<%BANNER%>

Factors Affecting the Maximum Depth of Plant Colonization by Submersed Macrophytes in Florida Lakes


PAGE 1

FACTORS AFFECTING THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF COLONIZATION BY SUBMERSED MACROPHYTES IN FLORIDA LAKES By ALEXIS JORDAN CAFFREY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Alexis Jordan Caffrey

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gratitude is expressed to the many people w ho helped me carry out this project. Special thanks are given to Mark Hoyer who helped me w ith my project in ways too numerous to list. Julie Terrell assisted in providing the Florida LAKEWATCH data. Claude Brown and Eric Schultz provided im measurable professional advice as well as many long days out in the fiel d helping with field sampling. Appreciation is granted to David Watson and Dan Willis for providing directions to many of the sampled lakes. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Roger Bachmann, a brilli ant limnologist, for guiding me in analyzing my light readings. Thanks ar e given to Dr. Daniel E. Canfield, Jr., for funding the project and serving as my committ ee chairman and advisor. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Charles E. Cichra for serv ing as my committee cochair and for offering encouragement and guidance. Finally, Dr. Kenneth Langeland served on my committee and helped oversee the project.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS.................................................................................3 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................10 4 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................21 APPENDIX A 32-LAKE STUDY DATA..........................................................................................24 B 279-LAKE-YEAR STUDY........................................................................................30 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................37 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................40

PAGE 5

v LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Descriptive statistics for the maximu m depth of plant colonization (MDC in meter), Secchi disk...................................................................................................16 3-2 Multiple regression equations relating Secchi disk (SD in meters), light attenuation coefficient..............................................................................................18 3-3 Mean maximum depth of plant colonizat ion (MDC in meters) and slope values by lake and the relationship between MDC.............................................................19 3-4 Descriptive statistics for maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), Secchi disk..................................................................................................20 3-5 Regression equations of the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization......20 A-1 Maximum depth of plant colonizatio n (MDC in meters), Secchi disk transparency (SD in meters).....................................................................................25 B-1 Maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), yearly mean Secchi disk transparency......................................................................................................30

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Locations of lakes sampled for both studies..............................................................9 3-1 Relationship between the mean ma ximum depth of submersed macrophyte colonization and mean Secchi disc depth (A) and mean light attenuation (B)........17 3-2 Relationships between mean Secchi disc depth and mean light attenuation (A, B)............................................................................................................................. .18 3-3 Comparison of a calculated maximum lin e to the best-fit line relating yearly Secchi disk depth to the maximu m depth of plant colonization..............................20

PAGE 7

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FACTORS AFFECTING THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF COLONIZATION BY SUBMERSED MACROPHYTES IN FLORIDA LAKES By Alexis Jordan Caffrey August 2006 Chair: Daniel E. Canfield, Jr. Cochair: Charles E. Cichra Major Department: Fisher ies and Aquatic Sciences In 32 Florida lakes, Secchi disk (SD) transparency, light attenuation coefficient values, plant and sediment t ype, and slope were examined with respect to the maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC). In the 32-lake study, MDC was shown to be significantly related to light through measurem ents taken by a SD (R2 = 0.46; p < 0.0001) and a light meter (R2 = 0.41; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the mean percent of light penetration at MDC stations between hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata Royle) and non-hydrilla species (p = 0.2), and fu rthermore, between angiosperms and charophytes (p = 0.4). Similarly, organic, sandy, and mixed sediment types were not shown to exert a significant influence (p = 0.07) on the depth of aquatic plant colonization. Lake bottom slope was not shown to be significantly related (R2 = 0.03; p = 0.35) to the maximum depth of plant growth. To increase the sample size, SD transparen cy, color, chlorophyll, and water column nutrients (total phosphorus and total nitrog en) were examined with respect to the

PAGE 8

viii maximum depth of macrophyte growth for 279-lake-years of information. An upper limit line relating MDC to SD in me ters was calculated and was found to be equal to: log (max MDC) = 0.52 log (SD) + 0.59. The maximum MDC line describes light limitation when the MDC response fall on or near the res ponse curve and when MDC values fall below the line, there is some other limiting envir onmental factor. For the 279-lake-year study, the maximum depth of aquatic plant growth was significantly related to Secchi disk transparency (R2 = 0.67; p < 0.0001), color (R2 = 0.41; p < 0.0001), chlorophyll (R2 = 0.30; p < 0.0001), total phosphorus (R2 = 0.42; p < 0.0001), and total nitrogen (R2 = 0.33; p < 0.0001).

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The distribution and abundance of aquatic macrophytes in lakes are affected by many forces including but not limited to pressure (Hutchinson 1975), substrate characteristics (Bachmann et al. 2001) a nd lake morphology (Dua rte and Kalff 1986), water column nutrient con centrations (Jupp and Spence 1977), waterfowl grazing (Weisner et al. 1997), and light availability (Chambers and Kalff 1985; Canfield et al. 1985). Given the high attenuation of irradian ce through the water column, and because plants require light to photosynt hesize, it is not surprising that light availability is often considered one of the most important factor s that regulate abundan ce and distribution of aquatic macrophytes (Zimmerman et al. 1994). The maximum depth at which autotrophic a quatic plants grow has been shown to be linearly related to transparency of th e water in numerous studies (Maristo 1941; Canfield et al.1985; Hudon et al. 2000). Chambers & Kalff (1985) found the maximum depth of colonization (MDC) for charophytes on average to occur at 11% of the surface incident irradiance. For angiosperms and bryophytes, they found MDC to be 21% of the surface irradiance. However, aquatic plants ha ve been recorded in areas receiving less than 1 and 2% of the surface irradiance (Hutchinson 1975). Canfield et al. (1985) demonstrated a re lationship between water transparency as measured by a Secchi disc (SD) and the maximum depth of macrophyte colonization in 26 Florida lakes. They also developed an empirical model for the relationship and suggested the model could provide lake ma nagers with a first approximation of how

PAGE 10

2 changes in SD values caused by either natura l or anthropogenic activities might affect the extent of macrophyte colonization in lakes. However, they cautioned lake mangers that, in using the model, other environmental f actors (e.g., types of plants present, basin morphometry, sediment types) besides SD valu es need to be considered to enhance the predictive ability of the model. In the 1990s, the Florida Legislature directed the state’s water management districts to establish minimum water levels for la kes (Section 373.042, Florida Statutes). The Southwest Florida Water Management Dist rict (SWFWMD) deve loped methods for establishing minimum lake levels (Chapter 40D-8. Florida Administrative Code), which included use of the model developed by Canfield et al. (1985) to assess potential changes in the coverage of submersed vegetation w ith changes in water transparency. The Southwest Florida Water Management District however, recognized the need to try to develop a more robust model from a larger number of lakes. This study was designed based on the earlier wo rk of Canfield et al. (1985) in an attempt to develop more robust model/models for use by SWFWMD. The first part of the study involved the sampling of 32 Florida la kes. At each lake, environmental factors such as water chemistry, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and bottom slopes were measured to determine if the maximu m depth of macrophyte colonization could be better predicted than re lying solely on SD transparency. The second phase of this study used information collected by Florida LAKE WATCH on a large number of Florida lakes to develop a series of models to pred ict the maximum depth of colonization of macrophytes and establish a model wh ere the maximum depth of macrophyte colonization in Florida lake s should be limited by light.

PAGE 11

3 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS Two data sets were used for model deve lopment. The first part of the study involved field sampling of 32 Florida lakes usin g the basic approach of Canfield et al. (1985). Study lakes selected we re located in eight counties, with the majority located in peninsular Florida (Figure 2-1). Lakes lo cated in the SWFWMD comprised 38% of the sampled lakes. Each lake was sampled once between May and December of 2004. At each study lake, four straight tran sects were established to provide an assessment of macrophyte coverage. A Raythe on DE-719 fathometer was used to detect the MDC for the macrophyte community along e ach transect. Buoys were placed at locations of measured macrophyt e MDC. After all transects were completed, the three to four deepest buoy stations were checked w ith a toothed hook (18 cm by 18 cm) for the presence of submersed aquatic macrophytes. At stations where the MDC was identified, measurements were made for SD transparency, light attenuation (E), true color, sediment type, and bottom slope, and the plant species were identified In some lakes with sparse plant growth, fewer than three stations were found harboring submersed a quatic macrophytes. At these lakes, open water stations were sampled for SD transparen cy, light attenuation (E ), true color, and sediment type. The variables that had quantitat ive values (i.e., SD transparency, E, color, and slope) were averaged by lake for the da y sampled, and because lakes were visited only once during the study, each lake is c onsidered the experimental unit for the quantitative variables. On the other hand, th e experimental unit for qualitative variables,

PAGE 12

4 such as plant type [i.e., the inclusion or exclusion of the plants being a hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata Royle) versus non-hydrilla species a nd being an angiosperm versus a charophyte] or sediment type (i.e., organic, sa ndy, mixed) was considered to be the lake stations. At each of the 32 study lakes, water tran sparency was measured where the MDC occurred by the use of a Secchi disc on the shady side of the boat. If the Secchi disc was visible on the bottom for all three stations, an additional Secchi reading was taken in a deeper location to use for analysis. Surface and corresponding underwater light irradiance were measured (in quanta un its) on the sunny side of the boat using a photometer (LI-COR model LI-140 0 data logger) with a quantum sensor that was placed both above (LiCor 193) and below (LiCor 192) the water. Light meter readings were taken at two to three depths. If possible, li ght measurements at each station were made at depths of one, two, and three meters to better represent light attenuation for the entire water column. An additional open-water light reading was taken in deeper water at some lakes where all three stations were shallow (l ess than 3 meters) or when sun coverage was fading and no stations had yet been sampled for light. Light readings were averaged over ten seconds to mitigate instantaneous fluctu ations with light intensity. The downward attenuation coefficient values for each station were calculated as the slope of the graph of the natural logarithm of the i rradiance values, corrected for changes in incident irradiance on the y-axis, against depth on the x-axis (Li nd 1974). The percent of surface irradiance penetrating at MDC was calcula ted using the relationship: IZ / Io = 100e-Ez, where IZ / Io = percent of subsurface irradiance, E = light attenuation coefficient and z = the maximum depth of plant colonization (Scheffer 1998).

PAGE 13

5 Color samples were collected at the surface (0.5 m) with 250-mL, acid cleaned, triple-rinsed, Nalgene bottles and immediatel y placed on ice until they could be put in a freezer to await analysis. True color values were determined fo llowing filtration through a Gelman type A/E glass fiber filter, centrifugation of the filtrate, and using the platinumcobalt standard technique determined by spectroscopy (Bowling et al. 1986). A ponar dredge with a 15 cm opening was used to obtain soil samples. Sediment type was classified as one of three types: sandy, organic, or mixed. Soil samples that were dark colored and slippery to the touc h were classified as organic while white, granular soil samples were cl assified as sandy, and a blend of organic and sandy soil was categorized as a mixed soil. Bottom slope was calculated around MDC statio ns and not the entire littoral area. Slope was calculated from the Raytheon DE -719 fathometer chart by dividing the rise (the change in water depth) by the ho rizontal distance across the station. For the 32-lake study, regression equations a nd coefficient of determination values (R2) were calculated using SD and E readings as the independent variables in order to predict the maximum depth of submersed macrophyte colonization. Multiple regression analysis was used to relate SD, E, and MDC to color and chlorophyll. Chlorophyll concentrations were obtained from the Flor ida LAKEWATCH database Best fit linear regressions were calculated betw een SD and E and vise versa. A t-test was used to test whether there was a significant difference in th e average percent of incident light at the maximum depth of colonization between stat ions with hydrilla versus non-hydrilla and between stations harboring angiosperms ve rsus charophytes. To investigate soil influence on MDC, an ANOVA was used to te st for differences in the mean depth of

PAGE 14

6 plant growth for the three soil types. Also, the coefficient of determination was calculated for the relationship between sl ope and MDC (McClave and Sincich 2000). The statistical software package JMP version 4.0 was used for sta tistical analysis and Kaleidagraph version 3.6 was used to generate linear regression figures. The second part of this study involved obtaining information on 187 lakes which had their macrophyte communities sampled by Florida LAKEWATCH. The lakes were sampled between 1991 and 2004. The water chemis ty data were represented as yearly averages and although most lakes were samp led only once, some lakes were sampled multiple times providing 279-lake-years of information. Florida LAKEWATCH is a volunteer citizens’ lake monito ring program in which volunteers take measurements at three mid-lake locations, usually on a mont hly basis, for total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), chlorophyll, and SD transp arency. The 187 lakes were located in 24 counties (Figure 2-1) and 35% of the lakes were in the SWFWMD. For the 279-lake-year study, Florida LAKEWATCH provided 250 Raytheon DE719 fathometer chart papers that were late r examined for the maximum point of plant colonization. The 32-lake study provided an additional 29 Raytheon DE-719 fathometer chart papers. Secchi disk readings and true color samples were obtained using the same procedures as the 32-lake study. Surface (0.5 m) water samples for measuring chlorophyll were collected in 4-L, tap-water rinsed, plastic milk jugs and placed in coolers until the samples could be filtered. A measured volume of water was filtered through a Gelman Type A-E glass fiber filter. Filters where folded and placed inside a larger paper filter and then stored inside a silica gel desiccant bottle in a freezer.

PAGE 15

7 Chlorophyll was extracted from th e filters in hot ethanol (Sartory and Grobbelarr 1984). The trichromatic equation for chlorophyll a was used to calculate the concentrations of chlorophyll with the ho t ethanol method (Method 10200H; APHA 1992). Water samples for TP and TN were collected at the surface (0.5 m) with 250-mL, acid cleaned, triple-rinsed, Nalgene bottles. Water samples were immediately placed and held on ice until returned at the end of the sampling day to the Florida LAKEWATCH water quality laboratory in Gainesville, Florid a. At the laboratory, water samples were frozen until being analyzed by Florid a LAKEWATCH staff. Total phosphorus concentrations were determined using the methods of Murphy and Riley (1962) with a persulfate digestion (Menzel and Corwin 1965) Total nitrogen concentrations where determined by the oxidization of water sample s using persulfate and determining nitratenitrogen with second derivative sp ectroscopy (D'Elia et al. 1977). Data (i.e., SD transparency, color, chlo rophyll, TP, and TN) obtained from Florida LAKEWATCH were averaged for the year in whic h plants were inventoried at each lake. For each lake, Florida LAKEWATCH means we re first averaged for the day of the month sampled and these monthly means were averaged together for a yearly mean for the lake. Some lakes were represented in the data set more than once if they were sampled multiple years. If Florida LAKEWATCH was missing wate r chemistry data for the corresponding year that the lake was measur ed for MDC, long-term water chemistry means for that lake were used. Long-term means were computed by averaging all yearly means for a lake. For the 279-lake-year study, long-term values us ed represented 5% of SD transparency readings, 43% of color measurements, a nd 2.5% of chlorophyll, TP, TN values.

PAGE 16

8 An empirical model was developed using the Florida LAKEWATCH database relating SD transparency to the maximum de pth of submersed vegetation in order to increase the representation of Florida lakes. A maximum line relating MDC and SD was also determined by sorting the 279 SD values from lowest to highest and then dividing these into 10 groups. Because 279 is not divi sible by 10, there were 28 SD values in each of the first nine groups, and one group of 27 SD readings. The maximum MDC value in each group with its associated SD value was used to run a regression through the 10 pairs of points Linear and multiple regression models were created to quantify the relationship of MDC to color and chlorophyll because these two light-reducing variables have been shown to be hyperbolically rela ted to SD depth (Can field and Hodgson 1983). Furthermore, because TP and TN have been shown to be positively related to chlorophyll concentrations (Canfield 1983), these nutrients were also examined mathematically with respect to the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization. To meet the assumption of normality, prior to statistical analysis, all distributions were transformed to a base 10 logarithm. A software program, Kaleidagra ph version 3.6, was used to generate figures and JMP version 4.0 was used to perform statis tical tests. The alpha level of rejection was set at 0.05.

PAGE 17

9 Figure 2-1. Locations of lakes sampled for both studies.

PAGE 18

10 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Canfield et al. (1985) sampled 26 Florid a lakes with SD transparencies ranging from approximately 1 m to about 6.3 m. For the 32-lake study, there was a wide range in SD transparency from 0.3 m to 5.8 m. The mean transparency for all lakes was 1.8 m. The other measured limnological paramete rs in the 32-lake study also varied considerably. Measured light extin ction coefficients ranged from 0.2 m-1 to 6.8 m-1 (mean for all lakes 1.8 m-1). True color ranged from 2 PCU to 385 PCU (mean color 50 PCU). The calculated bottom slopes ranged fr om 0.3% to 13% (mean slope 4%). The maximum depth of plant colonization ranged fr om 0.7 m to 9.2 m, with mean depth of aquatic macrophyte growth at 3.1 m (Table 3-1). Canfield et al. (1985) found a significa nt positive relationship between the MDC and SD depth (R2 = 0.49) using data from Finnish, Florid a, and Wisconsin lakes. For the 32 Florida lakes sampled during this st udy, there was also a significant positive relationship between the MDC and SD depth (R2 = 0.46; p < 0.0001; Figure 3-1A). The best fit equation between MDC and SD fo r the Canfield et al. 1985 study was: log ( MDC ) = 0.61 log ( SD ) + 0.26 ( 3-1) The equation between MDC and SD for the 32 Florida lakes was: log ( MDC ) = 0.64 log ( SD ) + 0.30 (3-2) where MDC and SD are expressed in meters. Both equations are similar and provide evidence that the positive relationship between MDC and SD is repeatable.

PAGE 19

11 Canfield et al. (1985) found light meter readings were highly correlated (r = 0.96) to concurrently measured SD values. Most light reaching the water surface is reflected, turned to heat, or absorbed by objects in the water column as well as by the water itself (Cole 1983). The intensity of light in the water column (Iz) decreases exponentially with depth (z) depending on the vertical attenuati on coefficient (E) of the water and the starting surface illumination (Io), using the relationship set forth in Beers law: Iz = Io e-Ez (Scheffer 1998). Wavelengths are absorbed differentially in the water column with infrared light and many of the visible reds be ing absorbed mostly in the first meter and with blues penetrating the deepest (Cole 1983) Additional substan ces in the water--dissolved organics (color), algae, and nonalgal suspended solids--influence the amount of light penetration through the water column (Haven s 2003), and potential SD values. Light availability to a depth in the wate r column can be measured directly by the use of a light meter or indirectly by the us e of a SD. For the English Channel, the relationship between light attenuation (E) a nd SD measurements was E =1.7 / SD (Poole and Atkins 1929). However, the relations hip between E and SD varies among studies and many alternatives have been suggeste d (Holmes 1970; Walker 1980). For the 32 study lakes, the correlation between the measur ed light attenuation coefficients and SD was significant, but not as str ong (r = 0.81) as that reported (r = 0.96) by Canfield et al. (1985). Color and chlorophyll concentrations were also highly related to SD depth (R2 = 0.71; p < 0.0001), light attenuation (R2 = 0.74; p < 0.0001), and MDC (R2 = 0.65; p < 0.0001) through multiple regression analysis (Tab le 3-2). Secchi disk transparency, however, can be predicted reasonably well fr om measured light attenuation coefficients (Figure 3-2A) using the equation:

PAGE 20

12 log ( SD ) = -0.69 log ( E ) + 0.26 (3-3) and light attenuation coefficient (E) can be predicted from SD (Figure 3-2B) using the equation: log ( E ) = -0.96 log ( SD ) + 0.30 (3-4) where SD is in meters and E is per meter. Although E and SD are highly correlate d, the large 95% confidence limit (46236%) associated with the MD C-SD model published by Canfie ld et al. (1985) has lead to speculation that the use of light meter r eadings could lead to the development of a more robust model. The MDC of macrophyt es in the 32-lake study was negatively related to the mean light attenuation coeffi cient (Figure 3-1B) and the relationship was represented by the following equation: log ( MDC ) = -0.51 log ( E ) + 0.48 (3-5) where MDC is in meters and E is per meter. Light attenuation, however, did not predict MDC any better than SD transparency and act ually had a slightly lower coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.41) than SD readings (R2 = 0.46). This finding demonstrated SD, an easily measured and inexpensive index of water transparency, is as useful for assessing MDC as E values that require th e use of complex and expensive equipment. Canfield et al. (1985) suggested the major factor contributing to the variability in the MDC-Secchi relationship is the type of plant colonizing the lake bottom because different species of plants ha ve different light requirements The amount of surface light penetrating at the maximum depth at which submersed aquatic macrophytes colonized in the 32 study lakes ranged from < 1% to 47%. The mean percent of in cident light at the maximum depth of colonization was 11%, which was in agreement with much of the

PAGE 21

13 literature (Table 3-1). For example, Hoyer et al. (2004) found that when the percent of incident light at the surface reaching the s ubstrate was less than 10%, there was little or no submersed aquatic vegetation biomass. Sheldon and Boylen (1977) found the MDC to correspond to 10% of the light intensity hitting the surface. The mean percent of incident light at the maximum depth of colonization for stations with hydrilla, non-hydrilla angiosperms, and charophytes present in this study was 19%, 10%, 12%, and 7%, respectively (Table 3-1). Although hydrilla has been shown to have low light requirements in laboratory conditions (Van et al. 1976), for the 32 lakes examined in natural conditions, hydrilla was not found at lo w light levels. Ther e was no significant difference in percent of inci dent light at the maximum de pth of colonization between hydrilla and non-hydrilla species (p = 0.2). Similarly, th ere was no significant difference of mean percent surface pene tration present at the dept h of maximum plant growth between angiosperms and charophytes (p = 0.4). This indicates that for this group of Florida lakes, differences in the light require ments of individual plant types can not be invoked as the major factor contributing to the variability in the MDC-Secchi relationship. Lake bottom sediment serves not only as a physical anchor for submersed vegetation but also as a source of nutrients (Barko et al. 1991 ). Bachmann et al. (2001) suggested the flocculent orga nic sediments in Lake Apopka were deleterious for root anchorage and limited the col onization of submersed aquatic macrophytes. Lake Apopka sediments, however, are unique and the lake was not included in the 32-lake study. For the 32-lake study, the mean MDC for organic, mixed, and sandy soils were 2.9 m, 3.7 m, and 2.7 m, respectively. There was no signifi cant difference in the maximum depth of

PAGE 22

14 plant colonization among the three soil types classifications established in this study (p = 0.07). Soil type, therefore, wa s not shown to have a significant effect on the maximum depth of plant growth. However, the means we re close to be signifi cantly different with the mixed soil having the largest mean MDC, suggesting that mixed soil tends to promote plant growth in deeper waters. As early as 1924, H. W. Rickett noticed th at aquatic vegetation grew deeper in lakes possessing gentle slopes and shallower in lakes having steeper slopes. Duarte and Kalff (1986) demonstrated a strong influence of littoral bottom slope on the maximum biomass of aquatic macrophyte communities. However, they pointed out that the model generated in their study did not reflect turbid lakes (i.e., Secchi disk readings < 2 m), where irradiance rather than sl ope is pre-eminent. The mean SD transparency for the 32 lakes was 1.8 m; therefore littoral bottom slope according to Duar te and Kalff (1986) should not greatly influence MDC in Florida la kes. In another study by Duarte and Kalff (1990), they found that 15% was the steepest slope at which aquatic macrophytes were present and able to grow. All of the lakes in the 32-lake study had slopes less than 15%. Lake bottom slope was not significantly rela ted to the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization (R2 = 0.03; p = 0.35; Table 3-3) so slope is not a variable that can be used to improve the MDC-Secchi relationship in Florida. Although slope has been found to affect aquatic plant growth in other studies it seems plausible that slope has a minimal influence on MDC for many of Florida lakes be cause they are generally shallow, with a majority of them having mean depths less th an 5 meters (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003). Florida lakes display a wide range of limnological conditions (Canfield and Hoyer 1988). Information on MDC, SD, and other water chemistries were obtained from

PAGE 23

15 Florida LAKEWATCH to examine the MDC-S ecchi relationship for a wide range of lakes. For the 279-lake-year study, MDC ra nged from 0.7 m to 9.2 m. The mean MDC depth was 3.3 m. Secchi disk transparency ranged from 0.2 m to 8.2 m (mean of 2.2 m). Color values ranged from 0 PCU to 430 PCU, w ith the mean color for all lakes equal to 50 PCU. The minimum and maximum ch lorophyll concentrations were 0.5 g /L and 292 g /L, respectively, and the overall mean was 17 g /L. Total phosphorus and TN concentrations ranged from 2.1 g /L to 402 g/L and 43 g/L and 4550 g/L, respectively, and averaged 28 g /L and 764 g/L, respectively (Table 3-4). For the 279-lake-year study, there was as significant positive relationship between SD and MDC (R2 = 0.67; p < 0.0001; Figure 3-3). The be st fit MDC-SD regression line was: log ( MDC ) = 0.66 log ( SD ) + 0.30 (3-6) where MDC and SD are expressed in meters. Equation 3-6 is essentially the same as the regression equations developed by Canfield et al. (1985) (Equati on 3-1) and by my 32lake study (Equation 3-2). This strongly sugge sts the MDC-SD relati onship is applicable to a wide range of lakes. Inspection of Figure 3-3 clearly shows that for a given SD there is considerable variability in the measured maximum depth of macrophyte colonization. This is evidence that other environmental factors besides wate r transparency influence MDC. However, there is a clear upper limit for MDC at various SD levels. This upper limit represents where light is the limiting environmental f actor and can be described by the following equation: log ( max MDC ) = 0.52 log ( SD ) + 0.59 (3-7)

PAGE 24

16 where MDC and SD are expressed in meters. When MDC values falls below the line, there is some other limiting environmental factor other than solely lig ht that is inhibiting plant growth. Because SD readings were rela ted to the measured color (R2 = 0.49) and chlorophyll samples (R2 = 0.59), these two light reducing variables were quantifiably related to the maximum depth of submerse d plant colonization. Moreover, because chlorophyll readings we re related to TP (R2 = 0.69) and TN (R2 = 0.53), regression models were developed to re late these nutrients to the maximum depth of submersed macrophyte colonization. Therefore, the de pth at which plants colonized was also significantly inversely related to color (R2 = 0.41; p < 0.0001), chlorophyll (R2 = 0.30; p < 0.0001), TP (R2 = 0.42; p < 0.0001), and TN (R2 = 0.33; p < 0.0001). The light attenuating substances, colo r and chlorophyll, were inve rsely related to MDC through multiple regression analysis (R2 = 0.52; p < 0.0001). Given th e significant relationships between MDC and color, chlorophyll, TP, and TN, it is possible to provide a basic assessment of the potential effects of th ese variables on macrophyte colonization in Florida lakes even without measurements of SD or E. Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics for the ma ximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), Secchi disk (SD in meters), light attenuation coefficient (E in m-1), percent of subsurface irradiance penetra tion (Iz / Io in %), color (PCU), and slope (%) for the 32-lake study. Parameter n Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation MDC 32 0.7 9.2 3.1 1.8 SD 32 0.3 5.8 1.8 1.2 E 32 0.2 6.8 1.8 1.5 Color 32 2 385 50 70 IZ / Io 32 0.008 47 11 14 IZ / Io hydrilla 9 0.43 99 19 33 IZ / Io Non-hydrilla 72 0.0003 78 10 16 IZ / Io Angiosperm 68 0.0003 99 12 20 IZ / Io Charophyte 13 0.02 19 7 6 Slope 31 0.3 13 4 3

PAGE 25

17 Figure 3-1. Relationship between the mean maximum depth of submersed macrophyte colonization and mean Secchi disc dept h (A) and mean light attenuation (B).

PAGE 26

18 Table 3-2. Multiple regression equations re lating Secchi disk (SD in meters), light attenuation coefficient (E in m-1) and the maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters) to color (P CU) and chlorophyll (CHL in g/L). n Equation R2 p value 29 log(SD) = -0.25 log(COLOR) – 0.39 log(CH L) + 0.88 0.71 < 0.0001 29 log(E) = 0.52 log(COLOR) + 0.22 log(CHL) – 0.82 0.74 < 0.0001 29 log(MDC) = -0.27 log(COLOR) -0.35 log(CHL) + 1.11 0.65 < 0.0001 Figure 3-2. Relationships between mean Secchi disc depth and mean light attenuation (A, B).

