770811 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770310 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770310 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770810 770811 770811 12 02 15 I1O 110 02 20.0 10 20.0 02 20.0 110 14 18.0 109 02 20.0 109 19.0 110 19.5 110 18.5 110 02 20.0 109 12 20.0 109 02 21.5 110 16 18.5 110 02 22.5 110 30 10.0 110 02 21.0 110 10 20.5 110 02 22.0 113 33 09.0 110 02 21.0 113 7. 10.5 111 02 21.5 113 14 18.0 112 02 21.0 Hi 11 20.5 02 20.0 17 15.0 02 21.0 114 20 12.5 111 02 20.0 10.5 21.0 113 113 110 23 2 113 111 113 16 11.5 112 2 10.0 116 7 09.5 107 02 22.0 113 20 11.0 111 02 20.0 112 34 10.0 111 271 0. 273 0. 272 0. 278 1 284 1. 279 1. 277 0. 276 0. 274 0. 274 0. 274 0. 276 275 274 27 3 274 278 277 279 278 280 279 281 1 281 1 279 ) 277 1 282 1 276 1 280 1 279 283 280 278 282 278 279 1 277 278 1 8 0.03 0. 9 0.04 0. 0.05 0. 0.03 0. 0.06 0. 0.07 0. 0.07 0. 0.08 0. 0.05 0. 0.05 0. 0.05 0. 0.08 0. 0.02 0. 0.^7 0. 0.04 0. 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.02 C. 13 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.02 0-16 0.02 8 0.20 .9 0.02 0.17 0.20 0.21 .7 0.02 .0 0.20 0.02 0.22 2.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 4.5 2I5 4.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 4.5 021 1.05 4.5 023 1.18 4.5 012 0.70 040 1.65 022 1.06 034 1.12 150 0.38 320 0.66 4.5 006 0.35 5.5 006 0.35 5.5 005 0.17 015 0.33 0.16 0.90 5.5 0.22 5.5 0.28 5.5 004 0. 14 5.0 017 1.60 5.0 0.13 4.0 1.00 4.0 003 0.13 3.0 008 0.22 3.0 003 0. 13 2.5 003 0.14 2.5 040 0.17 2.5 070 0.58 2.5 .050 0-13 3.0 130 1.51 2u■'v^v»^J^*. 020 770811 021 770ai1 021 770811 022 770811 022 770811 023 770811 023 770811 024 770811 024 770811 025 770811 025 770811 004 017 004 008 004 017 4.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 3.0 004 0.18 3.0 012 2.35 .004 0.17 .010 2.73 3.0 .007 2.30 3.0 .006 2.38 .004 0.16 -0 10 2.20 003 0-15 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 20: 37 10, 02 20. 21 15. 02 20. 11 20 02 20 23 12 02 21 17 15 02 21 06 20 A^^ SI 112 112 109 no 109 109 110 110 112 .5 111 .0 110 .5 110 274 0.6 276 1.0 271 0.6 270 0,7 272 0.7 271 0.6 271 0.6 275 1.0 271 0.9 275 1.0 271 271 1.0 1.0 0.06 0.23 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.18 0.05 0-12 0.02 0.02 0-004 0. 19 5.0 0.020 1.73 5.0 0.004 0.24 5.0 0.012 0.28 5.0 0.004 0.23 5.0 0.006 0.24 5.0 0.004 0.18 5.5 0.016 1.23 5.5 0.006 0.22 5.0 0.028 1. 18 5.0 0.007 0.31 5.0 0.005 0.31 5.0 002 771007 003 771007 003 771007 001 771007 02 11.5 105 261 5.3 0,01 0.003 1.02 0.3 001 771007 07 12.0 104 261 5.2 0.01 0.002 1.21 0.3 002 771007 02 12.3 105 273 2.3 0.09 0,004 1.59 1.5 10 12.5 106 274 2.2 0,09 0.002 1.55 1.5 02 12.7 107 279 1.8 0.09 0.013 1.37 1.5 10 12.8 107 275 2.0 0.09 0.010 1.39 1.5 004 771007 02 13.2 108 272 0.8 0.09 0.007 1.11 3.0 004 771007 17 13.0 108 274 0.9 0-09 0.008 1.12 3,0 005 771007 02 12.5 107 275 1.3 0.09 0.010 1.34 2.0 005 771007 10 12.8 107 273 1.6 0.09 0.011 1.35 2.0 006 771008 02 13.5 103 273 1.5 0.09 0.004 1.15 3.0 006 771008 15 13.5 105 273 2.9 0.10 0.004 1.16 3.0 007 771008 02 13.7 110 276 2.0 0.09 0.004 1.26 2.5 007 771008 31 13.7 110 276 2.0 0,09 0.005 1.28 2.5 008 771008 02 13.0 109 274 2.6 0.07 0.003 1.05 2.0 008 771008 11 13.0 109 273 3.3 0.07 0.002 1.08 2.0 009 771008 02 13.5 109 276 1.0 0-10 0.004 1.33 2.5 009 771008 31 13.7 110 276 1.5 0.10 0.003 1.30 2.5 010 771005 02 14.0 110 278 0.7 0.07 0.003 1.03 3.0 010 771005 28 14.0 111 278 0.8 0.08 0.005 1.08 3.0 Oil 771005 02 14.0 109 278 1.2 0.06 0.001 1.10 2.5 Oil 771005 13 14.0 106 277 1.3 0.06 0.001 1.09 2.5 012 771005 02 14.0 107 273 1.0 0-04 0.002 1.45 2.0 012 771005 07 14.0 108 273 1.0 0-04 0.002 1.46 2.0 013 771005 02 14.5 109 276 1.3 0.05 0.002 1.39 2.5 013 771005 13 14.5 106 274 1.2 0.06 0.002 1.51 2.5 014 771005 02 14.5 109 280 1.5 0.07 0.009 1.05 2.0 014 771005 17 14.5 109 280 1.7 0-07 0.009 1.06 2.0 015 771005 02 14.5 110 281 1.3 0.06 0.010 0.92 2.0 015 771005 20 14.5 111 280 2.2 0.06 0-012 0.93 2.0 016 771005 02 14-5 107 284 2.2 0.01 0.005 0.50 2.0 016 771005 16 14.5 111 283 2.6 0.01 0.005 0.50 2.0 017 771008 02 12.4 111 277 2.1 0.02 0.004 0-43 -.• 017 771008 08 13.0 112 277 2.8 0.01 0.004 0.42 -.- 018 771006 02 13.0 109 276 0.9 0.10 0.002 1.23 4.0 018 771006 18 13.5 112 276 2.0 0.10 0-002 1.25 4.0 019 771006 02 13.5 109 275 1.0 0.12 0.004 1.10 4.0 019 771006 31 13.3 110 274 1.0 0.12 0.004 1.04 4.0 020 771006 02 14.0 108 270 0.7 0.13 0.002 0.63 4.0 020 771006 42 10.5 108 273 0.8 0.18 0.002 1.06 4.0 021 771006 02 14.0 109 272 0.8 0.12 0.001 1.04 4.0 021 771006 22 14.0 109 272 0.9 0.12 001 1.01 4,0 022 771006 02 13.2 109 272 0^0 0.12 0.001 1.10 4.0 022 771006 25 08.5 109 275 0.8 0.23 0.001 1.42 4.0 023 771006 02 14.0 109 272 0.8 0.13 0-003 0.88 -.