Freshwater Biology

Volume 48, Issue 8 pp. 1311-1328
Full Access

Distribution of benthic diatoms in U.S. rivers in relation to conductivity and ionic composition

Marina Potapova

Marina Potapova

Patrick Center for Environmental Research, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Donald F. Charles

Donald F. Charles

Patrick Center for Environmental Research, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 July 2003
Citations: 294
M. Potapova, Patrick Center for Environmental Research, The Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

  • 1

    We quantified the relationships between diatom relative abundance and water conductivity and ionic composition, using a dataset of 3239 benthic diatom samples collected from 1109 river sites throughout the U.S.A. [U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program dataset]. This dataset provided a unique opportunity to explore the autecology of freshwater diatoms over a broad range of environmental conditions.

  • 2

    Conductivity ranged from 10 to 14 500 μS cm−1, but most of the rivers had moderate conductivity (interquartile range 180–618 μS cm−1). Calcium and bicarbonate were the dominant ions. Ionic composition, however, varied greatly because of the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors.

  • 3

    Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) and Monte Carlo permutation tests showed that conductivity and abundances of major ions (HCOinline image + COinline image, Cl, SOinline image, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+) all explained a statistically significant amount of the variation in assemblage composition of benthic diatoms. Concentrations of HCOinline image + COinline image and Ca2+ were the most significant sources of environmental variance.

  • 4

    The CCA showed that the gradient of ionic composition explaining most variation in diatom assemblage structure ranged from waters dominated by Ca2+ and HCOinline image + COinline image to waters with higher proportions of Na+, K+, and Cl. The CCA also revealed that the distributions of some diatoms correlated strongly with proportions of individual cations and anions, and with the ratio of monovalent to divalent cations.

  • 5

    We present species indicator values (optima) for conductivity, major ions and proportions of those ions. We also identify diatom taxa characteristic of specific major-ion chemistries. These species optima may be useful in future interpretations of diatom ecology and as indicator values in water-quality assessment.

Introduction

Diatoms are the most common and diverse group of algae in many rivers and streams, and thus are important components of these ecosystems (Round, 1981). Although it is well known that salinity and concentrations of major ions have a strong influence on distributions of individual diatom taxa (Cholnoky, 1968), the relative importance of these factors has rarely been studied at large regional scales, and particularly not for the United States. Nor have ecological optima of taxa been quantified at these scales using large numbers of samples. This paper provides such information based on diatom data for samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Program. This information improves our understanding of how diatoms are distributed in U.S. rivers with respect to conductivity and major ions, and provides specific autecological data so that diatoms can be used more effectively in making assessments of ecological change.

Continental waters vary greatly in their mineral content and composition, mainly because of the variability in lithology, climate and vegetation. Anthropogenic factors are also important. Soil erosion, irrigation, or the direct input of industrial, municipal or agricultural wastes into rivers often increases total mineral content, or concentration of individual ions in river water (Meybeck & Helmer, 1989). For instance, the most noticeable environmental change in rivers of Massachusetts and New Jersey following development of their catchments was an increase in concentration of base cations (Dow & Zampella, 2000; Rhodes, Newton & Pufall, 2001), disrupting the natural communities of these rivers, which are adapted to low-alkalinity conditions. Agricultural land use often increases conductivity of river water and these changes are reflected in algal communities (Leland, 1995; Carpenter & Waite, 2000). Salt leaching from irrigated soils can further elevate the naturally high salinity of many rivers in arid and semi-arid zones. Mining operations can cause severe increases in the concentration of certain ions that not only dramatically alter natural communities, but also make water unsuitable for drinking, recreation and irrigation (Meybeck et al., 1992).

Diatoms are often used to monitor these environmental changes because of their range of response to ionic content and composition. Their use in monitoring would be enhanced significantly if species responses to the concentration of major ions in fresh waters were better quantified.

Most knowledge of the relationship of diatoms to salinity comes from studies of the composition of diatom assemblages collected across strong salinity gradients in salt-polluted continental waters, estuaries, inland seas and saline lakes (Kolbe, 1927, 1932; Hustedt, 1957; Cholnoky, 1968; Stoermer & Smol, 1999). The most widely used salinity classifications (Kolbe, 1927; Hustedt, 1957; van der Werff & Huls, 1957–1974as modified by van Dam, Mertens & Sinkeldam, 1994) assign diatoms to only a few salinity categories, based mostly on their occurrence in European inland and coastal waters. Consequently, these categories are most effective when used to determine whether observed assemblages are from fresh, brackish or saline waters. Strong responses of algal assemblages to the salinity or concentrations of certain ions are, however, not limited to major differences in salinity. A clear response to salinity is also often observed in sets of samples collected exclusively from fresh waters (e.g. Sabater, Sabater & Armengol, 1988; Sabater & Roca, 1992; Pipp 1997; Leland & Porter, 2000; de Almeida & Gil, 2001) and even for datasets limited to waters of very low concentration of dissolved salts (e.g. Potapova, 1996; Soininen, 2002).

Affinities of some freshwater diatoms towards certain ions can be found in widely used diatom floras (e.g. Patrick & Reimer, 1966, 1975). For instance, a number of taxa have been characterised as preferring calcium-rich or calcium-poor waters. It is difficult, however, to compile this information for water-quality monitoring purposes because it is scattered in floras and regional studies. Quantitative autecological characteristics derived from small-scale regional datasets are useful for regional monitoring programmes. However, as they are dependent on the restricted range and distribution of the environmental parameters in the dataset, they may not be appropriate for areas with different water chemistry characteristics. Reliable autecological data can be obtained only from a dataset with large numbers of observations representing the full range of environmental conditions. Here we characterise distributions of benthic diatoms along gradients of conductivity (as a measure of salinity) and ionic composition using data from samples collected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programme from rivers throughout the U.S. Analysis of this dataset for samples collected in 1993–1998 showed that conductivity and ionic composition are among the most important determinants of diatom assemblage structure in U.S. rivers (Potapova & Charles, 2002). At the national scale the complex gradient of ionic strength and pH was the second most important after a so-called ‘downstream’ gradient, which combined gradients of river size, slope and nutrient concentration. Broad-scale differences in benthic diatom assemblages between rivers of the eastern coastal and western interior areas were largely because of a much higher mineral content in the arid western areas. In this study, we use an even larger NAWQA dataset, based on samples collected from 1993 to 1999, to study in more detail the relationship between these water chemistry properties and common diatom species. Our first objective was to investigate the influence of conductivity and ionic composition on diatom distributions in rivers of the U.S. The second objective was to calculate and present autecological data for use in environmental assessment.

Methods

Sample collection

Benthic algal samples were collected from 1993 to 1999 at 1109 sampling locations across the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii (Fig. 1). The USGS personnel collected benthic algal samples at each site once a year, during one to three consecutive years (Gurtz, 1993; Porter et al., 1993). At the majority of the sites, two types of quantitative samples were collected: one from erosional habitats (rocks, usually from riffles and snags) and another from depositional (soft sediment, typically from pools and stream margins) habitats. Both types of samples were used in the present study. Algal samples were collected most often during low-flow conditions, usually in summer or early autumn.

Details are in the caption following the image

Location of the 1109 NAWQA sampling sites and corresponding average conductivity values.

Laboratory methods

Permanent diatom slides were prepared by oxidising organic material in samples with nitric acid and mounting cleaned diatoms in Naphrax. Diatom analysts at the Patrick Center of The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia (ANSP), the University of Louisville, Michigan State University, and independent contractors identified and counted diatoms. Analysts counted 600 diatom valves on each slide; fewer valves were counted on some slides when diatoms were scarce. Laboratory methods used at the ANSP are described in Charles, Knowles & Davis (2002). All slides were deposited in the ANSP Diatom Herbarium.

Taxonomy

The main diatom floras used for identification were those of Hustedt (1930a,b, 1959, 1961–1966), Patrick & Reimer (1966, 1975), Camburn, Kingston & Charles (1984–1986), Krammer & Lange-Bertalot (1986, 1988, 1991a,b), and Simonsen (1987). Other important works on diatom taxonomy were also consulted. A considerable effort was made to reach taxonomic consistency among analysts (Potapova & Charles, 2002). Some of the diatom taxa reported in this study have not yet been described in the literature; they are given temporary names that may include abbreviations of the name of the person making the determination and geographic location where the taxon was first collected. Images of these taxa are available at the ANSP Algae Image Database website (http://diatom.acnatsci.org).

