海河流域浮游动物多样性调查
|
摘要
为了综合评价海河流域各水系的水质污染程度,为河流污染治理提供基础数据支持,于2009年对海河流域8大水系的203个站点的浮游动物进行了生物多样性调查和水质分析,结果如下：
1、海河流域共检测到浮游动物196属426种。原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的49.77%,轮虫占34.98%,枝角类占11.03%,桡足类仅占4.22%。各水系浮游动物种类组成除滦河、黑龙港运东水系以轮虫为主外,其他水系均以原生动物为主永定河水系共检测到浮游动物82属124种,其中,原生动物占45.16%,轮虫占39.52%,枝角类占9.68%,桡足类仅占5.65%；滦河水系共检测到88属129种,轮虫占51.16%,原生动物34.88%,枝角类9.30%,桡足类仅4.65%；子牙河水系共检测到92属132种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的43.94%,轮虫42.42%,枝角类8.33%,桡足类仅5.30%；黑龙港运东水系共检测到98属125种,轮虫占浮游动物种类组成的44%；原生动物41.60%；枝角类8.80%；桡足类仅5.60%。漳、卫、南运河水系共检测到122属160种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的45.63%；轮虫40.63%；枝角类9.38%；桡足类仅4.38%。徒骇马颊河水系共检测到111属147种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的48.98%；轮虫34.69%；枝角类10.89%；桡足类仅为5.44%。大清河水系共检测到103属172种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的49.42%；轮虫34.30%；枝角类12.21%；桡足类仅4.07%。北三河水系共检测到124属211种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的43.60%；轮虫34.12%；枝角类18.01%；桡足类仅4.27%。
2、生物多样性评价选取了Shannon-Wiener指数、Simpson指数和均匀度指数三种。永定河水系中,永定河中游、北京排污河、凉水河属轻度污染,浑河、桑干河中下游均属重污染,永定河上游、东洋河属重污染和严重污染。滦河水系中,滦河下游为轻污染,青龙河下游、滦河中下游、武烈河中游为中度污染,青龙河中游、武烈河下游、滦河上游为重污染至严重污染。子牙河水系中,滏阳新河、滏阳河及其支流轻度至中度污染,滹沱河中上游、文都河、柳林河、甘陶河为严重污染。黑龙港运东水系中,沧浪渠、南排河、南运河、黑龙港河、卫运河、滏东排河为轻度污染类型,卫小运河为重污染类型,支漳河为中度污染类型。漳卫南运河水系中,安阳河中游、彰武南海水库、汤河下游、卫河下游和卫运河上游为轻度污染,卫河中上游、大沙河、淇河、漳河中游、岳城水库为中度污染,漳河岳城水库上游为重污染。徒骇马颊河水系中,马颊河、徒骇河为轻度至中度污染类型,漳卫新河下游为重污染类型。大清河水系中,子牙新河下游、子牙河下游、独流减河、大清河上游、清水河、拒马河及白沟河为轻度污染类型,小白河、大沙河、唐河上游及易水河为重污染或严重污染类型。北三河水系中,永定新河、潮白新河、怀河、温榆河、青龙湾减河、北运河及其支流、潮白河下游、牛牧屯引河、潮河上游、十三陵水库为轻度污染类型,蓟运河、还乡河、白河中游、州河及沙河为中度污染类型,白河下游、潮河下游、清水河为重污染或严重污染类型。
3、因子分析和聚类分析的结果表明,永定河上游、桑干河、洋河河段均为严重污染类型,永定河中下游及凉水河、北京排污河则为中度污染类型；滦河水系中青龙河、滦河上游为清洁至轻污染类型,武烈河、滦河中下游则为轻度至中度污染类型；子牙河水系中滹沱河中游段及其支流为轻度至中度污染类型,而滏阳河、滏阳新河、汶河污染较为严重；黑龙港运东水系中滏东排河及上游支漳河为重污染至严重污染类型,黑龙港河下游地区则为严重富营养化,其他河段均为轻度至中度污染类型；漳、卫、南运河水系漳河各站点的水质污染程度较轻,为轻度或中度污染类型,卫河支流安阳河段及上游彰武南海水库水体中度富营养化,为中度污染类型,卫河干流及支流汤河段为严重污染或重污染类型；徒骇马颊河水系中,除马颊河德州陵县麋镇的河段外,其余河段均为重度污染类型；大清河上游、拒马河、易水河、大沙河以及唐河为轻度至中度污染类型,子牙河下游、子牙新河、清水河以及独流减河段为中度至重度污染类型；北三河水系中白河、潮河、清水河水质为清洁至轻度污染类型,怀河为轻度至中度污染类型,潮白河干流为中度至重污染类型,北运河为中度污染类型,蓟运河水质表现为干流水质比支流差,干流主要表现为较严重的有机污染。
To evaluate the levels of water pollution of the Haihe River basin and provide basic data for river pollution treatment, the biodiversity of zooplankton and analysis of water in 203 locations of the eight river systems in Haihe River basin were investigated in 2009. Results obtained in this study showed that:
1.426 species of zooplankton belonging to 196 genera were found in Haihe River Basin. The protozoa accounted for 49.77%; the rotifer accounted for 34.98%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 11.03% and 4.22% respectively. The protozoa were the most abundant zooplankton in all river system almostly, but for Luanhe river and Heilonggang river system. In Yongding River system,124 species of zooplankton belonging to 82 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 45.16%; the rotifer accounted for 39.52%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 9.68% and 5.65% respectively. In Luanhe River system,129 species of zooplankton belonging to 88 genera were found. The rotifer accounted for 51.16%; the protozoa accounted for 34.88%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 9.30% and 4.65% respectively.ln Ziya River system,132 species of zooplankton belonging to 92 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 43.94%; the rotifer accounted for 42.42%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 8.33% and 5.30% respectively. In Heilonggang River system, 125 species of zooplankton belonging to 98 genera were found. The rotifer accounted for 44%; the protozoa accounted for 41.60%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 8.80% and 5.60% respectively. In Zhangweinan River