Content uploaded by Hedy J. Kling
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hedy J. Kling on Sep 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROTOCOLS FOR MEASURING
BIODIVERSITY:
Phytoplankton in Freshwater
by:
D.L. Findlay and H.J. Kling
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Freshwater Institute
501 University Crescent
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6
Table of Contents Page
Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Abiotic Factors ...............................................................................................................1
Sampling Procedures: ...................................................................................................2
Sites and Frequency ...........................................................................................2
Qualitative Sampling............................................................................................2
Quantitative Sampling..........................................................................................3
Preservation ........................................................................................................4
Sample Labelling and Field Notes ......................................................................4
Laboratory Procedures ..................................................................................................4
Sample Counting.................................................................................................5
Identification ........................................................................................................6
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................6
Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................................................................7
Volunteer Involvement ...................................................................................................8
Persons to Contact for More Information .......................................................................8
Appendix 1: Sources of Equipment and Supplies for Studies of
Phytoplankton Biodiversity .......................................................................9
References...................................................................................................................10
(i)
Introduction
Phytoplankton are unicellular, microscopic, unattached plants found in freshwater and
marine ecosystems. In comparison to many other biological organisms, phytoplankton
are relatively homogeneously mixed throughout the water column. Because these
microscopic organisms depend on light and nutrients, they populate the euphotic zone
or the upper strata of freshwater lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. They optimize their
residence in the photic zone by a number of mechanisms: controlling buoyancy using
gas vacuoles, migration using flagella, increasing surface area/volume ratio to form
resistance, and metabolic processes. Phytoplankton can be solitary or colonial and can
range in size from <1 µm to colonies that are >500 µm.
Like most plants, most phytoplankton are autotrophic; they contain chlorophyll pigment
that enables them to fix solar energy by photosynthesis, converting carbon into an
energy form transferable to other parts of the aquatic food web. However, some
phytoplankton can be heterotrophic for short periods (e.g. dinoflagellates,
cyanobacteria), by using dissolved organic substances, or they can be phagotrophic
and use particulate organic matter.
There are thousands of species of phytoplankton, many of which remain undescribed.
The cell coverings of phytoplankton can vary between and within taxonomic groupings.
These coverings consist of simple plasma membranes; protective, ornamented thecae
frustules; loricated structures; siliceous frustules; or cellulose. Species identifications
are based on morphological features, cellular structure, color, size, and cell division,
which are all visible under the light microscope. Preserved or living specimens can be
identified; taxonomy can be enhanced with electron microscopy, especially for taxa that
have external, recognizable, cell characteristics such as diatoms, chrysophytes, and
desmids.
Phytoplankton have rapid turn-over times (in the order of days), and are sensitive
indicators of environmental stresses. They are affected by physical, chemical, and
biological factors, making them valuable in monitoring programs.
Abiotic Factors
Freshwater phytoplankton populations are seasonally variable (Hutchinson 1967) and
are regulated by both chemical and physical factors. Nutrient concentrations, nutrient
ratios (stoichiometry), and light are essential growth indicators. For example,
nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria tend to dominate in systems with N:P ratios <5:1 (Findlay
et al. 1994), whereas chlorophytes tend to dominate in systems with higher N:P ratios.
Dinoflagellates proliferate in freshwater lakes with low pH and low C:P ratios. Pearsall
(1932) postulated that phytoplankton abundance in lakes of the English Lake District
was related to nutrient concentrations. The most obvious demonstration of this
hypothesis was the experimental eutrophication of Experimental Lakes Area (ELA)
Lake 226 (Schindler 1974). Redfield (1934) noted the constant ratio of C:N:P in marine
plankton (106:16:1), a ratio that remains widely accepted for marine systems. However,
Redfield ratios are the exception rather than the rule for freshwater phytoplankton
(Healey and Hendzel 1979; Hecky et al. 1993). In many stratified freshwater lakes and
reservoirs, blooms of chrysophytes, chlorophytes, or dinoflagellates form at varying
depths throughout the euphotic zone where nutrient concentrations are high and these
organisms can select optimum light levels (Fee 1976).
