(Grunow) Hustedt in A. Schmidt et al. 1913 Category: Eunotioid
BASIONYM: Eunotia arcus var.? tenella Grunow in Van Heurck 1881
SYNONYM(S): Eunotia exigua var. tenella (Grunow) Nörpel et Alles in Alles, Nörpel and Lange-Bertalot 1991
Contributor: Paula Furey -
Length Range: 11-33 µm
Width Range: 2.6-3.7 µm
Striae in 10 µm: 16-22
Ventral margin is slightly concave. Dorsal margin is parallel in longer specimens to more convex in smaller specimens. Apices are broadly rounded to truncate. Helictoglossae are positioned close to the apices. Distal raphe ends curve slightly on to the valve face. Areolae are not visible in the LM. One apical rimoportula is positioned mid-way up valve apex.
Basionym: Eunotia arcus var.? tenella
Author: Grunow in Van Heurck 1881
Length Range: µm
Striae in 10 µm:
Alles, E., Nörpel-Schempp, M. and Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991). Taxonomy and ecology of characteristic Eunotia species in headwaters with low electric conductivity. Nova Hedwigia. 53: 171-213.
Lange-Bertalot, H., Bak, M., Witkowski, A. and Tagliaventi, N. (2011). Eunotia and some related genera. Diatoms of the European Inland Waters and Comparable Habitats. 6: 747 pp.
Schmidt, A. (-). (1874-1959). Atlas der Diatomaceen-Kunde, von Adolf Schmidt, continued by Martin Schmidt, Friedrich Fricke, Heinrich Heiden, Otto Muller, Friedrich Hustedt. Reprint 1984, Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein, 480 plates.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) study was completed during the years 2000-2004 (see citations at bottom of this page). Over 1200 streams and rivers in 12 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) were selected for sampling based on a stratified randomized design. This type of design insures that ecological resources are sampled in proportion to their actual geographical presence. Stratified randomized design also allows for estimates of stream length with a known confidence in several “condition classes” (good or least-disturbed, intermediately-disturbed, and poor or most-disturbed) for biotic condition, chemistry and habitat.
Results are published in:
Johnson, T., Hermann, K., Spaulding, S., Beyea, B., Theel, C., Sada, R., Bollman, W., Bowman, J., Larsen, A., Vining, K., Ostermiller, J., Petersen, D. Hargett, E. and Zumberge, J. (2009). An ecological assessment of USEPA Region 8 streams and rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 Report, 178 p.
Stoddard, J. L., Peck, D. V., Olsen, A. R., Larsen, D. P., Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C. P., Hughes, R. M., Whittier, T. R., Lomnicky, G. A., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufman, P. R., Peterson, S. A., Ringold, P. L., Paulsen, S. G., and Blair, R. (2005). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) western streams and rivers statistical summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 620/R-05/006, 1,762 p.
Stoddard, J. L., Peck, D. V., Paulsen, S. G., Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C. P., Herlihy, A. T., Hughes, R. M., Kaufman, P. R., Larsen, D. P., Lomnicky, G. A., Olsen, A. R., Peterson, S. A., Ringold, P. L., and Whittier, T. R. (2005). An ecological assessment of western streams and rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 620/R-05/005, 49 p.