Laserfiche WebLink
Table 7.-Zooplankton species collected from all stations in the lower Colorado River (Oct. 1986 through Aug. 1988). <br />Davis Park Havasu Parker Headgate Palo Verde Cibola Palo Verde DR3 Imperial All Laguna Yuma <br />Taxa Dam Moabi Delta Dam Rock Diversion Irrigation Dam American <br />Dam Dam Drain Canal <br />Copepoda <br />Calanoida spp. X x x x x x x x x <br />Eurytemora affinis x x <br />Cyclopoida <br />Cyclops spp. X x x x x x x <br />Diacyclops bicus- <br />pidatus thomasi x x x x x x x <br />Ectocyclops sp. X x x x x <br />Mesocyclops edax x x x <br />Harpacticoida x x x x x x x x <br />Nauplius x x x x x x x x x x x <br />Copepodid x x x x x x x x x x <br />Cladocera <br />Bosmina sp. X x x x x x x x x x x <br />Ceriodaphnia sp. X x <br />Daphnia spp. X x x x x x x x x x x <br />Leptodora kindtii x x x <br />Rotatoria <br />Asplanchna sp. X x x x <br />Brachionus sp. X x x <br />Hexarthra sp. X <br />Kellicottia sp. X x <br />Keratella sp. X x x x x x x x x <br />Lecane sp. X x <br />Ploesoma sp. X x <br />Polyarthra sp. X x x x x x x x <br />Ptygura sp. X <br />Synchaeta sp. X x <br />Unidentified <br />r t'f <br />o f er species x x x x x <br />Total species 21 16 10 16 14 <br />concentrations decreased from upstream to down- <br />stream (tables 34A through 41A). Rotifer concen- <br />trations often exceeded copepod and cladoceran <br />concentrations for all sampling dates and stations. <br />Cladocerans and rotifers comprised the greatest <br />percentage of total zooplankton. Copepods disap- <br />peared rapidly in the river below the dams. <br />Chironomid larvae and oligochaetes were collected <br />occasionally in the plankton nets at Park Moabi and <br />Parker Dam. Mayflies were collected from Park <br />Moabi and the Cibola station. Water bears <br />(Tardigrada) also were found at Palo Verde Diversion <br />Dam and at Imperial Dam. <br />Particulate Organic Matter <br />Phase 1 objective was to determine the quantity, <br />distribution, and composition of particulate organic <br />matter by sieving known volumes of water through <br />various nets and filters. Figure 4 graphically depicts <br />the quantities (mean concentrations) and distribution <br />of the various size fractions of POM collected during <br />x x x x x x x x <br />13 9 3 8 12 4 6 7 <br />phase 1 for all stations sampled. A number of obser- <br />vations can be gleaned from this figure. A general <br />observation is that the concentration of total POM <br />(all sizes combined) seemed to be much greater <br />downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam. Also, the <br />majority of the POM was fine material which had <br />passed through a 25-µm mesh net. From upstream <br />to downstream stations, the <25-µm POM comprised <br />64 to 92 percent of total POM. Mean concentrations <br />of the <25-µm POM, g/m3 were: <br />- Davis Dam (upstream) ...... 0.73 <br />- Park Moabi ................. .66 <br />- Parker Dam ................ .82 <br />- Headgate Rock Dam ........ .65 <br />- Palo Verde Diversion Dam ... .87 <br />- Cibola ..................... 1.39 <br />- Imperial Dam .............. 1.40 <br />- Yuma ...................... 2.42 <br />The concentration of the <25-µm organic material <br />was significantly greater (p<0.05 ANOVA) at Yuma <br />than all other upstream stations (table 8). <br />11