Environmental data

Water chemistry samples were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey at least once a month. Conductivity, HCOinline image, COinline image, Cl, SOinline image, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+ were determined at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (Lakewood, CO, U.S.A.) (Fishman, 1993). For 70 sites where concentration of HCOinline image + COinline image was not reported, we derived concentration of HCOinline image + COinline image from alkalinity values. We used chemical measurements closest to the date of algal sampling in our analyses. Concentration of major ions is reported here in milliequivalents per litre (meq L−1), and proportions of anions and cations are expressed as per cent equivalents of each ion of the sum of all anions or cations (% eq).

Data analysis

Conductivity was determined at all 1109 sampling sites, whereas major ions were analysed at 807 sites only. We constructed two datasets: a ‘complete’ dataset, consisting of 3239 samples collected from all 1109 sites, and a second ‘limited’ dataset, which included only the 2674 samples collected at sites where major ions were measured. We excluded all planktonic species from the diatom counts, calculating relative abundance of the benthic diatoms only. Distinction between benthic and planktonic diatoms in inland waters is somewhat arbitrary. Therefore, we excluded only those diatoms (mostly centric species) that are known to spend most of their life in the water column, not considering them being a part of the benthic communities. For analyses, we retained only those species that reached relative abundance of at least 1% in at least two samples per dataset. The resulting ‘complete’ dataset contained 717 diatom taxa and the ‘limited’ dataset had 683 taxa.

For numerical analyses, conductivity and concentrations of individual ions (expressed in μeq L−1) were log-transformed to approximate a normal distribution.

To evaluate the strength of the relationship between composition of the diatom assemblages and conductivity, concentration, and proportion of each of the seven major ions, we used canonical correspondence analyses (CCA), with only one environmental variable at a time. A total of 15 CCAs corresponded to 15 tested variables (one for conductivity, seven for concentrations and seven for proportions of major ions). We evaluated the significance of the effect of each variable using Monte Carlo permutation tests with 199 unrestricted permutations, and used the ratio of the first to the second eigenvalue as a measure of the variable strength.

We ran another CCA to elucidate major coenclines and to estimate the relative importance of conductivity and proportions of the seven major ions in explaining variation among diatom assemblages. The eight parameters (conductivity and ion proportions) that were included in this CCA as constraining environmental variables were shown to explain a significant proportion of variation in species composition in previous CCAs and were not highly correlated (r < 0.8) with each other. Significance of the first four ordination axes was tested by permutation procedures in partial CCAs, as described by ter Braak & Šmilauer (1998). Significance of the second, third and fourth axes was checked in partial CCAs that used environment-derived sample scores for the first, second and third ordination axes, respectively, as covariables. The CCAs were performed with the canoco program (ter Braak & Šmilauer, 1998).

We calculated weighted average estimates of the species optima (uk) as inline image where yik is the relative abundance of species k in sample i; xi is the value of environmental parameter in sample i; n is the total number of samples in dataset. Tolerance or weighted standard deviation (tk) was calculated as
image

Results

Conductivity and ion concentrations

Conductivity varied from 10 μS cm−1, corresponding to waters extremely poor in electrolytes, to 14 500 μS cm−1, representing brackish water (Table 1). Median and interquartile range values for conductivity and concentration of individual ions indicated that most of the rivers had a moderate level of salt content (Meybeck & Helmer, 1989), and were of the calcium bicarbonate type. Highest conductivities were observed in rivers of south Florida and the Mississippi delta influenced by marine waters, rivers of the arid west, and some polluted rivers across the U.S. (black circles in Fig. 1).

Table 1. Conductivity and concentration of major ions in NAWQA samples.
Parameter Minimum First quartile Median Third quartile Maximum Number of observations
Conductivity (μS cm−1) 10 180 363 618 14500 3040
HCOinline image+COinline image (meq L−1) 0.016 0.819 2.278 3.671 9.288 2674
Cl (meq L−1) 0.003 0.132 0.339 0.875 69.478 2674
SOinline image (meq L−1) 0.002 0.135 0.413 1.083 47.886 2674
Ca2+ (meq L−1) 0.026 0.749 1.846 2.958 27.455 2674
Mg2+ (meq L−1) 0.017 0.288 0.775 1.613 18.104 2674
Na+ (meq L−1) 0.016 0.190 0.479 1.262 58.025 2674
K+ (meq L−1) 0.003 0.035 0.059 0.092 1.291 2674

Carbonate and bicarbonate were prevalent anions in samples from the majority of the 807 NAWQA sampling sites. Chloride and sulphate dominated only rarely (Fig. 2). Highest concentrations of chloride were found in the Mississippi delta and in some rivers of the arid west (Arizona Desert). The proportion of chloride was sometimes relatively high (up to 80% eq) in soft-water coastal rivers of North Carolina and Georgia. Highest concentrations of sulphate were recorded in some rivers of Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Montana that receive coal-mining wastewater.

Details are in the caption following the image

Ternary diagrams showing ion composition in 807 NAWQA sampling sites.

Alkaline earth metals, especially Ca2+, were usually the dominant cations in studied rivers, while the percentage of Na+ and K+ was rarely high (Fig. 2). The ratio of Ca2+ and Mg2+ was especially high in rivers of medium conductivity (160–380 μS cm−1) that drain carbonate bedrock (e.g. Ozark Plateaus and karst area in Georgia). The total concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+ was, however, maximal in waters with the highest proportion of SOinline image among anions, mostly in rivers draining mining areas.

The highest concentrations of Na+ and K+ were observed in saline rivers of the Mississippi delta and western arid areas. A high proportion of Na+ was also sometimes observed in the low-conductivity rivers of the eastern U.S. coast. K+ was never a dominant cation – its ratio was highest in some dilute rivers of Washington, Alabama and Georgia.

There was no clear relationship between conductivity and dominant ions. Correlations between conductivity, [Na+], and [Cl] are relatively high (indicating that highest values of conductivity were because of the increased concentration of these ions), but not much higher than between conductivity and other ions (Table 2). Relatively high correlation coefficients within sodium chloride and calcium carbonate/bicarbonate cation–anion pairs, combined with low correlation coefficients among them, indicate that the ratio of these salts forms a major gradient in ionic composition in the NAWQA dataset.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients of conductivity and major ion concentrations in the 2674 sample NAWQA dataset. All correlations are significant at P < 0.01 level
Parameter [HCOinline image+COinline image] [Cl] [SOinline image] [Ca2+] [Mg2+] [Na+] [K+]
Cl 0.16 1
SOinline image 0.31 0.32 1
Ca2+ 0.71 0.28 0.75 1
Mg2+ 0.67 0.52 0.74 0.74 1
Na+ 0.27 0.91 0.56 0.38 0.65 1
K+ 0.32 0.63 0.39 0.32 0.48 0.72 1
Conductivity 0.58 0.76 0.68 0.70 0.84 0.88 0.65

Community analysis

[HCOinline image + COinline image] and [Ca2+], followed by conductivity and [Mg2+], explained the highest proportion of variation in diatom data (Table 3). Ion percentages explained less variation than ion concentrations, but nevertheless had a significant relationship with diatom assemblages when tested by permutation procedures (P < 0.05). Eigenvalues in all analyses were relatively low, but a moderate to high ratio of the first to the second eigenvalue indicated the important role of conductivity and concentrations of major ions in structuring diatom assemblages (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of CCA showing the strength of selected environmental variables. Only one environmental variable was used in each CCA
Variable λ 1 λ 1/λ2
Log10 conductivity (μS cm−1) 0.189 0.47
HCO3 + CO32− (% eq) 0.089 0.23
Cl (% eq) 0.122 0.32
SO42− (% eq) 0.049 0.12
Ca2+ (% eq) 0.086 0.22
Mg2+ (% eq) 0.054 0.13
Na+ (% eq) 0.092 0.23
K+ (% eq) 0.118 0.31
Log10 [HCO3 + CO32−] (μeq L−1) 0.236 0.60
Log10 [Cl] (μeq L−1) 0.126 0.31
Log10 [SO42−] (μeq L−1) 0.130 0.33
Log10 [Ca2+] (μeq L−1) 0.201 0.51
Log10 [Mg2+] (μeq L−1) 0.180 0.45
Log10 [Na+] (μeq L−1) 0.144 0.36
Log10 [K+] (μeq L−1) 0.135 0.33
  • λ 1, eigenvalue for axis 1; λ2, eigenvalue for axis 2

Another CCA was conducted to explore the simultaneous effects of various ions on diatom assemblages. It employed only conductivity and ion ratios as environmental variables, because concentrations of specific ions were highly correlated with each other and conductivity (Table 1). This CCA showed that conductivity and the ratio of Ca(HCO3)2 + CaCO3 to NaCl + KCl were major factors explaining the structure of diatom assemblages (Fig. 3). The first four ordination axes were all significant (P < 0.05) and had eigenvalues of 0.23, 0.11, 0.07 and 0.05, respectively, thus indicating that the first two axes explained most of the variation in diatom data.

