A PALEOLIMNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT FOR CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT IN NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK LAKES USING AQUATIC MIDGE LARVAE
KRISTIN ELIZABETH WAZBINSKI
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER'S OF SCIENCE
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN BIOLOGY YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada
Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88772-1
Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88772-1
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada Abstract
Paleolimnological techniques (midge-based inferences of alkalinity, pH, and hypolimnetic oxygen) were used to elucidate mechanisms of historic nutrient enrichment in predominantly shallow, polymictic New Jersey and New York lakes (NJ/NY).
Exploratory multivariate statistical analyses using subfossil larval midge remains indicated that nutrient- (total phosphorus and nitrite-nitrate), ionic- (alkalinity and pH), and morphometric-related (maximum depth and surface area) environmental variables were most important in governing NJ/NY midge assemblages. Macrophyte abundance
(as percent macrophyte cover) did not account for a significant portion of the variation explained by the species data. Ionic-related calibration models (Alk WA(inv); RMSEP =
2 2 0.417, r (jack) = 0.499, pH WA(inv); RMSEP = 0.819, r (jack) = 0.455) outperformed nutrient-related models and were used for NJ/NY historic reconstructions. A previously published chironomid-VWHO calibration set (Quinlan and Smol 2001) was applied to the NJ/NY dataset to estimate changes in hypolimnetic oxygen conditions. Our results indicated that general historic patterns in alkalinity, pH, and hypolimnetic oxygen conditions closely agree with one another. Individual lakes have experienced differences in the extent and timing of nutrient enrichment. Also, present-day lake conditions have generally declined compared to historic "background" conditions. Such declines in water-quality conditions were closely attributed to anthropogenic changes in land-use within surrounding watershed basins. This study confirms the use of subfossil midge assemblages for environmental monitoring in NJ/NY lakes.
iv Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Roberto Quinlan, for giving me the opportunity to share in the already extensive work done with midges in paleolimnology. I greatly appreciate your guidance, support, and encouragement with this project. Also, thank you for introducing me to Quinlan Lab musical favourites: The Breeders, Beta Band, and Rage Against the Machine. I would also like to thank Dr. Christopher Lortie and Dr. Norman Yan for valued input and support in both the design of this project and all things graduate studies. I would like to extend my gratitude to others who have contributed to this manuscript, either by providing sediment for analysis, providing water chemistry/environmental data used in statistical analyses, or historical lake information, including Dr. Mihaela Enache (PCER-ANSP), Clifford Callinan (NY DEC), Tom Belton and Johannus Franken (NJ DEP), Dr. Allison Keimowitz (Cornell University), Susan Brennan (Argyle, NY town historian), the West Milford (NJ) Historical Society, and the Millville (NJ) Historical Society. To my colleagues at York University, especially my lab mates and honourary Quinlan lab teammates (Andrew, Danielle, Armin, Fatemeh, Chris, Ray, Luana, Valentina, Nicole, and Missy), I'm happy I was able to share my grad school experience with each of you. Thanks for the lab outings to sushi down-town, soccer matches behind the Lumbers lot, musical debut with Dr. Joel Shore at the Symposium fundraiser coffeehouse, and all the discussions about chironomids, lakes, research cost funds, and our on-the-go projects. Dr. Sarah Finkelstein, thank you for use of the U of T Paleo Lab space for a brief time during my sediment analysis. And lastly but most importantly, to my parents, Peter and Cecylia, my sister, Renee, and my husband, Jeff, I could not have completed this manuscript without your love and support. The light at the end of the tunnel always seemed brighter with your encouragements. Thank you for standing by me and seeing this manuscript through to its last page.
v Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables x
List of Figures xiv
List of Abbreviations xx
Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review 1
Introduction 1
Literature Review 4
Cultural eutrophication 4
Water quality in deep, stratified lakes 6
Water quality in shallow, polymictic lakes 7
U.S.A. water quality standards for management initiatives 10
Paleolimnology 12
The use of aquatic midges as paleo-indicators 13
Chironomidae: the non-biting midge 13
Chaoboridae and Ceratopogonidae: the phantom midge and biting
midge 16
Objectives 18
Literature Cited 19
vi Chapter 2: Using multivariate statistical analysis to assess the influence of environmental variables on midge communities of New Jersey and New York
State freshwater systems 30
Introduction 30
Objectives 33
Site description 34
Materials and methods 37
Field and laboratory methods 37
Statistical analyses 38
Measured parameters and univariate tests 38
Ordinations 41
Results 43
Limnological patterns 43
Midge data 44
Multivariate statistical analyses 46
Exploratory analyses involving stratified-only lakes 47
Exploratory analyses involving polymictic-only lakes 49
Analyses involving macrophyte abundance 56
Analyses involving combined polymictic and stratified lakes 59
Discussion 64
Midges and important environmental gradients in NJ/NY stratified lakes 64
Midges and important environmental gradients in polymictic lakes 65
vii Midges and important environmental gradients in combined polymictic
and stratified lakes 77
Conclusions 80
Acknowledgments 82
Literature cited 82
Tables and Figures 97
Chapter 3: Development and application of midge-inference models to track limnological changes in New Jersey and New York (U.S.A.) lakes 145
Introduction 145
Objectives 146
Site description 147
Materials and methods 150
Sediment collection and dating analyses 150
Laboratory methods 151
Model development and application 152
Reconstruction diagnostics 155
Results 157
Inference model development using NJ/NY lakes 157
NJ/NY historic alkalinity and pH reconstructions 159
Volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen patterns in NJ/NY lakes 166
Discussion 169
Individual lake sediment core historic reconstructions 170
viii Regional historic reconstructions (top-bottom changes) 175
Conclusions 178
Acknowledgements 179
Literature cited 180
Figures 187
Appendix A: Raw Data 200
Appendix B: Segmented regression of taxon abundances along environmental
gradients 324
Appendix C: 'Best' Inference Model Performance Statistics and Reconstruction
Diagnostics 334
ix List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1: Site name, lake code (numeric code), and location (state, county,
and geographical coordinates) of the 61 NJ/NY study lakes. 97
Table 2.2: A list of environmental variables (abbreviations and units included)
and their descriptive statistics (minimum, maximum, and median
values) for use in New Jersey and New York sample lake analyses. 99
Table 2.3: Pearson correlation matrix with Bonferroni-adjusted probabilities
for 14 measured environmental variables in all 59 NJ/NY lakes. 100
Table 2.4: Pearson correlation matrix with Bonferroni-adjusted probabilities for
15 measured environmental variables in 38 of 59 New Jersey and
New Y ork lakes. 101
Table 2.5: Screened Chironomid-Only taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in
stratified-only analyses (n = 11). 102
Table 2.6: Screened Total Midge taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in
stratified-only analyses (n = 11). 103
Table 2.7: Constrained RDA eigenvalues (X), eigenvalue ratios (A4/X2), and
significance levels (P) associated with the 14 environmental variables
assessed in conjunction with untransformed a) Chironomid-only data
and b) Total Midge data for stratified-only analyses. 104 Table 2.8: Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal
probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly
positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to significantly
constrained environmental gradients (and other environmental
gradients of interest) in stratified-only analyses. 105
Table 2.9: Screened Chironomid-only taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in
polymictic-only analyses (n = 48). 106
Table 2.10: Screened midge taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in
polymictic-only analyses (n = 48). 108
Table 2.11: Constrained RDA eigenvalues (A,), eigenvalue ratios (k\fki), and
significance levels (P) associated with the 14 environmental
variables assessed in conjunction with untransformed a)
chironomid-only data and b) total midge data for polymictic-only
analyses. 110
Table 2.12: Canonical coefficients of the first two RDA axes of significant
forward selected variables, their /-values, and interset correlations
from polymictic-only analyses with a) Chironomid-only and b) Total
Midge data. 1 ] i
xi Table 2.13: Constrained RDA eigenvalues (Xj/Aa) compared to Partial RDA
eigenvalues (X1/X2) for the five significant forward selected variables
in polymictic-only analyses using untransformed a) Chironomid-only
and b) Total Midge datasets. 112
Table 2.14: Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal
probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly
positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to significantly
constrained environmental gradients (and other environmental
gradients of interest) in polymictic-only analyses. 113
Table 2.15: Constrained RDA eigenvalues (X), eigenvalue ratios (A.1/X2), and
significance levels (P) associated with untransformed, Total Midge
data and the 15 environmental variables assessed (including %Cover)
for 35 shallow NJ/NY lakes. 114
Table 2.16: Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal
probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly
positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to significantly
constrained environmental gradients (and other environmental
gradients of interest) in 38 NJ/NY sites having macrophyte
abundance data. 115
Table 2.17: Screened Chironomid-only taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in
combined polymictic + stratified analyses (n = 59). 116
xii Table 2.18: Screened Total Midge taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in
combined polymictic + stratified analyses (n = 59). 118
Table 2.19: Constrained RDA eigenvalues (k), eigenvalue ratios (X1A.2), and
significance levels (P) associated with the 14 environmental variables
assessed in conjunction with untransformed a) chironomid-only
data and b) total midge data for combined polymictic + stratified
analyses. 120
Table 2.20: Canonical coefficients of the first two RDA axes of significant
forward selected variables, their f-values, and interset correlations
from combined polymictic + stratified analyses with untransformed
a) Chironomid-only and b) Total Midge data. 121
Table 2.21: Constrained RDA eigenvalues compared to Partial RDA
eigenvalues (X1/X2) for the five significant forward selected variables
in polymictic-only analyses using untransformed a) Chironomid-only
and b) Total Midge datsets. 122
Table 2.22: Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal
probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly
positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to select
significantly constrained environmental gradients in combined
polymictic + stratified NJ/NY sites. 123
xiii List of Figures
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1a: A map of the northeastern United States showing all 61 lakes
sampled in New Jersey and New York State between 1996 and 124
2007 during ice-free months (late March to mid October).
Figure 2.1b: A map of the boxed portion from figure 2.1a, identifying the 49
sampled sites of New Jersey and the 3 most southeastern lake sites 125
from New York State.
Figure 2.2: An X-Y plot showing PCA Axis 1 sample scores of the 59 NJ/NY 126
lake sites plotted against the maximum depth (Zmax) of each lake.
Figure 2.3: A DCA biplot showing the community composition of aquatic
midge taxa having greater than 2% abundances in at least 2 lakes 127
for 11 stratified-only NJ/NY lakes.
Figure 2.4: A PCA biplot showing the relationship between 14 environmental 128
variables and the 48 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes used in analyses.
Figure 2.5: A DCA biplot showing the community composition of aquatic midge
taxa having greater than 2% abundances in at least 2 lakes for 47 129
polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes.
Figure 2.6a: An RDA biplot of sample scores of subfossil midge assemblages
in 47 shallow, polymictic NJ/NY lake sites and significant forward
selected variables. 130
xiv Figure 2.6b: An RDA biplot of species scores of 50 subfossii midge taxa in 47
shallow, polymictic NJ/NY lakes and significant (P < 0.05) forward
selected variables. 131
Figure 2.7: A CA biplot of 47 shallow, polymictic NJ/NY lakes grouped
according to a level III ecoregion classification of the northeastern
U.S.A (Omernik 1987). 132
Figure 2.8: Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right
according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 47 NJ/NY lakes,
arranged from top to bottom according to increasing alkalinity
concentration. 133
Figure 2.9: Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right
according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 47 NJ/NY lakes,
arranged from top to bottom according to increasing productivity
(TP) level. 134
Figure 2.10: Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right
according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 47 NJ/NY lakes,
arranged from top to bottom according to increasing depth (Z„,ax). 135
Figure 2.1 la: A RDA biplot of sample scores of subfossii midge assemblages in
35 shallow NJ/NY lakes (for which percent macrophyte cover data
was available) and significant forward selected variables. 136
xv Figure 2.1 lb: An RDA biplot of species scores of 45 subfossil midge taxa in 35
shallow NJ/NY lakes, for which percent macrophyte cover data was
available, and significant forward selected variables. 137
Figure 2.12: Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right
according to decreasing PCA axis 2 scores, for 35 NJ/NY lakes,
arranged from top to bottom according to decreasing % macrophyte
cover (%Cover). 138
Figure 2.13: A PC A biplot showing the relationship between 14 environmental
variables and the 59 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes
used in analyses. 139
Figure 2.14: A DC A biplot showing the relative position (in ordination space of
Owasco Lake (OWA) in relation to other NJ/NY lake sites used in
combined polymictic + stratified analyses based on midge
assemblages (prior to its removal from analyses). 140
Figure 2.15: A DCA biplot showing the community composition of aquatic
midge taxa having greater than 2% abundances in at least 2 lakes
for 55 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes. 141
Figure 2.16a: An RDA biplot of sample scores of subfossil midge assemblages
in 55 shallow and deep NJ/NY lake sites and significant forward
selected variables. 142
xvi Figure 2.16b: An RDA biplot of species scores of 63 subfossil midge taxa in 55
shallow and deep NJ/NY lakes and significant forward selected
variables. 143
Figure 2.17: Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right
according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 55 NJ/NY lakes,
arranged from top to bottom according to decreasing alkalinity
concentration. 144
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: A map of the northeastern United States showing the three full
sediment cores (COS, GWD, and UNI) and 14 top-bottom samples
in New Jersey and New York State used for midge-Alk, midge-pH,
and chir-VWHO reconstructions. 187
Figure 3.2: The relationship between observed and jack-knifed, predicted values
(along a 1:1 line) for Alk (WAinv), TP (PLS-1), N02N03
(WA(toi)inv), and pH (WAinv) (model type is given in brackets). 188
Figure 3.3: Observed versus model residual (predicted - observed) values for
Alk (WAinv), TP (PLS-1), N02N03 (WA(t0i)inv), and pH (WAinv)
inference models. 189
Figure 3.4: Stratigraphy of major midge taxa together with inferred Alk,
inferred pH, inferred VWHO, ratio of Chaoborus: chironomid
(CHAOB:CHIR), and fossil assemblage community structure
(as PCA axis 1 sample score) in the Cossayuna Lake sediment core. 190
xvii Figure 3.5: Stratigraphy of major midge taxa together with inferred Alk, inferred
pH, inferred VWHO, ratio of Chaoborus: chironomid
(CHAOB:CHIR), and fossil assemblage community structure (as
PC A axis 1 sample score) in the Greenwood Lake sediment core. 191
Figure 3.6: Stratigraphy of major midge taxa together with fossil assemblage
community structure (as PCA axis 1 sample scores), inferred Alk,
inferred pH, inferred VWHO, and ratio of Chaoborus: chironomid
(CHAOB:CHIR) in the Union Lake sediment core. 192
Figure 3.7: Distribution of alkalinity conditions ('low': < 20 mg L"1;
'moderate': between 20-50 mg L"1; 'high': > 50 mg L"1) in 10 NJ/NY
lakes (outliers removed), inferred from subfossil midge assemblages
in top and bottom sediment samples. 193
Figure 3.8: Long-term inferred changes in Alk (log transformed) and pH in
NJ/NY 'top' and 'bottom' samples. 194
Figure 3.9: Distribution of hypolimnetic oxygen conditions in 14 NJ/NY lakes,
inferred from 'top' sediment and 'bottom' sediment subfossil
chironomid assemblages. 195
Figure 3.10: Long-term inferred changes in VWHO (mg L"1) in 14 NJ/NY lakes. 196
Figure 3.11: Relative abundances (%) of select chironomid taxa showing high
abundance in top samples compared to bottom samples. 197
Figure 3.12: A PCA biplot of subfossil Total Midge taxa found in 'top' and
'bottom' sediments from 13 NJ/NY lakes (OWA removed). 198
xviii Figure 3.13: A PC A of sample scores representing the trajectory of subfossil
midge assemblage change from 'bottom' to 'top' samples in 13
NJ/NY lakes (OWA removed).
xix List of Abbreviations
%Cover Percent macrophyte cover
ADR Adirondacks Ecoregion
Alk Alkalinity
AvgBot O2 Average bottom oxygen
AvgDO(summ) Average end-of-summer hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen
Bot T Bottom temperature
CA Correspondence Analysis
CCA Canonical correspondence analysis
Chi a Chlorophyll a
CL Confidence limit
CLP Coastal lowlands/Plateau Ecoregion
Cond Conductivity
CSLAP Citizens State-wide Lake Assessment Program
DCA Detrended correspondence analysis
DCCA Detrended canonical correspondence analysis
DO Dissolved oxygen
Epi T Epilimnetic temperature
GLM Generalized linear model
MAT/WMAT Modern analogue technique/Weighted modern analogue
technique
NEU New England Uplands Ecoregion
xx NHL} Ammonium
NJ ALMN New Jersey Ambient Lakes Monitoring Network
NJDEP New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
NO2-NO3 Nitrite-Nitrate
NYDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PCA Principle component analysis pDCCA Partial Detrended canonical correspondence analysis
PLS Partial least squares regression
2 r (jack) Jack-knifed coefficient of determination
RDA Redundancy analysis
RMSEP Root mean square error of prediction
SA Surface area
SD Standard deviation units
SRL Squared residual length
TDN/TKN Total dissolved nitrogen/Total kjeldahl nitrogen
TP Total phosphorus
VWHO Volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen
WA Weighted averaging regression
WA(tol) Weighted averaging regression with tolerance downweighting
WA-PLS Weighted averaging-Partial least squares regression
Zmax Maximum depth
Zs xxi Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review Introduction The northeastern part of the United States (U.S.A.) is a region that has experienced extensive changes in land-use throughout its history. Since the late 18th century, European settlement extended to states such as New Jersey and New York State (NJ/NY). During this time populations rapidly increased, deforestation was prominent to cultivate land for agricultural purposes, and manufacturing began as small-scale activities such as gristmills, sawmills, and furnaces powered by streams, forests and iron-ore. By the mid- 19th century, more than half of the land in each state was deforested and devoted to farming, with 40% (NJ) and 48% (NY) considered 'in use', and an additional 22% of land in both States considered undeveloped frontier claims (Kennedy 1864). Extensive networks of canals, railways, and turnpikes were developed and overlaid the cultivated landscape. At the end of the 19th century, the northeast experienced a shift from rural farming to large-scale urban manufacturing, as improvements were made to transportation infrastructure, power utilities, and automatic machinery. The Industrial Revolution marked a prominent focus on manufacturing companies, creating large quantities and varieties of pollutants being improperly disposed of close to their origins (Stansfield 1996). Today, population growth in both regions has slowed, yet, NJ/NY continue to have high population densities and the highest percentage of land area in development compared to the rest of the U.S.A. (Hobbs and Stoops 2002, Lathrop and Hasse 2006); two major factors that continue to impose a degree of stress on the overall 1 quality of the natural environment. These development patterns have likely contributed to the adverse conditions experienced in freshwater lakes interspersed throughout NJ/NY. Freshwater lakes are a precious resource important for many reasons. For example, municipalities rely on nearby lakes as important food and drinking water sources for local populations. Lakes are also the primary habitat for aquatic plants and animals, supporting important food webs and community dynamics. The development of lakeside communities since the early 20th century also has increased the importance of freshwater resources for recreational uses such as fishing, swimming and boating. However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that within the U.S.A., approximately half of surface waters are reported to have impaired water quality conditions caused by cultural eutrophication (Gibson et al. 2000). Cultural eutrophication is defined as the over-enrichment of nutrients (primarily phosphorus and nitrogen) to a water body brought on by anthropogenic development activities. By law, water quality standards are upheld in all states, which require the development of region- specific nutrient criteria to address this environmental problem. In order to develop representative nutrient criteria, lake managers require a reference condition to accurately assess a lake's pattern of natural variability (Landres et al. 1999, Hughes et al. 2000). Reference conditions may be assessed in many ways, including: direct observation of lakes, representing minimally impacted conditions in a certain region; using model-based predictions of conditions given past data and historical information; or revealing natural conditions in non-reference sites using paleolimnological techniques (Gibson et al. 2000). 2 Long-term limnological data for freshwater systems is generally scarce and human disturbance has become so extensive that truly undisturbed lakes are relatively rare. As a result, paleolimnology may be used to extend the historical timeline of many lake data sets through the use of physical, chemical, and biological information preserved in lake sediments from the surrounding watershed (Smol 2008). Paleolimnological assessments have been completed successfully within NJ/NY and other northeastern U.S.A. lakes, using different paleolimnological bio-indicators including chaoborids (Uutala 1990), diatoms (Dixit and Smol 1994, Dixit et al. 1999a, Vermaire and Gregory- Eaves 2008, Enache et al. 2008), and chrysophytes (Dixit et al. 1999b), to evaluate the applicability of these organisms in various monitoring programs to establish baseline conditions for the northeast region. As of yet, sub-fossil chironomids have not been used in assessments for NJ/NY. However, chironomids have been used in many paleolimnological investigations and model reconstructions, including total phosphorus (Lotter et al. 1998, Clerk et al. 2000, Brooks et al. 2001, Langdon et al. 2006), chlorophyll a (Brodersen and Lindegaard 1999), hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen (Little and Smol 2001, Quinlan and Smol 2001), climatic conditions (Francis 2004, Walker and Cwynar 2006), and macrophytes (Sayer et al. 1999, Brodersen et al. 2001, Langdon et al. 2010). These studies have affirmed the use of non-biting midges as an indicator in assessing recent and historic limnological trends for many freshwater lakes of concern. Other paleolimnological studies have included other aquatic midge invertebrates such as chaoborids or ceratopogonids for use as supplementary indicators, given the importance each has in freshwater ecosystem dynamics (Luoto 2009, Luoto and Nevalainen 2009, 3 Quinlan and Smol 2010). The subfossil remains of aquatic midge larvae will be used in this study to elucidate mechanisms of nutrient enrichment for criteria development in NJ/NY lakes. Literature Review Cultural eutrophication Cultural eutrophication is a serious environmental problem, both ecologically and economically, which has a pronounced effect on freshwater and coastal marine waters throughout the world (Smith and Schindler 2009). The primary nutrients of concern are phosphorus and nitrogen, which can be found in anthropogenic products and by-products such as wastewaters, fertilizers, agricultural drainage, and municipal sewage. In temperate regions, primary production is naturally limited by phosphorus concentrations (Schindler 1974) and therefore, artificially high concentrations of phosphorus-containing materials are critical to lake quality conditions (Sawyer 1966). Phosphorus control alone is sometimes regarded as improving lake conditions from cultural eutrophication (Schindler and Vallentyne 2008). Adverse phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations can result in unfavourable aesthetic and biotic lake conditions such as increased weed growth, algal blooms, declining water clarity, noxious odours, oxygen depletion and fish kills (Hasler 1947, Whittier et al. 2002a). Impaired water quality conditions can also affect human health, as the spread of harmful bacteria through wastewater can end up in drinking water supplies. The societal needs associated with freshwater ecosystems, either as a source of drinking water or a place for recreation, requires that management initiatives be implemented in 4 order to maintain or restore lake integrity from nutrient over-enrichment (Baron et al. 2002). The costs associated with eutrophic water management (e.g. the mechanical harvesting of overabundant macrophytes or chemical treatment options) are high, especially when certain practices are required annually or several times during a season (Dodds et al. 2009). As important as freshwater lakes are for society, cultural eutrophication threatens the ecological integrity and economic value associated with aquatic systems. Cultural eutrophication affects a population of lakes in a particular region to various degrees, depending on lake type and the intensity of anthropogenic development activities within the watershed. Within the northeastern U.S.A., eutrophication is most prevalent within the coastal/lowland plateau area (CLP), as close to 40% of all eutrophic or hyper-eutrophic lakes in the region are found here (Peterson et al. 1998, Whittier et al. 2002a). New Jersey and New York State lie predominantly within this region, characterized by lower elevations and pronounced rural/urban land use. In addition, a large portion of highly productive lakes in the northeast are human-made impoundments, which are typically shallow lakes that have been formed by the damming of streams (Cohen et al. 2009, Whittier et al. 2002b). The number of impoundments within the CLP region accounts for up to 67% of the total number of highly productive lakes within the northeastern U.S.A., including many from New Jersey (Whittier et al. 2002b). Freshwater lakes spanning NJ/NY represent a wide array of shallow and deep lake types, from man-made reservoirs and impoundments to natural drainage lakes. The physical characteristics of such lakes including depth, basin shape, and surface area, will 5 determine the mixing regime of the lake (Sawyer 1966, Taranu et al. 2010), which can influence the way in which nutrients will infiltrate the system. While deep, stratifying lakes experience substantial declines in hypolimnetic oxygen conditions as a result of increased nutrient concentrations, shallow, polymictic lakes experience potential whole lake changes, which may switch the overall state of the lake (clear water state to turbid, or vice versa). Water quality in deep, stratified lakes Limnological studies have long focused on deep lakes as they typically experience a period of thermal stratification, with a thermocline separating epilimnetic and hypolimnetic strata during the summer months (Hutchinson 1957). When stratification occurs, the thermocline restricts wind-induced mixing of the water to the epilimnion, causing hypoxic or anoxic conditions to exist within the hypolimnion (dense bottom water layer) due to a lack of dissolved oxygen diffusion from surface strata. This situation is exacerbated when an external input of phosphorus or nitrogen occurs and becomes available for macrophyte or algal growth. When this organic matter dies, it will sink to bottom waters and become available for bacterial decomposition, consuming oxygen in the process. The reduced conditions at the sediment-water interface can lead to sediment phosphorus that was originally bound to iron to re-mobilize into a dissolved form, becoming available to the overlying water column (Welch and Cooke 1995). Reducing conditions not only result in increased internal phosphorus loading (increasing trophic state) but also result in the release of contaminants (e.g. heavy metals) that had previously been bound in sediments to iron or other ions (Linge and Oldham 2002). 6 Released phosphorus and other elements will remain in the hypolimnion as long as low oxygen conditions persist, until de-stratification occurs during fall overturn. The water quality of deep, stratified lakes is often an important priority for management strategies, as the hypolimnion is a refuge for important cold-water fish species (e.g. trout) that require a cool and well-oxygenated habitat (<10°C, >6 mg L'1 dissolved oxygen) (Clark et al. 2004, Evans 2005). The prolonged subsidence of available habitat for cold-water fish populations creates concern for lake management initiatives aimed at sustaining these fish populations in the U.S.A. (Halliwell et al. 2001, Mathews and Effler 2006) and Canada (Clark et al. 2004, Paterson et al. 2009). If the external source of phosphorus is removed, a noticeable reduction in phytoplankton productivity, and subsequent reduction in decomposition of algal biomass, should improve oxygen concentrations (Marsden 1989, Cooke et al. 2001, Schindler and Vallentyne 2008). Unlike deep, stratified lakes, shallow lakes respond differently to nutrient enrichment brought on by cultural eutrophication. Water quality in shallow, polymictic lakes Shallow lakes are much more abundant in the global landscape than deep lakes (Downing et al. 2006), with freshwater lakes of NJ being no exception. Many of NJ's lakes are shallow impoundments constructed for use in flood and sediment control (Cohen et al. 2009). Shallow lakes have a larger portion of water volume within the photic zone and exhibit a smaller mean depth compared to deep lakes. Oxic conditions at the sediment- water interface, as a result of multiple mixing events over the ice-free season (by wind or other mechanical forces), helps keep phosphorus and other elements immobilized in 7 insoluble oxidized forms. However, sediment-nutrient release can occur following decomposition of organic matter during stagnant periods, sediment resuspension by wind, high pH, or benthivorous fish or invertebrate activities in the upper sediment layers (Scheffer 1998). This prompts internal nutrient loading, where phosphorus and other elements become available once again to algae and other aquatic biota given the close association between epilimnetic and bottom waters. The rate of nutrient release from sediments is dependent upon the trophic status of the lake with hyper-eutrophic and eutrophic lakes dispelling larger quantities of nutrients to the open water than unproductive lakes (Niirnberg 1988). This positive feedback mechanism supports elevated levels of phosphorus within shallow lakes, affecting biotic and abiotic interactions even after the external source of phosphorus is removed (Sendergaard et al. 2007). For this reason, internal phosphorus loading is recognized as having a notable effect on trophic state in shallow lakes (Phillips et al. 1994, Welch and Cooke 1995, Sendergaard et al. 1999, Taranu et al. 2010). Shallow lake dynamics are further complicated by possible switches in overall ecological state ("regime changes"), at particular concentrations of nutrients. Alternative equilibria theory suggests that given low nutrient concentrations, a shallow lake will exhibit a clear-water state stabilized by macrophytes. Submerged macrophytes prevent sediment resuspension events and enhance the top-down control of algae, as zooplankton communities are in abundance and able to forage on primary producers due the predation pressure placed on planktivorous fish by piscivores (Scheffer and Jeppesen 1998). As nutrient concentrations continue to increase, the lake experiences numerous negative 8 feedback mechanisms until a critical concentration is reached, after which an un- vegetated, turbid state will dominate (Scheffer et al. 1993). This creates a lake state having enhanced algal growth, increased decomposition of organic materials, increased sediment resuspension promoting internal nutrient cycling, and limited light availability to bottom waters preventing the re-colonization of macrophytes. The disappearance of aquatic vegetation supports more planktivorous fish grazing on zooplankton populations that would normally control algal populations (Scheffer and Jeppesen 1998). Other less predominant stable states have also been found to occur in nature including stabilizing characteristics of floating plants, dominance of charophytes or cyanobacteria (Scheffer and van Nes 2007). A lake may switch from a clear-water to a turbid state for many reasons, some important factors being changes in lake depth, surface area, and climatic conditions (Scheffer and van Nes 2007). In most incidences, the shift between alternative states is often irregular, with changes from a turbid state back to a clear-water state being difficult due to the conditions required for the re-colonization of aquatic vegetation. However, some examples exist of shallow lakes that experience cyclic shifts between alternative states (van Nes et al. 2007, Scheffer and van Nes 2007). Alternative stable states, as well as internal nutrient loading, create challenges for management initiatives aimed at reducing nutrient concentrations in polymictic lakes. Understanding the ecological dynamics that exist in deep and shallow lakes that have nutrient enrichment problems emphasizes the need to protect and maintain water quality conditions and find ways to restore lakes experiencing nutrient impairment. 9 U.SA. water quality standards for management initiatives Many studies have indicated that freshwater lakes within the northeastern U.S.A. have been adversely affected by nutrient enrichment (Peterson et al. 1998, Dixit et al. 1999a, Whittier et al. 2002b). As lakes are a vital resource, it is important to protect them from impairment in order to maintain, and in some cases restore, their many functional uses. To address the concern surrounding impaired water quality in the United States, the Clean Water Act of 1972 requires that states must set water quality standards to protect the physical, biological and chemical integrity of all water bodies in the state (Gibson et al. 2000). Since water quality regulations have been implemented, state standards have evolved with updated scientific information, such as the importance of phosphorus as a limiting nutrient in temperate waters. The approach to maintaining water quality standards involves three steps: defining the desired use of a water body (such as recreation in and on the water, propogation of fish and wildlife, or use as a drinkable water supply), setting region-specific criteria to safeguard those uses, and establishing the necessary requirements to protect existing water quality from the presence of pollutants (Gibson et al. 2000). For NJ/NY, current efforts are in place to improve existing nutrient criteria plans for both states. Nutrient criteria are an important way to recognize which lakes are being afflicted by cultural eutrophication within a region. These metrics allow lake managers to protect good quality lakes, focus time and economic resources into the restoration of low quality lakes of concern, and regularly assess water bodies to maintain the developed criteria throughout the region (Gibson et al. 2000). New Jersey and New York States have both 10 set qualitative and quantitative nutrient criteria plans to assess state-wide water quality conditions. For both states, qualitative criteria reflect a commitment by each state to use nutrient criteria to help prevent objectionable algal and weed growth that could impair waters and their designated uses. New Jersey and New York States have also established a quantitative phosphorus threshold for water quality assessments, which includes measurements of 0.05 mg L"1 and 0.02 mg L"1, respectively (Cohen et al. 2009, NY DEC 2008a). Adverse phosphorus concentrations above these threshold values indicate problematic water quality conditions. State-specific environmental programs such as the NJ Ambient Lakes Monitoring Network (ALMN) and the NY Citizens State-wide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) have been established to document water chemistry changes in the region's freshwater lakes. This limnological data, coupled with total phosphorus criteria, help to identify problematic lakes in both states. Currently, these nutrient criteria are in place for Total Maximum Daily Load assessments addressed for particular lakes of concern including Greenwood Lake, NJ and Cossayuna Lake, NY (NJ DEP 2004, NY DEC 2008b). As useful and important as these assessments are, these environmental programs only assess recent limnological changes in state freshwaters. This approach fails to consider the full breadth of variability that many freshwater systems in this region have experienced over time. Spatial and temporal variability brought on by disturbance is a common feature of nearly all ecological systems. The past state or natural variability within an ecological system can reveal the context for managing freshwater lakes today (Landres et al. 1999). Information on baseline (historical) conditions can reveal whether 11 remediation is required for an 'impaired' water body, or if the current state of a lake actually reflects its natural characteristics. Previous research of northeastern U.S.A. lakes indicated that although eutrophication has largely occurred recently in the northeastern CLP ecoregions, a small number of lakes were naturally productive in the past (Dixit et al.1999a). If a lake has always been productive, efforts to manipulate it into a non productive state will be unsuccessful as it will likely revert back to its original condition. For the most part, historical limnological data is largely unavailable for such assessments. Therefore, paleolimnology can be used as a good alternative to inferring past changes of lake trophic status given present day freshwater conditions. Paleolimnology Freshwater lakes are closely linked with their surrounding watersheds. Information from the surrounding catchment, atmosphere, and groundwater flows, and from the lake itself, generally collect in the deepest part of a lake basin. If the deepest part of the lake remains relatively undisturbed, it can be certain that the bottom of a retrieved sediment core will contain older sediments that represent historical conditions, while the top of the core represents present-day conditions (Smol 2008). Paleolimnology uses this archived information preserved in lake sediments to reconstruct past environmental conditions of freshwater lakes. Previous reconstructions have been used to investigate environmental problems like nutrient over-enrichment, acidification, metal toxicity, and climate change, to name a few (Smol 2008). These analyses use morphological remains of biological indicators found in lake sediments, like chironomids or diatoms, in order to track the past extent of environmental issues of interest within a lake. 12 Given recent advancements in statistical techniques, paleolimnologists are able to quantitatively estimate the environmental optima and tolerances of bio-indicators of interest to develop surface-sediment (modern) calibration sets (Birks 1998). Modern calibration sets use present-day environmental variables, which are important in governing the distribution of bio-indicators. The transfer function is then applied 'down core' in a lake sediment core stratigraphy, to reconstruct the pattern of variability seen over time, or through 'top' and 'bottom' analyses, meant as a broad-scale assessment to compare 'present' to 'historical' conditions of several lakes. These model reconstructions can verify whether a change in the ecological condition of a lake has occurred and the timing associated with such changes. Although transfer functions are a powerful tool for historical lake assessments, there have been problems associated with the development and application of such models, as complex interactions often exist between species and the environment, especially in shallow lake systems (Sayer et al. 2010). Priorities in paleolimnological assessments have focused on improving existing model performance for a single environmental variable or applying new transfer functions to different regions. Instead, Sayer and colleagues (2010) argue that efforts should be made to combine contemporary qualitative approaches with paleolimnological models to better interpret changing ecological patterns for these shallow systems. The use of aquatic midges as paleo-indicators Chironomidae: the non-biting midge Chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae) are widely distributed and the most abundant macroinvertebrate group in freshwater habitats (lentic and lotic waters), both in species 13 richness and abundance of individuals. Similar to other aquatic invertebrates, the stages of chironomid development involve egg production into four larval instars before metamorphosis into a short-lived adult stage, with the largest portion of time spent as aquatic larvae (Oliver 1971). Aquatic larval instars experience periods of growth, shedding of exoskeleton, and ecdysis, until a final instar is produced. Early larval instars are short in duration and mainly planktonic, functioning primarily as a vehicle for dispersal, while later instars will remain free-living or settle into a benthic state (Walker 2006). Larval head capsules are deposited in the sediments and used in analyses of community composition. First and second larval instars are poorly represented in sediments, since early larval head capsules experience physiological processes that result in the shedding of less heavily chitinized subfossil material that can degrade in sediments (Iovino 1975). Third and fourth instar larval head capsules represent the majority of fossils that are picked from sediments and identified to the lowest taxonomic resolution possible (subfamily, genus or even species level). A sediment core retrieved from the deepest portion of the lake includes subfossil invertebrate remains from different lake habitats including the profundal, pelagic, and littoral regions. Different chironomid larvae exhibit physiological and/or behavioural mechanisms, which enable them to thrive in their optimal or sub-optimal environmental conditions. As a result, since the early part of the 20th century, chironomids have been used as indicators of water quality conditions (Thienemann 1921, 1922). Lake trophic state parameters such as abundance and quality of food, and hypolimnetic oxygen conditions play a vital role in governing the distribution of larval midges (Brodersen and 14 Quinlan 2006). As reviewed by Hofmann (1988), these ecological parameters are related to one another in deep lakes, as the profundal chironomid assemblage of a eutrophic lake showing high nutrient concentrations, increased production, and higher decomposition rates will also experience hypolimnetic oxygen depletion. Such lakes may be characterized by Chironomus larvae, having hemoglobin in its hemolymph that binds available oxygen and will undulate their body to ventilate the surrounding micro- environment of the tube in which it lives within sediments (Porinchu and Macdonald 2003, Brodersen and Quinlan 2006, Walker 2006). Chironomus is able to out-compete other chironomid taxa less tolerant of high hutrient and low oxygen conditions, like Heterotrissocladius larvae, a known cold-stenothermic taxon. In deep lakes, transitioning from high to low oxygen conditions, chironomids become important for indicating the extent of ecological changes. Severe and prolonged oxygen depletion will cause profundal taxa to become extripated and free-living littoral taxa, such as members of the Tribe Tanytarsini, to become the only taxa remaining, as littoral species are able to actively move to well-oxygenated areas to avoid areas having low oxygen conditions (Little et al. 2000, Quinlan and Smol 2001). Shallow lakes are prone to productive conditions, especially man-made impoundments (Cohen et al. 2009). As a result, such lakes will support more littoral and sub-littoral chironomid communities (Brodersen and Quinlan 2006). The littoral zone of a shallow lake has different microhabitats for chironomids, as a result of different substratum types, including extensive growths of aquatic vegetation. In contrast to deep, stratified lakes, the chironomid assemblages occurring in shallow, polymictic lakes show 15 a wide ecological range (generalists), as environmental conditions are heterogeneous and more complex (having lower depth, more light availability, warmer temperatures, fluctuating mixing conditions, and periods of ice cover, to name a few). Plant-associated midges (phytophilous taxa) occur in greater abundances as macrophytes colonize a greater proportion of littoral zone available for these lakes. Aquatic plants not only function as refuges from predation, but also as a food source (periphyton) for these animals (Brodersen and Quinlan 2006). Some taxa that associate with macrophytes include Dicrotendipes, Psectrocladius, and Endochironomus (Brodersen et al. 2001). Whereas macrophyte growth is generally enhanced by increases in nutrient inputs, plant species richness is controlled by lake alkalinity levels (Vestergaard and Sand-Jensen 2000). The differences observed among high alkaline or low alkaline lakes reflect differences in the structure of littoral habitat available to chironomid taxa (Brodersen et al. 2001). Those shallow lakes which have switched ecological states will experience taxa more tolerant of higher nutrient (turbid) conditions, which include Glyptotendipes, Einfeldia, and Cricotopus (Brodersen et al. 2001, Langdon et al. 2006,2010). Chaoboridae and Ceratopogonidae: The phantom midge and biting midge Chaoborids (Diptera; Chaoboridae) and ceratopogonids (Diptera; Ceratopogonidae) are other freshwater invertebrates whose larval parts also preserve well in sediments, but are found less frequently than fossilized chironomids. The Chaoborus larval body is mostly transparent, which is an important feature when foraging, as they are tactile, ambush predators that remain motionless until their mechano receptors detect disturbances in the water from prey (Sweetman and Smol 2006). Targets of prey include smaller 16 invertebrates like rotifers, copepods, and even chironomid larvae, which are captured by using their prehensile antennae and mandibles. An important factor that influences chaoborid populations is predation by planktivorous fish. To avoid predation, chaoborid transparency, combined with an ability to undergo diurnal vertical migrations, helps minimize their chance of capture by such visual predators. The ability to migrate within the water column allows them to seek refuge in the hypolimnion during the day and move upward into surface waters to feed at night (Wissel et al. 2003). Chaoborids, like some chironomid taxa, are able to withstand low oxygen conditions that often occur within the hypolimnion. A reason for this includes their ability to also use haemolymph as a source of anaerobic energy during prolonged periods of low oxygen (Sholz and Zerbst-Boroffka 1998). Other chaoborid taxa, like C. americanus, are unable to migrate, limiting their distribution to Ashless lakes. Paleolimnological studies have used phantom midges in model reconstructions tracking historic fish populations (Uutala 1990, Sweetman and Smol 2006) and assessing hypolimnetic oxygen conditions (Quinlan and Smol 2010, Luoto and Salonen 2010). Ceratopogonids are widely distributed among benthic standing water and semi- terrestrial habitats. Those living in aquatic habitats are carnivorous, while larvae living in terrestrial environments feed on plant material. Within sediments, only two fossilized larval types can be identified, Dasyhelea and Bezzia. In a recent study, Luoto (2009) performed multivariate analyses to verify the usability of ceratopogonids for assessments of past environmental change. Results suggested that Bezzia-type individuals reflected high hypolimnetic oxygen conditions, while Dasyhelea-type individuals showed lower 17 oxygen optima. This reveals that both ceratopogonid types may be able to indicate lakes of low or high productivity (Luoto 2009). Ceratopogonids have not been used as frequently in paleolimnological assessments. More commonly, they are used as supplementary information in chironomid and chaoborid reconstructions. Objectives After reviewing important concepts reflected in this thesis, the main objectives of this thesis are: 1.) To use multivariate analyses to determine which environmental variables are primarily governing the distribution of chironomids and other midge communities (including chaoborids and ceratopogonids) within predominantly shallow NJ/NY lakes. 2.) To use ecological variables of interest in developing, and comparing the strength of, paleolimnological transfer functions. 3.) To apply limnological reconstructions to top-bottom samples, and to stratigraphic cores, to compare past and present lake conditions and reveal baseline conditions for lakes in NJ/NY. As this study includes deep, stratified lakes, a volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen (VWHO) model (Quinlan and Smol 2001) will be applied to these samples to compare past and present dissolved oxygen conditions of these lakes. This thesis will also extend the application of chironomids and other midges for use in paleolimnological assessments within the CLP ecoregions of the northeastern U.S.A. 18 Literature Cited Baron, J. S., N. LeRoy Poff, P. L. Angermeier, C. N. Dahm, P. H. Gleick, N. G. Hairston Jr., R. B. Jackson, C. A. Johnston, B. D. Richter, and A. D. Steinman. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12: 1247-1260. Birks, H. J. B. 1998. Numerical tools in paleolimnology - progress, potentialities, and problems. Journal of Paleolimnology 20: 307-332. Brodersen, K. P., and C. Lindegaard. 1999. Classification, assessment and trophic reconstruction of Danish lakes using chironomids. Freshwater Biology 42: 143- 157. Brodersen, K. P., B. V. Odgaard, O. Vestergaard, andN. J. Anderson. 2001. Chironomid stratigraphy in the shallow and eutrophic Lake Sobygaard, Denmark: chironomid- macrophyte co-occurrence. Freshwater Biology 46: 253-267. Brodersen, K. P., and R. Quinlan. 2006. Midges as palaeo-indicators of lake productivity, eutrophication and hypolimnetic oxygen. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1995- 2012. Brooks, S. J., H. Bennion, and H. J. B. Birks. 2001. Tracing lake trophic history with a chironomid-total phosphorus inference model. Freshwater Biology 46: 513-533. Clark, B. J., P. J. Dillon, L. A. Molot. 2004. Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) habitat volumes and boundaries in Canadian Shield lakes. Pages 111-119 in J. M. Gunn, R. J. Steedman, and R. A. Ryder, editors. Boreal shield watersheds: lake trout ecosystems in a changing environment. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, F.L. 19 Clerk, S., R. Hall, R. Quinlan, and J. P. Smol. 2000. Quantitative inferences of past hypolimnetic anoxia and nutrient levels from a Canadian Precambrian Shield lake. Journal of Paleolimnology 23: 319-336. Cohen, S., S. Lubow, and J. Pflaumer. 2009. New Jersey Nutrient Criteria Enhancement Plan. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Water Monitoring and Standards, Trenton, N.J. Cooke, G. D., P. Lombardo, and C. Brant. 2001. Shallow and deep lakes: determining successful management options. LakeLine (NALMS) 21: 42-46. Dixit, S., and J. P. Smol. 1994. Diatoms as indicators in the environmental monitoring and assessment program-surface waters (EMAP-SW). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 31: 275-306. Dixit, S. S., J. P. Smol, D. F. Charles, R. M. Hughes, S. G. Paulsen, and G. B. Collins. 1999a. Assessing water quality changes in the lakes of the northeastern United States using sediment diatoms. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 131-152. Dixit, S. S., A. S. Dixit, and J. P. Smol. 1999b. Lake sediment chrysophyte scales from the northeastern U.S.A. and their relationship to environmental variables. Journal of Phycology 35: 903-918. Dodds, W. K., W. W. Bouska, J. L. Eitzmann, T. J. Pilger, K. L. Pitts, A. J. Riley, J. T. Schloesser, and D. J. Thornbrugh. 