Laserfiche WebLink
Table 4.-The percentage of <25-µm-size-fraction chlorophyll a and >25-µm-size-fraction <br />chlorophyll a concentration for phase 1 (Oct. 1986 through June 1987). <br /> Chlorophyll Samplin g date <br />Station size-fraction 10/2012/01 1/05 2/09 3/16 4/20 5/18 6/22 <br /> µm Percent <br />Davis Dam <25 84 100 100 82 81 100 93 100 <br /> >25 16 0 0 18 19 0 7 0 <br />Park Moabi <25 85 99 80 88 80 82 79 82 <br /> >25 15 1 20 12 20 18 21 18 <br /> . <br />Parker Dam <25 100 95 100 99 76 100 81 100 <br /> >25 0 5 0 1 24 0 19 0 <br />Headgate Rock Dam <25 87 100 94 79 99 87 47 84 <br /> >25 13 0 6 21 1 13 53 16 <br />Palo Verde Diversion Dam <25 100 100 97 100 72 100 80 100 <br /> >25 0 0 3 0 28 0 20 0 <br />Cibola <25 100 86 100 60 100 78 87 84 <br /> >25 0 14 0 40 0 22 13 16 <br />Imperial Dam <25 97 98 100 74 73 71 100 89 <br /> >25 3 2 0 26 27 29 0 11 <br />Yuma <25 98 77 100 73 100 100 100 88 <br /> >25 2 23 0 27 0 0 0 12 <br />Table 5.-F-test results based on ANOVA <br />between all stations and mean total <br />chlorophyll a concentration for phase 1 (Oct. <br />1986 through June 1987). <br />Chlorophylla Station <br />mg/m3 Tukey <br />grouping <br />3.03 Yuma X <br />2.16 Imperial Dam B <br />1.50 Davis Dam C <br />1.43 Park Moabi C <br />1.36 Cibola C <br />1.30 Parker Dam C <br />1.19 Headgate Rock Dam C <br />0.91 Palo Verde Diversion Dam C <br />Means with the same letter are not significantly <br />different at the 0.05 confidence level. <br />net and into the subnet size-fraction. This method <br />also caused the subnet size phytoplankton to become <br />caught in the net on occasion, as a consequence, <br />some of the species collected were identified in both <br />the <25-µm and >25-µm size-fractions. Number of <br />species collected in each phytoplankton group at <br />each station are listed in table 6. During phase 1, <br />chlorophyll a was used as an index of phytoplankton <br />biomass for the <25-µm size-fraction. Because the <br /><25-µm size-fraction comprised the greatest <br />proportion of total chlorophyll a, it was concluded <br />that this size-fraction also made up the greatest <br />proportion of total phytoplankton. For the <25-µm <br />and >25-µm size-fractions, pennate diatoms com- <br />prised the dominant phytoplankton group (order <br />Pennales). Following this group in decreasing order <br />were: <br />correlation was performed between <25-µm phyto- <br />plankton and <25-µm POM to determine if a <br />relationship exists between the two variables. The <br />correlation was insignificant (p>0.05), which <br />indicates that nonchlorophyll bearing particles or <br />detrital material comprised the greatest proportion <br />of POM in the river. Chlorophyll a concentrations <br />are reported in table 16A. <br />Phytoplankton.-A complete phytoplankton species <br />list for all stations is reported in table 17A. <br />Phytoplankton species-totaling 242-were identi- <br />fied from upstream to downstream sampling <br />stations. Phytoplankton were collected using a pump <br />that at times forced net-size plankton through the <br />- Chlorophyta (green algae) <br />- Cyanophyta (blue-green algae) <br />- Euglenophyta (euglenoids) <br />- Chrysophyta (yellow-brown algae) <br />- Pyrrhophyta (dinoflagellates) <br />- Rhodophyta (red algae) <br />The concentration of the >25-µm size-fraction <br />phytoplankton was generally less than 100 cells per <br />liter from Davis Dam downstream to Yuma. Many <br />of the 121 phytoplankton species collected in Davis <br />Dam tailwater were received from the reservoir. By <br />contrast, 180 phytoplankton species-predomi- <br />nantly diatoms-were collected at Havasu Delta. <br />There were 152 phytoplankton species collected at <br />9