Details are in the caption following the image

Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) diagrams showing environmental variables and diatom taxa centroids in the ordination space of the 1st and 2nd (A) and 3rd and 4th (B) CCA axes. Environmental variables that had low correlations with ordination axes are not shown. Taxa shown in the diagrams were found in at least 1% of all samples and either had high influence on the corresponding axes (8 species with highest fit) or extreme scores along corresponding axes (8 taxa with highest and 8 taxa with lowest scores). Taxa codes correspond to those in Table 4.

Fig. 3a shows that conductivity and the proportions of Ca2+, HCOinline image + COinline image, Na+, Cl and K+ were highly correlated with the first two axes. Diatom taxa placed in the right upper quadrant of the first and second axes ordination plot (Fig. 3a), mostly species of Eunotia, are found in water low in alkaline (Ca2+, Mg2+) cations. Taxa in the lower right quadrant favour low conductivity waters but with a higher proportion of alkaline cations. Calciphilous species of Cymbella are found in the lower left quadrant of the ordination diagram. Diatoms with higher affinity for total salt content are placed in the left upper quadrant.

The third axis (Fig. 3b) can be interpreted as part of the variation in species composition along the gradient of monovalent–divalent cations (M : D) ratio. Another part of the variation along the M : D gradient was captured by the first, and especially, second axes, but that gradient also included the (HCOinline image + COinline image)/Clratio. The M : D gradient expressed along the third axis is a residual remaining after extraction of the stronger conductivity and Ca(HCO3)2 + CaCO3 to NaCl + KCl gradients. In other words, species with high scores along the third axis can be found in waters with relatively high %Na+, even if the %Cl is low, and species with low scores favour waters with high %Mg2+ and %Ca2+, even if the %(HCOinline image + COinline image) is low. The fourth axis can be interpreted as a gradient in SOinline image/(HCOinline image + COinline image) ratio (Fig. 3b). Species with high scores along this axis had high abundance in waters contaminated with mining discharge: they included halophilous (Diatoma moniliformis, Biremis circumtexta, Ctenophora pulchella) and acidophilous diatoms (Brachysira microcephala, Eunotia exigua, Stenopterobia delicatissima).

Species indicator values

Apparent optima of the most frequently occurring diatoms (found in at least 500 samples) are presented in Table 4. Optima are also shown for diatoms that had extreme (highest 15 and lowest 15) optima along any of the examined variables (conductivity, concentration and per cent equivalent of the seven major ions) and occurred in at least 25 samples. Conductivity optima for these diatoms ranged from 40 to 902 μS cm−1. Most of the diatoms that exhibited highest affinity towards Ca(HCO3)2 water type had low (Hannaea arcus, Diatoma mesodon, Gomphonema olivaceoides) to moderate (Gomphonema mehleri, Nitzschia sinuata var. delognei) conductivity optima. Diatoms that had highest optima for the proportion of Na+ and Cl either had very low (Psammothidium helveticum, Eunotia flexuosa) or relatively high conductivity optima (Navicula salinicola) thus reflecting two different types of rivers that had relatively high percentages of these ions: coastal soft-water rivers draining bedrock poor in alkaline cations and saline rivers of the arid zone. Many diatoms known as acidophilous taxa (Eunotia bilunaris var. mucophila, E. rhomboidea, Stauroneis livingstonii, Stenopterobia delicatissima, Eunotia paludosa) had relatively high optima for %Cl and %K+ and very low conductivity optima.