2009. Eutrophication of U. S. freshwaters: analysis of potential economic damages. Environmental Science and Technology 43:12-19. Downing, J. A., Y. T. Prairie, J. J. Cole, C. M. Duarte, L. J. Tranvik, R. G. Striegl, W. H. 20 McDowell, P. Kortelainen, N. F. Caraco, J. M. Melack, J. J. Middelburg. 2006. The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds, and impoundments. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 2388-2397. Enache, M., D. F. Charles, J. Roszek, T. Belton, and C. Callinan. 2008. Paleolimnological analysis of nutrient enrichment for criteria development in New Jersey and New York Lakes final report. Patrick Center for Environmental Research, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Evans, D. O. Effects of hypoxia on scope-for-activity of lake trout: defining a new dissolved oxygen criterion for protection of lake trout habitat. Technical Report 2005-01. Ministry of Natural Resources, Habitat and Fisheries Unit, Aquatic Research and Development Section, ARDB, Peterborough, ON. Francis, D. R. 2004. Distribution of midge remains (Diptera: Chironomidae) in surficial lake sediments in New England. Northeastern Naturalist 11: 459-478. Gibson, G., R. Carlson, J. Simpson, E. Smeltzer, J. Gerritson, S. Chapra, S. Heiskary, J. Jones, and R. Kennedy. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs. EPA-822-B00-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Halliwell, D. B., T. R. Whittier, and N. H. Ringler. 2001. Distributions of lake fishes of the northeast U.S.A - III. Salmonidae and associated coldwater species. Northeastern Naturalist 8: 189-206. Hasler, A. D. 1947. Eutrophication of lakes by domestic drainage. Ecology 28: 383-395. Hobbs, F., and N. Stoops. 2002. Demographic trends in the 20th Century. Census 2000 special reports, series CENSR-4. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Hofmann, W. 1988. The significance of chironomid analysis (Insecta: Diptera) for paleolimnological research. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 62: 501-509. Hughes, R. M., S. G. Paulsen, and J. L. Stoddard. 2000. EMAP-Surface Waters: a multiassemblage, probability survey of ecological integrity in the U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 429-443. Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. A treatise on limnology, Vol. 1 Geography, physics, and chemistry of lakes. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Iovino, A. J. 1975. Extant chironomid larval populations and the representativeness and nature of their remains in lake sediments. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington. Kennedy, J. C. D. Agriculture of the United States in 1860: Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census, Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior. U. S. Census Bureau, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179-1188. Langdon, P.G., Z. Ruiz, K. P. Brodersen, and I. D. L. Foster. 2006. Assessing lake eutrophication using chironomids: understanding the nature of community response in different lake types. Freshwater Biology 51: 562-577. 22 Langdon, P.G., Z. Ruiz, S. Wynne, C. D. Sayer, and T.A. Davidson. 2010. Ecological influences on larval chironomid communities in shallow lakes: implications for paleolimnological interpretations. Freshwater Biology 55: 531-545. Lathrop, R., and J. Hasse, 2006. Tracking New Jersey's changing landscape. Pages 111- 126 in N. Maher, editor. New Jersey's environments: past, present, and future. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ. Linge, K. L., and C. E. Oldham. 2002. Arsenic remobilization in a shallow lake: the role of sediment resuspension. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 822-828. Little, J. L., R. I. Hall, R. Quinlan, and J. P. Smol. 2000. Past trophic status and hypolimnetic anoxia during eutrophication and remediation of Gravenhurst Bay, Ontario: comparison of diatoms, chironomids, and historical records. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 333-341. Little, J. L., and J. P. Smol. 2001. A chironomid-based model for inferring late-summer hypolimnetic oxygen in southeastern Ontario lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 26: 259-270. Lotter, A. F., H. J. B. Birks, W. Hofmann, and A. Marchetto. 1998. Modern diatom, cladocera, chironomid, and chrysophyte cyst assemblages as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental conditions in the Alps. II. Nutrients. Journal of Paleolimnology 19: 443-463. Luoto, T. P. 2009. An assessment of lentic ceratopogonids, ephemeropterans, trichopterans, and orbatid mites as indicators of past environmental change in Finland. Ann. Zool. Fennici. 46: 259-270. 23 Luoto, T. P., and L. Nevalainen. 2009. Larval chaoborid mandibles in surface sediments of small shallow lakes in Finland: implications for palaeolimnology. Hydrobiologia631:185-195. Luoto, T. P., and V. -P. Salonen. 2010. Fossil midge larvae (Diptera: Chironomidae) as a quantitative indicators of late-winter hypolimnetic oxygen in southern Finland: a calibration model, case studies, and potentialities. Boreal Environment Research 15: 1-18. Marsden, M. W. 1989. Lake restoration by reducing external phosphorus loading: the influence of sediment phosphorus release. Freshwater Biology 21: 139-162. Mathews, D. A., and S. W. Effler. 2006. Assessment of long-term trends in the oxygen resources of a recovering urban lake, Onondaga Lake, New York. Lake and Reservoir Management 22: 19-32. NJ DEP. 2004. Amendment to the northeast water quality management plan, total maximum daily load for phosphorus to address Greenwood Lake in the northeast water region. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Watershed Management, Trenton, N.J. NY DEC. 2008a. New York State Nutrient Standards Plan. [Internet] New York Department of Environmental Conservation; [cited 13 April 2010]. Available from http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23853.html. NY DEC. 2008b. Total maximum daily load for phosphorus in Cossayuna Lake. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Water Quality Management, Albany, NY. 24 Nurnberg, G. K. 1988. Prediction of phosphorus release rates from total and reductant- soluble phosphorus in anoxic lake sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 453-462. Oliver, D. R. 1971. Life history of chironomidae. Annual Review of Entomology 16: 211-230. Paterson, A. M., R. Quinlan, B. J. Clark, and J. P. Smol. 2009. Assessing hypolimnetic oxygen concentrations in Canadian Shield lakes: deriving management benchmarks using two methods. Lake and Reservoir Management 25: 313-322. Peterson, S. A., D. P. Larsen, S. G. Paulsen, and N.S. Urquhart. 1998. Regional lake trophic patterns in the northeastern United States: three approaches. Environmental Management 22: 789-801. Phillips, G., R. Jackson, C. Bennett, and A. Chilvers. 1994. The importance of sediment phosphorus release in the restoration of very shallow lakes (The Norfolk Broads, England) and implications for biomanipulation. Hydrobiologia 275/276: 445-456. Porinchu, D. F., and G. M. MacDonald. 2003. The use and application of freshwater midges (Chironomidae; Insecta; Diptera) in geographical research. Progress in Physical Geography 27: 378-422. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2001. Chironomid-based inference models for estimating end-of-summer hypolimnetic oxygen from south-central Ontario shield lakes. Freshwater Biology 46:1529-1551. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2010. Use of sub fossil Chaoborus mandibles in models for inferring past hypolimnetic oxygen. Journal of Paleolimnology 44: 43-50. 25 Sawyer, C. N. 1966. Basic concepts of eutrophication. Journal WPCF 38: 737-743. Sayer, C., N. Roberts, J. Sadler, C. David, and P. M. Wade. 1999. Biodiversity changes in a shallow lake ecosystem: a multi-proxy palaeolimnological analysis. Journal of Biogeography 26: 97-114. Sayer, C. D., T. A. Davidson, J. I. Jones, and P. G. Langdon. 2010. Combining contemporary ecology and palaeolimnology to understand shallow lake ecosystem change. Freshwater Biology 55:487-499. Scheffer, M. 1998. Ecology of shallow lakes. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. SchefFer, M., and E. Jeppesen. 1998. Alternative stable states. Pages 397-407 in E. Jeppesen, M. Sendergaard, M. Sandergaard, and K. Christoffersen, editors. The structuring role of submerged macrophytes in lakes. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York. Scheffer, M., and E. H. van Nes. 2007. Shallow lakes theory revisted: various alternative regimes driven by climate, nutrients, depth, and lake size. Hydrobiologia 584: 455-466. SchefFer, M., S. H. Hosper, M. L. Meijer, B. Moss, and E. Jeppesen. 1993. Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 275-279. Schindler, D. W. 1974. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: implications for lake management. Science 184: 897-899. Schindler, D. W., and J. R. Vallentyne. 2008. The algal bowl: overfertilization of the world's freshwaters and estuaries. The University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. 26 Sholz, F., and I. Zerbst-Boroffka. 1998. Environmental hypoxia affects osmotic and ionic regulation in freshwater midge-larvae. Journal of Insect Physiology 44: 427-436. Smith, V. H., and D. W. Schindler. 2009. Eutrophication science: where do we go from here? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 201-207. Smol, J. P. 2008. Pollution of lakes and rivers: A paleoenvironmental perspective. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Massachusetts, USA. Sendergaard, M., J. Peder Jensen, and E. Jeppesen. 1999. Internal phosphorus loading in shallow Danish lakes. Hydrobiologia 408/409: 145-152. Sondergaard, M., E. Jeppesen, T. L. Lauridsen, C. Skov, E. H. Van Nes, R. Roijackers, E. Lammens, and R. Portielje. 2007. Lake restoration: successes, failures, and long- term effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1095-1105. Stansfield, C. A. 1996. An ecological history of New Jersey. New Jersey Historical Commission Department of State, Trenton, NJ. Sweetman, J. N., and J. P. Smol. 2006. Reconstructing fish populations using Chaoborus (Diptera: Chaoboridae) remains-a review. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 2013- 2023. Taranu, Z. E., D. Koster, R. I. Hall, T. Charette, F. Forrest, L. C. Cwynar, and I. Gregory- Eaves. 2010. Contrasting responses of dimictic and polymictic lakes to environmental change: a spatial and temporal study. Aquatic Sciences 72: 97-115. Thienemann, A. 1921. Biologische Seetypen und die Griindung einer hydrobiologischen Anstalt am Bodensee. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 13: 347-370. Thienemann, A. 1922. Die bieden Chironomus-aiten der Tiefenfauna der norddeutschen 27 Seen. Ein Hydrobiologisches Problem. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 13: 609-646. Uutala, A. J. 1990. Chaoborus (Diptera: Chaoboridae) mandibles - paleolimnological indicators of the historical status of fish populations in acid-sensitive lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 4: 139-151. van Nes, E. H., W. J. Rip, and M. Scheffer. 2007. A theory for cyclic shifts between alternative states in shallow lakes. Ecosystems 10: 17-27. Vermaire, J. C., and I. Gregory-Eaves. 2008. Reconstructing changes in macrophyte cover in lakes across the northeastern United States based on sedimentary diatom assemblages. Journal of Paleolimnology 39: 477-490. Vestergaard, O., and K. Sand-Jensen. 2000. Alkalinity and trophic state regulate aquatic plant distribution in Danish lakes. Aquatic Botany 67: 85-107. Welch, E. B., and G. D. Cooke. 1995. Internal phosphorus loading in shallow lakes: importance and control. Lake and Reservoir Management 21: 209-217. Walker, I. R. 2006. Chironomid overview. Pages 360-366 in S. A. Elias, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, Vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Walker, I. R., and L. C. Cwynar. 2006. Midges and palaeotemperature reconstruction - the North American experience. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1911-1925. Whittier, T. R., S. G. Paulsen, D. R. Larsen, S. A. Peterson, A. T. Herlihy, and P. R. Kaufmann. 2002a. Indicators of ecological stress and their extent in the population of northeastern lakes: a regional-scale assessment. Bioscience 52: 235-247. Whittier, T. R., D. P. Larsen, S. A. Peterson, and T. M. Kincaid. 2002b. A comparison of 28 impoundments and natural drainage lakes in the northeast U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 470: 157-171. Wissel, B., N. D. Yan, and C. W. Ramcharan. 2003. Predation and refugia: implications for Chaoborus abundance and species composition. Freshwater Biology 48: 1421- 1431. 29 Chapter 2 Using multivariate statistical analysis to assess the influence of environmental variables on midge communities of New Jersey and New York State freshwater systems Introduction Freshwater lakes found across the northeastern part of the United States (U.S.A.) represent a wide array of shallow and deep lake types, from man-made reservoirs and impoundments, to natural drainage lakes. Since the post-colonial period in the U.S.A., this area has experienced extensive changes in land-use brought on by anthropogenic activities. Many inland lakes of this region have also experienced eutrophication, acidification, exotic species invasions, and watershed and lakeshore land-use changes (Whittier et al. 2002a). Lake management initiatives aimed at protecting/rehabilitating northeastern U.S.A. lakes have become essential following recent water quality reports which indicate that water quality still remains impaired for many lakes of this region, including those found in New Jersey and New York State (NJ/NY) (NJ DEP 2004a, NY DEC 2008). Attempting to investigate lake response to stressors can be difficult when pre- disturbance conditions or the extent of natural variability in limnological condition is unknown. Determining a lake's natural variability helps discern a reference condition, to which the present state of the lake may be compared, especially when assessing the influence of anthropogenic stressors (Smol 1992, Landres et al. 1999). For this reason, paleolimnology is consistently found to be an important method for historical 30 comparisons of ecological condition of freshwater systems, where long-term monitoring datasets do not exist (Battarbee et al. 2005, Sayer et al. 2010). Paleolimnological assessments use the physical, chemical, and biological information preserved in lake sediments to reconstruct past water quality conditions for water bodies of interest (Smol 2008). Prior to inference model development, surface-sediment training sets are developed to relate the distributions and abundances of biological indicators to biological and physico-chemical parameters. This approach is a powerful and frequently used method to estimate the environmental optima and tolerances of bio-indicators of interest (Smol 2008). To choose appropriate variables to be modeled, multivariate analyses should first be performed to determine whether bio-indicators of interest are good candidates to develop a training set. Across the northeastern U.S.A., past paleolimnological assessments have used sedimentary diatoms and chrysophytes to study long-term environmental change in water quality conditions (Dixit et al. 1999a, 1999b). These assessments indicate that a small subset of lakes across this region were naturally productive or acidic in the past. However, more recently, acidic lakes have become common across all ecoregions of the northeast (Adirondacks - ADR, New England Uplands - NEU, and Coastal Lowlands/Plateau - CLP), while an increased prevalence of eutrophic and hyper- eutrophic lake conditions has occurred in the CLP ecoregion (Dixit et al. 1999a). The majority of NJ/NY lies within the CLP ecoregion, an area that exhibits a higher percentage of urban and agricultural land use compared to the rest of the northeastern U.S.A. As the majority of their life cycle is aquatic, Dipteran midge larvae (Family 31 Chironomidae, Chaoboridae, and Ceratopogonidae) are also considered important bio- indicators, with the Chironomidae frequently used in paleolimnological analyses as they are very good water quality indicators (Saether 1979). Although Chironomidae have been used for climate-related interpretations in the NEU ecoregion of the northeastern U.S.A. (Francis 2004), as of yet, chironomids (and other Dipteran midges) have not been used for broad-scale paleolimnological assessments within NJ/NY, apart from an investigation using Chaoborus (the phantom midge) larval remains to infer acidification-mediated changes in fish populations across the NY Adirondack region (Uutala 1990). For lake management purposes, chironomid and chaoborid midge larvae are well- known as indicators of hypolimnetic oxygen conditions (Quinlan and Smol 2010). Surface-sediment training sets confirm this relationship across deep-water lakes and, as a result, oxygen-related midge transfer functions have been developed and/or applied for North American (Quinlan et al. 1998, Little and Smol 2001, Quinlan and Smol 2001a, 2010) and European lakes (Luoto and Salonen 2010). These models have been used to elucidate historic patterns of change in hypolimnetic oxygen to assess changes in fish habitat and other water quality conditions, as a result of human disturbance. Less well- known are the ecological patterns of midges in shallow, polymictic lakes and their response to human-induced changes in water quality, as oxygen no longer becomes a main limiting factor for aquatic larvae in these systems. Instead, macroinvertebrate communities in shallow lakes experience more complex interactions between combinations of changes in physico-chemical gradients and biological constraints (predation pressure, food abundance, and macrophyte habitat, to name a few). Previous 32 paleolimnological research has used chironomids in shallow lakes to assess the strength of various species-environment relationships. As a result, chironomids have been shown to reliably infer trophic history through total phosphorus reconstructions (Lotter et al. 1998, Brooks et al. 2001) or chlorophyll a (Chi a) concentrations (Brodersen and Lindegaard 1999). A chironomid-Chl a inference model is beneficial as it may be applied to lakes switching between N- or P- limitation, which may be a weakness in diatom-based inference models that reconstruct past changes in trophic status using TP inferences. Both chironomid-TP and chironomid-Chl a models have been applied to shallow English lakes with the discretion that related biological gradients may contribute to the structuring of midge communities in such habitats (Langdon et al. 2006). Recent literature has highlighted the importance of macrophyte abundance and plant species richness in chironomid-environment relationships (Langdon et al. 2010, Sayer et al. 2010). Additionally, Luoto (2009a) found that while chironomids and chaoborids were most strongly influenced by gradients of lake depth and temperature in shallow Finnish lakes, other factors like "pollution" may be a confounding gradient in midge community structure. Objectives The aim of this thesis chapter was to undertake exploratory analyses of species- environment relationships amongst chironomids and other midges (including chaoborids and ceratopogonids) in subfossil assemblages and environmental gradients in 61 NJ/NY lakes. I used multivariate statistical techniques to identify which environmental variables, both physico-chemical and biological, are the most important in governing the 33 distribution and relative abundances of midge assemblages. Preliminary work has been done to assess hypolimnetic oxygen conditions for lakes interspersed throughout both states (Quinlan and Wazbinski 2007). The application of a volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen model (VWHO) (Quinlan and Smol 2001a) to NJ/NY lakes infers reliable patterns of VWHO change. However, the predominance of natural or man-made polymictic lakes in NJ (Cohen et al. 2009), require that additional statistical assessments be performed to understand what alternative environmental gradients are influencing midge communities in this lake type. Through the evaluation of present-day water quality conditions in conjunction with modern subfossil midge assemblages (collected from surficial sediments; 0-1 cm sediment depth), it may be possible to develop subfossil midge transfer functions of ecologically relevant variables to assess historic trends of water quality conditions for NJ/NY lakes. Site description The freshwater lakes of this study are located within NJ/NY, spanning 39-43°N latitude and 73-78°W longitude (Figure 2.1a, b, Table 2.1). Within this study boundary, sampled sites represent portions of all physiographic level III ecoregions of NJ (Ridge and Valley, Highlands, Piedmont, Inner and Outer Coastal Plains), as well as the Eastern Great Lakes/Hudson Lowlands and Northeastern Coastal Zone of NY (Woods et al. 2007). Ecoregions represent areas of similarity within ecosystems and serve as general purpose areas used for a qualitative approach to understanding the regional patterns of ecosystems (Omernik 1987). Accordingly, lakes interspersed across the NJ/NY study region are underlain by varying patterns of bedrock and soil chemistry as observed from one 34 ecoregion to the next. During the Wisconsinan glaciation the Laurentide ice sheet encompassed most of NY and the northern part of NJ (its southern margin spanning the towns of Belvidere-Morristown-Perth Amboy); as a result, some freshwater lakes across this region are glacial in origin (Berg 1963). Previously glaciated areas are underlain by Paleozoic sedimentary rock composed of limestone, sandstone, and shale, especially in lowland regions. Other study region areas, such as the northeastern highlands of NJ, are underlain by Precambrian gneiss (Woods et al. 2007). Differing from northern areas, the Coastal Plains of southern NJ are lower in elevation and are comprised of unconsolidated sediments, clays, marls, sands, gravels, and shell beds, from Cretaceous and Tertiary-age deposits (Woods et al. 2007). Deposits of glacial till, left behind by retreating glaciers, formed the parent material for most soils in the region (de la Cretaz and Barten 2007). Generally, soils across NY contain low levels of organic matter and nutrients, with the exception of soils in the eastern Great Lakes region, which are high in nutrients (like calcium and magnesium) and clay content. Northern portions of basins within the Finger Lakes region generally contain these calcium-rich, coarse-textured soils, while the southern ends of the basins lies within slightly acidic, poorly drained soil types (Schaffner and Oglesby 1978). The northern region of NJ is naturally rich in soil nutrients, with Precambrian soils in the Highlands being nutrient-poor, and subsequently clay- and iron- rich. The southern Coastal Plain exhibits largely unproductive, acidic soils made up of quartz sand. Lakes across the study region show patterns in lake chemistry that generally correspond to their basin soil types. Within the northern Uplands of NJ and parts of NY, 35 lakes are largely productive and exhibit circumneutral to alkaline conditions. Most lakes of the Inner Coastal Plain are slightly acidic, with some being as productive as those in the Uplands due to agricultural activity (addition of fertilizer to catchments) (Berg 1963). Outer Coastal Plain lakes of NJ are often shallow, with some being characterized by dark, brown humic waters. Such lakes are impoverished in calcium and other ions due to their acidic nature (Berg 1963). The NJ/NY region experiences a humid, continental climate, with either hot summers (in NJ) or warm summers (most of NY). A revised version of Koppen-Geiger climate zones indicates a small portion of the southern point of NJ exhibiting a transitional humid, subtropical climate (Peel et al. 2007). The major vegetation type in both states is forest, especially in the form of timberland (commercially forested land) (USDA 2005). Northern hardwoods are most common in NY characterized by sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, and black cherry trees. Oak-hickory forests are the dominant vegetation type in NJ, with the southern Coastal Plains best known for its pine-oak woodland (Pine Barrens). The NJ southern Coastal Plain region is the northern limit of many southern plant species (Woods et al. 2007). Although many farms were abandoned during the industrial revolution, agriculture remains an important form of land-use within NJ/NY, with cropland making up a large portion of cultivated land space within many mid-Atlantic watershed regions (USDA 2007a) and certain Great Lakes watershed regions (USDA 2007b). Other farming practices include dairying and poultry farms, with the NY Finger Lakes having the microclimate for fruit growing and counties of the NJ 36 Inner and Outer Coastal Plains also able to support fruit production like cranberry growth in acidic bogs. Materials and methods Field and laboratory methods For this study, limnological data and surficial sediments (0-2 cm sediment depth) were collected from 61 lakes between 1997 and 2007 during ice-free months (late March to mid-October). New Jersey sediment cores were taken from the deepest part of the basin using a modified K-B corer (Glew 1989) and extruded in the field using a Glew (1988) extruder. Sediment cores for the New York Finger Lakes were collected between 1997 and 1998 using a modified Wildco Box corer (model # 191-A15) (Table 2.1). Subfossil assemblages in top surficial intervals were used as "modern" assemblages to explore the relationship between present-day midge communities and environmental variables in potential training set lakes. Sediment samples were placed into Whirl-Pak® bags, transported in coolers on ice, and then stored in the dark at ~4°C. Sediment subsamples (-0.5-1 g dry weight, -5-10 g wet weight) were sieved using a nested combination of 212 jam and 106 nm mesh. The residue that was retained on sieves was washed using distilled water, dehydrated using 95% ethanol and backwashed into scintillation vials. Individual chironomid head capsules, ceratopogonid head capsules, and chaoborid mandibles were picked from sediment subsamples using a Nikon SMZ 1500 stereo microscope at 30-80x magnification. A minimum of 40-50 head capsules are needed to assess species assemblages in relation to environmental variables for use in a NJ/NY surface-sediment training set (Quinlan and Smol 2001b). If head 37 capsule numbers were below this minimum, additional sediment from the top interval (0- 0.5 cm) was sub-sampled until all sediment available for this interval was processed. If all sediment for the top interval had been sifted and a sufficient number of remains were still not found, sediment subsamples from the second interval (0.5-1 cm) were sieved and the total sum from the first and second interval were used for statistical analyses. This is possible as the first and second sediment intervals include the most recently deposited materials. As these samples include a larger proportion of water than more compact bottom sediments, it is possible that the first two intervals may have a similar 210Pb period dated. Two chaoborid mandibles were considered one midge individual. All subfossil head capsules and mandibles were mounted onto glass microscope slides using Entellan® mounting medium (Refractive Index = 1.49-1.50). Midge remains were identified using a Leica CME compound microscope at 40-100x magnification. Identification was made to the lowest taxonomic level possible following Wiederholm (1983), Walker (1988), Uutala (1990), Epler (2001), Rieradevall and Brooks (2001), and Brooks et al. (2007). Statistical analyses Measured parameters and univariate tests The environmental dataset consisted of 16 variables, 15 physico-chemical variables and 1 biological variable (Table 2.2, Appendix A; Table A4). The environmental variables maximum depth (Zmax), surface area (SA), secchi depth (ZSd), pH, epilimnetic temperature (Epi T), bottom temperature (Bot T), total phosphorus (TP), dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity (Cond), total dissolved/kjeldahl nitrogen (TDN/TKN), nitrite- 38 nitrate (NO2-NO3), ammonium (NH4), chlorophyll a (Chi a), and alkalinity (Alk), were collected by the NY DEC Citizens State-wide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) and the NJ DEP Ambient Lakes Monitoring Network, following the sampling protocols of these programs (Kishbaugh 1988, NJ DEP 2004b). The environmental dataset also includes one biological variable, macrophyte abundance, expressed as percent macrophyte cover (%Cover). This parameter was calculated by the NJ DEP using available GIS information. Data for macrophyte abundance was only available for 38 NJ lake samples. To obtain DO values, one temperature-oxygen profile sampled at 1 m interval depths was available for each lake. For certain lakes (CAN, CON, HEM, OSC, UNI, WAC), 2 to 6 profiles were available to take an average DO measure over a sampling season for a specific year. For deep lakes with Zmax greater than 20 m, oxygen profiles had a 5 to 10 m sampling resolution past a profile depth of 20 m. DO values were used to calculate the two oxygen parameters used in numerical analyses, Average bottom oxygen (AvgBot O2) and Average end-of-summer hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen (AvgDO(summ))- AvgBot O2 represents the DO concentration 1 m above bottom sediments at the deepest point in the lake (Quinlan and Smol 2001a). One sample site (OWA: Zmax = 47 m) required that DO values were linearly interpolated over 1 m intervals between sparse hypolimnetic measurements to obtain an appropriate bottom oxygen value. Research by Quinlan and Smol (2001a) also showed a strong relationship between chironomid assemblages to hypolimnetic oxygen conditions of deep-stratified lakes, defined as volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen (VWHO). In order to calculate 39 VWHO, bathymetric maps are required, but were not available for all lakes in this study. Instead, for lakes that showed a period of stratification in available oxygen profiles, AvgDO(summ) was calculated by averaging dissolved oxygen values measured within the hypolimnion (Little and Smol 2001). The upper limit of the hypolimnion was given as the shallowest depth below the thermocline where AT (Zx->Zx+i m) < 1 °C. AvgDO(summ) is an acceptable parameter to assess hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2 stratified NJ/NY lakes as the strength between VWHO and AvgDO(Summ) is high (r = 0.969) (using a previously published southeastern Ontario lake dataset), having a maximum departure in dissolved oxygen concentration of 2.1 mg L"1 (mean = 0.4 mg L"1) (Quinlan unpublished). Low oxygen conditions are defined as hypoxic ([O2] < 4 mg L"1) and anoxic ([O2] < 1 mg L"1). Of the total 61 sample sites, 5 sites (PEA, COSS, SIL, OSC, and WAC) had missing summer NO2-NO3 and Alk values, which were replaced by dataset median NO2- NO3 values and predicted Alk values from an Alk-Cond regression (y = 0.359* - 24.596, SE = 5.24, r2= 0.789, P < 0.001, df= 49). The distributions of environmental variables were assessed and transformed to approximate normality, if necessary (Table 2.2). To assess the general trends in species diversity across all sites, diversity values were calculated using Hill's N2 values (Hill 1973) given by the equation: N2 = 1A, (equation 2.1), where X = Hp,2 (equation 2.2), where p, represents a ratio of the count of the ith species to the total number of individuals in the sample. 40 The intercorrelation between environmental variables (and diversity) was assessed using a Pearson correlation matrix with Bonferroni-adjusted probabilities. This adjustment was used to decrease the chance of committing a type-I error, as multiple correlations are assessed simultaneously in the matrix. Univariate tests (linear regression, tests of normality, and correlation matrices) were performed using SPSS 17.0 and MYSTAT 12.0. Additional statistical analyses were performed using the program SegReg (Oosterban 2010), which uses segmented linear regression to identify whether or not the relative abundance of particular taxa have a significant linear relationship with a portion of an environmental gradient. Ordinations All ordinations were performed using CANOCO® for Windows version 4.53 (ter Braak and Smilauer 2004). Species data were expressed as percent relative abundance. Two species datasets were used as a means for comparison in various exploratory analyses: Chironomid-Only and Total Midge (chironomid, ceratopogonid, and chaoborid species) data. These comparisons were intended to reveal the strength of various analyses with or without the inclusion of supplemental taxa. Ordinations for each lake-grouping consistently showed the use of untransformed Total midge data to outperform analyses that used square-root transformations in either Chironomid-only or Total Midge data or untransformed Chironomid-only data, as this dataset explained more of the cumulative percent variance in the species data on canonical axes 1 and 2 and/or exhibited a higher 41 Xi/h ratio in comparison to other ordination results. For this reason, the results presented used untransformed Total Midge species data. 'Rare' taxa were omitted from analyses if they did not have an abundance of > 2% in at least two lakes, in order to reduce the statistical 'noise' that arises from multivariate ecological data containing many zero values. Outlier samples were detected by running a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of environmental variables (centering and standardizing by 'species', sample scores divided by standard deviation), and a Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) of screened species data (detrending by segments, non-linear rescaling, downweighting of rare taxa). Samples that fell outside the 95% confidence limits calculated for axis 1 and 2 of both PCA and DCA sample scores were removed from further analyses. After removing outliers, DCA was used to determine the length of the gradients (in standard deviation units; SD) exhibited by the species from which it was determined whether linear-based Redundancy Analysis (RDA) or unimodal-based Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) methods should be used for analysis. Intermediate gradient lengths (between 2-4 SD) warrant the use of either RDA or CCA. The influence of environmental variables was assessed by constraining the first canonical axis of each statistical method to a single environmental variable, and subsequently testing the significance of each constrained axis using unrestricted Monte Carlo permutation tests (999 iterations). Environmental variables that were significant (P < 0.05) in singly constrained ordinations were retained for manual forward selection, a method used to identify the smallest number of variables that could account for most of the variation explained in the invertebrate assemblages (Legendre and Legendre 1998). The gradient 42 lengths of between-lake variation in midge assemblages along environmental gradients were assessed using singly-constrained Detrended Canonical Correspondence Analysis (DCCA; detrending by segments, non-linear rescaling, down-weighting of rare taxa). Individual species responses to each environmental variable were assessed using Generalized Linear Model (GLM) in Canodraw version 4.53 (ter Braak and Smilauer 2004). GLM assumed a Gaussian distribution with step-wise selection using F-statistics (P < 0.05). Only taxa occurring in >20% of the dataset lakes was used for GLM. Results Limnological patterns Sample lakes of this study are predominantly shallow (Zmax < 10 m) and mesotrophic to eutrophic (TP between 10.5-98.5 |ig/L), with less than 20% showing extreme trophic conditions of oligotrophy (TP <10 (ig/L) and hyper-eutrophy (TP >100 ng/1). The majority of shallow lakes in this study are found in NJ, while most deep lakes (Zmax > 10 m) are found in NY. In terms of ionic lake chemistry, sites in the southern portion of NJ have low pH (< 6) and sites extending northward to NY have a circumneutral pH range with the prevalence of more alkaline waters (pH = 6-8, Alk > 20 mg L"1). These patterns have been previously observed across the northeastern U.S.A. by Omernik and Powers (1983) and by Whittier et al. (1995). Prior to ordinations, MAD was the only site having no oxygen-temperature profiles available and so it was removed from analyses. Regarding oxygen parameters, the AvgDO(summ) calculation was limited to 11 sample sites, as these were the only sites showing dimictic qualities from temperature-oxygen profiles. Seven of the 11 stratified 43 1 sites showed anoxic hypolimnia (AvgDO(SUmm) = < 1 mg L" ) over the summer period. The only two sites exhibiting well oxygenated hypolimnia were CAN and OWA (AvgDO(summ) •> 6 mg L*1). For all lake types, AvgBot O2 was assessed and exhibited minimum and maximum values of 0 mg L"1 (OTI) to 8.4 mg L"1 (CI 7). Of the 48 shallow, polymictic lakes within the dataset, approximately 31% showed hypoxic bottom conditions, while 12% showed anoxic bottom waters at time of sampling. A Pearson correlation matrix with Bonferroni-corrected probability values was performed to assess the intercorrelation between environmental variables. Among all sample sites, certain variables exhibited strong, significant correlations to one another, including the relationship between secchi depth (ZS<|), TP, and Chi a, as well as, Alk, Cond, and pH (Table 2.3). AvgBot O2 had only weak, non-significant correlations to Zmax and Bot T (Table 2.3). The percentage of lake surface area dominated by macrophytes in select NJ sites {n = 38) varied from a minimum of 0.8% (CE6) to 100% cover (BOW). When assessing the intercorrelations among environmental variables and %Cover, no environmental variables were significantly correlated to %Cover (Table 2.4). The best correlations, albeit weak, were with Alk (r = 0.32), AvgBot O2 (r = -0.34), and NO2-NO3 (r = -0.37). Midge data A total of 7 574 identifiable subfossil midge larvae were recovered from the 61 surficial sediment samples, with an average of 124 individuals per sample (minimum: 24; maximum: 470). Of these individuals there were 7 303.5 chironomids, 152.5 chaoborids, and 118 ceratopogonids. Davis Millpond (DMP) was the only sample site that did not 44 yield an appropriate amount of head capsules and was removed from subsequent analyses. Due to low head capsule recovery from surface sediments (0-0.5 cm), a second top interval (0.5-1.0) was analyzed for 18 sites (ACI, BRD, CAN, CHE, CPR, DEL, ECH, FAR, FLA, HEM, JDY, LBY, LFR, LNG, PED, RRP, SAG, and UNI), after which a sufficient number of head capsules were collected when the two top intervals were combined. The taxonomic group Tanytarsus s. lat. was divided on the basis of individuals having a spur on their pedestals (TANYTS) or lacking this morphological feature (TANYNS). Bezzia was the most widespread ceratopogonid group, while Chaoborus (Sayomyia) was the most widespread chaoborid taxon throughout NJ/NY sample lakes. Diversity was calculated for all surface sediment samples using Chironomid-Only (N2Chir) and Total Midge (N2mjdge) assemblage data as Hill's N2 diversity. Results of diversity measures between each dipteran dataset were very similar, as the majority of individuals in the Total Midge dataset are chironomid taxa. For all sites, N2 generally ranged between a minimum of 3.4 to a maximum of 23 (mean N2Chir = 13.3 and mean = N2midge 14.0). The two sites having the lowest diversity in both dipteran datasets were deep, stratified lakes; CAN (N2Chir = 3.40, N2midge = 3.47) and HEM (both N2Chir and N2midge = 6.42). Low diversity was attributable to higher abundances of Chironomus cf. anthracinus recorded in both lakes, accounting for approximately 51% (CAN) and 35% (HEM) of the assemblages at each of these sites. Previous research by Quinlan and Smol (2001b) indicated that minimum head capsule counts were dependant on the overall diversity of a specific sample, with more diverse samples requiring greater than 50 head 45 capsules for inference model development. One lake, CON, showed above average = diversity values (N2Chir 16, N2midge = 16.5) but failed to produce more than 50 head capsules. This site was retained in analyses but any results involving CON were interpreted with caution. The correlation between environmental variables of this study and diversity measures were not significant (P > 0.05). Diversity showed only weak correlations among Zmax and ZSd. When analyzing fewer sites to assess the intercorrelation between %Cover and diversity, diversity still had no significant correlation to any of the environmental variables. Spearman's Rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between diversity and raw head capsule counts, for which a very weak correlation was observed (p = 0.28, P = 0.24, or without DEL (# of headcapsules = 510.5) (p = 0.33, P = 0.027). Pearson correlations were not used to assess this relationship as a major assumption of this correlation is normalization of data. As the species data and subsequent diversity values calculated using the species data were not normalized prior to assessment, Spearman rank correlation was used, which assesses patterns observed in non-normal data. Multivariate statistical analyses After the removal of MAD and DMP, 59 sites were available for ordinations. Exploratory analyses were conducted for the three lake-set groupings, stratified-only, polymictic-only, and combined polymictic + stratified to identify whether sites grouped according to mixing regime would identify characteristic variables of interest in governing midge assemblages. An X-Y plot representing the different mixing regimes of NJ/NY sample lakes is found in Figure 2.3. 46 Exploratory analyses involving stratified-only lakes Only 11 sample sites (of the total 59 sites) exhibited dimictic (stratified) mixing conditions according to available temperature-oxygen profiles. Table 2.5 and Table 2.6 list the Chironomid-Only and Total Midge taxa (and their descriptive statistics) retained for analysis. A PC A of environmental variables and a DC A using untranformed Total Midge data indicated that no sites lay outside the 95% C.I., calculated using sample scores for canonical axis 1 and 2 in both tests. As a result, all 11 sites were retained for analyses. The gradient lengths of DCA axis 1 and 2 were 2.6 and 1.8 SD, respectively. Between the deepest (OWA) and second-deepest (HEM) lake sites, there exists a gap of ~ 20 m (Zmax = 47 m and Zmax = 27 m, respectively). DCA analyses were run with OWA as a passive site to assess its influence on the gradient lengths of the canonical axes. As OWA did not considerably change DCA gradient lengths, it was retained in stratified- only analyses. A DCA biplot (Figure 2.4) shows the majority of taxa used in stratified- only ordinations are associated with relatively productive lake conditions, whether it be mesotrophic conditions (Tanytarsus cf. lugens, and Sergentia) or eutrophic conditions (Chironomus type, Chironomini sp. 1, Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae, and Tribe Pentaneurini) (Saether 1979, Quinlan and Smol 2001a, Wilson and Gajewski 2004). This possibly occured since 7 of the 11 lakes are weakly eutrophic, contributing many taxa associated with productive conditions. As the gradient lengths in DCA are of intermediate size, both RDA and CCA were performed and their results compared. RDA axis 1 and 2 explains a higher 47 cumulative percent variance in the midge data (55.8%), compared to CCA (41.0%). In addition, X1/X2 ratios were higher in RDA (0.95) compared to CCA (0.89). As a result, linear-based RDA was used to analyze patterns in midge-environment relationships. Constrained ordinations to each environmental variable in RDA identified four significant variables (P < 0.05), which were Zsd, Chi a, TDN/TKN, and TP (Table 2.7a,b). The highest \\Fk2 ratio of the constrained variables in Total Midge analyses was exhibited by ZS(j (0.96) (Table 2.7b), indicating that this variable exerts an exceptional influence over the midge assemblage of the 11 stratified sites independent of other environmental variables. Manual forward selection in RDA only retained one variable, Chi a, which is strongly, negatively correlated with ZSd (r = -0.91, P = 0.013). When RDA was performed using the four significantly constrained variables, a Monte Carlo test of significance (999 unrestricted permutations) showed that all canonical axes were non-significant (P > 0.05), likely due to low statistical power. The results of manual forward selection in this statistical exploration did not reflect the typical variables retained in other midge datasets with deep, stratified lakes, where oxygen parameters are often retained as an important variable on the first canonical axis (Little and Smol 2001, Quinlan and Smol 2001a). The oxygen parameters AvgBot O2 and AvgDO(SUmm) did not significantly explain an independent proportion of the variation in the midge assemblage. The results of constrained DCCAs for both species datasets revealed that AvgBot O2 and AvgDO(SUimn) both produced short Axis 1 gradient lengths of 1.6, which were non-significant (P > 0.05). Only five of the larval midge taxa in the dataset are typically associated with well-oxygenated, deep lakes. 48 These include Micropsectra cf. insignilobus, T. cf. lugens, Parakiefferiella type B, Synorthocladius, and Tanytarsus (Spur). The remaining 29 taxa in the dataset are known to be associated with productive lakes, which may have considerable macrophyte growth in littoral areas or low oxygen conditions within the hypolimnion. Although community level analyses showed non-significant relationships between species assemblages and most parameters from stratified lakes (such as dissolved oxygen conditions), GLM methods revealed that three taxa (M cf. insignilobus, Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum, and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius)) exhibited significant relationships with AvgBot O2, while two of these taxa (M cf. insignilobus and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius)) also showed a significant relationship to hypolimnetic oxygen conditions (Table 2.8). Exploratory analyses involving polvmictic-onlv lakes Of the 59 total samples used for analyses, 48 sites exhibited polymictic mixing conditions. A description of the taxa from both species datasets retained in polymictic- only analyses is found in Table 2.9 and Table 2.10. The first two axes of a PCA of the 14 environmental variables explained a cumulative 48.5% of the variation between sample sites (Figure 2.5). The first axis represented a gradient of nutrients and associated trophic state variables (TP, TDN/TKN, and Chi a), while the second axis represented a gradient of Alk and correlated variables (Cond and pH). CRY and HAR were outside the upper and lower 95% C.I. for PCA axis 1, due to CRY having the highest nutrient concentrations (TP, TDN/TKN, and Chi a) in the dataset, while HAR exhibits low [Chi a]. No outliers were evident on PCA axis 2. Outlier assessments to detect unusual species assemblages found four outlier sites on 49 either DCA axis 1 or 2, including the site HAR. HAR was found to be unusual given higher than average relative abundances of Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) type (13.3%, mean = 4.0%), Zalutschia sp. (11.9%, mean = 1.4%), and Labrundinia (29.4%, mean = 3.6%) collected from this site. As this was the only site that had both unusual environmental characteristics and species assemblages, it was removed from the polymictic-only dataset, leaving 47 sites for analysis. After HAR was removed, the first two DCA axes (Xi = 0.24, Xi = 0.16) explained 19.2% of the cumulative variation in the midge data. A DCA biplot (Figure 2.6) shows the majority of midge taxa included in analyses are typically associated with productive lake conditions, including Procladius, Ablabesmyia, Chironomini sp. 1, Chironomus type, Einfeldia type, Pseudochironomus, Glyptotendipes type, Dicrotendipes type, and Endochironomus type (Brodersen and Quinlan 2006). Certain generalist taxa are also known to associate with macrophytes, including Glyptotendipes type, Dicrotendipes type, Endochironomus type, Microtendipes type, Polypedilum type, and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) (Brodersen et al. 2001, Langdon et al. 2010). Chaoborus individuals are closely associated with taxa representing productive conditions (especially Chironomini sp. 1) on DCA axis 1, while Bezzia had a central position on the biplot, in proximity to macrophyte-associated taxa (especially Microtendipes type, Psectrocladius type, and Dicrotendipes type). Tanytarsus (No Spur) is closely associated with taxa known to occur in productive lakes, compared to Tanytarsus (Spur), which associates with other taxa reflecting high oxygen conditions (such as M cf. insignilobus) (Brooks et al. 2007). T. cf. lugens had relatively high abundances from four polymictic lakes (GWD, MUK, 50 OSC, and ECH) showing productive conditions (either mesotrophic or weakly eutrophic). Unniella, which has been previously found in southeastern United States (Florida and South Carolina) rivers and streams (Epler 2001), was found in southern NJ lakes (Shadow lake, Mount Misery lake, and Cumberland Pond) with low pH and relatively high Bot O2 concentrations ([AvgBot O2] > 5 mg L"1). The gradient lengths of DCA axis 1 and 2 were 2.5 and 2.2 SD, respectively. Therefore, both RDA and CCA were performed and compared. Exploratory manual forward selection procedures in RDA and CCA show similar results as both tests selected Alk, TP, Zmax and SA as important environmental variables governing the midge distribution in NJ/NY lakes. RDA additionally identified pH in the forward selection procedure. The first two RDA axes explained a cumulative 13.7% of the variation in the species data, while the first two CCA axes explained 11.6% of the species variation. The \\fk2 ratio was also higher in the RDA (1.74) compared to CCA (1.24), highlighting the strength associated with RDA in describing the species-environment relationships. Additionally constrained DCCAs revealed short gradients for each of the environmental variables used in polymictic-only exploratory analyses (all variables < 2 SD). These observations (cumulative variance explained in the species data, strength of the ordination procedure, and gradient lengths when assessing the species assemblage constrained to each environmental variable) supported the use of RDA to assess species- environment patterns in NJ/NY polymictic lakes. Constrained RDAs identified six of the 14 environmental variables as explaining significant (P <0.05) and independent proportions of the variation in the midge data (Table 2.1 lb). These included, Alk, Cond, 51 TP, pH, Zmax> and SA. The highest X1/X2 ratio for constrained variables was for Alk, with a moderate X\l%2 ratio of ~0.4. This ratio value indicates that the variable Alk is an important variable in structuring midge community composition. However, the ecological influence of this variable co-varies with that of other environmental variables. RDA manual forward selection retained five of the significant variables, Alk, TP, Zmax, S A, and pH. The species-environment correlations from the forward selected variables are high, with RDA axis 1 (r = 0.82) showing a higher correlation compared to axis 2 (r = 0.77). The eigenvalues of RDA axis 1 (Xi = 0.09) and axis 2 (X2 = 0.05) are significant (P < 0.05), explaining 13.7% of the cumulative variance assessed in the midge data. Canonical coefficients of the forward selected variables and their respective /-values indicated that Zmax, Alk, and TP exhibited a similar influence on the first canonical axis, while pH is more important on canonical axis 2 (Table 2.12). The interset correlations of environmental variables with either canonical axis 1 or axis 2 ranged between moderate (r = 0.65) to weak (r = 0.08). As three of the variables are important in defining RDA axis 1, partial RDAs were performed to identify the strength that covariables exhibited on forward selected NJ/NY environmental variables. Partially constrained RDAs were run, where each of the five significantly forward selected variables were considered the sole variable and the remaining significant variables were in turn considered covariables. Partial RDAs showed that all five environmental variables remained significant (P < 0.05) when covariables were taken into account (Table 2.13). An RDA biplot showing the pattern between sample sites and forward selected variables (Figure 2.6a) revealed that productive, hyper-eutrophic lake sites (DEL and 52 JDY) separate from less productive, mesotrophic sites (DEN, FLA, and BOW) on RDA axis 1. In addition, lake sites also weakly separated according to depth on RDA axis 1, as observed by the shallowest site (BOW: Zmax = 0.7 m) and the deepest site (ACI: Zmax = 8.3 m) separating out but remaining within the same lower, right hand quadrant. The variable pH is related to RDA axis 2 as neutral pH sites at the bottom of the biplot (JPG and LKA) separated from more acidic sites found at the top part of the biplot (LNG, CLT, and VTM). The influence of Alk in NJ/NY sample sites portrayed in the ordination biplot is somewhat misleading, as it appears as though Alk is more strongly related to RDA axis 2 than to RDA axis 1; this is because of the strong relationship Alk has to both TP and pH. Productive lake sites are often those which also exhibit circumneutral to high pH water conditions (e.g. DEL: TP = 176 mg L'1, pH = 8.1, Alk = 82 mg L"1), less productive lakes may exhibit moderate to low pH and Alk levels (e.g. DEN: TP = 11 mg L"1, pH = 6.2, Alk = 6 mg L"1). These relationships may be an integration of the influence of landscape/watershed inputs, as a Correspondence Analysis (CA) biplot of sample scores indicated a moderate separation of sample sites according to level III ecoregion designation (Figure 2.7). CA axis 1 sample scores of midge data were not different between level III ecoregions (one-way ANOVA, df= 46, F = 1.1, P = 0.366). There appeared to be different CA axis 2 sample scores between level III ecoregions (one-way ANOVA, df=46, F= 2.5, P = 0.057), however, a Levene's Test indicated that this statistical result may have been unreliable as group means had unequal variances (P = 0.003). An additional statistical test to take into account unequal variances among group means indicated that there was a slight difference in C A axis 2 sample scores 53 between level III ecoregions (Welch Test: / = 3.1, P = 0.042). A between-groups comparison indicated that there were significantly different sample scores between Piedmont and Outer Coastal Plain ecoregions (Games-Howell post hoc tests, SE = 0.31, P = 0.026). An RDA biplot of species scores (Figure 2.6b) shows that taxa that associated with more productive conditions (Chironomini sp. 1, Glyptotendipes cf. pallens, Chaoborus (Sayomyia), and Chironomus cf. plumosus) are separated from taxa found in less productive conditions {Ablabesmyia, Pseudochironomus, and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) on RDA axis 1. For RDA axis 2, there is a separation of acidophilic taxa (such as Zalutschia sp., Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius), Labrundinia, and Ablabesmyia) from those taxa associated with high pH conditions (such as Tanytarsus cf. glabrescens, C. cf. plumosus, and Endochironomus cf. albipennis). As indicated previously, as there is covariance between Alk, TP and pH, taxa found in alkaline sites are also those taxa found in productive sites showing moderately high pH levels. Littoral and sublittoral taxa known to be associated with macrophytes are interspersed throughout the RDA biplot, including Endochironomus type, Microtendipes type, Cricotopus type, and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius). The distribution of midge taxa according to decreasing PCA axis 1 species scores reveals similar patterns when the 47 sample sites are arranged according to increasing Alk (Figure 2.8), TP (Figure 2.9), and Zmax (Figure 2.10). Relative abundances of several taxa (Procladius, Tanytarsus (Spur), and P. cf. nubeculosum) remained fairly steady along an alkalinity gradient. However, some taxa, such as Zalutschia sp. or Unniella, are 54 predominantly represented in low alkaline sites, while other taxa, such as T. cf. glabrescens or C. cf. plumosus, had highest abundances in sites with higher alkalinities. All four of these taxa exhibited significant shifts in their relative abundances along an alkalinity gradient according to segmented regression (Appendix B: Figure B6). Of all the taxa, only Tanytarsus (No Spur), T. cf. glabrescens, Tanytarsus cf. mendax, Ablabesmyia, Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) and Zalutschia exhibited significant linear relationships to the alkalinity gradient (Table 2.14). Chaoborus (Sayomia) is absent from most low alkalinity sites, with the exception of LNG. Along a depth gradient, Procladius, P. cf. nubeculosum, and Bezzia maintained steady relative abundances in both shallow and deeper lakes. Several taxa known to occur in the littoral zone of lakes (Tribe Pentaneurini, and Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus) showed high abundances in shallow lakes, while several taxa known to occur in the profundal region (C. cf. anthracinus) showed high abundances in relatively deep lakes. Significant changes in relative abundances at particular ecological thresholds relating to the depth gradient were observed for these taxa (Appendix B: Figure B7). As the range of lake depths are somewhat skewed to the very shallow depths (80% having Zmax < 3 m), some littoral/sublittoral taxa (e.g. Cladopelma cf. lateralis) also appear to have higher abundances in relatively deep lakes for the polymictic-only dataset (Figure 2.10, Appendix B: Figure B7). Of all the taxa, only Tribe Pentaneurini (Ablabesmyia), Chaoborus, C. cf plumosus, and Chironomini larvula maintained significant linear relationships to the depth gradient (Table 2.14). When examining taxon abundances along a TP gradient, T. cf. lugens and Sergentia were only found in mesotrophic or 55 weakly eutrophic sites. Also, while Ablabesmyia or Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) showed high relative abundances in lakes having low TP concentrations, other taxa (E. cf. natchitocheae or G. cf. pallens) showed high relative abundances in high TP lakes. These four taxa also showed significant changes in their relative abundances at a particular ecological threshold across a TP gradient based on segmented regression (Appendix B: Figure B8). Of all the taxa, Chironomini sp. 1, E. cf. natchitocheae, G. cf. pallens, P. cf. nubeculosum, Tanytarsus (No Spur), Ablabesmyia, Tribe Macropelopini, and Psectrocladius {Psectrocladius) were the only taxa that also showed a significant linear relationship to the TP gradient using GLM techniques (Table 2.14). The addition of other midge taxa to a dataset dominated by chironomids increased the strength of AvgBot O2 as an explanatory variable influencing midge community composition. Chaoborus (Sayomia) abundance gradually changed to a new steady abundance past a particular ecological threshold across polymictic sites with respect to an AvgBot O2 gradient (Appendix B: Figure B9). GLM methods also indicated that Chaoborus shared a significant linear relationship to the weak oxygen gradient observed across polymictic lakes (Table 2.14). Certain chironomid taxa also portrayed significant changes in their relative abundances along a bottom water oxygen gradient including Chironomini sp. 1, Ablabesmyia and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) (Appendix B: Figure B9). Analyses involvim macrophvte abundance Of the 59 NJ/NY sites, 38 had available macrophyte abundance data, calculated as a percentage of the lake's surface area occupied by macrophytes (%Cover). While most of the sites are polymictic, one site (GDN), is a relatively deep, stratifying lake (Zmax = 10.2 56 m), which was included in statistical analyses to increase sample size. The analyses using macrophyte abundance were carried out to determine whether the variable %Cover is an important variable in explaining any amount of the species variance. For outlier analysis, MIS, HAR, and DEL, showed unusual environmental characteristics. MIS and HAR are both acidic (pH < 4.5), having well oxygenated bottom waters, low TP, and very low Chi a concentrations, while DEL is an alkaline site which experiences anoxic summer conditions, high TP levels, and high Chi a concentrations. In terms of species composition, MIS exhibits high abundances of Sergentia and C. cf. anthracinus, HAR exhibits high abundances of Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius), Zalutschia sp., and Labrundinia, and DEL shows high relative abundances of Chironomini sp. 1 and Chaoborus (Sayomyia) compared to the other sites. These three sites were removed from analyses leaving 35 sites available for assessment. After removal of the outlier sites, DCA gradient lengths of axis 1 and 2 were 2.6 and 2.0 SD, respectively, and therefore, both RDA and CCA were performed and compared. RDA and CCA explained a similar amount of midge variation given the first 2 canonical axes (10.9% and 11.2%, respectively), however CCA shows a higher X]A,2 ratio (1.64) than RDA (1.37). As constrained DCCA reveal short gradients (all variables < 2 SD gradient length) for each of the environmental variables used for analysis, the results of the linear-based RDA method were more appropriate for explorations involving macrophyte abundance. Constrained RDA identified 4 of the 14 variables as significant (P < 0.05), which included Alk, Cond, pH, and AvgBot O2 (Table 2.15). %Cover (either log transformed or 57 untransformed) was not a significant (P < 0.05) explanatory variable of midge community composition. The removal of the only stratified site, GDN, did not change the outcome for %Cover in constrained analyses. Manual forward selection in RDA reduced this variable count, selecting only 2 of the significant variables (Alk and pH) as explaining independent proportions of the species-environment variance. An RDA biplot of forward selected variables and NJ/NY sample sites showed that RDA axis 1 represented gradients of A1K and pH, as there was a clear separation of moderate to high alkaline sites (GDN, MUK, and UMH) from low alkaline sites (CBD, LWR, and LNG) (Figure 2.1 la). Despite weak associations with macrophyte cover, NJ/NY sample sites having high (> 80%) macrophyte cover (BOW and BRS) separated from sites having low (< 1%) macrophyte cover (ACI and CE6) on RDA axis 2 (Figure 2.12b). An RDA biplot of forward selected environmental variables and midge assemblages indicated that phytophilous taxa picked from these samples are generally positioned at several areas on the biplot (Cricotopus type in the lower right hand quadrant, Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) and Ablabesmyia in the upper right hand quadrant, and D. cf. nervosus in the upper left hand quadrant) rather than concentrated in a single quadrant or general area of the figure (Figure 2.1 lb). Despite the non-significant relationship to %Cover in community-level ordinations, GLM identified individual taxa that showed a significant linear relationship to %Cover (Table 2.16). The addition of supplemental midge taxa, such as Chaoborus, increased the % variation explained by AvgBot O2. A species diagram, where midge taxa were arranged according to decreasing PCA axis 2 species scores and NJ/NY sites were arranged from 58 high to low plant abundance (as a stronger relationship was observed between PCA axis 2 species scores and %Cover), indicated that Dicrotendipes type was found in high abundances in sites with abundant plant cover, whereas C. cf. anthracinus was found in high abundances in sites with minimal plant cover (Figure 2.12). However, this patterning of midges according to %Cover was weak. Segmented regression identified that only a small number of taxa showed significant changes in their relative abundances along the %Cover gradient, which included Labrundinia, M. cf. pedellus, Sergentia, and C. cf. anthracinus (Appendix B: Figure B5). Analyses involving combined polymictic and stratified lakes The final set of exploratory analyses for NJ/NY sites used lakes exhibiting polymictic and stratified mixing regimes. A description of the taxa from both dipteran datasets retained in the analyses is found in Table 2.17 and Table 2.18. The first two PCA axes of the 14 environmental variables used for analyses explained 53.4% of the variation between sites (Figure 2.13). The first PCA axis represents a gradient of physical characteristics including depth and basin shape, while the second axis represents a gradient reflecting the ionic composition of the sample lakes. Environmental variables related to trophic status and oxygen conditions appear to have shared characteristics between PCA axis 1 and 2. On PCA axis 1, CAN and HEM were considered outliers as they are deep lakes with high water clarity conditions and hypoxic bottom waters, which is different from most of the polymictic lakes in the dataset. On PCA axis 2, HAR was considered an outlier as it is the most acidic site (pH < 4.5) in the dataset having well-oxygenated bottom waters ([AvgBot O2] > 5 mg L"1), while the other 59 unusual site, DEL, was one of the top alkaline NJ/NY sites with anoxic bottom waters. Outlier assessments to detect unusual subfossil assemblages showed that CAN and HEM had high abundances of C. cf. anthracinus (> 35% relative abundance), HAR had high relative abundances of Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius), Zalutschia type, and Labrundinia, and DEL exhibited high abundances of Chironomini sp. 1 and Chaoborus (Sayomyia), compared to the rest of the sites. As the sites CAN, HEM, HAR and DEL share both unusual water chemistry characteristics in analyses using either square-root transformed, Chironomid-only (HAR, CAN) or untransformed, Chironomid-only (CAN, HEM) or square-root transformed, Total Midge (HAR, CAN) or untransformed, Total Midge (DEL, CAN, HEM) assemblages, these sites were removed from respective analyses. Potential lengthening of DCA gradient lengths may occur due to the inclusion of OWA (47 m) and its large departure in depth from the second deepest lake site OTI (18.5 m) remaining in the combined polymictic + stratified lake dataset (Figure 2.14). When OWA is removed, DCA gradient lengths shorten considerably. To avoid the bias associated with this site, but to also acknowledge its general positioning in various ordination biplots, OWA was run passively in all combined polymictic + stratified analyses. A DCA biplot showing the untransformed Total Midge species composition of the 55 NJ/NY sites (as DEL, CAN, HEM and OWA were removed as outliers for this particular scenario) indicated that Chaoborus was associated with taxa indicative of productive lake conditions (Glyptotendipes, Cryptochironomus, and Chironomini sp. 1), while Bezzia was found close to taxa that associate with macrophytes (Dicrotendipes 60 type, Pseudochironomus, and Polypedilum type) (Figure 2.15). Similar to previous exploratory analyses, T. cf. lugens associates with taxa found in productive lake sites (Cladotanytarsus mancus group) and not with taxa found in nutrient-poor, well- oxygenated lake sites (Heterotrissocladius cf. grimshawi and Micropsectra cf. contracta). The taxon Unniella, is closely associated to DCA axis 2, and has the lowest species score along this axis. As a result, Unniella appears separated from all the other taxa, reflecting this taxon's narrow range in NJ/NY lakes compared to the other taxa. The gradient lengths of DCA axis 1 and 2 were 3.00 and 2.20 SD, respectively (including OWA), and 2.41 and 2.05 SD, respectively (with OWA run passively). Given the intermediate gradient lengths in DCA, both RDA and CCA were performed and compared. RDA axes 1 and 2 (11.8%) explained a slightly higher percent cumulative variance in the midge data compared to CCA (9.8%). Similarly, forward selection procedures showed a higher \\IX2 ratio in RDA (1.72) compared to CCA (1.47). Therefore, RDA is most appropriate for assessing species-environment patterns for the 55 combined polymictic + stratified sites. Constrained RDA identified 10 of the 14 environmental variables as explaining significant and independent portions of the variation in the midge data, which are Alk, Cond, pH, Z^, TP, AvgBot 02, SA, TDN/TKN, Bot T, and NO2-NO3 (Table 2.19b). Manual forward selection in RDA retained five of these significant (P < 0.05) variables as explaining most of the species variance, which include Alk, Zmax, TP, SA, and NO2- NO3. The species-environment correlations for the forward selected variables were moderately high, with RDA axis 1 showing a stronger correlation (r = 0.77) than RDA 61 axis 2 (r = 0.66). The eigenvalues of RDA axis 1 (A-i = 0.07) and axis 2 (fa = 0.04) were significant (P < 0.05), explaining slightly less (11.8%) of the cumulative variance in the midge data compared to polymictic-only assessments with eight fewer sites in analyses (13.7%). Comparisons between canonical coefficients, their t-values, and interset correlations to RDA canonical axes revealed that RDA axis 1 represented gradients of Zmax, Alk and TP, while RDA axis 2 represented gradients of Alk and Zmax (Table 2.20b). SA and NO2-NO3 were more strongly associated with RDA axis 2. However, these associations were not significant (/ <2.1). Comparisons between constrained and partial RDAs revealed that when covariables are taken into account, the species-environment relationships are, for the most part, still significant (Table 2.21). Of the five forward selected variables, only NO2-NO3 became non-significant when covariables were removed, indicating a weak influence on the midge taxa. However, NO2-NO3 is highly correlated to TP (Table 2.3), which highlights the important influence of nutrient-related conditions on midge assemblages. Although AvgBot O2 was not selected for in RDA manual forward selection procedures, it was significant in constrained ordinations. Similar to explorations with the other lake groupings, the explanatory strength of this environmental variable increased when additional midge taxa (Chaoborus) were added to the species dataset. An RDA biplot of forward selected variables and sample sites (Figure 2.16a) indicated that alkaline sites with productive lake conditions (GDN, LBY, and JDY) separated from acidic sites with less productive conditions (MIS, HAR, and LWR) on RDA axis 1. Basin SA and NO2-NO3 conditions were weakly related to RDA axis 2 62 (interset correlations between 0.3 and 0.5), as sites having small SA (< 5 Ha) and low [NO2-NO3] (BOW and UMG) separated from sites having large SA (> 90 Ha) and high [NO2-NO3] (UNI and FAR). Zmax shares an influence to both RDA axis 1 and 2, and although this influence is moderate, shallow lakes (e.g. BOW) are clearly separated from deep lake sites (e.g. OTI). An RDA biplot of forward selected variables and midge assemblages confirmed these patterns as taxa that were found in alkaline, productive conditions (T. cf. glabrescens, P. cf. nubeculosum, G. cf. pallens, and C. cf. plumosus) separated from taxa typically associated with acidic, less productive sites (Zalutschia sp., Psectrocladius (.Psectrocladius), and Labrundinia) on RDA axis 1 (Figure 2.16b). When NJ/NY sites were arranged according to decreasing Alk (Figure 2.17) and midge taxa were arranged according to decreasing PCA axis 1 species scores, certain taxa showed specific optima/preferences for Alk conditions, such as E. cf albipennis and G. cf pallens, which were not found in any acidic lakes, or Tanytarsus cf. pallidicornis and Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola, which were missing from sites with high alkalinity. Segmented regression confirmed threshold changes in relative abundances of these taxa along the Alk gradient (Appendix B: Figure Bl). GLM methods indicated that Z. cf. zalutschicola exhibited a significant species response curve with respect to Alk in the combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY sample dataset, while G. cf. pallens did not (E. cf. albipennis and T. cf. pallidicornis not having atleast 20% relative abundance to be assessed using GLM techniques (Table 2.22). Other taxa revealed more generalist qualities, occurring within NJ/NY lakes regardless of Alk conditions (Tribe Macropelopini, Parachironomus cf. varus, and Bezzia). Most GLM results for combined 63 polymictic + stratified assessments were similar to the outcomes for polymictic-only assessments, as species presence or absence slightly changed with the addition of stratified lake sites to the dataset. Two taxa typically found in the littoral zone of lakes, Cricotopus type and Tribe Pentaneurini, were positioned close to RDA axis 2 where eigenvectors indicated small SA lakes with low [NO2-NO3], while Chaoborus (Sayomyia) was positioned where eigenvectors indicated large SA lakes with high [NO2- NO3] (Figure 2.16b). Depth-related species patterns were not as clear, as midge taxa known to be associated with littoral, sub-littoral, and profundal lake regions were interspersed in many different areas on the RDA biplot (Figure 2.16b). Discussion The distribution of chironomids and other midge larvae in lake environments are governed by a variety of integrated ecological conditions. Lake mixing-regime has been identified as an important factor responsible for community-level changes, as a result of its direct effect on overall water quality conditions (Langdon et al. 2006, Taranu et al. 2010, Quinlan et al. submitted). In this study, important environmental gradients have been reported to govern larval midges from NJ/NY lakes based on several statistical explorations that separated sample sites according to mixing-regime. Midges and important environmental gradients in NJ/NY stratified lakes Previous research has shown that midges found in relatively deep, stratified lakes are strongly influenced by end-of-summer hypolimnetic or bottom water oxygen conditions, as a result of stagnant bottom water conditions during prolonged thermal stratification 64 (Little and Smol 2001, Quinlan and Smol 2001a). For stratified-only NJ/NY lakes (n = 11), the midge assemblage indicated non-significant relationships to bottom oxygen conditions. This may be explained by low statistical power given low sample size. Most of the dimictic NJ/NY lakes (n = 9) were productive (either mesotrophic or eutrophic) having hypoxic or anoxic end-of-summer oxygen conditions. Only two sites located in New York State, Canadice and Owasco Lakes, had adequate hypolimnetic oxygen conditions, with Owasco Lake being the only site to also have good bottom oxygen conditions (AvgBot O2 > 5 mg L"1). Therefore, possible statistical power issues aside, the lack of an appropriate oxygen gradient (from oxic to anoxic conditions) as a result of a restricted sampling pool may result in a lack of species turnover along this short gradient, and non-significant results in an ordination constrained to oxygen. The addition of more stratified sites, especially oligotrophic lakes with high oxygen conditions, is needed to maximize the range of hypolimnetic or bottom water oxygen conditions for future NJ/NY analyses where species response to oxygen conditions is investigated. This may be difficult to find in New Jersey State, as deep, stratified lakes are relatively rare (Berg 1963). However, further sampling is necessary to fully characterize present-day midge assemblages in such rare habitats to reveal more information on the environmental conditions that structure community composition for this particular lake mixing type. Midges and important environmental gradients in polymictic lakes Midges found in shallow, polymictic lakes are not constrained by O2 conditions in the same way as taxa found in dimictic (stratified) lakes. Instead, larval midges in polymictic lakes will experience a more heterogeneous habitat where physico-chemical and 65 biological constraints impose a greater influence on their distribution (Sayer et al. 2010). To add another level of complexity, the overall ecological state of polymictic lakes may switch to another ecological state over time, as a result of changes in lake physico- chemical and biological properties (Scheffer and van Nes 2007). In NJ/NY polymictic lakes, statistically significant relationships were observed in community-level analyses between midges and several environmental variables, which have been previously recorded in other studies including TP (Brodersen and Lindegaard 1999, Brooks et al. 2001), Zmax (Korhola et al. 2000), SA (Wissel et al. 2003), Alk (Lotter et al. 1998), and pH (Walker et al. 1985). In this study, TP levels are shown to strongly structure dipteran assemblages. However, this influence may be indirect as changes among midge distributions may be the result of ecological changes wrought by TP levels (Brooks et al. 2001), including fertilization of aquatic vegetation or increased food abundance by way of increased algal production. Food abundance is of great importance to the colonization of midges in freshwater environments (Brodersen and Quinlan 2006). Certain NJ/NY taxa showed a significant preference for high TP conditions in NJ/NY lakes. For example, the taxon Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar) is planktonic, able to avoid hypoxic/anoxic bottom water oxygen conditions (Quinlan and Smol 2001a). The presence of this taxon in high nutrient, polymictic lakes may be due to greater food abundance for planktonic filter feeders, and its ability to avoid micro-changes in bottom oxygen conditions, if prevalent, compared to other taxa (Zbikowski and Kobak 2007). The greatest abundance of Chironomini larvula (18.1%) was in Delware Lake, a small, shallow lake (Zmax = 3.8 m; 66 SA = 15 ha), having low water clarity (ZS(j = 0.3 m), high Chi a (> 100 |ig/L) and TP concentrations (> 100 (ig/L), and subsequently anoxic end-of-summer bottom waters (AvgBot O2 < 1 mg L"1). In contrast, Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) showed a negative relationship to TP conditions. In this study, Psectrocladius was commonly found in low nutrient or nutrient poor sites (low eutrophic, mesotrophic, or oligotrophic). The highest abundances of this taxon was in polymictic lakes that had low Chi a levels (<35 ng/L), low pH (< 7) and generally good oxygenated bottom waters (AvgBot O2 > 4 mg L"1). This is similar to observations in shallow, boreal lakes (Mousavi 2002) and Danish lakes (Brodersen and Lindegaard 1997). Psectrocladius has been previously observed in association with well-developed submerged macrophytes (Brodersen et al. 2001). Low TP levels permit the substantive growth of aquatic plants in clear-water conditions (Scheffer and van Nes 2007), allowing habitat colonization by Psectrocladius. In stratified lakes, Psectrocladius was significantly related to low oxygenated bottom waters, as a result of being found in the majority (n = 8) of lake sites having anoxic end- of-summer lake conditions. This is a common occurrence for productive, deep lakes, prior to de-stratification in the fall. However, the productivity level of the lake may be more of an indicator of the pattern for Psectrocladius colonization in these lakes, as considerable macrophyte growth (Elodea sp. - common waterweed, Sphagnum sp. -water moss, Potamogeton sp.-pondweed, and Myriophyllum sp.-milfoil, among many aquatic native or normative plants) has been recorded in the littoral of many dimictic lake sites in this study, including the NY Finger Lakes (Schaffner and Oglesby 1978, Brown and Balk 2008, Bosch et al. 2009), Waccabuc (Kishbaugh 2007), Oscaleta (Kisbaugh 2009a), and 67 Silver Lakes (Kisbaugh 2009b). Community level analyses in polymictic lakes (and in combined polymictic and stratified analyses) also revealed that Tanytarsus cf. lugens was found in mesotrophic or weakly eutrophic NJ/NY sites and associated with taxa indicative of productive water quality conditions. This is in contrast to research that has shown the ecological preference for this profundal species as being oligotrophic, well- oxygenated lake sites (Saether 1979, Hofmann 1988). Although this may indicate potential mis-identification of T. cf. lugens, this taxon has been recently described in several different studies where lake environments had relatively productive conditions (Lotter et al. 1998, Wilson and Gajewski 2004, Rode 2009). Lake trophic state (as TP concentration) is weakly related to many ecological parameters, including the depth of a particular lake site (Nurnberg 1996). Maximum depth is often retained in multivariate ordinations relating midge assemblages to various environmental conditions in surface-sediment assessments (Lotter et al. 1997, Korhola et al. 2000, Kurek and Cwynar 2009). Lake level influences the proportion and volume of littoral and profundal lake zones, which may change the composition of larval assemblages in these habitats. The strong association between lake depth and species assemblages has been recently shown to not strictly be a result of lake depth itself, but rather an integration of variables correlated with lake depth, such as mixing-regime (Quinlan et al. submitted). For NJ/NY assessments, -80% of the total 59 NJ/NY lakes were shallow, as a result of a majority of these lakes being man-made impoundments from NJ (Cohen et al. 2009). This resulted in low numbers of profundal-type taxa encountered in polymictic-only statistical analyses. Shallow lake-level indicators, such 68 as Dicrotendipes (Korhola et al. 2000), showed a significant, negative relationship to water depth in NJ/NY assessments. As reviewed by Hofmann (1998), low water level or increased sedimentation decreasing the volume of profundal habitat available to midge larvae may also cause a shift in community structure coinciding with species preferring a more productive trophic state. In polymictic-only explorations, the taxonomic group Tribe Macropelopini (e.g. Procladius) exhibited a notable positive relationship with TP levels but no significant relationship to Zmax. High sedimentation rates are characteristic of temperate lakes, which support productive water quality conditions as a result of increased inputs of nutrients to the lake basin. Procladius has been previously recorded from lakes with high sedimentation rates, as high sedimentation rates displace tube- dwelling chironomids, which this carnivorous taxon predates upon (Warwick 1980). Although this does not mean that Tribe Macropelopini will only occur in shallow lake- types, in NJ/NY, species from Tribe Macropelopini were often found in higher abundances (> 10%) from lakes having Zmax < 3 m. Lake surface area was also retained in ordinations, confirming the importance of physical lake attributes in governing midge assemblages. The SA of a lake will control lake mixing due to wind exposure and available area for macrophyte colonization or algal growth, which plays a role in the amount of nutrients/food items available to midge larvae. Similar to Zmax and SA, Alk and pH also play a role in governing the distribution of midges in NJ/NY polymictic lakes. Additionally, both variables are also closely linked with the nutrient qualities of lake. Alkalinity was consistently identified in NJ/NY analyses as the most important variable governing species distributions (with respect to it 69 having the highest XiHa ratio observed in constrained ordinations and its relatively strong relationship to the first canonical axis in ordinations). This is different from other research indicating that alkalinity levels are more strongly related to secondary gradients (Lotter et al. 1998). The Xxfha ratio for Alk, although higher than the other environmental variables, was within a moderate range (-0.4) indicating covariance between Alk and other environmental variables, namely TP. Alkalinity may be generated within a water body by the weathering and/or leaching of minerals and soil nutrients from the surrounding watershed (Wetzel 1975). The effects of human disturbance (agricultural liming or nutrient-rich effluent) may also increase lake alkalinity conditions by elevating concentrations of base-cations through increased sedimentation rates to the basin, or by liming or fertilizer components invading surface runoff that flow into lake basins (Siver et al. 1999). As a result of in-lake processes, it may also be generated as the release of stored bicarbonate ions, reduction of sulfate and/or nitrate, or cation exchange (H+ for I Ca ) within sediments prompting higher alkalinity levels within lake basins (Schindler et al. 1986, Roelofs et al. 1995). Alkalinity is elevated in various NJ/NY ecoregions as a result of the natural composition of bedrock and soil characteristics of these ecoregions (Omernik and Powers 1983). In this study, natural alkalinity generation played a significant role as a secondary gradient for influencing midge communities. However, NJ/NY landscapes also experience prominent anthropogenic influences, such as development and agricultural activities, which influences alkalinity generation to lakes (Lathrop and Hasse 2006, NY DEC 2008, Cohen et al. 2009). The relationship between midges and Alk in community-level analyses strongly indicated that those taxa which 70 occurred in alkaline sites also associated with productive lake conditions (and vice versa). Some individual taxa shared significant, negative relationships to Alk, favouring low alkaline conditions, including plant-associated Ablabesmyia and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius). The only taxon to show a significant preference for high alkaline conditions was Tanytarsus cf. glabrescens, which also associates with aquatic macrophytes (Brooks et al. 2007). For NJ/NY lakes, a moderate correlation (as no NJ/NY environmental variables were significantly correlated to %Cover) exists between aquatic macrophytes and Alk. Bicarbonate (a major component of Alk) is an important source of carbon for aquatic plant photosynthetic processes, with different plant types able to thrive in varying alkalinity conditions (Vestergaard and Sand-Jensen 2000). Some chironomid taxa that were related to low alkaline conditions in NJ/NY (Pseudochironomus, Tribe Pentaneurini, and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius)) were also associated with isoetids in low alkalinity Danish lakes (Brodersen et al. 2001). However, Brodersen and colleagues (2001) mention that as Alk levels are strongly linked to the trophic level of a lake, a correlation between chironomids and isoetids are more an indication of habitat heterogeniety in littoral areas (structured differently based on trophic level) rather than chironomid-macrophyte associations. The variable pH was also identified in polymictic lake analyses as influencing midge distributions, which agrees with other shallow lake research (Brodin 1990, Lindegaard 1995, Velle et al. 2005). Similar to Alk, pH was a strong secondary gradient affecting midge taxa, as lake sediments are a well-buffered environment compared to the open water column, as a result, profundal taxa are not as influenced by fluctuations in pH 71 levels (Brodin and Gransberg 1993). Assessments for NJ/NY identified only a few acidophilic taxa, which separated completely from taxa unable to colonize acidic environments. This is similar to findings by Woodcock et al. (2005) showing that low pH Maine wetlands are characterized by fewer chironomids, while high pH wetlands promoted larger abundances of chironomids coinciding with ecological disturbance. Similar to Alk, the link between pH and the level of productivity in shallow lakes was also observed as acidophillic taxa were found in lakes of mesotropohic or weakly eutrophic state. Previous research has shown that acidified lakes tend to support similar chironomid assemblages found in non-acidified lakes having low trophic levels, making acidification case studies difficult to interpret when using subfossil midges (Brodin 1990). In community-level observations, acidophillic taxa (Zalutschia, Psectrocladius {Psectrocladius) and Labrundinia) plotted opposite taxa representing strong associations to the high end of neutral lake conditions. Of these, Ablabesmyia, Zalutschia type, and Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola all shared a significant preference for acidic environments, while Chironomus cf. plumosus (the most common indicator for productive lake conditions) showed a significant relationship for high pH lakes. Chaoborus was seldom found in acidic lakes (except for Long Lake), although previous work has reported chaoborids able to withstand acidic lake conditions (Walker et al. 1985). Additionally, although Chaoborus should favour acidic lakes (especially those that are Ashless), in a study of Canadian shield lakes, individuals were not more abundant in such lakes, with or without fish present (Yan et al. 1985). It is well known that the primary factor influencing larval chaoborids in lakes is predation by fish (Wissel et al. 2003). 72 Information regarding fish abundance was not available for NJ/NY lake analyses. However, it is also well-known that migratory chaoborid taxa are able to avoid predation by planktivorous fish by migrating in and out of the hypolimnion, which may become hypoxic or anoxic. Recently, Quinlan and Smol (2010) showed that Chaoborus populations are largely influenced by deepwater oxygen condition, preferring lakes with poor-oxygen bottom water conditions as this determines the extent of hypolimnetic refuge available from fish predation. Although most polymictic NJ/NY lakes have an adequate distribution of dissolved oxygen levels, the highest abundances of Chaoborus were found in polymictic lakes with anoxic habitat, including Long Lake (Delaware Lake; AvgBot O2 < 1 mg L"1) or hypoxic habitat (Farrington and Saginaw Lakes; AvgBot O2 < 3 mg L"1). One site, A. Clemente Inc. Pond had large abundances of Chaoborus but 1 adequate oxygen levels (AvgBotC>2 = 4.8 mg L" ). However, at a depth of 8 m (Zmax = 8.3 m) bottom waters were anoxic (DO = 0.72 mg L"1), where potential sulphur- containing sediments did not influence water chemistry measurements taken close to sediment-water interface. Trophic status, as mentioned previously, plays a role in governing the distribution of aquatic macrophytes in many freshwater lakes, being an important biotic structure in shallow, polymictic lake systems (Scheffer and van Nes 2007). Many NJ/NY midges are associated with macrophyte abundance and, so far, the midge-macrophyte relationship has been inferred by community-level and individual taxon observations with respect to TP and other environmental variables. In NJ/NY analyses involving %Cover, the direct measure of macrophyte abundance did not explain a significant portion of the variation 73 observed in midge assemblages. This has previously been recognized in river systems of Alberta, Canada, where macrophytes occupied a large surface area of the riverbed but only 30-40% of total chironomids colonized the macrophytes (Boerger et al. 1982). The result of the NJ/NY analyses is somewhat surprising as previous work has shown a strong statistical relationship between midges and macrophytes in lake systems using a similar sized dataset (39 European shallow lake sites compared to the 35 NJ/NY lake dataset) (Langdon et al. 2010). A significant species-environment relationship in our study may not exist for several reasons, such as the negative effect %Cover has on the environment below macrophyte mats. In this study, a weak negative correlation was found between %Cover and AvgBot O2. When floating leaved plants such as nymphaeids (water lilies), particularily in Bear Swamp Lake in northern NJ, dominate the water surface, light is unable to easily reach bottom waters to promote submerged macrophyte growth. The mat of plant material on the surface of the lake also prevents wind-induced mixing to replenish oxygen in bottom waters. This stagnation may cause temporary periods of hypoxic or anoxic conditions in relatively shallow lakes and ponds. Intermittent periods of temporary oxygen depletion near the sediment-water interface may alter the distribution of midges that burrow in sediments, especially those unable to oxy-regulate in such circumstances (Allen et al. 1999, Kornijow and Moss 2002, Zbikowski and Kobak 2007). Many NJ/NY lakes have been colonized by the invasive aquatic plant, Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), which will create dense mats on water surfaces. Cheruvelil and colleagues (2001) found that in Michigan lakes, macroinvertebrate abundance decreased as watermilfoil cover increased, possibly due to 74 macrophyte cover creating an inhospitable environment for submergent plants as a result of poor water quality conditions under the mats, leaving macroinvertebrates unable to use milfoil habitat. For NJ/NY lakes, the gradients observed for nutrients, depth, ionic chemistry or oxygen, which may also be affected by plant cover, could be stronger than %Cover. More NJ/NY sample sites with available macrophyte cover data may be needed to observe this significant negative relationship. Secondly, although percent macrophyte cover is an easily measured biological parameter, %Cover may not account for all available plant habitats, which midges may use. Langdon and colleagues (2010) revealed a strong association between midges and density of aquatic macrophytes as percent volume infested, which captures a more complete estimate of all plant habitat available (whether submerged or floating). Submerged plants are important for macroinvertebrate colonization. Previous research has assessed chironomids in relation to rigid hornwart (Ceratophyllum demersum), a submergent with finely dissected leaves, showing increased abundances of chironomids colonizing such a plant as a result of the plant leaf structure (Tarkowska-Kukuryk 2010). The surface-area to plant ratio for submerged dissected plants is high, providing a larger area which macroinvertebrates may use as habitat or for chironomid grazers to predate upon periphyton (food source) that colonize dissected plants (Cheruvelil et al. 2000). Finely dissected leaves promote a stronger attachment by larvae to the plant and added protection for epiphytic chironomids (Tarkowska-Kukuryk 2010). Lastly, as there are many submergent plant types in freshwater lakes, the differences between these and other macrophyte-types creating heterogeneous littoral habitat may also affect midge colonization. Recent work by 75 Langdon and colleagues (2010) also showed a strong relationship between midges and plant species richness. This occurs as some individuals may select certain macrophyte taxa as a result of the periphyton growing on the plant substrate or found within particular water quality conditions (Jones and Sayer 2003). Despite the lack of relationship observed between midge communities and macrophyte cover in NJ/NY lakes, two individual taxa showed significant relationships to %Cover. Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae shows a preference for low macrophyte cover, while Paratanytarsus shows a preference for high macrophyte cover. These environmental preferences are typical for both taxa. Previous research has indicated that Einfeldia can be found in shallow, turbid lakes often lacking macrophytes (Brodersen et al. 2001, Langdon et al. 2010), and is also found in lakes which host substantial waterfowl populations (Langdon et al. 2006,2010). In NJ/NY analyses, Einfeldia also showed a significant positive relationship to TP levels. A high abundance of this taxon occurred in sites having both high macrophyte abundances (Bowlby and Delaware Ponds = 50 - 100% Cover) and/or low macrophyte abundance (Brainard, Peddie, Cedar, and Lefferts Lakes, and Vincentown Millpond = 0 - 8% Cover). Although it may be assumed that low plant cover may insinuate turbid conditions, the snapshot of end-of-summer sampling indicated that the water clarity level for each of these lakes was moderate, with the exception of Brainard Lake, which has low water clarity (Zmax = 1.7 m, Zsci = 0.3 m). In comparison, large abundances of Paratanytarsus are found in lakes having considerable plant growth (Millet et al. 2007), which included Stony Lake and Gardners Pond (Cover > 20%). With respect to other midges, Bezzia showed a more central biplot 76 position in macrophyte-associated analyses, near Glyptotendipes cf. pallens and Cricotopus (Isocladius). Both Glyptotendipes and Cricotopus are also found to associate with turbid lake conditions (Brodersen et al. 2001). Similar to Eirtfeldia, the relative abundance of these taxa are not substantively different in clear vs turbid lakes. While a central position on the biplot indicates that Bezzia relative abundance in any of the NJ/NY lakes was not greatly affected by the environmental variables used in ordinations (ter Braak and Prentice 1988), its close association with other taxa that prefer macrophytes/turbid conditons may indicate similar preferences for Bezzia. Midges and important environmental gradients in combinedpolymictic and stratified lakes When combining polymictic + stratified sites together in statistical analyses, the predominance of eutrophic and hyper-eutrophic polymictic sites in the dataset created a strong association between midge distributions and trophic-related characteristics. Despite this, constrained ordinations identified O2 as an important variable for explaining the variance associated with the dipteran larvae in NJ/NY lakes. Furthermore, the apparent strength associated with AvgBot O2 in community-level analyses increased more so with the addition of supplementary midge taxa (Chaoborus) to the predominantly chironomid dataset. As discussed previously, Quinlan and Smol (2010) showed that chaoborids are strongly influenced by deep-water oxygen levels. When Chaoborus is added to a previously published chironomid-VWHO model (Quinlan and Smol 2001a), an improvement in hypolimnetic oxygen inferences in anoxic lakes was made compared to using chironomid-only midge datasets (Quinlan and Smol 2010). 77 Chaoborids are known to be an excellent oxy-regulator in lake systems, with a high tolerance of anoxic hypolimentic conditions, allowing for migration to bottom waters of varying depths and temperatures to avoid predation (Wissel et al 2003, Brodersen et al. 2004). Under oxygen-poor conditions, sediments release various nutrients (such as TP) and other elements (e.g. metal ions), producing optimal conditions for hydrogen sulfide production and other contaminant exposure (Nurnberg 1994, Wang and Chapman 1999). The phantom midge is able to withstand these unfavourable conditions due to having a relatively impermeable exoskeleton, such that Chaoborus will not take up toxic metals (such as cadmium) from surrounding pore water in the sediments (Munger et al. 1999). The turbidity level of a lake also plays a role in the likelihood of chaoborid colonization, as poor lake visibility (turbid conditions) reduces predation pressure on the phantom midge by fish (Luoto and Nevalainen 2009). The two NJ/NY sites with the most Chaoborus individuals (Delaware lake = 19%, Long Lake = 15%) had moderate water clarity with only 10-15% of the water column visible. Available turbidity measurements (NTU) for these two sites reports low turbidity (turbidity = 15 to 16 NTU) (NJ DEP 2006), indicating that bottom water oxygen levels must be more influential for governing chaoborids in NJ/NY lakes. Other midges, such as ceratopogonids, have also been shown to have ecological preferences for varying lake oxygen conditions, as Bezzia are frequently observed in lakes with well oxygenated hypolimnia and Dasyhelea are observed in oxygen poor conditions (Luoto 2009b). In this study, Bezzia was the only ceratopogonid group retained in analyses and did not contribute to the overall increase in 78 strength of AvgBot O2. Instead, this taxon showed a significant, positive relationship to TP in only polymictic lakes. Nutrient-related variables, as TP or NO2-NO3, are important variables influencing midges in combined polymictic and stratified lakes (NO2-NO3 chosen in place of pH in community level analyses). While TP takes into account all forms of phosphorus in water, both available to aquatic biota and present in insoluble forms, NO2-NO3 is soluble in water and readily integrated by living organisms. Nitrite (NO2) is an intermediate form of nitrogen that rapidly oxidizes to nitrate (NO3) or will reduce to nitrogen gas by nitrifying bacteria, while NO3 is a relatively stable form of dissolved nitrogen in water. Both forms of nitrogen may be taken up by aquatic plants, while NO3 may also be taken up by phytoplankton. Similar to TP, NO2-NO3 concentrations may artificially increase in lakes as a result of sewage/industrial effluents, agricultural fertilizers, urban developments, and mining activities. For combined polymictic + stratified lake sites, only four taxa showed negative relationships to NO2-NO3 levels (none showed positive relationships), including Paratanytarsus, Ablabesmyia, Labrmdinia, and Tanytarsus (No Spur). All four taxa are associated with the littoral zone of lakes, some being associated with submerged vegetation (Brodersen et al. 2001, Millet et al. 2007). Eutrophic lakes of the CLP will have low NO2-NO3 levels, as a result of higher concentrations of phosphorus (prompting excessive macrophyte growth) being exported from disturbed watersheds (Downing and McCauley 1992). Also, with the addition of stratified lakes to polymictic analyses, many more taxa exhibited significant relationships to SA due to the extension of the gradient. Of these, 79 Chaoborus (Sayomyia) prefers NJ/NY lakes with large surface area, which agrees with other research across Canadian Shield lakes showing their strong association with deep- water oxygen levels in large lakes (Quinlan and Smol 2010). However, Chaoborus was also found in many small, shallow, productive lake sites, which may lack large fish populations predating upon Chaoborus (Wissel et al. 2003, Kurek et al. 2010). Kurek and colleagues (2010) recognized that this may occur as fluctuations in environmental conditions (winter hypoxia) or limited river connections may not support fish populations or prevents fish colonization in small, shallow lakes. Chironomus cf. anthracinus also shows a preference for large lakes, which may be due to its preference as a deposit feeder in bottom waters (Kelly et al. 2004), preferring larger lakes as a result of increased food abundance to bottom waters. Littoral and sublittoral taxa, such as Cladopelma cf. lateralis, Tanytarsus (Spur), Tanytarsus cf. glabrescens and Tribe Pentaneurini, prefer lakes with small surface areas possibly as a result of more frequent colonization by macrophytes {Cladopelma, T. glabrescens, and Tribe Pentaneurini) or adequate replenishment of oxygen concentrations throughout littoral habitat in small, shallow lakes (Tanytarsus (Spur)). Conclusions Exploratory analyses using midge assemblages (chironomid, chaoborid and ceratopogonid subfossil remains) and environmental variables collected through various NJ/NY lake monitoring programs show significant integrated patterns when assessing lakes of varying mixing-regimes. Ultimately, lake trophic state is the main driver for midge distributions in freshwater systems of NJ/NY. Other parameters, including 80 alkalinity, pH, depth, or suface area also play a role, however their effects may not be easily separated out from nutrient-related characteristics. Characteristic variables that govern midge assemblages in dimictic lakes, such as DO concentrations, were not selected for in the NJ/NY assessments. However, given the snapshot of bottom oxygen conditions used for analyses, many shallow lakes across NJ/NY actually experience summer lake hypoxia or anoxia that exerts an influence on midges. The addition of chaoborid larvae to the ordinations strengthened the association between midges and AvgBot O2, even in polymictic lakes. In terms of using this study's lakesets as a training set for paleoenvironmental inference models, the stratified-only NJ/NY dataset is small and is inappropriate to use for a potential midge-environment training set. Polymictic-only and combined polymictic + stratified datasets may be used to develop a NJ/NY training set. Of the six variables retained in analyses, Zmax and SA may not be appropriate parameters to develop paleoenvironmental inference models. For multiple lakes across a region, physical depth will remain relatively similar from the past to the present, potentially causing species- depth transfer functions to infer unrealistic values for a specific site under investigation (Birks 1998, Walker and Cwynar 2006). This finding also relates to lake surface area, as the perimeter of the lake will not substantially change in overall shape overtime. For potential model development, Alk, pH, TP, and NO2-NO3 are regarded as important and ecologically relevant factors that explain the most variation in the midge assemblage across NJ/NY sites. Previous inference models have been developed and performed for 81 TP (Brooks et al. 2001) and pH (Rees and Cwynar 2010) using chironomids. As of yet, Alk and NO2-NO3 models have not been developed using midges. Acknowledgements This project was funded by the Academy of Natural Sciences Pennsylvannia (ANSP) - Patrick Center for Environmental Research (PCER) (subcontract No. 485-1300-7553-1), and NSERC Discovery Grant awarded to RQ. We thank Dr. Mihaela Enache of the ANSP for providing all sediment subsamples. We also thank Clifford Callinan - New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC), Tom Belton and Johannus Franken - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), and Dr. Allison Keimowitz (Cornell University) for providing NJ/NY water chemistry/environmental data. Valentina Munoz assisted in preparing sediment subsamples for analysis. Literature cited Allen, A. P., T. R. Whittier, P. R. Kaufmann, D. P. Larsen, R. J. O'Connor, R. M. Hughes, R. S. Stemberger, S. S. Dixit, R. O. Brinkhurst, A. T. Herlihy, and S. G. Paulsen. 1999. Concordance of taxonomic richness patterns across multiple assemblages in lakes of the northeastern United States. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 739-747. Battarbee, R. W., N. J. Anderson, E. Jeppesen, and P. R. Leavitt. 2005. Combining paleolimnological and limnological approaches in assessing lake ecosystem response to nutrient reduction. Freshwater Biology 50: 1772-1780. 82 Berg, C. O. 1963. Middle atlantic states. Pages 191-237 in D. G. Frey, editor. Limnology in North America. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Birks, H. J. B. 1998. Numerical tools in paleolimnology - progress, potentialities, and problems. Journal of Paleolimnology 20: 307-332. Boerger, J., H. F. Clifford, and R. W. Davies. 1982. Density and microdistribution of chironomid larvae in an Alberta brown-water stream. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 913-920. Bosch, I., J. C. Makarewicz, E. A. Bonk, C. Ruiz, and M. Valentino. 2009. Responses of lake macrophyte beds dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) to best management practices in agricultural sub-watersheds: declines in biomass but not species dominance. Journal of Great Lakes Research 35: 99- 108. Brodersen, K. P., and C. Lindegaard. 1997. Significance of subfossile chironomid remains in classification of shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 342/343: 125-132. Brodersen, K.P., and C. Lindegaard. 1999. Classification, assessment and trophic reconstruction of Danish lakes using chironomids. Freshwater Biology 42: 143- 157. Brodersen, K. P., B. V. Odgaard, O. Vestergaard, and N. J. Anderson. 2001. Chironomid stratigraphy in the shallow and eutrophic lake Sebygaard, DenmarkL chironomid- macrophyte co-occurrence. Freshwater Biology 46: 253-267. Brodersen, K. P., O. Pedersen, C. Lindegaard, and K. Hamburger. 2004. Chironomids (Diptera) and oxy-regulatory capacity: an experimental approach to 83 paleolimnological interpretation. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 1549-1559. Brodersen, K. P., and R. Quinlan. 2006. Midges as palaeo-indicators of lake productivity, eutrophication and hypolimnetic oxygen. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1995- 2012. Brodin, Y. W. 1990. Midge fauna development in acidified lakes in northern Europe. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 327: 295-298. Brodin, Y. W., and M. Gransberg. 1993. Responses of insects, especially Chironomidae (Diptera), and mites to 130 years of acidification in a Scottish lake. Hydrobiologia 250: 201-212. Brooks, S. J., H. Bennion, and H. J. B. Birks. 2001. Tracing lake trophic history with a chironomid-total phosphorus inference model. Freshwater Biology 46: 513-533. Brooks, S. J., P. G. Langdon, and O. Heiri, 2007. The identification and use of Palaeartic Chironomidae larvae in palaeoecology. QRA Technical Guide No. 10, Quaternary Research Association, London. Brown, M. E., and M. A. Balk. 2008. The potential link between productivity and the invasive zooplankter Cercopagis pengoi in Owasco Lake (New York, U.S.A.). Aquatic Invasions 3: 28-34. Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, and R. D. Serbin. 2000. Macroinvertebrates associated with submerged macrophytes: sample size and power to detect effects. Hydrobiologia 441: 133-139. Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, and J. D. Madsen. 2001. Epiphytic macroinvertebrates along a gradient of eurasian watermilfoil cover. Journal of Aquatic Plant 84 Management 39: 67-72. Cohen, S., S. Lubow, and J. Pflaumer. 2009. New Jersey Nutrient Criteria Enhancement Plan. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Water Monitoring and Standards, Trenton, NJ. de la Cretaz, A. L., and P. K. Barten. 2007. Land use effects on streamflow and water quality in the northeastern United States. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida. Dixit, S. S., J. P. Smol, D. F. Charles, R. M. Hughes, S. G. Paulsen, and G. B. Collins. 1999a. Assessing water quality changes in the lakes of the northeastern United States using sediment diatoms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 131-152. Dixit, S. S., A. S. Dixit, and J. P. Smol. 1999b. Lake sediment chrysophyte scales from the northeastern U.S.A. and their relationship to environmental variables. Journal ofPhycology 35: 903-918. Downing, J. A., and E. McCauley. 1992. The nitrogen: phosphorus relationship in lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 936-945. Epler, J. H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina: A guide to the taxonomy of the midges of the southeastern United States, including Florida. Special Publication SJ2001-SP13. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, and St. John's River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. Francis, D. R. 2004. Distribution of midge remains (Diptera: Chironomidae) in surficial 85 lake sediments in New England. Northeastern Naturalist 11: 459-478. Glew, J. R. 1988. A portable extruding device for close interval sectioning of unconsolidated core samples. Journal of Paleolimnology 1: 235-239. Glew, J. R. 1989. A new trigger mechanism for sediment samplers. Journal of Paleolimnology 2: 241-243. Hill, M. 0.1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427-432. Hofmann, W. 1988. The significance of chironomid analysis (Insecta: Diptera) for paleolimnological research. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 62: 501-509. Hofmann, W. 1998. Cladocerans and chironomids as indicators of lake level changes in north temperate lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 19: 55-62. Jones, J. I., and C. D. Sayer. 2003. Does the fish-invertebrate-periphyton cascade precipitate plant loss in shallow lakes? Ecology 84: 2155-2167. Kelly, A., R. I. Jones, and J. Grey. 2004. Stable isotope analysis provides fresh insights into dietary separation between Chironomus anthracinus and C. plumosus. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:287-296. Kishbaugh, S. A. 1988. The New York citizen's statewide lake assessment program. Lake and Reservoir Management 4: 137-145. Kishbaugh, S. A. 2007. New York citizens statewide lake assessment program - Lake Waccabuc. N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Kishbaugh, S. A. 2009a. New York citizens statewide lake assessment program - Lake 86 Oscaleta. N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Kishbaugh, S. A. 2009b. New York citizens statewide lake assessment program - Silver Lake. N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Korhola, A., H. Olander, and T. Blom. 2000. Cladoceran and chironomid assemblages as quantitative indicators of water depth in subarctic Fennoscandian lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 24: 43-54. Kornij6w, R., and B. Moss. 2002. Do night oxygen depletions contribute to the summer decline in abundance of zoobenthos in lake littoral? Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung fur theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 28: 1899-1901. Kurek, J., and L. C. Cwynar. 2009. The potential of site-specific and local chironomid- based inference models for reconstructing past lake levels. Journal of Paleolimnology 42: 37-50. Kurek, J., L. C. Cwynar, R. C. Weeber, D. S. Jeffries, and J. P. Smol. 2010. Ecological distributions of Chaoborus species in small, shallow lakes from the Canadian Boreal Shield ecozone. Hydrobiologia 652: 207-221. Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179-1188. Langdon, P.G., Z. Ruiz, K. P. Brodersen, and I. D. L. Foster. 2006. Assessing lake eutrophication using chironomids: understanding the nature of community response in different lake types. Freshwater Biology 51: 562-577. Langdon, P. G., Z. Ruiz, S. Wynne, C. D. Sayer, and T. A. Davidson. 2010. Ecological influences on larval chironomid communities in shallow lakes: implications for paleolimnological interpretations. Freshwater Biology 55: 531-545. Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical Ecology. Second English edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 521p. Lindegaard, C. 1995. Classification of water bodies and pollution. Pages 385-404 in P. Armitage, P. S. Cranston, L. C. V. Pinder, editors. The Chironomidae: the biology and ecology of non-biting midges. Chapman and Hall, London. Little, J. L., and J. P. Smol. 2001. A chironomid-based model for inferring late-summer hypolimnetic oxygen in southeastern Ontario lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 26: 259-270. Lotter, A. F., H. J. B. Birks, W. Hofmann, and A. Marchetto. 1997. Modern diatom, cladocera, chironomid, and chrysophyte cyst assemblages as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental conditions in the Alps. I. Climate. Journal of Paleolimnology 18: 395-420. Lotter, A. F., H. J. B. Birks, W. Hofmann, and A. Marchetto. 1998. Modern diatom, cladocera, chironomid, and chrysophyte cyst assemblages as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental conditions in the Alps. II. nutrients. Journal of Paleolimnology 19:443-463. Luoto, T. P. 2009a. A Finnish chironomid- and chaoborid-based inference model for reconstructing past lake levels. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1481-1489. Luoto, T. P. 2009b. An assessment of lentic ceratopogonids, ephemeropterans, trichopterans, and orbatid mites as indicators of past environmental change in 88 Finland. Ann. Zool. Fennici. 46: 259-270. Luoto, T. P., and L. Nevalainen. 2009. Larval chaoborid mandibles in surface sediments of small shallow lakes in Finland: implications for palaeolimnology. Hydrobiologia 631:185-195. Luoto, T. P., and V.-P. Salonen. 2010. Larval chaoborid mandibles in surface sediments of small shallow lakes in Finland: implications for paleolimnology. Hydrobiologia 631:185-195. Millet, L., B. Vanniere, V. Verneaux, M. Magny, J. R. Disnar, F. Laggoun-Defarge, A. V. Walter-Simonnet, G. Bossuet, E. Ortu, and J-L. de Beaulieu. 2007. Response of littoral chironomid communities and organic matter to late glacial lake-level, vegetation and climate changes at Lago dell'Accesa (Tuscany, Italy). Journal of Paleolimnology 38: 525-539. Mousavi, S. K. 2002. Boreal chironomid communities and their relations to environmental factors - the impact of lake depth, size and acidity. Boreal Environment Research 7: 63-75. Munger, C., L. Hare, and A. Tessier. 1999. Cadmium sources and exchange rates for Chaoborus larvae in nature. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1763-1771. NJ DEP. 2004a. Amendment to the northeast water quality management plan, total maximum daily load for phosphorus to address Greenwood Lake in the northeast water region. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Watershed Management, Trenton, N.J. NJ DEP. 2004b. New Jersey water monitoring and assessment strategy. New Jersey 89 Department of Environmental Protection. Water Monitoring and Standards Program. Trenton, NJ. NJ DEP. 2006. Ambient Lake Monitoring Network. [Internet] New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; [cited November 2009]. Available from http://www.nj.gOv/dep/wms//bfbm/lakes.html. NY DEC. 2008. Total maximum daily load for phosphorus in Cossayuna Lake. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Water Quality Management, Albany, NY. Niirnberg, G. K. 1994. Phosphorus release from anoxic sediments: what we know and how we can deal with it. Limnetica 10: 1-4. Niirnberg, G. K. 1996. Trophic state of clear and colored, soft- and hardwater lakes with special consideration of nutrients, anoxia, phytoplankton and fish. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 12: 432-447. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118-125. Omernik, J. M., and C. F. Powers. 1983. Total alkalinity of surface waters-a national map. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 73: 133-136. Peel, M. C., B. L. Finlayson, and T. A. McMahon. 2007. Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633-1644. Quinlan, R., J. P. Smol, and R. I. Hall. 1998. Quantitative inferences of past hypolimnetic anoxia in south-central Ontario lakes using fossil midges (Diptera: 90 Chironomidae). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 587-596. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2001a. Chironomid-based inference models for estimating end-of-summer hypolimnetic oxygen from south-central Ontario shield lakes. Freshwater Biology 46: 1529-1551. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2001b. Setting minimum head capsule abundance and taxa deletion criteria in chironomid-based inference models. Journal of Paleolimnology 26: 327-342. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2010. Use of sub fossil Chaoborus mandibles in models for inferring past hypolimnetic oxygen. Journal of Paleolimnology 44: 43-50. Quinlan, R., and K. E. Wazbinski. 2007. Paleolimnological analysis of nutrient enrichment for criteria development in New Jersey and New York lakes: chironomid analyses. Academy of Natural Sciences subcontract 485-1300-7553- 1. Rees, A. B. H., and L. C. Cwynar. 2010. A test of Tyler's Line-response of chironomids to a pH gradient in Tasmania and their potential as a proxy to infer past changes in pH. Freshwater Biology 55:2521-2540. Rieradevall, M., and S. J. Brooks. 2001. An identification guide to subfossil Tanypodinae larvae (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) based on cephalic setation. Journal of Paleolimnology 25: 81-99. Rode, D. L. 2009. A paleolimnological assessment of coldwater fish habitat quality in lake Simcoe, Ontario. M.Sc. thesis, York University, Toronto, ON., Canada, 176 Pps. 91 Roelofs, J. G. M, A. J. P. Smolders, T. E. Brandrud, and R. Bobbink. 1995. The effect of acidification, liming and reacidification on macrophyte development, water quality and sediment characteristics of soft-water lakes. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85: 967-972. Saether, O. A. 1979. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarctic Ecology 2: 65-74. Sayer, C. D., T. A. Davidson, J. I. Jones, and P. G. Langdon. 2010. Combining contemporary ecology and palaeolimnology to understand shallow lake ecosystem change. Freshwater Biology 55:487-499. Schaffner, W. R., and R. T. Oglesby. 1978. Limnology of the eight Finger Lakes: Hemlock, Canadice, Honeoye, Keuka, Seneca, Owasco, Skaneateles, and Otisco. Pages 313-465 in J. A. Bloomfield, editors. Lakes of New York State Vol. 1. Ecology of the Finger Lakes. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Scheffer, M., and E. H. van Nes. 2007. Shallow lakes theory revisted: various alternative regimes driven by climate, nutrients, depth, and lake size. Hydrobiologia 584: 455-466. Schindler, D. W., M. A. Turner, M. P. Stainton, and G. A. Linsey. 1986. Natural sources of acid neutralizing capacity in low alkalinity lakes of the Precambrian Shield. Science 232: 844-847. Siver, P. A., A. M. Lott, E. Cash, J. Moss, and L. J. Marsicano. 1999. Century changes in Connecticut, U. S. A., lakes as inferred from siliceous algal remains and their relationship to land-use change. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1928-1935. 92 Smol, J. P. 1992. Paleolimnology: an important tool for effective ecosystem management. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 1: 48-58. Smol, J. P. 2008. Pollution of lakes and rivers: A paleoenvironmental perspective. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Massachusetts, USA. 313 pp. Taranu, Z. E., D. Koster, R. I. Hall, T. Charette, F. Forrest, L. C. Cwynar, and I. Gregory- Eaves. 2010. Contrasting responses of dimictic and polymictic lakes to environmental change: a spatial and temporal study. Aquatic Sciences 72: 97-115. Tarkowska-Kukuryk, M. 2010. Epiphytic chironomids on rigid hornwart (Ceratophyllum demersum L.) - the relation between the community structure and lake status. International Journal of Oceanography and Hydrobiology 39: 117-133. ter Braak, C. J. F, and I. C. Prentice. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances In Ecological Research 18: 271-317. ter Braak, C. J. F., and P. Smilauer. 2004. Program CANOCO Version 4.53. Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre. Box 100, 6700 AC Wageningen, the Netherlands. USDA. 2005. Forest Service. Northeastern forest inventory and analysis. [Internet] United States Department of Agriculture; [cited August 2010]. Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/fia/states/. USDA. 2007a. Mid-Atlantic Water Resource Region 02, HUC6 Level Watersheds. United States Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture. Pp. 10-17. USDA. 2007b. Great Lakes Water Resource Region 04, HUC6 Level Watersheds. United States Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture. Pp. 32-43. 93 Uutala, A. J. 1990. Chaoborus (Diptera: Chaoboridae) mandibles - paleolimnological indicators of the historical status of fish populations in acid-sensitive lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 4: 139-151. Velle, G., S. J. Brooks, H. J. B. Birks, and E. Willassen. 2005. Chironomids as a tool for inferring Holocene climate: an assessment based on six sites in southern Scandinavia. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1429-1462. Vestergaard, 0., and K. Sand-Jensen. 2000. Alkalinity and trophic state regulate aquatic plant distribution in Danish lakes. Aquatic Botany 67: 85-107. Walker, I. R. 1988. Late Quaternary palaeoecology of Chironomidae (Diptera: Insecta) from lake sediments in British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, 204 pp. Walker, I. R., and L. C. Cwynar. 2006. Midges and palaeotemperature reconstruction - the North American experience. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1911-1925. Walker, I. R., C. H. Fernando, and C. G. Paterson. 1985. Associations of Chironomidae (Diptera) of shallow, acid, humic lakes and bog pools in Atlantic Canada, and a comparison with an earlier paleoecological investigation. Hydrobiologia 120: 11- 22. Wang, F., and P. M. Chapman. 1999. Biological implications of sulfide in sediment -a review focusing on sediment toxicity. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18: 2526-2532. Warwick, W. F. 1980. Paleolimnology of the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario: 2800 years of cultural influence. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 206: 117 94 Pps. Wetzel, G. W. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders Company, PA. Whittier, T. R., A. T. Herlihy, and S. M. Pierson. 1995. Regional susceptibility of northeast lakes to zebra mussel invasion. Fisheries 20: 20-27. Whittier, T. R., S. G. Paulsen, D. R. Larsen, S. A. Peterson, A. T. Herlihy, and P. R. Kaufmann. 2002a. Indicators of ecological stress and their extent in the population of northeastern lakes: a regional-scale assessment. Bioscience 52: 235-247. Whittier, T. R., D. P. Larsen, S. A. Peterson, and T. M. Kincaid. 2002b. A comparison of impoundments and natural drainage lakes in the northeast U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 470: 157-171. Wiederholm, T. (ed.), 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region: keys and diagnoses. Part I - Larvae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement 19: 1-457. Wilson, S. E., and K. Gajewski. 2004. Modern chironomid assemblages and their relationship to physical and chemical variables in southwest Yukon and northern British Columbia lakes. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Reasearch 36: 446-455. Wissel, B., N. D. Yan, and C. W. Ramcharan. 2003. Predation and refugia: implications for Chaoborus abundance and species composition. Freshwater Biology 48: 1421- 1431. Woodcock, T., J. Longcore, D. McAuley, T. Mingo, C. R. Bennatti, and K. Stromborg. 2005. The role of pH in structuring communities of Maine wetland macrophytes and chironomid larvae (Diptera). Wetlands 25: 306-316. 95 Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, and B. C. Moran. 2007. Level III and IV ecoregions of New Jersey. Pgs 1-14. Yan, N. D., R. W. Nero, W. Keller, and D. C. Lasenby. 1985. Are Chaoborus larvae more abundant in acidified than in non-acidified lakes in central Cananda? Holarctic Ecology 8: 93-99. Zbikowski, J., and J. Kobak. 2007. Factors influencing taxonomic composition and abundance of macrozoobenthos in extralittoral zone of shallow eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 584:145-155. 96 Table 2.1. Site name, lake code (numeric code), and location (state, county, and geographical coordinates) of the 61 NJ/NY study lakes. 'Year' corresponds to the calendar year in which study sites were sampled for sediment cores. The denotes artificial reservoirs. The number in parentheses identifies a sample site in ordination diagrams where numeric codes were used for site identification. Site Name Lake Code State County Year Latitude Longitude 0 decimal ° decimal A Clemente Inc Pond* ACI (49) NJ Salem 2006 39.699 -75.454 Bear Swamp BRS (7) NJ Bergen 2006 41.098 -74.216 Bells* BEL (33) NJ Gloucester 2006 39.753 -75.061 Bennetts Pond* BEN (22) NJ Ocean 2006 40.128 -74.282 Bowlby Pond* BOW (1) NJ Morris 2006 40.896 -74.559 Brainard* BRD (17) NJ Middlesex 2005 40.311 -74.506 Campbells Pond* CPB (24) NJ Essex 2006 40.737 -74.305 Canadice CAN (57) NY Ontario 1997/98 42.719 -77.568 Cedar-17* C17 (8) NJ Cumberland 2006 39.336 -75.200 Cedar- 6* CE6 (41) NJ Morris 2006 40.912 -74.472 Chesler* CHE (47) NJ Morris 2006 40.871 -74.629 Clint Millpond* CLT (12) NJ Cape May 2006 39.155 -74.815 Conesus CON (55) NY Livingston 1999 42.751 -77.718 Cooper River* CPR (25) NJ Camden 2006 39.925 -75.069 Cossayuna COS (48) NY Washington 2007 43.217 -73.420 Crystal Spring* CRY (2) NJ Gloucester 2006 39.708 -75.007 Cumberland CBD (9) NJ Cumberland 2006 39.376 -74.945 Pond* Davis Millpond* DMP NJ Cumberland 2005 39.425 -75.365 Delaware* DEL (39) NJ Warren 2007 40.920 -75.066 Dennisville* DEN (11) NJ Cape May 2006 39.195 -74.825 Duck Pond* DUC (16) NJ Morris 2007 40.896 -74.625 Echo* ECH (51) NJ Passaic 2006 41.060 -74.411 Farrington* FAR (42) NJ Middlesex 2006 40.430 -74.477 Flamingo* FLA (3) NJ Burlington 2006 39.806 -74.901 Gardners Pond* GDN (52) NJ Sussex 2006 41.005 -74.739 Green Pond* GRN (43) NJ Morris 2007 41.007 -74.493 Greenwood GWD (45) NJ Passaic 2006 41.167 -74.335 Harrisville* HAR (26) NJ Burlington 2006 39.671 -74.522 Hemlock HEM (58) NY Livingston 1997/98 42.706 -77.605 Irisado* IDO (18) NJ Ocean 2006 40.049 -74.149 97 Table 2.1 (Continued) Site Name Lake Code State County Year Latitude Longitude 0 decimal ° decimal Japanese JPG (10) NJ Somerset 2007 40.556 -74.631 Garden* Jeddys Pond* JDY (37) NJ Cumberland 2006 39.433 -75.240 Keswick* KES (27) NJ Ocean 2006 39.949 -74.341 Kittatiny Camp* KTY (19) NJ Sussex 2006 41.241 -74.833 Lake 31 A* LKA (4) NJ Somerset 2006 40.552 -74.631 Lefferts LFR (38) NJ Monmouth 2006 40.410 -74.245 Liberty* LBY (31) NJ Warren 2006 40.883 -74.954 Long* LNG (28) NJ Burlington 2005 39.953 -74.545 Lower* LWR (23) NJ Ocean 2006 39.838 -74.198 Madison* MAD NY Madison 2004 42.902 -75.525 Mecca* MEC (34) NJ Sussex 2006 41.144 -74.841 Millhurst Pond* MLH (13) NJ Monmouth 2006 40.245 -74.341 Mount Misery* MIS (20) NJ Burlington 2006 39.925 -74.524 Muckshaw Pond* MUK (35) NJ Sussex 2007 41.030 -74.776 Openaka* OPK (30) NJ Morris 2006 40.856 -74.528 Oscaleta OSC (53) NY Westchester 2006 41.296 -73.561 Otisco OTI (56) NY Onondaga 1997/98 42.868 -76.294 Owasco OWA (59) NY Cayuga 1997/98 42.844 -76.503 Peach PEA (46) NY Putnam 2007 41.363 -73.579 Peddie* PED (36) NJ Mercer 2005 40.265 -74.521 Rahway River NJ Union 2006 40.619 -74.285 Park* RRP (14) Saginaw* SAG (40) NJ Sussex 2006 41.022 -74.624 Shadow* SHD (5) NJ Burlington 2006 39.807 -74.772 Silver SIL (50) NY Wyoming 2007 42.690 -78.031 Stony* STY (32) NJ Sussex 2006 41.200 -74.774 Taunton* TNT (29) NJ Burlington 2006 39.848 -74.852 Union* UNI (44) NJ Cumberland 2007 39.402 -75.053 Upper Mt. UMG (6) NJ Passaic 2006 41.073 -74.368 Glenn* Upper Mt. Hope* UMH (21) NJ Morris 2006 40.934 -74.530 Vincentown Millpond* VTM (15) NJ Burlington 2005 39.932 -74.750 Waccabuc WAC (54) NY Westchester 2006 41.299 -73.583 98 Table 2.2. A list of environmental variables (abbreviations and units included) and their descriptive statistics (minimum, maximum, and median values) for use in New Jersey and New York sample lake analyses. The transformation used to assess variables to approximate normality for each exploratory dataset is listed (stratified only/polymictic only/combined polymictic + stratified). The denotes that no data was available to transform for certain datasets (e.g. no hypolimnetic oxygen data for polymictic lakes). Variable Abbreviation Units Min. Max. Median Transformation Latitude Lat DD 39.155 43.217 Longitude Long DD 73.420 78.031 Maximum depth ZM»X m 0.7 47.0 2.0 log/inv/invlog(x+l) Surface area SA ha 1.3 2745.4 13.2 log/log/invsqrt Secchi depth ZJJ m 0.1 8.5 1.3 log/sqrt/log PH pH log[H+] 4.1 8.6 6.9 none Epilimnetic Epi T °C 15.7 29.8 24.3 none temperature Bottom BotT °C 5.1 29.8 22.0 invlog/pwr/pwr temperature Total phosphorus TP UgL"' 8.1 345.0 30.0 none/log/log Bottom oxygen AvgBot 02 mgL"1 0 8.4 3.9 sqrt/none/none Conductivity Cond US cm"1 33.0 654.0 175.4 none/log/log Total dissolved TDN/TKN nitrogen or Total UgL"' 120.0 4820.0 550.0 none/log/log Kjeldhal nitrogen Nitrite-Nitrate NO2-NO3 Mg L"1 5.9 1460.0 25.0 invlog/log/invlog Ammonia NH4 UgL"1 4.0 179.0 20.4 none/log/log Chlorophyll a Chi a Hg L"1 1.1 209.2 12.5 log/log/log Alkalinity Alk mgL"1 1.0 151.0 21.0 none/log/log End-of-Summer average AvgDO (sumnl) mgL"1 0 7.4 0.4 sqrt/*/* hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen Percent %Cover % 0.8 100.0 10.7 */log/log macrophyte cover 99 Table 2.3. Pearson correlation matrix with Bonferroni-adjusted probabilities for 14 measured environmental variables in all 59 NJ/NY lakes. The symbols ** and * denote significance levels of P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively. ZMAX SA z*. pH EpiT BotT TP AvgBot 02 Cond TDN/TKN N02N03 NH4 Chl a Alk ZMAX 1.00 SA 0.64** 1.00 ZJD -0.70** -0.51** 1.00 PH -0.47* -0.26 0.40 1.00 EpiT 0.03 0.02 -0.02 0.25 1.00 BotT 0.66** 0.46* -0.48* -0.34 0.53** 1.00 TP 0.39 0.45* -0.72** -0.01 0.04 0.26 1.00 AvgBot 02 0.36 0.18 0.02 -0.22 -0.01 0.41 0.00 1.00 Cond -0.29 0.05 0.22 0.76** 0.25 -0.14 0.13 -0.25 1.00 TDN/TKN 0.38 0.38 -0.61** 0.21 0.09 0.17 0.73** -0.07 0.22 1.00 NO2NO3 0.26 0.20 -0.04 -0.05 0.03 0.14 -0.04 -0.02 -0.05 0.01 1.00 NH4 0.01 0.08 -0.44* -0.13 -0.18 -0.06 0.43* -0.10 -0.05 0.29 -0.51»* 1.00 Chl a 0.40 0.29 -0.61** 0.01 0.13 0.30 0.74** 0.09 0.04 0.63** 0.04 0.21 1.00 Alk -0.27 0.04 0.25 0.86** 0.15 -0.24 0.10 -0.31 0.85** 0.29 0.06 -0.15 0.04 1.00 100 Table 2.4. Pearson correlation matrix with Bonferroni-adjusted probabilities for 15 measured environmental variables in 38 of 59 New Jersey and New York lakes. The symbols ** and * denote significance levels of P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively. 2-MAX SA Z* pH EpiT BotT TP AvgBot 02 Cond TDN/TKN NO2NO3 NH, Chi a Alk %Cover ^MAXz 1.00 SA -0.37 1.00 Z* -0.56* 0.15 1.00 pH -0.25 -0.05 0.27 1.00 EpiT -0.07 0.05 0.11 0.37 1.00 BotT 0.45 -0.18 -0.19 -0.11 0.62** 1.00 TP 0.15 -0.19 -0.55* 0.18 -0.10 -0.06 1.00 AvgBot 02 0.22 -0.02 0.30 -0.15 -0.14 0.17 -0.12 1.00 Cond -0.26 -0.15 0.16 0.84** 0.40 -0.05 0.24 -0.33 1.00 TDN/TKN 0.28 -0.26 -0.45 0.41 0.05 0.02 0.63** -0.14 0.35 1.00 NO2NO3 -0.15 0.21 -0.17 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.21 0.18 0.05 0.15 1.00 NH4 -0.08 0.16 -0.45 -0.20 -0.20 -0.12 0.36 -0.07 -0.12 0.16 0.58* 1.00 Chi a 0.22 -0.07 -0.52 0.11 -0.04 -0.01 0.71** -0.07 0.08 0.58* 0.17 0.17 1.00 Alk -0.09 -0.30 0.13 0.89** 0.27 -0.09 0.27 -0.35 0.85** 0.48 -0.08 -0.22 0.12 1.00 %Cover 0.20 -0.24 -0.14 0.11 -0.02 -0.06 0.04 -0.36 0.14 0.04 -0.37 -0.07 -0.12 0.32 1.00 101 Table 2.5. Screened Chironomid-Only taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in stratified- only analyses (n = 11). Taxon codes and descriptive statistics (N, number of occurrences; Hill's N2; Max, maximum relative abundance %) are listed. Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CHIRS1 Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar 7 5.9 15.7 Chironomini) CHIRON Chironomus sp. 5 3.5 10.3 CHIRPL Chironomus cf. plumosus 6 2.4 27.1 CHIRAN Chironomus cf. anthracinus 9 4.3 51.6 CLADOP Cladopelma cf. lateralis 4 3.5 4.2 DICROT Dicrotendipes sp. 8 5.9 9.4 DICNER Dicrotendipes cf. nervosw 7 5.7 10.8 EINNAT Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 3 2.8 11.6 ENDALB Endochironomus cf. albipennis 3 2.9 3.3 GLYPAL Glyptotendipes cf. pollens 3 2.7 5.4 MICPED Microtendipes cf. pedellus 4 3.6 3.6 PARVAR Parachironomus cf. varus 6 5.7 3.1 POLYPE Polypedilum sp. 4 2.8 4.2 PNUBIF Polypedilum cf. nubifer 3 2.8 4.2 PNUBEC Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum 6 4.7 5.4 SERGEN Sergentia 3 1.9 10.7 CLADOM Cladotanytarsus mancus group 4 2.5 8.2 MICINS Micropsectra cf. insignilobus 4 1.7 27.2 PARATN Paratanytarsus sp. 2 1.8 13.9 PSEUDO Pseudochironomus 5 4.2 4.2 TANYNS Tanytarsus s. lat. (No spur) 11 5.0 32.0 TANYTS Tanytarsus s. lat. (Spur) 4 2.8 6.2 TLUGEN Tanytarsus cf. lugens 2 1.7 10.8 CORYTH Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 9 4.6 18.0 CRICOT Cricotopus sp. 4 2.3 5.8 NANOBR Nanocladius branchicolus 7 5.0 6.3 PARAKB Parakiefferiella type B 2 2.0 3.9 PSECPO Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) 8 5.9 8.3 SYNORT Synorthocladius 3 2.8 3.6 ABLABE Ablabesmyia 8 4.6 13.9 LABRUN Labrundinia 5 3.4 9.2 MACROI Tribe Macropelopini 8 6.0 7.8 PENTAN Tribe Pentaneurini 9 7.1 7.7 102 Table 2.6. Screened Total Midge taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in stratified-only analyses (w = 11). Taxon codes and descriptive statistics (N, number of occurrences; Hill's N2; Max, maximum relative abundance %) are listed. Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CHIRS1 Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar 7 6.0 14.6 Chironomini) CHIRON Chironomus sp. 5 3.5 10.3 CHIRPL Chironomus cf. plumosus 6 2.4 26.0 CHIRAN Chironomus cf. anthracinus 9 4.1 51.2 CLADOP Cladopelma cf. lateralis 4 3.5 4.1 DICROT Dicrotendipes sp. 8 5.8 9.0 DICNER Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus 7 5.6 10.6 EINNAT Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 3 2.8 10.8 ENDALB Endochironomus cf. albipennis 3 2.9 2.9 GLYPAL Glyptotendipes cf. pollens 3 2.8 4.1 MICPED Microtendipes cf. pedellus 4 3.5 3.5 PARVAR Parachironomus cf. varus 6 5.6 3.0 POLYPE Polypedilum sp. 4 2.9 4.0 PNUBIF Polypedilum cf. nubifer 3 2.8 4.1 PNUBEC Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum 6 4.8 5.1 SERGEN Sergentia 3 1.9 10.5 CLADOM Cladotanytarsus mancus group 4 2.5 7.4 MICINS Micropsectra cf. insignilobus 4 1.6 27.2 PARATN Paratanytarsus sp. 2 1.8 13.6 PSEUDO Pseudochironomus 5 4.3 4.1 TANYNS Tanytarsus s. lat. (No spur) 11 5.0 30.8 TANYTS Tanytarsus s. lat. (Spur) 4 2.7 6.1 TLUGEN Tanytarsus cf. lugens 2 1.8 8.2 CORYTH Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 9 4.7 16.2 CRICOT Cricotopus sp. 4 2.4 5.6 NANOBR Nanocladius branchicolus 7 4.8 6.1 PARAKB Parakiefferiella type B 2 2.0 3.7 PSECPO Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) 8 5.8 8.0 SYNORT Synorthocladius 3 2.8 3.5 ABLABE Ablabesmyia 8 4.4 13.6 LABRUN Labrundinia 5 3.3 9.1 MACROI Tribe Macropelopini 8 6.0 7.5 PENTAN Tribe Pentaneurini 9 7.2 7.6 CHAOBS Chaoboridae, Chaoborus (Sayomyia) 7 2.7 23.5 103 Table 2.7. Constrained RDA eigenvalues (k), eigenvalue ratios (A.1A.2), and significance levels (P) associated with the 14 environmental variables assessed in conjunction with untransformed a) Chironomid-only data and b) Total Midge data for stratified-only analyses. Environmental variables are arranged in descending order of axis 1/ axis 2 eigenvalue ratio (A.1/X.2)- a.) b.) Xi X1/X2 P Xi ^2 X.j/X.2 P Chi a 0.254 0.307 0.827 0.027 Zsd 0.271 0.282 0.961 0.016 Zsd 0.248 0.305 0.813 0.033 Chi a 0.272 0.286 0.951 0.010 TDNTKN 0.235 0.318 0.739 0.033 TDNTKN 0.244 0.295 0.827 0.025 TP 0.205 0.349 0.587 0.069 TP 0.232 0.321 0.723 0.035 NH4 0.167 0.379 0.441 0.128 Zmax 0.185 0.394 0.470 0.069 Zmax 0.177 0.421 0.420 0.091 NH4 0.153 0.366 0.418 0.151 AvgDO(summ) 0.145 0.427 0.340 0.182 AvgDO(summ) 0.157 0.399 0.394 0.125 BotT 0.126 0.478 0.264 0.237 BotT 0.127 0.451 0.282 0.222 AvgBot O2 0.113 0.466 0.242 0.293 AvgBot O2 0.123 0.438 0.281 0.245 EpiT 0.100 0.485 0.206 0.355 EpiT 0.098 0.461 0.213 0.378 SA 0.093 0.476 0.195 0.417 SA 0.095 0.451 0.211 0.394 pH 0.094 0.49 0.192 0.474 pH 0.086 0.467 0.184 0.541 Cond 0.083 0.471 0.176 0.518 Cond 0.079 0.451 0.175 0.576 Alk 0.081 0.479 0.169 0.537 NO2-NO3 0.081 0.466 0.174 0.584 NO2NO3 0.075 0.491 0.153 0.627 Alk 0.078 0.457 0.171 0.605 104 Table 2.8. Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to significantly constrained environmental gradients (and other environmental gradients of interest) in stratified-only analyses. The values recorded are the P values. Taxon codes are given in Table 2.6. Only taxa with a significant relationship with at least one variable are listed. denotes no significant relationship observed for a specific variable. Chi a AvgBot 02 A v gDO(Summ) Zsd TDN-TKN TP Taxon Code positive negative Positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative CHIRAN - 0.012 0.010 0.022 0.042 CHIRON - 0.025 0.012 0.037 CLADOM 0.046 EINNAT - 0.021 0.038 0.01 0.008 GLYPAL 0.028 MICINS 0.045 0.036 NANOBR 0.016 PNUBEC 0.046 0.009 PSECPO 0.010 0.038 0.032 TLUGEN 0.041 105 Table 2.9. Screened Chironomid-only taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in polymictic- only analyses (n = 48). Taxon codes and descriptive statistics (N, number of occurrences; Hill's N2; Max, maximum relative abundance %) are listed. Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CHIRS1 Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar 35 10.2 25.0 Chironomini) CHIRON Chironomus sp. 28 15.3 10.6 CFPLU Chironomini cf. Chironomus 10 4.4 10.6 CHIRPL Chironomus cf. plumosus 39 14.7 33.3 CHIRAN Chironomus cf. cmthracinus 42 20.5 20.8 CLADOP Cladopelma cf. lateralis 41 21.3 25.2 CRYCHR Cryptochironomus 19 8.8 5.6 CRYTEN Cryptotendipes 14 5.4 9.4 DICROT Dicrotendipes sp. 39 23.2 12.7 DICNER Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus 41 28.3 27.5 DICNOT Dicrotendipes cf. notatus 11 5.8 6.7 EINNAT Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 23 12.7 9.6 ENDALB Endochironomus cf. albipennis 23 8.8 13.5 GLYPAL Glyptotendipes cf. pattens 26 10.5 24.6 LAUZAV Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 23 14.9 4.4 MICPED Microtendipes cf. pedellus 18 10.3 5.5 PARVAR Parachironomus cf. varus 40 26.2 11.6 PARALB Paratendipes cf. albimanus 2 2.0 2.9 POLYPE Polypedilum sp. 31 20.5 7.6 PNUBEC Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum 35 21.8 6.0 SERGEN Sergentia 12 5.8 13.2 CLADOM Cladotcmytarsus mancus group 11 2.6 26.8 MICROI Micropsectra cf. insignilobus 12 8.9 2.7 PARATN Paratanytarsus sp. 30 15.3 9.8 PARPEN Paratanytarsus cf. penicillatus 23 12.9 11.4 PSEUDO Pseudochironomus 25 12.1 9.2 TANYNS Tanytarsus s. lat. (No spur) 46 30.0 30.8 TANYTS Tanytarsus s. lat. (Spur) 29 10.2 19.5 TGLABR Tanytarsus cf. glabrescens 18 6.1 28.0 TLUGEN Tanytarsus cf. lugens 3 1.6 15.8 TMENDX Tanytarsus cf. mendax (sp. B) 36 23.6 7.3 BRYGYM Bryophaencladius-Gymnometriocnemus 10 6.7 2.4 106 Table 2.9. (Continued) Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CORYTH Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 33 19.8 11.0 CRICOT Cricotopus sp. 30 9.0 22.9 CRISOC Cricotopus (Isocladius) 8 5.9 3.8 CRILAR Cricotopus cf. laricomalis 6 4.1 3.5 LYMNOP Lymnophes 20 10.9 3.9 LYMPAR Lymnophyes/Paralymnophyes 16 8.5 2.7 NANOBR Nanocladius branchicolus 25 9.2 12.6 PSECPO Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) 38 28.1 13.3 UNNIEL Unniella 3 2.3 6.0 ZALUTS Zalutschia sp. 20 9.4 11.9 ZALUTZ Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola 24 12.7 15.1 ABLABE Ablabesmyia 37 28.0 10.1 GUTTIP Guttipelopia 19 13.1 5.3 LABRUN Labrundinia 36 13.7 29.4 MACROI Tribe Macropelopini 45 24.9 24.9 PENTAN Tribe Pentaneurini 46 33.2 15.8 PROCLD Procladius 34 25.5 5.8 107 Table 2.10. Screened midge taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in polymictic-only analyses (rt = 48). Taxon codes and descriptive statistics (N, number of occurrences; Hill's N2; Max, maximum relative abundance %) are listed. Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CHIRS1 Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar 35 13.0 18.1 Chironomini) CHIRON Chironomus sp. 28 17.2 7.8 CFPLU Chironomini cf. Chironomus 10 4.3 10.4 CHIRPL Chironomus cf. plumosus 39 14.7 32.0 CHIRAN Chironomus cf. anthracinus 42 21.7 15.2 CLADOP Cladopelma cf. lateralis 41 21.3 25.0 CRYCHR Cryptochironomus 19 8.7 5.4 CRYTEN Cryptotendipes 14 5.8 8.4 DICROT Dicrotendipes sp. 39 23.0 12.5 DICNER Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus 41 28.0 27.2 DICNOT Dicrotendipes cf. notatus 11 5.7 6.7 EINNAT Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 23 13.4 8.1 ENDALB Endochironomus cf. albipennis 23 8.8 12.9 GLYPAL Glyptotendipes cf. pallens 26 10.2 24.6 LAUZAV Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 23 14.9 4.3 MICPED Microtendipes cf. pedellus 18 10.3 5.3 PARVAR Parachironomus cf. varus 40 26.0 11.2 PARALB Paratendipes cf. albimanus 2 2.0 2.9 POLYPE Polypedilum sp. 31 20.5 7.3 PNUBEC Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum 35 22.4 5.9 SERGEN Sergentia 12 6.0 13.1 CLADOM Cladotanytarsus mancus group 11 2.7 26.0 MICINS Micropsectra cf. insignilobus 12 8.9 2.6 PARATN Paratanytarsus sp. 30 15.3 9.5 PARPEN Paratanytarsus cf. penicillatus 23 12.9 11.1 PSEUDO Pseudochironomus 25 11.9 9.2 TANYNS Tanytarsus s. lat. (No spur) 46 29.7 30.7 TANYTS Tanytarsus s. lat. (Spur) 29 10.3 18.8 TGLABR Tanytarsus cf. glabrescens 18 6.3 26.3 TLUGEN Tanytarsus cf. lugens 3 1.6 15.3 TMENDX Tanytarsus cf. mendax (sp. B) 36 23.3 7.3 CORYTH Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 33 19.9 10.1 108 Table 2.10. (Continued) Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CRICOT Cricotopus sp. 30 8.9 22.4 CRISOC Cricotopus (Isocladius) 8 6.0 3.6 CRILAR Cricotopus cf. laricomalis 6 4.1 3.3 LYMNOP Lymnophes 20 11.4 3.6 NANOBR Nanocladius branchicolus 25 9.2 12.2 PSECPO Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) 38 27.7 13.3 UNNIEL Unniella 3 2.3 5.9 ZALUTS Zalutschia sp. 20 9.3 11.9 ZALUTZ Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola 24 12.8 14.6 ABLABE Ablabesmyia 37 27.9 10.0 GUTTIP Guttipelopia 19 13.2 5.1 LABRUN Labrundinia 36 13.4 29.4 MACROI Tribe Macropelopini 45 24.6 24.3 PENTAN Tribe Pentaneurini 46 33.1 15.3 PROCLD Procladius 34 25.4 5.6 BEZZIA Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 34 23.9 4.2 CHAOBU Chaoboridae, Chaoborus sp. 15 4.5 10.7 CHAOBS Chaoboridae, Chaoborus (Sayomyia) 28 8.2 18.1 109 Table 2.11. Constrained RDA eigenvalues (X), eigenvalue ratios (X1/X2), and significance levels (P) associated with the 14 environmental variables assessed in conjunction with untransformed a) chironomid-only data and b) total midge data for polymictic-only analyses. Environmental variables are arranged in descending order of eigenvalue ratio (X1/X2). a> b) Xi %2 Xifk2 P h X.2 X1/X2 P Alk 0.059 0.144 0.410 0.001 Alk 0.057 0.145 0.393 0.001 Cond 0.055 0.142 0.387 0.001 Cond 0.054 0.143 0.378 0.001 TP 0.050 0.134 0.373 0.003 TP 0.050 0.134 0.373 0.004 PH 0.054 0.145 0.372 0.001 pH 0.051 0.146 0.349 0.001 Zmax 0.043 0.137 0.314 0.009 Zmax 0.045 0.138 0.326 0.008 SA 0.037 0.149 0.248 0.035 SA 0.037 0.152 0.243 0.036 Zsd 0.034 0.149 0.228 0.042 Zsd 0.033 0.151 0.219 0.064 TDN/TKN 0.033 0.147 0.224 0.069 AvgBot O2 0.031 0.143 0.217 0.097 BotT 0.030 0.148 0.203 0.114 TDN/TKN 0.032 0.149 0.215 0.103 Chi a 0.027 0.148 0.182 0.194 BotT 0.031 0.150 0.207 0.088 AvgBot O2 0.025 0.143 0.175 0.257 Chi a 0.027 0.150 0.180 0.18 EpiT 0.026 0.149 0.174 0.248 EpiT 0.025 0.152 0.164 0.267 NH4 0.022 0.143 0.154 0.418 NH4 0.022 0.144 0.153 0.419 NO2NO3 0.019 0.148 0.128 0.614 NO2NO3 0.019 0.151 0.126 0.631 110 Table 2.12. Canonical coefficients of the first two RDA axes of significant forward selected variables, their /-values, and interset correlations from polymictic-only analyses with a) Chironomid-only and b) Total Midge data. a) Canonical Coefficients /-values Interset Correlations Environmental Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 variable Alk -0.750 0.124 -2.895 0.404 -0.432 -0.609 TP -0.618 0.209 -5.272 1.506 -0.454 -0.051 Zmax 0.882 -0.566 6.593 -3.579 0.416 -0.179 SA 0.220 0.082 1.459 0.458 0.097 0.047 J*L 0.522 -1.155 1.956 -3.660 -0.326 -0.654 b) Canonical Coefficients /-values Interset Correlations Environmental Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 variable Alk -0.779 0.035 -2.948 0.111 -0.392 -0.627 TP -0.624 0.146 -5.222 1.029 -0.440 -0.106 7^max 0.915 -0.542 6.711 -3.338 0.431 -0.194 SA 0.197 0.102 1.284 0.558 0.083 0.087 PH 0.611 -1.068 2.244 -3.298 -0.284 -0.646 111 Table 2.13. Constrained RDA eigenvalues (X1A.2) compared to Partial RDA eigenvalues (hfk2) for the five significant forward selected variables in polymictic-only analyses using untransformed a) Chironomid-only and b) Total Midge datasets. The covariables used in Partial RDA are given for each individual variable. The significance level (P) for each variable is also given (threshold P < 0.05). Variable Constrained P Partial P Covariables RDA \\l%2 RDA X.JA.2 a) Alk 0.410 0.001 0.256 0.048 pH, TP, Zmax, SA pH 0.372 0.001 0.274 0.035 Alk, TP, Z^, SA TP 0.373 0.003 0.470 0.001 Alk, pH, Zmax, SA Zmax 0.314 0.009 0.513 0.001 Alk, pH, TP, SA SA 0.248 0.035 0.265 0.041 Alk, pH, TP, Zmax b) Alk 0.393 0.001 0.259 0.045 pH, TP, Z^, SA PH 0.349 0.001 0.267 0.039 Alk, TP, Z^, SA TP 0.373 0.004 0.474 0.001 Alk, pH, Z^x, SA Zmax 0.326 0.008 0.552 0.001 Alk, pH, TP, SA SA 0.243 0.036 0.267 0.047 Alk, pH, TP, Zmax 112 Table 2.14. Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to significantly constrained environmental gradients (and other environmental gradients of interest) in polymictic-only analyses. The values recorded are the P values. Taxon codes are given in Table 2.10. Only taxa with a significant relationship with at least one variable are listed. denotes no significant relationship observed for a specific variable. Zmax SA Alk _£H_ AvgBot02 TP Taxon positive positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative Code ABLABE - 0.011 0.016 0.024 0.014 0.014 CHAOBS 0.036 0.004 CHIRPL 0.035 0.022 0.014 CHIRS1 0.029 0.039 0.022 EINNAT - 0.001 GLYPAL - 0.024 MACROI - 0.001 PENTAN - 0.003 PNUBEC - 0.015 PSECPO - 0.035 0.046 TANYNS - 0.024 0.042 TANYTS - 0.038 TGLABR - 0.01 TMENDX - 0.021 ZALUTS - 0.0002 0.0004 ZALUTZ 0.015 0.018 113 Table 2.15. Constrained RDA eigenvalues (A.), eigenvalue ratios (A4/X2), and significance levels (P) associated with untransformed, Total Midge data and the 15 environmental variables assessed (including %Cover) for 35 shallow NJ/NY lakes. Environmental variables are arranged in descending order of eigenvalue ratio (A4A.2). Xj %2 X1/X2 P Alk 0.062 0.163 0.380 0.012 Cond 0.059 0.162 0.364 0.014 pH 0.061 0.169 0.361 0.007 AvgBot O2 0.048 0.159 0.302 0.045 Zmax 0.045 0.165 0.273 0.081 TP 0.034 0.161 0.211 0.273 BotT 0.033 0.170 0.194 0.299 Zsd 0.032 0.171 0.187 0.341 SA 0.032 0.171 0.187 0.319 Chi a 0.030 0.171 0.175 0.452 NO2NO3 0.027 0.170 0.159 0.549 %Cover 0.026 0.171 0.152 0.618 TDNTKN 0.025 0.171 0.146 0.619 EpiT 0.025 0.172 0.145 0.612 NH4 0.019 0.169 0.112 0.873 114 Table 2.16. Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to significantly constrained environmental gradients (and other environmental gradients of interest) in 38 NJ/NY sites having macrophyte abundance data. The values recorded are the P values. Taxon codes are given in Table 2.10. Only taxa with a significant relationship with at least one variable are listed. denotes no significant relationship observed for a specific variable. Alk PH %Cover AvgBot02 positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative CHAOBS - - - - 0.014 CHIRAN - 0.016 - - - CHIRPL - 0.018 - - - DICNER - 0.038 - - - EINNAT - . - 0.007 0.012 PARATN 0.043 - 0.028 - - PARPEN - - 0.025 - - PNUBEC - - - - 0.033 TANYNS - - - - 0.038 TANYTS 0.048 . - - - TGLABR 0.027 - - - - TMENDX 0.032 - - - - ZALUTS 0.002 0.003 - - 115 Table 2.17. Screened Chironomid-only taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in combined polymictic + stratified analyses (n = 59). Taxon codes and descriptive statistics (N, number of occurrences; Hill's N2; Max, maximum relative abundance %) are listed. Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 CHIRS1 Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar 42 16.1 25.0 Chironomini) CHIRON Chironomus sp. 33 17.8 10.6 CFPLU Chironomini cf. Chironomus 10 4.4 10.6 CHIRPL Chironomus cf. plumosus 45 16.7 33.3 CHIRAN Chironomus cf. anthracinus 51 16.5 51.6 CLADOP Cladopelma cf. lateralis 45 23.0 25.2 CRYCHR Cryptochironomus 21 10.3 5.6 CRYTEN Cryptotendipes 17 7.6 9.4 DICROT Dicrotendipes sp. 47 28.9 12.7 DICNER Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus 48 33.2 27.5 DICNOT Dicrotendipes cf. notatus 12 6.5 6.7 E1NDIS Einfeldia cf. dissidens 8 2.4 14.1 EINNAT Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 26 14.3 11.6 ENDALB Endochironomus cf. albipennis 26 10.7 13.5 GLYPAL Glyptotendipes cf. pallens 29 12.5 24.6 GLYSEV Glyptotendipes cf. severini 10 7.8 2.3 LAUZAV Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 25 16.6 4.4 MICPED Microtendipes cf. pedellus 22 13.9 5.5 PARVAR Parachironomus cf. varus 46 30.6 11.6 PARALB Paratendipes cf. albimanus 2 2.0 2.9 POLYPE Polypedilum sp. 35 23.3 7.6 PNUBIF Polypedilum cf. nubifer 10 6.2 4.2 PNUBEC Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum 41 26.2 6.0 SERGEN Sergentia 15 7.7 13.2 CLADOA Cladotanytarsus group A 10 8.1 2.7 CLADOM Cladotanytarsus mancus group 15 4.1 26.8 MTRACT Micropsectra cf. contracta 4 2.2 9.7 MICROI Micropsectra cf. insignilobus 16 3.3 27.2 PARATN Paratanytarsus sp. 32 14.7 13.9 PARPEN Paratanytarsus cf. penicillatus 24 12.6 11.4 PSEUDO Pseudochironomus 30 16.3 9.2 116 Table 2.17. (Continued) Code Taxon Name N Hill's Max N2 TANYNS Tcmytarsus s. lat. (No spur) 57 34.9 32.0 TANYTS Tanytarsus s. lat. (Spur) 33 12.4 19.5 TGLABR Tcmytarsus cf. glabrescens 20 6.7 28.0 TLUGEN Tcmytarsus cf. lugens 5 3.1 15.8 TPALLD Tanytarsus cf. pallidicornis 12 9.7 2.3 TMENDX Tanytarsus cf. mendax (sp. B) 37 24.2 7.3 TNEMER Tcmytarsus cf. nemerosus 9 4.7 4.2 BRYGYM Bryophaencladius-Gymnometriocnemus 10 6.7 2.4 CORYTH Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 42 21.6 18.0 CRICOT Cricotopus sp. 34 10.7 22.9 CRISOC Cricotopus (Isocladius) 10 7.7 3.8 CRILAR Cricotopus cf. laricomalis 6 4.1 3.5 HTRGRI Heterotrissocladius cf. grimshawi 5 1.9 11.7 LYMNOP Lymnophes 21 11.8 3.9 LYMPAR Lymnophyes/Paralymnophyes 20 12.0 2.7 NANOBR Nanocladius cf. brcmchicolus 32 14.1 12.6 PARAKA Parakiefferiella type A 12 7.2 3.2 PARAKB Parakiefferiella type B 15 9.2 3.9 PSECMO Psectrocladius (Monopsectrocladius) 17 10.5 2.9 PSECPO Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) 46 33.5 13.3 SYNORT Synorthocladius 8 5.9 3.6 UNNIEL Unniella 3 2.3 6.0 ZALUTS Zalutschia sp. 20 9.4 11.9 ZALUTZ Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola 25 13.7 15.1 ABLABE Ablabesmyia 45 32.3 13.9 GUTTIP Guttipelopia 19 13.1 5.3 LABRUN Labrundinia 41 16.2 29.4 MACROl Tribe Macropelopini 53 29.8 24.9 PENTAN Tribe Pentaneurini 55 39.1 15.8 PROCLD Procladius 36 27.3 5.8 117 Table 2.18. Screened Total Midge taxa (>2% in at least 2 lakes) used in combined polymictic + stratified analyses (n = 59). Taxon codes and descriptive statistics (N, number of occurrences; Hill's N2; Max, maximum relative abundance %) are listed. Numeric Taxon Taxon Name N Hill's Max code code N2 1 CHIRS1 Chironomini sp. 1 (early instar 42 18.5 18.1 Chironomini) 2 CHIRON Chironomus sp. 33 18.6 10.3 3 CFPLU Chironomini cf. Chironomus 10 4.3 10.4 4 CHIRPL Chironomus cf. plumosus 45 16.7 32.0 5 CHIRAN Chironomus cf. anthracinus 51 16.2 51.2 6 CLADOP Cladopelma cf. lateralis 45 23.0 25.0 7 CRYCHR Cryptochironomus 21 10.1 5.4 8 CRYTEN Cryptotendipes 17 7.9 8.4 9 DICROT Dicrotendipes sp. 47 28.6 12.5 10 DICNER Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus 48 32.7 27.2 11 DICNOT Dicrotendipes cf. notatus 12 6.4 6.7 12 EINDIS Einfeldia cf. dissidens 8 2.4 13.1 13 EINNAT Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 26 14.6 10.8 14 ENDALB Endochironomus cf. albipennis 26 10.7 12.9 15 GLYPAL Glyptotendipes cf. pallens 29 11.9 24.6 16 GLYSEV Glyptotendipes cf. severini 10 7.8 2.3 17 LAUZAV Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 25 16.6 4.3 18 MICPED Microtendipes cf. pedellus 22 13.8 5.3 19 PARVAR Parachironomus cf. varus 46 30.2 11.2 20 PARALB Paratendipes cf. albimanus 2 2.0 2.9 21 POLYPE Polypedilum sp. 35 23.4 7.3 22 PNUBIF Polypedilum cf. nubifer 10 6.3 4.1 23 PNUBEC Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum 41 27.0 5.9 24 SERGEN Sergentia 15 8.0 13.1 25 CLADOA Cladotanytarsus group A 10 8.1 2.6 26 CLADOM Cladotanytarsus mancus group 15 4.1 26.0 27 MTRACT Micropsectra cf. contracta 4 2.2 9.7 28 MICINS Micropsectra cf. insignilobus 16 3.2 27.2 29 PARATN Paratanytarsus sp. 32 14.6 13.6 30 PARPEN Paratanytarsus cf. penicillatus 24 12.6 11.1 31 PSEUDO Pseudochironomus 30 16.1 9.2 118 Table 2.18. (Continued) Numeric Taxon Taxon Name N Hill's Max code code N2 32 TANYNS Tanytarsus s. lat. (No spur) 57 34.5 30.8 33 TANYTS Tanytarsus s. lat. (Spur) 33 12.4 18.8 34 TGLABR Tanytarsus cf. glabrescens 20 6.8 26.3 35 TLUGEN Tanytarsus cf. lugens 5 3.1 15.3 36 TPALLD Tanytarsus cf. pallidicornis 12 9.7 2.3 37 TMENDX Tanytarsus cf. mendax (sp. B) 37 23.9 7.3 38 TNEMER Tanytarsus cf. nemerosus 9 4.7 4.0 39 CORYTH Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 42 22.3 16.2 40 CRICOT Cricotopus sp. 34 10.6 22.4 41 CRISOC Cricotopus (Isocladius) 10 7.8 3.6 42 CRILAR Cricotopus cf. laricomalis 6 4.1 3.3 43 HTRGRI Heterotrissocladius cf. grimshawi 5 1.8 11.7 44 LYMNOP Lymnophes 21 12.4 3.6 45 LYMPAR Lymnophyes/Paralymnophyes 20 12.4 2.6 46 NANOBR Nanocladius cf. branchicolus 32 13.9 12.2 47 PARAKA Parakiefferiella type A 12 7.3 3.1 48 PARAKB Parakiefferiella type B 15 9.2 3.7 49 PSECMO Psectrocladius (Monopsectrocladius) 17 10.4 2.9 50 PSECPO Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) 46 32.9 13.3 51 SYNORT Synorthocladius 8 5.8 3.5 52 UNNIEL Unniella 3 2.3 5.9 53 ZALUTS Zalutschia sp. 20 9.3 11.9 54 ZALUTZ Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola 25 13.8 14.6 55 ABLABE Ablabesmyia 45 32.1 13.6 56 GUTTIP Guttipelopia 19 13.2 5.1 57 LABRUN Labrundinia 41 15.8 29.4 58 MACROI Tribe Macropelopini 53 29.6 24.3 59 PENTAN Tribe Pentaneurini 55 39.0 15.3 60 PROCLD Procladius 36 27.1 5.6 61 BEZZIA Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 37 25.8 4.4 62 CHAOBU Chaoboridae, Chaoborus sp. 17 5.1 10.7 63 CHAOBS Chaoboridae, Chaoborus (Sayomyia) 35 10.2 23.5 119 Table 2.19. Constrained RDA eigenvalues (X), eigenvalue ratios (A.1A.2), and significance levels (P) associated with the 14 environmental variables assessed in conjunction with untransformed a) chironomid-only data and b) total midge data for combined polymictic + stratified analyses. Environmental variables are arranged in descending order of eigenvalue ratio (XiA.2). a) b) X,i X2 X,iA,2 P h %2 XjA,2 P Alk 0.059 0.137 0.431 0.001 Alk 0.059 0.140 0.421 0.001 pH 0.054 0.135 0.400 0.001 Cond 0.053 0.140 0.379 0.001 Cond 0.054 0.136 0.397 0.001 pH 0.052 0.139 0.374 0.001 Zmax 0.042 0.132 0.318 0.001 Zmax 0.043 0.136 0.316 0.002 TP 0.038 0.138 0.275 0.006 TP 0.040 0.143 0.280 0.006 SA 0.038 0.146 0.260 0.008 AvgBot O2 0.035 0.137 0.255 0.018 AvgBot O2 0.033 0.134 0.246 0.012 SA 0.038 0.151 0.252 0.005 BotT 0.030 0.140 0.214 0.050 TDN/TKN 0.035 0.150 0.233 0.012 NO2NO3 0.031 0.145 0.214 0.036 BotT 0.031 0.143 0.217 0.038 TDN/TKN 0.031 0.145 0.214 0.033 NO2NO3 0.030 0.150 0.200 0.045 Zsd 0.026 0.147 0.177 0.081 Zsd 0.027 0.151 0.179 0.080 Chi a 0.022 0.146 0.151 0.225 Chi a 0.023 0.151 0.152 0.195 EpiT 0.018 0.147 0.122 0.439 EpiT 0.018 0.151 0.119 0.460 NH4 0.016 0.143 0.112 0.592 NH4 0.015 0.148 0.101 0.703 120 Table 2.20. Canonical coefficients of the first two RDA axes of significant forward selected variables, their /-values, and interset correlations from combined polymictic + stratified analyses with untransformed a) Chironomid-only and b) Total Midge data. a) Canonical Coefficients /-values Interset Correlations Environmental Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 variable A!k -0.542 0.372 -4.297 2.137 -0.606 0.248 ZMAX 0.627 0.288 3.990 1.330 0.373 0.394 TP -0.488 -0.254 -3.768 -1.421 -0.382 0.077 SA -0.226 0.621 -1.492 2.971 -0.063 0.535 NO2NO3 0.113 0.379 0.940 2.282 0.157 0.405 b) Canonical Coefficients /-values Interset Correlations Environmental ^xjs j Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 1 Axis 2 variable Alk -0.530 0.448 -4.073 2.476 -0.588 0.257 ^MAXz 0.656 0.542 4.017 2.383 0.337 0.452 TP -0.529 -0.226 -3.891 -1.195 -0.382 0.118 SA -0.262 0.410 -1.652 1.857 -0.109 0.488 NO2NO3 0.078 0.328 0.621 1.886 0.119 0.379 121 Table 2.21. Constrained RDA eigenvalues (A4A.2) compared to Partial RDA eigenvalues (X,A.2) for the five significant forward selected variables in polymictic-only analyses using untransformed a) Chironomid-only and b) Total Midge datsets. The covariables used in Partial RDA are given for each individual variable. The significance level (?) for each variable is also given (threshold P < 0.05). Variable Constrained P Partial P Covariables RDA A.I/A.2 RDA X\/X.2 1.) Alk 0.431 0.001 0.425 0.001 Zmax, TP, SA,N02-N03 0.001 0.377 Alk, SA, Zmax 0.318 0.002 TP, N02-N03 TP 0.275 0.006 0.349 0.004 Alk, Zmax, SA, NO2-NO3 SA 0.260 0.008 0.330 0.006 Alk, Zmax, TP, NO2-NO3 NO2-NO3 0.214 0.036 0.226 0.054 Alk, Zmax, TP, SA b.) Alk 0.421 0.001 0.430 0.001 Zmax, TP, SA, NO2-NO3 ^max7 0.316 0.002 0.411 0.001 Alk, TP, SA, NO2-NO3 TP 0.280 0.006 0.364 0.001 Alk, Zmax, SA,N02-N03 SA 0.252 0.005 0.318 0.005 Alk, Zmax, TP, NO2-NO3 NO2-NO3 0.200 0.045 0.243 0.062 Alk, Zmax, TP, SA 122 Table 2.22. Generalized Linear Models (using a linear trend and a normal probability distribution) indicating midge taxa having significantly positive or negative linear relationships (P < 0.05) to select significantly constrained environmental gradients in combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY sites. Taxon codes are given in Table 2.18. Only taxa with a significant relationship with at least one variable are listed. denotes no significant relationship observed with a specific variable. Alk SA TP NO;NO, AvgBot P2 positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative positive negative ABLABE 0.032 0.031 CHAOBS 0.029 0.004 CHIRAN 0.004 0.009 CHIRS1 0.001 0.036 0.004 CLADOP 0.011 0.016 CORYTH 0.012 DICNER 0.008 0.037 GLYPAL 0.007 LABRUN 0.015 0.006 MACROI 0.015 0.028 0.00005 PARATN 0.021 0.027 PENTAN 0.0001 0.002 PNUBEC 0.033 0.048 POLYPE 0.026 PROCLD 0.017 0.021 0.039 PSECPO 0.006 0.042 TANYNS 0.004 TANYTS 0.005 0.043 TGLABR 0.022 0.005 TMENDX 0.004 0.034 0.013 ZALUTZ 0.001 123 44* VT OTI SIL OWA MA 42* 42* CT PA 40' 40' MD -74* km re.TllanmAii raaoaigal 0WC-»rtnW«lnill Q 50 100 Figure 2.1a. A map of the northeastern United States showing all 61 lakes sampled in New Jersey and New York State between 1996 and 2007 during ice-free months (late March to mid October). The asterisk (*) denotes the capital of New Jersey, Trenton. Site names and codes are given in Table 2.1. 124 WJIBamaAcr wateael ©*C-l»rtnW.lrW1 Figure 2.1b. A map of the boxed portion from figure 2.1a, identifying the 49 sampled sites of New Jersey and the 3 most southeastern lake sites from New York State. Site names and codes are given in Table 2.1. 125 SAMPLES o o Stratified • Transitional o • Polymictic °o • • o • • • • B D DD • ••• • H • O ••In O dp • 0 Invlog (x+1) Z max Figure 2.2. An X-Y plot showing PCA Axis 1 sample scores of the 59 NJ/NY lake sites plotted against the maximum depth (Zmax) of each lake. 126 1*NUBIF ENDALB CLADOM * PSEUDO PNUBEC • CORYTH * PARVAR ox LABRUN PSECPO. CRICOT Figure 2.3. A DCA biplot showing the community composition of aquatic midge taxa having greater than 2% abundances in at least 2 lakes for 11 stratified-only NJ/NY lakes. 127 © Zmax TDN/TKN \J^BotT r\ i UMG N -10 PCA Axis 1 (27.0%) 10 Figure 2.4. A PCA biplot showing the relationship between 14 environmental variables and the 48 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes used in analyses. The names of environmental variables can be found in Table 2.2, while the code for each sample site is found in Table 2.1. 128 TLUGEN CLADOM PARAT^ MACROI TANYNS TGLABR LAUZAV GUTTIP DICNOT * PROCLD CRYCHR ® GT YPAI CHAOBU ENDALB PNUBEC #CLADOP TANYTS# PSEU0O ~ \CRIS0C »PENTAN #CHIRAN CFPLU4 • # •TMENDX CHIRON ABLAB •ZALUTS CRYTEN •#CHIRS1 M. - Dl^ROT VEINNAT CRILAR MICINSjDICNER J POL KNANOBR CHAOBS PARPEN % • MICPED •SERGEN LABRUN PSECPO BEZZIA ^CHIRPL PARVAR < CRICOT UNNIEL >CORYTH • LYMNOP ZALUTZ •pARALB DCA Axis 1 (23.9%) Figiire 2.5. A DCA biplot showing the community composition of aquatic midge taxa having greater than 2% abundances in at least 2 lakes for 47 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes. 129 O LNG LWR ° £ CLT ° MTQ MIS o CBD VTM 0 TNT FAR O M O O , BRS ^CES 0 JDY FED u °ooO BENGRN BRD r|EL SJ^SA o SHD CE6 \ DEN jDUCr^oIDO o TP RRPR CT O // O ~ r £v TPR MUK PEA/P C17 ACI O LBY CPB CHE MSop K Zmax DEL O / /CPR CRY MLH Q 0 UMH ° FLA JMG 0 O / / ° 1 / / O LKA / /JPG BOW AIk pH O RDA Axis 1 (8.7%) Figure 2.6a. An RDA biplot of sample scores of subfossil midge assemblages in 47 shallow, polymictic NJ/NY lake sites and significant forward selected variables. 