system,160 species of zooplankton belonging to 122 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 45.63%; the rotifer accounted for 40.63%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 9.38% and 4.38% respectively.In Tuhai River and Majia River system,147 species of zooplankton belonging to 111 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 48.98%; the rotifer accounted for 34.69%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 10.89% and 5.44% respectively.In Daqing River system,172 species of zooplankton belonging to 103 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 49.42%; the rotifer accounted for 34.30%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 12.21% and 4.07% respectively.In Beisanhe River system,211 species of zooplankton belonging to 124 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 43.60%; the rotifer accounted for 34.12%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 18.01% and 4.27% respectively.
2. Biological evaluation is made with three diversity indices, that is, Shannon-Wiener index, Simpson index and evenness index. In Yongding River system, the middle reach of Yongding River and the Beijing Drainage River were lightly polluted, while the Hunhe River and the middle and lower reaches of the Sanggan River were heavily polluted, upstream of Yongding River and Dongyang River were severely polluted. In Luanhe River system, the lower reach of the Luanhe River was lightly polluted, while the lower reach of the Qinglong River, the middle and lower reaches of the Luanhe River and the middle reach of Wulie River were moderately polluted, and then the middle reach of the Qinglong River, the lower reach of the Wulie River and the upper reach of the Luanhe River were heavily or severely polluted. In Ziya River system, the Fuyang New River, Fuyang River and its tributaries were lightly or moderately polluted while the upper and middle reaches of the Hutuo River, Wendu River, Liulin River and Gantao River were severely polluted. In Heilonggang River system, Canglangqu River, Nanpai River, Nanyun River, Heilonggang River, Weiyun River and FudongpaiRiver were lightly polluted, while Weixiaoyun River was heavily polluted and Zhizhang River was moderately polluted. In Zhangweinan River system, the middle reach of the Anyang River, Zhangwu and Nanhai reservoir, the upper reach of the Tang River, the upper reach of the Wei River and upstream of the Weiyun River were lightly polluted, while the upper and middle reaches of Wei River, Dasha River, Qi River, the middle reach of the Zhang River and Yuecheng reservoir were moderately polluted, and then the upstream of Zhang River was heavily polluted. In Tuhai and Majia River system, the Majia River and the Tuhai River were lightly of moderately polluted while the lower reach of Zhangwei New River was heavily polluted. In Daqing River system, the lower reach of the Ziya New River and the Ziya River, the Duliujian River, the Qingshui River, the Juma River, the Baigou River and the upper reach of the Daqing River were lightly polluted, while the Xiaobai River, the Dasha River, the Yishui River and the upstream of Tang River were heavily or severely polluted. In Beisanhe River system, the Yongding New River, the Chaobai New River, the Huai River, the Wenyu River, the Qinglongwan River, the Beiyun River and its tributaries, the lower reach of the Chaobai River, the Niumutun River, the upstream of Chao River and the Ming Tombs Reservoir were lightly polluted, while the Jiyun River, the Huanxiang River, the middle reach of the Bai River, the Zhou River and the Sha River were moderately polluted, and then the Qingshui River, the lower reaches of Bai River and the Chao River were heavily or severely polluted.