Table 4. Position of 191 diatom taxa along gradients of conductivity, concentrations of major ions and ionic proportions. Taxa are in order of increasing conductivity optima. Conductivity optima (Opt.) and tolerance limits (low and high) are back transformed from weighted average and weighted standard deviation values of log-transformed conductivity (μS cm−1). Optima for concentrations of major ions are calculated from weighted average values of log-transformed ion concentrations (μeq L−1). Ionic proportion optima are weighted averages of per cent equivalents of total anions or cations. ‘N occ.’ is the number of samples in which the taxon occurred. Diatom taxa selected for the table were either common (found in at least 500 samples in the 2674 sample dataset) or had extreme optima among all taxa with occurrence reaching at least 1% of all samples in the 2674 sample dataset
Taxon name Code Conductivity (μS cm−1) Anion optima (meq L−1) Cation optima (meq L−1) Anion optima (% eq) Cation optima (% eq) N occ.
Opt. Low High HCO3 +CO3 Cl SO4 Ca Mg Na K HCO3 +CO3 Cl SO4 Ca Mg Na K
Brachysira brebissonii Ross 40 21 76 0.16* 0.05* 0.05* 0.13* 0.08* 0.07* 0.01* 54 24 21 44 24 27 4.7 48
Eunotia tenella (Grun.) A. Cl. 48 23 100 0.17* 0.09* 0.04* 0.17* 0.08* 0.12* 0.02* 53 33 15 41 21 32 5.8 74
Frustulia saxonica Rab. FSsax 50 26 97 0.17* 0.12 0.04* 0.12* 0.09* 0.15* 0.02* 50 38 13 32* 23 38** 6.7** 39
Eunotia bilunaris var. mucophila L.-B. & Nör. EUbilmuc 66 35 125 0.13* 0.16 0.08 0.19* 0.13* 0.16 0.03 33* 41** 25 37* 24 32 6.8** 29
Eunotia rhomboidea Hust. EUrhomb 66 34 127 0.11* 0.17 0.07* 0.18* 0.12* 0.16 0.04 32* 44** 24 36* 24 33 7.8** 75
Stauroneis livingstonii Reimer SSliving 67 38 117 0.16* 0.15 0.03* 0.19* 0.14* 0.17 0.03 43 46** 12 36* 25 32 6.8** 30
Stenopterobia delicatissima (Lewis) Bréb. SNdelic 68 33 143 0.10* 0.16 0.11 0.20* 0.13* 0.16 0.03 29* 39** 31** 37* 24 32 7.1** 34
Eunotia paludosa Grun. EUpalud 69 46 102 0.14* 0.17 0.03* 0.22* 0.15 0.15 0.03 40* 48** 12 39* 26 28 6.9** 30
Encyonema latens (Krass.) Mann EClatens 73 23 230 0.55 0.03* 0.16 0.50 0.20 0.13* 0.03* 70 6* 24 56 22 17 4.3 27
Navicula lateropunctata Wallace NAlater 75 37 152 0.35 0.13 0.06* 0.25* 0.13* 0.19 0.04 62 26 13 40 21 32 7.0** 80
Geissleria cf. kriegeri (Krass.) L.-B. & Metzeltin GEkrieg 76 45 130 0.12* 0.22 0.05* 0.22* 0.14* 0.19 0.05 31* 51** 18 35* 23 32 8.7** 53
Frustulia crassinervia (Bréb.) L.-B. & Kram. FScras 79 42 147 0.23 0.16 0.06* 0.26* 0.13* 0.18 0.04 49 35 16 41 21 31 6.7** 157
Fragilariforma bicapitata (Mayer) Round & Will. 86 40 188 0.36 0.24 0.20 0.55 0.24 0.31 0.05 44 34 22 46 21 29 4.2 33
Eunotia naegelii Migula 89 39 200 0.18* 0.19 0.07* 0.29 0.15* 0.19 0.04 42 38 20 42 21 30 6.5** 102
Cymbella‘sp.1 JCK’ CM1JCK 89 43 186 0.62 0.10* 0.11 0.50 0.19 0.21 0.02* 70 14 16 52 21 24 3.0 95
Frustulia rhomboides (Ehr.) De Tony FSrho 90 39 208 0.22 0.20 0.08 0.27* 0.15* 0.21 0.03 42 41** 17 39 21 33 6.0 165
Psammothidium helveticum (Hust.) Bukht. & Round 91 24 349 0.15* 0.18 0.10 0.23* 0.15 0.21 0.03 37* 43** 20 38* 21 36** 4.9 29
Eunotia flexuosa (Bréb.) Kütz. 94 30 295 0.26 0.19 0.05* 0.27* 0.13* 0.22 0.02* 49 38** 13 40 20 35** 4.7 46
Eunotia exigua (Bréb. ex Kütz.) Rab. EUexig 94 39 229 0.15* 0.16 0.16 0.34 0.17 0.18 0.04 33* 33 34** 45 23 27 6 158
Eunotia incisa W. Sm. ex Greg. EUinc 95 40 226 0.19* 0.21 0.09 0.27* 0.15* 0.22 0.03 37* 43** 20 38* 21 35** 5.5 143
Tabellaria flocculosa (Roth) Kütz. 95 36 248 0.25 0.09* 0.10 0.32 0.14* 0.15 0.02* 49 27 25 47 21 27 3.8 170
Neidium densestriatum (Østrup) Kram. NEdens 97 58 164 0.12* 0.24 0.13 0.31 0.20 0.21 0.04 28* 42** 30** 40 25 28 6.5** 27
Hannaea arcus (Ehr.) Patrick HNarcus 100 42 236 0.69 0.02* 0.12 0.59 0.18 0.11* 0.01* 77** 5* 18 63** 20 15 2.0 169
Neidium alpinum Hust. 101 49 209 0.19* 0.24 0.16 0.34 0.19 0.24 0.06 36* 37 28** 41 22 29 7.5** 57
Eunotia monodon Ehr. 102 51 203 0.31 0.22 0.07* 0.36 0.16 0.22 0.04 51 35 14 45 21 29 5.9 91
Diatoma mesodon (Ehr.) Kütz. DAmesod 106 47 240 0.63 0.04* 0.13 0.57 0.19 0.14* 0.01* 71 8* 20 60** 21 17 2.1 167
Gomphonema olivaceiodes Hust. 107 54 214 0.77 0.03* 0.14 0.65 0.21 0.13* 0.01* 76** 7* 17 62** 20 15 2.1 122
Eunotia soleirolii (Kütz.) Rab. EUsoleir 108 52 226 0.33 0.26 0.04* 0.39 0.21 0.23 0.04 50 38 12 44 24 26 6.6** 37
Stauroneis smithii var. incisa Pant. 109 53 226 0.28 0.18 0.14 0.39 0.19 0.20 0.05 47 28 25 46 22 25 6.6** 40
Cymbella aspera (Ehr.) Perag. 115 64 206 0.52 0.18 0.07* 0.39 0.22 0.31 0.04 63 25 12 39 23 33 5.1 35
Eunotia pectinalis var. undulata (Ralfs) Rab. 116 56 238 0.23 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.16 0.30 0.04 36* 44** 20 39* 19 37** 5.7 107
Geissleria aikenensis (Patr.) Torg. et Oliveira GEaiken 119 68 208 0.68 0.14 0.07* 0.41 0.20 0.25 0.05 73 16 10* 44 22 28 5.7 50
Gomphonema rhombicum Fricke 119 53 265 0.92 0.09* 0.10 0.65 0.27 0.23 0.03* 77** 12 11* 53 23 22 2.7 124
Navicula longicephala Hust. 127 53 308 0.32 0.25 0.14 0.40 0.20 0.27 0.06 45 32 23 43 21 30 6.8** 90
Pinnularia appendiculata (Ag.) Cl. 129 41 398 0.33 0.31 0.22 0.48 0.27 0.36 0.07 39* 33 28 40 23 31 6.3 52
Achnanthes stewartii Patr. 134 40 451 0.48 0.26 0.15 0.42 0.26 0.33 0.04 53 29 18 39* 25 31 5.3 28
Achnanthidium ‘sp. 10 NAWQA’ 139 56 342 0.67 0.22 0.18 0.63 0.29 0.27 0.04 58 23 19 49 23 24 3.9 584
Achnanthes peragalli Brun & Heribaud 141 69 287 0.63 0.12 0.11 0.61 0.27 0.15* 0.03 68 18 14 54 25 17 3.1 34
Pinnularia intermedia (Lager.) Cl. 157 65 380 0.56 0.40 0.16 0.58 0.27 0.46 0.06 48 34 18 40 20 34** 5.4 61
Eunotia formica Ehr. 163 79 336 0.53 0.38 0.11 0.52 0.21 0.42 0.05 49 38 13 42 18* 36** 4.7 82
Fragilaria capucina Desmazières FRcapuc 168 60 470 0.65 0.17 0.23 0.70 0.31 0.27 0.04 55 20 25 50 23 23 3.4 776
Stauroneis phoenicentron (Nitzsch) Ehr. 168 49 574 0.87 0.56 0.23 0.77 0.30 0.56 0.05 51 35 15 45 18* 34 3.4 35
Eucocconeis flexella (Kütz.) Cl. 185 88 389 0.81 0.11 0.22 0.89 0.30 0.21 0.02* 63 20 18 59** 20 19 1.7 37
Surirella tenera Greg. SUten 189 66 541 1.08 0.19 0.17 0.80 0.36 0.48 0.08 68 19 13 46 21 29 4.9 26
Navicula viridula var. linearis Hust. 191 85 429 1.08 0.21 0.13 0.81 0.33 0.28 0.04 70 19 11* 51 22 24 3.8 147
Gomphoneis eriense (Grun.) Skv. & Meyer GSeriens 192 99 372 1.19 0.11 0.14 0.76 0.35 0.38 0.07 78** 9.8 12 47 22 25 6.3 27
Synedra mazamaensis Sovereign SYmaz 196 104 370 1.29 0.09* 0.31 1.02 0.36 0.24 0.03* 73 8* 19 59 20 18 1.9 45
Encyonema silesiacum (Bleisch) Mann 197 83 468 1.23 0.13 0.26 1.05 0.42 0.29 0.03 68 13 19 55 23 19 2.6 564
Nitzschia nana Grun. NInana 201 60 676 0.44 0.50 0.22 0.61 0.34 0.55 0.08 40* 37 23 39* 21 34 6.3 61
Gomphonema apuncto Wallace 202 108 378 1.13 0.11 0.15 0.91 0.36 0.13* 0.03 73 13 14 59 24 14 2.8 79
Cymbella cymbiformis Ag. CMcymb 204 112 369 1.58 0.06* 0.10 1.17 0.42 0.08* 0.02* 86** 6* 8* 66** 26 6* 1.7 55
Fragilaria vaucheriae (Kütz.) Petersen 209 79 555 1.07 0.18 0.28 0.97 0.44 0.35 0.04 62 17 21 51 24 22 3.0 1201
Encyonema minutum (Hilse) Mann ECminu 209 81 545 1.04 0.22 0.27 0.97 0.42 0.34 0.04 61 19 20 52 23 22 3.1 1476
Gomphonema parvulum var. parvulius L.-B. & Reichardt GOparvls 209 109 401 0.58 0.61 0.19 0.67 0.25 0.59 0.05 41 46** 13 39 15* 43** 3.4 26
Achnanthidium deflexum (Reim.) Kingston 211 97 456 1.42 0.12 0.17 1.11 0.48 0.16 0.03 75 9 16 57 27 13* 2.4 526
Navicula minuscula Grun. 212 85 526 1.29 0.09* 0.25 1.13 0.39 0.25 0.03 68 12 20 59 20 18 2.3 75
Fragilaria pinnata var. lancettula (Schum.) Hust. 216 89 528 1.52 0.13 0.22 1.02 0.53 0.35 0.05 76** 10 14 49 27 21 3 216
Geissleria decussis (Hust.) L.-B. & Metzeltin 220 83 583 1.29 0.28 0.23 1.06 0.46 0.38 0.05 66 18 16 51 23 22 3.7 654
Cymbella cf. tropica Kram. CMtrop 221 143 343 1.69 0.11 0.14 1.36 0.39 0.12* 0.03 83** 8* 9* 68** 23 8* 2 63
Navicula cryptocephala Kütz. 222 88 562 1.12 0.29 0.23 0.98 0.45 0.36 0.05 63 21 16 50 24 23 3.8 1048
Brachysira microcephala (Grun.) Compère BRmicr 225 61 832 0.57 0.17 0.34 0.91 0.44 0.26 0.03 48 17 35* 53 25 19 2.5 185
Surirella angusta Kütz. 225 86 593 1.14 0.27 0.26 1.00 0.48 0.36 0.06 62 19 18 49 25 22 4.3 546
Epithemia turgida (Ehr.) Kütz. 227 101 508 1.91 0.10* 0.16 1.33 0.59 0.18 0.04 81** 7* 11 57 28 13* 2.1 127
Achnanthidium minutissimum (Kütz.) Czarn. ACminut 229 81 652 1.31 0.20 0.31 1.22 0.51 0.32 0.04 64 15 21 55 24 19 2.4 2019
Pinnularia acrosphaeria W. Sm. 234 100 551 1.08 0.42 0.13 1.04 0.31 0.50 0.06 61 26 13 53 17* 26 4.2 41
Navicula cf. ochridana Hust. NAochr 237 91 614 1.52 0.24 0.36 1.07 0.41 0.70 0.08 66 15 19 45 19 32 3.7 49
Cymbella turgidula Grun. CMturgdl 243 144 410 1.93 0.13 0.11 1.46 0.41 0.13* 0.04 86** 7* 7* 67** 24 8* 1.8 57
Reimeria sinuata (Greg.) Koc. & Stoermer 251 107 587 1.47 0.22 0.33 1.28 0.53 0.40 0.04 65 16 19 54 23 21 2.4 1385
Synedra ulna (Nitzsch) Ehr. 252 102 627 1.44 0.28 0.30 1.26 0.55 0.42 0.05 64 18 18 52 24 22 2.6 1311
Cymbella hustedti Krass. CMhust 254 189 340 1.94 0.08* 0.11 1.69 0.35 0.09* 0.03* 88** 5* 7* 77** 17* 5* 1.3 48
Achnanthes rostrataØstrup 255 109 593 1.48 0.23 0.23 1.22 0.51 0.35 0.05 69 16 15 53 24 20 2.9 921
Gomphonema pumilum (Grun.) Reichardt 260 108 627 1.58 0.24 0.28 1.25 0.53 0.45 0.06 68 15 16 51 23 23 3.0 863
Cocconeis fluviatilis Wallace CCfluv 261 98 692 0.59 0.63 0.30 0.63 0.39 0.71 0.08 39* 39** 22 35* 21 40** 4.5 83
Gomphonema sphaerophorum Ehr. 262 169 408 1.57 0.26 0.23 1.44 0.47 0.27 0.04 70 18 13 61** 21 16 2 64
Gomphonema angustatum Kütz. 264 106 659 1.31 0.20 0.28 1.21 0.54 0.30 0.04 65 16 19 54 25 18 2.9 637
Achnanthes exilis Kütz. 266 97 731 1.44 0.19 0.24 1.21 0.56 0.21 0.03 71 12 17 58 27 13* 2.2 47
Epithemia sorex Kütz. EPsorex 266 116 611 2.00 0.22 0.47 1.45 0.64 0.67 0.06 68 11 21 48 22 27 2.3 205
Cymbella delicatula Kütz. 269 135 533 1.75 0.10* 0.20 1.48 0.60 0.13* 0.03 78** 6* 16 63** 28 8* 1.6 204
Cocconeis placentula var. lineata (Ehr.) V.H. 270 111 655 1.64 0.31 0.33 1.35 0.61 0.49 0.05 65 18 16 51 24 23 2.3 1340
Staurosirella pinnata (Ehr.) Will. & Round 271 110 665 1.66 0.25 0.32 1.29 0.61 0.50 0.05 67 15 17 49 24 24 2.6 815
Epithemia adnata (Kütz.) Bréb. 279 104 746 2.11 0.17 0.21 1.59 0.75 0.29 0.04 76 13 11* 54 27 17 2 68
Gomphonema parvulum (Kütz.) Kütz. 284 101 794 1.33 0.39 0.34 1.21 0.55 0.53 0.06 59 22 19 48 23 25 3.4 1898
Achnanthes lanceolata (Bréb.) Grun. 286 114 719 1.52 0.30 0.32 1.27 0.60 0.47 0.05 65 17 17 50 24 22 2.9 1330
Nitzschia archibaldii L.-B. 288 114 728 1.51 0.38 0.37 1.31 0.57 0.57 0.07 61 20 19 49 23 25 3.3 726
Navicula submuralis Hust. 290 163 515 1.93 0.38 0.22 1.34 0.49 0.54 0.06 71 18 11* 50 21 27 2.4 28
Nitzschia sinuata var. tabellaria (Grun.) Grun. 294 155 557 1.87 0.21 0.32 1.69 0.52 0.24 0.05 72 11 17.4 64** 22 13* 2 164
Fragilaria exiguiformis L.-B. FRexiguif 296 95 920 1.18 0.44 0.59 1.17 0.46 0.86 0.06 50 23 27 44.5 18 35** 2.6 61
Staurosira construens var. venter (Ehr.) Ham. SRvent 300 109 822 1.60 0.31 0.44 1.36 0.62 0.66 0.07 61 17 22 47 22 27 2.9 617
Sellaphora seminulum (Grun.) Mann 305 131 714 1.42 0.43 0.31 1.22 0.57 0.55 0.06 60 23 17 48 23 26 3.2 706
Placoneis placentula (Ehr.) Hienzerling 308 157 607 1.55 0.52 0.42 1.58 0.47 0.69 0.07 57 23 20 53 17* 26 3.3 47
Melosira varians Agardh 309 138 690 1.66 0.36 0.36 1.40 0.70 0.49 0.06 64 18 18 50 26 22 2.7 1203
Gomphonema lingulatiforme L.-B. & Reich. 313 117 834 1.80 0.48 0.30 1.43 0.49 0.66 0.07 64 22 13.7 50 18* 28 3.3 130
Psammothidium lauenburgianum (Hust.) Round & Bukht. 317 159 631 2.88 0.25 0.30 1.94 1.33 0.34 0.04 81** 9 10* 52 36** 11* 1.3* 30
Navicula minima Grun. NAmin 319 140 729 1.71 0.35 0.31 1.44 0.64 0.44 0.06 66 18 15 52 25 21 2.9 1672
Gomphonema mehleri Camburn 318 215 472 2.51 0.10 0.15 1.92 0.67 0.12* 0.04 85** 4* 11* 66** 29** 5* 1.4* 52
Gomphonema minutum (Ag.) Ag. 324 131 802 1.90 0.27 0.38 1.64 0.74 0.42 0.04 67 14 18 55 26 18 1.9 767
Cocconeis placentula var. euglypta Ehr. 326 146 726 2.00 0.30 0.34 1.57 0.71 0.47 0.06 70 14 16 52 25 20 2.4 1262
Nitzschia sinuata var. delognei (Grun.) L.-B. 335 231 485 2.48 0.19 0.30 1.76 0.75 0.33 0.04 80** 8* 12 57 26 16 1.6 25
Gomphonema mexicanum Grun. GOmex 338 147 778 2.07 0.43 0.21 1.24 0.65 0.72 0.09 72 19 9* 44 23 29 3.5 35
Rhopalodia gibba (Ehr.) Müller RPgibba 339 122 942 2.39 0.32 0.58 1.78 0.80 0.92 0.07 66 14 20 47 22 29 2.1 123
Navicula germanii Wallace 339 149 769 1.80 0.50 0.42 1.50 0.71 0.67 0.07 62 20 18 48 24 25 3.0 975
Sellaphora pupula (Kütz.) Mereschkowsky 342 143 820 1.74 0.42 0.42 1.52 0.65 0.64 0.07 61 20 19 49 22 25 3.1 1064
Ctenophora pulchella (Ralfs ex Kütz.) Will. & Round Cpulch 342 163 716 0.86 0.67 0.53 1.18 0.57 0.70 0.06 41 32 27 45 22 30 2.7 66
Navicula stroemii Hust. NAstroem 343 115 1021 1.98 0.20 0.65 1.79 0.98 0.30 0.03 65 8* 27 56 30** 12* 1.4* 26
Cymbella affinis Kütz. 347 170 708 2.28 0.21 0.41 1.95 0.76 0.37 0.05 70 10 20 58 25 16 1.8 870
Diatoma vulgaris Bory 355 188 670 2.10 0.35 0.48 1.75 0.80 0.56 0.05 66 15 19 52 25 21 2.1 693
Achnanthes exigua var. elliptica Hust. 359 207 622 1.67 0.78 0.54 1.77 0.59 0.82 0.11** 53 26 21.6 53 19 25 3.3 26
Diatoma moniliformis Kütz. DAmonil 361 168 774 0.84 0.14 0.85 1.20 0.70 0.33 0.04 45 10 45** 52 30** 16 1.9 91
Nitzschia dissipata (Kütz.) Grun. 361 152 855 2.12 0.35 0.50 1.80 0.85 0.56 0.06 65 15 20 52 25 21 2.2 1324
Navicula menisculus Schumann 361 165 791 2.39 0.33 0.41 1.94 0.83 0.46 0.06 70 14 16 55 25 18 2.1 655
Navicula‘aff. subminuscula NAWQA EAM’ 364 222 597 2.94 0.24 0.27 1.98 0.92 0.29 0.05 80** 9 11* 57 28 14* 1.6 33
Navicula capitata Ehr. NAcapita 366 147 908 1.77 0.51 0.42 1.53 0.77 0.65 0.07 60 22 18 48 25 24 2.9 709
Nitzschia palea var. tenuirostris Grun. 368 159 853 1.93 0.47 0.41 1.64 0.97 0.55 0.06 64 20 16 49 29** 19 2.4 192
Caloneis bacillum (Grun.) Cl. 369 165 824 2.02 0.40 0.46 1.79 0.75 0.60 0.06 63 18 19 52 23 22 2.3 824
Navicula cryptotenella L.-B. 371 168 817 2.21 0.35 0.43 1.87 0.86 0.52 0.05 67 15 18 53 26 19 2.1 1620
Encyonopsis microcephala (Grun.) Kram. 380 169 857 2.20 0.23 0.40 2.20 0.76 0.35 0.04 67 10 23 62** 23 13* 1.5* 295
Rhoicosphenia curvata (Kütz.) Grun. 384 173 851 2.08 0.48 0.51 1.78 0.87 0.68 0.06 62 19 19 50 25 23 2.2 1548
Synedra delicatissima W. Smith 386 119 1253 1.95 0.33 0.10 1.96 0.50 0.56 0.03 68 12 20 60** 18 20 1.5* 33
Navicula symmetrica Patrick 388 172 877 2.18 0.50 0.51 1.74 0.86 0.79 0.07 63 18 19 48 25 24 2.7 608
Navicula capitatoradiata Germ. 390 195 782 2.33 0.36 0.49 1.96 0.90 0.52 0.06 67 14 19 54 26 19 2.1 1194
Navicula gregaria Donkin 392 169 910 1.95 0.58 0.53 1.70 0.86 0.76 0.07 59 21 20 48 25 24 2.4 1344
Nitzschia palea (Kütz.) W. Smith 398 170 933 2.08 0.53 0.55 1.82 0.87 0.77 0.08 60 20 20 49 24 24 2.7 1522
Diploneis parma Cl. 398 162 979 1.12 0.59 0.26 1.04 0.53 0.81 0.06 54 36 10* 40 19 38** 2.9 35
Nitzschia amphibia Grunow 400 201 794 2.26 0.51 0.45 1.87 0.81 0.69 0.07 65 19 16 51 24 23 2.5 1456
