Checklist of Diatoms from the Laurentian Great Lakes. II
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
J. Great Lakes Res. 25(3):515–566 Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 1999 Checklist of Diatoms from the Laurentian Great Lakes. II Eugene F. Stoermer1, Russell G. Kreis, Jr.2, and Norman A. Andresen1,* 1Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences 501 East University The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 49109-1090 2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth 9311 Groh Road Grosse Ile, Michigan 48138 ABSTRACT. An updated diatom (Bacillariophyta) checklist for the Great Lakes is provided. The pre- sent checklist supplants the preliminary checklist published in The Journal for Great Lakes Research in 1978 and effectively represents a 20-year update. A series of procedures were used in this update which included: a reexamination of taxa reported in the 1978 list, additions of taxa reported from the Great Lakes during the past 20 years, and a revision of taxonomy, commensurate with systematic and nomen- clatural changes which have occurred primarily during the past 8 years. 1488 diatom species or subordi- nate taxa are considered to be correct reports from the Great Lakes out of the 2188 diatom entities reported in the list. Of the 124 genera reported 105 are considered to be names in current use. The num- ber of diatom species reported represents a 16.5% increase and the number of genera reported repre- sents a 78% increase over those reported in the 1978 checklist. 13% of the species reported and 32% of the genera reported are due solely to nomenclatural changes. Results indicate that Great Lakes diatoms are a biodiverse component of the ecosystem, commensurate with the wide range of habitats found in the system. The present checklist indicates that most of the newly added species are primarily benthic or peri- phytic in nature and these represent largely understudied habitats. These results suggest that the present checklist may only represent approximately 70% or less of the extant diatom flora of the Great Lakes system. INDEX WORDS: Diatoms, Great Lakes, floristics, systematics, checklist, biodiversity, algae. INTRODUCTION of the Great Lakes, including diatoms, have been of It appears particularly appropriate to update and serious concern for many years (Stoermer and Kreis revise the Preliminary Checklist of Diatoms (Bacil- 1978, Gannon and Robertson 1978, Gannon 1982, lariophyta) from the Laurentian Great Lakes (Stoer- Stoermer 1984). The intent of the checklist is to mer and Kreis 1978) at this time. Twenty years document the diatom flora of the Great Lakes, pro- have effectively elapsed since the past checklist vide a working tool for diatom taxonomists, and in was published and a moderate number of additional turn, promote the consistent identification and enu- taxa have been reported from the Great Lakes. meration of this group for more accurate use in There also appears to be a changing focus in Great basic and applied environmental studies. Lakes diatom and algal studies and significant sys- Presently, national and international effort is tematic and nomenclatural changes have occurred being exerted to computerize and formalize floristic during approximately the past 8 years. Lack of tax- and faunal systematic lists, develop ecological data- onomic treatments which cover the fauna and flora bases on an individual species basis, and ensure the stability and integrity of systematic collections (Sullivan and Charles 1994, ASC 1995, USDA *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] 1996). A great deal of this effort is being driven by 515 516 Stoermer et al. national programs which require the development had not been previously reported and was not on and use of indicators, including diatoms (Hirsch et the main list, it was then elevated onto the main list. al. 1988, Hunsaker and Carpentar 1990, Leahy et In some cases, synonyms were provided but were al. 1990, Paulsen et al. 1991, Hedtke et al. 1992, not elevated to the main list as a taxonomic report Gurtz 1993). It has been recognized that taxonomic from the Great Lakes, based upon best professional considerations and consistency are pivotal to suc- judgement as described below. cess. The authors intend to electronically cross- The first procedure conducted for the present up- check and link the Great Lakes diatom flora with date was a reexamination of taxa on the 1978 these ongoing database efforts. checklist and consisted of several aspects. Overall, The checklist provides diatom records from the spelling and other printing matters were corrected. Great Lakes proper, connecting waterbodies, and Additionally, synonyms or other corrections which directly adjoining and/or adjacent habitats. This in- were provided by diatomists over the years were cludes habitats which are directly connected to the added or corrected, respectively. Wherever spelling, Great Lakes proper such as wetlands and lotic sys- standard taxonomic changes, and/or authority tems at the immediate area of confluence. Rivers or changes were warranted and these taxa were origi- watersheds removed from the Great Lakes by ap- nally from MASTERLIST or from the authors’ proximately 1 km are not included. The list is ex- input to 1978 checklist, these corrections were clusive of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the lower made to the list directly. The above cited correc- St. Lawrence estuary, as these waterbodies are tions and changes were conducted unilaterally and dominated by salinity-tolerant forms more indica- autonomously, consistent with an update or revision tive of the marine environment. The present check- of this type. list has been designed to promote accurate and Within the 1978 checklist, synonyms were pro- consistent taxonomic identification of the Great vided for approximately 50 diatom species that Lakes diatom flora which in turn will lead to a were originally reported in the literature. The ma- fuller understanding of the flora and its ecological jority of these represent pre-1900 records. At that interpretation. time, only synonyms were provided and were not elevated onto the checklist as recognized taxa. A re- examination of these taxa have indicated that over METHODS 90% of the synonyms should be elevated to the list A series of primary and secondary procedures as taxa which could have been reasonably observed were taken to update the Preliminary Checklist of or were subsequently observed in the Great Lakes. Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) from the Laurentian The reexamination consisted of interpreting the Great Lakes (Stoermer and Kreis 1978) and is de- original report, its synonym, and whether or not scribed in the following discussion; herein, the Pre- that taxon could be reasonably observed in the liminary Checklist cited above will be referred to as Great Lakes system. Some cases may represent ex- the 1978 checklist. To explain these procedures, a otic or introduced species which may have been brief discussion of the construct of the 1978 check- present in the system at a limited location or during list is warranted. A series of computer programs a limited time frame. (FIDO) was developed at the University of Michi- The second primary procedure was to incorporate gan to support algal population databases and newly reported Great Lakes diatom taxa into the analyses. A component of FIDO is a file called floristic list. As with the 1978 checklist, the Univer- MASTERLIST which contains all algal taxa from sity of Michigan data reduction and analysis system the Great Lakes reported by the University of (FIDO), with its associated algal species file (MAS- Michigan laboratory. Diatom records from MAS- TERLIST), was the foundation for the updated TERLIST were the basic starting point of the 1978 checklist. Newly observed Great Lakes diatom taxa checklist. Diatom records from both the published reported in MASTERLIST (exclusive of incertae and gray literature through 1976 (in part) were then sedis and other numerical designations) since the combined with MASTERLIST. When a taxon re- 1978 checklist, were compiled and added to the list. ported from the literature was found to be a ques- Another component of this procedure was to add tionable name (for any number of circumstances), diatom taxa from the published and available gray and was found to have an accepted synonym, the literature which were not previously reported. A re- appropriate synonym was provided underneath the examination of the literature prior to 1976 yielded taxon using an indentation format. If the synonym no further records. The authors have a high degree Diatom Checklist 517 of confidence that references reported in the 1978 ranging from outdated, to partially correct, to to- checklist contain the substantial majority of Great tally incorrect. When it was certain that the taxon Lakes records and literature not reported in the ref- was confused or had been in part transferred to an- erence section of the 1978 checklist do not contain other taxon based on the authority, the author’s records. Subsequently, literature was consulted opinion of the problem guided the type of entry. from approximately 1976 through to the present, Capitalization of specific epithets which are formu- representing approximately 20 years of reports, lated from proper nouns was not appropriate ac- since the 1978 checklist was originally constructed. cording to the rules of botanical nomenclature In the 1978 checklist, a few publications from 1976 (Grueter et al. 1994). Common usage or best pro- were available at the time of compilation and taxa fessional judgement were used for spelling where had been included from these reports. In the present appropriate, and common usage was used for update, all literature consulted has been reported in species, varietal, and form designations. The au- the references section and annotated as to whether thority abbreviations follow the recommendations or not new Great Lakes records were found and of Brummitt and Powell (1992) with one major ex- added to the updated list. References provided ception. The entry in Brummitt and Powell for Al- herein in the annotated bibliography, together with bert Grunow is incorrect.