- 023 771006 21 14.0 108 273 0.8 0.13 0.003 1.02 --- 024 771006 02 13.0 106 275 1.2 0.07 0.005 1.40 3.0 024 771006 15 13.2 107 272 1.0 0.07 0.006 1.41 3.0 025 771006 02 13.0 107 271 1.5 0.05 0.003 1.43 2.0 025 771006 07 12.5 107 271 1.7 0.05 0.003 1.43 2.0 018 1.44 4.5 86 APPENDIX B. Summary of phytoplankton species occurrence in the near-surface waters of Green Bay during 1977 sampling season. Summary is based on all samples analyzed. Summary includes the total number of samples in which a given taxon was noted, the average population density (cells/ml), the average relative abundance (% of assemblage), the maximum population density encountered (cells/ml), and the maximum rela- tive abundance (% of assemblage) encountered. CYANOPHYTA Agmenellum quadvupliaatum (Menegh.) Breb. Anahaena flos-aquae (Lyngb.) Breb. A, suhoylindrioa Borge Anacystis oyanea (Kiitz.) Dr. & Daily A. incerta (Lemm. ) Dr. & Daily A. thermalis (Menegh.) Dr. & Daily ChrooaoQous dispersus var. minor G. M. Smith ChroooocGus sp. Gomphosphaeria aponina Kiitz. G, laoustris Chod. G. wiohurae (Hilse) Dr. & Daily Microcoleus lyngbyaceus Kiitz. Microooleus sp. Oscillatoria bornetii Zukal 0. vetzii Ag. 0. tenuis Ag. Schizothrix oalcicota (Ag.) Gom. Schizothrix spp. Total for Division (18 species) // Average B Maximum slides cells/ml % pop cells/ml % pop 56 32.A21 0.482 546.637 7.284 55 79.402 1.125 1746.724 19.524 13 2.061 0.027 98.436 1.336 38 124.423 1.767 2775.072 23.993 102 1367.213 21.983 7567.043 77.087 96 68.474 1.132 291.121 4 . 318 94 862.543 12.456 5430.762 54.377 1 0.034 0.000 4.189 0.044 31 0.687 0.012 8.378 0.167 86 6.029 0.109 27.227 0.552 17 0.419 0.007 6.283 0.104 2 0.034 0.000 2.094 0.024 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.024 15 2.078 0.038 159.174 1.670 37 5.596 0.109 165.457 2.982 1 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.070 19 6.752 0.085 238.761 2.704 2 0.034 2558.231 0.001 39.335 2.094 0.072 CHLOROPHYTA Aotinastrum hantzschii Lag. 1 Actinastrwri spp. 1 Ankistrodesmus braunii (Nag.) Brunnthaler 94 A. gracilis (Reinsch) Kors". 3 A. nannoselene Skuja 50 Ankistrodesmus spp. 7 Ankistrodesmus stipitatus (Chod.) Kom.-Leg. 10 AsterocoQQus sp. 1 Closteriopsis aaioularis (G. M. Smith) Belcher et. Swale 28 C, ton^'issima Lemm. 18 Closteriopsis sp. 2 Coelastrum oambrioum Archer 2 C, mioroponan Nag. 13 Coelastrum spp. 2 0.117 0.001 0.117 0.002 .1.310 0.211 0.101 0.005 2.631 0.046 0.168 0.003 8.411 0.421 0.017 0.000 1.056 0.019 0.519 0.011 0.034 0.000 0.402 0.008 3.552 0.068 0.419 0.006 14, .661 0.155 14, .661 0.195 50. .265 0.969 6. .283 0.410 23, .038 0.424 4. .189 0.059 62, .330 12.673 2. .094 0.021 12. .566 0.252 8. .378 0.189 2. .094 0.037 33. .510 0.703 67. .021 1.468 35. .605 0.485 (cont ;inued) 87 APPENDIX B (continuadl. Cosmarium anguloaum Br^b. C, geometricum var. sueciaum Borge C, moniliforme (Turp.) Ralfs Coamariwn spp. Cruoigenia quadrata Morren Diatyoaphaerium ehr enter gianum NSig. Diatyoephaerium spp. Elakatothrix gelatinoaa Wille Franaeia ovalia (Franc^) Lemm. Gloeoayatia planotonioa (West & West) Gloeoayatia sp. Gloeoayatia spp. Golenkinia radiata (Chod.) Wille Kirohneriella aontorta (Schmldle) Bohlin K, obeaa (W. West) Schmidle Kivohneriella sp. Kirahneriella spp. Lagerheimia citriformia (Snow) G. M. Smith L, auhaalaa Lemm. Miaraatinium spp. Monovaphidium 'Qontortum (Thuret ex Br6b.) Kom. -Leg. M. .aetiforme (NMg.) Kom. - Leg. Monoraphidium spp. Monoraphidiujn tortile (West ej West) Kom. - Leg. Mougeotia sp. Mougeotia spp. Nephrooytium agardhianum N^g. Nephroaytium sp. Nephrooytium spp. Oooyatia parva West & West Oooyetia sp. Oooyatia spp. Pediaatrum biradiatum Meyen. P. boryanum (Turp.) Menegh. P. duplex Meyen P. duplex var. ruguloaum Racib. P. duplex var. retioulatum Lag. P. obtuaum Lucks // Avtrage Mix Imum slideg cells/ml % pop ctUi/ml % pop 33 0.871 0.016 14.661 0.149 10 0.352 0.007 12.566 0.265 18 0.352 0.005 6.283 0.088 8 0.151 0.003 4.189 0.071 10 0.821 0.014 16.755 0.362 41 10.271 0.184 106.814 1.656 2 0.402 0.010 33.510 0.766 16 0.637 0.012 10.472 0.179 3 0.101 0.002 4.189 0.102 116 235.107 3.717 1750.913 23.048 62 6.702 0.120 190.590 3.689 1 0.034 0.000 4.189 0.061 6 0.352 0.005 23.038 1.178 9 0.402 0.007 25.133 0.297 18 2.631 0.039 83.776 1.141 12 0.251 0.004 4.189 0.076 4 0.101 0.003 4.189 0.146 32 0.955 0.018 14.661 0.264 3 0.050 0.001 2.094 0.053 2 0.034 0.001 2.094 0.067 32 0.905 0.021 16.755 0.363 26 18.230 0.952 594.808 23.203 2 0.134 0.003 8.378 0.194 26 1.642 0.056 39.793 1.914 19 5.479 0.080 117.286 1.948 11 0.938 0.017 27.227 0.463 20 1.257 0.019 25.133 0.438 9 0.436 0.009 16.755 0.226 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.031 38 29.556 0.510 345.575 5.753 9 9.400 0.153 198.967 3.919 107 133.785 2.384 563.392 12.889 2 0.804 0.023 67.021 2.379 48 20.961 0.353 201.062 2.930 8 2.128 0.038 60.737 1.216 3 0.905 0.022 39.793 1.540 1 0.268 0.004 33.510 0.488 2 0.536 0.005 58.643 (cent 0.501 inued) 88 APPENDIX B (continued). slides Average Maximum Pediastmm simplex var. duodenarium (Bailey) Rabh. 8 P, simplex (Meyen) Lemm. 4 Pediastmm spp. 1 Pediastrum tetras (Ehr.) Ralfs. 11 Pedinomonas minuta Skuja 99 Quadrigula closterioides (Bohlin) Printz 2 Q, lacustris (Chod.) G. M. Smith 1 Quadrigula spp. 1 Saenedesmus acuminatus (Lag.) Chod. 17 5. armatus (Chod.) G. M. Smith 1 5. armatus var. hoglariensis Hortob. 1 S. bioaudatus (Hansg.) Chod. 45 S. bijuga (Turp.) Lag. 10 5. dentioulatus var. linearis Hansg. 102 5. eoornis var. disaiformis Chod. 2 S. intermedius Chod. 1 S. minutus (G. M. Smith) Chod. 39 S, quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. 89 S. serratus (Corda) Bohlin 13 Scenedesmus sp. 2 Saenedesmus spinosus Chod. 34 Saenedesmus spp. 6 Staurastrum auspidatum (Breb.) 1 S, dejeotum var. in f latum W. West 6 S. paradoxum Meyen 32 Staurastrum spp. 8 Tetraedron hastatum (Reinsch) Hansg. 4 T. minimum (A. Braun) Hansg. 66 Tetraedron sp. 1 Tetraedron spp. 3 Tetraedron trigonum (NSg.) Hansg. 1 Tetrastrum staurogeniae forme (Schroeder) Lemm. 1 Ulothrix subtilissima (Rabh.) 48 Undetermined green individual 70 Total for Division (86 species) cells/ml % pop cells/ml % pop 1.642 0.024 62.832 0.978 0.922 0.016 64.926 0.974 0.067 0.005 8.378 0.602 2.781 0.039 94.248 1.119 60.971 1.354 1086.990 17.418 0.469 0.008 33.510 0.527 0.168 0.002 20.944 0.294 0.017 0.000 2.094 6.035 1.676 0.028 37.699 0.571 0.067 0.003 8.378 0.324 0.268 0.004 33.510 0.491 5.395 0.093 50.265 1.350 0.905 0.019 25.133 0.892 37.095 0.627 247.138 2.360 0.201 0.003 16.755 0.277 0.067 0.001 8.378 0.130 4.524 0.090 46. > ■'7 1.447 24.395 0.423 148.702 3.156 1.313 0.019 32.221 0.402 0.050 0.001 4.189 0.081 3.820 0.056 75.398 0.614 0.201 0.014 6.283 0.478 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.039 0.101 0.002 2.094 0.059 0.720 0.014 6.283 0.170 0.285 0.004 16.755 0.133 0.101 0.001 6.283 0.062 3.583 0.052 125.664 1.074 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.028 0.050 0.001 2.094 0.071 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.033 0.067 0.001 8.378 0.065 16.336 0.302 146.608 3.945 7.420 0.166 96.342 2.211 692.525 12.986 (continued) 89 APPENDIX B (continued). slides Average cells/ml % pop Max ii^Vvim cexi^/ml % pop BACILLARIOPHYTA Achnanthes affinis Grun. 12 A. hiasolettiana (Kutz.) Grun. 6 A, bioreti Germain 2 A. clevei Grun. 9 A, olevei var. rostrata Hust. 39 A, deflexa Reim. 7 A, exigua Grun. 8 A. lanoeolata (Br^b.) Grun. 7 A. tanceotata var. duhia Grun. 4 A. lapponioa (Hust.) Hust. 18 A. lauenburgiana Hust. 2 A, levanderi Hust. 1 A. linearis (Wm. Smith) Grun 3 i4. miarooephala (Klitz.) Grun. 41 A, minutissima Kiitz. 33 A. peragalli Brun. et Herib. 1 A, pinnata Hust. 15 A. ploenensis Hust. 1 Aohnanthes spp. 9 Amphipleura pellucida Kiitz. 71 Amphora oalumetiaa (Thomas ex Wolle) M. Perig. 1 A. hemiaycla Stoerm. 1 i4. ovalis var. affinis (KUtz.) V. H. 4 A, ovalis var. pedioulus (Kutz.) V. H. 11 A. perpusilla Grun. 72 Amphora spp. 6 Amphora veneta var. aapitata Haworth 2 Asterionella formosa Hass. 110 Attheya zaohariasi Brun. 1 Caloneis bacillaris var. thermalis (Grun.) A. CI. 2 C. baoillum (Grun.) CI. 3 CoQconeis diminuta Pant. 7 C, pedioulus Ehr. 3 C, plaoentula var. euglypta (Ehr.) CI. 1 C. plaoentula var. lineata (Ehr.) V. H. 27 C. plaoentula Ehr. 1 Cooooneis sp. #2 20 0.318 0.008 0.268 0.008 0.034 0.001 0.251 0.005 1.388 0.036 0.318 0.016 0.251 0.007 0.151 0.005 0.067 0.002 0.754 0.041 0.034 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.050 0.001 3.368 0.168 1.776 0.033 0.017 0.000 0.318 0.010 0.017 0.000 0.486 0.013 12.039 0.206 0.034 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.117 0.003 0.620 0.007 5.036 0.147 0.117 0.003 0.034 0.001 82.348 1.590 0.017 0.001 0.050 0.002 0.050 0.001 0.117 0.004 0.101 0.002 0.034 0.000 0.670 0.024 0.034 0.001 0.737 0.017 10.472 0.242 23.038 0.627 2.094 0.074 6.283 0.223 20.944 0.609 20.944 1.208 8.378 0.324 4.189 0.225 2.094 0.146 23.038 