Physical characteristics of a lake, reservoir, or pond such as depth, volume, ratio of
drainage area:lake surface area, and fetch distance can influence phytoplankton
assemblages. In small shallow water bodies, the euphotic zone has a higher ratio of
epilimnetic sediments:lake volume, allowing for more recycling of nutrients from the
sediments than in large, deep lakes. (The epilimnion is the upper portion of a lake that
is well mixed and has a uniform temperature.) In contrast, nutrient recycling in a large
lake or reservoir may be influenced by internal mixing caused by wind action. As
previously mentioned, phytoplankton rely on different mechanisms to remain in the
water column. Flagellated organisms may occur in higher proportions in a small lake
than a large one because less physical motion is available in a small lake to enable
suspension.
Sampling Procedures
Sampling sites and frequency
Sampling sites for phytoplankton should be located a reasonable distance away from
shore to eliminate contamination by periphytic (attached) species of algae. The depth of
the euphotic zone can also be used in defining sampling location. The euphotic zone is
defined by the maximum depth at which surface light is attenuated to 0.5%. It has been
demonstrated that 0.5% is the minimum light level required for photosynthesis (Fee
1978).
Generally, twice the Secchi disc reading will be a reasonable estimate of the maximum
depth of the euphotic zone. If the lake is thermally stratified, it is best to sample over the
deepest location of the euphotic zone, which will reduce the probability of contacting the
lake sediments and will also allow sampling of the different thermal strata (epilimnion,
metalimnion, and hypolimnion). Bi-weekly to monthly sampling is necessary to capture
the seasonal dynamics of phytoplankton, and to quantify their abundance and biomass.
It may be necessary to increase sampling frequency during periods of blooms. Lakes
should be sampled during mid-day to optimize light transparency. Although
phytoplankton are relatively homogeneously mixed, uneven horizontal distribution
(patchiness) can be a source of sampling error. Taking multiple samples from different
stations and combining them to produce a composite sample can reduce this error.
Many types of field gear can be used to collect phytoplankton from freshwater lakes,
reservoirs, and ponds. The type of gear selected depends on the information required
to address the question being asked.
Qualitative sampling
For qualitative sampling of phytoplankton, a 10-µm Nitex® mesh phytoplankton net is
recommended (Fig. 1). The net is 20 cm in diameter, 35 cm in length, and is fitted with
a stopcock at the lower end to allow opening and closing. The mouth of the net has a
5-cm canvas collar fitted with a metal bridle that attaches to the sampling line. This type
of net is commercially available from Geneq Inc. (Appendix 1). The net is lowered to a
given depth, allowed to settle there for 15-30 sec, and then is slowly pulled to the
surface. Pulling the net too fast will cause a bow wave and the net will be less efficient.
The mouth of the stopcock is positioned into a sample-collecting bottle and the sample
is then drained. This procedure may be repeated 3-4 times.
Qualitative net sampling will yield presence/absence information and can aid in the
identification of rare species, but is not appropriate for accurate counting or biomass
estimates. Numerous species or individuals can pass through even small mesh sizes,
colonies can be disrupted by the net, and some fragile species may burst from
excessive pressure. However, qualitative samples are excellent for taxonomic surveys
because of the large number of specimens collected.
Quantitative sampling
There are several reliable methods for obtaining quantitative phytoplankton samples,
which are unconcentrated samples taken from a known volume of water. The most
common method is the use of a discrete-depth water-bottle sampler such as a Van
Dorn, which samples a constant volume of water (1-6 L). The opened sampling
apparatus is lowered to the desired depth, the trigger is released, and the sample is
entrapped. The sampler is then brought to the surface, shaken, and a subsample is
removed.
The use of an integrating sampler (Shearer et al. 1985) allows a sample to be obtained
from a predetermined depth range (Fig. 2). This apparatus consists of a 1-L amber
bottle attached to a weighted harness. A rubber stopper fitted with intake and outlet
hoses is positioned in the mouth of the bottle. The intake hose is attached to a closing
mechanism and opens when triggered. Technical information on the construction of this
sampler can be found on the ELA web site
(http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/fisheries).
The closed, integrating sampler is lowered to the bottom of the desired depth range (i.e.
sampling 4-7 m, the sampler would be lowered to 7 m), the intake line is triggered open
and the sampler is raised over the given depth range at a constant rate (1 m⋅10 sec-1).
The bottle is quickly repositioned at the bottom of the desired depth range and again
raised at a constant rate.
This process is repeated until there are no air bubbles at the water surface, which
indicates the bottle is full. The sampler is then retrieved into the boat, shaken, and a
subsample is removed.
An integrated sample can also be collected from shallow water bodies by using a
3-6-cm diameter ridged, plastic pipe, 1-2 m in length. The pipe is gently inserted
vertically into the water column and the top is capped off by covering it tightly with a
hand. The pipe is lifted out of the water and is drained into a bucket. The water sample
in the bucket is mixed well and a subsample is removed.
The above-mentioned methods all provide samples appropriate for accurate counts (i.e.
number of cells⋅L-1) and species identification. However, an integrated sampler allows
an entire water column to be examined in fewer samples than for a discrete sampler,
thereby reducing time-consuming microscopic analyses.
Preservation
Phytoplankton samples should be preserved by both acid iodine solution (Lugol's) and
an acidified formalin solution (FAA; see recipes below) and stored in glass vials
(opaque glass would increase shelf life) fitted with a polyethylene screw-cap lid. Both of
Figure 2. Integrating sampler (Reprinted from Shearer et al. 1985 by
permission of J.A. Shearer, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg,
Manitoba)
the recommended preservatives have limitations. Lugol's solution has a shelf life that is
affected by light. It is excellent for preserving chrysophytes but it makes the
identification of dinoflagellates difficult, if not impossible. FAA may cause thin-walled
cells to burst. For best results, it is recommended that algal samples be preserved first
with Lugol's (0.05-1% by volume) followed immediately by FAA (2% by volume). Color
is an important taxonomic characteristic, especially for bluegreen algae. Formalin is a
good preservative for green and bluegreen algae and dinoflagellates because cell color
remains intact if samples are stored in the dark.
Lugol's solution can be prepared using 100 g I, 200 g KI, 200 mL glacial acetic acid,
and 2000 mL of distilled water. Because it is light sensitive, this solution must be stored
in a dark bottle. FAA is a solution of equal volumes of formaldehyde (37%) and glacial
acetic acid.
Sample labelling and field notes
All samples and subsamples require accurate labeling. The label should contain
information such as location, time, date, depth, type of sampling gear used, and the
name of the collector. Complimentary field notes should be kept containing a
description of the sampling site, type of land vegetation surrounding the sampling site,
general geology of the area (e.g. granite vs. limestone), and pertinent information on
other variables that were also sampled (e.g. air and water temperatures, wind speed
and direction, and unusual odors).
Laboratory Procedures
An inverted microscope equipped with phase/contrast illumination; 10X, 40X, and 100X
objectives; 12.5X eyepieces (10X or 16X are also available); and micrometer eyepieces
(graduated in µm) is required to identify and count the specimens collected.
Photographic capability, although not necessary, can aid in confirming taxonomic
decisions at a later date.
Identifications and counts for quantitative estimates are performed on preserved
subsamples. Qualitative samples obtained using a phytoplankton net can be analyzed
either live or preserved but they yield only presence/absence data.
Sample counting
The most common counting method used to quantify preserved phytoplankton samples
is the Utermöhl (1958) technique as modified by Nauwerck (1963). (Staining is not
required because samples have been preserved in Lugol's solution.) This method
involves settling a known volume of sample into a counting chamber (Fig. 3). The
density of phytoplankton will be dictated by the volume of subsample settled. If after
settling a sample, the density of plankton is too great, a smaller volume of sample
should be resettled. A simple counting chamber consists of three parts: (1) a bottom
part, which is a piece of Plexiglas (40 mm2 and 6 mm thick) with a 20-mm diameter
hole drilled through it. A glass coverslip is glued (Pliobond glue) over the bottom of the
hole; this part of the chamber holds 2 mL; (2) the top of the chamber, which is a column
that can vary in length and volume (8 and 48 mL are shown). The top chamber is
secured to the bottom with a thin film of stopcock grease. Samples require 4 h of
settling time for every 6 mm of counting-chamber height (e.g. samples in a chamber 36
mm high would need to settle for at least 24 h); and (3) a cover glass, which is used to
cap the top of the counting chamber after it has been filled with a sample. The cover
glass is 3 mm thick and 35 mm in diameter. It is clear, ground glass that allows light to
pass through. After settling is complete, the top portion of the chamber is slid off the
bottom and a second cover glass is slid into place over the bottom chamber, which now
contains all the phytoplankton that have settled. Chambers should be cleaned with
alcohol before reuse to remove residue from previous samples.