Navicula lanceolata (Ag.) Ehr. 406 196 843 1.94 0.59 0.63 1.83 0.92 0.81 0.06 56 21 23 49 25 24 2.0 679
Nitzschia inconspicua Grun. 407 167 995 2.07 0.55 0.65 1.77 0.88 0.92 0.08 58 20 22 47 24 27 2.5 1374
Nitzschia frustulum (Kütz.) Grun. 413 177 962 2.08 0.45 0.55 1.72 0.84 0.79 0.07 62 18 20 48 24 26 2.7 1153
Nitzschia heufleriana Grun. 416 215 805 2.56 0.35 0.71 2.11 1.08 0.72 0.05 65 12 23 50 26 22 1.5* 45
Amphora libyca Ehr. 416 188 918 2.38 0.47 0.53 2.05 0.92 0.67 0.07 64 17 19 52 25 21 2.3 582
Cocconeis pediculus Ehr. 422 223 798 2.59 0.41 0.62 2.26 1.03 0.61 0.06 65 15 20 54 25 19 1.8 969
Achnanthes pinnata Hust. ACpin 424 200 895 3.18 0.79 0.59 2.52 1.39 0.68 0.06 67 20 13 51 29** 18 1.6 44
Diploneis pseudovalis Hust. 434 183 1026 2.70 0.70 0.48 2.39 0.63 0.99 0.06 65 20 16 56 17* 25 1.8 52
Denticula elegans Kütz. 436 226 838 2.48 0.30 0.87 2.59 0.86 0.55 0.07 62 10 28** 59 21 18 2.1 81
Nitzschia filiformis (W. Smith) V. H. 436 120 1581 1.20 0.80 0.57 1.26 0.69 1.19 0.09 47 30 23 41 20 36** 3.1 163
Navicula trivialis L.-B. NAtriv 440 234 826 2.74 0.45 0.45 2.19 1.07 0.51 0.07 70 15 14 54 28 16 2.2 670
Surirella suecica Grun. 442 199 982 2.16 0.46 0.54 1.96 0.58 0.83 0.07 62 17 21 53 18* 27 2.9 32
Navicula reichardtiana L.-B. 442 225 867 2.68 0.39 0.59 2.31 1.08 0.56 0.06 66 14 19 54 26 17 1.7 764
Navicula lenzii Hust. 444 233 843 2.94 0.29 0.33 2.45 0.98 0.29 0.05 75 11 14 61** 26 11* 1.8 48
Achnanthes daui Foged ACdaui 448 194 1033 2.56 0.37 1.09** 2.03 0.91 1.39 0.18** 58 11 32** 44 19 33 4.1 34
Navicula tripunctata (Müller) Bory 453 249 822 2.81 0.44 0.61 2.41 1.10 0.61 0.06 67 14 19 55 26 18 1.7 1039
Nitzschia acicularis (Kütz.) W. Smith 455 211 982 2.61 0.48 0.56 2.13 1.13 0.72 0.07 65 16 18 50 27 21 2.2 518
Nitzschia palea var. debilis (Kütz.) Grun. 460 214 989 2.56 0.52 0.61 2.06 1.12 0.79 0.08 64 17 19 48 27 22 2.6 595
Surirella minuta Bréb. 462 209 1023 2.49 0.50 0.61 2.13 1.11 0.65 0.07 63 17 20 51 27 20 2.4 661
Gomphonema olivaceum (Horn.) Bréb. 468 234 935 2.79 0.47 0.74 2.43 1.22 0.71 0.06 63 15 22 52 27 19 1.7 733
Fallacia pygmaea (Kütz.) Stickle & Mann 469 228 964 2.54 0.54 0.64 2.13 1.04 0.78 0.08 63 17 20 50 25 22 2.6 533
Amphora pediculus (Kütz.) Grun. AMped 470 242 912 2.75 0.51 0.60 2.35 1.14 0.67 0.06 65 17 18 53 26 19 1.7 1626
Gomphonema affine Kütz. 481 275 839 2.96 0.50 0.48 2.32 1.29 0.51 0.05 73 15 13 53 30** 14 1.8 67
Navicula subminuscula Manguin 495 253 971 2.68 0.58 0.68 2.12 1.03 0.89 0.09 63 18 19 48 24 25 2.6 678
Craticula citrus (Krass.) Reichardt CRcitr 499 356 700 3.62** 0.58 0.48 2.67 1.56** 0.79 0.09 74 13 13 51 30** 17 2.1 54
Surirella brebissonii Kram. & L.-B. 504 233 1090 2.02 0.71 0.86 2.06 1.72** 1.04 0.09 52 24 25 45 24 28 3 156
Nitzschia pusilla Grun. 505 165 1545 1.81 0.40 0.73 1.57 0.79 0.93 0.08 54 17 28** 45 23 30 2.9 88
Navicula ingenua Hust. 508 218 1183 1.71 1.00** 0.43 1.52 0.70 1.14 0.07 52 33 15 43 21 34 2.4 61
Amphora veneta Kütz. 515 246 1079 2.90 0.89 0.79 2.39 0.98 1.47** 0.11** 59 22 19 46 20 31 2.5 180
Navicula viridula (Kütz.) Kütz. 515 229 1159 2.74 0.65 0.86 3.08** 1.24 0.64 0.06 57 18 25 58 24 17 1.6 121
Mastogloia smithii Thwaites MSsmith 519 249 1079 3.52** 0.48 0.53 2.88** 1.36 0.61 0.04 72 12 16 57 27 16 0.8* 38
Surirella brebissonii var. kuetzingii Kram. & L.-B. 520 254 1067 3.16 0.65 0.63 2.48 1.41 0.71 0.06 68 17 15 51 29** 18 1.4* 31
Nitzschia filiformis var. conferta (Reich.) L.-B. NIfilcon 521 130 2089 1.29 1.29** 0.57 1.14 1.04 1.69** 0.11** 48 37 15 32* 23 42** 2.8 27
Gyrosigma nodiferum (Grun.) Reimer 522 250 1091 3.03 0.75 0.80 2.52 0.80 1.32 0.07 63 19 18 51 17* 30 1.9 132
Simonsenia delognei (Grun.) L.-B. 524 304 902 3.27 0.70 0.53 2.45 1.55** 0.73 0.06 68 18 14 49 32** 18 1.5 181
Navicula caterva Hohn & Hellerman 525 292 942 3.52** 0.56 0.64 2.62 1.43** 0.72 0.06 69 15 16 52 28 19 1.4* 110
Navicula salinarum Grun. NAsalin 527 243 1146 2.25 1.32** 0.68 1.90 1.16 1.24 0.08 51 32 17 42 26 29 2.6 51
Trybionella levidensis W. Smith 541 268 1091 2.89 0.92 1.03 2.44 0.95 1.47** 0.10** 56 22 22 46 20 32 2.4 125
Nitzschia elegantula Grun. 541 207 1416 2.79 0.39 1.07** 2.32 1.19 1.16 0.11** 57 14 29** 47 23 27 2.8 37
Navicula exilis Kütz. 547 308 973 3.28 0.81 0.63 2.54 1.58** 0.90 0.07 65 19 16 48 30** 20 1.8 261
Sellaphora pupula var. elliptica (Hust.) Bukht. SEpupell 551 332 914 3.44** 0.63 0.64 2.85** 1.78** 0.64 0.07 68 16 16 52 32** 15 1.4* 28
Nitschia silicula Archibald 553 299 1026 3.74** 0.88 0.81 2.92** 1.58** 1.29 0.09 63 19 18 47 27 25 1.7 71
Nitzschia dubia W. Smith 553 225 1361 2.56 1.27** 0.57 1.81 1.28 1.37 0.07 56 29 15 40 26 32 1.6 30
Diploneis puella (Schumann) Cl. 569 290 1117 2.54 0.81 1.06** 2.53 0.9 1.3 0.1 54 21 26 49 20 29 2.6 158
Cymatopleura apiculata W. Smith CTap 573 406 807 3.78** 0.77 0.67 2.99** 1.82** 0.68 0.07 70 16 14 52 32** 15 1.2* 54
Pleurosira laevis (Ehr.) Compère 573 292 1122 2.70 1.08** 0.80 2.28 1.50** 1.40 0.11** 53 27 21 41.2 27 30 2.4 44
Plagiotropis lepidoptera var. proboscidea (Cl.) Reimer 582 277 1225 3.01 1.47** 1.01 2.56 0.92 1.87** 0.11** 54 27 19 46 18* 34** 2.2 34
Navicula erifuga L.-B. 613 298 1262 2.92 0.66 0.96 2.55 1.38 1.15 0.10 58 17 24 47 26 25 2.2 625
Navicula recens L.-B. 614 345 1091 3.05 1.06** 1.21** 2.80 1.19 1.53** 0.09 55 22 24 47 22 29 1.9 319
Terpsinoe musica Ehr. 615 397 953 3.45** 1.47** 0.87 3.25** 0.71 1.88** 0.09 58 25 17 53 13* 32 1.9 35
Navicula sanctaecrucisØstrup 619 385 995 3.20 1.30** 1.16** 3.13** 0.93 1.83** 0.10** 55 24 22 50 17* 31 2.1 81
Denticula kuetzingii Grun. DNkuetz 622 290 1334 3.66** 0.35 1.04** 2.80 1.52** 1.31 0.06 62 9* 29** 46 26 27 1.3* 34
Navicula veneta Kütz. NAveneta 625 304 1285 2.95 0.48 1.08** 2.70 1.24 1.04 0.10 58 14 28** 50 24 24 2.5 442
Surirella brightwellii W. Smith 630 366 1081 3.22 1.11** 0.93 3.05** 1.22 1.69** 0.10 55 27 18 48 20 30 1.8 26
Amphora‘sp. 1 ANS WRC’ 634 429 938 3.44** 1.65** 1.65** 3.69** 1.01 2.30** 0.11** 49 24 27 50 15* 33 1.9 37
Nitzschia liebetruthii Rab. 653 282 1510 2.13 0.73 1.01 2.28 0.81 1.21 0.11** 50 19 31** 50 19 29 2.7 66
Nitzschia supralitorea L.-B. 656 242 1778 2.70 0.69 0.84 2.20 1.20 1.54** 0.08 59 22 19 43 22 33 2 68
Tryblionella hungarica (Grun.) Mann 667 366 1213 3.38** 0.82 1.09** 3.07** 1.42** 1.29 0.10 58 18 24 49 24 25 1.9 265
Pleurosigma salinarum Grun. 673 454 998 3.62** 1.46** 1.21** 3.42** 1.22 1.97** 0.10** 56 24 20 49 18 31 1.7 38
Nitzschia solita Hust. 676 341 1340 3.05 0.57 0.93 2.63 1.37 1.09 0.10 60 15 25 48 26 24 2.3 212
Nitzschia bita Hohn & Hellerman NBita 695 433 1117 3.86** 1.24** 1.27** 3.32** 1.05 2.22** 0.08 59 21 20 48 17* 33 1.4* 35
Tryblionella apiculata Greg. TYapi 695 384 1259 3.55** 0.81 1.15** 3.05** 1.60** 1.30 0.08 59 17 23 48 26 25 1.6 325
Navicula salinicola Hustedt NAsalc 697 150 3228 1.16 1.48** 0.80 1.47 1.14 2.31** 0.13** 38* 40** 22 34* 20 43** 2.8 29
Nitzschia reversa W. Smith 703 306 1614 2.62 0.91 1.34** 2.49 1.55** 1.77** 0.12** 49 21 30** 41 25 32 2.3 88
Tabularia fasciculata (Ag.) Snoeijs TAfasc 719 181 2858 1.80 1.29** 0.60 1.69 1.17 1.47** 0.09 50 33 17 40 25 34 2.1 109
Nitzschia umbonata (Ehr.) L.-B. Numb 759 476 1208 4.14** 0.96 1.14** 3.42** 1.98** 1.22 0.08 63 18 19 49 29** 21 1.2* 28
Biremis circumtexta (Meist. ex Hust.) L.-B. & Witkowski BIcircum 902 461 1762 3.52** 0.62 2.07** 3.03** 2.20** 1.21 0.19** 53 12 35** 42 30** 24 3.4 36
  • * - extremely low, ** - extremely high optimum.

