|
<br />Table 2. Densities, biovolumes, relative percent differences, and year sampled of richest-targeted habitat periphyton
<br />environmental and replicate samples in the Upper Colorado River Basin study unit, 1996-97
<br />
<br />[cells/cm2, cells per square centimeter; ~m3/cm2, cubic micrometers per square centimeter; %, percent]
<br />
<br />Site Year Total Total RP02, total RP02, total
<br />abbreviation 1 sampled density biovolume density biovolume
<br />(cellslcm2) (~m3/cm2) (%) (%)
<br />French 1996 363,431 172,509,657
<br /> 12,390,916 23,498,507,089 189 197
<br />Dotsero 1996 185,827 27,635,948
<br /> 286,226 43,330,000 42.5 44.2
<br />State 1996 634,870 262,621,990
<br /> 909,180 203,745,778 35.5 25.2
<br />Baker 1997 14,578 80,036,256
<br /> 97,059 414,950,804 148 135
<br />Cameo 1997 144,860 38,417,135
<br /> 241,489 53,502,712 50.0 32.8
<br />ISite abbreviations are used in this table. See table I for full site names.
<br />2RPD = Relative percent difference calculated as absolute value {(Sample I - Sample 2) / [(Sample I + Sample 2) / 2]} x 100.
<br />
<br />Quality-assurance and quality-control results for
<br />the laboratory procedures indicate that sample bias
<br />that could result from the sample analysis was reduced
<br />by using standard operating procedures, sample
<br />recounts, and taxonomic consistency for periphyton
<br />samples. Laboratory standard operating procedures
<br />were followed without modifications for sample prep-
<br />aration and analysis. Recounts of the quantity of
<br />periphyton cells within a sample were within 10
<br />percent for all samples. Identification of periphyton
<br />samples was based on a taxonomically consistent list
<br />that was produced and checked for all 1994 NAWQA
<br />study units (Frank Acker, Academy of Natural
<br />Sciences of Philadelphia, oral commun., 2000).
<br />
<br />REFERENCES CITED
<br />
<br />Apodaca, L.E., Driver, N.E., Stephens, V.C., and Spahr,
<br />N.E., 1996, Environmental setting and implications on
<br />water quality, Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorado
<br />and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
<br />Investigations Report 95-4263, 33 p.
<br />
<br />Driver, N.E., 1994, National Water-Quality Assessment
<br />Program-Upper Colorado River Basin: U.S.
<br />Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-102,2 p.
<br />
<br />Leahy, P.P., Rosenshein, J.S., and Knopman, D.S., 1990,
<br />Implementation plan for the National Water-Quality
<br />Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey
<br />Open-File Report 90-174,10 p.
<br />
<br />Meador, M.R., and Gurtz, M.E., 1994, Biology as an inte-
<br />grated component of the U.S. Geological Survey's
<br />National Water-Quality Assessment Program:
<br />U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-83,4 p.
<br />[Water-Resources Notes]
<br />
<br />Porter, S.D., Cuffney, T.E, Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R.,
<br />1993, Methods for collecting algal samples as part of
<br />the National Water-Quality Assessment Program:
<br />U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-409,
<br />39p.
<br />
<br />Spahr, N.E., Driver, N.E., and Stephens, V.C., 1996, The
<br />Upper Colorado River National Water-Quality Assess-
<br />ment Program surface-water-monitoring network: U.S.
<br />Geological Survey Fact Sheet 191-96,4 p.
<br />
<br />6 Algal Data from Selected Sites in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorado, Water Years 1996-97
<br />
|