PAGE 27

19 Table 3-3. Mean maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters) and slope values by lake and the relations hip between MDC and mean slope. Lake County MDC Slope Alligator Lake 2.6 0.04 Alto Alachua 2.5 0.02 Bay Marion 1.97 0.02 Beakman Lake 3.4 0.01 Bellamy Citrus 0.72 0.04 Brant Hillsborough 1 0.03 Church Hillsborough 2 0.06 Conway North Orange 5.5 0.05 Conway South Orange 5.83 0.04 Dodd Citrus 1.03 0.10 Doe Marion 4.23 0.03 Farles Prairie Lake 4.57 0.05 Grasshopper Lake 2.25 0.02 Hampton Bradford 1.73 0.01 Hernando Citrus 2.27 0.03 Ivanhoe East Orange 2.17 0.07 Little Conway Orange 5.57 0.03 Little Santa Fe Alachua 2 0.01 Magdalene Hillsborough 3.57 0.02 Maurine Hillsborough 1.2 0.04 Melrose Bay Alachua 2.87 0.07 Mill Dam Marion 2.73 0.03 Newnan Alachua 0.65 0.003 Osceola Hillsborough 3.5 0.07 Santa Fe Alachua 3.87 0.02 Sellers Lake 9.2 Starke Orange 1.5 0.13 Stella Putnam 4.27 0.03 Taylor Hillsborough 3.1 0.03 Twin Hillsborough 2.65 0.05 Weir Marion 3 0.01 White Trout Hillsborough 4.8 0.07 Note: n = 31, R2 = 0.03, p value = 0.35.

PAGE 28

20 Table 3-4. Descriptive statistics for maxi mum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), Secchi disk (SD in meters), color (PCU), chlor ophyll (g/L), total phosphorus (TP in g/L), and total nitrogen (TN in g/L). Parameter n Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation MDC 279 0.7 9.2 3.3 1.9 SD 279 0.2 8.2 2.2 1.5 Color 263 0 430 50 69 Chlorophyll 279 0.5 292 17 34 TP 279 2.1 402 28 40.5 TN 279 43 4550 764 601.2 Figure 3-3. Comparison of a calculated maximu m line to the best-fit line relating yearly Secchi disk depth to the maximu m depth of plant colonization. Table 3-5. Regression equations of the maxi mum depth of submersed plant colonization (MDC in meters) related to color (PCU ), chlorophyll (CHL in g/L), total phosphorus (TP in g/L), and total nitrogen (TN in g/L). Input variable n Equation R2 p value SD 279 log(MDC) = 0.66 log(SD) + 0.30 0.67 < 0.0001 COLOR 262 log(MDC) = -0.29 log( COLOR) + 0.85 0.41 < 0.0001 CHL 279 log(MDC) = -0.28 log(CHL) + 0.71 0.30 < 0.0001 TP 279 log(MDC) = -0.43 log(TP) + 0.99 0.42 < 0.0001 TN 279 log(MDC) = -0.48 log(TN) + 1.79 0.33 < 0.0001 COLOR & CHL 262 log(MDC) = -0.22 log(COLOR) 0.18 log(CHL) + 0.93 0.52 < 0.0001

PAGE 29

21 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION For this study, the maximum depth inhabite d by an angiosperm was found at 9.2 m. This was similar to the comments of Hutchi nson (1975), which concluded that, in lakes, most angiosperms are limited to depths of 9 m. There have, however, been a few exceptions of extreme deep water expansion by freshwater angiosperms. For example, Sheldon and Boylen (1977) found Elodea canadensis growing to depths of 12 m in Lake George, New York and Hydrilla verticillata has been found growing to a depth of 15 m in Crystal River (Langeland 1996). This study has confirmed the findings of Ca nfield et al. (1985) that the maximum depth of macrophyte colonization can be predic ted using SD transparency. Furthermore, the maximum depth of plant growth can be predicted reasonably well by light meter measurements. The mean percent of incide nt light at the maxi mum depth of plant colonization was 11% for the Florida lakes studied, which was in agreement with much of the primary literature. Although plant sp ecies, sediment type and slope have been shown to influence aquatic plant growth on an individual lake basis, no significant influences on MDC were found in this st udy when looking among lakes. When those variables (plant species, sediment types, slope) where taken into account, they did not increase the predictive capabilities of the Canfield et al. SD-MDC model. Although this study represents a more compre hensive research effort than those of Canfield et al (1985) to identify and quantif y the environmental determinants of MDC, the findings, nevertheless offer no improvement on the predictive value offered by the

PAGE 30

22 SD measurements reported in that study This suggests that light attenuation, as quantified by SD sampling, is the most important environmental factor in determining MDC. Still, there is substa ntial variability in SD-MDC correlates from one site to another, suggesting that other factors play a causal role. It is possible that much of the variability in the MDC-SD model is due to fluctuations in lakes levels that prevent plant depth from attaining a state of equilibrium. Furthermore, light regimes fluctuate thr ough time causing oscillation in the equilibrium depth at which plants grow. For the 279-la ke-year study, the use of yearly average SD readings helped account for the changing light regimes in which the plants had been growing and to which they were responding th at year, whereas only daily SD readings were used in the 32-lake study. It is significant, therefore, th at if yearly SD transparency values from the Florida LAKEWATCH databa se were used to replace the daily SD values for the 32-lake study, the yearly SD -MDC model accounts for more variablility (R2 = 0.57) than the one using the daily SD values (R2 = 0.46). Obviously, when herbicides are used or wh en grass carp are released into a lake, the depth of plant growth should diminish and could cause lakes to de viate below the best fit SD-MDC line. When the Hernando Chai n of Lakes in Citrus County was visited during the 32-lake study, the water was being sprayed with a herbicide and an island was being built. Many of the areas visited in th is chain had the presence of freshly killed plant material, indicative of continue d plant maintenance control. There are innumerable possible combina tions of environmental variables for a specific site over the course of time and this introduces the elem ent of unquantifiable chance into any predictive value for response by a resident organism The inability of

PAGE 31

23 this current research effort to isolate other specific factors as core determinants makes it seem likely that the range of variation in MDC response from site to site is to be expected. In the final analysis this simply represents a meas urable variation in response to an immeasurably complex inte raction of environmental factors An upper limit line relating MDC to SD was developed and describes light limitation when the MDC response falls on or near the response curve and when MDC values fall below the line, there is some other limiting environmenta l factor. Managers should recognize that the maxi mum MDC model predicts th e upper limit of deepwater growth, but other factors will routinely result in the actual depth of plant colonization less than predicted. The other water chemistry parameters ex amined (color, chlorophyll, TP, and TN) were found to provide reasonable estimate s for predicting the potential depth of macrophyte growth and could be particularly usef ul when SD transparency or E of a lake is unknown. Managers should assess each lake independently and consider what water chemistry variable is the dominant factor in fluencing plant growth. For example, true color would be the best tool to use fo r predicting MDC for a dystrophic lake. Submersed aquatic macrophytes play an inte gral role in the functioning of lake processes, therefore, it is important for managers to understand how submersed plants will respond to changes in lake conditions, such as eutrophication or altered water levels. These models allow managers to assess potenti al changes in plant coverage that might result from changes in light and water chemistry variables.

PAGE 32

APPENDIX A 32-LAKE STUDY DATA

PAGE 33

25Table A-1. Maximum depth of plant colonizatio n (MDC in meters), Secchi disk transpar ency (SD in meters), top, middle, and bott om depths that the light meter was measured (Z top, Z middle, Z bottom in meters), top, middl e, and bottom deck cell light readings (deck top, deck middle, deck bottom in mol s1 m-2 per A), and top, middle, and bottom underwater light readings (Iz top, Iz middle, Iz bottom in mol s-1 m-2 per A), color (PCU), so il type, and plant species identification by station (buoy number) at 32 Florida lakes sampled in 2004. Date Lake County Buoy MDCSD Z top Deck topIz top Z middle Deck middle Iz middle Z bottom Deck bottom Iz bottom Color Soil type Species 10/29/04 Alligator Lake 2 2.6 1 0.6 1427 109.3 1.2 947 30.27 2.1 1306 16.41 65 Or ganic Hydrilla verticillata 10/29/04 Alligator Lake 3 2.5 1 0.6 1359 193.4 1.2 1330 50.59 2.1 1224 15.64 63 Or ganic Hydrilla verticillata 10/29/04 Alligator Lake 6 2.7 0.9 0.6 1367 270.2 1.2 1366 63.79 1.8 1357 34.94 69 Or ganic Hydrilla verticillata 10/22/04 Alto Alachua 2 4.3 0.8 0.5 1288 117.2 1 1320 28.66 1.5 1301 6.3 150 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii 10/22/04 Alto Alachua 6 1.8 0.8 0.75 825 38.95 1.5 1073 5.59 2.3 831.8 0.55 152 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii 10/22/04 Alto Alachua 8 1.4 0.75 0.3 1016 115.6 0.6 773. 3 39.99 0.9 1049 20.15 147 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii 08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough 2 2.9 1.5 1 1895 247.7 2 1893 12.47 2.5 1829 3.24 38 Organic Chara sp. 08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough 3 0.9 B 0.2 1705 1190 0.4 1739 831.2 0.6 1808 609.8 35 Sandy Chara sp. 08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough 4 2.1 B 0. 2 1233 711.2 0.5 1767 677.2 1 1738 374. 7 34 Organic Chara sp. 08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough OWL1 . 1 1727 415.9 2 1734 93.2 2.5 1823 49.68 . 08/3/04 Beakman Lake 3 3.7 B 1 1088 0.13 1.5 1844 0.28 2 2109 0.08 13 Sandy Websteria confervoides 08/3/04 Beakman Lake 5 3.1 B 0.5 1678 808.4 1 1694 825. 6 1.5 1727 485.2 17 Sandy Websteria confervoides 08/3/04 Beakman Lake 6 3.4 B 1 1374 26.38 1.5 1850 42.8 2 1850 24.48 19 Sandy Websteria confervoides 08/3/04 Beakman Lake SD 3.5 . . . . . . 10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus 3 1.3 1.25 0.5 1569 403.6 1 1423 171. 3 1.4 1674 86.35 61 Organic Bacopa caroliniana 10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus 5 0.8 1.75 0.4 1643 472 0.8 1616 318.3 1. 2 1564 179.9 61 Organic Hydrilla verticillata 10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus 6 0.2 1.5 0.5 1567 501.4 1 1569 77.87 1.5 1574 46.46 61 Organic Bacopa caroliniana 10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus OWL1 . 1 1638 238.7 2 1648 47.23 3 1566 7.86 .

PAGE 34

26Table A-1. Continued. Date Lake County Buoy MDCSD Z top Deck topIz top Z middle Deck middle Iz middle Z bottom Deck bottom Iz bottom Color Soil type Species 06/23/04 Brant Hillsborough 2 1 B 0.5 1559 0.26 0.7 1552 0. 22 . 88 Mix Bacopa caroliniana 06/23/04 Brant Hillsborough OW1 1 1 1473 121 1. 5 1525 47.14 2 1572 15.93 89 Organic 06/23/04 Brant Hillsborough OW2 1.25 0.2 1728 684.4 0.4 1637 401. 6 0.6 1721 302.6 89 Organic 08/4/04 Church Hillsborough 1 2 1.5 0.5 2014 849.3 1 2028 516.2 1.5 2005 301.6 28 Mix Chara sp. 08/4/04 Church Hillsborough OW1 1.25 1 1585 492.1 2 1616 149.2 2.5 1580 82.22 31 Mix 08/4/04 Church Hillsborough OW2 1.5 1 2357 566 2 2378 199.1 3 2359 47.66 25 Mix 11/20/04 Conway North Orange 3 5.1 3 1 565.7 160.5 2 559.3 86.14 3 541.4 47.57 7 Mix Vallisneria americana 11/20/04 Conway North Orange 6 5.8 2.6 1 670.9 184.9 2 645.4 100.4 3 646 32.31 8 Mix Potamogeton illinoensis 11/20/04 Conway North Orange 9 5.6 2.75 1 757.3 231.1 2 721.2 107.7 3 699.4 60.76 9 Mix Potamogeton illinoensis 11/20/04 Conway North Orange OWL1 . 1 1384 653.1 2 1371 313.9 3 1370 178.3 . 11/20/04 Conway South Orange 4 5.7 2.5 1 1423 556.9 2 1401 277.6 3 1436 149.8 9 Mix Vallisneria americana 11/20/04 Conway South Orange 5 5.5 2.4 1 1637 578.5 2 1627 279.9 3 1642 146.3 8 Mix Vallisneria americana 11/20/04 Conway South Orange 8 6.3 2.6 1 1508 576.3 2 1647 313.7 3 1692 172.1 8 Mix Nitella sp. 10/16/04 Dodd Citrus 3 0.8 1.25 0.5 935.8 235.4 1 1032 113.9 1.5 1095 35.15 61 Sandy Ludwigia repens 10/16/04 Dodd Citrus 5 2.1 1.25 0.5 1173 149.1 1 1069 109. 1 1.5 1225 41.69 62 Organic Utricularia sp. 10/16/04 Dodd Citrus 6 0.3 1.5 0.4 1366 484.5 0.8 1368 449. 4 1.2 1374 221 63 Organic Hydrochloa caroliniensis 10/16/04 Doe Marion 3 4 3.5 1 1483 529 2 1485 250.9 3 1486 129.5 9 Mix Chara sp. 10/16/04 Doe Marion 5 4.4 3.5 1 1437 563.6 2 1427 220.5 3 1416 116.6 9 Mix Chara sp. 10/16/04 Doe Marion 8 4.3 3.5 1 1524 378.2 2 1566 92.13 3 1552 67.59 14 Mix Chara sp. 9/10/04 Farles Prairie Lake 2 4.9 3.25 1 787. 4 190.2 2 793.9 79.35 3 794 40.76 11 Sandy Myriophyllum heterophyllum 9/10/04 Farles Prairie Lake 7 4.2 3.75 1 1454 250. 1 2 1058 111.5 3 1055 54.57 12 Sandy Utricularia sp. 9/10/04 Farles Prairie Lake 8 4.6 3.25 1 635.9 194.6 2 630.6 74.38 3 626.1 33.09 12 Sandy Myriophyllum heterophyllum 8/6/04 Grasshopper Hillsborough 1 2.8 1.25 0.5 287.5 27.54 1 271.7 4.29 1.3 267.2 0.58 78 Sandy Websteria confe rvoides 8/6/04 Grasshopper Hillsborough 2 1.8 1 0.5 552.4 53.26 1 560.5 17.43 1.5 575 3.31 76 Sandy Utricularia sp. 8/6/04 Grasshopper Hillsborough OW2 1.5 0.5 1177 206.2 1 1158 13.59 1.5 1127 0.2 80 Sandy 8/6/04 Grasshopper Hillsborough OWL1 . 1 873.1 28.69 2 786.6 2.89 3 767.3 0.95 .

PAGE 35

27Table A-1. Continued. Date Lake County Buoy MDCSD Z top Deck topIz top Z middle Deck middle Iz middle Z bottom Deck bottom Iz bottom Color Soil type Species 10/22/04 Hampton Bradford 5 1.7 1 0.4 959.8 197.3 0.8 968.7 76.49 0.9 894.9 52.89 89 Sandy Websteria confervoides 10/22/04 Hampton Bradford 6 1.8 1 0.4 1231 189 0.8 1213 62.69 1.2 1262 40.78 91 Sandy Websteria confervoides 10/22/04 Hampton Bradford 9 1.7 0.8 0.5 1027 133.6 1 1029 53.67 1.4 1041 17.81 87 Sandy Websteria confervoides 10/16/04 Hernando Citrus 1 2.2 1.4 0.75 1067 95.33 1.5 1049 23.79 2.1 1047 1.24 61 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum 10/16/04 Hernando Citrus 2 2 1.5 0.6 1059 135.2 1.2 1054 22.92 1.8 977.5 7.27 62 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum 10/16/04 Hernando Citrus 4 2.6 1.75 1 986.5 79.77 2 970 9.65 2.5 934.2 4.26 56 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum 11/21/04 Ivanhoe Orange 2 2 1 1 1228 392.5 2 1236 150.60 3 1058 108.4 10 Mix Najas guadalupensis 11/21/04 Ivanhoe Orange 3 2.7 1 1 1150 325.4 2 1156 125.40 3 1150 62.35 11 Mix Vallisneria americana 11/21/04 Ivanhoe Orange 6 1.8 1.1 1 1113 214 2 1117 116.30 3 1116 52. 07 9 Sandy Vallisneria americana 11/20/04 Little Conway Orange 5 6.1 1.25 1 1356 293.8 2 1353 92.37 3 1328 30.61 14 Organic Vallisneria americana 11/20/04 Little Conway Orange 6 5.1 1 1 1197 176.6 2 1196 62.83 3 1176 23.21 12 Organic Hydrilla verticillata 11/20/04 Little Conway Orange 9 5. 5 1.75 1 1183 405.3 2 1169 145.60 3 1169 55. 37 12 Organic Hydrilla verticillata 10/18/04 Little Santa Fe Alachua 2 2 0.5 0.3 1257 49.92 0.6 1249 14.47 1.2 1275 0.98 375 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii 10/18/04 Little Santa Fe Alachua 4 2 0.5 0.2 1053 83.82 0.4 1191 28.53 0.6 1072 7.3 381 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii 10/18/04 Little Santa Fe Alachua OW1 0. 4 0.2 818.3 86 0.4 786.6 15.02 0.6 801.2 1.63 399 Mix 08/11/04 Magdalene Hillsborough 1 3.8 2 1 1961 502.5 2 1963 488.00 3 1921 15. 7 29 Organic Unidentified plant 08/11/04 Magdalene Hillsborough 2 3.6 1.75 1 1828 507.7 2 1883 206. 10 3 327.1 2.95 29 Organic Nitella sp. 08/11/04 Magdalene Hillsborough 6 3.3 1.6 1 2093 336.8 2 2094 424.80 3 2059 86. 54 43 Organic Najas guadalupensis 08/4/04 Maurine Hillsborough 1 1.3 B 0.2 1972 620.3 0.4 2064 439.40 0.6 2028 152.4 64 Sandy Bacopa caroliniana 08/4/04 Maurine Hillsborough 5 1 B 0.2 2010 814.8 0.4 2077 679.50 0.6 2052 397.8 64 Sandy Bacopa caroliniana 08/4/04 Maurine Hillsborough 7 1.3 B 0.3 1198 175.4 0.6 1306 109.80 0. 9 1480 85.01 65 Sandy Bacopa caroliniana 08/4/04 Maurine Hillsborough SD 1 . . . . . . 08/12/04 Melrose Bay Alachua 3 2.8 2 1 307. 6 49.92 2 300.9 0.18 2.5 291.8 0.15 27 Mix Mayaca fluviatilis 08/12/04 Melrose Bay Alachua 7 2.8 2 . . . . 27 Mix Mayaca fluviatilis 08/12/04 Melrose Bay Alachua 8 3 2 1 752.9 113.70 2 758.4 32.02 3 738. 3 18.44 26 Mix Mayaca fluviatilis 05/27/04 Mill Dam Marion 4 3 B 1 2031.0 403.20 2 2212 260.80 2.2 2210 323.1 14 Mix Mayaca fluviatilis

PAGE 36

28Table A-1. Continued. Date Lake County Buoy MDCSD Z top Deck topIz top Z middle Deck middle Iz middle Z bottom Deck bottom Iz bottom Color Soil type Species 05/27/04 Mill Dam Marion 7 2.8 3.05 1 588.3 146.7 2 597.9 99.55 3 1811 185.1 15 Sandy Mayaca fluviatilis 05/27/04 Mill Dam Marion 8 2.4 B 1 1878 290.6 2 2182 281.9 . 14 Sandy Mayaca fluviatilis 05/18/04 Newnan Alachua 3 0.9 0.3 0.5 2184 155.4 0.6 2179 106.6 . 112 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum 05/18/04 Newnan Alachua 6 0.4 0.3 0.5 2181 194.3 0.7 2286 90.45 . 96 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum 05/18/04 Newnan Alachua OW1 0.25 0.5 2098 19.37 0. 8 2098 1.16 1 2095 0.19 91 Organic 08/25/04 Osceola Hillsborough 2 3.3 2.1 1 1504 160.8 2 1549 99.87 3 1568 39.18 38 Organic Na jas guadalupensis 08/25/04 Osceola Hillsborough 4 3. 2 2.1 1 1778 389.3 2 1779 382.3 3 1781 53.89 35 Organic Hydrilla verticillata 08/25/04 Osceola Hillsborough 8 4. 0 2.1 1 1794 367.4 2 1732 107.2 3 1695 11.41 37 Organic Utricularia sp. 10/18/04 Santa Fe Alachua 1 3.5 1.4 1 1135 96.34 2 1162 17.47 2.5 1116 9.56 52 Organic Najas guadalupensis 10/18/04 Santa Fe Alachua 2 4.0 1.3 1 1205 103.6 2 1096 7.47 3 1039 3.65 54 Organic Najas guadalupensis 10/18/04 Santa Fe Alachua 3 4.1 1.4 1 999.9 100.7 2 995.2 17.27 3 971.8 0.79 52 Organic Najas guadalupensis 05/13/04 Sellers Lake 2 9.2 5.75 1 2327 1199 2 2335 1035 3 2270 729.9 2 Sandy Utricularia sp. 05/19/04 Starke Orange 1 1. 5 0.75 1 2011 499 1.5 694.6 54.58 . 14 Sandy Vallisneria americana 08/12/04 Stella Putnam 3 4.3 2 1 651.4 143.5 2 650.3 52 3 681.3 19.92 19 Mix Najas guadalupensis 08/12/04 Stella Putnam 7 4.1 2 1 1003 244.7 2 975.2 86.04 3 969.6 37.82 18 Mix Chara sp. 08/12/04 Stella Putnam 8 4.4 2 1 1014 282 2 1019 102. 4 3 989.8 43.92 21 Mix Najas guadalupensis 09/25/04 Taylor Hillsborough 1 3.1 1.5 1 1429 216.6 2 1428 206.5 2.5 1437 55.96 36 Or ganic Eleocharis baldwinii 09/25/04 Taylor Hillsborough OW1 1.5 1 1516 44.8 2 1516 41.3 3 1528 8.93 46 Organic 09/25/04 Taylor Hillsborough OW2 1. 5 1 1481 193.4 2 1480 57.97 3 1525 16.75 41 Organic 06/16/04 Twin Hillsborough 3 2.8 0. 5 1 472.3 28.87 2 474.4 3.13 . 15 Sandy Vallisneria americana 06/16/04 Twin Hillsborough 5 2.5 0.5 1 2028 74.64 . . . 14 Sandy Vallisneria americana 06/16/04 Twin Hillsborough OW1 0.5 1 1946 35. 37 2 2058 22.3 2.5 1956 11.06 16 Sandy 06/1/04 Weir Marion 1 2.9 1.5 1 2065 267.5 2 2118 137.9 2.5 2004 64.73 6 Sandy Nitella sp. 06/1/04 Weir Marion 6 2.8 1.4 1 2007 501.5 2 2064 284.2 2.5 2076 161.8 7 Mix Nitella sp. 06/1/04 Weir Marion 8 3.3 1.5 1 2104 664.9 2 2093 341.7 2.5 2122 296 8 Sandy Nitella sp. 06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough 1 4. 0 3.5 1 477.7 129.5 2 575.1 77.86 3 511.9 50.1710 Organic Hydrilla verticil lata

PAGE 37

29Table A-1. Continued. Date Lake County Buoy MDCSD Z top Deck topIz top Z middle Deck middle Iz middle Z bottom Deck bottom Iz bottom Color Soil type Species 06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough 2 5.5 B 0.5 447.4 150.3 0.7 451.3 135.4 0.9 455.4 122.4 10 Organic Vallisneria american a 06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough 3 5.1 3 1 2153 194.2 2 2188 149.6 3 2184 196. 5 13 Mix Hydrilla verticillata 06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough 4 4.6 2.75 1 2203 664.4 2 2215 224.7 3 1925 188.8 13 Mix Utricularia sp. Note: SD = Secchi disk transpar ency stations, OW = Open-water stations, OWL = Open-water light stations, B = Secchi disk was visible on lake bottom

PAGE 38

30 APPENDIX B 279-LAKE-YEAR STUDY Table B-1. Maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), yearly mean Secchi disk transparency (SD in mete rs), color (PCU), chlorophyll ( g/L), total phosphorus (TP in g/L), total nitrogen (TN g/L) for 279 Florida lake years sampled during 1991 to 2004. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 1991 Alto Alachua 2.5 5.48 35.50 14.27 17.06 566.06 1991 Boll Green Putnam 4.1 9.60 7.00 1.90 7.40 204.29 1991 Chipco Putnam 3.9 8.16 8.13 3.05 8.19 245.71 1991 Clear Orange 2.2 2.73 18.00 53.21 58.30 1144.55 1991 Erie Leon 2.8 7.80 1.58 7.08 377.50 1991 Fanny Putnam 4.4 8.12 5.00 3.89 6.53 134.72 1991 Georges Putnam 3.4 6.24 6.50 2.26 10.29 101.39 1991 Gillis Putnam 3.3 5.48 9. 50 5.56 8.36 456.11 1991 Grandin Putnam 1.3 2.51 35.00 23.67 40.10 687.67 1991 Little Orange Alachua 2 3.55 90.50 23.33 33.73 980.30 1992 Alice Hillsborough 5.5 16.33 3. 50 1.20 3.77 122.33 1992 Banana Putnam 1.8 3.67 9.09 14.39 709.39 1992 Bass Pasco 2.7 5.04 28.67 17.07 33.56 779.63 1992 Bear Seminole 3 11.97 13.71 3.33 12.51 368.65 1992 Beauclaire Lake 1.7 1.04 58.31 181.87 139.23 3679.33 1992 Bethel Volusia 1.6 3.25 166.80 19.92 139.47 1385.83 1992 Blue Volusia 2.9 3.61 128.00 20.40 35.00 1067.67 1992 Brant Hillsborough 4.5 6.51 65. 52 6.25 20.69 774.44 1992 Broward Putnam 4.3 11.00 6.30 2.46 6.36 180.40 1992 Cherry Lake 3.3 12.76 122.50 3.11 10.37 533.33 1992 Church Hillsborough 4.3 6.88 11.00 5.55 16.45 700.61 1992 Como Putnam 3.4 10.18 3.88 2.00 5.07 158.52 1992 Crenshaw Hillsborough 2.3 5.48 62.83 10.36 21.67 733.61 1992 David St Lucie 1.6 4.50 11.31 3.96 10.87 479.67 1992 De Witt St Lucie 1.9 4.95 21.21 15.96 24.89 764.44 1992 Deborah St Lucie 1.8 5.13 19.20 3.08 17.61 519.72 1992 Dora West Lake 0.9 1.09 43.75 166.40 56.20 3389.00 1992 Dorr Lake 1.3 4.16 70.63 11.82 14.76 411.21 1992 Eaton Marion 1.6 2.61 380.19 3.97 25.92 1009.44 1992 Emma Lake 5.5 13.36 128.09 2.58 8.30 563.64 1992 Emporia Volusia 2.9 8.52 3.20 11.42 754.24

PAGE 39

31 Table B-1. Continued. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 1992 Floyd Pasco 2.8 6.83 26.00 3.42 14.47 826.11 1992 Formosa Orange 2.3 3.61 14.54 42.00 38.17 796.11 1992 Georgia Orange 5.3 9.67 18.35 3.56 8.22 535.56 1992 Gertrude Lake 8 16.35 6.28 2.47 7.10 558.61 1992 Halfmoon Marion 3.1 4.31 47.94 9.92 16.47 620.83 1992 Hall Leon 6 13.84 6.31 16.07 23.77 412.58 1992 Hampton Bradford 4.1 6.35 12.06 5.06 11.25 489.72 1992 Hart Orange 1.8 1.97 183.33 3.39 15.08 1143.06 1992 Henderson Citrus 2.7 5.92 151.05 7.61 19.17 898.33 1992 Hernando Citrus 3 7.75 101.78 3.60 10.63 564.00 1992 Hiawatha Hillsborough 5. 2 6.79 36.69 10. 17 15.61 508.89 1992 Hickorynut Orange 5.8 15.46 53.50 1.08 5.88 730.00 1992 Howell Seminole 4 3.16 47.58 46.75 1068.33 1992 Island Marion 0.8 6.04 3.00 2.83 12.99 298.33 1992 Jean St Lucie 2.2 6.33 2.86 10.97 491.94 1992 Jeffery St Lucie 2.2 5.14 10.75 2.00 9.33 520.00 1992 Joanna Lake 3.1 11.95 12.20 2.05 6.33 422.08 1992 Karen St Lucie 2.3 3.84 14.25 22.04 32.89 1086.30 1992 Keene Hillsborough 2.1 5. 10 119.00 12.33 36.23 1149.67 1992 Keystone Hillsborough 3. 7 9.23 98.71 2. 70 9.18 462.73 1992 Kingsley Clay 8.3 21.81 6.43 3.56 4.59 260.74 1992 Kirkland Lake 4.1 10.71 2.37 7.27 357.17 1992 Little Henderson Citrus 2.5 5.91 66.19 9.06 15.67 877.78 1992 Little Weir Marion 3. 4 5.85 10.50 9. 38 12.38 915.83 1992 Ola Orange 6.1 12.03 9.50 3.06 12.08 560.00 1992 Osceola Hillsborough 5.2 15.22 36.50 1. 94 6.25 443.06 1992 Sellers Lake 7.5 20.00 2.50 1.03 3.39 42.50 1992 Seminary Seminole 6.5 15.63 8.42 2.50 8.19 354.44 1993 Bay Orange 3 2.91 21.00 47.77 39.23 1455.13 1993 Bear Seminole 2.2 10.89 9.00 3.15 12.39 391.47 1993 Blue Heron Leon 2.3 2.70 15.00 51.48 55.15 938.48 1993 Conway South Orange 6.8 11.38 7.00 7.67 10.00 440.51 1993 Coon Osceola 1 1.78 217.00 8.37 35.23 1045.00 1993 Cowpen Putnam 3.9 10.23 1.00 1.67 5.00 86.67 1993 Crescent Hillsborough 3.3 7.00 22.00 10. 75 14.75 549.17 1993 Croft Citrus 3.4 12.00 19.00 2.31 6.72 601.28 1993 Crooked Lake 2.8 5.10 15.00 10.36 21.77 971.03 1993 Dead Lady Hillsborough 2. 6 5.65 75.00 31. 23 36.69 1104.62 1993 Diane Leon 4.2 8.31 6.00 2.56 13.19 304.72 1993 Disston Flagler 0.7 1.69 290.00 7.00 25.36 965.76 1993 Eagle Polk 2.8 3.00 10.00 27.50 19.33 1110.00 1993 Egypt Hillsborough 2.5 4.77 12.00 19. 25 20.58 745.00 1993 Elbert Polk 4.9 5.50 9.00 3.33 12.33 553.33 1993 English Putnam 2.8 4.76 35.00 13.33 13.00 870.00 1993 Erie Leon 1.7 5.81 2.89 5.17 419.44 1993 Fannie Polk 1.7 2.14 63.00 27.86 56.00 1133.33 1993 Fredrica Orange 5 10.38 7.00 4.73 12.87 417.33

PAGE 40

32 Table B-1. Continued. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 1993 Gillis Putnam 3.4 7.44 6.00 7. 06 9.03 318.06 1993 Grasshopper Lake 4.6 12.38 0.00 1.41 2.05 235.13 1993 Haines Polk 1.8 1.99 55.00 99.10 158.21 1804.62 1993 Halfmoon Hillsborough 3.5 6.89 9.00 6. 13 13.88 533.75 1993 Hamilton Polk 1 3. 63 62.00 8.61 116.33 1042.22 1993 Hampton Bradford 2.7 6.49 28.00 4.74 9.79 511.54 1993 Harney Volusia 1.7 3.40 108.00 8.75 38.56 1157.92 1993 Harris Lake 1.8 2.72 12.00 67.53 31.20 1839.67 1993 Hartridge Polk 4.7 4.62 9.00 1.00 9.00 396.67 1993 Henry Polk 0.9 1.51 295.00 4.60 131.00 1207.33 1993 Higgenbotham Putnam 5.1 11.57 7.00 2.46 5.77 389.49 1993 Highland Orange 2.4 4.17 9.00 22.00 36.13 625.33 1993 Howard Polk 1.6 2.22 20.00 39.23 31.40 1446.67 1993 Idlewild Lake 4 5.30 55.00 10.09 15.64 1005.76 1993 Ivanhoe East Orange 2.6 3.31 14.00 29.48 30.82 770.61 1993 Ivanhoe Middle Orange 3.5 3.91 15.00 24.03 29.58 612.78 1993 Ivanhoe West Orange 2.9 3.05 15.00 29.78 31.85 720.37 1993 Lawsona Orange 1.6 3.46 27.28 82.81 996.11 1993 Little Bass Polk 1.5 2.24 40.00 92.85 344.22 1912.95 1993 Little Halfmoon Hillsborough 3.2 11.19 9.00 2.67 7.58 451.39 1993 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.4 5.67 54.00 7.33 12.63 528.97 1993 Little Spirit Polk 5. 7 8.00 27.00 5. 58 20.33 704.17 1993 Lizzie Osceola 1.8 4.56 97.00 3.74 15.72 738.72 1993 Marsha Orange 7.8 16.21 13.00 2.64 7.14 391.39 1993 Mary Marion 3.5 14.50 1.00 1.61 2.58 118.61 1993 Rosa Putnam 3 14.69 4.00 6.95 5.59 86.92 1994 Ashby Volusia 2.1 2.56 192.75 3.92 67.14 737.50 1994 Bennett Orange 2.9 7.56 12.88 7.46 18.30 613.70 1994 Conway North Orange 6.9 8.60 6.96 11.88 11.15 534.55 1994 Conway South Orange 6.6 10.49 7.17 9.36 10.09 458.79 1994 Eaton Marion 1.6 2.40 380.19 6.45 22.67 1276.67 1994 Highland Orange 2.4 4.38 13.50 16.42 32.00 620.00 1994 Howell Seminole 3.1 2.67 15.00 32.42 35.83 653.33 1996 Bellamy Citrus 4.3 9.19 31.00 3.04 11.11 687.04 1996 Blue Highlands 4.5 10.89 7.00 4.22 10.22 575.56 1996 Broward Putnam 6.7 15.83 4.00 1.96 6.29 296.46 1996 Clay Highlands 5.2 10.61 8.00 5.45 11.12 459.70 1996 Crews Highlands 1.4 4.37 28.00 5.83 13.77 423.67 1996 Denton Highlands 3.9 23.02 3.00 1.64 3.39 3133.64 1996 Dinner Highlands 6.4 20.27 4.00 1.67 7.67 633.33 1996 Dodd Citrus 3.7 8.70 29.00 4.04 10.78 774.07 1996 Eagle Pond Highlands 1.7 4.19 18.00 13.39 12.50 698.79 1996 Floral City Citrus 1.7 3.64 157.00 12.83 33.44 974.17 1996 Francis Highlands 4.1 6.50 5.00 12.40 14.42 510.33 1996 Hall Leon 9 16.68 6.00 3.52 11.80 320.60 1996 Hampton Citrus 1.8 3.58 111.00 16.43 30.26 929.64 1996 Henderson Citrus 2.7 4.52 107.00 9.79 21.67 960.91

PAGE 41

33 Table B-1. Continued. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 1996 Hickorynut Orange 4.6 10.97 19.00 2.85 7.64 694.24 1996 Hill Highlands 3.2 6.15 13.00 5. 81 10.00 347.41 1996 Jackson Highlands 5 11.22 10.00 4.50 12.28 337.78 1996 Josephine Center Highlands 1.2 1.81 92.00 24.97 46.10 959.67 1996 Josephine East Highlands 1 2.46 58.00 24.33 35.30 915.56 1996 Josephine West Highlands 0.8 1.56 127.00 33.40 82.50 1079.33 1996 Lillian Highlands 4.5 8.23 6.00 7. 73 9.58 631.21 1996 Little Henderson Citrus 4 5.00 77.00 8. 83 18.61 932.73 1996 Little Jackson Highlands 2.7 2.94 27.50 52. 78 51.67 1167.41 1996 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.7 5.41 106.70 6.03 10.85 450.30 1996 Ola Orange 6.6 14.96 8.00 3.42 9.82 525.00 1997 Carroll Hillsborough 4.6 11.00 8.69 2. 33 12.67 463.33 1997 Fanny Putnam 5.1 11.83 3.63 2.28 4.78 129.44 1997 Lily Clay 4 11.50 2.76 2.74 6.33 109.26 1997 Lochloosa Alachua 2.5 2.24 222.00 70.66 52.14 1795.45 1997 Sheelar Clay 6 26.77 1.39 1.62 3.25 87.08 1997 Winnemissett Volusia 6.2 18.75 6.50 0.50 5.75 193.33 1998 Ada Seminole 3.2 8.19 14.00 5.89 16.50 534.67 1998 Alto Alachua 2.5 4.63 83.30 9.36 17.97 586.11 1998 Bay Orange 2.1 3.04 25.63 39.15 37.50 1086.67 1998 Chipco Putnam 5.5 11.86 8.13 5.43 10.50 319.33 1998 Cowpen Putnam 4.5 9.50 1.00 2.78 6.56 193.33 1998 Crooked Lake 1.9 5.71 37.31 7.58 13.94 718.89 1998 Crystal Clay 3.9 7.40 9.00 5.67 11.30 264.67 1998 Dorr Lake 0.7 2.08 70.63 15.60 18.00 499.33 1998 Gillis Putnam 2.2 3.47 10.77 11.47 912.33 1998 Grandin Putnam 1.6 3.95 19.67 28.76 501.21 1998 Grasshopper Lake 3.7 6.39 112.42 3.25 5.72 365.28 1998 Joes Marion 4.2 7.83 11.00 3.88 10.39 598.18 1998 Kingsley Clay 7.5 16.88 6.43 6.96 8.13 323.75 1998 Little Bear Seminole 2. 9 12.49 16.52 3. 17 13.00 474.17 1998 Little Crystal Clay 2. 7 5.87 25.50 7. 78 12.50 330.00 1998 Little Orange Alachua 2.2 2.76 173.65 10.58 129.81 958.33 1998 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.1 4.41 106.70 11.42 14.56 530.00 1998 Little Weir Marion 3. 5 6.18 10.50 8. 58 11.09 816.67 1998 Lizzie Osceola 1 2.67 98.33 5.30 22.52 744.81 1998 Sellers Lake 7.6 21.00 2.50 1.33 3.50 76.06 1998 Seminary Seminole 5.4 15.49 8.42 2.52 7.94 373.03 1999 Bear Seminole 5.9 13.01 13.71 4.17 14.35 440.42 1999 Beauclaire Lake 1.5 0.78 58.31 291.56 169.44 4551.94 1999 Bennett Orange 3.8 11.15 12.88 2.56 16.74 524.44 1999 Carlton Orange 1 1.06 41.87 219.25 85.97 3572.22 1999 Disston Flagler 0.9 1.29 428.47 4.00 25.67 1074.72 1999 Erie Leon 2.2 4.77 2.25 6.82 457.58 1999 Gatlin Orange 2.7 2. 25 15.64 36.81 21.39 1209.17 1999 Halfmoon Marion 2.2 4.85 47.94 8.00 14.78 774.17

PAGE 42

34 Table B-1. Continued. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 1999 Hiawatha Leon 2.6 4.41 174.17 5.39 19.56 520.56 1999 Josephine Center Highlands 1.6 1.82 134.05 20.17 57.47 930.56 1999 Josephine East Highlands 1.8 2.58 87.40 37.70 47.47 1003.67 1999 Josephine West Highlands 1.4 1.53 158.30 19.78 93.72 977.78 1999 June Highlands 3.4 4.97 13.70 17.25 13.78 745.00 1999 Juniper East Walton 3.7 6.93 14.81 6.64 12.94 367.22 1999 Juniper West Walton 3.5 6.67 14.79 5.33 11.56 717.78 1999 Little Conway Orange 8.5 12.51 6.00 3.69 11.50 479.72 1999 Lochloosa Alachua 2.6 1.54 222.00 152.50 62.93 2351.25 1999 Wooten Jefferson 4.2 10.78 4.10 13.52 301.90 2000 Asbury North Clay 6.5 8.50 14.50 7.81 20.56 409.63 2000 Bedford Bradford 2.4 5.64 13.00 11.56 44.33 783.06 2000 Deerback Marion 1.8 8.27 19.56 3.50 10.75 559.58 2000 Dexter Polk 5.3 15.43 9.60 2.25 9.21 425.83 2000 Diane Leon 3.7 4.40 9.07 8.78 22.36 529.72 2000 Eagle Polk 3.6 3.50 9.75 18.54 21.42 807.50 2000 East Pasco 3.6 8.75 16.98 3.39 18.00 582.22 2000 Florida Seminole 2.5 5.14 12.82 33.36 909.44 2000 Hartridge Polk 1.7 4.35 11.00 14.50 20.67 625.00 2000 Henry Polk 1.2 1.31 98.50 8.05 96.24 1122.86 2000 Little Bass Polk 2 1. 33 23.25 148.25 401.64 2643.61 2000 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.2 5.34 106.70 9.94 15.83 528.61 2001 Arbuckle Polk 1 1.46 269.00 17.44 82.22 1258.33 2001 Big Volusia 2.2 6.00 56.40 5.93 18.57 707.62 2001 Cassidy Holmes 6 18.15 1.33 1.83 4.71 129.58 2001 Conway North Orange 4.6 13.29 6.33 4.00 11.83 366.67 2001 Conway South Orange 7 14.90 7.50 2.58 10.17 359.17 2001 Crooked Polk 5.4 8.16 15.50 3.97 13.53 580.94 2001 De Witt St Lucie 2 3.04 20.50 13. 82 29.94 988.89 2001 Deborah St Lucie 1.7 5.80 19.20 2.25 12.13 508.33 2001 Grayton Walton 1.5 4.42 32.25 3.44 11.92 251.11 2001 Howell Seminole 3.3 2.75 15.00 38.45 41.95 1032.80 2001 Istokpoga Highlands 1.7 2.97 55.25 36.75 55.61 1515.56 2001 Ivanhoe East Orange 1.8 3.63 12.00 30.71 25.74 827.86 2001 Ivanhoe Middle Orange 1.7 4.17 10.50 25.29 27.19 725.24 2001 Ivanhoe West Orange 2.7 4.12 13.00 30.43 35.62 692.86 2001 Josephine Center Highlands 0.8 1.75 105.00 25.08 76.22 1007.78 2001 Josephine East Highlands 1 2.68 70.50 29.36 51.58 944.55 2001 Josephine West Highlands 1.2 1.57 121.00 25.33 111.31 1068.06 2001 Jovita Pasco 4.2 5.79 8.75 10.22 21.47 783.06 2001 June Highlands 4.7 9.03 7.75 6.83 11.11 499.72 2001 Juniper East Walton 3.7 7.64 13.67 6.00 11.18 417.64 2001 Juniper West Walton 2.4 6.93 14.67 7.78 11.42 864.72 2001 Karen St Lucie 1.9 4.82 14.25 5.10 15.53 665.67 2001 Little Wilson Hillsborough 4 5.89 31.00 8. 63 25.44 875.93 2001 Lochloosa Alachua 1.5 1.30 222.00 138.00 89.88 3823.75

PAGE 43

35 Table B-1. Continued. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 2001 Margaret St Lucie 2.2 5.02 8.75 6.52 12.19 434.44 2001 Viola Highlands 5.5 14.90 3.00 2.58 7.92 446.67 2002 Bessie Orange 8.6 15.79 8.00 2.06 7.08 479.72 2002 E Miami-Dade 7.8 17.67 3.75 1.41 5.22 321.48 2002 Grassy Highlands 4.7 12.06 11.80 2.69 9.50 716.11 2002 Sellers Lake 8.9 19.83 1.83 1.09 3.33 66.67 2002 Verona Highlands 6.1 14.09 5.10 6.41 10.37 340.37 2003 Alligator Osceola 2. 6 3.37 54.58 5. 11 19.63 875.14 2003 Annie Putnam 3 9.67 9.00 3.78 10.08 428.33 2003 Blue Lake 2 3.27 72.50 5.78 15.67 385.56 2003 Clear Lake 4.8 11.65 14.80 2.64 13.31 502.50 2003 Cliff Broward 4.4 7.33 26.00 5.28 20.89 455.00 2003 Conway North Orange 8 14.30 8.00 3.47 8.73 412.00 2003 Conway South Orange 7.1 14.17 8.00 4.67 10.20 434.00 2003 Delevoe Broward 2.3 6.29 8.00 29.21 44.57 828.57 2003 Farm 13 Indian River 2.1 3.09 85.00 35.94 76.75 1634.44 2003 Florence Seminole 4.2 9.33 11.00 5.00 12.83 518.33 2003 Flynn Hillsborough 1.9 3. 67 63.08 5.97 10.14 1145.28 2003 Formosa Orange 3.4 6.77 14.00 30.21 45.03 856.67 2003 Galilee Putnam 2.5 3.77 8.00 10. 00 15.00 230.00 2003 Highland Miami-Dade 5.2 7.27 17.00 7.00 15.00 462.33 2003 Highland Orange 2.8 3.52 12.00 39.67 50.17 773.33 2003 Istokpoga Highlands 2 2.46 62.00 51.75 64.97 1382.50 2003 Ivanhoe East Orange 2.3 5.91 11.40 14.00 34.72 707.33 2003 Ivanhoe Middle Orange 2.4 6.04 11.73 15.71 26.85 681.30 2003 Ivanhoe West Orange 3.4 6.59 11.65 22.33 29.95 633.67 2003 Jem Lake 3.5 8.98 9.83 5.75 12.06 481.94 2003 John's Orange 1.3 2.54 125.00 16.42 55.97 1298.50 2003 Josephine Center Highlands 1.2 1.55 173.00 22.11 74.36 916.11 2003 Josephine East Highlands 1.2 2.02 113.00 40.61 59.03 1036.39 2003 Josephine West Highlands 1.1 1.55 212.00 17.33 114.33 928.89 2003 Lochloosa Alachua 1.1 2.47 222.00 26.57 36.50 1544.50 2003 Winyah Orange 2 6.83 23.00 30.52 56.57 1019.33 2004 Alto Alachua 2.5 3.37 102.75 13.88 19.58 763.94 2004 Bay Marion 2 3.83 19.00 16.04 24.62 813.11 2004 Bellamy Citrus 0.7 4.76 74.00 9.27 22.90 1207.62 2004 Brant Hillsborough 1 3. 05 107.00 43.50 52.10 1203.67 2004 Church Hillsborough 2 8.10 11.00 4. 81 15.58 656.27 2004 Conway North Orange 5.5 17.00 7.00 2.00 10.33 404.44 2004 Conway South Orange 5.8 12.39 6.50 4.11 10.89 388.89 2004 Dodd Citrus 1.0 5.21 79.75 8.72 19.94 1289.17 2004 Doe Marion 4.2 4.50 4.33 11.33 283.33 2004 Grasshopper Lake 2.2 2.71 208.67 4.36 8.70 958.18 2004 Hampton Bradford 1.7 4.71 10.00 5.25 11.58 490.83 2004 Hernando Citrus 2.3 4.61 71.40 9.08 20.25 1112.08 2004 Ivanhoe East Orange 2.2 4.88 9.50 21.04 17.10 537.62

PAGE 44

36 Table B-1. Continued. Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN 2004 Little Conway Orange 5.6 12.97 8.00 4.11 11.33 496.67 2004 Little Santa Fe Alachua 2 2.91 180.75 6.97 18.77 925.67 2004 Magdalene Hillsborough 3. 6 7.68 32.80 6. 75 19.42 811.39 2004 Maurine Hillsborough 1. 2 6.07 7.26 20.66 801.14 2004 Melrose Bay Alachua 2.9 5.52 41.00 8.80 13.90 562.67 2004 Mill Dam Marion 2.7 9.27 14.00 3. 83 10.27 471.33 2004 Newnan Alachua 0.6 0.97 206.83 223.84 121.64 3479.12 2004 Osceola Hillsborough 3.5 6.89 40.00 7. 08 20.25 847.50 2004 Santa Fe Alachua 3.9 5.34 45.50 8.00 12.13 564.33 2004 Sellers Lake 9.2 18.68 5.00 2.52 4.70 250.30 2004 Starke Orange 1.5 3.48 18.67 25.50 24.67 881.67 2004 Stella Putnam 4.3 8.33 5.50 7.67 598.33 2004 Taylor Hillsborough 3.1 5.95 35.50 8. 00 22.04 717.92 2004 Twin Hillsborough 2.6 3.89 12.50 22. 96 24.70 802.28 2004 Weir Marion 3 6.17 6.92 11.00 13.50 863.33 2004 White Trout Hillsborough 4. 8 9.28 12.60 4. 67 13.67 437.14

PAGE 45

37 LIST OF REFERENCES APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Exam ination of Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition. Am. Public Health Assn. Washington, D. C. Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2001. Evaluation of recent limnological changes at Lake A popka. Hydrobiologia. 448: 19-26. Barko, J. W., D. Gunnison, and S. R. Carp enter. 1991. Sediment interaction with submersed macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquat. Bot. 41: 41-65. Bowling, L. C., M. S. Steane, and P. A. Bays. 1986. The spectral distribution and attenuation of underwater ir radiance in Tasmanian inland water. Freshwater Biol. 16: 331-335. Canfield, D. E., Jr. 1983. Predication of chlor ophyll a concentrations in Florida Lakes: the importance of phosphorus and nitroge n. Water Resour. Bull. 19(2): 255-262. Canfield, D. E., Jr., and L. M. Hodgson. 1983. Predication of Secchi disc depths in Florida lakes: impact of algal biomass and organic color. Hydrobiologia. 99: 5160. Canfield, D. E., Jr., K. A. Langeland, S. B. Linda, and W. T. Haller. 1985. Relations between water transparency and maximu m depth of macrophyte colonization in lakes. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 23: 25-28. Canfield, D. E., Jr., and M. V. Hoyer. 1988. Regional geology and the chemical and trophic state characteristics of Florida la kes. Lake and Reserv. Manage. 4(1): 2131. Chambers, P. A., and J. Kalff. 1985. Dept h distribution and biomass of submersed aquatic macrophyte communities in relation to Secchi depth. Can. J. fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 701-709. Cole, G. A. 1983. Textbook of limnology. Third Edition. C. V. Mosby Company. St. Louis, MO. D'Elia, C. F., P. A. Steudler, and N. Corw in. 1977. Determination of total nitrogen in aqueous samples using persulfate di gestion. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22: 760-764.

PAGE 46

38 Duarte, C. M., and J. Kalff. 1986. Littoral sl ope as a predictor of the maximum biomass of submerged macrophyte communities Limnol. Oceanogr. 31(5): 1072-1080. Duarte, C. M., and J. Kalff. 1990. Patterns in the submerged macrophyte biomass of lakes and the importance of the scale of analysis in the interpretation. Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 47: 357-363. Florida LAKEWATCH. 2003. Florida LAKE WATCH annual data summaries 2002. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Scien ces, University of Florida / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. Havens, K. E. 2003. Submerged aquatic vege tation correlations with depth and light attenuating materials in a shallow subt ropical lake. Hydrobi ologia. 493: 173-186. Holmes, R. W. 1970. The Secchi disk in turb id coastal waters. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 15: 688-694. Hoyer, M. V, T. K Frazer, S. K. Notest ein, and D. E Canfield, Jr. 2004. Vegetative characteristics of three low-lying Florida coastal rivers in relation to flow, light, salinity and nutrients. H ydrobiologia. 528: 31-43. Hudon, C., S. Lalonde., and P. Gagnon. 2000. Ranking the effects of site exposure, plant growth form, water depth, and transparency on aquatic plant biomass. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 1): 31-42. Hutchinson, G. E. 1975. A treatise of lim nology. Vol. 3. Limnological botany. John Wiley and Son, Inc. New York, NY Jupp, B. P., and D. H. N. Spence. 1977. Lim itations on macrophytes in a eutrophic lake, Loch Leven. J. Ecol. 65: 175-186. Langeland, K. A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle (Hydroch aritaceae), the perfect aquatic weed. Cast anea. 61(3): 293-304. Lind, O. T. 1974. Handbook of common methods in limnology. The C. V. Mosby Company. St Louis, MO. Maristo, L. 1941. Die Seetypen Finnlands auf floristischer und vegetationsphysiognomischer Grundlage. Suom. El ain-ja Kasvitiet. Seuran Vanamon Kasvitiet. Julk. Ann Bot. Soc. Zool. Bot. Vanamo. No. 5: 314. McClave, J. T., and T. Sincich. 2000. Statistics 8th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

PAGE 47

39 Menzel, D. W., and N. Corwin. 1965. The meas urement of total phosphorus in seawater based on the liberation of organically bound fractions by persulfate oxidation. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 10: 280-282. Murphy. J., and J. P. Riley. 1962. A modi fied single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 27: 31-36. Poole, H. H., and W. R. G. Atkins. 1929. Photo-electric measurement of submarine illumination throughout the year. J. Ma r. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 16: 297-324. Rickett, H. W. 1924. A quantitative study of th e larger aquatic plants of Green Lake, Wisconsin. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Arts Sci. Lett. 21: 381-414. Sartory, D. P., and J. U. Grobbelarr. 1984. Extraction of ch lorophyll a from freshwater phytoplankton for spectrophotometric an alysis. Hydrobiol ogia. 114: 117-187. Scheffer, M. 1998. Ecology of shallow lakes. Chapman & Hall. London, England. Sheldon, R. B., and Boylen, C. W. 1977. Maxi mum depth inhabited by aquatic vascular plants. Am. Midl. Nat. 97(1): 248-254. Van, T. K, W. T. Haller, and G. Bo wes. 1976. Comparison of the photosynthetic characteristics of three submersed aqua tic plants. Plant Physiol. 58: 761-768. Walker, T. A. 1980. A correction to the Pool e and Atkins Secchi Disc/Light-Attenuation Formula. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 60: 769-771. Weisner, S. E. B., J. A. Strand, and H. Sandsten. 1997. Mechanisms regulating abundance of submerged vegetation in sh allow eutrophic lakes. Oceologia. 109: 592-599. Zimmerman, R. C., A. Cabello-Pasini, a nd R. S. Alberte. 1994. Modeling daily production of aquatic macrophytes from irra diance measurements: a comparative analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 114: 185-196.

PAGE 48

40 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexis J. Caffrey earned an Associate of Arts degree at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, FL. She went on to earn a Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Florida with a major in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAADM INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T00:43:16Z PACKAGE UFE0015260_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 5743 DFID F20101118_AACFFH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH caffrey_a_Page_41thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f9a8833bd2841fd87a4c34e65073aa9c
SHA-1
58f7a5bc832e1d106cd5118f03e217923f590ad3
1720 F20101118_AACFAJ caffrey_a_Page_07.txt
930936216534b43513b55797bf2b51c4
cdea2244bc59880fb78402e394ebcca95ff00cf2
84262 F20101118_AACFKE caffrey_a_Page_35.pro
a99658086ed119c5866c132cb71b42bd
3e605a7fb635a45492be5253bda78da693be5ca7
1053954 F20101118_AACFFI caffrey_a_Page_07.tif
ac20f0fcb462f0461990d67ffb22a4eb
20af96dc06fa613a4888905f054709a363afedec
4780 F20101118_AACFAK caffrey_a_Page_17.pro
3d10413a05773f94a06672112e8f1ebd
518f5b67351fd318fbd633d337c628f65d768014
19465 F20101118_AACFKF caffrey_a_Page_37.pro
95d031626843d1b90c7dc206801159df
10c93f52798d6e3b7725baea7796e0ea8a2924cb
F20101118_AACFFJ caffrey_a_Page_42.tif
535c8de59ec867af88a8161ad0a86557
0d5dcb123d9060f1e9ec4c05b18035f1effcdee1
F20101118_AACFAL caffrey_a_Page_09.tif
499f5f0a20f8403e51dd36b0b3d37857
0305abb7c63011e1a56af972e6276f8941951779
70026 F20101118_AACFKG caffrey_a_Page_39.pro
ad8c9a2820653df26d7586521f22ff70
f7fbbf344744b723c65b3679d43ede87af5c7c3e
F20101118_AACFFK caffrey_a_Page_20.tif
0df8fc0c09210f2c64ab2aedc51c3001
d16ccb8e88a5bee05f426208c6a32dfc84c4674b
21571 F20101118_AACFAM caffrey_a_Page_11.QC.jpg
8b1ee0035ad623532e77d323877a36a7
0b12e6ba56bd3dced2a80ee6a6e6b1fa3ac3bb02
99934 F20101118_AACFKH caffrey_a_Page_41.pro
1e1b4f7c658dc1413ac8683fa63a281b
a89f265556f58fc3f3eb1499792c7b0d7378d463
1829 F20101118_AACFFL caffrey_a_Page_37thm.jpg
22cbe25bfc9bdba505b197038514aa3e
71e726d89e624fb71c8dfbb9a15c16ed4a952579
20615 F20101118_AACFAN caffrey_a_Page_40.QC.jpg
6f334d30866657042cc2bfe635c42a09
3c5ae4e40601758d46a18fd8cebe9e3811f1d96c
27177 F20101118_AACFKI caffrey_a_Page_44.pro
767abd1a10cbafbbff1881219f0bc00d
d9842219d9d269392c45935ecf714f762979a852
64465 F20101118_AACFFM caffrey_a_Page_31.jpg
bb8dfa8615463e08fecadcf53e5b86a4
195534f54b8cc00bab87a7d60c4b6d6b470eaa0d
107810 F20101118_AACFAO caffrey_a_Page_30.jp2
e6e99b743633f1c71e5b1fe760fab5dc
50538d140ee3597f5256b791c605e086ab3224f8
F20101118_AACFKJ caffrey_a_Page_11.txt
61ac23155c73ffce9aec3a9bde31089a
8450dcad2febeebb4828e1092f660f0a5024379d
64840 F20101118_AACFAP caffrey_a_Page_29.jpg
0f8c16e0422b9334e8ee0e43bb4fce45
92b3a988029384f38cc94969c5e8bf46bb1d8cca
1984 F20101118_AACFKK caffrey_a_Page_13.txt
4ca98617bed43c0f76841da05a90e359
784fa6b0c623fd8dba68a1cc7aaacddd79113ed9
107729 F20101118_AACFFN caffrey_a_Page_15.jp2
0de769687e0bc66ade61da6c134f1bb1
74ead65e69b11cfa090c6b48bb192da4d35bb278
43831 F20101118_AACFAQ caffrey_a_Page_09.pro
5f5b2b1ac5da86815facf655ea38c7ee
087a3ae25da70a30905f7736bc725186a7b6c3d4
1452 F20101118_AACFKL caffrey_a_Page_16.txt
ba81d8879d472acd519049e98089f00f
fc9718d0c9b7db448dfa4b5f3913c9b305d18903
1054428 F20101118_AACFFO caffrey_a_Page_33.tif
23d74892200a40668f4853ae459eef82
a71ed4a7c65592f893a9a77fb72c8f34063daa34
96726 F20101118_AACFAR caffrey_a_Page_23.jp2
fe39615cf77f2ee111ad0c81eabca575
2047c22cd479045d17747b6e689c4e8db7885863
347 F20101118_AACFKM caffrey_a_Page_17.txt
ca850c17bdbc23990e56a03ec5c65524
258e5f071c0521dccd52da558978985870807f7c
13329 F20101118_AACFFP caffrey_a_Page_36.QC.jpg
93e5d3c1001eb64c582d6fa6f11cb7b1
5b597dcdcf398420d7f547f4eb72b5e0759a0b03
5617 F20101118_AACFAS caffrey_a_Page_37.QC.jpg
483ee0421c73895ed91d50a9278ca72e
14b2207d20a983e66c1b66eb62bae6f0835be8e7
1689 F20101118_AACFKN caffrey_a_Page_18.txt
99807d2c4dea948f945e1f86f630f5c9
e0d9d5d94c1e8553b71ef9e0f2f7e4e96d05fcf7
107855 F20101118_AACFFQ caffrey_a_Page_35.jp2
dd81fd2b4ed8b4e0af60548655b4f10d
a5e7f54251bc760f03dd1a0845ee568b7a9a2706
96701 F20101118_AACFAT caffrey_a_Page_29.jp2
0c25d1a9882b23826c89a876b9f1c201
2be5c78640e5ed1b9cdf16f873e8861c8570fa53
1972 F20101118_AACFKO caffrey_a_Page_21.txt
e7b1d7b24e46ef27d56976b0aa3c17f1
494431289211b2477e6cdf102d698bcd58ca0f65
20303 F20101118_AACFFR caffrey_a_Page_43.QC.jpg
fc614403de88e9b1526d2a006b020776
f78e463cc79da9a7514f107983b12247b03f0b1e
96370 F20101118_AACFAU caffrey_a_Page_31.jp2
82f8f532a78571928d946f149842ddd1
2b46de372cb119bfa93ca7c3d2cd24825369b737
1791 F20101118_AACFKP caffrey_a_Page_23.txt
514e2486411c2a8388e986d9b65ae30b
d80c2465066bb27b5c0dd06b9b177796da42a904
6423 F20101118_AACFFS caffrey_a_Page_10thm.jpg
37f41443dda75b590fbd4712e2164de7
0b035569d2daf6f84dd2c110900062d8ecdb016e
2339 F20101118_AACFAV caffrey_a_Page_27.txt
5495de751e37018cbd3a30ccf092cc84
49d75b340f4bac30e19d1154bab4d62d206698e7
2542 F20101118_AACFKQ caffrey_a_Page_24.txt
b8807d592f6e502d54b337e5c1f5d4f6
c4f78b05ff534cb556acea8718b395e2f9d0a35b
21409 F20101118_AACFFT caffrey_a_Page_23.QC.jpg
b7bb9ec7c95727e89544e30ac3be43d5
ac22aa064f1700fd767d4b7c78d631c5bd6db78e
11605 F20101118_AACFAW caffrey_a_Page_25.QC.jpg
f34b4c5813dc22ea59908c37267d03bb
83a4e5d126be09598f7c45afb1c738b8c99f64db
1290 F20101118_AACFKR caffrey_a_Page_26.txt
3423d2aa2ca628765579257b8462961f
ee87b61b120c01f87023a24cc66f047517d5424d
6482 F20101118_AACFFU caffrey_a_Page_13thm.jpg
80c5002f068f7fb2c98d3dff73c50723
02a237c9bec166bfddcbba813bdec98e64a4a6de
F20101118_AACFAX caffrey_a_Page_27.tif
7c80a786aa9c2488fe3e8259db930db0
0b717cb5b88819131265bc29c33864456cbc78f9
25271604 F20101118_AACFFV caffrey_a_Page_28.tif
a542ec783f0240e9d10da63660435163
a849425070cb49af438b6921b2dd3dcc51d49b2c
38789 F20101118_AACFAY caffrey_a_Page_04.jpg
2e50d07e477acf746fda2b8d11b094a6
789489804ce2ecc4216b9c4a78066f1462af2b26
1587 F20101118_AACFKS caffrey_a_Page_28.txt
ee5b3525359d1afbbcfe997012d368de
9aebdf2190f331784ea6a0a3bc887c792e9fc8d1
F20101118_AACFFW caffrey_a_Page_31.tif
c088297ef3e5d14b8888a95b8068bed8
794018ec6928a887df3cd04d913a3d11d21e5ed1
108381 F20101118_AACFAZ caffrey_a_Page_42.jp2
4891d2e643650edc60a32b3f130eaab0
8de43805109a1faec01f863b39b5a295e209c331
F20101118_AACFKT caffrey_a_Page_30.txt
5e75aeeb0fa7951a7786296910df57ed
f376f4102b964dc94dab20017e755b984f04ffae
98425 F20101118_AACFFX caffrey_a_Page_11.jp2
5c7ae748e084e5d0b773a4846794fc57
49c57c8388b7b13ec79450d32cb143e65b60192f
63 F20101118_AACFKU caffrey_a_Page_32.txt
e4a1196ee55f4a4e30ceabab6956e40b
3e1e5b8ad247e23999fff018fbf1bde98b02d258
F20101118_AACFFY caffrey_a_Page_46.tif
4aa00aefd50b19d8f076cb6f9fe2da7c
db43b77f99a427ba80a31da913a042ab945a3e0c
3689 F20101118_AACFKV caffrey_a_Page_33.txt
532bd92b051c093e142eeafd528d55c0
108275422629a4a52ba6cac700d6efd2910cc882
F20101118_AACFDA caffrey_a_Page_36.tif
0cccbe84067e1d9e2c1668f9f5495a20
8c4b1e6e0e355a2597c046ed88acd25e2ab4bf00
F20101118_AACFFZ caffrey_a_Page_11.tif
1526f99a8d6e07c37e885445b987c1a2
ea32e5e87db4033bfbdae7c4a2a153aa9ebc5484
4322 F20101118_AACFKW caffrey_a_Page_35.txt
385d5c9769aaf0f5d23615cae1721818
ed87b6fbaa44ae40b11dfdd4188e106a413ebbb1
6351 F20101118_AACFDB caffrey_a_Page_14thm.jpg
2d2bd596d6f14e96a2c3a6e7ca7c23ef
d7b3ebb60751e9fd8fac8f69dcf03da6871e288e
5783 F20101118_AACFKX caffrey_a_Page_41.txt
fb4ec6cf3493c637c064505368df4100
3c6f2e691898ef827dbb33e54a7172cc140a255e
F20101118_AACFDC caffrey_a_Page_30.tif
403a391dcc49b587f02fe0884d243be9
fe8468d18697899403930f736f5d7200f38e6733
44163 F20101118_AACFIA caffrey_a_Page_33.jpg
af31258871954f8548c5786dae84a3c2
e4032e1ef2c2a92aa0f828d91207878e5193d52c
5692 F20101118_AACFKY caffrey_a_Page_42.txt
2ca2ac29f59730ecb86d9364edd28f7e
f871b43d78664d3d471bb92b11fd85ce53a62006
6374 F20101118_AACFDD caffrey_a_Page_46thm.jpg
8289916d78e3c671e0de9c1acc35efa0
6cec40b6afae7d835100417c00b98416fa1733c9
45284 F20101118_AACFIB caffrey_a_Page_36.jpg
458ff4b80ad2514f1a37d8d80551ac07
2b191a0b6fc6456b4cd20ca2d477db65513ed6bc
1389 F20101118_AACFKZ caffrey_a_Page_44.txt
9a31766f65d2ff7fe4d16c4eb5024be4
49b4977acd3816d0982c986cbb7e324e63d6ba04
2838 F20101118_AACFDE caffrey_a_Page_06thm.jpg
cf9571192c9746b1a6a40c0a656cd5da
6f281ec9a87beaea7e00641fcd50f77fa5aebf09
55130 F20101118_AACFIC caffrey_a_Page_38.jpg
c7911582ccb2f7680c00c22f807095a8
3b856f8f6c5d761ffe347a39034eec957fd55314
80846 F20101118_AACFDF caffrey_a_Page_36.pro
c6a3fab02fc246b6686c39dc7721f42c
eccab040c51b94547dffe8072bf05bf4ba2632e9
64941 F20101118_AACFID caffrey_a_Page_43.jpg
429bb62e4c9689ec46a218d712ed8ba1
001db3cca372debdd63f7017c2694e86c24695f1
10505 F20101118_AACFDG caffrey_a_Page_02.jpg
8c30f7e0c05b325c5d49195afc8535cb
9dceff52a328c67a7ac89ae4238c1f9c7b53991d
31940 F20101118_AACFIE caffrey_a_Page_44.jpg
732bfadd1d1dac59a16155e08a50edf9
4f2984b437d57350ededa382caa6437e1d5b467d
20107 F20101118_AACFDH caffrey_a_Page_41.QC.jpg
734a3ee0b0da17b5b365bcdf631d1efb
55dcb3f4f8ecc7017fe1eef85656e5bbad8e1bd2
75159 F20101118_AACFIF caffrey_a_Page_46.jpg
3d3d0b483825e27453c090b4323530bc
2dbc0ce157bafe4a1a4d8de131b7db32ff38784c
64100 F20101118_AACFDI caffrey_a_Page_41.jpg
a5bc3e2bbe5d11195acf0f787c437e8c
a0a9edfc19d19635d16606ed79d14ec881b61e48
64223 F20101118_AACFIG caffrey_a_Page_47.jpg
a334bee930047e4faf8772f10d0c0adb
2d0d6e6d7cd6b08570218f0dbb50f004f27bedc1
758 F20101118_AACFDJ caffrey_a_Page_06.txt
a01591e0b0048744911fb2dbe8099aa0
8ed2a2b3a715986674077fc6ecafda89ddd8c4fc
18198 F20101118_AACFIH caffrey_a_Page_48.jpg
4b84807a15bd91b6ec99e5e15668de3c
e2a7e23b0009b5b406cbdee42497246b9781af31
463 F20101118_AACFDK caffrey_a_Page_01.txt
323f5fb63503f2bcbb0a5ca489646cdc
9e303c5a3f99115d841bba4519f69bb9fa55ca5d
6049 F20101118_AACFII caffrey_a_Page_02.jp2
c902941cbebc96abebef6f9bda71eee4
e889b358d003c19ce77da3302c3670f53c427222
59326 F20101118_AACFIJ caffrey_a_Page_03.jp2
d91039425ca55bf54b5e9036da2ad47a
fcccda42d2b2d9ca22c81d79e28585526bf03de0
24216 F20101118_AACFDL caffrey_a_Page_22.QC.jpg
974195f1445f0869206bff446bee5978
2abfe980a8e2deabe5f4b6ae77de46d6ad296dcc
110603 F20101118_AACFIK caffrey_a_Page_19.jp2
82d972f420dd33e9945f7bcc9dac2297
ec714269ed86eff065be142c6324fcfd7e9733e9
17478 F20101118_AACFDM caffrey_a_Page_06.pro
4340c9af4ce576f727aec51b802348ef
f5093addd4f2221426627ef6874577c134dce12c
108234 F20101118_AACFIL caffrey_a_Page_21.jp2
7d7dcf376759b95b57dec85fb001a3c0
a03755cb31861adcdf51503dcabbfca20f576423
13653 F20101118_AACFDN caffrey_a_Page_35.QC.jpg
47410886f842766b4b6a38616f1df85c
fcb246cd1984d35d9c1d808e0e72e44edcc89f43
103161 F20101118_AACFIM caffrey_a_Page_24.jp2
6618509afc4d81a007f84557c697309b
e0d6d381c33380a97786277d15241d99ef9cdf1c
97220 F20101118_AACFDO caffrey_a_Page_20.jp2
12c32fb2c802b045b13ccc0869f03f1f
6bd547422af86d6f20e9d8cfb609328faaa59c97
487863 F20101118_AACFIN caffrey_a_Page_25.jp2
8e16dd3aefb90eba15bc92092d936594
825f1135ee865948c8ea4f4c88a3ba723fe014ee
F20101118_AACFDP caffrey_a_Page_25.tif
c2073818e6e37711baa4c8660b14e773
6a19bd1b22a3d0fd2f9cc0b2fb64dabb48a0f0a3
696882 F20101118_AACFIO caffrey_a_Page_26.jp2
4c78043958c118244737649db433e952
2b6b234bfd8b653601ba06f45d3746d2229f807d
5742 F20101118_AACFDQ caffrey_a_Page_43thm.jpg
074b09adbca5a32b9bcb0ed5e240744c
e8ee1b0db5df5387b93813fc71307c491f426222
66474 F20101118_AACFIP caffrey_a_Page_27.jp2
2ac1a5a3821d577d84fc9a5e93cfa8dc
5f59c1c7914745ae68ec6ce463e30333e22fd387
1069 F20101118_AACFDR caffrey_a_Page_03.txt
80a45a1673e6600a5c32a82d69983c97
fe77eb3189a3eb88770cabc490d3edab932b81d7
F20101118_AACFDS caffrey_a_Page_41.tif
bc749000d168462b7db1018f1b38dbff
356f264b8ea014f1fb6b25869c7344a46a06d4a3
5462 F20101118_AACFIQ caffrey_a_Page_32.jp2
a8d5c66559d84d5ca9885c9357bd926e
2756f277aca947aa042151c0dc126a785081db12
35025 F20101118_AACFDT caffrey_a_Page_28.pro
a0e27e4e6d0623ef1896c5e4f291df59
cef607f0088e298552813990e4e4c5f5e2d280e4
100815 F20101118_AACFIR caffrey_a_Page_33.jp2
f4129188722dfcb1e27f5db9fcd01df9
fa74e16c71345f4fd4f7aac875dea99294328404
2022 F20101118_AACFDU caffrey_a_Page_22.txt
542a0bd6fbc800a685f4389a1b016fad
b94992abbc9cd467649a61418cbe720b78644fe2
87228 F20101118_AACFIS caffrey_a_Page_38.jp2
e3e69e6cd1bae1b69e25c353c8c331e1
83f86d72322683169d9ff63f574eb5e477f44363
693528 F20101118_AACFDV caffrey_a_Page_06.jp2
aa288afec14ce30bed748cce79a6767e
b874f62c49d88b77f3215c5dbae5e40650314b37
105864 F20101118_AACFIT caffrey_a_Page_39.jp2
ab7ed1f7830818114d5746e45f3e067f
39065ed7c356a8a6ac4dd89a2e40dd8829c30d81
47819 F20101118_AACFDW caffrey_a_Page_14.pro
fc2649383bc439f4c599184352611b23
c3868c35b4b0c20dd7c38494941d48afb46fe8ed
107757 F20101118_AACFIU caffrey_a_Page_43.jp2
d04f652a4b90ddb82c25eb70bceec90b
b1271278942bd85b847b64a538f4a50ea31b72da
21195 F20101118_AACFDX caffrey_a_Page_29.QC.jpg
b4f5cf7633269f5d43798f7b946f9f7c
44ab31e2cc7ffeb31e2aea5ca6a30a6e9af07e00
44172 F20101118_AACFIV caffrey_a_Page_44.jp2
810bd589bb6b58d58bd088745e6861ff
705f982786abda6fd00fae6c20d9a0398da7f3c8
1890 F20101118_AACFBA caffrey_a_Page_14.txt
8fcc6f4fb011eb1904e30b911f87ec3f
01b4bf0b496b2f644017b02cc38f9ed61c98d100
105385 F20101118_AACFDY caffrey_a_Page_14.jp2
6e91b36275861a48380fbe19fed0d48d
8d4d1538973bd81edbd28bc888a89d6b4f1618ed
F20101118_AACFIW caffrey_a_Page_01.tif
4f23b36794a0b29813a2461203225e22
bdb5d8c20464b467aa0eeb7a1474cd9058a7555a
24773 F20101118_AACFBB caffrey_a_Page_26.pro
8089f6ff48313bfad833d628dcf50ba6
4b969366d6a4885c369e4ce9934a49def577b116
4411 F20101118_AACFDZ caffrey_a_Page_17thm.jpg
7fc42b33ade79c89cd55e85a617a92ee
ed2a46d4b22ba5ff3ef0f1a596e03402a61d8891
F20101118_AACFIX caffrey_a_Page_03.tif
51306ac6d14a127e9a886228431d5a15
27e28a3c29ba4600d2a9e68db6ec64166ad9d079
F20101118_AACFBC caffrey_a_Page_24.tif
62761d35b572c6e9192cdfcf3ec90f58
9a928db791bb0bdd35c4463f854f0c65f95730fa
F20101118_AACFIY caffrey_a_Page_05.tif
29b003bbd6939627b394a1cc0a35b663
170c0035ce8265a2a0a254f19fe01b3cadeb0243
50249 F20101118_AACFBD caffrey_a_Page_26.jpg
52700a3c8b1b9e5df717ed91975e23be
ab66853362c46eb1efb346853aa379f0a3ae8fea
42822 F20101118_AACFGA caffrey_a_Page_03.jpg
e6b8685c63e7391182fa9d97ba218555
e4e3e4c5a3e6d70f317fe47f65509323b8135e28
F20101118_AACFIZ caffrey_a_Page_06.tif
da27f54f59efef10f77cb0c54827bd34
564c243b0d110b74dcbce071626e0001241f5c39
65723 F20101118_AACFBE caffrey_a_Page_23.jpg
7517c37172f651368eeb10ac5806dbe9
7717b03f6e4c57700a5e6094fba8ed78397178b0
F20101118_AACFGB caffrey_a_Page_37.tif
b4f8e2f39f8dec4771c49c20fe92ecd1
fe75ef03d1ef3e6cfe5ab26eb64219a79fea3104
18405 F20101118_AACFBF caffrey_a_Page_48.jp2
0c706f0635db55dd974d3b06c2c6a16a
f1b6d6bb024eefcc1dbe990f907c3a2ed431bad3
1920 F20101118_AACFGC caffrey_a_Page_10.txt
117bf383ed877c4e3ae28bfc4159b703
be0512346adc46bb3261b370e6bfd742bbab40a1
4175 F20101118_AACFBG caffrey_a_Page_27thm.jpg
ee3e1868fbc4ef77e7c13e5ff296aaeb
e83da58016ee014091e5327db7bdde672cbe7b3a
1255260 F20101118_AACFLA caffrey_a.pdf
353115088853ebdd6bcd9c5e1d96274d
1fcbb595e09cf108ff577eff2acbbe421e2c362a
1757 F20101118_AACFGD caffrey_a_Page_31.txt
bbb643137ddb0b3af0c2c043c8b743bb
d8fe7e73a3ecf73e83604ea588eaf38d6382dc86
3084 F20101118_AACFBH caffrey_a_Page_44thm.jpg
b896f20a4319ca56afa0317a61cf0805
b3695df368fae9f00223f60fd2b3de895b042d85
2509 F20101118_AACFLB caffrey_a_Page_01thm.jpg
b0a35d7f010be832324c3ff62d173b19
506d5b62d2325852ff238e089be3738b118dd28b
1865 F20101118_AACFGE caffrey_a_Page_20.txt
4d2e0204f65a30f7578a788de01234c1
21316543c98a5cca434d6b9033e9e6390884379f
F20101118_AACFBI caffrey_a_Page_02.tif
f5f874a0b6ef52276c3dc20098d5c83f
4f4a52bb0003d4d6d802ac1bb2ee2fe22430db07
7539 F20101118_AACFLC caffrey_a_Page_01.QC.jpg
8f8be468953dcb7c4e6fd65c0013e376
bce437ab5a1fd78b87ec9620f7d1299520b16e54
107457 F20101118_AACFGF caffrey_a_Page_10.jp2
ccf046f5626a8e62e396e944148aaf4a
e63e5ea4605b6ed3a237cd3efab88a0b59874040
1399 F20101118_AACFLD caffrey_a_Page_02thm.jpg
553f80aedbe5839cc71a2cf92e50216d
765107f524d9278851a6f3e7cf6749ba359ead55
20461 F20101118_AACFGG caffrey_a_Page_42.QC.jpg
bbb460c14ab4cf2d3f40c310b0874308
54f119d1003832ae288d15423704584b3da4ab1b
F20101118_AACFBJ caffrey_a_Page_14.tif
5aeec17a434c74ae9eb30ea32cdbfb91
78c5afa330fc93a0dcccf701dcc5615743b7db41
14002 F20101118_AACFLE caffrey_a_Page_03.QC.jpg
10c7f5597c4b84d01ab56ca8f82a3658
8455730d715493d9cd6408a5b5b4b78be3060871
70694 F20101118_AACFGH caffrey_a_Page_28.jpg
ddc3c4ea88df0c1847edcbc54d3f9cb0
38727ecf3eb475a5d36318819783711c58efffaf
12957 F20101118_AACEZJ caffrey_a_Page_33.QC.jpg
9f0ca116923d9ee8b5d262a3d99de3f4
a9332829c65eaa62357f577ecba0844edb30bfe9
46343 F20101118_AACFBK caffrey_a_Page_35.jpg
40dedc0560b8150190b3fea1ddb23906
6f606246589a747a7168fb1e6c108a2560cda66d
13680 F20101118_AACFLF caffrey_a_Page_05.QC.jpg
477c816b2075b07128771eb0d059f9c9
38f0925d8c837adf026c6f1f08776aa91b7de799
F20101118_AACFGI caffrey_a_Page_18.tif
c736237cd297d5687ba9cb025b1faa4a
a2e3f11743be5b842d6b0ebdcf84d6b325220a1f
32421 F20101118_AACEZK caffrey_a_Page_08.jpg
d1940f012f105a1a2cfb6f949f9c2445
a4dab6ff4979a83d8d1d03567db701d6eddb2750
14804 F20101118_AACFBL caffrey_a_Page_26.QC.jpg
f7bd948d1c036f3290852271f0b97922
18912c07fa5d057fc2a0a29cf3c93b0d6df4f1ca
3844 F20101118_AACFLG caffrey_a_Page_05thm.jpg
8f9182cffdff60ba041daf9b3a443dae
74f460630213281c2c18596a226aaadf41fcb5a4
29531 F20101118_AACFGJ caffrey_a_Page_06.jpg
cbae97917415937388f804bc4dc34f10
10ad15f9b61f28e99014f244d232260709790346
F20101118_AACEZL caffrey_a_Page_35.tif
c0951e489586de33dc7a89f30541120e
ceabed487f0e69334bc06c4c9208cc0a2305afe2
10184 F20101118_AACFBM caffrey_a_Page_32.jpg
3004f849df1443d10075acf150920b38
d875c1e5b895d5cbe3f9394990cfc06a2e647ef4
19097 F20101118_AACFLH caffrey_a_Page_07.QC.jpg
1f9fa58a81c99c3910edfa2d93e586d2
3c70c19cf72be7105e1775bdc9219a59b9887c31
5691 F20101118_AACFGK caffrey_a_Page_43.txt
3d52f97df0faea96b0f496e4093ac5d5
061606fef05ca3637550fa77e459907a1e884419
740 F20101118_AACEZM caffrey_a_Page_08.txt
93f80301f0f1887ad24a5c08d75ab896
19185eb046df25eb3b34e1a9ed23318d9743538c
63710 F20101118_AACFBN caffrey_a_Page_09.jpg
f80f9f6d097e6c82dbfcb56a449e7da5
f4096a29c82cc9efa410e476059f0fd12fa3625a
10537 F20101118_AACFLI caffrey_a_Page_08.QC.jpg
ec30a9c8c0040457a134a7acbc0ffe4f
ef9566bdf29c515d3035b4acbd5e4fd3f8efaa90
5688 F20101118_AACFGL caffrey_a_Page_42thm.jpg
19713c5e2cff608b36ec5202572734d3
0f3f885ac532670036873ee57203b0139b917802
6858 F20101118_AACEZN caffrey_a_Page_48.pro
547857cc4cada6b91174cef6bde6ee10
e418c58026c1fbd2e077a0da783bcdc5b09ec096
5885 F20101118_AACFLJ caffrey_a_Page_09thm.jpg
29546d0c4848b6141a851a500488b1aa
dd12d49faefaadcabc22875f3fc23bb29059ad97
6470 F20101118_AACFGM caffrey_a_Page_30thm.jpg
2cba7f01b867336649d09110c15be721
1ab9c6814ddb42172fb9e6273de18d4de4defba7
96855 F20101118_AACEZO caffrey_a_Page_09.jp2
1f9c348ad207867e9b53217d988e6593
0f8480e4cd637bb7378908041e0d08713406fe5a
23599 F20101118_AACFBO caffrey_a_Page_15.QC.jpg
ebb532c20cf6122aba0e21ab317595b1
d5f4c01253fba6cf9a55c02a823ba9851f2487f5
6133 F20101118_AACFLK caffrey_a_Page_11thm.jpg
7df009746d968ef7200a260c1b95cb31
4e03c1588bd880e5253429f91d9f7eff49b31de8
22006 F20101118_AACFGN caffrey_a_Page_46.QC.jpg
19f94c4aa477f400b818fd1db0e203b7
3315585b2bf33949e4e526e2e7b081c23b896e7f
108098 F20101118_AACEZP caffrey_a_Page_12.jp2
1d845a9d05fa669ad55d12fe078b4c6e
f26340fd86f2c428a1acea16fed308b9873d109c
F20101118_AACFBP caffrey_a_Page_38.tif
f46b98e8604c08e5cae7ebf1ccc20d11
9fb1d754c21365d26c07e0f808e59d433097f878
23510 F20101118_AACFLL caffrey_a_Page_12.QC.jpg
e04a12f4e53af7a9ffb37144369037fe
3f9df975d81c719a98829034e525774e4b97af0f
19527 F20101118_AACEZQ caffrey_a_Page_47.QC.jpg
e2f77c161c0dc4f5b67ff52695185b02
7ee5e82fa37189290a80eb69001b09ff072ae479
13790 F20101118_AACFBQ caffrey_a_Page_25.pro
9be650be3add7366f40bd221ba60b8aa
bbe6d5d88577bed0ea9057981dfc29647071b248
6627 F20101118_AACFLM caffrey_a_Page_12thm.jpg
9a2ff43b34f7202622afb07ff9a09916
3e2bbd3988a4208aea67c3059e1f9863d5a8f30d
1331 F20101118_AACFGO caffrey_a_Page_02.pro
a29f44ad4ab4ae3fc4e2f0d96711eda5
a0e8cbb1534734ed7060a6cf17095da7f5b316b7
86770 F20101118_AACEZR caffrey_a_Page_18.jp2
8edf70ab290c6c3112c91907273b14d4
18cdb1d5230513ddaaa6888702b3834afffdaae1
1979 F20101118_AACFBR caffrey_a_Page_12.txt
2eaaf4dbc130108e02131fb04ed3111d
2a26643c9291e6f201e4fcdafff2bfd065349534
23200 F20101118_AACFLN caffrey_a_Page_14.QC.jpg
48d7b8f1eda60c5e06612f9cd82218f6
b46b7d58008522851c230f5cd49a8b19fa192388
20432 F20101118_AACFGP caffrey_a_Page_45.QC.jpg
aa0148fdf6b3da6b513ca02e3fd8c109
d8429585335315cd9eb49118ed56a081c4697ff0
3350 F20101118_AACEZS caffrey_a_Page_40.txt
e77adaf11958e11a79dc8d96f678e0dc
edc4a97098550d456e76ba59310cbb00f517715e
72473 F20101118_AACFBS caffrey_a_Page_30.jpg
51c1f350ec9ee24b379d8ae6faf7219a
c903e5d9d9c8475d863c48e2ddce9969fd514387
19603 F20101118_AACFLO caffrey_a_Page_18.QC.jpg
8cfcf2446687977c60689b2793c7d0d0
c8b53243d190fec6be5eccdeb0a3945b97a8bbda
44027 F20101118_AACFGQ caffrey_a_Page_47.pro
8f0cbff72709dcfe4bf7c06d09c14f63
ed3d6b31caa09ed4874052103763472e1485e199
64794 F20101118_AACEZT caffrey_a_Page_39.jpg
3c1155d989cc61d059f99f8f22d7fb07
b33df4974d781685972ccf1d52f1011b5f1fdaf1
4266 F20101118_AACFBT caffrey_a_Page_34.txt
ffde78d318e32a8ba71944ca8efe2219
2bcaeac9ab12343ba83bf9ad1e8421c614777eec
5576 F20101118_AACFLP caffrey_a_Page_18thm.jpg
7410834978c015b325eeec425b8a46cf
43816bb9d804a2398a70f9b9df2ccee91bcc5dea
23338 F20101118_AACFGR caffrey_a_Page_13.QC.jpg
5c5bbd7c36682651ebe74d518ab0a5c7
3a082edec9bb3dbd349ecd258a7b1fc04c072edc
F20101118_AACEZU caffrey_a_Page_13.tif
d88f9d7885ad9b15dbbdefa786367737
fd435ebc3f9ff0daf8a085e630d82c2689f0d318
93388 F20101118_AACFBU caffrey_a_Page_47.jp2
96f64dc6bc09ad1fa4994b01f9514dd7
1ad3fcebdf5ae17a4209e1bdd688d197f6dd9c88
23910 F20101118_AACFLQ caffrey_a_Page_19.QC.jpg
6d7f4073c12e84652a7fe380f388e888
266be02f6e3f99d63e947e9be142a0b69011fb70
4176 F20101118_AACFGS caffrey_a_Page_03thm.jpg
f6bba83b330e55bf47ad9942713b8b25
fccc5c565b65c185c47863a92889092bea041e99
25714 F20101118_AACEZV caffrey_a_Page_03.pro
50968345e1a2561b0c1490e4d0fe4d8e
cbd2e3f462529214b1804663182c734ae953ffb1
5428 F20101118_AACFBV caffrey_a_Page_47thm.jpg
706f1b9f127be207b4dadedacc3759d3
862a86842b80aa22eadd3331b2ed520b4a7802ab
21338 F20101118_AACFLR caffrey_a_Page_20.QC.jpg
67270695e82c8410d4395974b6698e07
a9b8e3f720859477d92342b5ed3240e2f410c6f0
44076 F20101118_AACFGT caffrey_a_Page_31.pro
e2a5d7559a22b2d0154dd682a8d2101e
54330b2d7a53477b903a25c4143d8b9b476d9696
5363 F20101118_AACEZW caffrey_a_Page_07thm.jpg
48e0f7000723ac4d4a0213d311819dc5
693f9896b2b07990277aab4dfada4fdd19a10bc5
40107 F20101118_AACFBW caffrey_a_Page_17.jpg
651429d115cef80f6d27e9e74cc8f504
d8f15ca3ad407f2f0b0531280ed95089d0934e51
6051 F20101118_AACFLS caffrey_a_Page_20thm.jpg
23804a471c208e1a82f564f06096aaf5
223afaa64becbdc52f26b5478f59b193fe6b38fa
20816 F20101118_AACFGU caffrey_a_Page_28.QC.jpg
0961ce072fbb96d1c44e5d063dd8b895
0ac1d0d6b20e7cfc9e30a69a4f80582d3f0e2d78
53596 F20101118_AACEZX caffrey_a_Page_46.pro
b5ce397a4b79ab956d2fd7ecfd9b8b2a
a1051ab6d9e3baad6b05b769a1da5b1b2ee10f4a
1820 F20101118_AACFBX caffrey_a_Page_47.txt
435fc5ebc64e59a8ab1608fc05ff8210
fef37d94008ee763dd65f53c971087ba786349cc
1320 F20101118_AACFGV caffrey_a_Page_32thm.jpg
207d77f0804fbee437c746618b0abff1
fc8256963f71ce0d05c4663a77261e1ffa3d9385
5811 F20101118_AACEZY caffrey_a_Page_39thm.jpg
facc33baabc93353c3981bc03c035d38
66329566b264920a7ca194cf6a358423ce547a34
31617 F20101118_AACFBY caffrey_a_Page_37.jp2
c144f0e6ded747fcada9215ec9367391
ba56aad4546a18361fd02177a54b0c0e7393f53c
23633 F20101118_AACFLT caffrey_a_Page_21.QC.jpg
b8a3c9f383da528720e6e211b83c4fd1
475bebc0208f6dbcb0542ae9575f7483d41b05f8
86629 F20101118_AACFGW caffrey_a_Page_07.jp2
608a96bfc553c974f7912672d1f9708d
0fa3940e326e20a8c0415971d49520257d5baf89
6725 F20101118_AACEZZ caffrey_a_Page_22thm.jpg
92a7b360cc728ee7b4e655e46d9ea8c1
9d9495a09f203063afa374770258a3a73bd7acc5
65916 F20101118_AACFBZ caffrey_a_Page_40.jpg
76f2600180f9811ea5c2b6da4380b06f
9cd3dbdeadcd06848c6ac7267bb570a8331e0161
22808 F20101118_AACFLU caffrey_a_Page_24.QC.jpg
39519c1cace8732b7dbeb20df9ce7c6f
30e8e77564c8d2d1305a434310cad228790976d0
67871 F20101118_AACFGX caffrey_a_Page_40.pro
6594c1cf0dd117b661889a6326ac0afc
7b23cb94d4b84ef863aea71bde0ce6f41de6e632
3889 F20101118_AACFLV caffrey_a_Page_25thm.jpg
d77448c684eec327eec439edb48b9ebf
e2ea188f6313cd80a7471e7fbfd4b8acc6e8c3eb
13608 F20101118_AACFEA caffrey_a_Page_34.QC.jpg
a15488c5eebb70165dbb59ea31f5e6bc
fa4d166f19b429c2e8d3b2d27f51a5b660498f1a
3355 F20101118_AACFGY caffrey_a_Page_33thm.jpg
ee109a80d6a84e546ee58d000c584ac6
fed035a7cfd1e0e382891098d51f5e2585818196
4687 F20101118_AACFLW caffrey_a_Page_26thm.jpg
475a34a023e0b8d036eaf179221d04f3
da7fd73cceafd9cabda92eb74c79ba4cf4a1d8e9
44682 F20101118_AACFEB caffrey_a_Page_34.jpg
fcb89d7ede11f5eaeb1c828cdc826393
d0c579ee9c25414802d11e16eb86cb34cab32607
2207 F20101118_AACFGZ caffrey_a_Page_46.txt
8c999e39a20d88e5904aae9479442ca3
a85ebf06a9d433965c8507575a090966a45cab53
13330 F20101118_AACFEC caffrey_a_Page_17.QC.jpg
59e1c7cc3e971444188707777ac6ff75
377468c96b2b79a8004a44a4343eb9f34763ab8d
6102 F20101118_AACFLX caffrey_a_Page_28thm.jpg
c9b35ddcd27252b18ab45b10f1c19803
65f352bc62b313d337222ae52d50bdcd954d479b
6319 F20101118_AACFED caffrey_a_Page_24thm.jpg
77d15c519cd9c38679d2065789f8c964
ce5474b5839e059d76f5385e9dd590eec991a0f1
F20101118_AACFJA caffrey_a_Page_10.tif
65f9885d8fa352233ceea1f9d6d3929a
abd38604c3659126a74220c7bf1db74e22c352f3
5959 F20101118_AACFLY caffrey_a_Page_29thm.jpg
2f8ff14b55474b428ca3abd6a2ebe45b
29bc98f2ddd8915b17999d3bfe3156d189fb3d36
F20101118_AACFEE caffrey_a_Page_47.tif
e839fddef791b831363efc79e1d3e8b9
8c5be5e2bb06fe1320ced8e8c36ae989191e9092
F20101118_AACFJB caffrey_a_Page_12.tif
3e6fb64eba2f93e68dcd14aad5f08e52
5dcb730308eb0b5bf1043c76cc531aa7c4d41d47
23695 F20101118_AACFLZ caffrey_a_Page_30.QC.jpg
578027aa05fe2f44a85d8d94f64605a3
583e7e79efc973abeecd437e25e8bed7d6a52c40
6344 F20101118_AACFEF caffrey_a_Page_15thm.jpg
871257a8d5aa235460a11706d3a41bdc
0e6aaca3b3f02a43913b09fffb028d140b792e58
F20101118_AACFJC caffrey_a_Page_19.tif
668e6ee4f4e757d9df46af36a05c27cf
fc667cfc5ded4d00c60d620aa9f8e7c12b935065
F20101118_AACFEG caffrey_a_Page_15.tif
727540a76b5231db83f7e6f17b423136
72ca373769a1eb453317ac29a858b4407a1b6043
F20101118_AACFJD caffrey_a_Page_21.tif
ae4b11f4e618548729d135594934e27c
de16a8db0f666b48ff183e5916b9643c5771b83c
23239 F20101118_AACFEH caffrey_a_Page_10.QC.jpg
effb93331593a8347e16b2f1943f3110
76a99a0f85dfed57b56d8d640fe63c958129d38d
F20101118_AACFJE caffrey_a_Page_22.tif
21b8628714fa4eae414e5782d2ed7321
1c42db519d3cb7a1c1b0fcb9549a7f8c7094ad6b
868662 F20101118_AACFEI caffrey_a_Page_04.jp2
9d2525c696198f68a8ec2171a76f698c
0392eb72d0c40ffd25ac56f071b0855dc25e5269
F20101118_AACFJF caffrey_a_Page_23.tif
83f74ef42e0cdf19022a2e784ee745ec
81ac15c88f293444afc5d126feb9b8c95622655a
F20101118_AACFEJ caffrey_a_Page_04.tif
364a786344e97d02ac281a80a8ebd40b
9ebefa930c7e66a9fbd6a64e55d4ff5a528049d8
F20101118_AACFJG caffrey_a_Page_26.tif
cc4c0f9d7ac27a2d9496e35744f9b404
3d51a536a89d0cd2863dcb3bc7bca4451cf3499c
102573 F20101118_AACFEK caffrey_a_Page_36.jp2
1e7ad5c27541a28cf5891fda45d456bd
e136f2627b106d13ea4d89c3e1a6682d8f339f73
F20101118_AACFJH caffrey_a_Page_29.tif
d95c4810e47fecb4fa3d46adcab4b21b
8a7c02fc5532dc75957d12c0bd0cd63bd7153b0a
F20101118_AACFJI caffrey_a_Page_32.tif
1e01e625c52fa4e6efb694d55bf4f070
abd5c8757901eaa09def74eeeb419fde87afdd08
60024 F20101118_AACFEL caffrey_a_Page_18.jpg
62ae0478dfde4211221491ed31dffb50
b3d837ba9438aca8763d3b0c19b9198340d90248
F20101118_AACFJJ caffrey_a_Page_34.tif
67e979a5133c9c833a749f598c6f247a
0d120ff1fe4e929b133b529c48fc2b283fc5c770
F20101118_AACFJK caffrey_a_Page_39.tif
b14040a9368b854c949e26e41081e7b9
cec70ea4dac5e4cf1dc25a9a4f368c5f2fe2cc53
99414 F20101118_AACFEM caffrey_a_Page_43.pro
b3fc1488aace8576bb9a713241aac591
f35b3168e8801494d125ab2cec9deb53032b4de9
F20101118_AACFJL caffrey_a_Page_43.tif
029c6f4fbc46587a1c73db171c40b70c
ae528721bd137a0ffdd0483062a0d9e53ffa60eb
F20101118_AACFEN caffrey_a_Page_40.tif
28029d83c6a0d5116dd84dbb691cb8d8
36bc048ad4175a36d841a6602d5ea1f5060126fb
F20101118_AACFJM caffrey_a_Page_45.tif
83d16886157d661d6f98a655c103a5ce
59fdeacdab2e026a371f7c91d4d099c177af7c53
111650 F20101118_AACFEO caffrey_a_Page_46.jp2
8b8b992f36525cfbb1fd4c67cc294e78
ea2f971240a14334b92693f5be5f8481c1b6e970
F20101118_AACFJN caffrey_a_Page_48.tif
6bce2b99305a5162ea11a2a67afdb64e
a5fe3c338b6cb87822701ded5d6463318f8f0e1d
107592 F20101118_AACFEP caffrey_a_Page_40.jp2
4a1b7c0bd73a5a24f82d4fb82d078979
f9dbaf60ab547e87da72fea91840b1aa88c9dbbb
31897 F20101118_AACFJO caffrey_a_Page_05.pro
02d3ba9ae1d519f99bf49f3cad95e5c1
77fa8cbef5df2856b5e80a1030385c7a5ba7041b
65366 F20101118_AACFEQ caffrey_a_Page_42.jpg
6a7ee884c34e359f8e0802d730232229
327a85aba52ca0c8a6d3a0e9dab775ea9680a564
39139 F20101118_AACFJP caffrey_a_Page_07.pro
ce417d8e4a3bc9fad0c252102dd3893f
65271f938573c3ae0b01ece692c96c3e85d1447f
65741 F20101118_AACFER caffrey_a_Page_11.jpg
97d854b7973b950422632bc44c2ed65a
f647794bbea893395e808a7da494cb68fcbcbe8b
18581 F20101118_AACFJQ caffrey_a_Page_08.pro
e5313d7e778b2aed9efc095b31c33f08
e3b6edcc4a0a1cc789b6217487273db00908cede
F20101118_AACFES caffrey_a_Page_16.tif
ae65ed9914793b197285acac18c11204
4972374e279d95030c2c6c26540e459626a8b0f2
6511 F20101118_AACFET caffrey_a_Page_21thm.jpg
1ebc8d5947e31deeab084936cc6d8f21
4b36ce36d9fc6b512297a41ca31eef7e04a71ff5
48617 F20101118_AACFJR caffrey_a_Page_10.pro
82ca88c87c2e86a0bccd83473503c986
0c04ccc8a4b707e034fa591893174eac795ad4db
1031 F20101118_AACFEU caffrey_a_Page_25.txt
691bc6dee33844f5850cb96772392b56
e2568dcafce48cf9cde31197216a77a0dc46c4b1
44691 F20101118_AACFJS caffrey_a_Page_11.pro
aa43a7a697f815e43e4cb008caefc519
a037c4ce74b8305be79780cf65b1246149e7daee
2156 F20101118_AACFEV caffrey_a_Page_38.txt
3fdd8493d07e7486a6e088ad8bc2588d
5185b3791ba23b2809c030e1427ad985faf97f50
50357 F20101118_AACFJT caffrey_a_Page_12.pro
b70a19d335b48a44ffe304aa80ad7241
f1cff72f92462a4dc16ed8d45018386c30e04620
4258 F20101118_AACFEW caffrey_a_Page_36.txt
bdb90bf2e24d5d758aa6c1fe08de1313
59229b2be3e67911e65cde9992cbf6687b299050
50071 F20101118_AACFJU caffrey_a_Page_13.pro
a567dfd083de77fbbdc0f04882bf5026
67c9b80f9ec56abea9e8cba47d350a34ef97009c
45208 F20101118_AACFEX caffrey_a_Page_20.pro
73290826b263558254ec7c7794a6d0f9
37dd19aab977b296b9934e151b0f6ea5cf678de9
36434 F20101118_AACFJV caffrey_a_Page_16.pro
5ea16839e7b187c314782959ecff6d59
c4c038a6ba2de323e919e7c1c3936b979f275636
47473 F20101118_AACFCA caffrey_a_Page_27.jpg
ae2b8c23ca72b44865f29e7146a84177
898665b860e906794f6cc096428a4c73e3875d98
F20101118_AACFEY caffrey_a_Page_17.tif
d4c477ebbef7415c1d750492bacb9a53
f0cf92d2b7a40dc0baeb0f365327234a70208e32
39542 F20101118_AACFJW caffrey_a_Page_18.pro
9ee95295f2c62fd21caa5d2e76d13bf3
911077d83695fda1b17b35f80aa81208f4f7be3a
82360 F20101118_AACFCB caffrey_a_Page_16.jp2
19f02723f08d95756ce495c31d25f06e
5535a22f866aec0d0870d151dd905aae6e7c9f56
400425 F20101118_AACFEZ caffrey_a_Page_17.jp2
c50d34c6535cbc189bdee4766fd73700
9802c626d6aa8b6229f92862d3f01e6236fd2160
51472 F20101118_AACFJX caffrey_a_Page_19.pro
701d929d77493af52a3fe81e3b13bed6
53df7652c5e483eb7b3b137f369b925bbdb1cc84
6256 F20101118_AACFCC caffrey_a_Page_23thm.jpg
6bef64faa5c3618904a07fab01844616
c04da2273e0cb69b2b3948eda73d8ab57761fe41
1014346 F20101118_AACFHA caffrey_a_Page_28.jp2
57a6667a6136afc94263ecd2ad649e27
40419e06c0f5a6fa84c12cc8e6a237429a676aab
50242 F20101118_AACFJY caffrey_a_Page_21.pro
4331ace1ff60b050cd03c96f028f3b16
692713724955fb9e6dfe4f8667f938c8a384d9d1
1051970 F20101118_AACFCD caffrey_a_Page_05.jp2
6ca2ec7b48051de7bf39ce76389a9393
d4c5eb7e2ec9abfcc696ce52f49e346800a0b645
100312 F20101118_AACFHB caffrey_a_Page_42.pro
8df0fa2be36540e50d6cca9a7ed621cd
3b9bd4bd3acc58ddf27cd44e6bac12e4afe9369e
43995 F20101118_AACFJZ caffrey_a_Page_23.pro
e7741789508e0fa48014761a46c8a974
ba874a975e80180e78a07cedce72429b0028215d
3362 F20101118_AACFCE caffrey_a_Page_02.QC.jpg
0157073087ad840e710b8a9911b5a6ae
2737c4ed76173d30c97eb31c5530221f39fb5d2f
1917 F20101118_AACFHC caffrey_a_Page_15.txt
32784d1fff80e2ca54274ad66ccf2019
9789b5f1025cfba9d5442ed69946ff9af02db55b
24872 F20101118_AACFCF caffrey_a_Page_01.jp2
402a87d3af7d5468864f6a25f2225c7d
89f951b7d4f6fe61f92fdaa084e46da6c2eb681f
1338 F20101118_AACFHD caffrey_a_Page_05.txt
c499bd7bda1877d7b9c5f96f2e5af366
0ab44bffa1626230f1aa74d09a57f39dd36499fe
98451 F20101118_AACFCG caffrey_a_Page_45.jp2
f1e9f0d13c97664bcc5bea39d889b1cc
aa61542acf46c1ee118fd79868d93ae656e6c438
20920 F20101118_AACFMA caffrey_a_Page_31.QC.jpg
20d7688ae8352781784d2f9d46f0930a
0d35c90618c43c2ac5c1f96def34dda040c2134e
3855 F20101118_AACFHE caffrey_a_Page_35thm.jpg
4b2f61ee3960e73ceeba6f39e77a628d
4480bd5b2b85844c75d58856e0b1e4b75e90be3c
36760 F20101118_AACFCH caffrey_a_Page_04.pro
177352b49adcdd34b0123a39d8967a45
8f08303ae65f5cd8d6cb141ccd706b4a183e5f01
6046 F20101118_AACFMB caffrey_a_Page_31thm.jpg
bea6617e13179db917b4732e78e9ab35
1d912fabd87486d91ef109d6da2d476de250f768
3323 F20101118_AACFHF caffrey_a_Page_04thm.jpg
dd2b7f111be05dc2fdaeeb491c764f6c
a7160b3f245d8e8f2db6fc1c13947b57f1c22122
8648 F20101118_AACFCI caffrey_a_Page_06.QC.jpg
1f3b4b07273124200e31aaa988434966
e795a55fa350a524e34e393fb851976a3b05d75c
3245 F20101118_AACFMC caffrey_a_Page_32.QC.jpg
b40160fdb120045cc31619ced9d0405b
a77276fbb15e6f329fed914e5cd96d0247fed4fe
51349 F20101118_AACFHG caffrey_a_Page_22.pro
095aa9c344fdefdb59b4740c3c86dc32
2cff6787a05b5392ee0233407706f4a917c31628
F20101118_AACFCJ caffrey_a_Page_44.tif
64571166b4f3778838823d012e4a1e24
aebf22082f91c5b9f5f6d39e3989615ec0877f14
3828 F20101118_AACFMD caffrey_a_Page_36thm.jpg
704c03ca7793e862016de3adee1168c1
7157bd51ac8c422459c32bce5d2acf36364a9779
17268 F20101118_AACFME caffrey_a_Page_38.QC.jpg
bfb4a21fba139dfbea09682f15daef6c
b01ea7248df1407fee000c68895a1db049ee00da
11330 F20101118_AACFHH caffrey_a_Page_04.QC.jpg
279c936ac5cfc0420544a9decc4cd473
021d1757f8d437f8d950f30ea4efc291a531df12
18507 F20101118_AACFCK caffrey_a_Page_16.QC.jpg
c3c4f2dda19fad9ac7722b9cf220caef
7abad9af71dfac2dc141cc3cd09fe12c036d749b
4928 F20101118_AACFMF caffrey_a_Page_38thm.jpg
a2ca35b09ec7f2a30aec32e65271516d
d869a31427035749167b9f92046730ff213ebf18
5278 F20101118_AACFHI caffrey_a_Page_16thm.jpg
6d68b899cdbc80790fd2de4f7e9d76c9
c491e29ad6db4b4c57fd939ee210159349fcd73f
F20101118_AACFCL caffrey_a_Page_08.tif
7dff0bf27e9817ec0ee7431584069833
239bb50c48a562677d5667beea321c4d818652d4
20428 F20101118_AACFMG caffrey_a_Page_39.QC.jpg
deec7c2f0fce15409cc3c0ed1f336367
8d4a88359cdb0d8d2c464fd5b0d9ec15b77c823e
47149 F20101118_AACFHJ caffrey_a_Page_45.pro
9f534bd4fec2440034f987f826c58e81
30aec02f19bc59f99f36f3eaa43bb3cf371aecca
48560 F20101118_AACFCM caffrey_a_Page_15.pro
6338874c78e4e2b5f7e40ed4f30a1a88
920352ebfca1719020d8b2f21a9ca4418935e2c5
5914 F20101118_AACFMH caffrey_a_Page_40thm.jpg
cd5e6ca1cb5fb83b09ab3d288783de0c
a508be49def7024aaaa4985d89352c2938b8a19d
17694 F20101118_AACFHK caffrey_a_Page_37.jpg
59da8983db40a8f84064787cdc9cd9c9
cc858345efbb7e93078de8c3d68861a6f0f8d181
50174 F20101118_AACFCN caffrey_a_Page_30.pro
1e24fbdb0ee3c8bf8021e5da524093e3
63554d25113497148088f1f3e4fd46f6808cce1d
9999 F20101118_AACFMI caffrey_a_Page_44.QC.jpg
09be7d28d6344412394dcf1a381b527d
785c2086ea98106cba5564860fc68ad8873a203d
2030 F20101118_AACFHL caffrey_a_Page_19.txt
ad3280faed1cfce3f6a888b12f239d44
7a560f7b7496281716ca3a2653594d442f7a2d25
104710 F20101118_AACFCO caffrey_a_Page_41.jp2
9d024bbb6dd79847aa65fa74a5fee555
a5e4fca469f6a46121755e8817857dda9c12c46f
5753 F20101118_AACFMJ caffrey_a_Page_48.QC.jpg
4dfc2105019b6a7d6f73b2e816fdef11
36e2fad7258341413eafb77b804aaf5b3d7b253f
75216 F20101118_AACFHM UFE0015260_00001.xml FULL
19ba65c6b0f9d106040bb4895cfcb758
3fdf87120c4fc691f60b9dfd830729af2eb328a0
46551 F20101118_AACFCP caffrey_a_Page_38.pro
fbd2c49ffe89b1caa2795fce78942991
b3d36b9703d98fd6ecfd3c0113ed7a01e02f15bb
2066 F20101118_AACFMK caffrey_a_Page_48thm.jpg
3e2abf73bd7ad2e46d55b07b0338023d
ac78d98b3e831c413291ccee5435965418223eab
65446 F20101118_AACFCQ caffrey_a_Page_20.jpg
fbe29f83208542d6011a6bc0174cf000
0c9ce226c36509449823122dda5d406b95a68e52
58512 F20101118_AACFML UFE0015260_00001.mets
49bf35556bbf585b385cdbfe08ccb7b4
da369938991f9569408eeed70c6f7a2c9bb1de16
72323 F20101118_AACFCR caffrey_a_Page_21.jpg
f6fdfda357a1220e5f201abaa589354b
5f1b14e147d5b99b77ae3ec243e55931fc3e0af8
3255 F20101118_AACFCS caffrey_a_Page_39.txt
ecfc70b8ece0db1e120bb86dfd051e89
08db3f79f770bbe3c641f11b64d5658c6f1119fa
23830 F20101118_AACFHP caffrey_a_Page_01.jpg
485ce2af1bb7deeacf0c77aff8edfb06
3c7fcb510c50dabe52fbf92bf4cf111cf53c212a
103973 F20101118_AACFCT caffrey_a_Page_34.jp2
3797b62314933acdc090700db59b0260
10e3bf2659d37f8499d7c5b9702f5c0f09832add
46260 F20101118_AACFHQ caffrey_a_Page_05.jpg
667897dbd3d243d8759f35a75be947a3
98f1e4ec64345b1a2c8f83a981a97254a06e053d
70855 F20101118_AACFCU caffrey_a_Page_24.jpg
540bb89fb811d0dc7902a5dc650a3177
8cec772232014d109e9f7f5056cdbc961fd5c929
61706 F20101118_AACFHR caffrey_a_Page_07.jpg
b6bead85095757cfd105678f9d4ad282
c4acb4ac5160dfcfee2e3c0828207d48bcc0104d
20701 F20101118_AACFCV caffrey_a_Page_09.QC.jpg
b1c1d3ba435a6c3d0410ae45bed910ab
b9f14436f2886893d70df0ee869e12c9f4f741f6
71537 F20101118_AACFHS caffrey_a_Page_10.jpg
831a8394f445441517dff13f7382d0e0
f98f82b86f059ee2d1d130bfb2f83af218e613c1
1056 F20101118_AACFCW caffrey_a_Page_32.pro
ae0c2be0a881726ba5a9fa5d415902bd
2e279dbcd968331255f7bf0673bb7701e266be3e
71336 F20101118_AACFHT caffrey_a_Page_12.jpg
48a2859da46695053d6566101169c5df
a2a4e1910de08e12b2c672e21d42c8cb364b0ed5
122 F20101118_AACFCX caffrey_a_Page_02.txt
a57c31776e1a06fae21dd22efcf61718
cd582d225492666ffae74c7c21276d20213358e2
71829 F20101118_AACFHU caffrey_a_Page_13.jpg
1cc6b24cec5d22709a2690bd43f911d3
908dd2db1630ce90d25387e9f0a956cd1feaf3db
109361 F20101118_AACFCY caffrey_a_Page_13.jp2
ac128f7c9f0cfcbeca387496426716ac
4bbffc9370ed7921cf2972b28f6ecc5a4d714283
70176 F20101118_AACFHV caffrey_a_Page_14.jpg
7d19a3051438416142a6705f1d55d7fe
3fc38da183b5bf10ae3673f6aae9b2ed635da4c8
67659 F20101118_AACFAA caffrey_a_Page_45.jpg
cebaef635db032fe3c057d4b54c09c3e
766ce85e08c645d31faefac51dbddc934fd41d4c
1958 F20101118_AACFCZ caffrey_a_Page_45.txt
5360e46480f156d5bd6dc765603484a5
d24d115bc39937b959a8b2fa473616d46a6276ed
72157 F20101118_AACFHW caffrey_a_Page_15.jpg
c4ae8a5276e2d0c3732b4f507ac57c33
dd76052fa7dfa7de89dc1b932925d14d6b6d38d5
1483 F20101118_AACFAB caffrey_a_Page_04.txt
d54e0890006fe568d5abcf112beb0000
fbd838de00d6d5a84ca1341b6c03d169b882814e
55391 F20101118_AACFHX caffrey_a_Page_16.jpg
1ddefb7c3cbf5167f73c066021cad8eb
27bc2bc666e2f86e45a39956d68760156204a9d1
3677 F20101118_AACFAC caffrey_a_Page_34thm.jpg
f24e47257175e1d141f376903d4109b9
ab0f1b0d7dada4f736e6ad8e85c932c004770a8a
55414 F20101118_AACFFA caffrey_a_Page_24.pro
e2b084384e4ac0ca3724c0876aaa1959
ffb3528bc0a89deda3b28b38dcb1fc3c728dfe91
73449 F20101118_AACFHY caffrey_a_Page_19.jpg
1167d1e8ddb16d60e9fc88f4af517733
338ea90e4c831c4e211c2443fdeb577d4ab70a6c
3225 F20101118_AACFAD caffrey_a_Page_08thm.jpg
4251e87593906caaf721b5a9cdfecb7f
cd6f8b0be2378a559abe40c664ac85820b1dd4b7
13727 F20101118_AACFFB caffrey_a_Page_27.QC.jpg
3bd2c689bd60ab19013cb5a39e099fd6
ceba03b827cb1660e69b2ac06cb6f43ff8b989ae
35937 F20101118_AACFHZ caffrey_a_Page_25.jpg
121f6c79a0925a554b37f66dd8e9ed3a
5c985d087c4d9a5fb905d2bde329cebafbd3a68d
43440 F20101118_AACFAE caffrey_a_Page_08.jp2
b63557180edef5a795a0b35d1f42bef0
27d94008f6be46c1f9f6d5dffaeba1cc1989c30a
321 F20101118_AACFFC caffrey_a_Page_48.txt
67ed2d5c9ffc5c20ca5906926786d5c2
05f9c45c40e6222d3e3c0d023ce7f70c606545de
74463 F20101118_AACFAF caffrey_a_Page_22.jpg
0c3d8a3bb1af61d0f7d3dfe6441c0810
88e528984f66958851528ab607f87ec3e87d4d49
43441 F20101118_AACFKA caffrey_a_Page_27.pro
879a14254c6eed794a2c0b67a9b83163
d0409c82842e94b3580eff02e925ac3e01e363d6
111579 F20101118_AACFFD caffrey_a_Page_22.jp2
7d4442765a88abfa3b285ce96f93a845
fc7db829e73e6c13700c40765acfcf0c9e1fa388
1808 F20101118_AACFAG caffrey_a_Page_09.txt
9b5a404b412ce67a47b7f651d5f8f3ec
2d1759c40ec7413f66ae8b4b2e362e38d501b2c3
43843 F20101118_AACFKB caffrey_a_Page_29.pro
44f3396d35d46f091613a90be357fcd2
6322bbc4918cdb1ce105de5f03185cb5fcb82240
915 F20101118_AACFFE caffrey_a_Page_37.txt
6ec5ffc25a6bdd94d53f2104049dad03
ed506ddcdfcec25da3763605e1f49dce4fd65b57
5846 F20101118_AACFAH caffrey_a_Page_45thm.jpg
77c23580dc1edf76f2dc3ebfc286a442
29b00b00566aec0954663859676d6ad48aa1bcdf
73495 F20101118_AACFKC caffrey_a_Page_33.pro
346ef7f42ee5af2331d657c873d605f8
ad164e1610d815c2e5659f918c689b03cba21fe9
8350 F20101118_AACFFF caffrey_a_Page_01.pro
b2170ea77a0132ae83d6a1ffa1aea99d
b37f747266c39584d2ac63d253acf19d03fc7b94
1805 F20101118_AACFFG caffrey_a_Page_29.txt
2e17c43dbc3b6b80946d5d77bdf0c1e0
ba9ad12b865a22d2cc1dbefbbc6de9e4aad8f1b6
6516 F20101118_AACFAI caffrey_a_Page_19thm.jpg
47f5674a260a820619c63922fa523de2
35a31b78cd9a4d35e2e4fccdf4e3a9940be90b24
82945 F20101118_AACFKD caffrey_a_Page_34.pro
3817b538ac2c47455eef42c6a09fa0a5
ebfc806ae72cc4831931927817aa3ef0621c06ce