Discussion

Effect of conductivity

The relative position of species along the conductivity gradient in this study generally corresponds to the affinities reported by others. Many species with low conductivity optima were classified as halophobous by Kolbe (1927, 1932), Hustedt (1957) and other authors. Species commonly classified as halophilous or mesohalobous had relatively high, but probably underestimated, conductivity optima in our study. Species that are known to be abundant in brackish waters, such as Diatoma moniliformis, Ctenophora pulchella and Tabularia fasciculata, had apparent optima below 1000 μS cm−1, which could be considered as a boundary between brackish and freshwaters. This underestimation of optima may be caused by the relatively low occurrence of brackish waters in our dataset and, hence, the truncated distribution of T. fasciculata and other species with relatively high position along the gradient of conductivity. The placement of optima of other brackish water species far from the high end of the conductivity gradient (i.e. D. moniliformis, C. pulchella) is more difficult to explain. Possibly, some populations in the NAWQA dataset could be freshwater ecotypes of those species. The apparent conductivity optima reported from some regional studies on U.S. rivers differ considerably from our results, but the rank of the diatom taxa on the conductivity scale is usually the same or nearly so. Optima reported by Bahls, Weber & Jarvie (1984) were generally much higher than those reported in the present study because conductivity was higher (median value 1752 μS cm−1) in their Montana dataset. Conductivity optima reported by Leland, Brown & Mueller (2001) for California rivers were somewhat lower for the taxa with relatively low optima, and higher for diatoms with relatively high optima.

Effect of major ions

In most earlier studies of diatom species distribution in relation to salinity, the salinity gradient was primarily the result of a variation in concentration of a single salt, NaCl (Kolbe, 1927, 1932; Hustedt, 1957). As a result, it was difficult to distinguish the effects of specific ions from the overall effect of osmotic pressure. Hustedt (1957) noted that diatoms of continental waters respond mostly to osmotic pressure, and not the concentration of a particular salt. Experiments also showed that osmotic pressure in the medium is an important factor limiting growth of freshwater diatoms (Cleave, Porcella & Adams, 1981), or influencing their nutrient uptake (Tuchman, Theriot & Stoermer, 1984). As a result, conductivity or other measures of total ionic strength often explain much of the variation among diatom assemblages.

