1. Digital Analysis of Quadrats to Determine Percent Cover of Metaphyton in Conesus Lake, NY Alternate method for accurate determination of percent cover Michael Pagano Dr. Sid Bosch State University of New York at Geneseo Summer 2003

2. Problem at Conesus Lake- Metaphyton Correlation between growth of metaphyton with nutrient loading from streams

3. Problem with determination of percent cover Metaphyton biomass hard to estimate Entangled in Milfoil, can’t separate Percent Cover best estimation

4. Traditional Method Visual determination of cover Stationed off side of boat Dependant on researcher Lack of precision

5. Alternate Method Construction of new quadrat (.5x.5m) to enable use of digital camera to capture image of algae Camera mounted Tri-pod Polarized lens used to reduce glare

6. Alternate Method Digital Pictures (3.2mp) uploaded onto computer Images enhanced using Kodak Photo Enhancer

7. Alternate Method Images then analyzed using Image J to determine percent cover Percent Cover= Total Cover Total Area

8. Results Error bars indicate one standard deviation above and below mean Bars above represent results of Tukey’s Statistical Analysis ANOVA p<0.05

9. Results Graywood 2003, Cottonwood 2002, Sandpoint 2002, & Sutton 2002 not used due to sampling error which included date and condition of weed beds. Numbers above bars represent one standard deviation 7 40 24 14 25 21 27 35 30 6.5 29 15 32 37

10. Results No loading data for McPherson, Graywood Gully not used for statistical purposes because unrepresentative sampling period; Error Bars (+/- 1 S.D.) to small to see P=0.06

11. Metaphyton Cover Determination Is Digital Analysis more accurate than traditional visual estimation?

12. Results Coefficient of Variation –CV= S.D./Mean –Measure of Relative Variability OrganismCoefficient of Variation Plankton0.70 Benthic Organisms (grab sample)0.40 Benthic Organisms (Surber sampler, counts) 0.60 Benthic Organisms (Surber sampler, biomass) 0.80 Terrestrial Organisms (Roadside Counts) 0.80 Shellfish0.40

13. Alternate Method Mean C.V. 2001= 0.883319 +0.385 2002= 0.979605 + 0.110 2003= 0.397958 + 0.137

14. Conclusions No consistent trends seen between weed beds Correlation seen between metaphyton percent cover and summer SRP loading, 2003 Alternate method more accurate for determination of percent cover, but more replicates needed

15. Special Thanks Dr. Sid Bosch, Mentor and Project Advisor Megan Mongiovi, Jamie Romieser, Evan Zynda, Student Researchers SUNY Geneseo Biology