1.329 2.094 0.065 2.094 0.146 2.094 0.033 92.094 5.314 25.133 0.486 2.094 0.026 8.378 0.205 2.094 0.042 37.699 0.707 104.720 1.440 4.189 0.069 2.094 0.045 6.283 0.203 52.360 0.520 75.398 1.208 4.189 0.101 2.094 0.146 320.442 7.950 2.094 0.074 4.189 0.203 2.094 0.102 2.094 0.151 6.283 0.162 4.189 0.059 8.378 0.437 4.189 0.162 10.472 0.405 (continued) 90 APPENDIX B (continued). Cyolotella atomus Hust. C. oomensis Grun. C. oomta (Ehr.) KUtz. C, kutzingiana Thw. C, meneghiniana Kutz. C, meneghiniana var. plana Fricke C. michiganiana Skv. C, ocellata Pant. C, pseudostelligera Hust. Cyclotelta spp. Cyclotella stelligera (CI. et_ Grun.) V. H. Cymatopleura solea (Breb. et^ Godey) Wm. Smith Cymatopteura sp. Cymbella af finis Kutz. C, oistula (Ehr.) Kirchn. C, delioatula Kutz. C. hustedtii Krasske C. laevis Nag. C. microcephala Grun. C, minuta Hilse C. norvegioa Grun. C. parvula Krasske C, prostrata var . 'auerswaldii (Rabh.) Reim. C. prostrata (Berk.) CI. C. proxima Reim. C, sinuata Greg. Cymbella sp. #22 Cymbella sp. Cymbella spp. Cymbella subaequalis Grun. Cymbella tumida (Br^b. et KUtz.) V. H. Denticula tenuis var. orassula (NSg. ex KUtz.) Hust. U. tenuis KUtz. Diatoma ehy*enbergii KUtz. Diatoma spp. Diatoma tenua Ag. Diatoma tenue var. elongation Lyngb. D, tenue var. paahyaephala Grun. Diploneis ooulata (Br6b.) CI. y/ Average Maximum slides cells/ml 0.034 % pop 0.001 cells/ml 2.094 % pop 2 0.121 115 292.252 4.822 5338.609 42.342 109 17.875 0.358 112.775 2.350 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.045 20 0.617 0.010 10.472 0.223 11 0.352 0.008 6.283 0.176 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.046 A 0.101 0.005 6.283 0.277 17 1.642 0.032 48.171 0.967 4 0.151 0.003 8.378 0.201 65 12.164 0.399 263.894 11.634 9 0.201 0.010 4.189 0.813 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.033 2 0.067 0.004 4.189 0.292 2 0.034 0.001 2.094 0.046 1 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.070 2 0.034 0.001 2.094 0.081 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.046 51 2.932 0.083 37.699 1.626 21 0.519 0.028 6.283 0.813 2 0.034 0.000 2.094 0.029 4 0.084 0.004 4.189 0.242 5 0.117 0.006 4.189 0.292 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.026 1 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.081 2 0.034 0.001 2.094 0.169 2 0.084 0.002 6.283 0.118 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.021 6 0.101 0.002 2.094 0.102 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.031 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.027 18 0.586 0.011 14.661 0.302 1 0.050 0.001 6.283 0.118 3 0.955 0.020 71.209 1.402 1 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.081 30 4.318 0.403 238.761 15.756 20 0.503 0.012 8.378 0.434 1 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.101 1 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.070 (continued) 91 APPENDIX B (continued). slides Average cells/ml % pop 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.001 0.034 0.001 0.285 0.006 0.050 0.001 0.586 0.015 0.A36 0.020 90.394 1.561 0.201 0.005 3.302 0.066 0.134 0.003 0.034 0.000 0.871 0.030 1.102 0.012 0.855 0.036 0.771 0.011 128.207 3.372 0.402 0.028 0.148 0.002 0.182 0.004 0.067 0.002 0.302 0.006 15.980 0.347 0.989 0.061 0.436 0.029 2.815 0.141 0.134 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.101 0.002 0.017 0.001 0.402 0.014 0.101 0.004 0.050 0.001 0.034 0.001 0.034 0.001 0.050 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.000 Max imum cells/ml % pop 2.094 0.031 2.094 0.102 2.094 0.070 8.378 0.297 6.283 0.086 16.755 0.704 8.378 0.758 1514.407 27.364 12.566 0.352 108.903 1.802 12.566 0.232 4.189 0.059 18.850 0.965 64.443 0.671 43.982 2.113 41.888 0.323 1159.972 18.652 20.944 2.421 8.055 0.107 8.378 0.319 4.189 0.101 29.322 0.584 186.401 3.711 25.133 3.183 14.661 2.251 111.003 11.910 16.755 0.143 2.094 0.074 2.094 0.059 2.094 0.081 8.378 0.322 2.094 0.181 2.094 0.081 4.189 0.076 2.094 0.074 2.094 0.029 2.094 0.039 2.094 0.033 (cent linued) Diploneis ovalis (Hilse et_ Rabh.) CI. 1 D, parma CI. 1 Diploneis spp. 2 Entomoneis omata (Bailey) Reim. 11 Epitkemia spp. 1 Fragilaria brevistriata Grun. ex V. H. 9 F. brevistriata var. inflata (Pant.) Hust. 12 F, aapucina Desm. 72 F, capuoina var. mesolepta (Rabh.) Rabh. 3 F. oonstruens (Ehr.) Grun. 27 F. oonstruens vsly. binodis (Ehr.) Grun. 3 F. oonstruens var. oapitata Herib. 