F
Figure 3.
Counting
chamber
The bottom chamber is then placed on the inverted microscope. Cells >15 µm are
identified and counted using the 10X objective on transects that cover 50% of the
chamber surface. Cells <15 µm are counted on a single transect, 200 µm wide, at the
center of the counting chamber using the 40X objective. Cells must appear to be viable
(i.e. chloroplasts intact). Cell fragments are not counted. Viable cells that are partially in
a counting field on the right hand side are counted, but those on the left are omitted.
For colonies, a small portion of the colony is counted, and the number of cells is then
estimated. Filaments are counted individually. A minimum of 400-600 cells should be
enumerated to assure that the count is representative of the sample. Cell counts are
converted to wet-weight biomass by approximating cell volume. Estimates of cell
volume for each species are obtained by routine measurements of 30-50 cells of an
individual species and application of the geometric formula best fitted to the shape of
the cell (Vollenweider 1968; Rott 1981). A specific gravity of 1 is assumed for cellular
biomass. For accepted shapes and assignment of species see Rott (1981).
For example:
There are numerous types of devices used to tally counts. They range from a simple
tab counter to voice recognition computer systems.
Identification
The premise of a biodiversity monitoring program is to observe changes at the lowest
identifiable taxonomic level over time, so accurate species identifications are important.
Identifications can be enhanced by using both light and electron microscopy, by
examination of live and preserved specimens, and, in the case of diatoms, by
examination of acid-cleaned specimens. However, identification of algae is extremely
difficult and it is recommended that samples be processed by an experienced
taxonomist.
Phytoplankton species are continually being described and classified. Therefore, it is
necessary for those identifying phytoplankton to be abreast of current identification keys
and those that are relevant to the geographic area in which sampling was done. Geitler
(1932), Hubber-Pestalozzi (1941), Bourrelly (1966, 1968), Patrick and Reimer (1966,
1975), Komárek and Anagnostidis (1986), and Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986) are
recommended keys for the identification of phytoplankton. The identifier should also
have some knowledge of the life cycles of the different algae encountered and must be
aware that species of phytoplankton can change size quickly as part of their
reproductive phase.
Identifications can be checked/changed at a later time if subsamples are taken and
archived. As a rough guide, 50-75 mL of each sample should be archived, and all
unusual samples should be saved. Preservation methods described above should be
followed.
Data Analysis
All analyses should be routinely recorded on a count sheet, which should allow for the
following entries: sample identification, species names, numbers of cells counted, cell
length and width, and drawings of unusual species (Table 1). Data should then be
stored in an electronic database; it is imperative that data entries be checked to
eliminate unexpected errors. All variables required to transform the data into either
biomass or number of cells⋅L-1 should be saved with the count and identification data.
Phytoplankton data need to be summarized and plotted to enable seasonal, annual,
and long-term analysis. This involves calculating the number of cells⋅L-1 and the
biomass of each species, summing species in the same taxonomic group to obtain
group totals, and summing the totals of the different taxonomic groups to obtain a total
biomass for each sampling date (Table 2).
Table 1: A phytoplankton count sheet containing all pertinent information
PHYTOPLANKTON COUNT SHEET
#
Species Correction
Factor1Group Species
Code2Count Length
um Width
um Cell Vol
um∧3Species
Name
1 200 1 1022 7 0 0 2600 Gomphosphaeria sp.
2 200 1 1078 9 251 6 7096.9 Planktothrix agardhil (Gom.) Anagnostidis
3 200 2 2113 1 0 0 3200 Pediastrum duplex Meyen
4 200 5 5540 12 30 6 848.2 Aulacoseira italica v subarctica (O.Mull)
5 200 5 5794 1 140 20 14660.8 Pinnularia flexuosa Cleve
6 200 6 6558 22 21 10 733 Cryptomonas erosa Ehrenberg
7 200 7 7632 4 34 34 20579.5 Gymnodinium sp.
8 200 7 7638 32 20 20 4188.8 Peridinium inconspicuum Lemmermann
9 7184 1 1065 16 6 4 50.3 Anabaena cylindrica Lemmermann
10 7184 1 1072 1 6 6 113.1 Heterocysts
12 7184 2 2105 21 10 6 188.5 Chlamydomonas spp.