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015260/00001

Material Information

Title: Factors Affecting the Maximum Depth of Plant Colonization by Submersed Macrophytes in Florida Lakes
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015260:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015260/00001

Material Information

Title: Factors Affecting the Maximum Depth of Plant Colonization by Submersed Macrophytes in Florida Lakes
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015260:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FACTORS AFFECTING THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF COLONIZATION BY
SUBMERSED MACROPHYTES IN FLORIDA LAKES















By

ALEXIS JORDAN CAFFREY


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Alexis Jordan Caffrey















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Gratitude is expressed to the many people who helped me carry out this project.

Special thanks are given to Mark Hoyer who helped me with my project in ways too

numerous to list. Julie Terrell assisted in providing the Florida LAKEWATCH data.

Claude Brown and Eric Schultz provided immeasurable professional advice as well as

many long days out in the field helping with field sampling. Appreciation is granted to

David Watson and Dan Willis for providing directions to many of the sampled lakes.

Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Roger Bachmann, a brilliant limnologist, for guiding me

in analyzing my light readings. Thanks are given to Dr. Daniel E. Canfield, Jr., for

funding the project and serving as my committee chairman and advisor. Gratitude is

expressed to Dr. Charles E. Cichra for serving as my committee cochair and for offering

encouragement and guidance. Finally, Dr. Kenneth Langeland served on my committee

and helped oversee the project.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... ................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ........ .............. ........ ..................... .... ............... v

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....... .................... .......... ....... ............ vi

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ........ ..................... vii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ......................................................................... .... .. ........

2 M A TERIALS AND M ETH OD S ............................................. .......................... 3

3 RESULTS AND D ISCU SSION ........................................... ............................10

4 C O N C L U SIO N .......... ......................................................................... ............ .. 2 1

APPENDIX

A 32-LAKE STUDY DATA .......................................................... ............... 24

B 279-LAK E-YEAR STUD Y ................................................ .............................. 30

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................. .............. 37

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................40















LIST OF TABLES


Table p


3-1 Descriptive statistics for the maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in
m eter), Secchi disk ....... ....... .......................... ... ....................................... 16

3-2 Multiple regression equations relating Secchi disk (SD in meters), light
attenuation coefficient. ............................................... .. ........ .. ...... ............18

3-3 Mean maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters) and slope values
by lake and the relationship between M DC .................................. ............... 19

3-4 Descriptive statistics for maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in
m eters), Secchi disk......... ....... ................. ........... ............... 20

3-5 Regression equations of the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization. .....20

A-i Maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), Secchi disk
transparency (SD in meters) ....... .................... .......... ..... 25

B-1 Maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), yearly mean Secchi
d isk tran sp aren cy ............ ............................................................... 3 0















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

2-1 Locations of lakes sam pled for both studies. ........................................ .................9

3-1 Relationship between the mean maximum depth of submersed macrophyte
colonization and mean Secchi disc depth (A) and mean light attenuation (B). .......17

3-2 Relationships between mean Secchi disc depth and mean light attenuation (A,
B). ...................... ....................................... 18

3-3 Comparison of a calculated maximum line to the best-fit line relating yearly
Secchi disk depth to the maximum depth of plant colonization. ...........................20















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

FACTORS AFFECTING THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF COLONIZATION BY
SUBMERSED MACROPHYTES IN FLORIDA LAKES

By

Alexis Jordan Caffrey

August 2006

Chair: Daniel E. Canfield, Jr.
Cochair: Charles E. Cichra
Major Department: Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

In 32 Florida lakes, Secchi disk (SD) transparency, light attenuation coefficient

values, plant and sediment type, and slope were examined with respect to the maximum

depth of plant colonization (MDC). In the 32-lake study, MDC was shown to be

significantly related to light through measurements taken by a SD (R2 = 0.46; p < 0.0001)

and a light meter (R2= 0.41; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the

mean percent of light penetration at MDC stations between hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata

Royle) and non-hydrilla species (p = 0.2), and furthermore, between angiosperms and

charophytes (p = 0.4). Similarly, organic, sandy, and mixed sediment types were not

shown to exert a significant influence (p = 0.07) on the depth of aquatic plant

colonization. Lake bottom slope was not shown to be significantly related (R2 = 0.03; p =

0.35) to the maximum depth of plant growth.

To increase the sample size, SD transparency, color, chlorophyll, and water column

nutrients (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) were examined with respect to the









maximum depth of macrophyte growth for 279-lake-years of information. An upper limit

line relating MDC to SD in meters was calculated and was found to be equal to: log (max

MDC) = 0.52 log (SD) + 0.59. The maximum MDC line describes light limitation when

the MDC response fall on or near the response curve and when MDC values fall below

the line, there is some other limiting environmental factor. For the 279-lake-year study,

the maximum depth of aquatic plant growth was significantly related to Secchi disk

transparency (R2= 0.67; p < 0.0001), color (R2 = 0.41; p < 0.0001), chlorophyll (R2

0.30; p < 0.0001), total phosphorus (R2 = 0.42; p < 0.0001), and total nitrogen (R2 = 0.33;

p < 0.0001).














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The distribution and abundance of aquatic macrophytes in lakes are affected by

many forces including but not limited to pressure (Hutchinson 1975), substrate

characteristics (Bachmann et al. 2001) and lake morphology (Duarte and Kalff 1986),

water column nutrient concentrations (Jupp and Spence 1977), waterfowl grazing

(Weisner et al. 1997), and light availability (Chambers and Kalff 1985; Canfield et al.

1985). Given the high attenuation of irradiance through the water column, and because

plants require light to photosynthesize, it is not surprising that light availability is often

considered one of the most important factors that regulate abundance and distribution of

aquatic macrophytes (Zimmerman et al. 1994).

The maximum depth at which autotrophic aquatic plants grow has been shown to

be linearly related to transparency of the water in numerous studies (Maristo 1941;

Canfield et al.1985; Hudon et al. 2000). Chambers & Kalff (1985) found the maximum

depth of colonization (MDC) for charophytes on average to occur at 11% of the surface

incident irradiance. For angiosperms and bryophytes, they found MDC to be 21% of the

surface irradiance. However, aquatic plants have been recorded in areas receiving less

than 1 and 2% of the surface irradiance (Hutchinson 1975).

Canfield et al. (1985) demonstrated a relationship between water transparency as

measured by a Secchi disc (SD) and the maximum depth of macrophyte colonization in

26 Florida lakes. They also developed an empirical model for the relationship and

suggested the model could provide lake managers with a first approximation of how









changes in SD values caused by either natural or anthropogenic activities might affect the

extent of macrophyte colonization in lakes. However, they cautioned lake mangers that,

in using the model, other environmental factors (e.g., types of plants present, basin

morphometry, sediment types) besides SD values need to be considered to enhance the

predictive ability of the model.

In the 1990s, the Florida Legislature directed the state's water management districts

to establish minimum water levels for lakes (Section 373.042, Florida Statutes). The

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) developed methods for

establishing minimum lake levels (Chapter 40D-8. Florida Administrative Code), which

included use of the model developed by Canfield et al. (1985) to assess potential changes

in the coverage of submersed vegetation with changes in water transparency. The

Southwest Florida Water Management District, however, recognized the need to try to

develop a more robust model from a larger number of lakes.

This study was designed based on the earlier work of Canfield et al. (1985) in an

attempt to develop more robust model/models for use by SWFWMD. The first part of

the study involved the sampling of 32 Florida lakes. At each lake, environmental factors

such as water chemistry, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and bottom slopes

were measured to determine if the maximum depth of macrophyte colonization could be

better predicted than relying solely on SD transparency. The second phase of this study

used information collected by Florida LAKEWATCH on a large number of Florida lakes

to develop a series of models to predict the maximum depth of colonization of

macrophytes and establish a model where the maximum depth of macrophyte

colonization in Florida lakes should be limited by light.














CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two data sets were used for model development. The first part of the study

involved field sampling of 32 Florida lakes using the basic approach of Canfield et al.

(1985). Study lakes selected were located in eight counties, with the majority located in

peninsular Florida (Figure 2-1). Lakes located in the SWFWMD comprised 38% of the

sampled lakes. Each lake was sampled once between May and December of 2004.

At each study lake, four straight transects were established to provide an

assessment of macrophyte coverage. A Raytheon DE-719 fathometer was used to detect

the MDC for the macrophyte community along each transect. Buoys were placed at

locations of measured macrophyte MDC. After all transects were completed, the three to

four deepest buoy stations were checked with a toothed hook (18 cm by 18 cm) for the

presence of submersed aquatic macrophytes.

At stations where the MDC was identified, measurements were made for SD

transparency, light attenuation (E), true color, sediment type, and bottom slope, and the

plant species were identified. In some lakes with sparse plant growth, fewer than three

stations were found harboring submersed aquatic macrophytes. At these lakes, open

water stations were sampled for SD transparency, light attenuation (E), true color, and

sediment type. The variables that had quantitative values (i.e., SD transparency, E, color,

and slope) were averaged by lake for the day sampled, and because lakes were visited

only once during the study, each lake is considered the experimental unit for the

quantitative variables. On the other hand, the experimental unit for qualitative variables,









such as plant type [i.e., the inclusion or exclusion of the plants being a hydrilla (Hydrilla

verticillata Royle) versus non-hydrilla species and being an angiosperm versus a

charophyte] or sediment type (i.e., organic, sandy, mixed) was considered to be the lake

stations.

At each of the 32 study lakes, water transparency was measured where the MDC

occurred by the use of a Secchi disc on the shady side of the boat. If the Secchi disc was

visible on the bottom for all three stations, an additional Secchi reading was taken in a

deeper location to use for analysis. Surface and corresponding underwater light

irradiance were measured (in quanta units) on the sunny side of the boat using a

photometer (LI-COR model LI-1400 data logger) with a quantum sensor that was placed

both above (LiCor 193) and below (LiCor 192) the water. Light meter readings were

taken at two to three depths. If possible, light measurements at each station were made at

depths of one, two, and three meters to better represent light attenuation for the entire

water column. An additional open-water light reading was taken in deeper water at some

lakes where all three stations were shallow (less than 3 meters) or when sun coverage was

fading and no stations had yet been sampled for light. Light readings were averaged over

ten seconds to mitigate instantaneous fluctuations with light intensity. The downward

attenuation coefficient values for each station were calculated as the slope of the graph of

the natural logarithm of the irradiance values, corrected for changes in incident irradiance

on the y-axis, against depth on the x-axis (Lind 1974). The percent of surface irradiance

penetrating at MDC was calculated using the relationship: Iz/ Io = 100eEz, where Iz/ Io =

percent of subsurface irradiance, E = light attenuation coefficient and z = the maximum

depth of plant colonization (Scheffer 1998).









Color samples were collected at the surface (0.5 m) with 250-mL, acid cleaned,

triple-rinsed, Nalgene bottles and immediately placed on ice until they could be put in a

freezer to await analysis. True color values were determined following filtration through

a Gelman type A/E glass fiber filter, centrifugation of the filtrate, and using the platinum-

cobalt standard technique determined by spectroscopy (Bowling et al. 1986).

A ponar dredge with a 15 cm opening was used to obtain soil samples. Sediment

type was classified as one of three types: sandy, organic, or mixed. Soil samples that

were dark colored and slippery to the touch were classified as organic while white,

granular soil samples were classified as sandy, and a blend of organic and sandy soil was

categorized as a mixed soil.

Bottom slope was calculated around MDC stations and not the entire littoral area.

Slope was calculated from the Raytheon DE-719 fathometer chart by dividing the rise

(the change in water depth) by the horizontal distance across the station.

For the 32-lake study, regression equations and coefficient of determination values

(R2) were calculated using SD and E readings as the independent variables in order to

predict the maximum depth of submersed macrophyte colonization. Multiple regression

analysis was used to relate SD, E, and MDC to color and chlorophyll. Chlorophyll

concentrations were obtained from the Florida LAKEWATCH database. Best fit linear

regressions were calculated between SD and E and vise versa. A t-test was used to test

whether there was a significant difference in the average percent of incident light at the

maximum depth of colonization between stations with hydrilla versus non-hydrilla and

between stations harboring angiosperms versus charophytes. To investigate soil

influence on MDC, an ANOVA was used to test for differences in the mean depth of









plant growth for the three soil types. Also, the coefficient of determination was

calculated for the relationship between slope and MDC (McClave and Sincich 2000).

The statistical software package JMP version 4.0 was used for statistical analysis and

Kaleidagraph version 3.6 was used to generate linear regression figures.

The second part of this study involved obtaining information on 187 lakes which

had their macrophyte communities sampled by Florida LAKEWATCH. The lakes were

sampled between 1991 and 2004. The water chemisty data were represented as yearly

averages and although most lakes were sampled only once, some lakes were sampled

multiple times providing 279-lake-years of information. Florida LAKEWATCH is a

volunteer citizens' lake monitoring program in which volunteers take measurements at

three mid-lake locations, usually on a monthly basis, for total phosphorus (TP), total

nitrogen (TN), chlorophyll, and SD transparency. The 187 lakes were located in 24

counties (Figure 2-1) and 35% of the lakes were in the SWFWMD.

For the 279-lake-year study, Florida LAKEWATCH provided 250 Raytheon DE-

719 fathometer chart papers that were later examined for the maximum point of plant

colonization. The 32-lake study provided an additional 29 Raytheon DE-719 fathometer

chart papers.

Secchi disk readings and true color samples were obtained using the same

procedures as the 32-lake study. Surface (0.5 m) water samples for measuring

chlorophyll were collected in 4-L, tap-water rinsed, plastic milk jugs and placed in

coolers until the samples could be filtered. A measured volume of water was filtered

through a Gelman Type A-E glass fiber filter. Filters where folded and placed inside a

larger paper filter and then stored inside a silica gel desiccant bottle in a freezer.









Chlorophyll was extracted from the filters in hot ethanol (Sartory and Grobbelarr 1984).

The trichromatic equation for chlorophyll a was used to calculate the concentrations of

chlorophyll with the hot ethanol method (Method 10200H; APHA 1992).

Water samples for TP and TN were collected at the surface (0.5 m) with 250-mL,

acid cleaned, triple-rinsed, Nalgene bottles. Water samples were immediately placed and

held on ice until returned at the end of the sampling day to the Florida LAKEWATCH

water quality laboratory in Gainesville, Florida. At the laboratory, water samples were

frozen until being analyzed by Florida LAKEWATCH staff. Total phosphorus

concentrations were determined using the methods of Murphy and Riley (1962) with a

persulfate digestion (Menzel and Corwin 1965). Total nitrogen concentrations where

determined by the oxidization of water samples using persulfate and determining nitrate-

nitrogen with second derivative spectroscopy (D'Elia et al. 1977).

Data (i.e., SD transparency, color, chlorophyll, TP, and TN) obtained from Florida

LAKEWATCH were averaged for the year in which plants were inventoried at each lake.

For each lake, Florida LAKEWATCH means were first averaged for the day of the

month sampled and these monthly means were averaged together for a yearly mean for

the lake. Some lakes were represented in the data set more than once if they were

sampled multiple years.

If Florida LAKEWATCH was missing water chemistry data for the corresponding

year that the lake was measured for MDC, long-term water chemistry means for that lake

were used. Long-term means were computed by averaging all yearly means for a lake.

For the 279-lake-year study, long-term values used represented 5% of SD transparency

readings, 43% of color measurements, and 2.5% of chlorophyll, TP, TN values.









An empirical model was developed using the Florida LAKEWATCH database

relating SD transparency to the maximum depth of submersed vegetation in order to

increase the representation of Florida lakes. A maximum line relating MDC and SD was

also determined by sorting the 279 SD values from lowest to highest and then dividing

these into 10 groups. Because 279 is not divisible by 10, there were 28 SD values in each

of the first nine groups, and one group of 27 SD readings. The maximum MDC value in

each group with its associated SD value was used to run a regression through the 10 pairs

of points. Linear and multiple regression models were created to quantify the

relationship of MDC to color and chlorophyll because these two light-reducing variables

have been shown to be hyperbolically related to SD depth (Canfield and Hodgson 1983).

Furthermore, because TP and TN have been shown to be positively related to chlorophyll

concentrations (Canfield 1983), these nutrients were also examined mathematically with

respect to the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization. To meet the assumption

of normality, prior to statistical analysis, all distributions were transformed to a base 10

logarithm. A software program, Kaleidagraph version 3.6, was used to generate figures

and JMP version 4.0 was used to perform statistical tests. The alpha level of rejection

was set at 0.05.













30




29




28-



27-




26- 0 187-lake study

t 32-lake study


25-


-87 -86 -85 -84 -8

Longitude

Figure 2-1. Locations of lakes sampled for both studies.














CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Canfield et al. (1985) sampled 26 Florida lakes with SD transparencies ranging

from approximately 1 m to about 6.3 m. For the 32-lake study, there was a wide range in

SD transparency from 0.3 m to 5.8 m. The mean transparency for all lakes was 1.8 m.

The other measured limnological parameters in the 32-lake study also varied

considerably. Measured light extinction coefficients ranged from 0.2 m1 to 6.8 m-1

(mean for all lakes 1.8 m-1). True color ranged from 2 PCU to 385 PCU (mean color 50

PCU). The calculated bottom slopes ranged from 0.3% to 13% (mean slope 4%). The

maximum depth of plant colonization ranged from 0.7 m to 9.2 m, with mean depth of

aquatic macrophyte growth at 3.1 m (Table 3-1).

Canfield et al. (1985) found a significant positive relationship between the MDC

and SD depth (R2 = 0.49) using data from Finnish, Florida, and Wisconsin lakes. For the

32 Florida lakes sampled during this study, there was also a significant positive

relationship between the MDC and SD depth (R2= 0.46; p < 0.0001; Figure 3-1A). The

best fit equation between MDC and SD for the Canfield et al. 1985 study was:

log ( MDC ) = 0.61 log ( SD ) + 0.26 (3-1)

The equation between MDC and SD for the 32 Florida lakes was:

log (MDC ) = 0.64 log ( SD ) + 0.30 (3-2)

where MDC and SD are expressed in meters. Both equations are similar and provide

evidence that the positive relationship between MDC and SD is repeatable.









Canfield et al. (1985) found light meter readings were highly correlated (r = 0.96)

to concurrently measured SD values. Most light reaching the water surface is reflected,

turned to heat, or absorbed by objects in the water column as well as by the water itself

(Cole 1983). The intensity of light in the water column (Iz) decreases exponentially with

depth (z) depending on the vertical attenuation coefficient (E) of the water and the

starting surface illumination (Io), using the relationship set forth in Beers law: Iz = Io e-Ez

(Scheffer 1998). Wavelengths are absorbed differentially in the water column with

infrared light and many of the visible reds being absorbed mostly in the first meter and

with blues penetrating the deepest (Cole 1983). Additional substances in the water---

dissolved organic (color), algae, and non-algal suspended solids---influence the amount

of light penetration through the water column (Havens 2003), and potential SD values.

Light availability to a depth in the water column can be measured directly by the

use of a light meter or indirectly by the use of a SD. For the English Channel, the

relationship between light attenuation (E) and SD measurements was E =1.7 / SD (Poole

and Atkins 1929). However, the relationship between E and SD varies among studies

and many alternatives have been suggested (Holmes 1970; Walker 1980). For the 32

study lakes, the correlation between the measured light attenuation coefficients and SD

was significant, but not as strong (r = 0.81) as that reported (r = 0.96) by Canfield et al.

(1985). Color and chlorophyll concentrations were also highly related to SD depth (R2

0.71; p < 0.0001), light attenuation (R2 = 0.74; p < 0.0001), and MDC (R2= 0.65; p <

0.0001) through multiple regression analysis (Table 3-2). Secchi disk transparency,

however, can be predicted reasonably well from measured light attenuation coefficients

(Figure 3-2A) using the equation:









log ( SD )= -0.69 log ( E )+ 0.26 (3-3)

and light attenuation coefficient (E) can be predicted from SD (Figure 3-2B) using the

equation:

log (E)= -0.96 log ( SD)+ 0.30 (3-4)

where SD is in meters and E is per meter.

Although E and SD are highly correlated, the large 95% confidence limit (46-

236%) associated with the MDC-SD model published by Canfield et al. (1985) has lead

to speculation that the use of light meter readings could lead to the development of a

more robust model. The MDC of macrophytes in the 32-lake study was negatively

related to the mean light attenuation coefficient (Figure 3-1B) and the relationship was

represented by the following equation:

log (MDC)= -0.51 log (E)+ 0.48 (3-5)

where MDC is in meters and E is per meter. Light attenuation, however, did not predict

MDC any better than SD transparency and actually had a slightly lower coefficient of

determination (R2 = 0.41) than SD readings (R2 = 0.46). This finding demonstrated SD,

an easily measured and inexpensive index of water transparency, is as useful for

assessing MDC as E values that require the use of complex and expensive equipment.

Canfield et al. (1985) suggested the major factor contributing to the variability in

the MDC-Secchi relationship is the type of plant colonizing the lake bottom because

different species of plants have different light requirements. The amount of surface light

penetrating at the maximum depth at which submersed aquatic macrophytes colonized in

the 32 study lakes ranged from < 1% to 47%. The mean percent of incident light at the

maximum depth of colonization was 11%, which was in agreement with much of the









literature (Table 3-1). For example, Hoyer et al. (2004) found that when the percent of

incident light at the surface reaching the substrate was less than 10%, there was little or

no submersed aquatic vegetation biomass. Sheldon and Boylen (1977) found the MDC to

correspond to 10% of the light intensity hitting the surface. The mean percent of incident

light at the maximum depth of colonization for stations with hydrilla, non-hydrilla,

angiosperms, and charophytes present in this study was 19%, 10%, 12%, and 7%,

respectively (Table 3-1). Although hydrilla has been shown to have low light

requirements in laboratory conditions (Van et al. 1976), for the 32 lakes examined in

natural conditions, hydrilla was not found at low light levels. There was no significant

difference in percent of incident light at the maximum depth of colonization between

hydrilla and non-hydrilla species (p = 0.2). Similarly, there was no significant difference

of mean percent surface penetration present at the depth of maximum plant growth

between angiosperms and charophytes (p = 0.4). This indicates that for this group of

Florida lakes, differences in the light requirements of individual plant types can not be

invoked as the major factor contributing to the variability in the MDC-Secchi

relationship.

Lake bottom sediment serves not only as a physical anchor for submersed

vegetation but also as a source of nutrients (Barko et al. 1991). Bachmann et al. (2001)

suggested the flocculent organic sediments in Lake Apopka were deleterious for root

anchorage and limited the colonization of submersed aquatic macrophytes. Lake Apopka

sediments, however, are unique and the lake was not included in the 32-lake study. For

the 32-lake study, the mean MDC for organic, mixed, and sandy soils were 2.9 m, 3.7 m,

and 2.7 m, respectively. There was no significant difference in the maximum depth of









plant colonization among the three soil types classifications established in this study (p =

0.07). Soil type, therefore, was not shown to have a significant effect on the maximum

depth of plant growth. However, the means were close to be significantly different with

the mixed soil having the largest mean MDC, suggesting that mixed soil tends to promote

plant growth in deeper waters.

As early as 1924, H. W. Rickett noticed that aquatic vegetation grew deeper in

lakes possessing gentle slopes and shallower in lakes having steeper slopes. Duarte and

Kalff (1986) demonstrated a strong influence of littoral bottom slope on the maximum

biomass of aquatic macrophyte communities. However, they pointed out that the model

generated in their study did not reflect turbid lakes (i.e., Secchi disk readings < 2 m),

where irradiance rather than slope is pre-eminent. The mean SD transparency for the 32

lakes was 1.8 m; therefore littoral bottom slope according to Duarte and Kalff (1986)

should not greatly influence MDC in Florida lakes. In another study by Duarte and Kalff

(1990), they found that 15% was the steepest slope at which aquatic macrophytes were

present and able to grow. All of the lakes in the 32-lake study had slopes less than 15%.

Lake bottom slope was not significantly related to the maximum depth of submersed

plant colonization (R2 = 0.03; p = 0.35; Table 3-3) so slope is not a variable that can be

used to improve the MDC-Secchi relationship in Florida. Although slope has been found

to affect aquatic plant growth in other studies, it seems plausible that slope has a minimal

influence on MDC for many of Florida lakes because they are generally shallow, with a

majority of them having mean depths less than 5 meters (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003).

Florida lakes display a wide range of limnological conditions (Canfield and Hoyer

1988). Information on MDC, SD, and other water chemistries were obtained from









Florida LAKEWATCH to examine the MDC-Secchi relationship for a wide range of

lakes. For the 279-lake-year study, MDC ranged from 0.7 m to 9.2 m. The mean MDC

depth was 3.3 m. Secchi disk transparency ranged from 0.2 m to 8.2 m (mean of 2.2 m).

Color values ranged from 0 PCU to 430 PCU, with the mean color for all lakes equal to

50 PCU. The minimum and maximum chlorophyll concentrations were 0.5 tg/L and 292

[tg/L, respectively, and the overall mean was 17 [tg/L. Total phosphorus and TN

concentrations ranged from 2.1 tg/L to 402 tg/L and 43 tg/L and 4550 [tg/L,

respectively, and averaged 28 [tg/L and 764 [tg/L, respectively (Table 3-4).