130 SERGEN CHIRAN ZALUTZ ZALUTS UNNIEL CHAOBU < CRYCHR LYMNOP TMENDX CHAOBS CRYTEN CHIRO TANYNS NANOBR CRISOC DICROT PSECPO ABLABE CLADOP, CRICOT CORYTH ROCLD LABRUN PARALB SPOLYPE ED PSEUDO CHIRSI EN PNUBEC# * EINNATf LAU GUTTIP BEZZI^ CHIRR DICNER RDA Axis 1 (8.7%) Figure 2.6b. An RDA biplot of species scores of 50 subfossil midge taxa in 47 shallow, polymictic NJ/NY lakes and significant (P < 0.05) forward selected variables. 131 • • • X 0 * 0 nx X X • • • 0 • • * xo * • 1 .(9 o 0 • SAMPLES Xn» 0* Ridge and Valley °o° • 0 • Highlands X Piedmont • • Inner Coastal Plain 0 Outer Coastal Plain -1.5 CA Axis 1 (23.9%) 2.0 Figure 2.7. A CA biplot of 47 shallow, polymictic NJ/NY lakes grouped according to a level III ecoregion classification of the northeastern U.S. A (Omernik 1987). 132 % Relative Abundance Figure 2.8. Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 47 NJ/NY lakes, arranged from top to bottom according to increasing alkalinity concentration. 133 • 5 AV J? •c° XO if & ic* i." ^ s V / .<>: .f J' ,/ ,/,/ A1 //,&V. v/ / \0 A*° 6* s^'N «A ^ Js »" //./ J" J* >«• cV*y ^ ;4> ^ ^ u s /A/y/y/vvsj<^- Af Af' ffj*/^ I I I I ~ 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 200 200 200 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 % Relative Abundance Figure 2.9. Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 47 NJ/NY lakes, arranged from top to bottom according to increasing productivity (TP) level. 134 / J? <$ .^r . ftC^ v& cv>& i i / * Jf jk* .&* / •. / ^ / J ./ & V*- X s y >* ^ J* A C17- BRS- DEN- UMH- LWR- 2 LBBEN-WER .TS TNTTNT - CPR-CPRBS SAG- DEL- CE6- GRN-FAR- GWD- ACI- 1 r 1 I " 1 1 1 I—I—!—*—! 0 20 40 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 40 % Relative Abundance Figure 2.10. Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 47 NJ/NY lakes, arranged from top to bottom according to increasing depth (Zmax). 135 xO oN VO 0 UMH 0 DEN oo O KES MUK O VTM o BOW BRS -1.5 RDA Axis 1 (6.3%) 1.0 Figure 2.1 la. A RDA biplot of sample scores of subfossil midge assemblages in 35 shallow NJ/NY lakes (for which percent macrophyte cover data was available) and significant forward selected variables. 136 D1CNER PSECPO CHIRPL • EINNAT CHIRS1 TANYNS TMENDX PARVAR PSEUDO ABLABE CHIRON GUTT PENTAN ZALUTS TANYTS # aZALUTZ 9 TGL 1 CHAOBU CORYTH MACROI >UNNIEL CRILAR^™'- BEZZM PROCLD :RICOT CLADOJ Alk CHIRAN PARATN CRYCHR ILYPE SERGEN NANOBR CPED PNUBEC -1.2 RDA Axis 1 (6.3%) 0.6 Figure 2.1 lb. An RDA biplot of species scores of 45 subfossil midge taxa in 35 shallow NJ/NY lakes, for which percent macrophyte cover data was available, and significant forward selected variables. 137 $ /y y 1 oS J, J > 0>K- /*^ tvr^ // .0Js ,AJs / * * ^ SSf / /////A.// & rV" O^ 0<* > <5/V ^yy ^y %*yy \9 jjV Xy % Relative Abundance Figure 2.12. Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right according to decreasing PC A axis 2 scores, for 35 NJ/NY lakes, arranged from top to bottom according to decreasing % macrophyte cover (%Cover). 138 a GRN ° 0 UNI LFRO O Zmax BotT 2-N03 HEM COS ECHO O ^Q1 0WAO OBRD OTIq CHE QS TDN/TKN PCA Axis 1 (31.1%) Figure 2.13. A PCA biplot showing the relationship between 14 environmental variables and the 59 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes used in analyses. 139 31 o 50 FVP 48 (TOO OWA O 28 5 -3 P^43 o 25 O 27 34 o 26 20 -0.5 DCA Axis 1 (26.3%) 3.5 Figure 2.14. A DCA biplot showing the relative position (in ordination space) of Owasco Lake (OWA) in relation to other NJ/NY lake sites used in combined polymictic + stratified analyses based on midge assemblages (prior to its removal from analyses). Lake names associated with each numeric code are listed in Table 2.1. 140 0 TLUGEN CLADOM TGLABR ENDALB PNUBIF _ GLYSEV CR1LAR CFPLU Z \RAKA P:;EUDO JCLADOA •• 1 • PARAKB LYMPAR TANYTS • • PNUBEC # •CRYTEN PARATN BEZZIA A LAUZAV# • #GLYPAL CHAOBS IfARVAR# CORYTH ^CRISOC MICIN - _ # DICNER #D1CN0T • • POLYPE •NANOBR PENTAN • •MACROI TANYNS 0 rpvrHR r.iGUT IT TIP #w • ^ivv^iDICROT CLADOPq ••CHIRSI ABLJABE # TPALLD # MICPED o 0 HIRPL 'EINDIS PARPi 5N TNEMER CRJCOT - «CHIRAN PSECMOfr PSECPO eEINNAT- CHAOBU TMENDX SYNORT # w CHIRON LABRUN • LYMNOP PARALB ZlALUTZ MTRACT HTRGRI ZALUTS SERGEN UNNIEL -2 DCA Axis 1 (25.0%) Figure 2.15. A DCA biplot showing the community composition of aquatic midge taxa having greater than 2% abundances in at least 2 lakes for 55 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes. 141 Zmax N02-N03 DEN O STY BRS O O ^ O FLA GDN°0 MEC °SHD O CPB OMLH SAGO BRD CLT O Q IDO 0 MIS CPROQ GWD Figure 2.16a. An RDA biplot of sample scores of subfossil midge assemblages in 55 shallow and deep NJ/NY lake sites and significant forward selected variables. 142 oo o SA Zmax N02-N03 CRILAR Alk X° TANYTS 0s TGLABR# CO PARATN Figure 2.16b. An RDA biplot of species scores of 63 subfossil midge taxa in 55 shallow and deep NJ/NY lakes and significant forward selected variables. Taxon numeric codes are found in Table 2.18. 143 % Relative Abundance Figure 2.17. Relative abundances of midge taxa, arranged from left to right according to decreasing PCA axis 1 scores, for 55 NJ/NY lakes, arranged from top to bottom according to decreasing alkalinity concentration. 144 Chapter 3 Development and application of midge-inference models to track iimnological changes in New Jersey and New York (U.S.A.) lakes Introduction Nutrient- [phosphorus (TP) and nitrogen (NO2-NO3)] and ionic-related [alkalinity (Alk) and pH] characteristics of freshwater lakes may be determined by natural, geochemical processes, but their dynamics are also influenced by anthropogenic activities within a watershed. Human-induced changes in land-use (farming and/or residential developments) promote the increase of nutrients or base cations via groundwater leaching, stream runoff, or direct inputs (Prowse 1987, Downing and McCauley 1992). This cultural eutrophication is linked to many of the unfavourable water quality conditions lake managers attempt to understand in order to protect or rehabilitate state-wide lakes from deterioration. Across New Jersey and New York State lakes (NJ/NY), chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae) and other midge taxa (Chaoboridae) are important indicators for nutrient-related (TP and NO2- NO3) and ionic-related (Alk and pH) water quality conditions, as they are sensitive to changes in these variables. Nutrient-related changes to midge communities are indirect, as midge taxa do not physiologically respond directly to TP or NO2-NO3. Instead, these trophic state variables induce changes in midge assemblages indirectly via biotic response to changes in algal biomass (food supply) and aquatic plant growth (habitat), and subsequent water quality changes (e.g. depletion of hypolimnetic oxygen) (Brodersen and Quinlan 2006). In contrast, midge assemblages respond to ionic-related changes through both direct and indirect processes. Midge physiological features (such as the anal papillae) 145 control the influx/efflux of ions and other important elements, which balance invertebrate hemolymph concentrations (Nguyen and Donini 2010). However, changes in the amount of carbonate or hydrogen ions available to the surrounding environment may alter aquatic plant composition (abundance and species type) and algal types (Vestergaard and Sand- Jensen 2000), which may also affect midge community dynamics. Once species-environment relationships of midge taxa with key environmental gradients have been identified using multivariate analyses (Chapter 2), and verified using a training set approach (Smol 2008), the examination of midge assemblages in sediment stratigraphies may provide information on past water quality conditions. Paleolimnological inferences of past midge composition assesses the natural variability of environmental conditions in lakes and their long-term response to human stressors. Developing paleoecological inference models of nutrient- or ionic-related water quality variables using midge assemblages may provide a new tool to assess long-term response of NJ/NY lakes to human-induced changes, such as agricultural runoff from nearby farms or septic tank malfunction from near-shore residential properties. Objectives In this chapter, a key objective was to develop ecological inference models using midges from NJ/NY sample sites to infer past TP, NO2-NO3, Alk and pH water quality conditions. Assessments of broad-scale or site-specific water quality trends from past to present will be performed using the top-bottom approach (Smol 2008) and through a detailed stratigraphic analysis of sediment cores. As discussed in chapter 2, constrained ordinations of combined polymictic + stratified (« = 55) NJ/NY lakes identified AvgBot O2 as an important 146 ecological parameter but was not selected for as explaining the most variation in the species dataset. However, bottom water oxygen conditions are known to play a role in governing the distribution of larval midges (Quinlan and Smol 2001a, Wissel et al. 2003, Luoto and Salonen 2010). Therefore, a previously developed volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen (VWHO) model (Quinlan and Smol 2001a) was applied to NJ/NY samples to assess historic levels in oxygen conditions. Although many of these NJ/NY lakes are polymictic, VWHO interpretations were performed with careful assessment of the reliability of these inferences. While polymictic lakes often experience well-oxygenated bottom waters, these highly variable aquatic systems are also prone to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen, as a result of diurnal changes (nighttime hypoxia) over a particular season (Kornijow and Moss 2002) or winter ice cover causing hypoxic or anoxic conditions, which carries over to following seasons (Mathias and Barica 1980). Site description The lakes used for paleolimnological assessments in this study are located throughout New Jersey and New York State (NJ/NY), spanning 39-43°N latitude and 73-78°W longitude (Figure 3.1, Table 2.1). Both states experience a humid, continental climate, with warm or hot summers and cold winters. Historically, land clearance and logging activities began as early as 1775 in the NY region (Meinig 1966). In the early 19th century, deforestation to create farmland became more prominent as advances in technology and transportation resulted in the large-scale commercialization of agricultural goods. Coinciding with this time, many small-scale manufacturers were established in locations able to generate water power for various forms of machinery. By the mid-20th century, NJ's manufacturing sector 147 grew to include large-scale chemical operations, which has resulted in environmental degradation due to discharges of chemical pollutants (Stansfield 1996). The region's agricultural history has also involved the abandonment of farmland and subsequent afforestation in many of areas (Lathrop and Hasse 2006). While changes in the form of land-use across NJ/NY have been widespread over the past four centuries, many watersheds differ in the extent and timing of anthropogenic changes, which may have accelerated eutrophication in many freshwater systems. Detailed stratigraphic analyses were conducted on 3 lakes, Cossayuna Lake, Greenwood Lake and Union Lake, and brief site descriptions for each lake are given below. Cossayuna Lake (SA: 267 ha, Zma*: 7.5 m) is a shallow, polymictic, eutrophic lake in the southern part of Washington County, NY, in the towns of Argyle and Greenwich. The hamlet of Cossayuna lies at the southern part of the lake. Today, the Cossayuna Lake watershed basin is comprised mainly of regenerated, forested land area (66%), while other important forms of land-use include agriculture (23%; hay and pasture, and cropland) (NY DEC 2008). The lakeshore is dominated by summer cottages. This lake has abundant warm-water fish, including tiger muskie (Esox masquinongy x lucius), northern pike (Esox lucius), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), brown bullheads (Ameiurus nebulosus), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.). Greenwood Lake (SA = 111 ha, Zmax = 17 m) is on the border between NJ and NY States (Figure 3.1). The main fish species found in the lake include largemouth bass (M salmoides), smallmouth bass {Micropterus dolomieu), muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), chain pickerel (Esox niger), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and various panfish (Centrarchidae spp.). Recreational activity dominates Greenwood Lake's watershed, both in the winter 148 and summer months. Independently owned cottages are prominent around the periphery of the lake, constructed with individual septic systems. As well, six sewage treatment plants are located in the Greenwood Lake watershed and all discharged directly into its tributaries (pers. comm. M. Enache, ANSP). These treatment plants are relatively small, and currently have phosphorus treatment methods including the addition of chemicals, aluminum or iron chloride (FeCh) (NJ DEP 2004). The majority of the Greenwood Lake watershed basin is covered by regenerated, forested land (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest types), which is followed by low- and high-density residential areas. The third sample core is from Union Lake (SA: 350 ha; Zmax = 8.2 m), which is a large artificial lake in Cumberland County, southern NJ, in the town of Millville. Its development in 1865 to 1869 was the result of a need for more hydropower to maintain machinery of the Millville Manufacturing Company, which could not be attained by the Maurice River itself. Post-1992 fish surveys indicated that, following the development of a fish ladder for more species to access the impoundment, main fish species of the lake included gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and largemouth (M salmoides) and smallmouth bass (M dolomieu). Stocking efforts to maintain smallmouth bass populations has occurred since the early 1900's, and today, smallmouth bass reproduce naturally in the lake (Carberry 2002). Apart from concerns over the effects of eutrophication to Union Lake, chemical pollution, in the form of released arsenic to surface water, is also of concern within Union Lake's Watershed Management Area. During 1950-1994, the Vineland Chemical Company manufactured arsenic-based herbicides and, prior to 1977, stored by-product arsenic salts in open piles and chicken coops. This caused contamination of surface and 149 subsurface soils, groundwater, and the nearby Blackwater Branch, which feeds into the Maurice River and downstream to Union Lake (US EPA 2010). As a result, the sedimentary basin of Union Lake is considered a major sink of arsenic contamination. Materials and methods Sediment collection and dating analysis The collection of lake sediments from NJ/NY lakes took place between 1997 and 2007 during ice-free months (late March to mid October) as described in Chapter 2. Sediment cores were taken from the deepest part of the basin using a modified K-B corer (Glew 1989) and extruded in the field using a Glew (1988) extruder. Sediment was sectioned at 0.5 or 1 cm intervals down to 10 cm, after which sectioning was at 1 or 2 cm intervals. Sediment samples were placed into Whirl-Pak® bags, shipped on ice and stored at ~4°C. Sediment samples for the New York Finger Lakes were taken between 1997 and 1998 using a modified Wildco Box corer (model # 191-A15). Three sites, Cossayuna Lake (COS), Greenwood Lake (GWD), and Union Lake (UNI) had complete cores analyzed and fourteen lakes (CAN, CON, DEL, DUC, GRN, HEM, JPG, MUC, OSC, OTI, OWA, PEA, SIL, and WAC) had only top and bottom sediment samples analyzed to assess historic patterns of ecosystem change in the select lakes. The three stratigraphic cores were radiometrically dated using 210Pb and 137Cs to generate corresponding dates. Chronologies were calculated by interpolating constant rate of supply (CRS) modeled dates for estimated intervals between actual intervals collected (Binford 1990). Sediment intervals beyond the time frame of reliable radiometric dating using 210Pb (approximately greater than 150 years in age) were dated by extrapolation using 150 the cores' estimated sedimentation rate (yrs cm"1) at the bottom of the core section that can be reliably dated using 210Pb. Top and bottom sediment samples were not radiometrically dated, however, based on radiometric dating results from other paleolimnological research in the northeastern U.S.A. (Dixit et al. 1999) it is reasonable to assume that bottom samples (> 30 cm) represent pre-industrial conditions across NJ/NY. Associated lake names, codes, and core intervals are given in Appendix A: Table A2. Laboratory methods Sediment subsamples (-0.5-1 g dry weight, ~5-10 g wet weight) were sieved using a nested series of 212 (im and 106 jam stainless steel sieve meshes. The residue that remained within sieves was washed using distilled water, dehydrated using 95% ethanol and backwashed with ethanol into scintillation vials. Individual chironomid head capsules, ceratopogonid head capsules and chaoborid mandibles were picked from sediment subsamples using a Nikon SMZ 1500 stereo microscope at 30-80x magnification. A minimum of 40-50 head capsules are needed to assess species assemblages in relation to environmental variables for use in a NJ/NY surface-sediment training set (Quinlan and Smol 2001b). For intervals with low head capsule numbers, additional sediment was processed for the interval until a sufficient number of specimens were collected. If a sufficient number of subfossil remains was still not found and all sediment for the interval was exhausted, sediment subsamples from an adjacent interval were sieved and the total sum from the two intervals were used for statistical analyses. Additional subsamples were required for five lakes; CAN, DEL, GWD, HEM, and UNI, after which a sufficient number of head capsules were collected. Two chaoborid mandibles were considered one 151 individual. All subfossil head capsules and mandibles were mounted onto glass microscope slides using the medium Entellan® (Refractive Index = 1.49-1.50). Invertebrate remains were identified using a Leica CME compound microscope at 40-100x magnification. Identification was made to the lowest taxonomic level possible using Oliver and Roussel (1983), Weiderholm (1983), Walker (1988), Uutala (1990), Epler (2001), Rieradevall and Brooks (2001), and Brooks et al. (2007). Model development and application Partial Detrended Canonical Correspondence Analysis (pDCCA) was used to assess the gradient lengths given by each environmental variable of interest with respect to the surface sediment (0.0 - 0.5 or 1.0 cm) midge assemblage composition of the lakeset ("training set" of lakes), where these surface sediment subfossil assemblages represent modern, present- day midge assemblages (Smol 2008). If DCCA gradient lengths were < 2 standard deviation units (SD), linear-based modeling techniques to develop an inference model from the training set are more appropriate (Partial Least Squares regression or PLS), while DCCA gradient lengths > 2 SD indicate that unimodal based modeling techniques (Weighted Averaging and Weighted Averaging Partial Least Squares regression or WA and WA-PLS, respectively) are more appropriate (Birks 1998). Additionally, inference models were developed using modern analogue technique (MAT/WMAT), as this approach does not assume a specific species response criteria (Overpeck et al. 1985). All inference models were developed using the program C2 version 1.5 (Juggins 2003) with both untransformed and square root transformed species data (Chironomid-only and Total Midge). The strength of various models was assessed using leave-one-out (jackknifing) 152 cross validation (Birks 1998). Inference model performance statistics were used to verify the minimal adequate model used for reconstructions including predictive error (Root Mean Square Error of Prediction; RMSEP), jack-knifed coefficient of determination (r^ack)), and maximum bias. 'Best' regression models attempted to exhibit low RMSEP and low maximum bias. For MAT, model results from a range of number of closest analogues (k = 1,2 ... 10) were compared to determine an optimal number of closest analogues to use in inference models. Closest analogues were assessed using a squared chord distance dissimilarity coefficient. Goodness-of-fit tests were performed using partial RDA, with each RDA constrained to either Alk, TP, pH, or NO2-NO3, respectively. The squared residual length (SRL) of sample scores relative to the single canonical axis in a constrained RDA were used to calculate the upper 95% confidence limit (C.L.), and samples with a score outside this 95% C.L. were identified as having a very poor fit-to-axis. Training set inference models were developed with and without these fit-to-axis 'outliers'. If the inference models excluding outliers decreased RMSEP by at least 5%, the outlier-model was retained. In general, a reduction of at least 5% in model RMSEP was the criteria used to decide whether or not certain models were better suited for reconstructions (with vs. without 'outliers', square root vs. untransformed Chironomid-Only or Total Midge data, and polymictic-only vs. polymictic + stratified datasets). Inferred vs. observed values were plotted to compare the relationship strength of various inference models. Also, a comparison of the residuals (predicted-observed) plotted against observed values was used to visualize the bias given by the chosen models. 153 The 'best' NJ/NY models were applied down core to fossil samples from Cossayuna Lake, Greenwood Lake, and Union Lake, to reveal historic patterns of change in environmental conditions. These models were also applied to fourteen lakes using a 'top- bottom' approach. For these regional assessments, changes in environmental condition (difference between top - bottom) in excess of the RMSEP of the model were considered to be significant. Application of a previously published VWHO model (Quinlan and Smol 2001a) to the three sediment cores and fourteen top and bottom samples exhibiting either polymictic and/or stratified mixing regimes was done to indicate changes in historic freshwater oxygen conditions. The parameter VWHO is beneficial to lake management initiatives as it allows the use of a single value to compare oxygen conditions between lakes, making it easily interpretable/usable by lake managers (Clark et al. 2004). VWHO reconstructions involved merging NJ/NY chironomid taxa according to criteria set by Quinlan and Smol (2001a) to maintain taxonomic harmonization. Patterns of changes in hypolimnetic oxygen conditions were also inferred through changes in a CHAOB:CHIR ratio, an index of hypolimnetic oxygen status (Quinlan and Smol 2010). The CHAOB:CHIR ratio represents the abundance of subfossil Chaoborus mandibles in relation to the abundance of subfossil Chironomidae head capsules through the equation: CHAOB:CHIR = (# of chaob mandibles/2)/ ((# of chaob mandibles/2) + (# of chir head capsules) (equation 3.1) This metric is a proxy index of the relationship of chaoborids to their hypolimnetic habitat, often subjected to hypoxic or anoxic conditions (Quinlan and Smol 2010). As 154 Chaoborus individuals have been shown to be better adapted to prolonged anoxia than many tolerant chironomid taxa, an increase of subfossil Chaoborus mandibles (and subsequently of the CHAOB:CHIR ratio) may indicate periods of severe oxygen depletion. Reconstruction diagnostics Spatial autocorrelation is known to affect the reliability of statistical models by over-fitting the estimates of cross-validated models, which causes ecologically irrelevant variables to be modeled and inappropriately optimistic models to be chosen (Telford and Brooks 2009). For this reason, a series of Mantel Tests were performed to assess if training set samples were spatially independent of one another, by comparing the correlational strength between two matrices: the inferred values, measured in Mahalanobis distance, compared to the geographic distance between sample sites, calculated with respect to the WGS84 ellipsoid. Mantel Tests were performed using the software program PAST version 2.0 (Hammer et al. 2001), with the null hypothesis being that inference model estimates are not correlated to one another given one lake sample position to another (P > 0.05). In terms of the reliability of reconstructions, reconstruction diagnostics included evaluating the percentage of fossil samples consisting of taxa also found in the modern training set. If a large percentage of fossil taxa are found to be absent in the modern training set data, or occur in percentages beyond the maximum % found in the training set, model inferences may be poorly estimated and bring about inflated errors in predictive strength (Birks 1998). Secondly, the correlational strength between PCA sample scores and inferred modeled values was used to indicate whether the community composition of midge assemblages in the sediment cores or T-B assessments closely reflected major changes in inferred values of the environmental 155 variables of interest. PCAs were assessed using unmanipulated midge taxa from all intervals from Cossayuna Lake, Greenwood Lake, Union Lake, or the top-bottom samples, where each stratigraphy had its own PC A calculated and T-B intervals had the correlation between the change in sample scores (top minus bottom) compared to the change in inferred values assessed. Thirdly, the goodness-of-fit of predicted values from the fossil samples to the modern calibration set was assessed (Birks 1998). Via a partial RDA constrained solely to the explanatory variable in the inference model and using only inference model taxa, fossil assemblages were plotted passively in the ordination. Using the distribution of SRLs from modern training set lakes, the upper 90% and 95% C.L. of SRLs was calculated. Fossil samples with a SRL beyond the 10% extreme of the modern training set SRLs have a poor fit to axis, while those in the 5% extreme of SRL have a very poor fit to axis. The final reconstruction diagnostic performed was analogue matching, where fossil samples were compared to the modern samples. Analogue matching was performed using the program ANALOG vl.6 (Line and Birks, unpublished program). Following Laird et al. (1998), a distribution of minimum dissimilarity coefficients were generated using modern samples, from which confidence intervals were calculated at the 75%, 90%, and 95% level. Fossil sample dissimilarity coefficients which fall within the 25% extreme of the modern distribution had a 'poor analogue', within the 10% extreme had a 'very poor analogue', and within the 5% extreme had 'no analogue'. Those fossil samples which had a good analogue (< 75% C.L) were more likely to produce reliable inferences from a modem training set, in contrast to those having poor, very poor, or no analogue situations (Birks 1998). 156 Stratigraphy plots of subfossil midge assemblages were produced in C2 v.l .6.7 (Juggins 2003) for all 3 core stratigraphies. In addition, the trajectory of changes in midge community composition in ordination space between the tops and bottoms of fourteen NJ/NY lakes was expressed using a PCA where modern assemblage data were active and bottom fossil assemblage data were ordinated passively. Results Inference model development using NJ/NY lakes Partial DCCAs solely constrained to Alk, TP, pH, or NO2-NO3 all had axis 1 and 2 gradient lengths < 2 SD, suggesting that linear-based inference models were more appropriate for reconstructions using square root transformed species data. Using untransformed species data, the same is true except constrained DCCAs had axis 2 gradient lengths > 2 SD. Therefore, both linear- and unimodal-based inference techniques were evaluated for untransformed species data. The 'best' regression models are highlighted in Appendix C (Tables CI - C4) for each of these scenarios. Model performance statistics varied with respect to model technique. Most PLS models outperformed equivalent MAT/WMAT models, which often showed inflated bias statistics (Birks 1998). In scenarios where unimodal methods were also used to develop NJ/NY models, either PLS or WA(,0i) with classical deshrinking performed poorest having increased RMSEP estimates compared to the other models, similar to other paleolimnological research (Olander et al. 1999, Quinlan and Smol 2001a). Models using square root transformed species data had better performance results than those using untransformed data, reducing the noise associated with species data (Prentice 1980). 157 Similarly, using Chironomid-Only species data rather than incorporating other midge taxa (ceratopogonids or chaoborids) into models, gave better performance results. However, in both cases nearly half of the models (including those 'best' models selected) showed an increase or decrease of RMSEP and maximum bias of < 5%, indicating that predictive error or bias was not substantively different (Birks 1998) amongst different data transformations and amount of midge data retained. Therefore, following a 'minimal adequate model' approach, which involves retaining statistically equivalent models with the least data transformation and manipulation, 'best' models with untransformed, Total Midge data were retained. The combined polymictic + stratified lake dataset was used to develop models for Alk, TP, and NO2NO3. The polymictic-only dataset was used to develop the pH model, as this variable was forward selected when using untransformed, total midge data in RDA, but not in the expanded 59-lake set. Sample sites having very poor fit-to-axis were removed from each scenario prior to model development and comparisons between models developed with or without these 'outlier' sites were made. For pH, four sites (CPR, LBY, MUK, and COS) exhibited a very poor fit-to-axis. Removal of these outliers resulted in an increase in RMSEP and bias. Therefore, the minimal adequate model used for pH reconstructions, WA - inverse deshrinking, included the full 48 polymictic sites. For Alk, four sites (MUK, CAN, HEM, and OWA) had a very poor fit-to-axis. When outliers were removed, five of the eight model types showed a decrease in predictive error by > 5%, including the 'best' regression model selected. Therefore, the reduced 55 NJ/NY combined polymictic + stratified dataset was used to reconstruct changes in historic Alk, using a WA model with inverse deshinking. For TP, three sites (MUK, CAN, and OWA) showed a very poor fit-to-axis. 158 The removal of outliers did not favourably change model performance statistics and so the full 59 lake set was used to develop a TP model using a one-component PLS regression. Lastly, for NO2-NO3, only two sites (CAN and HEM) were considered outliers. Although one of the eight models (WA(toi) with classical deshrinking) gave a reduced RMSEP and bias estimate when the outliers were removed, the 'best' regression model chosen was WA(,oi) with inverse deshrinking, which used all 59 lake sites. The strength associated with each model type is different with respect to each NJ/NY environmental variable used for model development (Figure 3.2). While Alk and pH showed moderate associations between observed and predicted values (r2(jack) > 0.40), TP and NO2-NO3 showed weak associations (r^ack) < 0.20). As a result, the TP and NO2- NO3 inference models were not reliable for historic reconstructions. Each selected model also showed substantive bias, with overestimation of low values and underestimation of high values (Figure 3.3). This bias was a result of there being few samples at the ends of the environmental gradient, where species preferences at these 'extreme' conditions cannot be properly inferred (Birks 1998). Mantel tests showed no significant correlation between inferred Alk (r = 0.079, P > 0.1) or pH (r = 0.081, P >0.1) and the physical distance between the NJ/NY lakes. This indicated that spatial autocorrelation does not influence inference model predictive strength for these inference models. NJ/NY historic alkalinity and pH reconstructions The Alk (55 sites) and the pH (48 sites) cross-validated models were both used to reconstruct historic environmental changes in three sediment core lakes (Cossayuna, Greenwood, and Union) and 14 top-bottom NJ/NY lakes. As expected, patterns in historic 159 Alk and pH levels closely tracked one another, with changes in pH being subtle compared to Alk. In terms of the reliability of reconstructions, various methods indicated that inferred Alk and pH values were reliable for historic interpretations in Cossayuna Lake and Union Lake, and somewhat reliable for Greenwood Lake and NJ/NY T-B samples. Sediment samples from all three cores had > 80% of fossil taxa also represented as midge taxa found in the Alk and pH modern calibration sets. Although the majority of T-B samples showed > 80% of sample fossil taxa also represented by the calibration set, certain sites (Canadice, Delaware, Muckshaw Pond, Oscaleta, and Owasco Lakes) had > 20% of fossil taxa not represented in the modern calibration set. For Cossayuna Lake, basal sediments were not dominated by one particular taxon (Figure 3.4). Instead, high abundances of Chironomus cf. anthracinus, Ablabesmyia, Procladius, and Stempellina combined with low abundances of Chironomus cf. plumosus, Chaoborus (Sayomyia), Cladopelma cf. lateralis, Dicrotendipes cf. nervosus, and Tanytarsus (No spur), were observed. Modern sediments (post-1980) were dominated by Chironomus group taxa (20-40%), with higher than historic levels of Chaoborus (Sayomyia), and Parachironomus cf. varus also observed. Macrophyte associated taxa (Glyptotendipes cf. pallens, C. cf. lateralis, and D. cf. nervosus) appear throughout the core, especially in high abundances around 1893 and again between 1962 and 1975. Inferences in basal sediments showed low alkalinity concentrations that progressively increased to higher present-day concentrations (Figure 3.4). Backtransformation of log transformed Alk inferences indicated that natural Alk conditions were moderate (-20 mg L'1). Between 1960 and 2000, Alk levels were fluctuating in a range above that observed historically (-30-40 mg L"1). Present-day Alk concentrations for the core (2002-2006), showed Alk 160 levels continued to increase well beyond natural 'reference' conditions (> 60 mg L'1), with a historically high inference of 70.6 mg L"1 in 2002. A similar trend is observed for pH, as inference estimates changed in a less pronounced way within a neutral pH range of 6-8. Background pH concentrations were inferred to be -6.7, while present day concentrations were neutral at -7.4-7.8. Similar to Alk, the highest predicted value was observed in 2002 at a pH level of 8. A strong correlation was observed between PCA axis 1 sample scores and inferred Alk (r = 0.84) or pH (r = 0.79), while a moderate correlation was observed between PCA axis 2 sample scores and inferred Alk (r = -0.40) or pH (r = -0.55). For both Alk and pH, the two top intervals (1-2 and 2-3 cm) had squared residual lengths greater than the 95% C.L. of the calibration set, suggesting that predictions for these intervals may not be reliable (Appendix C; Table C5, Table C6). For these two intervals, the relative abundances of Chironomus group taxa, C. cf. plumosus (42%) and C. cf. anthracinus (28%), were greater than the maximum percent observed in the inference model (32% and 20%, respectively). Modern analogue matching also indicated that most sediment intervals shared a good analogue to the calibration set, except for bottom sediments (40-42 cm), which had a poor analogue (Appendix C; Table C5, Table C6). This particular interval showed high abundances of Procladius, Ablabesmyia, Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius), Psectrocladius cf. elatus, and Cladotanytarsus mancus group, which represent low alkaline conditions but also a potential increase in sedimentation rates. For Greenwood Lake, basal sediments were not dominated by a particular taxon, but rather, large abundances were observed for many taxa including Corynoneura/Thienemaniella, D. cf. nervosus, Synorthocladius, C. cf. plumosus, Chaoborus (Sayomyia), and C. cf. anthracinus (Figure 3.5). These taxa are typically 161 associated with productive lake conditions. Post-1920 sediments showed low abundances of these more productive taxa in favour of high abundances or appearance of Zalutschia cf zalutschicola, Chironomini larvula, Hydrobaenus cf. conformis, Tanytarsus cf. lugens group, and Tanytarsus (No spur). Inferences for basal sediments showed a high Alk level (-64 mg L"1), possibly indicating naturally high alkalinity levels or disturbance in water quality condition (Figure 3.5). These conditions become less pronounced throughout the core as Alk decreases below that of natural background conditions (~ between 11 to 29 mg L"1). Despite the gradual decrease in Alk overtime, fairly recently (1995 to 2005) Alk concentrations noticeably increased, but not to levels historically reconstructed. Similar inferences were made for pH, where historic pH levels were observed in a mid to high neutral range (pH = 7-8) and then fluctuating to more mid-range neutral values (pH = 6.9 to 7.5) in modern day assemblages. A moderate correlation was observed between PCA axis 1 sample scores and inferred Alk (r = 0.67) or pH (r = -0.40), while a similar or strong correlation was observed between PCA axis 2 sample scores and inferred Alk (r = 0.62) or pH (r = 0.83). Six or seven of the 11 stratigraphic intervals (from depths of 1 to 15 cm) produced squared residual distances above the 95% C.L. indicating a very poor fit to the Alk or pH canonical axis (Appendix C; Table 6, Table 7). High relative abundances of T. cf. lugens group (26-45%) and Tanytarsus (No Spur) (24-43%) found between depths of 1 to 15 cm, were (at some point) in excess of the maximum percent of these taxa present in the inference model (8 and 31%, respectively). Modern analogue matching revealed that only five intervals showed good analogues with respect to Alk and only one interval showed a good analogue with respect to pH (Appendix C; Table C5, Table C6). Some 162 sample intervals with a very poor-fit to the Alk or pH canonical axis also exhibited 'no analogue' situations. Unlike Cossayuna or Greenwood Lakes, Union Lake did not have a good 2l0Pb chronology and so reliable radiometric dates are not available for this core. Despite the lack of comparison to specific time periods, interesting patterns of Alk or pH change as a result of midge abundances were observed from past (bottom) to present (top). The key midge taxa found in basal sediments included Z. cf. zalutschicola, G. cf. pallens, Chironomini larvula, and Pseudochironomus, while present-day sediments showed acidophilic taxa (Labrundinia, Z. cf zalutschicola, and Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius)) with moderate abundances of other taxa indicative of productive lake conditions (D.cf. nervosus, Chironomus group, C. cf. mancus group, and Chaoborus (Sayomyia)) (Figure 3.6). Basal sediments inferred high Alk concentrations (-14 to 27 mg L"1) compared to present-day levels (-6 to 10 mg L"1) (Figure 3.6). The highest Alk concentration (-27 mg L"1) was predicted at 26.5 cm, as a result of higher abundances of Tanytarsus (No spur), C. cf. plumosus, Chaoborus (Sayomyia), Ablabesmyia, Chironomini larvula, and G. cf. pallens. From 10 cm to 4cm, Alk levels fluctuated to moderately high concentrations (-17 mg L'1) and then declined to lower Alk concentrations than observed natural background conditions (-7 mg L"1). The pH level predicted during this time closely resembles Alk inferred patterns (Figure 3.6). The pH level throughout the core fluctuates within a low neutral pH range of 6-7. A moderate correlation was observed between PCA axis 1 sample scores and Alk (r = -0.62) or pH (r = -0.49), while a weak correlation was observed between PCA axis 2 sample scores and Alk (r = -0.31) or pH (r = -0.27). No stratigraphic intervals extended beyond the 95% C.L. indicating a very poor fit to the Alk canonical axis 163 (Appendix C, Table C5). As a result, there is confidence that the inferences generated for Union Lake reconstructions were an accurate representation of historic conditions. For pH, one site showed a poor fit to the pH canonical axis. Analogue matching techniques indicated that several sample intervals (Alk: n = 8; pH: n =7) had a good analogue to the modern calibration set (Appendix C, Table C5, Table C6). Regional-scale analysis of NJ/NY lakes showed most top-bottom (T-B) samples had estimated Alk values within the range of 20 to 50 mg L"1 (Figure 3.7). More bottom samples were estimated to have Alk levels < 20 mg L"1, while more top samples were estimated to have Alk levels > 50 mg L"1. All T-B sample estimates fluctuated within a neutral pH range (6-8). Only two sites, Otisco Lake and Peach Lake, showed significant increases (top-vs-bottom inferred change greater than model RMSEP) in inferred Alk change, while no samples showed significant decreases (Figure 3.8). Similarly, only two sites showed significant changes in pH estimates; Peach Lake showed a significant increase, while Conesus Lake showed a significant decrease in inferred pH overtime (Figure 3.8). All three T-B sites exhibiting significant changes in reconstructed Alk or pH are located in NY. Four midge taxa (D. cf. nervosus, Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius), Parachironomus cf. varus, and Polypedilum cf. nubeculosum) showed increased relative abundances in top samples compared to bottom samples, possibly driving many of the inferred changes between modern and fossil samples (Figure 3.11). A PC A was performed, with midge assemblages from the top samples as active samples and midge taxa from the bottom samples ordinated passively, to visually express the trajectory of change from bottom to top samples in ordination space (Figure 3.12, Figure 3.13). The first two PCA axes accounted for 57.9% of variance in the species data. Midge taxa which are indicators 164 for productive, low bottom water oxygen conditions (Micropsectra cf insignilobus, Chironomus cf anthracinus) shared a close association with PCA axis 1. The majority of taxa driving changes along PCA axis 2 are also found in productive lake sites but share a close relationship to macrophytes/algal densities (Cladopelma, P. cf. varus, P. cf. nubeculosum, Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius), Cricotopus, Dicrotendipes, Glyptotendipes). However, macrophyte abundance changes may also be related to other limnological changes at these particular lake sites. Many deep, stratified sites (Canadice, Hemlock, Otisco, Silver, and Conesus Lakes) exhibited a trajectory T-B change along PCA axis 1, while the rest of the T-B samples (mainly shallow, polymictic lake sites) exhibited trajectory T-B changes predominantly along PCA axis 2. Inferred Alk values were moderately correlated with PCA axis 1 (r = 0.53), while inferred pH values were better correlated with PCA axis 2 (r = 0.61), indicating that midge community composition (represented by change in PCA sample scores as top - bottom) was reasonably represented by changes in inferred Alk or pH values. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that seven T-B samples (Canadice Lake -top, Hemlock Lake -top+bottom, Muckshaw Pond -top, Otisco Lake -bottom, Owasco Lake -top, and Silver Lake -bottom) had squared residual lengths beyond the 95% C.L. (Appendix C, Table C5), top samples for Canadice, Hemlock, Muckshaw Pond and Owasco Lake previously considered outliers in the Alk model and removed. Analogue matching showed these seven samples had poor, very poor or no analogue situations (Appendix C, Table C5). For pH, the same sites (Muckshaw Pond removed as it is an inference model site) showed a very poor fit-to-axis and showed similar modern analogue matching results to Alk (Appendix C, Table C6). 165 Volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen patterns in NJ/NY Lakes Subfossil midge assemblages and VWHO inferences indicated that Cossayuna Lake and Greenwood Lake have historically had hypoxic hypolimnia. Basal sediments were dominated by taxa (Chironomus, Dicrotendipes, or Procladius) that had low VWHO optimum between 3.38 and 4.4 mg O2 L"1, indicating tolerance for productive and/or oxygen-poor conditions. For Greenwood Lake, Bryophaenocladius/Gymnocentriocnemus was found in relatively high abundances in basal sediments. This species group was not an inference model taxon, but is a semi-terrestrial taxon. VWHO inferences at this time (pre- 1900) for both lakes were < 2 mg O2 L"1 (Figure 3.4, Figure 3.5). Post-1900 changes were, however, characteristically different between Cossayuna and Greenwood Lakes. For Cossayuna Lake, changes in midge fauna included major increases in Chironomus (Figure 3.4). This time period also included the appearance of Chironomini larvula and Parachironomus, two taxa also known to be associated with productive and/or poor oxygen conditions. Post-1900 VWHO estimates indicated that oxygen levels steadily declined to completely anoxic conditions (< 1 mg O2 L"1). Changes in CHAOBrCHIR supported these VWHO inferences as periods of estimated hypoxic conditions showed the CHAOB:CHIR ratio indicating low prevalence of anoxic habitat, while estimated present- day anoxic conditions showed a high CHAOB:CHIR ratio. For Cossayuna Lake, PCA axis 1 sample scores were strongly correlated with inferred VWHO (r = -0.96), while the correlation between PCA axis 2 sample scores and inferred VWHO (r = 0.01) was weak. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the top three Cossayuna Lake intervals had a very poor fit to axis (Appendix C, Table C7). Also, there were no good analogues observed in the 166 stratigraphy, the majority of intervals having a 'no analogue' situation (Appendix C, Table C7). The no analogue situation identifies that taxon abundances recovered during these select years are quite different from the abundances found in the modern calibration set, and a reliable inference may not be possible. For Greenwood Lake, changes in midge fauna included major increases in Tanytarsus s. lat., T. cf. lugerts group, Chironomini larvula and Zalutschia cf. zalutschicola, with subsequent decreases in Chironomus to present-day conditions (Figure 3.5). These assemblages reflected a mixture of high (Tanytarsus s. lat - 4.9 mg O2 L"1) and low (Z. zalutschicola - 1.3 mg O2 L"1) VWHO optima. Post-1900 VWHO estimates indicated that oxygen levels steadily increased to ~ 1970, after which oxygen levels declined to anoxic conditions. The CHAOB:CHIR ratio remains fairly consistent with changes in estimated VWHO up until 1998, after which both inferred VWHO and CHAOBrCHIR decrease. This is puzzling as a decline in VWHO indicating anoxic conditions is paired with a decline in CHAOBrCHIR indicating lack of anoxic habitat as a refuge for chaoborid taxa. PC A axis 1 sample scores were moderately correlated with inferred VWHO (r = -0.57), while PCA axis 2 samples scores were weakly correlated with inferred VWHO (r = -0.02). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that five intervals exhibited a very poor fit to the VWHO canonical axis (Appendix C, Table C7). Analogue matching indicated that all intervals had a 'no analogue' situation (Appendix C, Table C7). Union Lake displayed a different pattern in historic hypolimnetic oxygen conditions compared to the other full sediment cores (Figure 3.6). Historically, Union Lake has had an anoxic hypolimnion, dominated by taxa indicative of productive and/or oxygen-poor conditions (Tanytarsus s. lat, Chironomus, Chironomini larvula, Procladius, and Zalutschia 167 cf. zalutschicola) (Figure 3.6). Inferred VWHO levels increased in the lower sediment depths (~ 3 cm), after which VWHO declined back to historic, anoxic levels. The increase in VWHO to hypoxic levels is the result of major increases in the littoral group Tanytarsus s. lat, and the appearance of Stempellina, Tanytarsus cf. chinyensis coinciding with declines in Chironomini larvula and Chironomus. Changes in CHAOB:CHIR support these historic patterns, as at particular times when VWHO increased, CHAOB:CHIR decreased, and vice versa. However, at the bottom of the core between 26 and 35 cm, both VWHO levels and CHAOB:CHIR increased. Following this increase in chaoborid abundance, there was a sharp decline in this taxon's abundance. For Union Lake, PC A axis 1 sample scores were weakly correlated to inferred VWHO (r = -0.36), while PCA axis 2 sample scores were moderately correlated to inferred VWHO (r = -0.51). Goodness-of-fit tests showed all intervals had a good fit to VWHO axis (Appendix C, Table C7). Despite a good fit-to-axis, analogue matching indicated that the majority of intervals showed a 'no analogue' situation. Chironomid assemblages between most top and bottom sediments across NJ/NY showed little change, only four lakes (Canadice, Delaware, Green Pond, and Peach Lakes) showed a significant decline in VWHO (greater than the RMSEP of the model, 2.1 mg O2 L"1) (Figure 3.10). Although not significant, Japanese Garden and Owasco Lakes experienced substantial decreases and increases in VWHO, respectively. While most of the sampled lakes historically had hypoxic hypolimnia, two sites had anoxic hypolimnia (Otisco and Silver Lakes), and one site had good oxygen conditions (Owasco Lake: inferred VWHO = 7 mg O2 L"1). Generally, more top samples showed anoxic hypolimnia, while more bottom samples showed hypoxic conditions (Figure 3.9). Correlations between 168 the changes in PCA sample scores and inferred change in VWHO indicated that a moderate correlation was observed between PCA axis 1 and inferred VWHO (r = -0.51), while a very weak correlation is observed between PCA axis 2 and predicted VWHO (r = 0.04). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that only three intervals (Canadice Lake top, Hemlock Lake top, and Silver Lake bottom) showed a very poor fit to canonical axis 1 (Appendix C, Figure C7). Analogue matching techniques indicated that many of the shallow, polymictic lakes shared no analogues to the modern calibration set, while many of the deep, stratified sites share good analogues to the inference model (especially Owasco Lake, the deepest lake site most closely resembling those lake samples from south central Ontario) (Appendix C, Figure CI). Discussion New Jersey and New York Lake midge-alkalinity and midge-pH inference models reliably infer historic changes in these variables. However, both variables may be influenced by other environmental variables (e.g. TP). Therefore, the usefulness of these models for lake management purposes may only be as a general indication of water quality changes. For alkalinity, a well-buffered lake is important for the proper functioning of most aquatic fauna, as changes in ionic composition of lakes may potentially disrupt various animal physiological mechanisms (e.g. balance of hemolymph concentrations and enzyme development). However, the bias associated with the NJ/NY models does not allow extreme environmental situations (acidic or alkaline conditions) to be tracked via paleolimnological inferences, as potential estimation at the ends of the gradients is problematic. High alkalinity levels in the past or alkalinity increasing beyond background 169 levels may represent water quality disturbance. Modeled pH values closely tracked those patterns of change inferred for alkalinity in the three full sediment cores, reflecting the strong correlation in midge community composition along gradients of these two environmental variables (Chapter 2). The application of a VWHO inference model to the NJ/NY lakes supported observed patterns of historic Alk and pH change, as well as creating meaningful interpretations for changes in hypolimnetic oxygen conditions, especially for dimictic/stratifying lakes. Ecological inferences made for Cossayuna, Greenwood, and Union Lakes closely represented recorded historic anthropogenic change in NJ/NY. Individual lake sediment core historic reconstructions Radiometric dating for Cossayuna Lake showed that the earliest date estimated for this site is 1830. The first European settlers to Washington County, NY and specifically around Cossayuna Lake came in 1765, indicating that the earliest paleolimnological inferences may not have captured the natural condition of the lake. However, the low alkalinity, hypoxic bottom waters identified as background conditions for this lake may be representative of the natural ions and nutrients found in northeastern NY soils. Cossayuna Lake is also located just south east of the Adirondack park region, well-known for poorly buffered soils and its characteristic population of acidic lakes. These 'natural' lake inferences are in contrast to present-day inferences for this lake, which identified impaired water quality conditions, as alkalinity and pH levels increased in recent times and inferred VWHO has declined to anoxic conditions. During the 19th and early 20th century, many early manufacturers set up along three locations at the lake's dammed outlet, powering saw, flax, and gristmills; a blanket factory, tannery, and a potato starch factory (the most 170 prominent enterprises recorded during this time). Abundant farms surrounded the lake providing residents with food, fuel, lumber, and other important means. In the late 19th century, Cossayuna Lake mainly functioned as a resort spot, and during the 20th century, improvements in technology (e.g. gas powered vehicles) brought more vacationers and cottage builders to the lake area. Recent water quality reports indicated that recreational activities such as bathing and boating, along with fish survival and aesthetic quality of lake water, are impaired for this lake (Kishbaugh 2007). Excessive total phosphorus concentrations to the lake are known to be the main pollutant of concern (NY DEC 2008). In the mid-1980s, high concentrations of ortho-phosphate and nitrate-nitrogen occurred within the lake brought in by feeder streams. Although the source of these nutrients was unknown, it was proposed that they may originate from agricultural sources (Smith 1985). Predicted Alk showed major increases in alkalinity, while inferred VWHO showed progressive declines in oxygen conditions occurring after 1990. Aside from agricultural inputs, invasive aquatic plants (Myriophyllum spicatum - Eurasian watermilfoil) and faulty septic tanks of lakeside residences may have also caused fluctuations in nutrient levels. Despite efforts to manage problematic aquatic vegetation in the lake (winter drawdown, harvesting, and herbicide applications) (LA Group 2001), the density of this aquatic weed has become excessive, making the uptake and release of nutrients in the lake substantial. Many lake-side cottages are within the area, with approximately 276 shoreline properties and 400 households along a road that circles the lake's perimeter (Chazen Company 2004). Between 1990 and 2001, the main sources of annual total phosphorus loading to Cossayuna Lake was through agricultural cropland (36%) and septic systems (30%) (NY DEC 2008). Presently (2002-2007), septic systems (42%) make up a large portion of point source 171 pollution to the lake (NY DEC 2008). Through various ecological mechanisms (Chapter 1), these anthropogenic increases in TP are causing subsequent increases in Alk and pH, combined with declines in VWHO. As PCA axis 1 scores of stratigraphic samples were strongly correlated with both inferred Alk, or pH, and VWHO, this indicates that TP- mediated changes may have affected aquatic midges through several pathways, both through Alk or pH increases and VWHO declines, which are influential factors that governed the historical distribution of aquatic midges in Cossayuna Lake. Radiometric dating of sediment samples for Greenwood Lake extended back as far as 1748. Southern NY experienced early European settlement prior to the 19th century. However, more extensive anthropogenic change occurred after the American Revolution (1770). Greenwood Lake was enlarged by a series of dams (the final dam erected in 1836), built between the late 18th century to the early 19th century near the southern end of the lake, to power many small-scale manufacturers (sawmills, gristmills, and iron forges). Before 1836, this natural lake was a pond "covering less than one-half its present area" (NY Times 1877). Greenwood Lake was also a prominent vacationing spot and the Erie Railroad made the lake accessible to visitors, where steamboats shuttled passengers about the lake to various boarding lodges (N.Y., L. E., & W.R.R. 1880); the last passenger train to the lake ran in 1935. For this lake, problematic water quality conditions have been observed as early as the 1950's, as a result of dense populations of aquatic macrophytes, blooms of the filamentous algae Spirogyra, and end-of-summer hypolimnetic oxygen depletion (pers. comm. M. Enache, ANSP). It is not surprising then to observe high alkalinity levels predicted well before this time in the mid- 18th century. In 1971 Greenwood Lake was cited as having nuisance aquatic vegetation, algal growth, and 172 siltation problems (Ketelle and Uttormark 1971). Bryophaenocladius/Gymnocentriocnemus, a semi-terrestrial taxon group, was found in bottom sediments but disappeared in subsequent intervals. This may confirm 210Pb chronology as dating the bottom stratigraphic intervals to the pre-disturbance period, as this taxon's increased deposition in the subfossil record may have occurred during a much shallower phase of the lake prior to dam construction, possibly due to the coring site being in much shallower water and receiving more subfossil midge influx from peripheral wetland habitat abundances, with littoral habitat constituting a much greater proportion of the lake's total surface area. In 1976, Greenwood Lake exhibited phosphorus loadings including point sources (13.4%) and non-point sources (83.6%), as gauged or ungauged drainage, septic tanks, and precipitation (pers. comm. M. Enache, ANSP). Past water quality conditions inferred through changes in Alk, pH, and VWHO, indicated poor water quality as observed by high alkalinity, neutral pH, and hypoxic conditions. However, recent water quality conditions showed a temporary, potential improvement in water quality conditions (1998 to 2006). These improvements may be the result of successful drawdown methods and weed harvesting for invasive Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) being implemented in Greenwood Lake between 1989 to 1995, along with other methods to reduce nutrient loading (Kisbaugh 2010). However, these water quality reports also indicated that Greenwood Lake is still impaired as a result of excessive phosphorus concentrations, hypolimnetic oxygen depletion, and sedimentation problems (NJDEP 2004). Current estimates of phosphorus inputs indicate that the greatest concentrations occur from internal loading (43%) and faulty septic tanks (17%) (NJDEP 2004). As a result of internal cycling of TP, it is assumed that alkalinity levels would increase, as 173 oxygen levels have noticeably declined. However, for present-day reconstructions (2005 to 2007), inferred alkalinity has been estimated as declining while the lake has also become anoxic, presenting conflicting inferences. Most likely, the most recent sediment interval included in the development of the calibration set (0-0.5 cm, ~ 2007 AD) was underestimated as the observed summer 2006 alkalinity value for this interval is 29 mg L"1, while predicted alkalinity was 9 mg L'1, biasing paleoenvironmental interpretations of recent water quality conditions. Reflecting the moderate predictive strength of the inference models developed in this study, ordinations of biostratigraphic data identified that shifts in subfossil midge assemblages were only partly a result of shifts in Alk or pH, as these variables were equally or better represented in secondary gradients for this lake. Instead, aquatic midges are also substantially governed by bottom water oxygen conditions in this lake. In contrast to Cossayuna and Greenwood Lakes, Union Lake is not a natural lake basin but was originally a stretch of the Maurice River. A tumbling dam was erected and, shortly after the reservoir developed, half a dozen early industries used the impounded water to power machinery used to make and bleach cotton, manufacture glass, and maintain cast iron pipe operations. In 1940, large volumes of water spilled over the dam (although there was no complete dam breach or failure) causing what was known as the "Great Flood". This may explain the inconsistent radiometric dating for this sediment core. This dam was replaced with the structure currently maintaining the Union Lake reservoir. In the 1970s, Union Lake was regarded as a valuable lake site threatened by various stages of chemical/nutrient pollution, as it was eutrophic, with brown humic colour, and experiencing summer algal blooms (US EPA 1976). The overall lower alkalinity and pH 174 levels observed (and inferred) for this lake, compared to Cossayuna and Greenwood Lakes, are a reflection of the poorly consolidated bedrock and soils of the Outer Coastal Plains 'Jin level III ecoregion (Omernik 1987). Although there was not a reliable Pb chronology for this lake, inferred alkalinity concentrations have generally declined (with some variation in estimates) to present-day conditions. This may suggest that Union Lake has experienced improved water quality conditions, which is supported by increases in VWHO estimates for most of the core. However, at ~ 2.5-3.0 cm core depth (reflecting a more recent time period), both alkalinity and VWHO estimates indicated poor water quality conditions into the present-day. As chemical pollution is of major concern in Union Lake, recent reports suggest arsenic is controlled by iron in this lake, which implies that reducing (anoxic) conditions may release arsenic from sediments previously bound with iron oxides (Keimowitz et al. 2005). Therefore, recently inferred VWHO declines to anoxic levels for this stratifying lake may indicate that bound arsenic may remobilize/has remobilized, making human health risks for consuming water in this lake valid (US EPA 2001) and potentially affecting aquatic biota through arsenic biomagnification (Chen and Folt 2000). Regional historic reconstructions (top-bottom changes) General inferred changes observed for alkalinity and pH indicated that most sites recorded little or no inferred long-term change for these variables. Peach Lake, having a transitional mixing-regime, recorded significant increases in inferred Alk and pH, and significant declines in VWHO. The Peach Lake drainage basin is primarily covered in forest (45.3%), while the other major land-use divisions include developed land (26.7%, mainly low intensity) and agriculture (23.6%, all hay and pasture). A recent water quality report for 175 this lake site showed that the major estimated source of TP loading to Peach Lake is via malfunctioning septic systems (76.7%), followed by groundwater inputs (15.4%) (NY DEC 2009). While a substantial amount of TP inputs via groundwater are generated naturally (forested land and soils), the remaining phosphorus load may originate through leaching processes from agricultural or developed land sources (NY DEC 2009). Since 1999 (to 2005), observed TP values assessed for the lake has consistently ranked above the 0.02 mg L"1 total maximum daily load allocated for NY State lakes. The extensive contribution of TP via anthropogenic inputs has consequently raised the level of alkalinity and pH of the lake. Additionally, Peach Lake showed significant declines in inferred VWHO change, likely as a result of these excessive TP inputs. Similarly, a stratifying lake (Otisco Lake) also showed significant increases in Alk, but no substantial changes in predicted pH or VWHO. Historically, as with other NY State lakes, Otisco Lake (one of the prominent Finger Lakes) was permanently settled after the Revolutionary War in the late 18th century. In a previous study that used geochemical paleolimnological techniques, it was identified that the majority of historic changes occurring within Otisco Lake may be linked to anthropogenic changes in land-use (Bookman et al. 2010). The 2010 Otisco Lake study found declines in sedimentary organic carbon early in the straigraphy, which marks the period of mass deforestation within the watershed. This is followed by increases in nitrogen and organic carbon co-occurring during times of residential development along the lake. Lastly, increases in inorganic carbon consistent with calcium mobilization, as a result of acidic deposition, has caused alkalinization of the lake waters (Bookman et al. 2010). Although this NJ/NY study only identifies a single estimate of long-term change from past (bottom sediment interval) to present (top sediment interval) for Otisco Lake, the use of 176 midges in NJ/NY lakes to infer Alk levels confirms that the general trend of alkalinity in this lake has been increasing. Conesus Lake (one of the five smaller Finger Lakes) shows different results than the previous two lake sites. Stratifying Conesus Lake had a significant decline in inferred pH change, with only subtle declines in inferred Alk change. This lake has been previously recognized as showing increases in sodium levels, but declines in calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and alkalinity levels (in terms of synoptic water quality) (Callinan 2001). Total phosphorus levels have remained constant for this lake. Although this may indicate good water quality conditions, patterns in historic oxygen levels only showed a subtle increase in dissolved oxygen from past to present, within a hypoxic range (VWHO = ~ 2 mg L"1). The NY Department of Environmental Conservation has previously identified anoxic late summer oxygen conditions for this lake, from mid summer until fall turnover (Callinan 2001). The conflicting observations of hypoxic versus anoxic conditions for Conesus Lake may be a result of the low midge head capsule counts assessed in the top sediment sample (< 40 H.C.) and so hypoxia inferred in present-day conditions needs to be interpreted with caution. The remaining T-B lake sites, which exhibited significant long-term changes in inferred VWHO included Delaware Lake and Green Pond, with both sites having a polymictic mixing-regime. Both lakes recorded significant declines in inferred VWHO, from hypoxic to anoxic conditions. While the application of the VWHO inference model to polymictic lake sites may be inappropriate, as constant mixing for such lakes means frequent replenished oxygen levels, some polymictic lakes do experience summer bottom water oxygen depletion, which may occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, small, shallow lakes dominated by macrophytes may experience diurnal changes in dissolved oxygen 177 levels, with complete anoxia at night (Komijow and Moss 2002). Individual species strategies differ with respect to survival in such low oxygen situations, including many littoral free-living taxa actively seeking better oxygenated areas. Oxygen concentrations may also fall by end-of-summer as a result of a small lake being in a sheltered location (surrounded by trees) and/or having excessive macrophyte mats preventing mechanical mixing by wind to occur. Lastly, freshwater polymictic lakes located in temperate regions may become affected by oxygen depletion as a result of ice cover during winter, as under- ice conditions are known to be influenced by lake productivity levels experienced in previous ice-free seasons (Mathias and Barica 1980). In stratified lakes, midge larvae are exposed to seasonal variation in ecological conditions (end-of-summer periods of anoxia and under-ice oxygen depletion in winter) as a result of their relatively long life cycles (Brodersen and Quinlan 2006). However, such exposure occurs rarely in shallow lakes and only if the lakes experience periods of ice-cover and under-ice oxygen depletion. As a result, midges found in polymictic lakes may encounter oxygen depletion over different temporal scales, either daily, within a season, or intermittently over a multi-annual cycle. Conclusions Cultural eutrophication affects lakes of varying mixing-regimes in different ways and these ecological changes either directly or indirectly affect aquatic midge larvae, making midges good indicators of past changes in lake trophic status. An epilimnetic TP model developed using midges performed weakly, likely as a result of the covarying nature of TP to other ecological variables, which may have a greater influence on midge assemblages than TP itself. Instead, predictive models developed using Alk and pH were able to reliably 178 indicate general patterns of disturbance within an individual lake or across a series of lakes found in the NJ/NY region. Historic oxygen conditions, as inferred by a previously published VWHO model (Quinlan and Smol 2001a), indicated that a number of lakes in New Jersey and New York States may be experiencing more hypoxic or anoxic end-of- summer conditions, possibly due to eutrophication. Historic inferences also indicated that relatively poor oxygen water quality, possibly due to early European settlement activities (pre-1800s), may pre-date the 'bottom' sediments that were examined in this study to characterize "natural" or "pre-disturbance" conditions in study lakes. Acknowledgements This project was funded by the Academy of Natural Sciences Pennsylvania - Patrick Center for Environmental Research (ANSP-PCER) (subcontract No. 485-1300-7553-1), and NSERC Discovery Grant awarded to RQ. We thank Dr. Mihaela Enache of the ANSP for providing radiometric dating information for Cossyuna, Greenwood, and Union Lakes, and all NJ/NY sediment subsamples. We thank Clifford Callinan (New York Department of Environmental Conservation), Tom Belton and Johannus Franken (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection), and Dr. Allison Keimowitz (Cornell University) for providing water chemistry/environmental data. Valentina Munoz assisted in preparing sediment subsamples for analysis. We also thank Susan Brenan (Argyle Town Historian), the West Milford Historical Society, Linda Jones and Steve Ries (and other members of the Millville Historical Society) for providing historical information on Cossayuna, Greenwood and Union Lakes. 179 Literature cited "J\(S Binford, M. W. 1990. Calculation and uncertainty analysis of Pb dates for PIRLA project lake sediment cores. Journal of Paleolimnology 3: 253-267. Birks, H. J. B. 1998. Numerical tools in paleolimnology - progress, potentialities, and problems. Journal of Paleolimnology 20: 307-332. Bookman, R., C. T. Driscoll, S. W. Effler, and D. R. Engstrom. 2010. Anthropogenic impacts recorded in recent sediments from Otisco Lake, New York, USA. Journal of Paleolimnology 43:449-462. Brodersen, K.P., and R. Quinlan. 2006. Midges as palaeo-indicators of lake productivity, eutrophication and hypolimnetic oxygen. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1995- 2012. Brooks, S. J., P. G. Langdon, and O. Heiri, 2007. The identification and use of Palaeartic Chironomidae larvae in palaeoecology. QRA Technical Guide No. 10, Quaternary Research Association, London. Callinan, C. W. 2001. Water quality study of the Finger Lakes. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Water, Albany, NY. Carberry, H. 2002. Union Lake's six year smallmouth success story. New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Digest: Freshwater Issue 15: 24. The Chazen Company. 2004. Town of Greenwich Comprehensive Plan Washington County, New York. Chen, C. Y., and C. L. Folt. 2000. Bioaccumulation and diminution of arsenic and lead in a freshwater food web. Environmental Science and Technology 34: 3878-3884. 180 Clark, B. J., P. J. Dillon, L. A. Molot. 2004. Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) habitat volumes and boundaries in Canadian Shield lakes. Pages 111-119 in J. M. Gunn, R. J. Steedman, and R. A. Ryder, editors. Boreal shield watersheds: lake trout ecosystems in a changing environment. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. Dixit, S. S., J. P. Smol, D. F. Charles, R. M. Hughes, S. G. Paulsen, and G. B. Collins. 1999. Assessing water quality changes in the lakes of the northeastern United States using sediment diatoms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:131-152. Downing, J. A., and E. McCauley. 1992. The nitrogen: phosphorus relationship in lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 936-945. Epler, J. H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina: A guide to the taxonomy of the midges of the southeastern United States, including Florida. Special Publication SJ2001-SP13. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, and St. John's River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. Glew, J. R. 1988. A portable extruding device for close interval sectioning of unconsolidated core samples. Journal of Paleolimnology 1: 235-239. Glew, J. R. 1989. A new trigger mechanism for sediment samplers. Journal of Paleolimnology 2: 241-243. Hammer, 0., D. A. T. Harper, and P. D. Ryan. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4: pp. 9. Juggins, S. 2003. C2 User Guide. Software for Ecological and Palaeoecological Data Analysis and Visualisation. University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne. Keimowitz, A. R., Y. Zheng, S. N. Chillrud, B. Mailloux, H. B. Jung, M. Stute, and H. J. Simpson. 2005. Arsenic redistribution between sediments and water near a highly contaminated source. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 8606-8613. Ketelle, M. J., and P. D. Uttormark. 1971. Problem lakes in the United States. Project # 16010 HER. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring. Kishbaugh, S. A. 2007. 2006 interpretive summary: New York citizens statewide lake assessment program Cossayuna Lake. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, New York Federation of Lakes Assocations. Kishbaugh, S. A. 2010. New York State clean lakes assessment. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Kornijow, R., and B. Moss. 2002. Do night oxygen depletions contribute to the summer decline in abundance of zoobenthos in lake littoral? Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung fur theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 28: 1899-1901. L. A. Group, P. C. 2001. An Action Plan for the long term management of nuisance aquatic vegetation in Cossayuna Lake. Laird, K. R., S. C. Fritz, and B. F. Cumming. 1998. A Diatom-based reconstruction of drought intensity, duration, and frequency from Moon Lake, North Dakota: a sub- decadal record of the last 2300 years. Journal of Paleolimnology 19: 161-179. Lathrop, R., and J. Hasse, 2006. Tracking New Jersey's changing landscape. Pages 111-126 in N. Maher, editor. New Jersey's environments: past, present, and future. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ. 182 Luoto, T. P., and V.-P. Salonen. 2010. Larval chaoborid mandibles in surface sediments of small shallow lakes in Finland: implications for paleolimnology. Hydrobiologia 631:185-195. Mathias, J. A., and J. Barica. 1980. Factors controlling oxygen depletion in ice-covered lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 185-194. Meinig, D. W. 1966. Geography of expansion. Pages 1785-1855 in J. H. Thompson, editor. Geography of New York State. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY. NJ DEP. 2004. Amendment to the northeast water quality management plan, total maximum daily load for phosphorus to address Greenwood Lake in the northeast water region. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Watershed Management, Trenton, NJ N.Y., L. E., and W. R. R. 1888. Erie Railway: Lakes, Glens, and Springs. Giles Litho A Liberty Printing Company, New York. pp. 38-40. NY DEC. 2008. Total maximum daily load for phosphorus in Cossayuna Lake. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Water, Water Quality Management, Albany, NY. NY DEC. 2009. Total maximum daily load for phosphorus in Peach Lake. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Water, Water Quality Management, Albany, NY. N. Y. Times. 1877. Greenwood Lake Region: A Choice Spot in Two States. Nguyen, H., and A. Donini. 2010. Larvae of the midge Chironomus riparius possess two 183 distinct mechanisms for ionoregulation in response to ion-poor conditions. The American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 299: R762-R773. Olander, H., H. J. B. Birks, A. Korhola, and T. Blom. 1999. An expanded calibration model for inferring lakewater and air temperatures from fossil chironomid assemblages in northern Fennoscandia. The Holocene 9: 279-294. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118-125. Overpeck, J. T., T. Webb III, and I. C. Prentice. 1985. Quantitative interpretation of fossil pollen spectra: dissimilarity coefficients and the method of modern analogs. Quaternary Research 23: 87-108. Prentice, I. C. 1980. Multidimensional scaling as a research tool in quaternary palynology: a review of theory and methods. Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 31:71- 104. Quinlan, R., J. P. Smol, and R. I. Hall. 1998. Quantitative inferences of past hypolimnetic anoxia in south-central Ontario lakes using fossil midges (Diptera: Chironomidae). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 587-596. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2001a. Chironomid-based inference models for estimating end-of-summer hypolimnetic oxygen from south-central Ontario shield lakes. Freshwater Biology 46: 1529-1551. Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2001b. Setting minimum head capsule abundance and taxa deletion criteria in chironomid-based inference models. Journal of Paleolimnology 26: 327-342. 184 Quinlan, R., and J. P. Smol. 2010. Use of sub fossil Chaoborus mandibles in models for inferring past hypolimnetic oxygen. Journal of Paleolimnology 44: 43-50. Rieradevall, M., and S. J. Brooks. 2001. An identification guide to subfossil Tanypodinae larvae (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) based on cephalic setation. Journal of Paleolimnology 25: 81-99. Siver, P. A., A. M. Lott, E. Cash, J. Moss, and L. J. Marsicano. 1999. Century changes in Connecticut, U. S. A., lakes as inferred from siliceous algal remains and their relationship to land-use change. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1928-1935. Smith, D. L. 1985. Cossayuna Lake Water Quality Study Interim Report: Report to the Cossayuna Lake Improvement Association Committee on Water Quality. Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY. Smol, J. P. 2008. Pollution of lakes and rivers: A paleoenvironmental perspective. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Massachusetts, U. S. A. Stansfield, C. A. 1996. An ecological history of New Jersey. New Jersey Historical Commission Department of State, Trenton, NJ. Telford, R. J., and H. J. B. Birks. 2009. Evaluation of transfer functions in spatially structured environments. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1309-1316. ter Braak, C. J. F., and P. Smilauer. 2004. Program CANOCO Version 4.53. Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre. Box 100, 6700 AC Wageningen, the Netherlands. US EPA. 1976. National Eutrophication Survey: Report on Union Lake Cumberland County New Jersey EPA Region II. Working Paper No. 375. US EPA. 2001 Safe Water Drinking Act. Drinking water standard for arsenic. [Internet] 185 United States Environmental Protection Agency; [cited 28 April 2011]. Available http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_factsheet.cfin. US EPA. 2010. Region 2 Superfund. Vineland Chemical Co., Inc. [Internet] United States Environmental Protection Agency; [cited 28 April 2011]. Available from http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/vineland/. Uutala, A. J. 1990. Chaoborus (Diptera: Chaoboridae) mandibles - paleolimnological indicators of the historical status of fish populations in acid-sensitive lakes. Journal of Paleolimnology 4:139-151. Vestergaard, O., and K. Sand-Jensen. 2000. Alkalinity and trophic state regulate aquatic plant distribution in Danish lakes. Aquatic Botany 67: 85-107. Walker, I. R. 1988. Late Quaternary palaeoecology of Chironomidae (Diptera: Insecta) from lake sediments in British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, 204 pp. Wiederholm, T. (ed.), 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region: keys and diagnoses. Part I - Larvae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement 19: 1-457. Wissel, B., N. D. Yan, and C. W. Ramcharan. 2003. Predation and refugia: implications for Chaoborus abundance and species composition. Freshwater Biology 48: 1421-1431. 186 44' / b\ * Albany 42* MUK DQWO WAC 1L °JPG \*\Tienton 40" K!iM1ziidAi¥ razogaaal o»c-«hrm*wn«ii Figure 3.1. A map of the northeastern United States showing the three full sediment cores (COS, GWD, and UNI) and 14 top-bottom samples in New Jersey and New York State used for midge-Alk, midge-pH, and chir-VWHO reconstructions. The capital of New York (Albany) and New Jersey (Trenton) are also listed. Site names and codes are given in chapter 2, Table 2.1. 187 2.5 3 r2 = 0.732 r2 = 0.498 r2(j»ck) ~ O-4" rW) = 0.187 RMSEP = 0.417 RMSEP =0.330 n = 55 a n = 59 2 ?1.5 0 •# 1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 Observed log Alk Observed log TP 10 r2 = 0.401 r2 = 0.703 ^(jack) = 0.455 RMSEP =0.316 RMSEP = 0.819 . n = 59 n = 48 + i £ jK •o •S =Su •J £ D- 0.5 1 4 6 10 Observed iavlog NOJNOJ Observed pH Figure 3.2. The relationship between observed and jack-knifed, predicted values (along a 1:1 line) for Alk (WAinv), TP (PLS-1), N02N03 (WA(toi)inv), and pH (WAinv) (model 2 2 type is given in brackets). Each figure shows the strength of relationship (r and r (jack)), associated errors (RMSEP), and the number of samples used in the calibration set («). 188 2 T r= -0.69 r= -0.86 •O 1.5 4 £ M 1 O ).5 < y •0 X »« £-<).5 X -1 1MM 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 2 Observed log Alk Observed log TP 0.8 - r= -0.81 r= -0.69 e4> 0.6 - I £ 0.4 - 0 0.2 - *=5 0 - £ -0.2 - n i -0.4 •Kw O! -0.6 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 4 6 Observed invlog N'OiNOj Observed pH Figure 3.3. Observed versus model residual (predicted - observed) values for Alk (WAinv), TP (PLS-1), NO2NO3 (WA(toi)inv), and pH (WAinv) inference models (model type is given in brackets). The correlation coefficient (r) is given to indicate the strength between observed values and the model residuals. 189 •V , V' c\T i I 1 » • I • ' « I 2010- 2000 1990 1980 1970 I960 1950 1940 - 1930 1920 - 1910 - 1900 1890 1880 1870 1860 1850 1840 - 1830 J I I ! I I I ' ) ' I M 1 I 2 01 20 i 926.0 9.0-1 0 2.00.00 0 01 0 02 0.03 0.04 0 OS */• Relative Abundance Figure 3.4. Stratigraphy of major midge taxa together with inferred Alk, inferred pH, inferred VWHO, ratio of Chaoborus: chironomid (CHAOBiCHIR), and fossil assemblage community structure (as PCA axis 1 sample score) in the Cossayuna Lake sediment core. 210Pb Ages older than 1850 are extrapolated from calculated sedimentation rates. Taxa are arranged according to decreasing PCA axis 1 score. 190 of J L I l I 1980 1920 1100 1780 t—r T-ri r 40 •20 10 2009 7.0 005 % Relative Abundance Figure 3.5. Stratigraphy of major midge taxa together with inferred Alk, inferred pH, inferred VWHO, ratio of Chaoborus: chironomid (CHAOB:CHIR), and fossil assemblage community structure (as PCA axis 1 sample score) in the Greenwood Lake sediment core. 210Pb Ages older than 1850 are extrapolated from calculated sedimentation rates. Taxa are arranged according to decreasing PCA axis 1 score. 191 % Relative Abundance Figure 3.6. Stratigraphy of major midge taxa together with fossil assemblage community structure (as PCA axis 1 sample scores), inferred Alk, inferred pH, inferred VWHO, and ratio of Chaoborus: chironomid (CHAOB:CHIR) in the Union Lake sediment core. Taxa are arranged according to decreasing PCA axis 1 score. 192 • Top • Bottom es O % < 20 mg/L 20-50 mg/L >50 mg/L Predicted Alkalinity (mg/L) Figure 3.7. Distribution of alkalinity conditions ('low': < 20 mg L"1; 'moderate': between 20-50 mg L"1; 'high': > 50 mg L"1) in 10 NJ/NY lakes (outliers removed), inferred from subfossil midge assemblages in top and bottom sediment samples. 193 0.5 0.4 i03 S 02 | 0.1 1£ • £-0.1 jf -0.2 £ U -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 •• '///S/S/ • Lake Name •O 0.4 -1 6> ^0 s/ *«/ s Figure 3.8. Long-term inferred changes in Alk (log transformed) and pH in NJ/NY 'top' and 'bottom' samples. Dotted lines represent the error of each model (logAlk RMSEP = 0.417; pH RMSEP = 0.819). Lakes are arranged by decreasing 'top' inferred values. 194 •Bottom < 1 mg/L 1-4 mg/L > 4 mg/L Inferred VWHO Figure 3.9. Distribution of hypolimnetic oxygen conditions in 14 NJ/NY lakes, inferred from 'top' sediment and 'bottom' sediment subfossil chironomid assemblages. VWHO estimates < 1 mg O2 L"1 represent 'anoxic' conditions; between 1-4 mg O2 L"1 represent 'hypoxic' conditions; > 4mg O2 L"1 represent 'good' conditions. 195 3.5 2.5 - Lake Name Figure 3.10. Long-term inferred changes in VWHO (mg L"1) in 14 NJ/NY lakes. Dotted lines represent the error (RMSEP) of the VWHO inference model (2.1 mg O2 L"1). 196 12 9 / Dicrotendipescf. nervosus 1:1 Psectocladius (PsectrocladiusJ 1:1 / 8 • / 10 • • / • 7 • ? 8 « o at M e • iM • * - S 4 • 3 • «« .& 4 • 8-3 '•V/ 2 • •V • • / • 1 / o*4- T J~ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 123456789 Bottom Assemblage % Bottom Assemblage % Parachironomus cf. varus 1:1 • • Polypedilum cf. nubectdosum 0 2 4 2 4 Bottom Assemblage % Bottom Assemblage H Figure 3.11. Relative abundances (%) of select chironomid taxa showing high abundance in top samples compared to bottom samples. 197 TLUGEN CLADOM TANYNS TGLABR GLYSEV LAUZAV MACRO! MIC INS PARATN CRYCHR PROCLD CHIRAN PNUB LYMNOP CLADOA CHIRON CLA STEMPN NANOBR CRICOT C ERGEN PNUBEC SYNO PENT^ LYPE AL LABR PSHCPO" DICNER EINNAT TMENDX EINDIS CHAOBu BEZZIA CfflRPL CHAOBS CHIRSI PCA Axis 1 (43.9%) Figure 3.12. A PCA biplot of subfossil Total Midge taxa found in 'top' and 'bottom' sediments from 13 NJ/NY lakes (OWA removed). Taxa used in the diagram were filtered using the criteria of > 2% relative abundance in at least 2 lakes. Taxon names are given in chapter 2, Table 2.18. 198 MUK O JPG DEL CAN HEM CO! OTI O -1.0 PC A Axis 1 (43.9%) 2.0 Figure 3.13. A PCA of sample scores representing the trajectory of subfossil midge assemblage change from 'bottom' to 'top' samples (represented by arrows) in 13 NJ/NY lakes (OWA removed). Lake codes identify the 'bottom' assemblage. Lake codes are given in chapter 2, Table 2.1. 199 Appendix A: Raw Data Table Al. NJ/NY Dipteran subfossil raw count data. The sediment interval of each lake is listed above the lake code. Lake codes are as in Table 2.1. Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 2-3 4-5 6-7 10-12 14-16 20-22 28-30 36-38 COS cos cos cos cos cos cos cos cos cos Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula/ 1st instar 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 Chironomus sp. 2.5 1.5 2.5 4.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 18.5 12.5 43.5 24.5 19.5 17.5 19.0 9.0 14.5 12.5 C. cf. plumosus deformed 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 C. cf. anthracinus 8.5 16.0 8.5 5.0 8.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 2.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 8.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 D.ci. nervosus 4.0 2.0 7.5 6.0 3.0 8.0 14.5 7.0 13.0 13.0 D. cf. notatus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyplotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pollens 1.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 8.5 2.0 9.0 3.0 G. cf. severini 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 200 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 2-3 4-5 6-7 10-12 14-16 20-22 28-30 36-38 COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS Lauterborniella 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. pedellus 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 4.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0,0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. Jlavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 Pofypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. mibi/er 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Ctadotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 201 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 2-3 4-5 6-7 10-12 14-16 20-22 28-30 36-38 COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanyiarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. auslriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slempetlina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.5 4.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 undifTerentiable Tanytarsus (No Spur) 0.5 2.0 7.0 6.0 5.5 11.5 10.0 15.0 16.5 23.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 T. cf. pallidicornis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 (previously type B) T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 8.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 CorynoneuralThienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf, bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 202 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 2-3 4-5 6-7 10-12 14-16 20-22 28-30 36-38 COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) cf. interseclus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (lsocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C. cf. tr(fasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Heterotanytarsus Helerotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 203 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 2-3 4-5 6-7 10-12 14-16 20-22 28-30 36-38 COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Jlavus P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. ci.Juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Rheocricotopus Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unmella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z, cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 5.0 14.0 9.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 204 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 2-3 4-5 6-7 10-12 14-16 20-22 28-30 36-38 COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS COS Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 3.0 4.0 10.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Trissopetopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 3.0 4.0 5.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 9.0 7.0 C. Irivitlalus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Be—ia 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 58.5 53.0 100.0 93.5 88.5 109.0 163.0 103.5 153.5 161.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 62.5 59.0 108.0 103.5 97.5 116.0 177.0 107.5 166.5 173.0 sum unidentified 3.0 0.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 13.0 205 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 40-42 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 0.5-1.5 2-2.5 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 COS GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula/ 1st instar 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 Chironomus sp. 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 8.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 1.0 4.5 3.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 13.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.5 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 5.5 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 8.5 7.0 9.0 0.0 9.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 D. cf. notatus 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.cf.pallens 0.0 4.0 2.5 1.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 G. cf. severini 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 40-42 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 0.5-1.5 2-2.5 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 COS GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A/, cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralaulerborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum sp. 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pofypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubecutosum 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 3.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. manctis grp. 9.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 207 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 40-42 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 0.5-1.5 2-2.5 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 COS GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD Mcf. conlracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 7.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 undifferentiable Tanytarsus (No Spur) 5.0 17.0 18.5 10.5 29.0 18.0 49.0 30.0 55.0 41.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 1.0 5.0 9.0 7.0 16.0 15.0 31.0 20.0 44.5 50.5 T. cf. pallidicomis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 11.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 2.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arclica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 208 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 40-42 o-o.s 0.5-1 1-1.5 0.5-1.5 2-2.5 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 COS GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. syhestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Helerotanytarsus Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. Iriquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 209 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 40-42 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 0.5-1.5 2-2.5 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10- u COS GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopseclrocladius) cf.flaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 6.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oithocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 1.5 1.0 6.0 1.5 7.5 0.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 16.5 6.0 0.0 6.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.0 2.5 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 16.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 dinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 10.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 210 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 40-42 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 0.5-1.5 2-2.5 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 COS GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD GWD Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 6.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 10.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C.(Sayomyia) 3.0 3.0 7.0 8.0 15.0 14.0 14.0 5.0 12.0 16.0 C.triviltalus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 160.5 130.0 112.5 35.0 147.5 66.5 112.5 69.0 122.0 133.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 166.5 134.0 123.5 45.0 168.5 80.5 128.5 76.0 137.0 149.0 sum unidentified 0.0 7.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 6.5 12.0 13.5 5.5 211 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 14-15 20-21 26-27 34-35 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 GWD GWD GWD GWD UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 4.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Chironomus sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 7.0 8.5 11.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 3.5 C. cf. plumosus deformed 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 5.0 1.5 6.5 6.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 2.0 6.0 3.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 1.0 6.5 4.5 1.5 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiicrochironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 212 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 14-15 20-21 26-27 34-35 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 GWD GWD GWD GWD UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. ftavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slenochironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 1.0 1,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Conslempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 213 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 14-15 20-21 26-27 34-35 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 GWD GWD GWD GWD UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 37.0 8.5 4.0 1.0 5.0 11.5 16.5 9.0 6.0 23.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 63.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicomis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 0.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaelocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 1.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicincttts 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cytindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 214 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 14-15 20-21 26-27 34-35 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 GWD GWD GWD GWD UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI C. cf. tremulus 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Heterotanytarsus Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaertus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 215 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 14-15 20-21 26-27 34-35 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 GWD GWD GWD GWD UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elalus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ci. jlavus P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effitsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.5 2.5 6.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. cf. zalutschicola 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 0.5 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 216 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 14-15 20-21 26-27 34-35 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 GWD GWD GWD GWD UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proctadius 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. (Sayomyia) 16.0 22.0 24.0 14.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 C. triviltatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Be—ia 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 K.WNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 131.5 75.5 80.5 59.5 15.5 36.0 51.5 46.0 30.0 65.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 149.5 100.5 107.5 75.5 16.5 39.0 55.5 48.0 30.0 70.0 sum unidentified 5.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 217 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 2-3 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 14-15 18-19 26-27 34-35 UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula/ 1st instar 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 11.0 Chironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 5.0 6.0 7.0 2.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 10.0 5.0 C. cf. plumosus defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 C. cf. anthracinus 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3,0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 4.0 3.5 5.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 2.0 Cryptochironomus 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 2.0 3.5 10.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 4.0 7.0 2.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ein/eldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ein/eldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 £. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 G. cf. pollens 2.0 5.5 3.0 4.0 10.0 8.5 10.0 13.5 15.5 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 218 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum TaxonName 2-3 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 14-15 18-19 26-27 34-35 UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Pagasliella 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimamts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. Jlavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 1.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 5.0 2.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slenochironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Slictochironomus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp.A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. mancus grp. 2.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 11.0 3.0 3.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 219 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 2-3 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 14-15 18-19 26-27 34-35 UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralanytarsus sp. 0.5 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Pseudochironomus 1.5 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 5.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Stempellmella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 1,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 29.0 16.0 23.0 12.0 15.0 12.0 12.5 20.0 6.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 T (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicomis 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 7.0 1.0 12.5 4.0 20.0 11.5 17.0 5.0 10.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 220 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum TaxonName 2-3 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 14-15 18-19 26-27 34-35 UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterolanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 Lymnophyes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 4.5 2.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 1.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 221 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 2-3 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 14-15 18-19 26-27 34-35 UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 P. (AUopsectrocladius) cf. flavus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. ejffusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. Juscipes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Oithocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Synorthocladtus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Z cf mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 6.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 1.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 8.0 4.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Labrundinia 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 7.0 1.0 10.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 222 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 2-3 4-4.5 6-6.5 8-8.5 10-11 14-15 18-19 26-27 34-35 UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prolanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 5.0 21.0 6.0 C. trtfittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 1.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 95.0 59.5 135.0 66.5 120.5 103.5 139.5 164.0 116.5 sum identifiable TOTAL 100.0 61.5 143.0 71.5 121.5 109.5 145.5 187.0 125.5 sum unidentified 4.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 4.0 3.0 0.5 223 Table Al. Cont'd Top sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 0-2 34-36 1-2 56-58 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 40-41 CAN CAN CAN CAN CON CON DEL DEL DEL DEL Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 4.5 4.5 9.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 11.0 13.0 0.0 Chironomus sp. 0.5 6.0 6.5 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 22.0 30.0 52.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf lateralis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Ein/eldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E.cf. dissiderts 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 E.cf. natchitocheae 4.0 6.5 10.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptolendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 224 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 0-2 34-36 1-2 56-58 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 40-41 CAN CAN CAN CAN CON CON DEL DEL DEL DEL Microlendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 P. cf. vilosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimamts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. rtudtsquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubi/er 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Saetheria cf. lylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 1.5 0.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 225 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 0-2 34-36 1-2 56-58 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 40-41 CAN CAN CAN CAN CON CON DEL DEL DEL DEL M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 M. cf. insignolobus 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 M cf. pallidula 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytaisini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. patttdicomis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Gymnometriocnemus Chaelocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 226 Table Al. Cont'd Top sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 0-2 34-36 1-2 56-58 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 40-41 CAN CAN CAN CAN CON CON DEL DEL DEL DEL C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) cf. interseclus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (hocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 O. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 227 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-1 1-2 0-2 34-36 1-2 56-58 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 40-41 CAN CAN CAN CAN CON CON DEL DEL DEL DEL Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) cf. flavus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 1.0 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A. cf. ejffusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 228 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top Sum TaxonName 0-1 1-2 0-2 34-36 1-2 56-58 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 40-41 CAN CAN CAN CAN CON CON DEL DEL DEL DEL Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemamimyia 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C, (Sayomyia) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 57.0 8.0 18.0 26.0 0.0 C. trivittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 42.5 64.0 106.5 65.5 28.0 75.0 18.5 33.5 52.0 46.5 sum identifiable TOTAL 44.5 64.0 108.5 68.5 29.0 144.0 28.5 59.5 88.0 56.5 sum unidentified 4.5 4.0 8.5 3.0 3.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 229 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum TaxonName 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.540.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 13.0 lstinstar Chironomus sp. 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Chironomus C. cf. plumosus 0.0 6.5 9.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 3.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 8.5 1.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 27.5 C. cf. anthracinus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed Cladopelma cf lateralis 0.0 10.5 3.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 1.5 120.0 11.5 23.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 5.5 22.5 44.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E, cf. dissidens 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.5 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 2.0 6.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiejferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Laulerborniella 1.0 10.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 230 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.5-40.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus 3.0 11.5 23.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parafendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 P. cf. jlavipes 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 6.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 1.0 4.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 2.0 14.