PHYTOPLANKTON STATUS & TRENDS 2002 AND 2003

Richard V. Lacouture – ANSERCRichard V. Lacouture – ANSERC

Harold G. Marshall – ODUHarold G. Marshall – ODU

Elgin Perry – Statistical ConsultantElgin Perry – Statistical Consultant

Mike Lane - ODUMike Lane - ODU

A N N U A L T R E N D S I C FI X 1985-2002

1985-2003

A N N U A L T R E N D SPH Y T O PL A N K T O N D E N SI T Y 1985-2002

1985-2003

A N N U A L T R E N D SPH Y T O PL A N K T O N C A R B O N

1985-20021985-2003

A N N U A L T R E N D S D I A T O M C A R B O N 1985-2002

1985-2003

A N N U A L T R E N D SD I N O FL A G E L L A T E C A R B O N 1985-2002

1985-2003

A N N U A L T R E N D SC Y A N O B A C T E R I A C A R B O N 1985-2002

1985-2003

SUMMARY of ANNUAL PHYTOPLANKTON TRENDS Bay & Lower River StationsBay & Lower River Stations- ICFIX increasing in Potomac, decreasing in VA tribs ICFIX increasing in Potomac, decreasing in VA tribs

and mainstem Bayand mainstem Bay- PHYTOD increasing in all rivers except York & all PHYTOD increasing in all rivers except York & all

mainstem Bay sites except CB6.1mainstem Bay sites except CB6.1- PHYTOC increasing in all rivers except Patapsco and PHYTOC increasing in all rivers except Patapsco and

VA mainstem Bay sitesVA mainstem Bay sites- DIATOMC increasing in all rivers and VA mainstem DIATOMC increasing in all rivers and VA mainstem

Bay sitesBay sites- DINOC increasing in Choptank & Rappahannock and DINOC increasing in Choptank & Rappahannock and

VA mainstem sitesVA mainstem sites- CYANOC increasing in Potomac & all VA tribs and CYANOC increasing in Potomac & all VA tribs and

all mainstem Bay sitesall mainstem Bay sites

SUMMARY of ANNUAL PHYTOPLANKTON TRENDS (cont)

Mid and Upper River SitesMid and Upper River Sites- ICFIX increasing in upper Potomac and decreasing in upper Patuxent and ICFIX increasing in upper Potomac and decreasing in upper Patuxent and

mid-James River sitemid-James River site- PHYTOD increasing in Potomac and all VA tribs except mid-river James PHYTOD increasing in Potomac and all VA tribs except mid-river James

site; decreasing in upper Choptanksite; decreasing in upper Choptank- PHYTOC decreasing in upper Choptank and increasing in all VA mid & PHYTOC decreasing in upper Choptank and increasing in all VA mid &

upper river sitesupper river sites- DIATOMC decreasing in Choptank & Patuxent and increasing in all VA DIATOMC decreasing in Choptank & Patuxent and increasing in all VA

mid & upper river sitesmid & upper river sites- DINOC decreasing in mid-Rappahannock and increasing in upper DINOC decreasing in mid-Rappahannock and increasing in upper

Rappahannock River siteRappahannock River site- CYANOC increasing in upper Potomac and all VA trib sites except mid-CYANOC increasing in upper Potomac and all VA trib sites except mid-

James River siteJames River site

P H Y TO P LA N K TO N IB I SP R IN G 2002

BAD (1-1.8)

FAIR-BAD (>1.8-2.6)

FAIR (>2.6-3.4)

FAIR-GOOD(>3.4-4.2)

GOOD (>4.2-5)

3.3

2.5

2.0

2.9

1.9

2.5

3.4

2.2

1.6

1.9

2.6

2.4

2.3

3.9

3.8

2.8

3.5

2.1

1.3

1.2

2.1

2.8

3.42.0

1.62.3

P H Y TO P LA N K TO N IB I SP R IN G 2003

BAD (1-1.8)

FAIR-BAD (>1.8-2.6)

FAIR (>2.6-3.4)

FAIR-GOOD (>3.4-4.2)

GOOD (>4.2-5)

2.3

2.6

1.8

2.7

1.9

2.0

2.6

1.6

2.8

2.6

2.7

2.2

2.6

3.6

2.8

3.8

3.0

2.5

2.6

3.0

3.0

3.8

2.23.1

3.73.3

2.4

SUMMARY of SPRING PHYTOPLANKTON IBI

Bay & Lower River SitesBay & Lower River Sites- 2002 Bay stations either Fair-Good or Fair except CB2.2 2002 Bay stations either Fair-Good or Fair except CB2.2

which was Fair-Bad and lower river sites were Fair-Bad which was Fair-Bad and lower river sites were Fair-Bad except Rappahannock which was Fair-Good and York except Rappahannock which was Fair-Good and York River which was BadRiver which was Bad

- 2003 Bay stations either Fair-Good, Fair or Fair-Bad and 2003 Bay stations either Fair-Good, Fair or Fair-Bad and lower river sites were Fair except Choptank which was lower river sites were Fair except Choptank which was Fair-Bad and Patuxent River which was BadFair-Bad and Patuxent River which was Bad

- Generally, IBI scores were degraded in spring, 2003 Generally, IBI scores were degraded in spring, 2003 compared to spring, 2002 except for in the very lower compared to spring, 2002 except for in the very lower Bay region and those River mouth sites.Bay region and those River mouth sites.