For the 279-lake-year study, there was as significant positive relationship between

SD and MDC (R2 = 0.67; p < 0.0001; Figure 3-3). The best fit MDC-SD regression line

was:

log (MDC)= 0.66 log ( SD) + 0.30 (3-6)

where MDC and SD are expressed in meters. Equation 3-6 is essentially the same as the

regression equations developed by Canfield et al. (1985) (Equation 3-1) and by my 32-

lake study (Equation 3-2). This strongly suggests the MDC-SD relationship is applicable

to a wide range of lakes.

Inspection of Figure 3-3 clearly shows that for a given SD there is considerable

variability in the measured maximum depth of macrophyte colonization. This is evidence

that other environmental factors besides water transparency influence MDC. However,

there is a clear upper limit for MDC at various SD levels. This upper limit represents

where light is the limiting environmental factor and can be described by the following

equation:

log (max MDC ) = 0.52 log ( SD ) + 0.59 (3-7)









where MDC and SD are expressed in meters. When MDC values falls below the line,

there is some other limiting environmental factor other than solely light that is inhibiting

plant growth.

Because SD readings were related to the measured color (R2 = 0.49) and

chlorophyll samples (R2= 0.59), these two light reducing variables were quantifiably

related to the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization. Moreover, because

chlorophyll readings were related to TP (R2 = 0.69) and TN (R2 = 0.53), regression

models were developed to relate these nutrients to the maximum depth of submersed

macrophyte colonization. Therefore, the depth at which plants colonized was also

significantly inversely related to color (R2= 0.41; p < 0.0001), chlorophyll (R2= 0.30; p <

0.0001), TP (R2 = 0.42; p < 0.0001), and TN (R= 0.33; p < 0.0001). The light

attenuating substances, color and chlorophyll, were inversely related to MDC through

multiple regression analysis (R2= 0.52; p < 0.0001). Given the significant relationships

between MDC and color, chlorophyll, TP, and TN, it is possible to provide a basic

assessment of the potential effects of these variables on macrophyte colonization in

Florida lakes even without measurements of SD or E.

Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics for the maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in
meters), Secchi disk (SD in meters), light attenuation coefficient (E in m-1),
percent of subsurface irradiance penetration (Iz / Io in %), color (PCU), and
slope (%) for the 32-lake study.
Parameter n Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
deviation
MDC 32 0.7 9.2 3.1 1.8
SD 32 0.3 5.8 1.8 1.2
E 32 0.2 6.8 1.8 1.5
Color 32 2 385 50 70
Iz/Io 32 0.008 47 11 14
Iz/Io hydrilla 9 0.43 99 19 33
Iz/ Io Non-hydrilla 72 0.0003 78 10 16
Iz/Io Angiosperm 68 0.0003 99 12 20
Iz/Io Charophyte 13 0.02 19 7 6
Slope 31 0.3 13 4 3




































Secchi Disc (m)


Light Attenuation Coefficient (-m)

Relationship between the mean maximum depth of submersed macrophyte
colonization and mean Secchi disc depth (A) and mean light attenuation (B).


I o

0 O00
0 0 O0




00 0
0
O O

log [MDC) = 0.64 log [SD) + 0.30
R = 0.46
n= 32
p< 0.0001 A
I


0 I


00





0 0
0 0 0 0 0


O0)
0 0


log [MDC = -0.51 log (E) + 0.48
R =0.41
n= 32
p < 0.0001 B
I


Figure 3-1.







18


Table 3-2. Multiple regression equations relating Secchi disk (SD in meters), light
attenuation coefficient (E in m-1) and the maximum depth of plant
colonization (MDC in meters) to color (PCU) and chlorophyll (CHL in tg/L).
n Equation R2 p value
29 log(SD) = -0.25 log(COLOR) 0.39 log(CHL) + 0.88 0.71 < 0.0001
29 log(E) = 0.52 log(COLOR) + 0.22 log(CHL) 0.82 0.74 < 0.0001
29 log(MDC) = -0.27 log(COLOR) -0.35 log(CHL) + 1.11 0.65 < 0.0001


Light Attenuation Coefficient (-m)


Figure 3-2.


Secchi Disk (m)
Relationships between mean Secchi disc depth and mean light attenuation
(A, B).


0





0
^0

1 00



log (SD) = -0.69 log (E + 0.26
2 0
R = 0.66
n= 32
p < 0.0001 A


0

0 0

0
r- 0


0 0


log (E = -0.96 log (SD) + 0.30 0
R= 0.66 O
n= 32 B
p < 0.0001
I









Table 3-3. Mean maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters) and slope
values by lake and the relationship between MDC and mean slope.
Lake County MDC Slope
Alligator Lake 2.6 0.04
Alto Alachua 2.5 0.02
Bay Marion 1.97 0.02
Beakman Lake 3.4 0.01
Bellamy Citrus 0.72 0.04
Brant Hillsborough 1 0.03
Church Hillsborough 2 0.06
Conway North Orange 5.5 0.05
Conway South Orange 5.83 0.04
Dodd Citrus 1.03 0.10
Doe Marion 4.23 0.03
Farles Prairie Lake 4.57 0.05
Grasshopper Lake 2.25 0.02
Hampton Bradford 1.73 0.01
Hernando Citrus 2.27 0.03
Ivanhoe East Orange 2.17 0.07
Little Conway Orange 5.57 0.03
Little Santa Fe Alachua 2 0.01
Magdalene Hillsborough 3.57 0.02
Maurine Hillsborough 1.2 0.04
Melrose Bay Alachua 2.87 0.07
Mill Dam Marion 2.73 0.03
Newnan Alachua 0.65 0.003
Osceola Hillsborough 3.5 0.07
Santa Fe Alachua 3.87 0.02
Sellers Lake 9.2
Starke Orange 1.5 0.13
Stella Putnam 4.27 0.03
Taylor Hillsborough 3.1 0.03
Twin Hillsborough 2.65 0.05
Weir Marion 3 0.01
White Trout Hillsborough 4.8 0.07
Note: n = 31, R2 = 0.03, p value = 0.35.










Table 3-4. Descriptive statistics for maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in
meters), Secchi disk (SD in meters), color (PCU), chlorophyll (pg/L), total
phosphorus (TP in pg/L), and total nitrogen (TN in pg/L).
Parameter n Minimum Maximum Mean Standard


MDC
SD
Color
Chlorophyll
TP
TN


ie
r-
0


0

4-
0

0

a.



E
E




Figure 3-3.


9.2
8.2
430
292
402
4550


3.3
2.2
50
17
28
764


deviation
1.9
1.5
69
34
40.5
601.2


Yearly Secchi Disk
Yearly Secchi Disk (m)


Comparison of a calculated maximum line to the best-fit line relating yearly
Secchi disk depth to the maximum depth of plant colonization.


Table 3-5. Regression equations of the maximum depth of submersed plant colonization
(MDC in meters) related to color (PCU), chlorophyll (CHL in gg/L), total
phosphorus (TP in ig/L), and total nitrogen (TN in ig/L).
Input n Equation R p value


log(MDC) = 0.66 log(SD) + 0.30
log(MDC) = -0.29 log(COLOR) + 0.85
log(MDC) = -0.28 log(CHL) + 0.71
log(MDC) = -0.43 log(TP) + 0.99
log(MDC) = -0.48 log(TN) + 1.79
log(MDC) = -0.22 log(COLOR) 0.18
log(CHL) + 0.93


0.67 < 0.0001


0.41
0.30
0.42
0.33
0.52


< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001


variable
SD
COLOR
CHL
TP
TN
COLOR &
CHL


279
262
279
279
279
262














CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION

For this study, the maximum depth inhabited by an angiosperm was found at 9.2 m.

This was similar to the comments of Hutchinson (1975), which concluded that, in lakes,

most angiosperms are limited to depths of 9 m. There have, however, been a few

exceptions of extreme deep water expansion by freshwater angiosperms. For example,

Sheldon and Boylen (1977) found Elodea canadensis growing to depths of 12 m in Lake

George, New York and Hydrilla verticillata has been found growing to a depth of 15 m

in Crystal River (Langeland 1996).

This study has confirmed the findings of Canfield et al. (1985) that the maximum

depth of macrophyte colonization can be predicted using SD transparency. Furthermore,

the maximum depth of plant growth can be predicted reasonably well by light meter

measurements. The mean percent of incident light at the maximum depth of plant

colonization was 11% for the Florida lakes studied, which was in agreement with much

of the primary literature. Although plant species, sediment type and slope have been

shown to influence aquatic plant growth on an individual lake basis, no significant

influences on MDC were found in this study when looking among lakes. When those

variables (plant species, sediment types, slope) where taken into account, they did not

increase the predictive capabilities of the Canfield et al. SD-MDC model.

Although this study represents a more comprehensive research effort than those of

Canfield et al (1985) to identify and quantify the environmental determinants of MDC,

the findings, nevertheless, offer no improvement on the predictive value offered by the









SD measurements reported in that study. This suggests that light attenuation, as

quantified by SD sampling, is the most important environmental factor in determining

MDC. Still, there is substantial variability in SD-MDC correlates from one site to

another, suggesting that other factors play a causal role.

It is possible that much of the variability in the MDC-SD model is due to

fluctuations in lakes levels that prevent plant depth from attaining a state of equilibrium.

Furthermore, light regimes fluctuate through time causing oscillation in the equilibrium

depth at which plants grow. For the 279-lake-year study, the use of yearly average SD

readings helped account for the changing light regimes in which the plants had been

growing and to which they were responding that year, whereas only daily SD readings

were used in the 32-lake study. It is significant, therefore, that if yearly SD transparency

values from the Florida LAKEWATCH database were used to replace the daily SD

values for the 32-lake study, the yearly SD-MDC model accounts for more variablility

(R2 = 0.57) than the one using the daily SD values (R2 = 0.46).

Obviously, when herbicides are used or when grass carp are released into a lake,

the depth of plant growth should diminish and could cause lakes to deviate below the best

fit SD-MDC line. When the Hernando Chain of Lakes in Citrus County was visited

during the 32-lake study, the water was being sprayed with a herbicide and an island was

being built. Many of the areas visited in this chain had the presence of freshly killed

plant material, indicative of continued plant maintenance control.

There are innumerable possible combinations of environmental variables for a

specific site over the course of time and this introduces the element of unquantifiable

chance into any predictive value for response by a resident organism. The inability of









this current research effort to isolate other specific factors as core determinants makes it

seem likely that the range of variation in MDC response from site to site is to be

expected. In the final analysis, this simply represents a measurable variation in response

to an immeasurably complex interaction of environmental factors

An upper limit line relating MDC to SD was developed and describes light

limitation when the MDC response falls on or near the response curve and when MDC

values fall below the line, there is some other limiting environmental factor. Managers

should recognize that the maximum MDC model predicts the upper limit of deepwater

growth, but other factors will routinely result in the actual depth of plant colonization less

than predicted.

The other water chemistry parameters examined (color, chlorophyll, TP, and TN)

were found to provide reasonable estimates for predicting the potential depth of

macrophyte growth and could be particularly useful when SD transparency or E of a lake

is unknown. Managers should assess each lake independently and consider what water

chemistry variable is the dominant factor influencing plant growth. For example, true

color would be the best tool to use for predicting MDC for a dystrophic lake.

Submersed aquatic macrophytes play an integral role in the functioning of lake

processes, therefore, it is important for managers to understand how submersed plants

will respond to changes in lake conditions, such as eutrophication or altered water levels.

These models allow managers to assess potential changes in plant coverage that might

result from changes in light and water chemistry variables.















APPENDIX A
32-LAKE STUDY DATA













Table A-1. Maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), Secchi disk transparency (SD in meters), top, middle, and bottom
depths that the light meter was measured (Z top, Z middle, Z bottom in meters), top, middle, and bottom deck cell light
readings (deck top, deck middle, deck bottom in gmol s-1 m-2 per gA), and top, middle, and bottom underwater light
readings (Iz top, Iz middle, Iz bottom in gmol s-1 m-2 per gA), color (PCU), soil type, and plant species identification by
station (buoy number) at 32 Florida lakes sampled in 2004.


Lake County


Z
Buoy MDC SD Z
top


Z Deck Iz Z Deck Iz Soil
Deck top Iztop middle middle middle bottom bottom bottom Color type


10/29/04 Alligator Lake 2 2.6 1

10/29/04 Alligator Lake 3 2.5 1

10/29/04 Alligator Lake 6 2.7 0.9
10/22/04 Alto Alachua 2 4.3 0.8

10/22/04 Alto Alachua 6 1.8 0.8

10/22/04 Alto Alachua 8 1.4 0.7

08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough 2 2.9 1.5

08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough 3 0.9 B
k)
Ji 08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough 4 2.1 B

08/11/04 Bay Hillsborough OWL1 .
08/3/04 Beakman Lake 3 3.7 B

08/3/04 Beakman Lake 5 3.1 B

08/3/04 Beakman Lake 6 3.4 B

08/3/04 Beakman Lake SD 3.5

10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus 3 1.3 1.2

10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus 5 0.8 1.7

10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus 6 0.2 1.5

10/16/04 Bellamy Citrus OWL1 .


0.6 1427

0.6 1359

0.6 1367

0.5 1288

0.75 825

5 0.3 1016

1 1895

0.2 1705

0.2 1233

1 1727

1 1088

0.5 1678

1 1374


5 0.5 1569

5 0.4 1643

0.5 1567

1 1638


109.3 1.2

193.4 1.2

270.2 1.2

117.2 1

38.95 1.5

115.6 0.6

247.7 2

1190 0.4

711.2 0.5

415.9 2

0.13 1.5

808.4 1

26.38 1.5


403.6 1

472 0.8

501.4 1

238.7 2


947 30.27 2.1

1330 50.59 2.1

1366 63.79 1.8

1320 28.66 1.5

1073 5.59 2.3

773.3 39.99 0.9

1893 12.47 2.5

1739 831.2 0.6

1767 677.2 1

1734 93.2 2.5

1844 0.28 2

1694 825.6 1.5

1850 42.8 2


1423 171.3 1.4

1616 318.3 1.2

1569 77.87 1.5

1648 47.23 3


1306 16.41 65 Organic Hydrilla verticillata

1224 15.64 63 Organic Hydrilla verticillata

1357 34.94 69 Organic Hydrilla verticillata
1301 6.3 150 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii

831.8 0.55 152 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii

1049 20.15 147 Mix Eleocharis baldwinii

1829 3.24 38 Organic Chara sp.
1808 609.8 35 Sandy Chara sp.

1738 374.7 34 Organic Chara sp.

1823 49.68

2109 0.08 13 Sandy Websteria confervoides

1727 485.2 17 Sandy Websteria confervoides

1850 24.48 19 Sandy Websteria confervoides


1674 86.35 61 Organic Bacopa caroliniana
1564 179.9 61 Organic Hydrilla verticillata

1574 46.46 61 Organic Bacopa caroliniana
1566 7.86


Date


Species















Z Z Deck Iz Z Deck Iz Soil
Buoy MDC SD top Deck top Iz top middle middle middle bottom bottom bottom Color type
top middle middle middle bottom bottom bottom type


06/23/04 Brant

06/23/04 Brant

06/23/04 Brant

08/4/04 Church

08/4/04 Church

08/4/04 Church

11/20/04 Conway North

11/20/04 Conway North

11/20/04 Conway North

11/20/04 Conway North

11/20/04 Conway South

11/20/04 Conway South

11/20/04 Conway South

10/16/04 Dodd

10/16/04 Dodd

10/16/04 Dodd

10/16/04 Doe

10/16/04 Doe

10/16/04 Doe

9/10/04 Farles Prairie

9/10/04 Farles Prairie

9/10/04 Farles Prairie


8/6/04

8/6/04

8/6/04


Grasshopper

Grasshopper

Grasshopper


Hillsborough 2 1 B 0.5 1559 0.26

Hillsborough OW1 1 1 1473 121

Hillsborough OW2 1.25 0.2 1728 684.4

Hillsborough 1 2 1.5 0.5 2014 849.3

Hillsborough OW1 1.25 1 1585 492.1

Hillsborough OW2 1.5 1 2357 566

Orange 3 5.1 3 1 565.7 160.5

Orange 6 5.8 2.6 1 670.9 184.9

Orange 9 5.6 2.75 1 757.3 231.1

Orange OWL1 1 1384 653.1

Orange 4 5.7 2.5 1 1423 556.9

Orange 5 5.5 2.4 1 1637 578.5

Orange 8 6.3 2.6 1 1508 576.3

Citrus 3 0.8 1.25 0.5 935.8 235.4

Citrus 5 2.1 1.25 0.5 1173 149.1

Citrus 6 0.3 1.5 0.4 1366 484.5

Marion 3 4 3.5 1 1483 529

Marion 5 4.4 3.5 1 1437 563.6

Marion 8 4.3 3.5 1 1524 378.2


Lake

Lake

Lake


2 4.9 3.25 1

7 4.2 3.75 1

8 4.6 3.25 1


Hillsborough 1

Hillsborough 2

Hillsborough OW2


1552 0.22

1525 47.14 2

1637 401.6 0.6

2028 516.2 1.5

1616 149.2 2.5

2378 199.1 3

559.3 86.14 3

645.4 100.4 3

721.2 107.7 3

1371 313.9 3

1401 277.6 3

1627 279.9 3

1647 313.7 3

1032 113.9 1.5

1069 109.1 1.5

1368 449.4 1.2

1485 250.9 3

1427 220.5 3

1566 92.13 3


787.4 190.2 2 793.9 79.35 3


1454 250.1


2 1058 111.5 3


635.9 194.6 2 630.6 74.38 3


2.8 1.25 0.5 287.5 27.54

1.8 1 0.5 552.4 53.26

1.5 0.5 1177 206.2


271.7 4.29 1.3

560.5 17.43 1.5

1158 13.59 1.5


88 Mix Bacopa caroliniana


1572 15.93 89

1721 302.6 89

2005 301.6 28

1580 82.22 31

2359 47.66 25

541.4 47.57 7

646 32.31 8

699.4 60.76 9

1370 178.3

1436 149.8 9

1642 146.3 8

1692 172.1 8

1095 35.15 61

1225 41.69 62

1374 221 63

1486 129.5 9

1416 116.6 9

1552 67.59 14

794 40.76 11

1055 54.57 12

626.1 33.09 12

267.2 0.58 78

575 3.31 76

1127 0.2 80


Organic

Organic

Mix Chara sp.

Mix

Mix

Mix Vallisneria americana

Mix Potamogeton illinoensis

Mix Potamogeton illinoensis


Mix Vallisneria americana

Mix Vallisneria americana

Mix Nitella sp.

Sandy Ludwigia repens

Organic Utricularia sp.

Organic Hydrochloa caroliniensis

Mix Chara sp.

Mix Chara sp.

Mix Chara sp.
Myriophyllum
heterophyllum
Sandy Utricularia sp.
Sandy Myriophyllum
heterophyllum
Sandy Websteria confervoides

Sandy Utricularia sp.

Sandy


873.1 28.69 2 786.6 2.89 3 767.3 0.95


Table A-1. Continued.


County


Species


8/6/04 Grasshopper Hillsborough OWL1 .















Z Z Deck Iz Z Deck Iz Soil
Buoy MDC SD top Deck top Iz top iddle middle middle bottom bottom botto Color type
top middle middle middle bottom bottom bottom type


10/22/04 Hampton

10/22/04 Hampton

10/22/04 Hampton

10/16/04 Hernando

10/16/04 Hernando

10/16/04 Hernando

11/21/04 Ivanhoe

11/21/04 Ivanhoe

11/21/04 Ivanhoe

11/20/04 Little Conway

11/20/04 Little Conway

11/20/04 Little Conway

10/18/04 Little Santa Fe

10/18/04 Little Santa Fe

10/18/04 Little Santa Fe

08/11/04 Magdalene

08/11/04 Magdalene

08/11/04 Magdalene

08/4/04 Maurine

08/4/04 Maurine

08/4/04 Maurine

08/4/04 Maurine

08/12/04 Melrose Bay

08/12/04 Melrose Bay

08/12/04 Melrose Bay

05/27/04 Mill Dam


Bradford 5

Bradford 6

Bradford 9

Citrus 1

Citrus 2

Citrus 4

Orange 2

Orange 3

Orange 6

Orange 5

Orange 6

Orange 9

Alachua 2

Alachua 4

Alachua OW1

Hillsborough 1

Hillsborough 2

Hillsborough 6

Hillsborough 1

Hillsborough 5

Hillsborough 7

Hillsborough SD

Alachua 3

Alachua 7

Alachua 8

Marion 4


1.7 1 0.4 959.8 197.3

1.8 1 0.4 1231 189

1.7 0.8 0.5 1027 133.6

2.2 1.4 0.75 1067 95.33

2 1.5 0.6 1059 135.2

2.6 1.75 1 986.5 79.77

2 1 1 1228 392.5

2.7 1 1 1150 325.4

1.8 1.1 1 1113 214

6.1 1.25 1 1356 293.8

5.1 1 1 1197 176.6

5.5 1.75 1 1183 405.3

2 0.5 0.3 1257 49.92

2 0.5 0.2 1053 83.82

0.4 0.2 818.3 86

3.8 2 1 1961 502.5

3.6 1.75 1 1828 507.7

3.3 1.6 1 2093 336.8

1.3 B 0.2 1972 620.3

1 B 0.2 2010 814.8

1.3 B 0.3 1198 175.4


2.8 2

2.8 2

3 2

3 B


1 307.6 49.92


1 752.9 113.70

1 2031.0 403.20


968.7 76.49 0.9

1213 62.69 1.2

1029 53.67 1.4

1049 23.79 2.1

1054 22.92 1.8

970 9.65 2.5

1236 150.60 3

1156 125.40 3

1117 116.30 3

1353 92.37 3

1196 62.83 3

1169 145.60 3

1249 14.47 1.2

1191 28.53 0.6

786.6 15.02 0.6

1963 488.00 3

1883 206.10 3

2094 424.80 3

2064 439.40 0.6

2077 679.50 0.6

1306 109.80 0.9


300.9 0.18 2.5


758.4 32.02 3

2212 260.80 2.2


894.9 52.89 89

1262 40.78 91

1041 17.81 87

1047 1.24 61

977.5 7.27 62

934.2 4.26 56

1058 108.4 10

1150 62.35 11

1116 52.07 9

1328 30.61 14

1176 23.21 12

1169 55.37 12

1275 0.98 375

1072 7.3 381

801.2 1.63 399

1921 15.7 29

327.1 2.95 29

2059 86.54 43

2028 152.4 64

2052 397.8 64

1480 85.01 65


291.8 0.15 27

27

738.3 18.44 26

2210 323.1 14


Sandy Websteria confervoides

Sandy Websteria confervoides

Sandy Websteria confervoides

Organic Ceratophyllum demersum

Organic Ceratophyllum demersum

Organic Ceratophyllum demersum

Mix Najas guadalupensis

Mix Vallisneria americana

Sandy Vallisneria americana

Organic Vallisneria americana

Organic Hydrilla verticillata

Organic Hydrilla verticillata

Mix Eleocharis baldwinii

Mix Eleocharis baldwinii

Mix

Organic Unidentified plant

Organic Nitella sp.

Organic Najas guadalupensis

Sandy Bacopa caroliniana

Sandy Bacopa caroliniana

Sandy Bacopa caroliniana


Mix Mayaca fluviatilis

Mix Mayaca fluviatilis

Mix Mayaca fluviatilis

Mix Mayaca fluviatilis


Table A-1. Continued.


County


Species













Table A-1. Continued.


Z
Buoy MDC SD z
top


Z Deck Iz Z Deck Iz Soil
Deck top Iztop middle middle middle bottom bottom bottom Colo type


05/27/04 Mill Dam

05/27/04 Mill Dam

05/18/04 Newnan

05/18/04 Newnan

05/18/04 Newnan

08/25/04 Osceola

08/25/04 Osceola

08/25/04 Osceola

10/18/04 Santa Fe

10/18/04 Santa Fe

10/18/04 Santa Fe

05/13/04 Sellers

05/19/04 Starke

08/12/04 Stella

08/12/04 Stella

08/12/04 Stella

09/25/04 Taylor

09/25/04 Taylor

09/25/04 Taylor

06/16/04 Twin

06/16/04 Twin

06/16/04 Twin

06/1/04 Weir

06/1/04 Weir

06/1/04 Weir


Marion 7

Marion 8

Alachua 3

Alachua 6

Alachua OW1

Hillsborough 2

Hillsborough 4

Hillsborough 8

Alachua 1

Alachua 2

Alachua 3

Lake 2

Orange 1

Putnam 3

Putnam 7

Putnam 8

Hillsborough 1

Hillsborough OW1

Hillsborough OW2

Hillsborough 3

Hillsborough 5

Hillsborough OW1

Marion 1

Marion 6

Marion 8


2.8 3.05 1

2.4 B 1

0.9 0.3 0.5

0.4 0.3 0.5

0.25 0.5

3.3 2.1 1

3.2 2.1 1

4.0 2.1 1

3.5 1.4 1

4.0 1.3 1

4.1 1.4 1

9.2 5.75 1

1.5 0.75 1

4.3 2 1

4.1 2 1

4.4 2 1

3.1 1.5 1

1.5 1

1.5 1

2.8 0.5 1

2.5 0.5 1

0.5 1

2.9 1.5 1

2.8 1.4 1

3.3 1.5 1


588.3 146.7 2

1878 290.6 2

2184 155.4 0.6

2181 194.3 0.7

2098 19.37 0.8

1504 160.8 2

1778 389.3 2

1794 367.4 2

1135 96.34 2

1205 103.6 2

999.9 100.7 2

2327 1199 2

2011 499 1.5

651.4 143.5 2

1003 244.7 2

1014 282 2

1429 216.6 2

1516 44.8 2

1481 193.4 2

472.3 28.87 2

2028 74.64

1946 35.37 2

2065 267.5 2

2007 501.5 2

2104 664.9 2


597.9 99.55 3

2182 281.9

2179 106.6

2286 90.45

2098 1.16 1

1549 99.87 3

1779 382.3 3

1732 107.2 3

1162 17.47 2.5

1096 7.47 3

995.2 17.27 3

2335 1035 3

694.6 54.58 .

650.3 52 3

975.2 86.04 3

1019 102.4 3

1428 206.5 2.5

1516 41.3 3

1480 57.97 3

474.4 3.13


2058 22.3 2.5

2118 137.9 2.5

2064 284.2 2.5

2093 341.7 2.5


4.0 3.5 1 477.7 129.5 2 575.1 77.86 3


1811 185.1 15 Sandy Mayaca fluviatilis

14 Sandy Mayaca fluviatilis

112 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum

96 Organic Ceratophyllum demersum

2095 0.19 91 Organic.

1568 39.18 38 Organic Najas guadalupensis

1781 53.89 35 Organic Hydrilla verticillata

1695 11.41 37 Organic Utricularia sp.

1116 9.56 52 Organic Najas guadalupensis

1039 3.65 54 Organic Najas guadalupensis

971.8 0.79 52 Organic Najas guadalupensis

2270 729.9 2 Sandy Utricularia sp.

14 Sandy Vallisneria americana

681.3 19.92 19 Mix Najas guadalupensis

969.6 37.82 18 Mix Chara sp.

989.8 43.92 21 Mix Najas guadalupensis

1437 55.96 36 Organic Eleocharis baldwinii

1528 8.93 46 Organic

1525 16.75 41 Organic

15 Sandy Vallisneria americana

14 Sandy Vallisneria americana

1956 11.06 16 Sandy

2004 64.73 6 Sandy Nitella sp.

2076 161.8 7 Mix Nitella sp.

2122 296 8 Sandy Nitella sp.

511.9 50.17 10 Organic Hydrillaverticillata


County


Species


06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough












Table A-1. Continued.


County


06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough
06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough
06/16/04 White Trout Hillsborough

Note: SD = Secchi disk transp,
visible on lake bottom


Buoy MDC SD
top

2 5.5 B 0.5
3 5.1 3 1
4 4.6 2.75 1

irency stations, OW


Z Deck Iz Z Deck Iz Soil
Deck top Iztop middle middle middle bottom bottom bottom Colo type

447.4 150.3 0.7 451.3 135.4 0.9 455.4 122.4 10 Organic
2153 194.2 2 2188 149.6 3 2184 196.5 13 Mix
2203 664.4 2 2215 224.7 3 1925 188.8 13 Mix

SOpen-water stations, OWL = Open-water light stations, B = S


Species

Vallisneria americana
Hydrilla verticillata
Utricularia sp.

ecchi disk was


























Maximum depth of plant colonization (MDC in meters), yearly mean Secchi
disk transparency (SD in meters), color (PCU), chlorophyll (gg/L), total

phosphorus (TP in gg/L), total nitrogen (TN gg/L) for 279 Florida lake years
sampled during 1991 to 2004.


SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN


35.50
7.00
8.13
18.00


5.00
6.50
9.50
35.00
90.50
3.50


28.67
13.71
58.31
166.80
128.00
65.52
6.30
122.50
11.00
3.88
62.83
11.31
21.21
19.20
43.75
70.63
380.19
128.09


14.27
1.90
3.05
53.21
1.58
3.89
2.26
5.56
23.67
23.33
1.20
9.09
17.07
3.33
181.87
19.92
20.40
6.25
2.46
3.11
5.55
2.00
10.36
3.96
15.96
3.08
166.40
11.82
3.97
2.58
3.20


17.06
7.40
8.19
58.30
7.08
6.53
10.29
8.36
40.10
33.73
3.77
14.39
33.56
12.51
139.23
139.47
35.00
20.69
6.36
10.37
16.45
5.07
21.67
10.87
24.89
17.61
56.20
14.76
25.92
8.30
11.42


566.06
204.29
245.71
1144.55
377.50
134.72
101.39
456.11
687.67
980.30
122.33
709.39
779.63
368.65
3679.33
1385.83
1067.67
774.44
180.40
533.33
700.61
158.52
733.61
479.67
764.44
519.72
3389.00
411.21
1009.44
563.64
754.24


Table B-1.


APPENDIX B
279-LAKE-YEAR STUDY


Lake

Alto
Boll Green
Chipco
Clear
Erie
Fanny
Georges
Gillis
Grandin
Little Orange
Alice
Banana
Bass
Bear
Beauclaire
Bethel
Blue
Brant
Broward
Cherry
Church
Como
Crenshaw
David
De Witt
Deborah
Dora West
Dorr
Eaton
Emma
Emporia


County

Alachua
Putnam
Putnam
Orange
Leon
Putnam
Putnam
Putnam
Putnam
Alachua
Hillsborough
Putnam
Pasco
Seminole
Lake
Volusia
Volusia
Hillsborough
Putnam
Lake
Hillsborough
Putnam
Hillsborough
St Lucie
St Lucie
St Lucie
Lake
Lake
Marion
Lake
Volusia


MDC

2.5
4.1
3.9
2.2
2.8
4.4
3.4
3.3
1.3
2
5.5
1.8
2.7
3
1.7
1.6
2.9
4.5
4.3
3.3
4.3
3.4
2.3
1.6
1.9
1.8
0.9
1.3
1.6
5.5
2.9













Table B-1. Continued.


SD Color Chlorophyll


TP TN


Floyd
Formosa
Georgia
Gertrude
Halfmoon
Hall
Hampton
Hart
Henderson
Hernando
Hiawatha
Hickorynut
Howell
Island
Jean
Jeffery
Joanna
Karen
Keene
Keystone
Kingsley
Kirkland
Little Henderson
Little Weir
Ola
Osceola
Sellers
Seminary
Bay
Bear
Blue Heron
Conway South
Coon
Cowpen
Crescent
Croft
Crooked
Dead Lady
Diane
Disston
Eagle
Egypt
Elbert
English
Erie
Fannie
Fredrica


Pasco 2.8
Orange 2.3
Orange 5.3
Lake 8
Marion 3.1
Leon 6
Bradford 4.1
Orange 1.8
Citrus 2.7
Citrus 3
Hillsborough 5.2
Orange 5.8
Seminole 4
Marion 0.8
St Lucie 2.2
St Lucie 2.2
Lake 3.1
St Lucie 2.3
Hillsborough 2.1
Hillsborough 3.7
Clay 8.3
Lake 4.1
Citrus 2.5
Marion 3.4
Orange 6.1
Hillsborough 5.2
Lake 7.5
Seminole 6.5
Orange 3
Seminole 2.2
Leon 2.3
Orange 6.8
Osceola 1
Putnam 3.9
Hillsborough 3.3
Citrus 3.4
Lake 2.8
Hillsborough 2.6
Leon 4.2
Flagler 0.7
Polk 2.8
Hillsborough 2.5
Polk 4.9
Putnam 2.8
Leon 1.7
Polk 1.7
Orange 5


County


MDC


6.83
3.61
9.67
16.35
4.31
13.84
6.35
1.97
5.92
7.75
6.79
15.46
3.16
6.04
6.33
5.14
11.95
3.84
5.10
9.23
21.81
10.71
5.91
5.85
12.03
15.22
20.00
15.63
2.91
10.89
2.70
11.38
1.78
10.23
7.00
12.00
5.10
5.65
8.31
1.69
3.00
4.77
5.50
4.76
5.81
2.14
10.38


26.00
14.54
18.35
6.28
47.94
6.31
12.06
183.33
151.05
101.78
36.69
53.50


3.00


10.75
12.20
14.25
119.00
98.71
6.43


66.19
10.50
9.50
36.50
2.50
8.42
21.00
9.00
15.00
7.00
217.00
1.00
22.00
19.00
15.00
75.00
6.00
290.00
10.00
12.00
9.00
35.00


63.00
7.00


3.42
42.00
3.56
2.47
9.92
16.07
5.06
3.39
7.61
3.60
10.17
1.08
47.58
2.83
2.86
2.00
2.05
22.04
12.33
2.70
3.56
2.37
9.06
9.38
3.06
1.94
1.03
2.50
47.77
3.15
51.48
7.67
8.37
1.67
10.75
2.31
10.36
31.23
2.56
7.00
27.50
19.25
3.33
13.33
2.89
27.86
4.73


14.47
38.17
8.22
7.10
16.47
23.77
11.25
15.08
19.17
10.63
15.61
5.88
46.75
12.99
10.97
9.33
6.33
32.89
36.23
9.18
4.59
7.27
15.67
12.38
12.08
6.25
3.39
8.19
39.23
12.39
55.15
10.00
35.23
5.00
14.75
6.72
21.77
36.69
13.19
25.36
19.33
20.58
12.33
13.00
5.17
56.00
12.87


826.11
796.11
535.56
558.61
620.83
412.58
489.72
1143.06
898.33
564.00
508.89
730.00
1068.33
298.33
491.94
520.00
422.08
1086.30
1149.67
462.73
260.74
357.17
877.78
915.83
560.00
443.06
42.50
354.44
1455.13
391.47
938.48
440.51
1045.00
86.67
549.17
601.28
971.03
1104.62
304.72
965.76
1110.00
745.00
553.33
870.00
419.44
1133.33
417.33













Table B-1. Continued.


County


MDC


Gillis Putnam
Grasshopper Lake
Haines Polk
Halfmoon Hillsborough
Hamilton Polk
Hampton Bradford
Harney Volusia
Harris Lake
Hartridge Polk
Henry Polk
Higgenbotham Putnam
Highland Orange
Howard Polk
Idlewild Lake
Ivanhoe East Orange
Ivanhoe Middle Orange
Ivanhoe West Orange
Lawsona Orange
Little Bass Polk
Little Halfmoon Hillsborough
Little Santa Fe Alachua
Little Spirit Polk
Lizzie Osceola
Marsha Orange
Mary Marion
Rosa Putnam
Ashby Volusia
Bennett Orange
Conway North Orange
Conway South Orange
Eaton Marion
Highland Orange
Howell Seminole
Bellamy Citrus
Blue Highlands
Broward Putnam
Clay Highlands
Crews Highlands
Denton Highlands
Dinner Highlands
Dodd Citrus
Eagle Pond Highlands
Floral City Citrus
Francis Highlands
Hall Leon
Hampton Citrus
Henderson Citrus


SD Color Chlorophyll


7.44
12.38
1.99
6.89
3.63
6.49
3.40
2.72
4.62
1.51
11.57
4.17
2.22
5.30
3.31
3.91
3.05
3.46
2.24
11.19
5.67
8.00
4.56
16.21
14.50
14.69
2.56
7.56
8.60
10.49
2.40
4.38
2.67
9.19
10.89
15.83
10.61
4.37
23.02
20.27
8.70
4.19
3.64
6.50
16.68
3.58
4.52


6.00
0.00
55.00
9.00
62.00
28.00
108.00
12.00
9.00
295.00
7.00
9.00
20.00
55.00
14.00
15.00
15.00


40.00
9.00
54.00
27.00
97.00
13.00
1.00
4.00
192.75
12.88
6.96
7.17
380.19
13.50
15.00
31.00
7.00
4.00
8.00
28.00
3.00
4.00
29.00
18.00
157.00
5.00
6.00
111.00
107.00


7.06
1.41
99.10
6.13
8.61
4.74
8.75
67.53
1.00
4.60
2.46
22.00
39.23
10.09
29.48
24.03
29.78
27.28
92.85
2.67
7.33
5.58
3.74
2.64
1.61
6.95
3.92
7.46
11.88
9.36
6.45
16.42
32.42
3.04
4.22
1.96
5.45
5.83
1.64
1.67
4.04
13.39
12.83
12.40
3.52
16.43
9.79


TP TN

9.03 318.06
2.05 235.13
158.21 1804.62
13.88 533.75
116.33 1042.22
9.79 511.54
38.56 1157.92
31.20 1839.67
9.00 396.67
131.00 1207.33
5.77 389.49
36.13 625.33
31.40 1446.67
15.64 1005.76
30.82 770.61
29.58 612.78
31.85 720.37
82.81 996.11
344.22 1912.95
7.58 451.39
12.63 528.97
20.33 704.17
15.72 738.72
7.14 391.39
2.58 118.61
5.59 86.92
67.14 737.50
18.30 613.70
11.15 534.55
10.09 458.79
22.67 1276.67
32.00 620.00
35.83 653.33
11.11 687.04
10.22 575.56
6.29 296.46
11.12 459.70
13.77 423.67
3.39 3133.64
7.67 633.33
10.78 774.07
12.50 698.79
33.44 974.17
14.42 510.33
11.80 320.60
30.26 929.64
21.67 960.91













Table B-1. Continued.

Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN

1996 Hickorynut Orange 4.6 10.97 19.00 2.85 7.64 694.24
1996 Hill Highlands 3.2 6.15 13.00 5.81 10.00 347.41
1996 Jackson Highlands 5 11.22 10.00 4.50 12.28 337.78
1996 Josephine Center Highlands 1.2 1.81 92.00 24.97 46.10 959.67
1996 Josephine East Highlands 1 2.46 58.00 24.33 35.30 915.56
1996 Josephine West Highlands 0.8 1.56 127.00 33.40 82.50 1079.33
1996 Lillian Highlands 4.5 8.23 6.00 7.73 9.58 631.21
1996 Little Henderson Citrus 4 5.00 77.00 8.83 18.61 932.73
1996 Little Jackson Highlands 2.7 2.94 27.50 52.78 51.67 1167.41
1996 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.7 5.41 106.70 6.03 10.85 450.30
1996 Ola Orange 6.6 14.96 8.00 3.42 9.82 525.00
1997 Carroll Hillsborough 4.6 11.00 8.69 2.33 12.67 463.33
1997 Fanny Putnam 5.1 11.83 3.63 2.28 4.78 129.44
1997 Lily Clay 4 11.50 2.76 2.74 6.33 109.26
1997 Lochloosa Alachua 2.5 2.24 222.00 70.66 52.14 1795.45
1997 Sheelar Clay 6 26.77 1.39 1.62 3.25 87.08
1997 Winnemissett Volusia 6.2 18.75 6.50 0.50 5.75 193.33
1998 Ada Seminole 3.2 8.19 14.00 5.89 16.50 534.67
1998 Alto Alachua 2.5 4.63 83.30 9.36 17.97 586.11
1998 Bay Orange 2.1 3.04 25.63 39.15 37.50 1086.67
1998 Chipco Putnam 5.5 11.86 8.13 5.43 10.50 319.33
1998 Cowpen Putnam 4.5 9.50 1.00 2.78 6.56 193.33
1998 Crooked Lake 1.9 5.71 37.31 7.58 13.94 718.89
1998 Crystal Clay 3.9 7.40 9.00 5.67 11.30 264.67
1998 Dorr Lake 0.7 2.08 70.63 15.60 18.00 499.33
1998 Gillis Putnam 2.2 3.47 10.77 11.47 912.33
1998 Grandin Putnam 1.6 3.95 19.67 28.76 501.21
1998 Grasshopper Lake 3.7 6.39 112.42 3.25 5.72 365.28
1998 Joes Marion 4.2 7.83 11.00 3.88 10.39 598.18
1998 Kingsley Clay 7.5 16.88 6.43 6.96 8.13 323.75
1998 Little Bear Seminole 2.9 12.49 16.52 3.17 13.00 474.17
1998 Little Crystal Clay 2.7 5.87 25.50 7.78 12.50 330.00
1998 Little Orange Alachua 2.2 2.76 173.65 10.58 129.81 958.33
1998 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.1 4.41 106.70 11.42 14.56 530.00
1998 Little Weir Marion 3.5 6.18 10.50 8.58 11.09 816.67
1998 Lizzie Osceola 1 2.67 98.33 5.30 22.52 744.81
1998 Sellers Lake 7.6 21.00 2.50 1.33 3.50 76.06
1998 Seminary Seminole 5.4 15.49 8.42 2.52 7.94 373.03
1999 Bear Seminole 5.9 13.01 13.71 4.17 14.35 440.42
1999 Beauclaire Lake 1.5 0.78 58.31 291.56 169.44 4551.94
1999 Bennett Orange 3.8 11.15 12.88 2.56 16.74 524.44
1999 Carlton Orange 1 1.06 41.87 219.25 85.97 3572.22
1999 Disston Flagler 0.9 1.29 428.47 4.00 25.67 1074.72
1999 Erie Leon 2.2 4.77 .2.25 6.82 457.58
1999 Gatlin Orange 2.7 2.25 15.64 36.81 21.39 1209.17
1999 Halfmoon Marion 2.2 4.85 47.94 8.00 14.78 774.17














Table B-1. Continued.

Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN

1999 Hiawatha Leon 2.6 4.41 174.17 5.39 19.56 520.56
1999 Josephine Center Highlands 1.6 1.82 134.05 20.17 57.47 930.56
1999 Josephine East Highlands 1.8 2.58 87.40 37.70 47.47 1003.67
1999 Josephine West Highlands 1.4 1.53 158.30 19.78 93.72 977.78
1999 June Highlands 3.4 4.97 13.70 17.25 13.78 745.00
1999 Juniper East Walton 3.7 6.93 14.81 6.64 12.94 367.22
1999 Juniper West Walton 3.5 6.67 14.79 5.33 11.56 717.78
1999 Little Conway Orange 8.5 12.51 6.00 3.69 11.50 479.72
1999 Lochloosa Alachua 2.6 1.54 222.00 152.50 62.93 2351.25
1999 Wooten Jefferson 4.2 10.78 .4.10 13.52 301.90
2000 Asbury North Clay 6.5 8.50 14.50 7.81 20.56 409.63
2000 Bedford Bradford 2.4 5.64 13.00 11.56 44.33 783.06
2000 Deerback Marion 1.8 8.27 19.56 3.50 10.75 559.58
2000 Dexter Polk 5.3 15.43 9.60 2.25 9.21 425.83
2000 Diane Leon 3.7 4.40 9.07 8.78 22.36 529.72
2000 Eagle Polk 3.6 3.50 9.75 18.54 21.42 807.50
2000 East Pasco 3.6 8.75 16.98 3.39 18.00 582.22
2000 Florida Seminole 2.5 5.14 12.82 33.36 909.44
2000 Hartridge Polk 1.7 4.35 11.00 14.50 20.67 625.00
2000 Henry Polk 1.2 1.31 98.50 8.05 96.24 1122.86
2000 Little Bass Polk 2 1.33 23.25 148.25 401.64 2643.61
2000 Little Santa Fe Alachua 3.2 5.34 106.70 9.94 15.83 528.61
2001 Arbuckle Polk 1 1.46 269.00 17.44 82.22 1258.33
2001 Big Volusia 2.2 6.00 56.40 5.93 18.57 707.62
2001 Cassidy Holmes 6 18.15 1.33 1.83 4.71 129.58
2001 Conway North Orange 4.6 13.29 6.33 4.00 11.83 366.67
2001 Conway South Orange 7 14.90 7.50 2.58 10.17 359.17
2001 Crooked Polk 5.4 8.16 15.50 3.97 13.53 580.94
2001 De Witt St Lucie 2 3.04 20.50 13.82 29.94 988.89
2001 Deborah St Lucie 1.7 5.80 19.20 2.25 12.13 508.33
2001 Grayton Walton 1.5 4.42 32.25 3.44 11.92 251.11
2001 Howell Seminole 3.3 2.75 15.00 38.45 41.95 1032.80
2001 Istokpoga Highlands 1.7 2.97 55.25 36.75 55.61 1515.56
2001 Ivanhoe East Orange 1.8 3.63 12.00 30.71 25.74 827.86
2001 Ivanhoe Middle Orange 1.7 4.17 10.50 25.29 27.19 725.24
2001 Ivanhoe West Orange 2.7 4.12 13.00 30.43 35.62 692.86
2001 Josephine Center Highlands 0.8 1.75 105.00 25.08 76.22 1007.78
2001 Josephine East Highlands 1 2.68 70.50 29.36 51.58 944.55
2001 Josephine West Highlands 1.2 1.57 121.00 25.33 111.31 1068.06
2001 Jovita Pasco 4.2 5.79 8.75 10.22 21.47 783.06
2001 June Highlands 4.7 9.03 7.75 6.83 11.11 499.72
2001 Juniper East Walton 3.7 7.64 13.67 6.00 11.18 417.64
2001 Juniper West Walton 2.4 6.93 14.67 7.78 11.42 864.72
2001 Karen St Lucie 1.9 4.82 14.25 5.10 15.53 665.67
2001 Little Wilson Hillsborough 4 5.89 31.00 8.63 25.44 875.93
2001 Lochloosa Alachua 1.5 1.30 222.00 138.00 89.88 3823.75














Table B-1. Continued.

Year Lake County MDC SD Color Chlorophyll TP TN

2001 Margaret St Lucie 2.2 5.02 8.75 6.52 12.19 434.44
2001 Viola Highlands 5.5 14.90 3.00 2.58 7.92 446.67
2002 Bessie Orange 8.6 15.79 8.00 2.06 7.08 479.72
2002 E Miami-Dade 7.8 17.67 3.75 1.41 5.22 321.48
2002 Grassy Highlands 4.7 12.06 11.80 2.69 9.50 716.11
2002 Sellers Lake 8.9 19.83 1.83 1.09 3.33 66.67
2002 Verona Highlands 6.1 14.09 5.10 6.41 10.37 340.37
2003 Alligator Osceola 2.6 3.37 54.58 5.11 19.63 875.14
2003 Annie Putnam 3 9.67 9.00 3.78 10.08 428.33
2003 Blue Lake 2 3.27 72.50 5.78 15.67 385.56
2003 Clear Lake 4.8 11.65 14.80 2.64 13.31 502.50
2003 Cliff Broward 4.4 7.33 26.00 5.28 20.89 455.00
2003 Conway North Orange 8 14.30 8.00 3.47 8.73 412.00
2003 Conway South Orange 7.1 14.17 8.00 4.67 10.20 434.00
2003 Delevoe Broward 2.3 6.29 8.00 29.21 44.57 828.57
2003 Farm 13 Indian River 2.1 3.09 85.00 35.94 76.75 1634.44
2003 Florence Seminole 4.2 9.33 11.00 5.00 12.83 518.33
2003 Flynn Hillsborough 1.9 3.67 63.08 5.97 10.14 1145.28
2003 Formosa Orange 3.4 6.77 14.00 30.21 45.03 856.67
2003 Galilee Putnam 2.5 3.77 8.00 10.00 15.00 230.00
2003 Highland Miami-Dade 5.2 7.27 17.00 7.00 15.00 462.33
2003 Highland Orange 2.8 3.52 12.00 39.67 50.17 773.33
2003 Istokpoga Highlands 2 2.46 62.00 51.75 64.97 1382.50
2003 Ivanhoe East Orange 2.3 5.91 11.40 14.00 34.72 707.33
2003 Ivanhoe Middle Orange 2.4 6.04 11.73 15.71 26.85 681.30
2003 Ivanhoe West Orange 3.4 6.59 11.65 22.33 29.95 633.67
2003 Jem Lake 3.5 8.98 9.83 5.75 12.06 481.94
2003 John's Orange 1.3 2.54 125.00 16.42 55.97 1298.50
2003 Josephine Center Highlands 1.2 1.55 173.00 22.11 74.36 916.11
2003 Josephine East Highlands 1.2 2.02 113.00 40.61 59.03 1036.39
2003 Josephine West Highlands 1.1 1.55 212.00 17.33 114.33 928.89
2003 Lochloosa Alachua 1.1 2.47 222.00 26.57 36.50 1544.50
2003 Winyah Orange 2 6.83 23.00 30.52 56.57 1019.33
2004 Alto Alachua 2.5 3.37 102.75 13.88 19.58 763.94
2004 Bay Marion 2 3.83 19.00 16.04 24.62 813.11
2004 Bellamy Citrus 0.7 4.76 74.00 9.27 22.90 1207.62
2004 Brant Hillsborough 1 3.05 107.00 43.50 52.10 1203.67
2004 Church Hillsborough 2 8.10 11.00 4.81 15.58 656.27
2004 Conway North Orange 5.5 17.00 7.00 2.00 10.33 404.44
2004 Conway South Orange 5.8 12.39 6.50 4.11 10.89 388.89
2004 Dodd Citrus 1.0 5.21 79.75 8.72 19.94 1289.17
2004 Doe Marion 4.2 4.50 4.33 11.33 283.33
2004 Grasshopper Lake 2.2 2.71 208.67 4.36 8.70 958.18
2004 Hampton Bradford 1.7 4.71 10.00 5.25 11.58 490.83
2004 Hernando Citrus 2.3 4.61 71.40 9.08 20.25 1112.08
2004 Ivanhoe East Orange 2.2 4.88 9.50 21.04 17.10 537.62















SD Color Chlorophyll TP


Orange 5.6
Alachua 2
Hillsborough 3.6
Hillsborough 1.2
Alachua 2.9
Marion 2.7
Alachua 0.6
Hillsborough 3.5
Alachua 3.9
Lake 9.2
Orange 1.5
Putnam 4.3
Hillsborough 3.1
Hillsborough 2.6
Marion 3
Hillsborough 4.8


12.97
2.91
7.68
6.07
5.52
9.27
0.97
6.89
5.34
18.68
3.48
8.33
5.95
3.89
6.17
9.28


8.00
180.75
32.80


41.00
14.00
206.83
40.00
45.50
5.00
18.67


35.50
12.50
6.92
12.60


4.11 11.33 496.67
6.97 18.77 925.67
6.75 19.42 811.39
7.26 20.66 801.14
8.80 13.90 562.67
3.83 10.27 471.33
223.84 121.64 3479.12
7.08 20.25 847.50
8.00 12.13 564.33
2.52 4.70 250.30
25.50 24.67 881.67
5.50 7.67 598.33
8.00 22.04 717.92
22.96 24.70 802.28
11.00 13.50 863.33
4.67 13.67 437.14


Table B-1. Continued.


County


MDC


Little Conway
Little Santa Fe
Magdalene
Maurine
Melrose Bay
Mill Dam
Newnan
Osceola
Santa Fe
Sellers
Starke
Stella
Taylor
Twin
Weir
White Trout
















LIST OF REFERENCES


APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th
Edition. Am. Public Health Assn. Washington, D. C.

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2001. Evaluation of recent
limnological changes at Lake Apopka. Hydrobiologia. 448: 19-26.

Barko, J. W., D. Gunnison, and S. R. Carpenter. 1991. Sediment interaction with
submersed macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquat. Bot. 41: 41-65.

Bowling, L. C., M. S. Steane, and P. A. Bays. 1986. The spectral distribution and
attenuation of underwater irradiance in Tasmanian inland water. Freshwater Biol.
16: 331-335.

Canfield, D. E., Jr. 1983. Predication of chlorophyll a concentrations in Florida Lakes: the
importance of phosphorus and nitrogen. Water Resour. Bull. 19(2): 255-262.

Canfield, D. E., Jr., and L. M. Hodgson. 1983. Predication of Secchi disc depths in
Florida lakes: impact of algal biomass and organic color. Hydrobiologia. 99: 51-
60.

Canfield, D. E., Jr., K. A. Langeland, S. B. Linda, and W. T. Haller. 1985. Relations
between water transparency and maximum depth of macrophyte colonization in
lakes. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 23: 25-28.

Canfield, D. E., Jr., and M. V. Hoyer. 1988. Regional geology and the chemical and
trophic state characteristics of Florida lakes. Lake and Reserv. Manage. 4(1): 21-
31.

Chambers, P. A., and J. Kalff. 1985. Depth distribution and biomass of submersed
aquatic macrophyte communities in relation to Secchi depth. Can. J. fish. Aquat.
Sci. 42: 701-709.

Cole, G. A. 1983. Textbook of limnology. Third Edition. C. V. Mosby Company. St.
Louis, MO.

D'Elia, C. F., P. A. Steudler, and N. Corwin. 1977. Determination of total nitrogen in
aqueous samples using persulfate digestion. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22: 760-764.









Duarte, C. M., and J. Kalff. 1986. Littoral slope as a predictor of the maximum biomass
of submerged macrophyte communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31(5): 1072-1080.

Duarte, C. M., and J. Kalff 1990. Patterns in the submerged macrophyte biomass of lakes
and the importance of the scale of analysis in the interpretation. Can. J. Aquat.
Sci. 47: 357-363.

Florida LAKEWATCH. 2003. Florida LAKEWATCH annual data summaries 2002.
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida / Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL.

Havens, K. E. 2003. Submerged aquatic vegetation correlations with depth and light
attenuating materials in a shallow subtropical lake. Hydrobiologia. 493: 173-186.

Holmes, R. W. 1970. The Secchi disk in turbid coastal waters. Limnol. and Oceanogr.
15: 688-694.

Hoyer, M. V, T. K Frazer, S. K. Notestein, and D. E Canfield, Jr. 2004. Vegetative
characteristics of three low-lying Florida coastal rivers in relation to flow, light,
salinity and nutrients. Hydrobiologia. 528: 31-43.

Hudon, C., S. Lalonde., and P. Gagnon. 2000. Ranking the effects of site exposure, plant
growth form, water depth, and transparency on aquatic plant biomass. Can J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 1): 31-42.

Hutchinson, G. E. 1975. A treatise of limnology. Vol. 3. Limnological botany. John
Wiley and Son, Inc. New York, NY.

Jupp, B. P., and D. H. N. Spence. 1977. Limitations on macrophytes in a eutrophic lake,
Loch Leven. J. Ecol. 65: 175-186.

Langeland, K. A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle (Hydrocharitaceae), the perfect
aquatic weed. Castanea. 61(3): 293-304.

Lind, O. T. 1974. Handbook of common methods in limnology. The C. V. Mosby
Company. St Louis, MO.

Maristo, L. 1941. Die Seetypen Finnlands auf floristischer und vegetations-
physiognomischer Grundlage. Suom. Elain-ja Kasvitiet. Seuran Vanamon
Kasvitiet. Julk. Ann Bot. Soc. Zool. Bot. Vanamo. No. 5: 314.

McClave, J. T., and T. Sincich. 2000. Statistics 8th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle
River, NJ.









Menzel, D. W., and N. Corwin. 1965. The measurement of total phosphorus in seawater
based on the liberation of organically bound fractions by persulfate oxidation.
Limnol. and Oceanogr. 10: 280-282.

Murphy. J., and J. P. Riley. 1962. A modified single solution method for the
determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 27: 31-36.

Poole, H. H., and W. R. G. Atkins. 1929. Photo-electric measurement of submarine
illumination throughout the year. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 16: 297-324.

Rickett, H. W. 1924. A quantitative study of the larger aquatic plants of Green Lake,
Wisconsin. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Arts Sci. Lett. 21: 381-414.

Sartory, D. P., and J. U. Grobbelarr. 1984. Extraction of chlorophyll a from freshwater
phytoplankton for spectrophotometric analysis. Hydrobiologia. 114: 117-187.

Scheffer, M. 1998. Ecology of shallow lakes. Chapman & Hall. London, England.

Sheldon, R. B., and Boylen, C. W. 1977. Maximum depth inhabited by aquatic vascular
plants. Am. Midl. Nat. 97(1): 248-254.

Van, T. K, W. T. Haller, and G. Bowes. 1976. Comparison of the photosynthetic
characteristics of three submersed aquatic plants. Plant Physiol. 58: 761-768.

Walker, T. A. 1980. A correction to the Poole and Atkins Secchi Disc/Light-Attenuation
Formula. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 60: 769-771.

Weisner, S. E. B., J. A. Strand, and H. Sandsten. 1997. Mechanisms regulating
abundance of submerged vegetation in shallow eutrophic lakes. Oceologia. 109:
592-599.

Zimmerman, R. C., A. Cabello-Pasini, and R. S. Alberte. 1994. Modeling daily
production of aquatic macrophytes from irradiance measurements: a comparative
analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 114: 185-196.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Alexis J. Caffrey earned an Associate of Arts degree at Santa Fe Community

College in Gainesville, FL. She went on to earn a Bachelor of Science degree at the

University of Florida with a major in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation.