My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7993
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 11:55:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7993
Author
Mabey, L. W.
Title
Planktonic and Benthic Microcrustaceans from Floodplain and River Habitats of the Ouray Refuge on the Green, River, Utah - Master's Thesis.
USFW Year
1993.
USFW - Doc Type
Brigham Young University,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
comparison with backwater benthic numbers. Grabowski and Hiebert (1989) reported <br />plankton densities of 1051/m3 for backwaters located near Ouray and up to 16,600/m3 <br />for backwater near Jensen in June. Their estimates included 88 °lo rotifers, and rotifers <br />were not quantified in the present study. Adjusting their numbers to reflect <br />microcrustaceans only gives a range of 100/m3 for Ouray backwaters and 2000/m3 <br />near Jensen. Our Ouray site was more similar to their Jensen site. The high densities <br />of microcrustaceans in Intersection Wash could be due to either the flooded vegetation <br />that enriched the waters or the earlier sample date. <br />River. Densities of river plankton ranged from 317-1,312/m3, benthic river <br />densities ranged from 948-6,318/m2. The benthic densities were 5-7 times greater than <br />plankton densities per square meter. The densities of both benthic and planktonic <br />microcrustaceans were 4-6 times greater in July than August. This decline may reflect <br />the utilization of nutrients left after high water or may be due to reduced source <br />areas, such as floodplains for plankton in August. There does not appear to be a <br />cohort shift since all life stages experience a sharp decline. Both the Ouray backwater <br />and the river site showed similar trends. The backwater decreased five fold while the <br />river decreased four fold. This supports the idea that river plankton is dependent on <br />source areas. Grabowski and Heibert (1989) report river plankton densities of 100/m3 <br />in June, with no plankton reported at later dates. The difference here may have been <br />the sample location. This study collected samples near the bank with some degree of <br />protection by a submerged sandbar whereas, Grawbosld and Hiebert may have <br />sampled a midchannel location which may not have had as many planktonic <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.