SUMMARY of SPRING PHYTOPLANKTON IBI

Mid & Upper River SitesMid & Upper River Sites- 2002 mid & upper river sites were mostly Fair-Bad 2002 mid & upper river sites were mostly Fair-Bad

with several sites Bad and one site in the upper with several sites Bad and one site in the upper York River was Fair.York River was Fair.

- 2003 mid & upper river sites were evenly mixed 2003 mid & upper river sites were evenly mixed between Fair-Bad and Fair with two sites Fair-between Fair-Bad and Fair with two sites Fair-Good.Good.

- At all sites except for one, the spring, 2002 PIBI At all sites except for one, the spring, 2002 PIBI scores were lower than the spring, 2003 scores in scores were lower than the spring, 2003 scores in the mid-upper reaches of the tributaries.the mid-upper reaches of the tributaries.

SPRING 2002 vs SPRING 2003

CBCB

4.34.3

CBCB

5.25.2

CBCB

7.47.4

WEWE

4.24.2

LELE

5.55.5

SCHLSCHL 5.75.7 1818 44 20.220.2 1.81.8 1515 8.78.7 1818 7.17.1 18.118.1

DIACDIAC 213213 846846 9494 16751675 434434 14381438 141141 18751875 189189 15521552

DINCDINC 168168 317317 443443 8080 147147 155155 217217 173173 194194 214214

PminCPminC 11 3535 0.50.5 2222 00 1010 00 2929 11 3131

TOTCTOTC 510510 12551255 654654 18361836 625625 17111711 374374 22282228 410410 18951895

PH Y TO PLA N K TO N IB I SU M M ER 2002

BAD (1-1.8)

FAIR-BAD (>1.8-2.6)

FAIR (>2.6-3.4)

FAIR-GOOD(>3.4-4.2)

GOOD (>4.2-5)

3.5

3.5

1.5

2.6

1.7

1.9

3.5

2.9

1.8

1.0

3.0

2.9

1.4

3.7

3.9

3.5

3.1

1.5

1.8

3.3

1.7

1.6

3.83.2

2.31.1

PH Y TO PLA N K TO N IB I SU M M ER 2003

BAD (1-1.8)

FAIR-BAD (>1.8-2.6)

FAIR (>2.6-3.4)

FAIR-GOOD (>3.4-4.2)

GOOD (>4.2-5)

2.7

2.9

1.6

1.6

2.6

1.7

2.5

1.6

2.9

2.5

1.7

2.9

1.2

2.3

3.9

2.3

2.8

2.4

3.82.5

2.7

1.0

1.0

3.8

2.2

1.72.0

SUMMARY of SUMMER PHYTOPLANKTON IBI Bay & Lower River SitesBay & Lower River Sites- 2002 with the exception of one station, the 2002 with the exception of one station, the

mainstem Bay was Fair-Good and the lower river mainstem Bay was Fair-Good and the lower river stations were all Fair except Choptank which was stations were all Fair except Choptank which was Fair-Bad and Patapsco which was Bad.Fair-Bad and Patapsco which was Bad.

- 2003 the mainstem Bay station IBI scores were 2003 the mainstem Bay station IBI scores were evenly distributed between Fair-Good, Fair and evenly distributed between Fair-Good, Fair and Fair-Bad and the lower river sites were all Fair Fair-Bad and the lower river sites were all Fair except for Choptank which was Fair and Patuxent except for Choptank which was Fair and Patuxent and Patapsco River sites which were Badand Patapsco River sites which were Bad

- Generally, PIBI scores decreased considerably in Generally, PIBI scores decreased considerably in 2003 in mainstem sites and slightly in the tributary 2003 in mainstem sites and slightly in the tributary mouths except in the Patuxent which showed a mouths except in the Patuxent which showed a marked decrease. marked decrease.

SUMMARY of SUMMER PHYTOPLANKTON IBI Mid & Upper River SitesMid & Upper River Sites- 2002 mid & upper river sites were either Fair-Bad or 2002 mid & upper river sites were either Fair-Bad or

Bad except mid- Potomac site which was FairBad except mid- Potomac site which was Fair- 2003 mid & upper river sites were either Fair-Bad or 2003 mid & upper river sites were either Fair-Bad or

Bad except mid- Patuxent and Potomac River sites Bad except mid- Patuxent and Potomac River sites which were Fair and upper York site which was Fair-which were Fair and upper York site which was Fair-GoodGood

- Generally, PIBI scores improved in summer, 2003 Generally, PIBI scores improved in summer, 2003 compared to summer, 2002, especially in the Patuxent compared to summer, 2002, especially in the Patuxent and York Rivers. The exception were the sites in the and York Rivers. The exception were the sites in the Rappahannock River which were lower in 2003.Rappahannock River which were lower in 2003.

SUMMER 2002 vs SUMMER 2003

CBCB

3.33.3

CBCB

6.16.1

LELE

1.11.1

TFTF

1.51.5

TFTF

4.24.2

SCHLSCHL 16.316.3 24.224.2 11.411.4 23.823.8 11.511.5 23.223.2 40.740.7 20.720.7 5.95.9 2.12.1

DIACDIAC 7676 248248 161161 25222522 9999 146146 10681068 394394 426426 144144

DINCDINC 172172 188188 495495 8484 294294 369369

CYACCYAC 6464 3737 3838 44

TOTCTOTC 315315 841841 687687 26542654 471471 598598 15501550 621621 773773 353353