13 7184 2 2112 4 4 4 33.5 Sphaerocystis schroeteri Chodat
14 7184 2 2115 8 4 4 11.2 Pediastrum tetras (Ehrenberg) Ralfs
15 7184 2 2121 14 8 4 67 Oocystis lacustris Chodat
16 7184 2 2127 3 10 10 174.5 Tetraedron minimum (Brunow) Hansgrig
17 7184 2 2131 4 6 4 33.5 Scenedesmus quadric auda v
18 7184 2 2132 12 8 4 44.7 Scenedesmus denticulatus Lagerhiem
19 7184 2 2136 12 5 5 65.4 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum Wood
20 7184 2 2138 68 49 1.8 83.1 Monoraphidium komarkovae (Nvg.) Komarkova
21 7184 2 2143 3 10 4 62.8 Monoraphidium minutum (Nag.) Komarkova-Le
23 7184 2 2178 1 12 12 301.6 Cosmarium sp.
24 7184 2 2201 21 3 3 14.1 Small greens
25 7184 4 4351 191 3 3 14.1 Small chrysophyceae
26 7184 4 4352 34 6 6 113.1 Large chrysophyceae
27 7184 4 4362 1 4 4 33.5 Kephyrion sp.
28 7184 4 4383 4 12 6 226.2 Dinobryon bavaricum Imhof
29 7184 4 4420 24 6 4 50.3 Gloeobotrys limneticus (G.M.Smith) Pasch
30 7184 5 5702 4 22 4 92.2 Achnanthes minutissima Kutzing
31 7184 6 6554 21 12 6 150.8 Rhodomonas minuta Skuja
32 7184 6 6568 6 8 4 44.7 Katablepharis ovalis Skuja
Lake: 223 Stratum: Epilimnion Date: 23 Jul 93 Start Depth: 0 End Depth: 3.75
1 The correction factor is used to convert the number of cells in the settled subsample to the number of cells L-1
(i.e., 10 cells in a 5 mL subsample = 10 cells * 200 (correction factor) = 2000 cells L-1).
2 Species are entered as numeric codes that are electronically linked to the species names.
Table 2 - Daily Phytoplankton Biomass - Lake 149
Lake Date Cyano-
phyte Chloro-
phyte Euglen-
ophyte Chryso-
phyte Diatom Crypto-
phyte Dinophyte Total
149 8 May 90 0.5 10.8 0 1241.3 36 58.3 92.8 1439.8
149 22 May 90 93.3 14.3 0 1835.9 73.9 47.2 357.1 2421.6
149 5 Jun 90 2.5 4.9 0 1555.3 208.4 81.6 1069.1 2921.9
149 19 Jun 90 4.1 27 0 1990.5 38.5 32.6 425 2517.8
149 3 Jul 90 35.5 29.6 0 314.2 24.5 34.1 760.4 1198.3
149 17 Jul 90 162.6 28.9 0 589 30.4 33.9 930 1774.7
149 31 Jul 90 50 23.6 2.1 608.3 15.7 28.9 1329.5 2058.1
149 14 Aug 90 55.9 11.7 0 790.1 12 49.9 1149.9 2069.5
149 28 Aug 90 23.3 12.1 0 934.8 9.8 42.4 927.3 1949.6
149 11 Sep 90 55.7 48.9 0 1297.6 118.9 153.3 275.1 1949.5
149 25 Sep 90 0 11.7 1.1 2033.4 103.3 50.4 301.5 2501.4
149 9 Oct 90 8.9 28.1 0 2522 30 81.6 339 3009.7
149 23 Oct 90 0 5.6 1.2 687.2 21.6 64.9 80.2 860.7
149 7 May 91 0 0 0 470 36 121.1 370.6 997.8
149 4 Jun 91 8.4 15 0 118.2 42.5 46.5 577.9 808.5
149 2 Jul 91 123 19.5 0 246.6 7.2 28.9 474.8 899.9
149 30 Jul 91 331.9 46.8 0 346.8 29.8 33.8 637.3 1426.4
149 27 Aug 91 61.9 27.5 0 795 17.9 30.9 478.5 1411.7
149 24 Sep 91 21.9 1.9 0 1702.4 14.1 49.6 59.6 1849.5
149 22 Oct 91 10.2 11.2 0 801.7 29.5 45.6 76.8 975
149 19 May 92 5.5 1.9 0 423 27.8 89.7 44 591.8
149 30 Jun 92 123.3 18.6 0 118.6 8.2 20.1 88.8 377.6
149 28 Jul 92 463.6 110.6 0 393.1 12.4 137.2 480.8 1597.7
149 25 Aug 92 8.9 45.3 0 1864.9 8.8 138.5 881.7 2948.2
149 8 Sep 92 32.3 41.2 0 3575.2 15.8 65.3 192.6 3922.5
149 6 Oct 92 0 23.9 0 2464.4 15.6 88.1 151.6 2743.6
149 4 May 93 0.5 13 1.5 335.1 25.7 38.4 182.1 596.4
149 18 May 93 0 9.1 0 564.7 70.8 46.5 228.8 920
149 14 June 93 162.2 9.1 0 271.8 27.4 24.7 395 890.1
149 13 Jul 93 387 3.5 0 127.8 1.5 22.9 505 1047.8
149 10 Aug 93 87.4 28.6 0 525.3 6 11.2 458 1116.4
149 7 Sep 93 57.4 24.8 0 19912 5.5 42.9 88.1 2209.8
149 5 Oct 93 15.6 33.5 0 14303 30.1 23.4 142.7 1675.5
Table 2. Daily phytoplankton biomass (mg⋅