1 F. oonstruens var. minuta Temp, e^ Per. 18 F. oonstruens var. pumila Grun. 5 F. oonstruens var. subsalina Hust. 9 F. oonstruens var. venter (Ehr.) Grun. 8 F. orotonensis Kit ton 113 F. intermedia Grun. 7 F. intermedia var. fallax (Grun.) A. CI. 3 F. tapponioa Grun. 3 F. leptostauron (Ehr.) Hust. 3 F. pinnata var. lanoettula (Schum. ) Hust. 4 F. pinnata Ehr. 72 Fragilaria spp. 14 Fragilaria vauoheriae (Kiitz.) Peters. 11 F. vauoheriae var. oapitellata (Grun.) Patr. 26 F. vauoheriae var. lanoeolata A. Mayer l Frustulia weinholdii Hust. 1 Gomphonema angustatum (Kutz.) Rabh. 6 G, graoile Ehr. 1 G, intrioatum var. diohotomum (Kiitz.) Grun. ex V. H. 15 G. oliivaoewn (Lyngb.) Kiitz. 6 G, parvulum (KUtz.) Kiitz. 3 G. quadripunoatum (Ost.) Wis. 1 Gomphonema spp. 2 Gyrosigma aoianinatum (KUtz.) Rabh. 3 G, eoalproides (Rabh.) CI. 1 Meloeira dietans (Ehr.) Kiitz. 1 92 APPENDIX B (continued). Melosira gr^anulata alpha status (Ehr.) Ralfs Af. granulata var. angustissima 0. MUll. M. granulata (Ehr.) Ralfs M. islandioa 0. Mull. M, italioa subsp. subarctica 0. MUll. Af. varians Ag. Navicula acoeptata Must. N. anglioa var. signata Hust. N, anglioa var. subsalsa (Grun.) CI. N, aurora Sov. N, bryophila Peters. N. capitata (Ehr.) N, capitata var. hungarioa (Grun.) Ross N, capitata var. luneburgensis (Grun.) Patr. N, cocconeiformis Greg, ex Grev. N. constans var. symmetrica Hust. N. cryptocephala var. intermedia Grun. N, cryptocephala var. veneta (Kutz.) Rabh. N. cryptocephala Kutz. N, decussis 0str. N, exigua (Greg.) Grun. V. H. N. exiguiformis Hust. N. explanata Hust. N, gottlandica Grun. N. gregaria Donk. N, jaemefeltii Hust. N. lanceolata (Ag.) Kiitz. N, latene Krasske jV. luzonensis Hust. iV. menisculus Schum. N, menisculus var. obtusa Hust. N, menisculus var. upsaliensis Grun. N. minima Grun. ex V. H. N. paludosa Hust. N, placentula var. rostrata Mayer N. protracta (Grun. in CI. et Grun.) CI. N, pupula Kiitz. A', pupula var. mutata (Krasske) Hust. slides 3 10 60 27 64 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 12 2 1 15 27 18 3 1 4 4 3 6 1 5 1 16 4 7 1 4 4 1 1 8 1 Average cells/ml % pop 0.553 0.006 0.452 0.011 14.430 0.295 4.139 0.361 5.859 0.331 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.050 0.003 0.034 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.034 0.002 0.034 0.001 0.050 0.001 0.366 0.012 0.034 0.001 0.067 0.001 0.385 0.012 0.768 0.017 0.534 0.013 0.067 0.003 0.050 0.002 0.067 0.001 0.115 0.004 0.050 0.001 0.251 0.010 0.017 0.000 0.084 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.503 0.011 0.115 0.001 0.134 0.003 0.017 0.000 0.184 0.006 0.067 0.002 0.017 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.184 0.005 0.017 0.001 Maximum cells/ml % pop 35.605 0.326 12.566 0.243 268.082 6.240 56.549 10.976 64.926 5.263 2.094 0.027 2.094 0.039 4.189 0.242 2.094 0.018 2.094 0.033 2.094 0.102 2.094 0.081 4.189 0.149 8.055 0.407 2.094 0.151 8.378 0.168 8.378 0.305 10.472 0.405 8.055 0.322 4.189 0.203 6.283 0.223 2.094 0.081 8.055 0.239 2.094 0.074 18.850 1.087 2.094 0.026 2.094 0.081 2.094 0.081 10.472 0.301 8.055 0.084 4.189 0.084 2.094 0.031 10.472 0.405 2.094 0.101 2.094 0.151 2.094 0.151 6.283 0.162 2.094 0.074 (continued) 93 APPENDIX B (continued). Navioula pupula var. reotangularis (Greg.) Grun. N, radiosa var. parva Wallace N. radiosa var. tenella (Breb.) Grun. N, radiosa KUtz. iV. rhynahooephala KUtz. li. rhynahooephala var. germanii (Wallace) Patr. N. scutelloides Wm. Smith N. seminuloides Hust. N. eeminulum Grun. N. simitis Krasske Navioula sp. //8 Navioula sp. Navioula splendioula Van Landingham Navioula spp. Navioula stroemii Hust. N, stroesei A. CI. N, subrotundata Hust. N. subtilissima CI. N, tantula Hust. N. tripunotata (0. F. Miill.) Bory N. tusoula fo. minor Hust. N. tusoula fo. rostrata Hust. N, viridula var. avenaoea (Br^b. ex Grun.) V. H. N. zanoni Hust. Neidium dubium fo. oonstriotum Hust. Neidium sp. Nitzsohia aoioularioides Arch. J N. aoioularis (KUtz.) Wm. Smith N. acuta Hantz. N, adapta Hust. N. amphibia Grun. N, angustata (Wm. Smith) Grun. Jji CI. and Grun. N, angustata var. acuta Grun. N, apiculata (Greg.) Grun. N. capitellata Hust. N. con finis Hust. N. dissipata (KUtz.) Grun. N. fontioola Grun. iV. frustulwn var. tenella Grun. ex V. H. // Average ilides cells/ml % pop 1 0.017 0.001 6 0.134 0.007 38 1.089 0.042 2 0.034 0.000 A 0.084 0.005 1 0.017 0.002 1 0.017 0.001 17 0.536 0.013 1 0.017 0.001 1 0.017 0.001 4 0.067 0.003 1 0.034 0.001 1 0.017 0.000 36 1.608 0.068 1 0.017 0.000 3 0.050 0.002 5 0.101 0.004 1 0.017 0.001 9 0.151 0.004 4 0.067 0.002 4 0.067 0.001 1 0.017 0.002 1 0.017 0.001 6 0.101 0.002 1 0.017 0.001 1 0.017 0.000 66 7.104 0.160 11 0.452 0.006 3 0.050 0.001 15 0.570 0.011 