Laserfiche WebLink
<br />stream studied (Figure 11). <br /> <br /> z 3.0 <br /> ~ 2.4 ~Leacha te <br />... z ~ <br />J: Q () 1.8 A added <br />- ~ ::l <br />.... g 1.2 <br />- a: <br />N <br />0 a.. g: 0.6 <br />Cl en <br />E w ~ 0 <br /> IX W <br /> z 0.6 <br /> 1.2 <br /> 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 <br /> z 3.0 AM PM AM PM <br /> ~ 2.4 B ControL_ <br />.. z ~ <br />J: Q () 1.8 <br />- ~ ::l <br />.... g 1.2 <br />- a: <br />N <br />0 a.. g: 0.6 <br />Cl en <br />E w .... 0 <br /> a: w <br /> z 0.6 <br /> 1.2 <br /> 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 <br /> AM PM AM PM <br /> TIME (hours) <br />Figure 11. Production-respiration data for <br />experiments with oil shale leachate in the <br />White (upper figure) and Logan (lower figure) <br />Rivers, Utah. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />These results indicated that an in situ technique using a <br />community-level parameter (P/R~ was more sensitive than <br />laboratory bioassays using single species algal cultures. <br />These results quantify the fact that different stream <br />ecosystems respond differently to perturbations and that <br />laboratory bioassays did not predict this result. <br /> <br />When determining rates of production, respiration, <br />and processing of organic material in the White River, the <br />source of the organic material (allochthonous vs. <br />authochthonous) is critical. A stream heavily dominated <br />by terrestrial input will have high respiration values <br /> <br />2ScJ <br />