⋅⋅⋅m-3) for Experimental Lakes Area Lake 149, 1990-1993.
Figure 4 depicts how the summarized phytoplankton data can be graphically presented.
Composition (lower panel) is presented as the percentage contributed by each of the
seven taxonomic groups to the community on a daily basis. Total daily biomass (upper
panel) is presented as g⋅m-3.
Figure 4. Phytoplankton biomass and composition for Experimental Lakes Area Lake
149 from 1990-1993.
Long-term changes in the biomass of a phytoplankton community can be assessed by
comparing annual means to the long-term mean for each of the taxonomic groups (Fig.
5). The long-term mean is calculated by summing all annual means and dividing by the
number of years involved.
Figure 5. Annual mean vs. long-term mean biomass for Experimental Lakes Area Lake
149.
Compositional and numerical species changes can be assessed by the use of a
measure of species richness, a species diversity index, or a similarity index. However,
the accuracy of the taxonomy will affect the final results. Species richness is simply the
number of species encountered, and is based on presence or absence. It can be
applied to both qualitative and quantitative samples. Washington (1984) recommends
Simpson's Diversity Index for phytoplankton:
where s = the number of species in a sample, n = the number of individuals in a
sample, and ni = the number of individuals of species i in a sample. This index is biased
by the dominant taxa.
Percent similarity analysis (Washington 1984) uses biomass and can also be applied to
quantitative samples:
where s = total number of species in both samples, P1i = proportion of the total
biomass of species i in sample 1, and P2i = proportion of the total biomass of species i
in sample 2. This index allows direct comparison between two sites or stations, and
also tends to favour the dominant species.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
A QA/QC program is necessary to instill credibility in a monitoring program. A QA/QC
program is difficult to operate when dealing with algal communities because of the
limited number of qualified taxonomists. However, the following checks can be put into
place to increase the integrity of a monitoring program:
1. Constancy of identifications can be achieved if the same person analyzes all
samples. This approach will facilitate subsequent changes to taxonomic
identifications.
2. 10-15 % of the samples should be analyzed by other persons to ensure the
accuracy of identifications and counts.
3. Replicate counts should be performed on selected samples at different times.
The replicate count should be within ± 20% of the first count.
4. Periodic analysis of check samples will also help to assure the quality of
identifications. Check samples contain known species sent out to test the
accuracy of identifications by a laboratory.
5. A good pictoral reference key and a reference collection of permanent slide
material will ensure standard taxonomic identifications. Photographs or voucher
specimens for every taxon identified should be archived in a nationally
recognized herbarium.
Volunteer Involvement
Volunteers using the protocols described above will be able to sample phytoplankton
both qualitatively and quantitatively. However, the identification of phytoplankton to
species level is extremely difficult and should be only done by an experienced
taxonomist.