2 0.067 0.001 1 0.017 0.000 1 0.017 0.000 2 0.034 0.001 3 0.050 0.001 3 0.050 0.002 11 0.218 0.008 35 1.860 0.032 3 0.067 0.001 Maximum cells/ml % pop 2.094 0.074 4.189 0.242 10.472 1.626 2.094 0.041 4.189 0.478 2.094 0.239 2.094 0.074 12.566 0.487 2.094 0.070 2.094 0.106 2.094 0.121 ^.189 0.074 2.094 0.018 31.416 1.220 2.094 0.021 2.094 0.121 4.189 0.301 2.094 0.066 2.094 1.146 2.094 0.102 2.094 0.065 2.094 0.205 2.094 0.102 2.094 0.067 2.094 0.074 2.094 0.021 73.304 3.659 31.416 0.249 2.094 0.036 14.661 0.372 6.283 0.062 2.094 0.018 2.094 0.029 2.094 0.101 2.094 0.081 2.094 0.145 6.283 0.407 31.416 0.573 4.189 0.092 (continued) 94 APPENDIX B (continued). Average slides cells/ml % pop 1.A74 0.049 0.050 0.001 6.600 0.097 0.017 0.001 0.034 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.41A 0.013 0.117 0.002 0.017 0.000 2.513 0.080 0.084 0.002 0.017 0.001 0.134 0.005 0.804 0.016 0.017 0.001 0.218 0.009 0.567 0.009 1.994 0.073 0.385 0.011 0.151 0.002 0.017 0.000 0.084 0.001 4.370 0.139 3.561 0.105 0.101 0.003 1.424 0.021 1.089 0.024 0.115 0.002 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.402 0.012 3.998 0.068 0.034 0.001 14.600 0.283 24.312 0.673 38.732 0.822 0.017 O: 000 0.838 0.027 21.651 0.414 Maximum cells/ml % pop 14.661 1.626 2.094 0.074 161.107 1.826 2.094 0.074 4.189 0.085 2.094 0.031 16.111 0.410 6.283 0.137 2.094 0\022 27.227 1.608 6.283 0.117 2.094 0.074 6.283 0.202 18.850 0.324 2.094 0.070 4.189 0.478 29.322 0.291 14.661 2.033 6.283 0.242 4.189 0.057 2.094 0.029 4.189 0.061 90.059 6.223 46.077 3.039 6.283 0.153 48.171 0.502 77.493 1.709 8.055 0.223 2.094 0.028 2.094 0.026 10.472 0.363 72.498 1.042 2.094 0.092 196.873 3.859 159.174 20.159 358.141 12.714 2.094 0.039 77.493 2.998 326.725 8.023 (cent :inued) Nitzsohia graoilis Hantz. N, hantz schiana Rabh. N, holsatioa Hust. N. hungarica Grun. N, intermedia Hantz. ex CI. _et Grun. N. kutzingiana Hilse A^. lauenbergiana Hust. N. Linearis Wm. Smith N, miarooephala Grun. N. palea (Kiitz.) Wm. Smith N, palea var. tenuirostris Hust. N, parvula Wm. Smith N. recta Hantz. N, romana Grun. N. sigma (KUtz.) Wm. Smith N, sociahilis Hust. Nitzsohia sp. Nitzsohia spp. Nitzsohia suhacicularis Hust. N. suhoapitellata Hust. N, suhlinearis Hust. Opephora martyi Herib. Rhizosolenia eriensis H. L. Smith R. graoilis H. L. Smith Rhoioosphenia ourvata (Kiitz.) Grun. Skeletonema po tamos (Weber) Hasle Skeletonema sp. Skeletonema spp. Stauroneis smithii vaix. minima Haworth S, smithii Grun. Stephanodisous alpinus Hust. S. binderanus (KUtz.) Krieger S, dubius (Fricke) Hust. S. hantzsohii Grun. S. minutus Grun. 5. niagarae Ehr. Stephanodisous sp. //lO Stephanodisous sp. //14 Sfephanodisous sp. #8 36 3 16 1 1 1 16 5 1 56 2 1 6 16 1 9 8 48 16 8 1 3 52 37 3 16 5 2 1 1 13 26 2 59 84 103 1 3 69 95 APPENDIX B (continued). slides Stephana discus sp. #9 1 Stephana discus sp. 1 Stephanodiscus spp. 3 Stephana discus suhtilis (Van Goor) A. CI. 41 5. tenuis Hust. 5 Surirella angusta Klitz. 3 5. avata var. pinnata (Wm. Smith) Hust. 1 Synedra acus. Klitz. 3 S, delicatissima Wm. Smith 1 S. delicatissima var. angustissima Grun. 30 5. filiformis var. exilis A. CI. 6 S, filiformis Grun. 95 S, ostenfeldii (Krieger) A. CI. 36 S. parasitica var. subcanstricta (Grun.) Hust. 1 S, parasitica (Wm. Smith) Hust. 5 S, rumpens Klitz. 1 S. rumpens var. fragilarioides Grun. ex V. H. 2 Synedra sp. //17 1 Synedra spp. 11 Synedra ulna var. chaseana Thomas 2 5. ulna (Nitz.) Ehr. 10 Tabellaria fenestrata (Lyngb.) Klitz. 85 T. flocculosa (Roth) KUtz. 1 T, flocculosa var. linearis Koppen 106 Thalassiosira fluviatilis Hust. 1 Total for Division (255 species) Average Maximum cells/ml % pop 0.000 cells/ml % pop 0.017 2.094 0.040 0.050 0.001 6.283 0.071 0.184 0.003 18.850 0.275 8.260 0.537 464.955 49.888 0.168 0.013 12.566 1.348 0.050 0.002 2.094 0.121 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.059 0.050 0.001 2.094 0.092 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.028 1.254 0.083 14.661 2.033 0.134 0.005 4.189 0.225 14.331 0.393 94.248 4.878 10.682 0.834 190.590 15.424 0.017 0.001 2.094 0.101 0.235 0.004 14.661 0.270 0.050 0.001 6.283 0.118 0.117 0.008 8.378 0.583 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.036 0.369 0.025 14.661 0.788 0.050 0.001 4.189 0.162 0.249 0.013 8.055 0.407 22.280 0.371 341.386 5.005 0.101 0.002 12.566 0.255 38.048 0.919 426.934 6.935 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.016 970.121 22.084 CHRYSOPHYTA Chrysococcus sp. Chrysophycean cyst Chrysosphaerella longispina Lautb. Dinobryon cyst D. ayats D. divergens Imhof Dinobryon sp. Dinobryon spp. Dinobryon etokeeii var. epiplancticum Skuj£ Mallomonae alpina Pasch. et^ Ruttn. 