1. Ensuring quality diatom taxonomic identifications and developing diatom-based metrics for diagnosing nutrient impairment in Kentucky Lara Panayotoff Kentucky Division of Water

2. Does it matter? Genus Level resolution? Isn’t internal consistency enough? All this “splitting” is messing with my head! Why are taxonomists doing this to me? My historical dataset is worth what now? It’s doable, it’s getting easier Regional and national comparability provides more complete context for local information It expands the usefulness of our data beyond our borders

3. Diatoms of the US: Kickin’ it old school despite 800+ taxa represented, quite incomplete line drawings often hard to interpret many taxa represented by just one drawing

4. Sprechen sie Deutsch?

5. Regional floras, monographs, and journal articles

6. National Programs – comparability, consistency? North American Diatom Ecological Database (NADED) - ANSP Image databases Program-focused taxonomy workshops Slides deposited in publically accessible herbarium Numerous publications of new taxa or treatment of problem groups NAWQA

7. formal editorial review high quality information dynamic relative few species at this time (207) but expanding quickly New Web Resource for Diatom Identification Spaulding, S.A., Lubinski, D.J. and Potapova, M. (2010). Diatoms of the United States. http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu Accessed on 07 November, 2011.http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu Diatoms of the United States

8. Diatoms of the US: way informative species pages many images representing size range original species description and images comparison with similar taxa autecological information species occurrence maps from EMAP

9. reviewed taxa list, identification notes, and slides nomenclature changes (e.g., genus transfers) newly clarified concepts taxa likely to be present but not reported possible misidentifications compare with NADED list and taxonomic concepts some issues: many cases of simple nomenclature differences Achnanthidium deflexum Gomphonema angustatum “Achnanthes lanceolata” complex Nitzschia, many groups small Navicula many unreported taxa KDOW’s 2008 Diatom taxonomy update project

10. original list 678 names - 319 taxon names added 193 names “deactived” – historical data left unchanged but these names no longer accepted for new analyses added new fields to taxa table: reference description citation reference figures citation Authority is_active combine_to_name NADED_ID 87 names added since – currently 841 active names 73 do not have NADED IDs: 42 legit names, 31 “unknowns” KDOW’s 2008 Diatom taxonomy update project

11. Diatom Digital Image Library Spot Insight 4MP digital camera SPOT software associates notes, measurements, scale bars with images – can burn to image or not standardized filenames hold the taxon code and the sample ID; stamped onto image

12. over 1000 images representing hundreds of taxa, filed in genus folders hope to create database for easier searching and viewing; using Windows search for now database also will help track verification status and notes Diatom Digital Image Library

13. 2011 Diatom QA project FY09 106 supplemental grant funds (in part) MOA with Academy of Natural Sciences, Diatom Herbarium Curator Marina Potapova Focus on 2008-10 nutrient studies in Pennyroyal and Mountains regions

14. 2011 Diatom QA project Objectives: Verification of 300+ voucher images representing 150 taxa – all “common” or “frequent” taxa (>1% in any sample) Verification or guidance for 2 taxonomic problem areas “Achnanthidium deflexum complex” “Gomphonema angustatum complex” Recommendations for several “unknowns” or uncertain identifications

15. Differences in splitting Cocconeis placentula var. lineata vs. euglypta Navicula minima vs. Sellaphora seminulum Differences in nomenclature Achanthes nollii is Achnanthidium latecephalum Gomphonema pumilum is G. kobayasii Downright wrong Navicula absoluta, really N. ruttneri var. capitata Diplonies boldtiana, really D. puella Nitzschia supralitorea, really N. liebetruthii 2011 Diatom QA project: Image Verification Voucher image verifications: 305 of 368 confirmed ok

16. 2011 Diatom QA project: Image Verification “Chamaepinnularia evanida” “Encyonema hebridicum” “Achnanthes pinnata” Encyonema sp. 1 MONTANA HAMSHERNavicula sp. 5 ANS NEW JERSEY KCPundescribed Platessa

17. 2011 Diatom QA project : Achnanthidium A. deflexum A.latecephalum (“A. nollii”) A. rivulare A. druartii ( A. sp. 3 KDOW LAP) A.gracillumum A. sp. 1 KYDOW LAP (Achnanthidium sp. 3 cf. alteragracillima KYDOW LAP)

18. Spaulding, S.A., Lubinski, D.J. and Potapova, M. (2010). Diatoms of the United States. http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu Accessed on 07 November, 2011.http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu 2011 Diatom QA project : Achnanthidium

19. Achnanthidium sp. 1 KYDOW LAP. Photo by Marina Potapova Scale bars = 1 micron 2011 Diatom QA project: Achnanthidium undescribed Achnanthidium

20. “Gomphonema angustatum complex” 2011 Diatom QA project: Gomphonema G. micropus G. cymbelliclinumG. drutiligenseG. innocens G. sp. 8 cf. sarcophagus KYDOW LAP

21. 2011 Diatom QA project: Unknowns Navicula sp. 1 KYDOW LAP Navicula sp. 2 KYDOW LAP Nitzschia sp. 2 KYDOW LAP Planothidium sp. 1 KYDOW LAP Sellaphora sp. 1 KYDOW LAP Sellaphora sp. 2 KYDOW LAP 10µm 6 unknowns judged to be “probably undescribed species”

22. 2011 Diatom QA project: Unknowns Navicula dibola Hohn Photos by Marina Potapova holotype Hohn, M.H. 1961. The Relationship Between Species Diversity and Population Density in Diatom Populations from Silver Springs, Florida. Trans. Amer. Micro. Soc. 80(2):140-165.

23. QC analyses on 19 slides: 1000 valve count, separate “strips” Discrepancies- many of the same issues from voucher images, plus several more Achnanthidium eutrophilum / A. minutissimum Cymbella turgidula / C. subturgidula / C. tropica Encyonema silesiacum / E. neogracile Remeria sinuata / uniseriata Navicula absoluta / N. ruttneri var. capitata Percent Similarity: Initial: range from 49 – 89% After resolving identification discrepancies: 76-91% 2011 Diatom QA project: QC Analyses where: a i = percentage of species i i count A b i = percentage of species i in count B

24. 2011 Diatom QA project outcomes verified images can be used as reference in the future improved confidence in comparability many unknowns confirmed to still be unknown problems to look out for contributed to understanding of rarely reported taxa, slides accessioned at ANSP accessible to researchers better idea of range of recount % similarity to expect QC recounts, voucher verifications, and special problems work gave different and complementary information

25. So where does that get us? http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds329/ % Eutrophic diatom individuals or taxa Trophic Index % Hi TP/TN and Low TP/TN indicating individuals or taxa Oxygen Tolerance Index Saprobity Index

26. Thanks! Questions?