The importance of ionic composition to diatom distributions became obvious when datasets including various water types were studied. Investigations by Blinn (1993), Fritz, Juggins & Battarbee (1993), Gasse, Juggins & Ben Khelifa (1995), and Cumming et al. (1995) elucidated the importance of ionic composition in accounting for differences in diatom assemblages in saline lakes. Inclusion of different water types in river datasets revealed the importance of water chemistry for diatom community structure in lotic environments (e.g. Cholnoky, 1968; Sabater & Roca, 1992; Ziemann, 1997). Laboratory data provided additional evidence that concentration of specific ions influences growth of diatoms (e.g. Kopczyńska, 1979; Rao, Duraisamy & Kannan, 1983; Saros & Fritz, 2000, 2002). Patrick & Reimer (1966), Ziemann (1971, 1997), Sabater & Roca (1992), Round & Bukhtiyarova (1996), and Pipp (1997) pointed out the great difference between diatom communities in calcareous and calcium-poor rivers. In our study, the gradient of (Ca2+) and (HCOinline image + COinline image) was the strongest among all variables related to major ions. We were able to distinguish species at the lower end of the conductivity gradient that had either high or low affinity towards calcium bicarbonate type of water. Not surprisingly, species with known low pH optima (Eunotia and Frustulia spp.) had lower optima for [Ca2+] and [HCOinline image + COinline image] than alkaliphilous species of the genera Gomphonema, Gomphoneis, Cymbella, and diatoms Hannaea arcus and Diatoma mesodon. Sabater & Roca (1992) noted that calcareous springs in the Pyrenees were dominated by various species of Cymbella, along with Denticula tenuis and Achnanthes minutissima. In our dataset, the species with highest affinity towards calcium also belonged mainly to the genus Cymbella (Table 3, Fig. 3a). Calciphilous Cymbella and Gomphonema also have relatively high optima for [HCOinline image + COinline image], and it is difficult to distinguish the effect of that factor from the effect of [Ca2+]. Some studies have shown that calcium affects diatom motility (Cohn & Disparti, 1994) and adhesion to surfaces (Cooksey & Cooksey, 1988), but exact physiological mechanisms responsible for the higher or lower affinity of diatoms to calcium (or the other alkaline cations) are still not known. Furthermore, concentration of divalent cations (Ca2+ and Mg2+) is highly correlated with the amount of dissolved HCOinline image and pH. It is not clear which of these factors has the greatest effect on the growth of diatoms.

Species with relatively high per cent equivalent optima for Mg2+ (Bizemis circumtexta, Nitzschia umbonata, Cymatopleura apiculata, Sellaphora pupula var. elliptica, Navicula exilis, Simonsenia delognei) were found mostly at the high end of the conductivity spectrum. Many diatoms with relatively high optima for per cent of base cations had low optima for %Na+ or %K+ and vice versa, once again confirming the observation that M : D ratio is an important factor affecting diatoms.

The position of diatom species along the [Cl] gradient in our study generally corresponds to the relative ranking of those species along this gradient given by Kolbe (1927, 1932), Hustedt (1957), and van Dam et al. (1994). Apparent chloride optima for diatoms in the dataset of 257 dilute lakes of the north-eastern U.S.A. (Dixit et al., 1998) are, in general, lower than [Cl] optima in our study because of the lower [Cl] range of the former dataset. The highest optima for [Cl] and [Na+] in the NAWQA dataset were observed in species with high conductivity optima (Table 4). When, however, the proportion of these ions was considered, the highest %Na+ and %Cl optima were observed among species with either highest or lowest conductivity optima. Many of the species of Eunotia, Stauroneis and Frustulia had relatively high optima for the proportion of Na+ and Cl in accordance with dominance of these ions in some dilute rivers of eastern coastal areas. Unlike species with high conductivity and high NaCl proportion optima, these diatoms also had relatively high %K+ optima. Dionisio-Sese & Miyachi (1992) showed that chloride ions could be toxic to some freshwater algae because they inhibit carbonic anhydrase, an enzyme responsible for the hydration of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Our results confirm that the effect of Cl on diatom community composition is certainly different from the effect of total ionic strength.

The highest [SOinline image] optima were found in species with high conductivity optima (Bizemis circumtexta, Nitzschia reversa), but high per cent equivalent of SOinline image was favoured also by other diatoms such as Diatoma moniliformis, Brachysira microcephala and Eunotia exigua. In the coal-mining region of Montana, according to Bahls et al. (1984), diatoms with highest [SOinline image] optima were Amphora coffeaformis, Diatoma tenue (D. moniliformis accordingly to the drawing on p. 44), Cymbella pusilla, Diploneis pumila var. smithii, Epithemia adnata, Navicula cincta var. rostrata, N. cryptocephala var. veneta, N. pavillardii, Nitzschia amphibia, N. closterium, N. obtusa, Rhopalodia gibba, Synedra famelica, S. fasciculata. It is significant that, in the Montana dataset, increased conductivity was most often associated with Na2SO4 pollution, and that most of the mentioned species inevitably had high optima for all three parameters: Na+, SOinline image and conductivity. There is little certainty which factor in particular was responsible for their competitive advantage in polluted rivers. We did not encounter many diatoms characteristic of sulphate-rich North American lakes (Fritz et al., 1993; Cumming et al., 1995), presumably because of the low representation of naturally highly mineralised sulphate-rich rivers in the NAWQA study. On the contrary, most of the rivers with high %SOinline image in our dataset had an increased conductivity and [SOinline image] because of mine drainage pollution. Sulphates in mine drainage often cause a significant decrease of water pH. In those cases, acidophilic diatom flora consisting mostly of Eunotia, Frustulia and Pinnularia develop despite relatively high total ionic content of the water (Hancock, 1973; Verb & Vis, 2000). High variation in diatom assemblages associated with elevated sulphate concentration is certainly because of a combined response of diatoms to the concentration of SOinline image, water pH and total mineral content.

Use of the autecological data

Optima presented in Table 4 are based on samples collected from a variety of habitats, from rivers ranging widely in size, slope and geographical location. All these factors undoubtedly introduce noise in the species response to ions. Nevertheless, the autecological characteristics calculated from the NAWQA dataset are more representative for most U.S. rivers than optima derived from datasets with limited number of observations. These autecological data are useful for the purposes of water quality assessment and further understanding of the ecology of diatoms.

Our results demonstrate that diatom assemblages are distributed continuously along gradients of conductivity and major ions. For practical application of the weighted average values to ecological assessments, the taxa could be assigned to categories according to their affinities. For example, conductivity range could be divided into low, medium and high-conductivity waters or into more finely defined categories. Sets of categories could be established to best meet the needs of individual studies. Differences in the proportion of individual diatoms in the categories could be used to assess differences among samples from different sites or between time periods. In the present paper, we preferred not to simplify autecological data by converting weighted average values to an arbitrarily chosen ordinal scale. The combination of optima presented in Table 4 could be considered as the optimal ionic composition of river water for each taxon. Monitoring the changes in the ionic composition could be carried out by simple observation of shifts in the dominant taxa or by inferring ion concentrations or conductivity using reported optima and some numerical procedure, for instance weighted averaging. Community analysis presented here shows that concentrations of the specific ions explain a higher proportion of variation in the diatom data than ionic proportions. This is mainly because the proportion of individual ions is usually important over a limited range of salinity or osmotic pressure. Therefore, ionic proportion optima are most meaningful when applied in conjunction with conductivity or other measure of the total salt content.

Future work on ecology and taxonomy of diatoms in North America will undoubtedly refine the data presented here. Creation of regional calibration datasets will make it possible to develop finely tuned models to quantitatively infer conductivity and ion concentrations, as is now often performed for lakes (e.g. Fritz et al., 1993; Cumming et al., 1995). The results obtained in this study also show the significant value of large-scale monitoring programmes, such as NAWQA, for obtaining autecological data for organisms important in biological monitoring.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey NAWQA Program through a cooperative agreement with The Academy of Natural Sciences. We thank C. Couch for her guidance. We are grateful to L. Bahls, T. Clason, W. Cody, K. Manoylov, L. Marr, E. Morales, C. Reimer, N.-A. Roberts, and D. Winter who analysed diatom samples, and to F. Acker, P. Cotter, and K. Sprouffske, who managed the Phycology Section database and assisted with technical aspects of data analysis.

      The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.