Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In general, samples were counted in their entirety under a dissecting microscope. Single <br />eggs, egg masses, algae, or diatoms were not counted. For those samples containing more <br />than 400 organisms, subsamples were taken using a Hensen-Stempel pipette. These <br />samples were concentrated into 50 ml of water and stirred to avoid a vortex. Three, Iml <br />or 2ml aliquots were then taken for each sample and all organisms counted. These <br />subsample counts were then averaged by taxa and multiplied by the number of aliquots <br />per 50 m1 sample to obtain an overall density estimate. Finally, each of the five vertical <br />tows and five benthic samples were averaged to obtain a fmal density estimate per <br />sampling date. Density estimates were converted to number of organisms per liter for the <br />zooplankton samples, and numbers per square centimeter for the benthic samples. <br /> <br />RESULTS <br /> <br />Plankton <br /> <br />Zooplankton density estimates ranged from a low of 0.57 per liter on the second sample <br />date (08May), to a high of 124 per liter on the fmal sample date (12 June) in Millard <br />Canyon (Table 1). Average densities remained low (< 20 per liter) in both the Anderson <br />and Holeman backwaters. Densities never rose above 20 organisms per liter in Anderson <br />and rose to an average of only 26 organisms per liter on the 12 June sample in Holeman <br />Canyon. <br /> <br />SAMPLE DATE MILLARD ANDERSON HOLEMAN <br />01 May 6.17 + 1.19 2.40 + 0.65 6.60 ::!: 2.99 <br />08 May 0.57 + 0.33 5.80 + 3.88 5.20 ::!:3.65 <br />15 May 8.44 + 2.04 3.63 + 1.12 3.39 ::!:2.08 <br />22 May 29.02 + 26.92 7.60 ::!: 2.22 6.24 ::!: 1.10 <br />29 May 30.85 ::!: 36.18 6.82 + 3.23 6.83 + 1.86 <br />05Jun 53.74 ::!: 30.94 7.64 + 2.59 14.9::!: 3.33 <br />12 Jun 124.07 ::!: 29.82 19.23 + 5.81 26.23 ::!:10.98 <br />10 Jul 95.75 + 111.57 <br /> <br />Table 1 : Average zooplankton densities (organismsIL ::!: SD) from five vertical tows. <br /> <br />The percent composition of dominant food items by taxa, sample date and site are <br />depicted in Figures 1-3. The Copepoda category is represented by combining the adult <br />and copepodid life stages. Nauplii, which are exclusively Copepoda, were abundant <br />enough to warrant their own category. Minor taxa never comprised more than 9% of the <br />average total of five tows in Millard Canyon with the exception of the 8 May sample, <br /> <br />5 <br />