1 1 39 92 1 46 2 18 24 52 0.084 0.001 0.017 0.000 6.532 0.102 12.213 0.552 0.335 0.004 10.422 0.183 0.117 0.005 4.960 0.263 2.178 0.031 2.312 0.043 10.472 2.094 117.286 83.776 41.888 154.985 12.566 115.192 41.888 18.850 0.142 0.031 1.945 9.569 0.444 4.924 0.420 8.669 0.548 0.502 (continued) 96 APPENDIX B (continued). Mallomonas pseudocoronata Presc. Mallomonas sp. Mallomonas spp. Monochrysis aphanaster Skuja Oohromonas sp. //3 Oohromonas sp. //4 Oohromonas spp. Oohromonas vallesiaoa Chod. Synura spp. Synura uv&lla Ehr. Total for Division (20 species) // Average Maximum slides cells/ml 1.642 % pop 0.025 cells/ml 23.038 % pop 48 0.242 3 0.067 0.001 4.189 0.045 12 0.486 0.020 14.661 1.020 96 5.529 0.130 25.133 1.746 71 48.405 0.709 869.173 11.793 47 9.517 0.514 98.436 9.631 5 44.368 0.533 1658.760 18.754 90 55.509 1.310 691.150 9.234 2 0.034 0.001 2.094 0.042 9 2.011 206.736 0.031 4.459 142.419 2.205 CRYPTOPHYTA Chroomonas spp. Cryptomonae erosa Ehr. C, graoilis Skuja C, marssonii Skuja C. ovata Ehr. Rhodononas minuta Skuja Total for Division (6 species) 118 58.862 1.530 368.613 11.149 1 0.134 0.002 16.755 0.295 35 1.726 0.037 20.944 0.661 120 40.166 0.876 196.873 5.584 123 74.814 1.668 345.575 6.603 122 380.017 555.719 9.151 13.265 3579.319 47.393 PYRROPHYTA Ceratium hirundinella (0. F. Mull.) Schrank Gymnodinium helvetioum Penard Gymnodinium spp. Peridiniwri spp. Total for Division (4 species) 36 0.871 0.014 10.472 0.142 20 0.670 0.017 12.566 0.428 90 7.439 0.235 48.171 2.590 57 2.458 0.086 20.944 1.844 11.439 0.352 EUGLENOPHYTA Phaous sp. Traohelomonas sp. Total for Division (2 species) 2 0.050 0.001 4.189 0.044 1 0.017 0.000 2.094 0.021 0.067 0.001 (continued) 97 APPENDIX B (continued). slides Average cells/ml % pop Maximum cells/ml % pop HAPTOPHYTA Undetermined haptophyte sp. #1 Undetermined haptophyte sp. #2 Total for Division (2 species) 56 28.867 0.A85 475.427 14.424 33 1.223 0.018 20.944 0.391 30.090 0.503 UNDETERMINED Undetermined flagellate sp. #3 Undetermined flagellate sp. //5 Undetermined flagellate sp. y/6 Undetermined flagellate sp. //7 Undetermined flagellate sp. #8 Undetermined flagellate sp. #9 Undetermined flagellate spp. Total for Division (7 species) 3 0.218 0.017 14.661 1.857 25 2.295 0.048 56.549 l'.744 39 2.078 0.059 35.605 1.065 9 0.302 0.004 8.378 0.108 89 21.396 0.373 178.023 3.866 48 6.618 0.109 90.059 1.186 23 234.773 6.402 934.099 33.666 267.680 7.013 98 2. O C a S;2 G ^ > . •« O 2 5« « fl9 «9 •O c c § • 60 ?^ £2 » 3 0^^^u^^Ot-4vO0000a0CM9^9^l^^9^^^C^00«^f0e^la0Or49^•-^ 00C^JlnOOO^<*^«^>«^*a••-<00»^^«na^»^l•-•CJu^l'^^"^^<^^ O*-^O^ieM»-iOOOOOOOOOO oooodododddooododoooooooo \Of-«cssomi*.fOc<«s«n»Hi-^^00»riOooeM»nchNOOroro ooONdoONC*^ooinOoom«n^r*oovoc»i.^^^*»^o^^^o«•-•'>oeMesa^fO^DoOl^^cnoocnool^•O^Door«. ra«nO«n •-«%oiricnesi en o\oocom«no^o\('-»*^f-^r^«>^o^cMvo<4-Ocg *»-»cat-ic^<>ic>i cMoo*ni(nc>rc>ic>ic4cnc>4e>ics(nc>ic>icvic4c<4i-4 inf>'OoOt-»c>lQ^Oe^r^a^*•*^or^o^ «>-t^(ncnin CM ( CM CM CM C«l CM rH I ICMt-4eMCMCMCMCMCMCMo a\ •4- •-• so o O CM CM 9N I r^ O < CMCMCnenCMCMCM l CMCMCMCMCMCMCMr-l CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM OOO•jta0*^^o<^C^CM00Q000• O 00 < cMvoooinvoaN<^dininvoa>.r<^QOvOooo>9vcMao09\vOinr^r^cM CM p. - g ^OcMootnoor^ iNO»H9N00ONvor^ON i<^ooooONOaoo _ __ _ .cMinsf<4'mcMONin isOsochvo mommvoenmoN 'v09«cnr-i mv-«r-i«-4aosrooON voOr«»«*ooOcM r^OQ0< a f-«cMeno O JfN ^ o ^ ^ • • • «\j ^ rr> (^ o .-- rr »o m f^ K C* ^ K o fr> f**, O ro • t • • rg pg ps) m ir f«* csj »o irv ^• ir f*- r» rr> '^ pg ^ c\. o ^ o a f^ a ^ • t • • • •-< -4 ^ fSJ •O rj ec m o O C 00 rn >0 ec i/> MD 0 0 h- ^ — • vO f^ ^ in xo >o u> «^^•^to^- ^ <\i ^ 9- ff^ecu"'* •>or<>y>Kf»*f<>^r- • • • • • • • t ^ir«« •••••• • •csjfv.'fvjcs'rg^^,}' fr(yv4;-^^epf*fMcroDirtv*'r"i^'»*'p^C w^rvJr^^-^ ^r\'^^•-<'«^oom^.^^^c f\j^oc-«Mh-f^cxrsi'4'r^ »^f**fn^*r • • •• • t« • • • • • •fnrcrs.t'^*t 1- *^ cni«4-meMa\aNOooNOr-OooeMcn*^»-«inr-ieMvDcn«*inr«* o! *-< t-l Oi 100 APPENDIX D (continued). Cluster Diagram, August Loc. 1 3 4 5 2 9 19 10 18 6 7 20 8 22 23 24 21 25 11 12 16 13 14 15 17 ?2222llllllllll 4321 )9876543.?1 )98 *- 1 ♦ I- I *- 1 I-I + T I I + 1 + "^6543? I 4- 4. -. «• 1 ♦-! I ♦ -I 1 * -- + I I I ^. X 1 J. i. 1 f. -I I- -I I •♦■- +- *■- *■- +- +- n T S T \ N r. -I I- I I I-I- I I I — ! 1112233441 122334455«56699 5 10324573784659001 086933. 