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Sergenlta deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 1.0 7.0 2.0 0.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conslempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. otiveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 231 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum TaxonName 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.5-40.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radiaiis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Micropsectra Paratanytarsus sp. O.S 7.0 25.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 1.0 0.5 15.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 undifferentiate Tanytarsus (No Spur) 8.5 16.5 60.0 21.5 17.5 5.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 8.0 T, (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 2.0 5.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 1.0 6.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. pallidicomis 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax 1.0 19.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (previously type B) T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 3.0 3.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 2.0 14.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemaniella Corynoneura! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Thienemaniella deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 232 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.5-40.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM Cricotopus sp. 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (C. type A) C. cf. Iremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladhts) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 C. (Isocladhts) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. intersectus C. (Isocladius) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. laricomalis C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 cf. sylvestris C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Heterotanytarsus Heterolrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 Lymnophyes/ 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Paralymnophyes Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. {plecopleracolulhus) 0.0 5.0 1.0 4.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 233 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.5-40.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. ef. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. Iriquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oithocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. flavus P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 4.5 12.0 5.0 4.5 6.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 4.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. fuscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 cf. Rheocricotopus Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 10.0 24.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 234 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.5-40.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 1.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilolanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 11.0 19.0 7.0 10.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed Procladius 1.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrolanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienematmimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborns deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. trivillatus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dasyhelea Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 11.0 17.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 K.W NYNJ sp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum TaxonName 0-0.5 0.5-1 39.5-40.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 35-36 0-1 1-2 0-2 30-31 DUC DUC DUC GRN GRN GRN HEM HEM HEM HEM sum identifiable 5J 0 281.0 515.5 90.5 145.0 62.0 16.0 18.0 34.0 81.5 Cnironomiaae sum identifiable TOTAL 57.0 298.0 535.5 96.5 152.0 66.0 16.0 20.0 36.0 82.5 sum unidentified 4.5 7.0 22.5 4.5 11.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 236 i TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 33-34 0-1 Bott 0-0.5 0.5-1 42-43 0-1 29-30 JPG JPG JPG MAD MAD MUK MUK MUK osc osc Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 2.0 4.0 0.0 9.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1st instar Chironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 5.0 7.0 9.5 2.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. cf. anthracmus 1.0 3.5 9.5 6.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.5 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma ct lateralis 10.0 15.5 14.0 2.0 8.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Cryplochironomus 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 2.0 10.0 21.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 18.5 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 17.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 5.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gfyplotendipes sp. 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Gfyplotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbormella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Laulerborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237 \k. TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 33-34 0-1 Bott 0-0.5 0.5-1 42-43 0-1 29-30 JPG JPG JPG MAD MAD MUK MUK MUK osc osc M. cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.0 M. cf. pedellus defoitned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Pagasliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf.jlavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 1.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 6.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 Saeiheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cladolanylarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 8.5 17.0 12.0 51.5 0.0 4.0 Conslempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 238 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 33-34 0-1 Bott 0-0.5 0.5-1 42-43 0-1 29-30 JPG JPG JPG MAD MAD MUK MUK MUK osc OSC M cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 9.0 0.0 4.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. auslriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 1.0 0.5 0.5 5.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 8.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 2.0 Siempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 2.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 undifferentiate Tanytarsus (No Spur) 6.0 7.0 94.0 29.0 37.5 11.0 13.0 58.5 4.0 14.5 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. glabrescens 4.0 0.0 15.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 6,0 1.0 2.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 25.0 2.0 1.5 T. cf. pallidicornis 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 T. cf. mendax 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 (previously type B) T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 1.0 0.0 1.0 7.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 22.0 Thienemaniella Corynoneura! 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemaniella deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 3.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 (C. type A) C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 239 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 33-34 0-1 Bott 0-0.5 0.5-1 42-43 0-1 29-30 JPG JPG JPG MAD MAD MUK MUK MUK osc osc C. (hocladius ) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. intersectus C. (hocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. laricomalis C. (hocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. sylvestris C. cf. obnixus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diptocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Heterotanytarsus Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Lymnophyes/ 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Paralymnophyes Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.5 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. typeS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 4.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 33-34 0-1 Bott 0-0.5 0.5-1 42-43 0-1 29-30 JPG JPO JPG MAD MAD MUK MUK MUK osc osc P. (Allopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 zf.flavus P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 2.5 2.5 3.0 0.5 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. Juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Rheocricotopus Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorihocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Synorihocladius defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 7.0 6.0 9.0 4.0 11.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 Clinolanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 14.0 23.0 10.0 8.0 11.0 6.0 5.0 22.0 2.0 11.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NUotanypus 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneuririi 11.0 14.0 7.0 14.0 6.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 241 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 33-34 0-1 Bott 0-0.5 0.5-1 42-43 0-1 29-30 JPG JPG JPG MAD MAD MUK MUK MUK OSC OSC Procladius 6.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseclrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.Jlavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. (Sayomyia) 2.0 2.0 0.0 17.0 29.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 36.0 C. trivittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 6.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 8.0 10.0 20.0 5.0 7.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable 103.0 148.5 263.5 190.0 224.0 63.5 80.0 261.0 47.5 206.5 Chironomidae sum identifiable TOTAL 117.0 168.5 286.5 235.0 308.0 68.5 87.0 270.0 51.5 257.5 sum unidentified 5.5 12.5 30.5 13.0 23.5 4.0 5.5 38.5 0.0 6.0 242 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 49-50 0-1 27-28 0-1 50-51 0-1 Bott. 2 0-1 31-32 OTI OTI OWA OWA PEA PEA S1L SIL WAC WAC Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 7.0 Chironomus sp. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.5 10.0 21.0 0.0 3.5 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 C. cf. anthracinus 13.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Cryptochironomus 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrolendipes sp. 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 8.0 4.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Einfeldia sp. 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.5 Lauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 243 Table Al. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 49-50 0-1 27-28 0-1 50-51 0-1 Bott.2 0-1 31-32 OTI OTI OWA OWA PEA PEA SIL SIL WAC WAC M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 P. cf. rtudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Saelheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. mancus grp. 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 2.5 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 1.0 14.0 7.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 244 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 49-50 0-1 27-28 0-1 50-51 0-1 Bott.2 0-1 31-32 OTI OTI OWA OWA PEA PEA SIL SIL WAC WAC M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 StempeUina 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Slempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 undifferentiate Tanytarsus (No Spur) 1.0 2.0 2.0 17.5 3.0 9.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicornis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 (previously type B) T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 8.0 1.0 0,0 11.0 14.0 CorynoneuralThienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. typeC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C, cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. inlersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 245 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 49-50 0-1 27-28 0-1 50-51 0-1 Bott. 2 0-1 31-32 OTI OTI OWA OWA PEA PEA SIL SIL WAC WAC C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Heterotanytarsus Helerotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 6.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenussp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanodadius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. {plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orihocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopseclrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. flavus 246 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 49-50 0-1 27-28 0-1 50-51 0-1 Bott. 2 0-1 31-32 OTI OTI OWA OWA PEA PEA SIL SIL WAC WAC P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopseclrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopseclrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.0 2.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf, fitscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Rheocricotopus Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladms 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiejferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 247 TableAl. Cont'd Taxon Name 0-1 49-50 0-1 27-28 0-1 50-51 0-1 Bott.2 0-1 31-32 OTI OTI OWA OWA PEA PEA SIL SIL WAC WAC Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 9.0 72.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 C. trmttatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 K.WNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 60.5 68.5 51.5 83.5 115.0 109.0 48.0 59.5 61.0 121.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 69.5 148.5 51.5 88.5 123.0 120.0 52.0 62.5 72.0 133.0 sum unidentified 4.0 3.5 5.0 16.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 248 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 ACI ACI ACI BRS BEL BEN BOW BRD BRD BRD Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Chironomus sp. 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. ptumosus 0.0 7.0 7.0 3.0 5.5 2.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0,0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf lateralis 1.0 5.0 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 3.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 10.5 5.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 8.0 11.5 22.5 3.0 0.0 3.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 G. cf. severini 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 249 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 ACI ACI ACI BRS BEL BEN BOW BRD BRD BRD M cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parctchironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimamis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. midisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 Pofypeditum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Cladolanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 ACI ACI ACI BRS BEL BEN BOW BRD BRD BRD M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. ci.junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. paltidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralanylarsus sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 2.0 1.5 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 3.0 14.0 17.0 6.0 14.0 12.5 15.5 5.0 1.0 6.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 6.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicomis 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 11.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 12.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricoiopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. iremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 251 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top sum TaxonName 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 ACI ACI ACI BRS BEL BEN BOW BRD BRD BRD C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladiusj cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylveslris 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 cf. branchicolus N, cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 252 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 ACI ACI ACI BRS BEL BEN BOW BRD BRD BRD Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatvs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) ci.flavus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0,0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 1.5 1.5 3.0 13.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 5.0 17.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effuses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. fitscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urmiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 9.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 1.0 4.0 5.0 13.0 6.0 4.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 1.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 1.5 4.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 6.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 253 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 ACI ACI ACI BRS BEL BEN BOW BRD BRD BRD Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 14.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 C.jlavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 3.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. trtvittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 1.0 1.0 2.0 18.0 9.0 8.0 21.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 17.5 63.0 80.5 177.5 90.0 150.0 166.5 43.5 9,0 52.5 sum identifiable TOTAL 21.5 71.0 92.5 206.5 99.0 160.0 189.5 46.5 12.0 58.5 sum unidentified 2.0 4.5 6.5 9.5 7.5 9.0 7.0 5.0 1.0 6.0 254 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CPB CE6 C17 CHE CHE CHE CLT CPR CPR CPR Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Chironomus sp. 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 2.5 2.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 1.0 9.0 10.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 10.0 10.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 13.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 1.5 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 Dicrolendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 5.5 20.0 17.0 6.0 3.0 9.0 4.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 D. cf. notatus 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 3.0 9.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyplotendipes sp. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Glyplotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pollens 0.0 3.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 15.0 16.5 G. cf. severini 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbornielta 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 255 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CPB CE6 C17 CHE CHE CHE CLT CPR CPR CPR M. cf, pedellus 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 P. cf. varus 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 0.5 2.5 4.5 2.0 0.0 2.0 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 1.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saelheria cf. lylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 5.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Consiempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. contracta 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CPB CE6 C17 CHE CHE CHE CLT CPR CPR CPR M. cf. insignolobus 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 undifferentiable Tanytarsus (No Spur) 3.0 13.0 22.5 1.0 4.5 5.5 13.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 8.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pattidicomis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax 0.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 (previously type B) T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 5.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CorynoneuralThienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 23.5 1.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf, cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 257 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CPB CE6 C17 CHE CHE CHE CLT CPR CPR CPR C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Heterotanytarsus Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladms sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 258 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CPB CE6 C17 CHE CHE CHE CLT CPR CPR CPR Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. flaws P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 6.0 7.5 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effitsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. Juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. Rheocricotopus Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorlhocladius 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.5 6.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 13.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Tribe Macropelopini 4.0 4.0 10.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 259 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CPB CE6 C17 CHE CHE CHE CLT CPR CPR CPR Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 1.0 7.0 5.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 22.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. flaviccms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. trmttatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Be~ia 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Simuliidae 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 102.5 149.5 165.0 38.5 65.5 104.0 139.5 14.0 53.0 67.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 107.5 152.5 172.0 42.5 68.5 111.0 147.5 14.0 55.0 69.0 sum unidentified 5.5 6.5 12.0 3.0 2.5 5.5 7.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 260 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CRY CBD DMP DMP DMP DEN ECH ECH ECH Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula/ 1st instar 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 Chironomus sp. 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. cf. plumosus defoimed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 C. cf. anthracinus 2.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 8.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cladopelma cf lateralis 9.5 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 2.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 31.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 6.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 D. cf. notatus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptolendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 8.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 13.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbormella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 261 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CRY CBD DMP DMP DMP DEN ECH ECH ECH M. cf. pedellus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimamts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. mtdisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum sp. 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochiranomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelietla 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracla 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 262 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CRY CBD DMP DMP DMP DEN ECH ECH ECH M cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 undifferentiable Tanytarsus (No Spur) 8.0 21.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 41.5 0.0 3.0 3.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. iactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 T. cf. pallidicornis 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 CorynoneuralThienemanietta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 263 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CRY CBD DMP DMP DMP DEN ECH ECH ECH C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. syhestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaemis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 264 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CRY CBD DMP DMP DMP DEN ECH ECH ECH Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. flavus P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. sordidellus Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. Juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 1.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 47.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 4.0 19.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 27.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 265 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 CRY CBD DMP DMP DMP DEN ECH ECH ECH Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 11.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemtmnimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.Jlavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 9.0 14.0 23.0 C. trivittatus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 4.0 13.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 108.5 101.0 11.5 7.5 19.0 465.5 9.5 27.5 37.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 115.5 116.0 16.5 12.5 29.0 510.5 18.5 42.5 61.0 sum unidentified 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 266 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 FAR FAR FAR FLA FLA FLA GDN HAR IDO Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 3.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Chironomus sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. cf. anthracinus 0.5 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 2.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 Cryptochironomus 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,0 Cryptotendipes 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 5.5 7.0 3.0 1.0 9.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.5 26.5 31.0 7.0 0.0 20.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Einfeldia defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 2.0 1.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pollens t.o 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 267 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 FAR FAR FAR FLA FLA FLA GDN HAR IDO M cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.0 14.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf.Jlavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pofypedilum sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Sergenlia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conslempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 268 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 FAR FAR FAR FLA FLA FLA GDN HAR 1DO M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 5.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.5 5.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 1.0 1.0 2.0 16.0 58.0 74.0 2.0 10.5 17.5 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugerts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicomis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 11.0 13.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 7.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Bryophaencladius-Gymnometriocnemus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 11.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C, cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 269 [ Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0,5 0-0.5 0-0.5 FAR FAR FAR FLA FLA FLA GDN HAR IDO C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. (Isocladius) cf, syhestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,0 2.5 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Helerotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Lymnophyes/ Paratymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.0 4.5 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orlhocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 270 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 FAR FAR FAR FLA FLA FLA GDN HAR 1DO P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) cf. flaws 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectroctadius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 13.5 0.0 P. (Psectroctadius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.5 31.0 Rheocricotoptts sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf.Juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Syrtorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urmiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 17.0 0.0 Z cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 11.5 8.5 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 12.0 15.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 42.0 5.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 9.0 2.0 1.0 14.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 271 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 FAR FAR FAR FLA FLA FLA GDN HAR IDO Tribe Pentaneurini 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 21.0 24.0 5.0 8.0 19.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 7.5 9.5 0.0 1.0 4.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 1.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 C. trivittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 11.0 1.0 0.0 19.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Chironomini genus HI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 22.5 20.0 42.5 47.0 199.5 246.5 65.0 143.0 263.5 sum identifiable TOTAL 26.5 26.0 52.5 51.0 207.5 258.5 68.0 143.0 286.5 sum unidentified 2.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 17.0 22.0 0.0 6.0 17.0 272 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top sum Taxon Name O-O.S 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 JDY JDY JDY KES KTY LKA LFR LFR LFR Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Chironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 14.0 16.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 C. cf. anthracinus 1.0 1.5 2.5 6.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 4.0 10.0 14.0 9.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 4.0 14.0 5.5 6.0 11.5 D. cf. notatus 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 0.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 5.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gfyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pollens 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 273 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top sum TaxonName 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 JDY JDY JDY KES KTY LKA LFR LFR LFR M. cf.pedellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.5 4.0 1.0 9.0 10.0 P. cf. vilosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralaulerbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimamis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. rtubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergeniia 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanylarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 274 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 JDY JDY JDY KES KTY LKA LFR LFR LFR M cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tarty tarsus (No Spur) 1.0 3.0 4.0 19.5 6.5 0.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 1.0 0.5 1.5 3.0 14.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chmyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. laclescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicornis 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius- 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 275 Table Al. Cont'd Top sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 JDY JDY JDY KES KTY LKA LFR LFR LFR C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Helerotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 276 Table Al. Cont'd Top sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 JDY JDY JDY KES KTY LKA LFR LFR LFR Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) cf. flavus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopseclrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 cf. septenlrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 1.0 10.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. ejfusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. ctjuscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oithocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unnielta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Z cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 0.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 12.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotany pus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 277 TableAl. Cont'd Top sum Top sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 JDY JDY JDY KES KTY LKA LFR LFR LFR Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 1.0 1.0 13.0 7.0 18.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 C. (Sayomyia) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 C. trrvittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 5.0 46.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 13.5 42.0 55.5 172.5 74.5 158.0 17.5 68.5 86.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 13.5 43.0 56.5 186.5 83.5 212.0 18.5 77.5 96.0 sum unidentified 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 4.0 7.5 0.0 5.5 5.5 278 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 LBY LBY LBY LNG LNG LNG LWR MEC MLH Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula/ 1st instar 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Chironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 0.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 15.0 23.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf lateralis 1.0 1.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 18.0 1.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 5.0 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 1.0 32.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf, dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pallens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoptema Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 279 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 LBY LBY LBY LNG LNG LNG LWR MEC MLH M. cf. pedellus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. varus 2.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 8.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimcmus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Potypedilum sp. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.5 Potypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubifer 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saelheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 9.5 14.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 280 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 LBY LBY LBY LNG LNG LNG LWR MEC MLH M cf. insignolobus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 2.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 1.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 StempeUinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 45.5 2.0 1.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 4.0 21.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 9.0 55.0 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicornis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 16.0 1.0 0.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladhis- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Gymnome triocnemus Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 CoryncmeuralThienemaniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 deformed C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 C.type C 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 281 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 LBY LBY LBY LNG LNG LNG LWR MEC MLH C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 1.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnopkyes 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 282 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 LBY LBY LBY LNG LNG LNG LWR MEC MLH Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (AUopsectrocladhis) cf. flavus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 9.0 2.0 3.5 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. ejffusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oithocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 3.0 0.0 Z cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 11.5 0.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 3.0 9.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 8.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 0.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 23.0 1.0 20.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 8.0 12.0 6.0 4.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 283 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 LBY LBY LBY LNG LNG LNG LWR MEC MLH Paramerina 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 13.0 18.0 31.0 3.0 8.0 11.0 20.0 2.0 18.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 12.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 1.0 2.0 3.0 25.0 20.0 45.0 0.0 6.0 4.0 C. trtvittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 3.0 6.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 3.0 8.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 1.0 34.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJ sp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 43.5 185.5 229.0 40.0 73.0 113.0 255.5 80.0 150.0 sum identifiable TOTAL 50.5 205.5 256.0 87.0 108.0 195.0 281.5 88.0 192.0 sum unidentified 3.0 9.0 12.0 2.5 4.0 6.5 16.0 5.0 6.5 284 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 MIS OPK PED PED PED RRP RRP RRP SAG Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.5 Chironomus sp. 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 18.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 5.5 1.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 Cladopelma cf lateralis 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 13.0 16.5 5.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes defonned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 0.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 7.5 1.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1,0 2.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Glyptotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. pattens 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 4.5 0.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema 0.0 0.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 285 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 MIS OPK PED PED PED RRP RRP RRP SAG M cf. pedellus 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagasliella 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. Jlavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Potypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 P. cf. nubi/er 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. lylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Sergentia 21.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 Sergentia deformed 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 286 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum TaxonName 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 MIS OPK PED PED PED RRP RRP RRP SAG M. cf. insignolobus 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempettina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 17.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r. cf. chinyensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescerts 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. paltidicornis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. rnendax (previously type B) 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaeneladius-Gymnometriocnemus 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 7.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 C. typeC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. cylindraceus (C. type A) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 287 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 MIS OPK PED PED PED RRP RRP RRP SAO C. (lsocladius) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (lsocladius) cf. inlersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (lsocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (lsocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaems sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lymnophyes 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Lymnophyes/ Parafymrtophyes 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) cf. branchicolus 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 9.0 3.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. armectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. type S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 288 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 MIS OPK PED PED PED RRP RRP RRP SAG P. cf. elatus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladius) cf. flavus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus sp. 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effiisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 10.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypits 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 0.0 Natarsia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Paramerirta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 2.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 289 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Top Sum Taxon Name 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 MIS OPK PED PED PED RRP RRP RRP SAG Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladitts 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.JIavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 C. trtvittatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 7.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Simuliidae 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KWNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 166.5 56.5 17.5 54.0 71.5 41.0 75.0 116.0 25.0 sum identifiable Oiptera 176.5 59.5 20.5 58.0 78.5 42.0 78.0 120.0 34.0 sum unidentified 11.0 0.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 290 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 SAG SAG SHD STY TNT UMG UMH VTM Apedilum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini larvula / 1st instar 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 Chironomus sp. 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 Chironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini cf. Chironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 C. cf. plumosus 4.0 11.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 10.0 9.0 1.0 C. cf. plumosus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. anthracinus 3.0 4.0 8.0 4.5 14.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 C. cf. anthracinus deformed 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladopelma cf. lateralis 4.0 9.0 4.5 8.0 16.0 5.0 1.0 6.5 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Demicryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.5 10.5 Dicrotendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D. cf. nervosus 1.0 2.0 24.0 5.0 11.0 21.0 24.5 15.0 D. cf. notatus 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Endochironomus sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. albipennis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 15.5 0.0 E. cf. impar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptolendipes sp. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Glyptolendipes deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G. cf. barbipes 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 G. cf. pallens 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 G. cf. severini 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladoplema 0.0 0.0 flyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiefferulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Lauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 291 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 SAG SAG SHD STY TNT UMG UMH VTM M. cf. pedellus 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 M. cf. pedellus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M cf. rydalensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastietta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Parachironomous sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. varus 1.0 1.0 6.0 17.5 2.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 P. cf. vitosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. albimanus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf, nudisquama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phaenospectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. flavipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum sp. 0.0 0.0 8.5 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 6.5 Polypedilum deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 P. cf. nubifer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nubeculosum 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 P. cf. sordens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saethena cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 Sergentia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. grp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus grp. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constempellina 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynocera cf. oliveri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. AR radialis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. contracta 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 292 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 SAG SAG SHD STY TNT UMG UMH VTM M. cf. insignolobus 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 M. cf. junci 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M. cf. pallidula 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsini cf. Micropsectra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratanytarsus sp. 0.0 0.0 5.0 21.0 1.0 17.0 1.0 4.0 P. type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. austriacus 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. pencillatus 1.0 1.0 3.0 30.5 0.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellmella-Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtribe Zavrelia undifferentiable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanytarsus (No Spur) 1.0 2.0 36.5 10.5 16.5 13.5 2.0 9.0 T. (No Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T (Spur) 0.0 0.0 8.5 10.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 0.0 T. (Spur) deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. chinyensis 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.0 12.0 0.0 T. cf. lactescens 0.0 0.0 2.0 10.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. pallidicomis 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. mendax (previously type B) 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 5.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 T. cf. nemerosus 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaencladius-Gymnometriocnemus 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Chaetocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. piger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemaniella 5.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 9.0 CorynoneuralThienemaniella deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. arctica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 6.0 4.5 2.0 1.0 C. type C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. bicinctus 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 C. cf. cylirtdraceus (C. type A) 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. tremulus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 293 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 SAG SAG SHD STY TNT UMG UMH VTM C. (Isocladius) 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) ef. intersectus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. laricomalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Isocladius) cf. sylvestris 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 C. cf. obnixus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. cf. trifasciatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. grimshawi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 H. cf. maeri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. marcidus 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. subpilosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaenus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H. cf. conformis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Lymnophyes 2.5 2.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 Lymnophyes/ Paralymnophyes 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Nanocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. cf. balticus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N. (plecopteracoluthus) 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 cf. branchicolus N. cf. rectinervis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0. cf. annectens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. cf. clarkii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. typeS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella type A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. type B 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. P. type D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 294 TableAl. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 SAG SAG SHD STY TNT UMG UMH VTM P. cf. elatus 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Allopsectrocladms) cf. Jlavus 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Mesopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 P. (Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 cf. septentrionalis P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 P. (Psectrocladius) cf. sordidellus 0.0 0.0 14.5 23.0 0.0 4.5 6.5 0.5 Rheocricotopus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. effitsus 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R. cf. Juscipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orthocladinae cf. Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stelechomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Stilocladius 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symposiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tventia/ Eukiefferiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Z. cf. mucronata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zatutschicola 0.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Ablabesmyia deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ablabesmyia 1.0 1.0 10.0 23.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 16.0 Clinotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coelotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conchapelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guttipelopia 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hayesomyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hudsonimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Labrundinia 1.0 2.0 2.0 11.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 Macropelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribe Macropelopini 0.0 0.0 10.0 3.0 12.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 Natarsia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paramerina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 295 Table Al. Cont'd Top Sum Taxon Name 0.5-1 0-1 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 SAG SAG SHD STY TNT UMG UMH VTM Tribe Pentaneurini 1.0 1.0 19.0 9.0 9.0 18.0 15.0 9.0 Tribe Pentaneurini deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 7.0 Procladius deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Thienemannimyia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trissopelopia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zavrelimyia 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lasiodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus sp. 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chaoborus deformed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.flavicans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. (Sayomyia) 1.0 6.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 C. trivtttatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ceratopogonidae, Bezzia 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephemeroptera mandible 0.0 1.0 21.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 13.0 6.0 Simuliidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 KW NYNJsp.l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 K.WNYNJ sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chironomini genus III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pentaneurini sp. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sum identifiable Chironomidae 38.5 63.5 257.5 267.5 157.0 174.0 132.5 185.0 sum identifiable Diptera 40.5 74.5 283.5 293.5 169.0 195.0 146.5 200.0 sum unidentified 0.0 0.0 16.5 5.0 4.0 9.5 8.5 7.5 296 Table A2. List of lake names, sediment interval codes, and associated interval depths used in chapter 3 model applications and statistical analyses. Sediment Sediment Interval Interval Lake name interval Lake name interval depth (cm) depth (cm) code code Cossayuna CI 0-20 1 to 2 Canadice T-l 0-2 Cossayuna C20-30 2 to 3 Canadice B-l 34-36 Cossayuna C40-50 4 to 5 Conesus T-2 1 to 2 Cossayuna C60-70 6 to 7 Conesus B-2 56-58 Cossayuna C100-120 10 to 12 Delaware T-3 0-1 Cossayuna C140-160 14-16 Delaware B-3 40-41 Cossayuna C200-220 20-22 Duck Pond T-4-1 0-0.5 Cossayuna C280-300 28-30 Duck Pond T-4-2 0.5-1 Cossayuna C360-3 80 36-38 Duck Pond B-4 39.5-40.5 Cossayuna C400-420 40-42 Green Pond T-5-1 0-0.5 Greenwood G05-10 0.5-1 Green Pond T-5-2 0.5-1 Greenwood G10-15 1-1.5 Green Pond B-5 35-36 Greenwood G20-25 2-2.5 Hemlock T-6 0-2 Greenwood G40-45 4-4.5 Hemlock B-6 30-31 Greenwood G60-65 6-6.5 Japanese Garden T-7-1 0-0.5 Greenwood G80-85 8-8.5 Japanese Garden 1-1-2 0.5-1 Greenwood G100-110 10 to 11 Japanese Garden B-7 33-34 Greenwood G140-150 14-15 Muckshaw Pond T-8-1 0-0.5 Greenwood G200-210 20-21 Muckshaw Pond T-8-2 0.5-1 Greenwood G260-270 26-27 Muckshaw Pond B-8 42-43 Greenwood G340-350 34-35 Oscaleta T-9 0-1 Union U00-10 0-1 Oscaleta B-9 29-30 Union U15-20 1.5-2 Otisco T-10 0-1 Union U20-25 2-2.5 Otisco B-10 49-50 Union U25-30 2.5-3 Owasco T-l 1 0-1 Union U40-45 4-4.5 Owasco B-l 1 27-28 Union U60-65 6-6.5 Peach T-12 0-1 Union U80-85 8-8.5 Peach B-12 50-51 Union U100-110 10 to 11 Silver T-l 3 0-1 Union U140-150 14-15 Silver B-13 Bott.2 Union U180-190 18-19 Waccabuc T-14 0-1 Union U260-270 26-27 Waccabuc B-14 31-32 Union U340-350 34-35 297 Table A3. NJ/NY Dipteran subfossil raw count data modified to match VWHO inference model (Quinlan and Smol 2001a) taxonomy. Lake codes are as in Table A2. Taxon Name COO-10 C10-20 C20-30 C40-50 C60-70 C100-120 C140-160 C200-220 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 4.5 2.0 14.0 15.5 12.5 22.5 25.0 27.0 T. cf. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 C. mancus gr. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 Micropsectra type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stempellinella/Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Chironomus 30.5 33.5 56.5 34.0 31.0 22.5 27.0 15.0 Chironomini sp. 1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 Cladopelma 2.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 8.5 4.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladopelma Dicrotendipes 7.5 2.0 7.5 7.0 5.0 8.0 17.5 10.0 Einfeldta cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ein/eldia cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Endochironomus 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 Glyptolendipes 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 11.5 2.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/ZavreUella 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 4.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.5 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Pofypedilum 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 7.0 4.0 Saetheria cf. lylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 298 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name COO-IO CI 0-20 C20-30 C40-50 C60-70 C100-120 C140-160 C200-220 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 2.0 1.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 6.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brittia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 8.0 2.0 Thienemarmiella Cricotopus/Orthocladius 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 4.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 Diplocladim 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterolrissocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. sp. B 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. triqueta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 P. (subgenus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 1.0 P. cf. septentrionalis 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 299 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name COO-IO CI 0-20 C20-30 C40-50 C60-70 C100-120 C140-160 C200-220 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sum identifiable 61.5 53.0 104.0 96.0 89.5 111.5 167.0 105.5 300 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name C280-300 C360-380 C400-420 G00-05 G05-10 G10-15 G20-25 G40-45 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 35.5 46.5 18.0 30.0 25.0 12.0 20.0 56.5 T. cf. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 2.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 33.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus gr. 2.0 6.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Micropsectra type 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 7.5 4.0 7.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella/Zavrelia 1.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 Chironomus 14.5 16.0 21.0 15.0 9.0 1.0 7.0 11.5 Chironomini sp. 1 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 Cladopelma 4.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladopelma Dicrotendipes 14.0 18.0 12.5 8.0 11.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 Einfetdia cf. dissidens 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfetdia cf. natchitocheae 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus 1.0 3.0 0.0 3.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes 9.0 4.0 0.0 8.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 8.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Paratauterbomiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum 4.0 7.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 301 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name C280-300 C360-380 C400-420 GOO-05 G05-10 G10-15 G20-25 G40-45 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 18.0 19.0 20.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 10.0 14.0 24.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 5.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Thienemanniella Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. sp. B 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf, triqueta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 2.0 3.0 6.5 3.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. septentrionalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 302 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name C280-300 C360-380 C400-420 G00-05 G05-10 G10-15 G20-25 G40-45 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 6.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zaiulschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 1.0 0.0 16.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 Sum identifiable 156.5 170.5 160.5 134.5 114.0 35.0 66.5 119.0 303 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name G60-65 G80-85 G100-110 G140-150 G200-210 G260-270 G340-350 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 43.0 71.5 53.0 42.5 14.5 13.0 9.0 T. cf. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 20.0 44.5 51.5 63.0 8.0 0.0 1.5 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 C. mancus gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Micropsectra type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Stempellinella/Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.5 Chironomus 6.0 9.5 9.5 14.0 13.0 19.5 12.0 Chironomini sp. 1 0.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 Cladopelma 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryplochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CyphomeUa/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Para cladopelma Dicrotendipes t.O 0.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 7.0 Einfeldia cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 6.5 4.5 1.5 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralaulerborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Polypedilum 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 304 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name 060-65 G80-85 G100-110 G140-150 G200-210 G260-270 G340-350 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 6.0 3.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Thienemannielta Cricotopus/Orthocladius 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 2.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaneus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. sp. B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triqueta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ParaHmnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. septentrionalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 305 Table A3. Cont'd TaxonName G60-65 G80-85 G100-110 G140-150 G200-210 G260-270 G340-350 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.5 6.0 5.5 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zaiutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.5 0.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sum identifiable 81.0 135.5 138.0 137.0 76.5 82.5 60.5 306 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name UOO-IO U15-20 U20-25 U25-30 U40-45 U60-65 U80-85 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 20.0 10.5 11.0 30.0 18.0 43.5 20.0 T. cf. chinyertsis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. mancus gr. 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 Micropsectra type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slempellinella/Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Chironomus 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 10.0 12.0 8.0 Chironomini sp. 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 Cladopelma 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 5.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladopelma Dicrolendipes 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 3.5 12.5 4.5 Einfeldia cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyplotendipes 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 5.5 3.0 5.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum 0.5 3.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 6.0 2.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 307 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name U00-10 U15-20 U20-25 U25-30 U40-45 U60-65 U80-85 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 4.0 5.0 1.0 7.0 3.0 12.0 6.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 2.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 Labrundinia 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemanniella 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Cricotopus/Orlhocladius 5.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 Hydrobaneus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 Nanocladius 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 P. sp. B 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 P. cf. triqueta 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus Monopsectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 P. cf. septentrionalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Slilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 308 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name U00-10 U15-20 U20-25 U25-30 U40-45 U60-65 U80-85 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zaiutschia sp. 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 4.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 Sum identifiable 55.0 46.5 31.5 67.0 60.5 137.0 68.5 309 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name U100-110 U140-150 U180-190 U260-270 U340-350 T-l B-l Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 37.0 25.5 34.5 30.5 19.0 8.0 7.0 T. cf. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0,0 0.0 C. martens gr. 1.0 3.0 11.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Micropsectra type 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 5.5 0.0 Stempellina 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella/Zavrelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Pseudochironomus 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 Chironomus 11.0 5.0 13.0 13.0 8.0 63.5 9.0 Chironomini sp. 1 4.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 11.0 9.0 4,0 Cladopelma 2.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptochironomus 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Harnischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Paracladopelma Dicrotendipes 4.0 3.5 4.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 Einfeldia cf. dissidens 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 3,0 Endochironomus 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes 10.0 10.5 10.0 16.5 16.5 0.0 2.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Polypedilum 3.0 6.5 6.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 2.5 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Siictochironomus 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 310 Table A3. Cont 'd Taxon Name U100-110 U140-150 U180-190 U260-270 U340-350 T-l B-l Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladim 6.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.5 2.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 8.0 4.0 6.0 17.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 5.0 6.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Thienemanniella Cricoiopus/Orthocladius 3.0 4.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.5 0.5 0.0 3.0 Hydrobaneus 5.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius 2.0 1.5 0.5 4.5 2.0 1.0 0.5 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. sp. B 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 P. cf. triqueta 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 0.0 P. cf. septentrionalis 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 311 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name U100-110 U140-150 U180-190 U260-270 U340-350 T-l B-l Slilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unniella 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Zaiutschia sp. 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 6.0 0.0 1.0 Sum identifiable 121.5 103.5 139.5 164.5 116.5 108.5 66.5 312 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-2 B-2 T-3 B-3 T-4-1 T-4-2 B-4 T-5-1 T-5-2 B-5 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 7.0 18.5 6.0 15.5 14.5 52.5 119.5 27.5 33.0 12.0 T. cf. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 1.0 1.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 C. mancus gr. 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Micropsectra type 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 StempeUina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Stempellinella/Zavrelia 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 15.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 Chironomus 4.5 9.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 14.5 11.0 6.5 11.5 3.0 Chironomini sp. 1 2.0 3.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Cladopelma 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 3.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Cryptochironomus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Paracladopelma Dicrotendipes 3.0 5.0 2.5 1.0 5.5 24.0 166.0 11.5 24.0 3.0 Einfeldia cf. dissidens 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia cf. natchitocheae 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glyptotendipes 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.0 9.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Laulerborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 17.0 63.0 1.5 4.0 0.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 11.5 23.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 Nilolhauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 Paralauterbomiella 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Potypedilum 0.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 28.0 12.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 Saeiheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergenlia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 313 Table A3. Cont'd TaxonName T-2 B-2 T-3 B-3 T-4-1 T-4-2 B-4 T-5-1 T-5-2 B-5 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 2.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 25.0 44.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 Labrtmdinia 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protarrypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaelocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/Thienemanniella 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 14.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Cricotopus/Orthocladius 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 9.5 1.0 Diplocladius 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doilhrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Heterotrissocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Hydrobaneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 4,5 2.5 0.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 P. sp. B 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. triqueta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 4.5 12.5 6.5 6.0 10.5 4.0 P. cf. septentrionalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 314 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-2 B-2 T-3 B-3 T-4-1 T-4-2 B-4 T-5-1 T-5-2 B-5 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.0 12.0 1.0 Sum identifiable 29.0 85.5 52.0 49.5 57.0 283.0 534.5 94.0 152.5 63.0 315 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-6 B-6 T-7-1 T-7-2 B-7 T-8-1 T-8-2 B-8 T-9 B-9 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 3.0 12.5 9.0 14.0 125.0 15.0 21.5 95.0 5.0 26.5 T. cf. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 15.0 2.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 10.0 14.0 25.0 2.0 1.5 Cladotanytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 C. mancus gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6,0 17.0 12.0 51.5 0.0 4.0 Micropsectra type 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Stempellina 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 2.0 Stempellinella/Zavreiia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 2.0 Pseudochironomus 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 8.0 Chironomus 15.5 31.5 6.0 11.5 24.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 17.5 Chironomini sp. 1 2.0 13.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 Cladopelma 0.0 0.0 10.0 15.5 14.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Cryptochironomus 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladopelma Dicrotendipes 1.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 21.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 20.0 Einfeldia cf. dissidens 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 Einfeldia cf. nalchitocheae 2.0 8.5 5.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Gfyptotendipes 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterbomiella/Zavreliella 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Parachironomus 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Paralauterborniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polypedilum 1.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.5 9.0 Saetheria cf. tylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 316 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-6 B-6 T-7-1 T-7-2 B-7 T-8-1 T-8-2 B-8 T-9 B-9 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 0.0 1.5 20.0 29.0 12.0 7.0 6.0 31.0 2.0 12.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 1.0 0.0 18.0 21.0 17.0 3.0 8.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 Labrundinia 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 22.0 Thienemanniella Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1.5 0.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 2.5 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotrissocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hydrobaneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Limnopkyes 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Nanocladius 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.5 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 P. sp.B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 4.0 P. ef. triqueta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paralimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.5 4.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 5.0 P. cf. septentrionalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 317 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-6 B-6 T-7-1 T-7-2 B-7 T-8-1 T-8-2 B-8 T-9 B-9 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zaiutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sum identifiable 35.0 85.0 104.0 154.5 289.5 63.5 85.5 280.5 47.5 210.5 318 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-10 B-10 T-ll B-ll T-12 B-12 T-13 B-13 T-14 B-14 Tanytarsus sensu latu (s.lat.) 1.0 5.0 7.0 34.5 8.0 14.5 9.0 4.0 5.0 22.5 T. ef. chinyensis group (gr.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 T. cf. glabrescens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 T. cf. lugens gr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cladotartytarsus sp. gr. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C. mancus gr. 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 2.5 Micropsectra type 0.0 1.0 20.0 10.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Stempellina 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Stempellinella/Zavrelia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 Pseudochironomus 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 Chironomus 14.5 25.5 1.0 1.0 6.0 7.5 14.0 33.0 1.0 8.5 Chironomini sp. 1 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 7.0 Cladopelma 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Cryptochironomus 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Cryptotendipes 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Cyphomella/Hamischia/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladopelma Dicrotendipes 2.5 5.0 3.0 2.5 10.5 9.0 4.5 2.0 5.0 6.0 Einfeldia cf. dissidens 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E. cf. natchitocheae 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Endochironomus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 17.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 Glyptotendipes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 1.5 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 Hyporhygma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lauterborniella/Zavreliella 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.5 Microchironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microtendipes 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Nilothauma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Omisus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pagastiella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parachironomus 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 Paralauterborniella 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paratendipes 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Potypedilum 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Saelheria cf. lylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sergentia (Phaenopsectra) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Stenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stictochironomus 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tribelos 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 319 Table A3. Cont'd Taxon Name T-10 B-10 T-l 1 B-ll T-12 B-12 T-13 B-I3 T-14 B-14 Xenochironomus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Procladius 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.5 4.0 13.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Tribe Pentaneurini 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 9.0 19.0 1.0 0.0 8.0 13.0 Labrundinia 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Nilotanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tanypus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Protanypus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monodiamesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brillia/Euryhapsis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryophaenocladius/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Gymnometriocnemus Chaetocladtus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Corynoneura/ 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 11.0 14.0 Thienemanniella Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 4.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 Diplocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Doithrix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eukiefferiella/Tventia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heterotanytarsus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Helerotrissocladius 0.0 0.0 8.5 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Hydrobaneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limnophyes 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nanocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 Parachaetocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paracricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parakiefferiella sp. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. sp. B 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 P. ef. triquetra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. cf. nigra 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Paratimnophyes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parametriocnemus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Paraphaenocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Psectrocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P. (subgenus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monopsectrocladius) P. (Psectrocladius) 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 P. cf. seplentrionalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pseudosmittia/Smittia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rheocricotopus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 320 Table A3. Cont'd TaxonName T-10 B-10 T-U B-ll T-12 B-12 T-13 B-13 T-14 B-14 Stilocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symbiocladius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Synorthocladius 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Unniella 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zalutschia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Z. cf. zalutschicola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sum identifiable 60.5 69.5 55.5 99.0 116.0 109.0 48.0 59.5 62.0 121.0 321 Table A4. Raw environmental data from 61 New Jersey and New York lakes from lake monitoring programs (CSLAP and ALMN) sampled over summer months. New Jersey lakes limnological data was collected between 2005 and 2007, while New York lakes data was collected in 1999. denotes inputted missing values and blank spaces represent no data available. Site codes, variable codes, and units are as in Table 2.1. Site Code ZMAX SA PH EpiT BotT TP AVGDOFJUNJJN) AvgBot 02 Cond TDN/TKN NO2-NO3 NH4 Chi a ALK %Cover ACI 8.3 26.3 2.2 7.6 29.2 15.4 11.0 4.77 204.4 414.0 161.0 5.0 7.5 12.0 2.9 BRS 1.2 15.8 0.3 5.3 20.9 20.9 28.0 0.11 35.0 707.0 10.0 22.0 12.3 11.0 85.3 BEL 2.3 13.3 1.1 6.5 23.8 23.2 30.0 4.32 116.5 657.0 239.0 134.0 11.7 13.0 12.3 BEN 1.8 9.4 0.5 6.0 23.1 23.1 48.0 4.18 127.0 522.0 246.0 20.0 33.6 6.0 11.1 BOW 0.7 2.3 0.5 7.0 29.3 29.3 24.0 1.75 388.0 781.0 6.0 4.0 7.7 130.0 104.7 BRD 1.7 4.0 0.3 6.4 24.8 24.8 90.4 2.11 157.5 922.5 557.0 125.5 12.8 15.5 7.53 CPB 1.9 2.4 1.3 7.1 21.8 21.8 85.0 4.51 654.0 652.0 339.0 84.0 22.4 52.0 CAN 26.0 272.0 8.5 7.4 24.1 6.3 8.1 7.41 3.02 176.4 196.0 34.2 10.0 1.1 38.6 C17 1.2 8.9 0.7 6.6 18.4 18.4 120.0 8.40 61.0 1200.0 175.0 15.0 59.8 14.0 1.5 CE6 4.1 37.6 2.0 6.8 27.4 26.9 18.0 4.12 214.3 513.0 6.0 4.0 10.0 8.0 0.8 CHE 7.4 16.9 2.3 8.1 24.1 9.7 17.0 3.39 508.6 317.0 13.0 34.0 8.4 95.0 11.2 CLT 1.4 4.3 0.3 4.3 19.5 19.5 59.0 2.67 69.0 1020.0 25.0 50.0 3.2 2.0 CON 18.5 1287.2 3.5 7.8 23.1 10.1 21.7 -0.16 0.07 345.3 476.3 34.0 10.0 6.6 106.7 CPR 1.9 65.1 0.5 7.6 29.8 29.8 109.0 6.88 228.5 890.0 13.0 15.0 70.6 33.0 COS 7.5 266.8 1.9 8.0 21.9 21.1 37.1 6.14 175.4 603.1 26.5* 20.4 13.5 38.4* CRY 0.9 2.2 0.1 6.8 26.0 26.0 345.0 4.67 111.0 4820.0 6.0 33.0 209.2 15.0 CBD 1.2 13.2 1.2 4.3 17.1 17.1 53.0 7.77 33.0 327.0 12.0 16.0 47.3 1.0 26.6 DMP 2.6 12.3 0.5 7.6 29.19 28.3 46.0 3.19 139.5 828.0 10.0 25.0 86.0 25.0 DEL 3.8 15.4 0.4 8.1 27.0 18.0 176.0 0.13 473.7 2590.0 41.0 63.0 131.8 82.0 51.0 DEN 1.3 19.7 1.3 6.2 21.5 21.5 11.0 7.76 63.0 384.0 6.0 25.0 5.2 6.0 12.9 DUC 1.7 3.9 1.1 6.6 24.9 24.9 23.0 1.00 102.0 756.0 13.0 9.0 6.6 34.0 34.7 ECH 10.1 109.5 1.7 7.1 25.3 12.2 36.5 0.38 0.41 144.1 647.0 8.3 11.5 13.1 21.0 322 Table A4. Cont'd Site Code ZMAX SA Z* PH EpiT BotT TP AvgDO^JUNJM) AvgBot 02 Cond TDN/TKN NO2-NO3 NR, Chi a Alk %Cover FAR 5.5 90.1 0.7 6.4 20.9 15.7 60.0 2.11 184.3 762.0 397.0 133.0 31.7 16.0 10.7 FLA 1.0 14.8 0.5 6.8 28.0 28.0 21.0 7.08 88.0 694.0 268.0 13.0 62.1 12.0 2.6 GDN 10.2 10.1 3.7 7.7 24.8 6.6 32.0 0.73 0.90 393.4 394.0 5.9 8.0 4.4 151.0 21.0 GRN 6.0 205.1 2.1 6.9 25.7 24.5 18.0 2.78 77.2 248.0 28.0 6.0 9.7 9.2 GWD 7.2 335.5 1.6 7.4 22.2 22.0 20.0 6.75 186.1 491.0 6.0 19.0 23.8 29.0 HAR 1.9 22.8 1.5 4.1 27.4 27,4 12.0 5.05 40.0 120.0 6.0 8.0 1.7 1.0 38.9 HEM 27.0 836.6 5.4 8.1 23.7 7.5 10.5 3.34 3.53 214.5 288.0 35.3 10.7 2.0 66.8 IDO 1.7 15.4 1.3 6.7 26.7 26.7 33.0 5.95 111.0 415.0 107.0 47.0 24.3 11.0 13.9 JPG 1.3 2.3 0.5 7.7 28.4 28.4 124.0 6.67 280.0 1120.0 23.0 72.0 54.6 65.0 JDY 2.8 2.2 0.2 6.2 24.3 23.6 205.0 0.47 102.5 992.0 964.0 143.0 18.6 15.0 KES 1.9 2.8 1.7 5.9 25.0 25.0 40.0 8.33 91.0 463.0 7.9 10.0 4.4 5.0 5.20 KTY 1.7 4.6 0.5 6.8 20.3 20.3 49.0 0.81 252.0 790.0 6.0 39.0 32.6 78.0 LKA 1.1 3.2 0.5 7.4 27.8 27.8 166.0 4.58 255.0 1780.0 6.0 27.0 131.7 60.0 24.7 LFR 3.6 30.5 2.8 6.9 29.4 28.7 30.0 7.08 166.5 231.0 245.0 15.0 3.5 11.0 2.0 LBY 2.2 1.3 1.1 7.2 24.7 23.5 57.0 3.75 294.0 736.0 6.0 9.0 50.4 96.0 8.5 LNG 1.9 10.3 0.3 4.2 24.1 24.1 38.4 0.11 55.7 142.7 20.7 61.7 38.6 1.0 2.49 LWR 1.8 11.5 1.0 4.4 28.3 28.3 11.0 3.47 63.0 340.0 10.0 14.0 14.2 1.0 10.0 MAD 24.0 13.0 5.1 7.5 22.9 9.1 426.7 21.4 3.2 MEC 2.4 4.3 1.6 5.8 22.9 18.9 19.0 4.10 63.0 466.0 6.0 9.0 9.4 8.0 43.7 MLH 1.5 8.6 1.1 7.2 28.9 28.9 16.0 6.37 222.0 545.0 534.0 33.0 4.9 19.0 21.1 MIS 1.7 3.6 0.9 4.3 15.7 15.7 9.5 5.89 35.5 405.0 23.0 41.0 1.6 1.0 2.6 MUK 2.7 2.7 2.3 7.1 25.0 24.6 14.0 3.88 347.0 535.0 30.0 6.0 4.6 144.0 29.2 OPK 2.0 1.9 1.5 7.0 24.3 24.3 28.0 6.93 236.0 428.0 331.0 66.0 8.5 29.0 8.23 OSC 11.0 233.0 2.1 8.6 26.3 7.2 33.7 0.26 0.21 129.2 587.4 26.5* 42.4 16.1 21.8* OTI 18.5 896.1 2.6 8.3 22.1 8.3 13.0 0.01 0.00 308.6 305.5 175.7 26.6 4.7 109.3 OWA 47.0 2745.4 2.8 8.3 20.7 5.1 13.0 6.89 5.30 304.9 413.5 596.3 24.8 2.9 106.5 323 Table A4. Cont 'd Site Code Zmax SA Z* PH EpiT BotT TP AvgDO(summ) AvgBot 02 Cond TDN/TKN N0rN03 NR, Chi a Alk %Cover PEA 7.3 101.0 1.8 8.2 24.2 17.9 26.9 0.32 217.5 850.0 26.5* 22.9 5.8 53.5* PED 2.7 7.1 0.7 6.2 25.0 21.7 73.9 3.97 205.5 541.5 631.5 26.5 59.0 22.0 4.97 RRP 1.5 2.8 0.6 6.9 26.1 26.1 98.5 4.84 253.0 1110.0 7.5 9.0 38.6 73.0 22.26 SAG 3.8 6.6 2.0 7.4 24.3 22.4 27.0 1.22 464.0 549.0 66.0 9.0 13.8 84.0 6.1 SHD 1.1 3.5 0.8 5.4 24.0 24.0 45.0 6.01 75.0 1450.0 63.0 13.0 171.8 6.0 0.8 SIL 10.0 328.9 1.8 8.0 22.5 14.4 29.4 0.25 0.22 233.1 807.1 26.5* 30.1 11.2 59.1* STY 2.2 6.2 1.8 6.3 23.7 23.7 16.0 4.50 43.0 226.0 6.0 6.0 12.6 14.0 27.6 TNT 1.9 16.4 1.2 5.6 20.1 20.1 41.0 5.54 91.0 402.0 123.0 26.0 14.7 5.0 4.1 UNI 7.0 350.1 1.3* 5.7 27.1 21.0 23.0 2.91 3.89 116.4 550.0 1460.0 49.0 12.5* 5.0 UMG 1.1 4.1 0.5 7.1 20.8 20.8 68.0 3.38 535.0 571.0 6.7 12.0 11.4 69.0 86.5 UMH 1.7 22.1 1.6 7.7 26.0 26.0 19.0 3.80 278.0 638.0 6.0 4.0 11.2 56.0 1.9 VTM 1.5 10.6 0.5 4.9 27.3 27.3 62.7 3.91 80.5 923.0 183.0 179.0 9.6 5.0 2.30 WAC 14.0 51.8 1.7 8.5 25.9 7.0 27.0 0.32 0.29 166.4 798.1 26.5* 43.1 18.7 35.1* 324 Appendix B Segmented regression of taxon abundances along environmental gradients AMtonefTypal Y-Otfa K%«nManc*Ms«*ilwM) 10X> - 00 0.0 ! • MMMnofTflWS ! i i Y-Otfa t 110 12.0 to ... * . ^ -•* —** 0.0 1J0 2.0 3.0 X-M» Figure Bl. Select taxa from 59 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes exhibiting a significant change in percent relative abundance with respect to alkalinity concentrations. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 325 nMnenotTy|»2 otTwte Mrik»orT*a2 ftaMontfTyptft 88% eerWmo* NUishewn 98% ocnMvK* bits w Mwn Figure B2. Taxa from 59 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes exhibiting a significant change in percent relative abundance with respect to maximum lake depth. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 326 RaMieft of Typa 2 9S* cmtotnw Mit atmw TP TP IMtfonMTypt Typt 1. no bmkpott tourt YOM WkOCnWane* *•»«*»** Y4M* e6%wiMiie» en# snewn 209 to ISO' 120 40' • 0 30 20- 40' 10 00 00 00 00 Figure B3. Taxa from 59 combined polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes exhibiting a significant change in percent relative abundance with respect to total phosphorus concentrations. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 327 80702 eoToa RMMton o* Type 5 MrttanotTyjat Y-M* 98% CWiMenc* Ml* «r« V-CMIa 86% canW^c« Ml art thowm 300 2S.Q 300 150 too \ \ SO , / / (t" 00 0 0 0 20 30 4.0 50 10 70 *0 90 100 10 20 30 4.0 SO 60 70 too X-OM B0T02 fW* 1,no Muni HMMonafTyptS V-0rt« 98% e.O 5.0 40 30 / / / 20 y 1.0 . ,, 00 10 20 30 40 50 eo 7o eo to 100 X4M Figure B4. Taxa from combined 59 polymictic + stratified NJ/NY lakes exhibiting a significant change in percent relative abundance with respect to bottom oxygen levels. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 328 ryp«2 otTyne Figure B5. Taxa from 38 NJ/NY lakes exhibiting significant changes in percent relative abundance with respect to % macrophyte cover. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 329 MafenofTyjM2 98* eonflMneiMl • WM SO- \ ^ HJfcgf Figure B6. Taxa from 48 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes exhibiting significant changes in percent relative abundance with respect to alkalinity concentrations. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 330 TywS Zltm FliWInnofT^tg «*»»>• S V-Ma MarMraMkntmn 300 Xt> 204 ISC • ^ 100 • ' /' _ 0.0 0.7 13 20 X-M* Figure B7. Taxa from 48 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes exhibiting significant changes in percent relative abundance with respect to maximum lake depth. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 331 TF TP RMMerol Typ«5 MMonMTypat YXtta 110 »0 120 , ' 12a #0 • 0 40 y'4 • 'x ' 40 1 _ '//' *. \ 00 00 /•/ 00 1.0 20 30 0 D 1 0 20 30 X-CHta X-Otfk Figure B8. Taxa from 48 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes exhibiting significant changes in percent relative abundance with respect to total phosphorus concentrations. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 332 DftrMfc-poHMtfiown 3^ 0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 $0 90 100 Figure B9. Taxa from 48 polymictic-only NJ/NY lakes exhibiting significant changes in percent relative abundance with respect to bottom oxygen levels. Statistical methods used segmented regression set with a 95% confidence interval. 333 Appendix C *Best' Inference Model Performance Statistics and Reconstruction Diagnostics Table CI. Inference model output for alkalinity, total phosphorus (TP), and pH using the NJ/NY polymictic-only lake dataset and square-root transformed a.) chironomid and b.) Total Midge taxa. The percent reduction in predictive error ("Reduct RMSEP") is relative to a 'full' model with no outlier removal or a 'Chironomid-only' midge model. aj Model #^f analogues RMSE RMSEP ^ ^(jack) Max. bias Reduct RMSEP Alkalinity PLS 1 0.310 0.396 0.730 0.560 0.401 MAT 5 0.415 0.415 0.544 0.544 0.600 WMAT 5 0.415 0.415 0.544 0.544 0.601 Alkalinity (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.293 0.356 0.737 0.615 0.392 11.3% MAT 5 0.375 0.375 0.606 0.606 0.559 10.6% WMAT 5 0.375 0.375 0.606 0.606 0.560 10.6% TP PLS 1 0.259 0.323 0.514 0.257 0.486 MAT 6 0.319 0.319 0.263 0.263 0.718 WMAT 6 0.320 0.320 0.262 0.262 0.719 TP (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.259 0.319 0.521 0.280 0.470 1.2% MAT 6 0.313 0.313 0.311 0.311 0.718 2.0% WMAT 6 0.313 0.313 0.309 0.309 0.719 2.0% pH PLS 1 0.609 0.756 0.698 0.534 0.767 MAT 5 0.838 0.838 0.445 0.445 1.312 WMAT 5 0.837 0.837 0.445 0.445 1.312 pH (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.621 0.768 0.696 0.535 0.798 MAT 5 0.851 0.851 0.451 0.451 1.312 WMAT 5 0.851 0.851 0.451 0.451 1.312 334 Component/ # of _2 ,. .. Reduct Reduct RMSEP Model RMSE RMSEP r2 analogues r Alkalinity PLS 1 0.319 0.410 0.713 0.526 0.416 MAT 6 0.439 0.439 0.497 0.497 0.618 WMAT 6 0.439 0.439 0.496 0.496 0.619 Alkalinity (Outliers removed) PLS 0.294 0.356 0.734 0.612 0.405 15.3% MAT 0.384 0.384 0.595 0.595 0.614 14.2% WMAT 0.384 0.384 0.595 0.595 0.615 14.3% TP PLS 0.259 0.325 0.514 0.249 0.497 MAT 0.338 0.338 0.185 0.185 0.926 WMAT 0.338 0.338 0.184 0.184 0.927 TP (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.259 0.322 0.529 0.280 0.471 0.7% MAT 6 0.340 0.340 0.214 0.214 0.926 WMAT 6 0.340 0.340 0.213 0.213 0.927 pH PLS 0.630 0.789 0.676 0.493 0.767 MAT 0.897 0.897 0.367 0.367 1.441 WMAT 0.897 0.897 0.367 0.367 1.442 pH (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.606 0.729 0.688 0.549 0.874 8.1% 5.4% MAT 7 0.815 0.815 0.486 0.486 1.318 10.0% 4.4% WMAT 7 0.815 0.815 0.487 0.487 1.319 10.0% 4.4% 335 Table C2. Inference model output for alkalinity, total phosphorus (TP), and pH using the NJ/NY polymictic-only lake dataset and untransformed a.) chironomid and b.) Total Midge taxa. The percent reduction in error ("Reduct RMSEP") is given when outliers are removed, other midge taxa are added, or no transformation is performed on the dataset. The boxed model type is the 'best' model selected for reconstructions. Reduct Component/Deshrinking/ # Reduct RMSEP Model RMSE RMSEP r2 Max. bias of analogues RMSEP (UNTR vs. SQRT) Alkalinity WA Inverse 0.294 0.373 0.757 0.627 0.480 WA Classical 0.337 0.371 0.757 0.631 0.346 WA,..,, Inverse 0.280 0.374 0.779 0.624 0.499 WA Alkalinity (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.287 0.385 0.760 0.570 0.470 WA Classical 0.329 0.404 0.760 0.577 0.352 WA^ Inverse 0.285 0.380 0.763 0.589 0.477 WAft.0 Classical 0.326 0.379 0.763 0.597 0.364 WAPLS 1 0.287 0.385 0.760 0.570 0.469 PLS 3 0.267 0.454 0.793 0.424 0.534 MAT 5 0.392 0.392 0.586 0.586 0.743 2.1% WMAT 5 0.393 0.393 0.583 0.583 0.750 2.1% TP WA Inverse 0.252 0.326 0.540 0.232 0.500 2.8% WA Classical 0.343 0.369 0.540 0.262 0.427 9.2% WA,,* Inverse 0.266 0.350 0.488 0.129 0.570 5.0% WA,,.,, Classical 0.380 0.415 0.488 0.152 0.402 15.7% WAPLS 1 0.252 0.326 0.540 0.232 0.495 2.9% PLS 1 0.267 0.337 0.482 0.196 0.435 MAT 8 0.305 0.305 0.372 0.372 0.704 4.7% WMAT 8 0.306 0.306 0.366 0.366 0.704 4.5% 336 Table C2a cont'd Component/ Reduct Deshrinking Max. Reduct RMSEP Model RMSE RMSEP r2 /# of •"Veto bias RMSEP (UNTR vs. analogues SQRT) TP (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.247 0.337 0.561 0.207 0.421 2.2% WA Classical 0.330 0.392 0.561 0.233 0.450 9.6% WA,tol) Inverse 0.246 0.363 0.566 0.123 0.426 4.2% WA{tol) Classical 0.327 0.437 0.566 0.138 0.455 12.7% WAPLS 1 0.247 0.337 0.561 0.207 0.417 2.2% PLS 1 0.265 0.333 0.497 0.219 0.393 1.2% MAT 8 0.304 0.304 0.396 0.396 0.704 0.2% 2.8% WMAT 8 0.305 0.305 0.389 0.389 0.704 0.2% 2.6% pH WA Inverse 0.580 0.732 0.725 0.564 0.649 WA Classical 0.682 0.783 0.725 0.572 0.492 WA<,0|) Inverse 0.595 0.803 0.711 0.483 0.838 2.8% WA(,ot) Classical 0.706 1.114 0.711 0.402 0.525 20.6% WAPLS 1 0.580 0.732 0.725 0.564 0.653 PLS 1 0.694 0.860 0.607 0.397 1.200 MAT 5 0.788 0.788 0.521 0.521 1.127 6.3% WMAT 5 0.790 0.790 0.518 0.518 1.132 6.0% pH (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.564 0.743 0.740 0.551 0.675 WA Classical 0.656 0.785 0.740 0.561 0.513 WA WA 337 Component/ Reduct Reduct Deshrinking Max. Reduct RMSEP RMSEP Model RMSE RMSEP r2 2 /#of r (i»ck> bias RMSEP (UNTR vs. (Midge analogues SQRT) vs. Chir) Alkalinity WA Inverse 0.300 0.409 0.747 0.536 0.489 WA Classical 0.347 0.418 0.747 0.544 0.351 WA,*, Inverse 0.288 0.407 0.766 0.540 0.509 WA,» Classical 0.329 0.408 0.766 0.548 0.391 WAPLS 1 0.300 0.409 0.747 0.536 0.489 PLS 1 0.372 0.470 0.610 0.379 0.475 MAT 5 0.437 0.437 0.489 0.489 0.743 0.4% WMAT 5 0.439 0.439 0.484 0.484 0.749 0.1% Alkalinity (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.300 0.420 0.744 0.500 0.495 WA Classical 0.348 0.450 0.744 0.510 0.369 WA^ Inverse 0.303 0.417 0.738 0.507 0.500 WA^ Classical 0.353 0.432 0.738 0.518 0.372 WAPLS 1 0.300 0.419 0.744 0.501 0.494 PLS 1 0.366 0.454 0.618 0.413 0.484 3.5% MAT 5 0.431 0.431 0.492 0.492 0.743 1.4% WMAT 5 0.433 0.433 0.487 0.487 0.749 1.4% TP WA Inverse 0.256 0.334 0.525 0.199 0.519 0.9% WA Classical 0.353 0.386 0.525 0.226 0.423 5.2% WAM, Inverse 0.268 0.356 0.480 0.106 0.587 3.9% WA(ton Classical 0.386 0.428 0.480 0.126 0.395 13.9% WAPLS 1 0.256 0.334 0.525 0.199 0.513 1.1% PLS 1 0.271 0.339 0.467 0.184 0.443 MAT 8 0.319 0.319 0.303 0.303 0.704 6.0% WMAT 8 0.319 0.319 0.297 0.297 0.705 5.9% 338 Table C2b cont'd Component/ Reduct Reduct Model Deshrinking/ RMSEP J Max. Reduct RMSEP RMSEP RMSEP (UNTR vs. (Midge analogues SQRT) vs. Chir) TP (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.254 0.348 0.539 0.166 0.446 0.5% WA Classical 0.345 0.415 0.539 0.190 0.451 4.1% WAfl* Inverse 0.252 0.373 0.544 0.092 0.459 2.9% WA(toi) Classical 0.342 0.457 0.544 0.105 0.451 8.3% WAPLS 1 0.254 0.348 0.539 0.166 0.441 0.5% PLS 1 0.269 0.337 0.480 0.202 0.401 0.8% MAT 8 0.320 0.320 0.318 0.318 0.704 6.3% WMAT 8 0.320 0.320 0.310 0.310 0.705 6.2% IS WA Inverse 0.604 0.819 0.703 0.455 0.648 WA Classical 0.720 0.907 0.703 0.464 0.473 WA pH (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.589 0.848 0.717 0.420 0.677 WA Classical 0.695 0.932 0.717 0.429 0.495 WA,lol, Inverse 0.627 0.880 0.679 0.388 0.898 WA,*, Classical 0.761 1.238 0.679 0.317 0.600 4.7% WAPLS 1 0.589 0.848 0.717 0.420 0.679 PLS 1 0.718 0.902 0.580 0.339 1.250 MAT 8 0.830 0.830 0.518 0.518 1.529 WMAT 8 0.832 0.832 0.510 0.510 1.526 339 Table C3. Inference model output for alkalinity, total phosphorus (TP), and NO2NO3 using the NJ/NY combined polymictic + stratified lake dataset and square-root transformed a.) chironomid and b.) Total Midge taxa. The percent reduction in error ("Reduct RMSEP") is given when outliers are removed, other midges are added, or stratified NJ/NY sites are included. a•} Component/ Reduct Deshrinking Max. Reduct RMSEP Model RMSE RMSEP r2 /# of ^(jick) bias RMSEP (Poly-strat vs. analogues Poly-only) Alkalinity WA Inverse 0.306 0.408 0.735 0.536 0.352 WA Classical 0.357 0.431 0.735 0.542 0.246 WA^ Inverse 0.314 0.412 0.722 0.528 0.386 WA(tol) Classical 0.369 0.420 0.722 0.534 0.218 WAPLS 1 0.306 0.408 0.735 0.536 0.345 PLS 1 0.342 0.433 0.670 0.473 0.440 MAT 9 0.505 0.505 0.322 0.322 0.820 WMAT 9 0.504 0.504 0.325 0.325 0.818 Alkalinity (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.298 0.392 0.744 0.558 0.429 3.9% WA Classical 0.346 0.420 0.744 0.563 0.330 2.7% WA,tol) Inverse 0.315 0.421 0.714 0.491 0.411 WA(t0|) Classical 0.373 0.443 0.714 0.498 0.306 WAPLS 1 0.298 0.392 0.744 0.559 0.434 4.0% PLS 1 0.333 0.414 0.681 0.506 0.459 4.4% MAT 9 0.479 0.479 0.371 0.371 0.793 5.4% WMAT 9 0.478 0.478 0.373 0.373 0.793 5.3% TP WA Inverse 0.263 0.371 0.479 0.057 0.393 WA Classical 0.380 0.467 0.479 0.072 0.326 WA,10„ Inverse 0.259 0.433 0.495 0.000 0.386 WA,tol) Classical 0.368 0.632 0.495 0.000 0.335 WAPLS 1 0.263 0.374 0.479 0.058 0.372 PLS 1 0.244 0.322 0.553 0.232 0.379 0.4% MAT 7 0.310 0.310 0.296 0.296 0.493 3.1% WMAT 7 0.310 0.310 0.293 0.293 0.495 3.1% 340 Table C3a cont'd Component/ Reduct Deshrinking Max. Reduct RMSEP Model RMSE RMSEP r2 /#of ^(j»ck) bias RMSEP (Poly-strat analogues Poly-only) TP (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.258 0.370 0.493 0.072 0.381 0.2% WA Classical 0.368 0.475 0.493 0.088 0.462 WA NO2NO3 WA Inverse 0.273 0.327 0.366 0.120 0.353 na WA Classical 0.452 0.454 0.366 0.148 0.435 na WA(T0|) Inverse 0.274 0.321 0.361 0.170 0.335 na WA N02N0j (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.259 0.334 0.441 0.114 0.366 na WA Classical 0.390 0.439 0.441 0.135 0.483 3.6% na WA,lon Inverse 0.260 0.318 0.436 0.197 0.301 1.0% na WA^oi) Classical 0.395 0.536 0.436 0.184 0.652 0.2% na WAPLS 1 0.259 0.335 0.441 0.114 0.373 na PLS 1 0.286 0.348 0.322 0.056 0.514 na MAT 5 0.344 0.344 0.075 0.075 0.534 na WMAT 5 0.344 0.344 0.074 0.074 0.535 na 341 Reduct Reduct Component/ RMSEP 2 Max. Reduct RMSEP Model #of RMSE RMSEP r 2 (Poly-strat r (jack) bias RMSEP (Midge analogues vs. Poly- vs. Chir) only) Alkalinity PLS 1 0.354 0.448 0.646 0.436 0.457 MAT 3 0.529 0.529 0.315 0.315 0.770 WMAT 3 0.528 0.528 0.317 0.317 0.767 Alkalinity (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.318 0.386 0.688 0.543 0.472 16.1% 7.5% MAT 3 0.457 0.457 0.446 0.446 0.724 15.7% 4.7% WMAT 3 0.457 0.457 0.447 0.447 0.722 15.6% 4.7% TP PLS 1 0.241 0.322 0.560 0.231 0.379 0.9% MAT 6 0.305 0.305 0.315 0.315 0.470 1.6% 11.0% WMAT 6 0.305 0.305 0.312 0.312 0.473 1.5% 10.8% TP (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.244 0.326 0.546 0.209 0.386 0.1% MAT 6 0.306 0.306 0.298 0.298 0.470 0.9% 10.9% WMAT 6 0.307 0.307 0.294 0.294 0.473 0.8% 10.8% NOjNOJ PLS 1 0.285 0.339 0.312 0.069 0.540 na MAT 7 0.347 0.347 0.048 0.048 0.498 na WMAT 7 0.347 0.347 0.048 0.048 0.499 na N02N03 (Outliers removed) PLS 1 0.282 0.345 0.351 0.076 0.364 0.7% na MAT 7 0.356 0.356 0.041 0.041 0.526 na WMAT 7 0.356 0.356 0.041 0.041 0.526 na 342 Table C4. Inference model output for alkalinity, total phosphorus (TP), and NO2NO3 using the NJ/NY combined polymictic + stratified lake dataset and untransformed a.) chironomid and b.) Total Midge taxa. The percent reduction in error ("Reduct RMSEP") is given when outliers are removed, no transformation is performed, other midge taxa are added, or stratified sites are included. The boxed model type is the 'best' model selected for reconstructions. Reduct Reduct Component/ RMSEP RMSEP Deshrinking 2 Max. Reduct Model RMSE RMSEP r 1-2 (UNTR (Poly-strat /#of (jack) bias RMSEP vs. vs. Poly- analogues SQRT) only) Alkalinity WA Inverse 0.327 0.425 0.698 0.502 0.431 WA Classical 0.391 0.441 0.698 0.514 0.190 WA(t0i) Inverse 0.311 0.411 0.727 0.541 0.423 0.2% WA(|0|) Classical 0.364 0.405 0.727 0.551 0.212 3.6% WAPLS 1 0.327 0.425 0.698 0.502 0.428 PLS 1 0.407 0.492 0.533 0.321 0.556 MAT 6 0.470 0.470 0.442 0.442 0.806 7.4% WMAT 6 0.470 0.470 0.441 0.441 0.806 7.3% Alkalinity (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.329 0.418 0.692 0.514 0.453 1.7% WA Classical 0.395 0.434 0.692 0.526 0.226 1.8% WA«oI) Inverse 0.312 0.406 0.723 0.549 0.437 1.2% 3.6% WA(|0|) Classical 0.367 0.400 0.723 0.559 0.234 1.3% 10.7% WAPLS 1 0.329 0.417 0.692 0.514 0.449 1.8% PLS I 0.397 0.478 0.551 0.351 0.544 2.9% MAT 6 0.473 0.473 0.417 0.417 0.830 1.4% WMAT 6 0.471 0.471 0.419 0.419 0.827 1.5% TP WA Inverse 0.257 0.349 0.502 0.101 0.462 6.2% WA Classical 0.362 0.395 0.502 0.128 0.363 18.1% WA,tol) Inverse 0.249 0.396 0.533 0.009 0.426 9.5% WA(t0|) Classical 0.341 0.484 0.533 0.015 0.387 30.6% WAPLS 1 0.257 0.350 0.502 0.102 0.452 6.8% PLS 1 0.263 0.335 0.479 0.166 0.457 0.5% MAT 7 0.309 0.309 0.301 0.301 0.560 0.1% WMAT 7 0.309 0.309 0.298 0.298 0.568 0.2% 343 Table C4a cont'd Reduct Reduct Component/ RMSEP RMSEI Deshrinking Max. Reduct Model RMSE RMSEP r2 2 (UNTR (Poly-sl /#of r (jack) bias RMSEP vs. vs. Pol) analogues SQRT) only) TP (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.244 0.364 0.539 0.083 0.379 1.7% WA Classical 0.332 0.452 0.539 0.099 0.549 5.0% WAw, Inverse 0.244 0.412 0.539 0.010 0.391 7.2% WA,toI) Classical 0.332 0.547 0.539 0.012 0.558 27.5% WAPLS 1 0.244 0.364 0.539 0.083 0.376 1.9% PLS 1 0.255 0.335 0.493 0.159 0.397 0.1% MAT 7 0.310 0.310 0.263 0.263 0.671 WMAT 7 0.312 0.312 0.252 0.252 0.671 NOjNOJ WA Inverse 0.275 0.321 0.359 0.133 0.409 1.8% na WA Classical 0.458 0.425 0.359 0.167 0.593 7.0% na WA,tol) Inverse 0.264 0.314 0.410 0.190 0.347 2.4% na WA^ Classical 0.412 0.445 0.410 0.215 0.407 20.5% na WAPLS 1 0.275 0.321 0.359 0.135 0.415 2.3% na PLS 1 0.288 0.336 0.294 0.075 0.577 0.5% na MAT 8 0.347 0.347 0.013 0.013 0.430 na WMAT 8 0.347 0.347 0.012 0.012 0.431 na N02N03 (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.278 0.326 0.374 0.143 0.337 2.4% na WA Classical 0.454 0.414 0.374 0.178 0.398 2.6% 6.1% na WAnon Inverse 0.268 0.322 0.418 0.189 0.313 na WA 344 Reduct Reduct Component/ Reduct RMSEP RMSEP Deshrinking Max. Reduct RMSEP (Poly- Model RMSE RMSEP r2 (UNTR /#of ^(jtck) bias RMSEP (Midge strat vs. vs. analogues vs. Chir) Poly- SQRT) only) Alkalinity WA Inverse 0.330 0.441 0.692 0.461 0.444 WA Classical 0.397 0.460 0.692 0.473 0.203 0.5% WA,toI, Inverse 0.315 0.428 0.719 0.495 0.440 1.3% WA(,0n Classical 0.372 0.427 0.719 0.508 0.226 5.2% WAPLS 1 0.330 0.440 0.692 0.461 0.440 PLS 1 0.414 0.498 0.516 0.306 0.585 MAT 7 0.491 0.491 0.392 0.392 0.800 7.9% WMAT 7 0.489 0.489 0.395 0.395 0.800 8.1% Alkalinity (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.305 0.417 0.732 0.499 0.434 5.6% 0.2% 0.5% WA Classical 0.357 0.446 0.732 0.507 0.248 3.1% 0.9% WA WA TP WA Inverse 0.253 0.341 0.517 0.131 0.452 7.6% 2.3% WA Classical 0.352 0.370 0.517 0.159 0.322 22.9% 6.7% 4.3% WAnoi) Inverse 0.246 0.392 0.545 0.011 0.406 10.4% 1.0% WAfton Classical 0.332 0.469 0.545 0.017 0.346 33.9% 3.1% WAPLS 1 0.253 0.341 0.517 0.132 0.441 8.4% 2.5% PLS 1 0.258 0.330 0.498 0.187 0.453 1.6% 2.9% MAT 6 0.312 0.312 0.279 0.279 0.642 2.1% WMAT 6 0.313 0.313 0.276 0.276 0.648 2.1% 345 Table C4b cont 'd Reduct Reduct Component/ Reduct RMSEP RMSEP Deshrinking 2 Max. Reduct RMSEP (Poly- Model RMSE RMSEP r 2 (UNTR / # of f (jack) bias RMSEP (Midge strat vs. vs. analogues vs. Chir) Poly- SQRT) only) TP (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.241 0.356 0.542 0.090 0.388 2.9% 2.3% WA Classical 0.327 0.436 0.542 0.105 0.515 6.0% 3.6% WA NO2NO3 WA Inverse 0.276 0.323 0.352 0.124 0.421 1.6% na WA Classical 0.465 0.434 0.352 0.157 0.634 7.1% na WAft„n Inverse 0.266 0.316 0.401 0.181 0.352 2.3% na WA,,.,, Classical 0.419 0.452 0.401 0.208 0.422 20.3% na WAPLS 1 0.276 0.323 0.352 0.125 0.428 2.1% na PLS 1 0.288 0.337 0.296 0.075 0.545 0.8% na MAT 7 0.356 0.356 0.003 0.003 0.452 na WMAT 7 0.357 0.357 0.003 0.003 0.453 na N02N0J (Outliers removed) WA Inverse 0.280 0.329 0.355 0.117 0.418 3.0% na WA Classical 0.469 0.422 0.355 0.153 0.630 2.7% 5.9% na WA 346 Table C5. Summary of goodness-of-fit and modern analogue matching results for Cossayuna, Greenwood, Union, and Top-Bottom Lake fossil samples using a NJ/NY Midge-Alk inference model. "**" represents samples having a very poor fit-to-axis, while represents samples having a poor fit-to-axis. Interval code names are as in Table A2. Sediment Fit-to-axis Analogue - Sediment Fit-to-axis Analogue - Interval Alk WA(inv) Interval Alk WA(inv) Code Alk Code Alk CI 0-20 ** good U260-270 good C20-30 ** good U340-350 good C40-50 good T-l ** very poor C60-70 good B-l no analog C100-120 good B-2 * very poor C140-160 good B-3 no analog C200-220 good T-4-2 good C280-300 good B-4 good C360-380 good T-5-2 good C400-420 poor B-5 poor G05-10 good T-6 •* no analog G10-15 ** no analog B-6 ** poor G20-25 * good T-7-2 good G40-45 ** poor B-7 poor G60-65 ** no analog T-8-1 *• no analog G80-85 ** no analog T-8-2 veiy poor G100-110 ** good B-8 * no analog G140-150 ** good B-9 good G200-210 good B-10 ** very poor G260-270 poor T-l 1 •* no analog G340-350 very poor B-l 1 no analog U15-20 good B-12 poor U20-25 very poor B-13 ** very poor U25-30 good B-14 good U40-45 good U60-65 good U80-85 good U100-110 very poor U140-150 poor U180-190 good 347 Table C6. Summary of goodness-of-fit and modern analogue matching results for Cossayuna, Greenwood, Union, and Top-Bottom Lake fossil samples using a NJ/NY Midge-pH inference model. "**" represents samples having a very poor fit-to-axis, while represents samples having a poor fit-to-axis. Interval code names are as in Table A2. Analogue Analogue Sediment Sediment Fit-to-axis matching - Fit-to-axis matching- Interval Interval PH WA(inv) PH WA(inv) Code Code PH PH CI 0-20 ** good U260-270 good C20-30 ** good U340-350 good C40-50 good T-l ** no analog C60-70 good B-l no analog C100-120 good T-2 no analog C140-160 good B-2 * very poor C200-220 good B-3 no analog C280-300 good T-4-2 good C360-380 good B-4 • good C400-420 poor T-5-2 good G05-10 good B-5 poor G10-15 ** no analog T-6 *# no analog G20-25 ** no analog B-6 ** no analog G40-45 ** very poor 1-1-2 good G60-65 ** no analog B-7 * poor G80-85 ** no analog T-8-2 good G100-110 ** no analog B-8 * good G140-150 ** no analog T-9 very poor G200-210 very poor B-9 poor G260-270 poor T-10 good G340-350 no analog B-10 ** very poor U00-10 poor T-l 1 ** no analog U15-20 good B-l 1 no analog U20-25 very poor B-12 poor U25-30 * good T-l 3 no analog U40-45 good B-13 *• poor U60-65 good T-14 poor U80-85 good B-14 good U100-110 very poor U140-150 poor U180-190 poor 348 Table C7. Summary of goodness-of-fit and analogue matching results for NJ/NY lakes using a previously published south central Ontario VWHO inference model. "**" represents samples having a very poor fit-to-axis, while represents samples having a poor fit-to-axis. Interval code names are as in Table A2. Sediment Fit-to-axis Analogue Sediment Fit-to-axis Analogue interval code VWHO Matching VWHO interval code VWHO Matching VWHO C00-10 ** no analogue U340-350 no analogue CI 0-20 ** no analogue T-l »* good C20-30 ** no analogue B-l very poor C40-50 no analogue T-2 very poor C60-70 no analogue B-2 poor C100-120 no analogue T-3 no analogue C140-160 no analogue B-3 no analogue C200-220 very poor T-4-1 no analogue C280-300 poor T-4-2 poor C360-380 poor B-4 * no analogue C400-420 no analogue T-5-1 no analogue G00-05 no analogue T-5-2 no analogue G05-10 no analogue B-5 very poor G10-15 no analogue T-6 •• no analogue G20-25 no analogue B-6 * no analogue G40-45 ** no analogue T-7-1 no analogue G60-65 *# no analogue T-7-2 no analogue G80-85 ** no analogue B-7 no analogue G100-110 ** no analogue T-8-1 * no analogue G140-150 ** no analogue T-8-2 no analogue G200-210 no analogue B-8 no analogue G260-270 no analogue T-9 no analogue G340-350 no analogue B-9 good U00-10 no analogue T-10 no analogue U15-20 no analogue B-10 very poor U20-25 no analogue T-l 1 good U25-30 no analogue B-l 1 good U40-45 no analogue T-12 no analogue U60-65 no analogue B-12 no analogue U80-85 no analogue T-l 3 very poor U100-110 no analogue B-13 ** no analogue U140-150 no analogue T-14 no analogue U180-190 no analogue B-14 good U260-270 very poor 349