Persons to contact for more information
Dr. K. Nicholls
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Box 213, Rexdale, Ontario
M9W 5L1
Dr. P. Hamilton
Canadian Museum of Nature
P.O. Box 343, Station D
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6P4
E-mail: phamilton@mus-nature.ca
APPENDIX 1:
Sources of equipment and supplies for studies of phytoplankton biodiversity
Fisher Scientific
112 Colonnade Rd
Nepean, Ontario
K2E 7L6
1-613-226-8874
Geneq Inc.
7978 Jarry E.
Montreal, Quebec
H1J 1H5
1-514-354-2511
VWR Scientific
175 Hanson St.
Toronto, Ontario
M4C 1A7
1-800-932-5000
Marivac Ltd.
5821 Russell St.
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3M 4C8
1-902-454-5544
References
Bourrelly, P. 1966. Les algues d'eau douce. Tome I: Les algues vertes. Édition N.
Boubée & Cie, Paris. 572 p.
Bourrelly, P. 1968. Les algues d'eau douce. Tome II: Les algues jaunes et brunes.
Édition N. Boubée & Cie, Paris. 440 p.
Fee, E.J. 1976. The vertical and seasonal distribution of chlorophyll in lakes of the
Experimental Lakes Area, northwestern Ontario: implications for primary production
estimates. Limnology and Oceanography 21: 767-783.
Fee, E.J. 1978. A procedure for improving estimates of in situ primary production at low
irradiances with an incubator technique. Verhandlungen der Internationalen
Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 20:59-67.
Findlay, D.L., R.E. Hecky, L.L. Hendzel, M.P. Stainton, and G.W. Regehr. 1994. The
relationship between nitrogen fixation and heterocyst abundance in Lake 227 and its
relevance to the nitrogen budget. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
51: 2254-2266.
Geitler, L. 1932. Cyanophyceae. Leipzig. Rabenhorst's Kryptogamenflora 14. 1196 p.
Healey, F.P. and L.L. Hendzel. 1979. Fluorometric measurement of alkaline
phosphatase activity in algae. Freshwater Biology 9: 429-439.
Hecky, R.E., P. Campbell, and L.L. Hendzel. 1993. The stoichiometry of carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorus in particulate matter of lakes and oceans. Limnology and
Oceanography 38: 709-724.
Hubber-Pestalozzi, G. 1941. Die Binnengewässer. Das Phytoplankton des
Süsswassers 16 (2:1). 365 p.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1967. A treatise on limnology. Vol. 2. Introduction to lake biology and
the limnoplankton. J. Wiley & Sons, New York. 1115 p.
Komárek J. and K. Anagnostidis. 1986. Modern approach to the classification system of
cyanophytes 2 - Chroococcales. Algological Studies 73: 157-226.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1986. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa:
Bacillariophyceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 876 p.
Nauwerck, A. 1963. Die Beziehungen zwischen Zooplankton und Phytoplankton in see
Erken. Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 17. 163 p.
Patrick, R. and C.W. Reimer. 1966. The diatoms of the United States, 1. Academy of
Natural Sciences Monograph No. 13. 688 p.
Patrick, R. and C.W. Reimer. 1975. The diatoms of the United States, 2. Academy of
Natural Sciences Monograph No. 13. 213 p.
Pearsall, W.H. 1932. Phytoplankton in the English Lakes II. The composition of the
phytoplankton in relation to dissolved substances. Journal of Ecology 20: 241-262.
Redfield, A.C. 1934. On the proportion of organic derivatives in sea water and their
relation to the composition of plankton, p. 176-192. In James Johnstone Memorial
Volume, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K.
Rott, E. 1981. Some results from phytoplankton counting intercalibrations.
Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Hydrologie 43: 43-62.
Schindler, D.W. 1974. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: implications
for lake management. Science (Washington, D.C.) 184: 897-899.
Shearer, J.A., E.R DeBruyn, D.R. DeClerq, D.W. Schindler, and E.J. Fee. 1985. Manual
of phytoplankton primary production methodology. Canadian Technical Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1341. iv + 58 p.
Utermöhl, H. 1958. Zur Verollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik.
Mitteilungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte
Limnologie 9: 1-38.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of lakes and
flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in
eutrophication. Technical Report. Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris. 182 p.
Washington, H.G. 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review with special
relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Research 186: 653-694.