407747R23501 •*I6fl68722948 438220067074376237829452 870560445951362633 096707 (continued) 101 •■4 ^ 43 00 o m«D O ra^ J tf^O(^tf^•-4'4DC^tf^^s|«0||^«)r^tf^^ fr> ir\ r>» •-( a» CD O ^ •-< *r • t t • ^ «M CM ^ iM «r ^ ^- r* (Ni o <# ^ ^- ir> .4 «D m in «0 • 00 • <^«l>aO'^^r*i-<.4'00'h>arf^oOrv,cc> O ^ Q" f«^ ffi CO *-• fvi « r» ^ ^» ^ CM ^ o sr tf\ <^ o* IT. 4- O C ro fo IT 00 • • o» f^ %Of>r^oD^-*t*0^^f*c^o^%^<^oo»o^r^ r^ ,i4r>J«rf(M«4rsimro>t(Moj-4-«i^^rMo4rsi ^ w •-« -^ U^ ^ sO e*> oj o >A .-I •# «NJ K <0 9 9 • ti> • • fM rg.-4r>j,.-ir^r. I ro rv) rv« ,-* ,^ I— pv; rv^ rn '^oovr>fMfn-^a^>t rsi r» or. 00 (T ^ f^' ^ ^ccjoooc • • • Co. •-'Of*•f^r^^•-'^ C c ro rv' O X r^ u fv' rg • ••«•••••• rvj •-« ^>J •-. r\' fv. fvi -^ fNj r- V* cr .i-.^— 'pr •p^.»4«-'rvf\:r>i,^^M»^»i.rf ' IN r- fv a >^ IT -^ pr IT, IT rn ir CV.' ^ st p^ ^ tj o-. rj rg <;, pr ^ psj ^ »- JI r- ^ P,- ^ (\i pr. u:>»j'CT»^^*t>r- f^!^^»^ls^•^f♦*l^^»fpr^p^^- cvc • • •,-i.-i^p^i»M^^^pv'*^-J'(\TiripriO'*'— 'p'^'t^Cir r I CM f\ o^r»^' irirc ^*-f^^oc*^'^-"*f^r*^^•►^c^c^C7•^^€^ •-.^ocfVj>ru>r\j^ir Ko«^o.'0 acsjt^cr^mpfi^t Kr-r-^^Ov'f'Opva --pv*^ 0 ^r^ en o o CM CM 5 102 APPENDIX D (continued). Cluster Diagram, October ? ' 2 ? ? Loc. 1 10 11 13 14 15 17 12 16 2 3 4 6 24 25 8 5 22 21 7 9 18 19 23 20 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 •^ ? 1 ) 9 f^ 7 fs >. + + *• f T + T- «■ •»• + 4. 4. 4. + 4. f + + ¥ *~ I 4--T • 4- + + *■ I, -^ -> } J9 3T6'543?1 — I T I- I-I — I I s T A N C E S 1111122223451 344445 6 6ftQ9 ■'12666231 )<=' 01 256 >247B59. 7766804476 IC? 5221 7,';iA609 «?68079n647fl5577fl59B4 4 244 6488232B3')"!6241553645693 103 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO. 1. REPORT NO. _EPA-905/3-79-002 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Green Bay Phytoplankton, Composition, Abundance and Distribution 7. AUTHOR(S) Eugene F, Stoermer S R. J. Stevenson 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Great Lakes Research Division University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan ^8109 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Great Lakes Surveillance S Research Staff Great Lakes National Program Office U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, tl lino is 60605 5. REPORT DATE March 1979 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 2 BA 645 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. Grant R005337-01 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Final 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES EPA- GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office ^ 16. ABSTRACT This project was initiated to evaluate the water quality of northern Green Bay. Green Bay phytoplankton assemblages were characterized by high abundances and domination by taxa indicative of nutrient rich conditions. The most significant components of the communities were diatoms and cryptomonads in May and blue-green algae in August and October. Anacystis incerta , Rhodomonas minuta , microf lagel lates, Gloeocystis planctonica , and Cyclotella comensis were the most abundant taxa. Two main regions of different water quality were determined by phytoplankton popula- tion and community analysis. These regions are approximately delineated as north and south of Chambers Island. Phytoplankton and physico-chemical indications of eutro- phjcation were generally greater in the southern region. Local evidence of mor^ severe perturbation was noted in Little Bay de Noc near the Escanaba River and Es- canaba, and near the Menominee River. More naturally eutrophic shallow water commun* ities were found in Big Bay de Noc and along the northwest shore of Green Bay. Less eutrophic conditions along the Lake Michigan interface with Green Bay probably resulte( from dilution of Qreen Bay water due to exchange with Lake Michigan water. The ex- change must result qualitatively in the export of nutrients and biological popula- tions adapted to eutrophic conditions to Lake Michigan proper. 17. DESCRIPTORS KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group phytoplankton populations, water quality, microf lagel lates monitoring, ni trogen, phosphorus , silica, diatoms 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Available through NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161 EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) Green Bay Lake Michigan 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) Unclassified 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) Unclass if ied PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE 104 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 826-680