Hydrobiologia

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 81–93 | Cite as

Composition and abundance of phytoplankton in tributaries of the lower Colorado river, Grand Canyon region

  • Wayne M. Crayton
  • Milton R. Sommerfeld
Article

Abstract

Phytoplankton distribution and abundance in eleven tributaries of the Colorado River within the Grand Canyon were investigated from April, 1975 to June, 1976. During this period a total of 56 genera and 156 species of phytoplankton was identified. Phytoplankton species of the individual tributaries were quite distinct, with only four diatom species, Diatoma vulgare, Navicula tripunctata, Nitzschia linearis and Synedra ulna, common to all the tributaries. Bright Angel Creek, Shinumo Creek and Elves Chasm were the tributaries with the most diverse algal flora, whereas Vaseys Paradise, Tapeats Creek, Deer Creek and Havasu Creek showed the lowest species richness. Elves Chasm and Diamond Creek had the highest phytoplankton numbers. Phytoplankton abundance and species richness appeared to be influenced by high turbidity, current velocity, fluctuating water levels and age of the water. Some of the dominant algal species, Biddulphia laevis, Cocconeis pediculus, Cymbella ventricosa, Epithemia sorex, Gomphonema parvulum and Synedra ulna, showed significant correlations with specific physico-chemical characteristics of the tributaries.

Keywords

algae phytoplankton Colorado River Grand Canyon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aykulu, G. 1978. A quantitative study 0f the phytoplankton 0f the River Avon. Bristol. Br. Phycol, 13: 91–102.Google Scholar
  2. Backhaus, D. 1968. Okologische Untersuchungen an den Auf-wuchsalgen der obersten Donau and ihrer Quellflüsse. IV. Systematisch-autökologischer Teil. Archiv. fur Hydrobiol., Suppl. 34 (Donau-Forschung I(1): 251–317.Google Scholar
  3. Chandler, O. C. 1937. Fate 0f typical lake plankton in streams. Ecol. Monogr. 7: 445–479.Google Scholar
  4. Cholnoky, B. J. 1968. Die Ökologie der Diatomeen in Binnengewässer. J. Cramer, Lehre, Germany. 699 Pp.Google Scholar
  5. Cleve-Euler, Astrid. 1968. Die Diatomeen von Schweden and Finnland. Wheldon and Wesley, Ltd.Stechert-Hafner Service Agency, Inc., New Uork, N.Y. 1193 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, G. A. & Kubly, D. M. 1976. Limnologic studies 0n the Colorado River and its main tributaries from Lee's Ferry t0 Diamond Creek including its course in Grand Canyon National Park 0n feasibility study. Unpubl. Rept., National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, 83 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Cooley, M. E. 1963. Hydrology 0f the plateau uplands province, pp. 27–38. In: Annual report 0n ground water in Arizona, spring 1962 t0 spring 1963. Arizona State and Dept. Water Resources Rept. 15: 136 pp. Crayton, W. M. 1977. Distribution and abundance of phytoplankton in the Colorado River and its tributaries in Grand Canyon and vicinity. M. S. Thesis. Arizona State University. 177 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Cushing, C. E. 1964. Plankton and water chemistry in the Montreal River lake-stream system, Saskatchewan. Ecology 45: 306–313.Google Scholar
  9. Czarnecki, D. B., Blinn, D. W. & Tompkins, T. 1976. A periphytic microflora analysis of the Colorado River and vicinity. Unpubl. Rept., National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology 17: 29–42.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, A. E. 1964. Plankton 0f the Sacramento River. Ecology 45: 40–49.Google Scholar
  12. Hartman, R. T. & Hines, C. L. 1961. Phytoplankton from Pymatuning reservoir in downstream area of the Shenago River. Ecology 42: 180–183.Google Scholar
  13. Hustedt, F. 1930. Die Süsswasser-flora Mitteleuropas. Heft 10: Bacillariophyta (Diatomeee). Gustav Fischer, Jena. 466 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, C. W. & Sanderson, R. B. 1968. Spring flow into the Colorado River-Lee's Ferry to Lake Mead, Arizona. Water Resources Dept. 34. Arizona State Land Dept., Phoenix. 26 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Knopp, H. 1960. Untersuchungen über das Sauerstoff-Produktions-Potential von Flussplankton. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 22: 152–166.Google Scholar
  16. Kofoid, C. A. 1903. The plankton of the Illinois River, 1894–99 with introductory notes upon the hydrography of the Illinois River and its basin. Part I. Quantitative investigations and general results. Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist. 6: 95–629.Google Scholar
  17. Kofoid. C. A. 1908. The plankton of the Illinois River, 1894–99 with introductory notes upon the hydrography of the Illinois River and its basin. Part II. Constituent organisms and their seasonal distribution. Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist. 8: 1–355.Google Scholar
  18. Lowe, R. X. 1974. Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of freshwater diatoms. National Environmental Research Center. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 334 pp.Google Scholar
  19. McGaha, Y. J. & Steen, J. P. 1974. The effects of variation in turbidity on cycles of planktonic and benthic organisms in flood control reservoirs of Northern Mississippi. Wat. Tech, Inf. Serv., U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 29 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, R. L. 1971. A study of phytoplankton dynamics in Lake Fayetteville as a means of assessing water quality. Arkansas Water Resources Research Center. Pub. No. 10. Univ. of Arkansas. 59 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Noble, L. F. 1914. The Shinumo quadrangle: Grand Canyon district, Arizona. U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 549. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 100 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Prescott, G. W. 1962. Algae of the western Great Lakes area. W. C. Brown Co., Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. 977 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Reinhard, E. G. 1931. Plankton ecology of Upper Mississippi. Part II. Influence of physical, chemical, and biotic factors. Ecol. Monogr. 4: 395–464Google Scholar
  24. Schoeman, F. R. 1973. A systematical and ecological study of the diatom flora of Lesotho with special reference to the water quality. V. & R. Printer, Pretoria, South Africa. 355 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Schröder, P. 1899. Das pflanzliche Plankton der Oder. Forschungber, Bio. St. Plon. 7: 15–24.Google Scholar
  26. Sommerfeld, M. R., Crayton, W. M. & Crane N. L. 1976. Survey of bacteria, phytoplankton, and trace chemistry of the Lower Colorado River and tributaries in the Grand Canyon National Park. Unpubl. Rept., National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park. 83 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Swale, E. M. F. 1969. Phytoplankton in two English Rivers J. Ecol. 57: 1–23.Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Department of Interior. 1966. A guide to the common diatoms at water pollution surveillance system stations. Fed. Water Pollut. Contr. Adm., Water Pollution Surveillance, Cincinnati, Ohio. 101 pp.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Geological Survey. 1966. Arizona water. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1648. U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 85 pp.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Water resources data for Arizona. Part 1. Surface Water Records. 247 pp.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Geological Survey. 1976. Quality of Surface Waters of the United States. 1970. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2158. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 371 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Whitford, L. A. & Schumacher, G. J. 1963. Communities of algae in North Carolina streams and their seasonal relations. Hydrobiologia 22: 133–196.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, L. G. 1964. Possible relationships between planktondiatom species numbers and water-quality estimates. Ecology 45: 809–823.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne M. Crayton
    • 1
  • Milton R. Sommerfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany and MicrobiologyArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations