4.3 Article

Diatom and thecamoebian signatures of Red River (Manitoba and North Dakota) floods: Data collected from the 1997 and 1999 spring freshets

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 353-386

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023965403770

关键词

diatoms; floods; Manitoba; Red River; thecamoebians

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overbank deposits that aggraded during the severe and moderate Red River, Manitoba and North Dakota floods of 1997 and 1999 were examined to characterize the typical diatom and thecamoebian flood assemblages. The deposits contain diatom assemblages dominated by Nitzschia spp., Stephanodiscus spp. and Navicula spp. as well as large quantities of Hantzschia amphioxys, Luticola imbricata and L. mutica and lesser amounts of Aulacoseira italica, A. granulata, A. ambigua, Cyclotella meneghiniana, Amphora montana and Synedra ulna. Samples collected from the Red River in late summer are dominated by the plankton Cyclotella atomus, species of Stephanodiscus, Cyclostephanos sp. 1 (cf. delicatus), Cyclotella meneghiniana, Nitzschia reversa and Nitzschia acicularis. Late summer, floodplain lake plankton are dominated by Fragilaria capucina, Cocconeis placentula, Stephanodiscus parvus/minutulus and Cyclotella atomus. Red River thecamoebian flood assemblages are dominated by Cyclopyxis spp., with lesser amounts of Centropyxis aculeata and Arcella vulgaris. Late summer water samples from the Red River contain very few thecamoebian remains. The majority of the taxa present are Centropyxis aculeata, Arcella vulgaris and Cyclopyxis spp. Floodplain lakes are dominated by benthic thecamoebians, especially Difflugia oblonga and Cucurbitella tricuspis, a eutrophic indicator. The results of this baseline study suggest that diatom and thecamoebian assemblages can characterize flood deposits, within floodplain lake basins, during both very high and moderately high flood years, and that these assemblages are inherently different from those typically found in lakes along the Red River.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据