3. The results of factor analysis and cluster analysis indicate that the upper reaches of Yongding River, Sanggan River, Yanghe River are seriously polluted, the middle and lower reaches of Yongding River and Liangshui, Beijing blowdown River are moderately polluted; Qing Long River of Luan river system and the upper reaches of Luan River are clean or lightly polluted. Wulie River, the middle and lower reaches of Luanhe River are lightly or moderately polluted; The middle reaches of Hutuo of Ziya River system and its tributaries are lightly or moderately polluted, and Fuyang River, Fuyang New River, Jiao River suffer relatively serious pollution; Fudongpai River in Heilonggang canal East River System and the upper row of Zhang River suffer heavy to severe pollution, the lower reaches of Heilonggang river area suffer severe eutrophication, and other polluted rivers belong to mild to moderate pollution type; Zhang, Wei, South Canal water suffer pollution to a lesser extent, lightly or moderately polluted, Wei River tributaries Anyang River and upstream of the Zhangwunanhai suffer moderate degree of eutrophication in water reservoirs, belonging to moderate pollution type, Weihe River main stream and its tributary Tang river belong to a serious type of pollution or heavier; Tuhaimajia River system, except the river reaches through the town of Mi in Ling county of Dezhou city, the rest were seriously polluted; Daqing River upstream, Juma, Yishui River, Dasha Rver and Tang River are mildly or moderate polluted, Ziya River downstream, Ziya New River, Qingshui river water and Duliujian River reach have moderate to severe river pollution; In the Beisan River System, the water quality of White River water, Chao River, Qingshui River are clean or mildly polluted, the Huai River was polluted with mild to moderate degree, Chaobai River main stream belongs to moderate to the heavy pollution type; North Canal is moderately polluted; Ji Canal shows that, water quality of main stream gets worse than the tributaries; It mainly shows that there is more serious organic pollution in main stream.
1、海河流域共检测到浮游动物196属426种。原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的49.77%,轮虫占34.98%,枝角类占11.03%,桡足类仅占4.22%。各水系浮游动物种类组成除滦河、黑龙港运东水系以轮虫为主外,其他水系均以原生动物为主永定河水系共检测到浮游动物82属124种,其中,原生动物占45.16%,轮虫占39.52%,枝角类占9.68%,桡足类仅占5.65%；滦河水系共检测到88属129种,轮虫占51.16%,原生动物34.88%,枝角类9.30%,桡足类仅4.65%；子牙河水系共检测到92属132种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的43.94%,轮虫42.42%,枝角类8.33%,桡足类仅5.30%；黑龙港运东水系共检测到98属125种,轮虫占浮游动物种类组成的44%；原生动物41.60%；枝角类8.80%；桡足类仅5.60%。漳、卫、南运河水系共检测到122属160种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的45.63%；轮虫40.63%；枝角类9.38%；桡足类仅4.38%。徒骇马颊河水系共检测到111属147种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的48.98%；轮虫34.69%；枝角类10.89%；桡足类仅为5.44%。大清河水系共检测到103属172种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的49.42%；轮虫34.30%；枝角类12.21%；桡足类仅4.07%。北三河水系共检测到124属211种,原生动物占浮游动物种类组成的43.60%；轮虫34.12%；枝角类18.01%；桡足类仅4.27%。
2、生物多样性评价选取了Shannon-Wiener指数、Simpson指数和均匀度指数三种。永定河水系中,永定河中游、北京排污河、凉水河属轻度污染,浑河、桑干河中下游均属重污染,永定河上游、东洋河属重污染和严重污染。滦河水系中,滦河下游为轻污染,青龙河下游、滦河中下游、武烈河中游为中度污染,青龙河中游、武烈河下游、滦河上游为重污染至严重污染。子牙河水系中,滏阳新河、滏阳河及其支流轻度至中度污染,滹沱河中上游、文都河、柳林河、甘陶河为严重污染。黑龙港运东水系中,沧浪渠、南排河、南运河、黑龙港河、卫运河、滏东排河为轻度污染类型,卫小运河为重污染类型,支漳河为中度污染类型。漳卫南运河水系中,安阳河中游、彰武南海水库、汤河下游、卫河下游和卫运河上游为轻度污染,卫河中上游、大沙河、淇河、漳河中游、岳城水库为中度污染,漳河岳城水库上游为重污染。徒骇马颊河水系中,马颊河、徒骇河为轻度至中度污染类型,漳卫新河下游为重污染类型。大清河水系中,子牙新河下游、子牙河下游、独流减河、大清河上游、清水河、拒马河及白沟河为轻度污染类型,小白河、大沙河、唐河上游及易水河为重污染或严重污染类型。北三河水系中,永定新河、潮白新河、怀河、温榆河、青龙湾减河、北运河及其支流、潮白河下游、牛牧屯引河、潮河上游、十三陵水库为轻度污染类型,蓟运河、还乡河、白河中游、州河及沙河为中度污染类型,白河下游、潮河下游、清水河为重污染或严重污染类型。
3、因子分析和聚类分析的结果表明,永定河上游、桑干河、洋河河段均为严重污染类型,永定河中下游及凉水河、北京排污河则为中度污染类型；滦河水系中青龙河、滦河上游为清洁至轻污染类型,武烈河、滦河中下游则为轻度至中度污染类型；子牙河水系中滹沱河中游段及其支流为轻度至中度污染类型,而滏阳河、滏阳新河、汶河污染较为严重；黑龙港运东水系中滏东排河及上游支漳河为重污染至严重污染类型,黑龙港河下游地区则为严重富营养化,其他河段均为轻度至中度污染类型；漳、卫、南运河水系漳河各站点的水质污染程度较轻,为轻度或中度污染类型,卫河支流安阳河段及上游彰武南海水库水体中度富营养化,为中度污染类型,卫河干流及支流汤河段为严重污染或重污染类型；徒骇马颊河水系中,除马颊河德州陵县麋镇的河段外,其余河段均为重度污染类型；大清河上游、拒马河、易水河、大沙河以及唐河为轻度至中度污染类型,子牙河下游、子牙新河、清水河以及独流减河段为中度至重度污染类型；北三河水系中白河、潮河、清水河水质为清洁至轻度污染类型,怀河为轻度至中度污染类型,潮白河干流为中度至重污染类型,北运河为中度污染类型,蓟运河水质表现为干流水质比支流差,干流主要表现为较严重的有机污染。
To evaluate the levels of water pollution of the Haihe River basin and provide basic data for river pollution treatment, the biodiversity of zooplankton and analysis of water in 203 locations of the eight river systems in Haihe River basin were investigated in 2009. Results obtained in this study showed that:
1.426 species of zooplankton belonging to 196 genera were found in Haihe River Basin. The protozoa accounted for 49.77%; the rotifer accounted for 34.98%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 11.03% and 4.22% respectively. The protozoa were the most abundant zooplankton in all river system almostly, but for Luanhe river and Heilonggang river system. In Yongding River system,124 species of zooplankton belonging to 82 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 45.16%; the rotifer accounted for 39.52%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 9.68% and 5.65% respectively. In Luanhe River system,129 species of zooplankton belonging to 88 genera were found. The rotifer accounted for 51.16%; the protozoa accounted for 34.88%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 9.30% and 4.65% respectively.ln Ziya River system,132 species of zooplankton belonging to 92 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 43.94%; the rotifer accounted for 42.42%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 8.33% and 5.30% respectively. In Heilonggang River system, 125 species of zooplankton belonging to 98 genera were found. The rotifer accounted for 44%; the protozoa accounted for 41.60%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 8.80% and 5.60% respectively. In Zhangweinan River system,160 species of zooplankton belonging to 122 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 45.63%; the rotifer accounted for 40.63%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 9.38% and 4.38% respectively.In Tuhai River and Majia River system,147 species of zooplankton belonging to 111 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 48.98%; the rotifer accounted for 34.69%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 10.89% and 5.44% respectively.In Daqing River system,172 species of zooplankton belonging to 103 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 49.42%; the rotifer accounted for 34.30%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 12.21% and 4.07% respectively.In Beisanhe River system,211 species of zooplankton belonging to 124 genera were found. The protozoa accounted for 43.60%; the rotifer accounted for 34.12%; the cladocera and copepods accounted for 18.01% and 4.27% respectively.
2. Biological evaluation is made with three diversity indices, that is, Shannon-Wiener index, Simpson index and evenness index. In Yongding River system, the middle reach of Yongding River and the Beijing Drainage River were lightly polluted, while the Hunhe River and the middle and lower reaches of the Sanggan River were heavily polluted, upstream of Yongding River and Dongyang River were severely polluted. In Luanhe River system, the lower reach of the Luanhe River was lightly polluted, while the lower reach of the Qinglong River, the middle and lower reaches of the Luanhe River and the middle reach of Wulie River were moderately polluted, and then the middle reach of the Qinglong River, the lower reach of the Wulie River and the upper reach of the Luanhe River were heavily or severely polluted. In Ziya River system, the Fuyang New River, Fuyang River and its tributaries were lightly or moderately polluted while the upper and middle reaches of the Hutuo River, Wendu River, Liulin River and Gantao River were severely polluted. In Heilonggang River system, Canglangqu River, Nanpai River, Nanyun River, Heilonggang River, Weiyun River and FudongpaiRiver were lightly polluted, while Weixiaoyun River was heavily polluted and Zhizhang River was moderately polluted. In Zhangweinan River system, the middle reach of the Anyang River, Zhangwu and Nanhai reservoir, the upper reach of the Tang River, the upper reach of the Wei River and upstream of the Weiyun River were lightly polluted, while the upper and middle reaches of Wei River, Dasha River, Qi River, the middle reach of the Zhang River and Yuecheng reservoir were moderately polluted, and then the upstream of Zhang River was heavily polluted. In Tuhai and Majia River system, the Majia River and the Tuhai River were lightly of moderately polluted while the lower reach of Zhangwei New River was heavily polluted. In Daqing River system, the lower reach of the Ziya New River and the Ziya River, the Duliujian River, the Qingshui River, the Juma River, the Baigou River and the upper reach of the Daqing River were lightly polluted, while the Xiaobai River, the Dasha River, the Yishui River and the upstream of Tang River were heavily or severely polluted. In Beisanhe River system, the Yongding New River, the Chaobai New River, the Huai River, the Wenyu River, the Qinglongwan River, the Beiyun River and its tributaries, the lower reach of the Chaobai River, the Niumutun River, the upstream of Chao River and the Ming Tombs Reservoir were lightly polluted, while the Jiyun River, the Huanxiang River, the middle reach of the Bai River, the Zhou River and the Sha River were moderately polluted, and then the Qingshui River, the lower reaches of Bai River and the Chao River were heavily or severely polluted.
3. The results of factor analysis and cluster analysis indicate that the upper reaches of Yongding River, Sanggan River, Yanghe River are seriously polluted, the middle and lower reaches of Yongding River and Liangshui, Beijing blowdown River are moderately polluted; Qing Long River of Luan river system and the upper reaches of Luan River are clean or lightly polluted. Wulie River, the middle and lower reaches of Luanhe River are lightly or moderately polluted; The middle reaches of Hutuo of Ziya River system and its tributaries are lightly or moderately polluted, and Fuyang River, Fuyang New River, Jiao River suffer relatively serious pollution; Fudongpai River in Heilonggang canal East River System and the upper row of Zhang River suffer heavy to severe pollution, the lower reaches of Heilonggang river area suffer severe eutrophication, and other polluted rivers belong to mild to moderate pollution type; Zhang, Wei, South Canal water suffer pollution to a lesser extent, lightly or moderately polluted, Wei River tributaries Anyang River and upstream of the Zhangwunanhai suffer moderate degree of eutrophication in water reservoirs, belonging to moderate pollution type, Weihe River main stream and its tributary Tang river belong to a serious type of pollution or heavier; Tuhaimajia River system, except the river reaches through the town of Mi in Ling county of Dezhou city, the rest were seriously polluted; Daqing River upstream, Juma, Yishui River, Dasha Rver and Tang River are mildly or moderate polluted, Ziya River downstream, Ziya New River, Qingshui river water and Duliujian River reach have moderate to severe river pollution; In the Beisan River System, the water quality of White River water, Chao River, Qingshui River are clean or mildly polluted, the Huai River was polluted with mild to moderate degree, Chaobai River main stream belongs to moderate to the heavy pollution type; North Canal is moderately polluted; Ji Canal shows that, water quality of main stream gets worse than the tributaries; It mainly shows that there is more serious organic pollution in main stream.
引文
1.北京市环境保护局.北京市北运河流域污染状况调研报告[R].北京：北京市环境保护局,2008
2.蔡庆华.武汉东湖浮游生物间相互关系的多元分析[J].中国科学院研究生院学报,1995,12(1)：97-102
3.蔡庆华.武汉东湖浮游植物水华的多元分析[J].水生生物学报,1990,14(1)：22-31
4.曹珍,樊琛,陆长民,马丽娜,米书梅,王兆玉.徒骇河聊城大学段水质情况的检测.广东微量元素科学.2010,17(3)：61-64
5.陈非洲.浮游甲壳动物和蓝藻的相互作用.[博士学位论文].中科科学研研究生院.2003
6.陈立婧,顾静,彭自然,孔优佳,花少鹏,王武.滆湖轮虫群落结构与水质生态学评价.动物学杂志.2008,43(3)：7-6
7.陈利顶,李俊然,郭旭东,傅伯杰,李广清.蓟运河流域地表水质时空变化特征分析[J].环境科学.2000,21：61-64
8.崔光华,何燕青.滦河污染及治理[J].煤矿环境保护,1999,13(5)：36-37
9.窦素珍,喻亲仁,李东元,刘桂成,王斌.山东省东平湖浮游动物与富营养化防治[J].重庆环境科学,2002,24(2)：58-68
10.堵南山,赖伟.太湖枝角类生殖周期的观察[J].水生生物学集刊,1959,3：305-314
11.冯养云.山西省海河流域永定河水系排污口水质评价[J].科技情报开发与经济,2008,18(35)：128-129
12.高晋华,王心.晋阳湖轮虫群落特征与水质相关性的研究[J].太原师范学院学报(自然科学版).2007,6(4)：133-135
13.高思佳,陈卫.白河堡水库浮游动物调查与水质评价[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版)2008.29(3)：37-40
14.龚珞军,熊邦喜,周敏,黄娟,周慧娟.主成分分析方法在渔业上的应用[J].淡水渔业,2005,z1(增刊)：52-54
15.龚珞军,张仕萍,熊邦喜,刘定柱,李金忠,曹军.不同类型湖泊夏季浮游生物多元聚类分析[J].水生生物学报,2010,34(1)：43-50
16.龚秀英.试谈永定河水系存在问题及建议[J].北京水利,2005(1)：12-13
17.郭凯,赵文,殷守仁,李艳颖,徐立蒲,徐峰,陈立斌.北京官厅水库轮虫群落结构与水体富营养化状况[J].湖泊科学.2010,22(2)：256-264
18.郭英卓,冯亚耐,朱瑶.漳卫新河治理工程水环境影响预测评价[J].海河水利.2007,3：14-17
19.韩晨霞,赵旭阳,张灵芝,李冬.滹沱河岗黄段湿地重金属污染的植物修复探讨[J].石家庄学院学报.2007,9(6)：67-71
20.韩茂森.淡水浮游生物图谱[M].北京：农业出版社,1986,1-170
21.胡文,王海燕,查同刚,王宇,蒲俊文,王玉红,王晨.北京市凉水河污灌区土壤重金属累积和形态分析[J].生态环境.2008,17(4)：1491-1497
22.黄俊雄,金桂琴,廖日红,贺晓庆,顾永钢.潮白河顺义城区段非点源污染成因分析与控制对策[J].北京水务.2010,4：4-7
23.姜娜,冯绍元,郑艳侠,孟庆义,唐泽军.北京市北运河流域地表水环境问题分析与治理对策[J].中国农村水利水电.2010,6：9-11
24.蒋燮治.堵南山.中国动物志-节肢动物门-甲壳纲-淡水枝角类[M].北京：科学出版社,1979：1-297
25.金德美,宋玉珍,刘文君,张凡,李力.河流水质监测与评价中生物学指标研究[J].甘肃环境研究与监测,1995,8(1)：12-15
26.雷安平,施之新,魏印心.武汉东湖浮游藻类物种多样性的研究[J].水生生物学报,2003,27(2)：179-184
27.李爱红,李红兵.安阳河流域水污染现状及改善措施[J].河南水利.2004,3：10
28.李纯厚,黄祥飞.略论武汉东湖枝角类种类演替及其与生态因子的关系[J].水生生物学报.1992,16(2)：101-112
29.李凤超,康现江,杨文波,管越强,张晓慧,刘炜炜,沈公铭,李继龙,王宏伟.拒马河北京段原生动物群落特征及其对河流营养状况的指示[J].生物多样性.2006,14(2)：327-332
30.李共国,虞左明.千岛湖浮游动物的群落结构.生态学报[J].2002,22(2)：156-162
31.李共国,虞左明.浙江青山水库轮虫初步研究[J].浙江万里学院学报.1999,12(3)：5-8
32.李科江,曹彩云,郑春莲,王有增.黑龙港蓄污区污水水质监测与评价研究[J].中国生态农业学报.2005,13(3)：191-193
33.李莉娜,陈卫,高思佳,邓楠.北京白河与温榆河浮游动物调查[J].四川动物.2008,27(5)：802-803
34.李玉霜,任连安,刘晓芹.卫河共产主义渠水质污染原因及对策[J].河南水利与南水北调.2008,1：28-29
35.李玉英,王庆林,梁子安,张乃群,韩建忠.白河南阳段水质的生物学检测及评价[J].南阳师范学院学报.2005,4(6)：61-64
36.林秋奇,胡韧,段舜山,韩博平.广东省大中型供水水库营养现状及浮游生物的响应[J].生态学报.2003,23(6)：1101-1108
37.刘成,王兆印,黄文典,余国安.海河流域主要河口水沙污染现状分析[J].水利学报.2007,38(8)：920-925
38.刘建康.高级水生生物学[M].北京：科学出版社,2002：1-199
39.刘衍君.春季灌溉期徒骇河水质对聊城农业生态安全的影响研究[J].农业环境与发展.2005,22(6)：49-50
40.卢敬让,李德尚,周春生.山东省大中型水库浮游生物研究[J].青岛海洋大学学报,1994,24(1)：3-39
41.吕晋,邬红娟,林济东,崔博,卢媛媛.主成分及聚类分析在水生态系统区划中的应用[J].武汉大学学报,2005,51(4)：461-466
42.倪雪梅.精通SPSS统计分析[M].北京：清华大学出版社.2010：220-259
43.沈图芬,陈受忠.武昌东湖浮游动物数量季节变动的初步观察[J].水生生物学集刊,1965,5(2)：133-145
44.沈韫芬,章宗涉,龚循矩著.微型生物监测新技术(第一版)[M].中国建筑工业出版社.1990,100-151
45.石岩,徐锐贤,付春艳,姚伟.南湖着生原生动物群落结构变化与富营养化关系[J].东北水利水电,2000,18(12)：34-35
46.帅伟.北京凉水河(通州段)水环境污染特征及多环芳烃萘的吸附解吸研究.[硕士论文].华南理工大学,2010
47.宋碧玉.长江洞庭湖口原生动物的生态学研究[J].水生生物学报,2000,24(4)：317-321
48.孙胜利,冯琳,杜彩,宋玉珍.黄河兰州段浮游动物种类构成及水质评价[J].甘 肃科学学报.2000,12(1)：80-83
49.唐晓晖,唐曙暇.海河流域漳河上游水环境的治理措施[J].江淮水利科技.2007,3：40-41
50.王春生,刘镇盛,何德华.象山港浮游动物生物量和丰度的季节变动[J].水产学报,2003,27(6)：595-599
51.王海霞,邱万勇.滏阳河衡水段水质污染分析及对策研究[J].衡水师专学报,2003,5(1)：47-48
52.王宏伟,张蕾颖,沈公铭,李凤超,管越强,李继龙,杨文波,康现江.拒马河底栖动物多样性及其水质评价[J].河北大学学报(自然科学版).2007,5：530-536
53.王家辑.中国淡水轮虫志[M].北京：科学出版社,1961
54.王荣花,谢营.马颊河流域生态环境保护存在问题及综合治理研究[J].公共管理.2009,5：66-67
55.王寿兵.对传统生物多样性指数的质疑[J].复旦学报(自然科学版),2003,42(6)：867-868
56.王雯.城市富营养化水体浮游植物群落结构初步研究.[硕士学位论文].南开大学,2004
57.王秀兰,张芸,李兵.大清河水系水环境动态及变化规律分析[J].河北水利科技.1998,19(4)：41-45
58.王学峰,罗晓东,姚远鹰.新乡市卫河两岸蔬菜中重金属含量及污染评价[J].安徽农业科学.2009,37(25)：12125-12126
59.卫立冬,李玉巧.滏阳河衡水市区段水体黑臭现象分析及治理措施[J].赤峰学院学报(自然科学版).2008,24(4)：59-60
60.魏鹏,林秋奇,胡韧,韩博平,林旭钿,杨浩文,钟秀英.高州水库水质与浮游生物动态分析[J].应用与环境生物学报,2002,8(2)：165-170
61.吴生桂,沈韫芬.从时空异质性看东湖富营养化中原生动物的演替[J].生态学报,2001,21(3)：446-451
62.吴志民,刘洪建,张颖,王强.徒骇河流域(德州段)水污染现状及防治对策[J].山东环境.1999,5：61-64
63.谢进金,许友勤,陈寅山,戴聪杰,陈朝阳.晋江流域水质污染与浮游动物四季群落结构的关系[J].动物学杂志,2005,40(5)：8-13
64.谢平,诸葛燕,戴莽.水体富营养化对浮游生物群落多样性的影响[J].水生生物学报.1996,20：30-37
65.谢钦铭,李云,李长春.鄱阳湖轮虫种类组成与现存量季节变动的初步研究.东西科学[J].1997,15(4)：235-242
66.新华社.北京水污染防治形势仍然严峻[N].中国建设报,2009-07-30
67.许木启,王子健.利用浮游动物群落结构与功能特征监测乐安江、鄱阳湖口重金属污染.应用与环境生物学报.1996,2(2)：169-174
68.姚志远.徒骇河聊城市河段水环境质量评价.山东农业大学学报(自然科学版).2009,40(3)：461-464
69.尤洋,李占斌,李鹏.潮河流域水质分析研究.山西建筑.2007,33(21)：3-4
70.于焕民.漳河上游入河排污口调查与分析.地下水.2005,27(6)：429-432
71.于一雷,王庆锁.密云水库及其主要河流入库河段水质的季节变化.中国农业气象.2008,29(4)：432-435
72.袁金良,韩智力,孟振金.彰武南海水库水产养殖与水质污染分析.2006,9：76-78
73.张华,杨虹.用纤毛虫的种群结构和数量分布评价滦河水质的研究.江苏环境科技.2008,21(1)增刊：64-68
74.张克青.环境生物监测.北京：冶金工业出版社,1993
75.张晓伊,杨建设.以浮游生物评价水体质量——试用浮游生物种群及数量评价张公山大唐水质.安徽农业技术师范学院学报[J],1998,12(2)：30-33
76.章宗涉,黄祥飞.淡水浮游生物研究方法[M].北京：科学出版社.1991：232
77.章宗涉,莫珠成,戎克文,黄浩明.用藻类监测和评价图们江的水污染.水生生物学集刊,1983,8(1)：94-104
78.赵飞燕,万贵生.为何地表水水质对地下水水质的影响研究.河南水利与南水北调.2007,6
79.赵帅营,林秋奇,刘正文.南亚热带湖泊——星湖后生浮游动物群落特征研究.水生生物学报.2007,31(3)：405-412
80.赵文,董双林,张美昭,张兆琪,李德尚.盐碱池塘浮游动物的种类组成和生物量[J].水产学报,2001,25(1)：26-31
81.郑凡东,孟庆义,王培京,金桂琴.北京市温榆河水环境现状及治理对策研究.北京水务.2007,5：5-8
82.中国科学院动物研究所甲壳动物研究组.中国动物志-淡水桡足类[M].北京：科学出版社,1979：1-450
83.钟贻诚,李玉和,张蛮光.北塘河口浮游动物生态的初步研究[J].生态学报,1984,4(4)：393-400
84. AL-Kahem H F A S, AL-Akel M J K, Shamsi. Planktonic biomass and Physico-chemical Parameters in Wadi Haneefah stream, Riyadth. Saudi Arabia[J].Dlrasat Naturaland Enginering Science.1998,25(2):363-376
85. Bick H. Ciliated protozoa:an illustrated guide to the species used as biological indicators infreshwater biology. World Health Organisation, Genva,1972:198
86. Bick H. Population dymamics of protozoa associated with decay of organic materials infreshwater[J].1973,13(1):149-160
87. Cairns J Jr, Anza G R L, Parker B C. Pollution raiated to structural and functional changes in aquatic conununlties with emphasis on freshwater algal and protozoa[J]. Proc., Acad, Nat.Sci.Phila.1972,124:79-127
88. Cairns J Jr. The relationship of freshwater protozoan comunities to the Mac Arthur-Wilson Equilibrium Model[J]. Amer Nat.1969,103:439-454
89. Francis M, Kenneth M M, Wellington N W. Biodiversity characteristics of small high-altitude tropical man-made reservoirs in the Eastern Rift Valley, Kenya[J].Lakes Reservoirs:Research and Management,2002,7:1-12
90. Kolkwitz R, Marsson M. Okologie der pflanzlichen Ssaprobien. Betichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft.1908,26A:505-519
91. MacArthur P H, Wilson E O. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography[J]. Evolution,1963,179(4):373-387
92. Margalef D R. Information theoty inecology[J]. CenSystem,1958,3:36-71
93. Sladecek V. Aguide to Limno saprobical organisms[J]. Scientific Papers from Institute of Chemical Technology.1963,543-612
94. Sorokin J L. On the quantative charaeteristies of the pelagic ecosystem of Dalnee Lake (Kamechatka)[J]. Hydrobiologia,1972,65(4):519-552
2.蔡庆华.武汉东湖浮游生物间相互关系的多元分析[J].中国科学院研究生院学报,1995,12(1)：97-102
3.蔡庆华.武汉东湖浮游植物水华的多元分析[J].水生生物学报,1990,14(1)：22-31
4.曹珍,樊琛,陆长民,马丽娜,米书梅,王兆玉.徒骇河聊城大学段水质情况的检测.广东微量元素科学.2010,17(3)：61-64
5.陈非洲.浮游甲壳动物和蓝藻的相互作用.[博士学位论文].中科科学研研究生院.2003
6.陈立婧,顾静,彭自然,孔优佳,花少鹏,王武.滆湖轮虫群落结构与水质生态学评价.动物学杂志.2008,43(3)：7-6
7.陈利顶,李俊然,郭旭东,傅伯杰,李广清.蓟运河流域地表水质时空变化特征分析[J].环境科学.2000,21：61-64
8.崔光华,何燕青.滦河污染及治理[J].煤矿环境保护,1999,13(5)：36-37
9.窦素珍,喻亲仁,李东元,刘桂成,王斌.山东省东平湖浮游动物与富营养化防治[J].重庆环境科学,2002,24(2)：58-68
10.堵南山,赖伟.太湖枝角类生殖周期的观察[J].水生生物学集刊,1959,3：305-314
11.冯养云.山西省海河流域永定河水系排污口水质评价[J].科技情报开发与经济,2008,18(35)：128-129
12.高晋华,王心.晋阳湖轮虫群落特征与水质相关性的研究[J].太原师范学院学报(自然科学版).2007,6(4)：133-135
13.高思佳,陈卫.白河堡水库浮游动物调查与水质评价[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版)2008.29(3)：37-40
14.龚珞军,熊邦喜,周敏,黄娟,周慧娟.主成分分析方法在渔业上的应用[J].淡水渔业,2005,z1(增刊)：52-54
15.龚珞军,张仕萍,熊邦喜,刘定柱,李金忠,曹军.不同类型湖泊夏季浮游生物多元聚类分析[J].水生生物学报,2010,34(1)：43-50
16.龚秀英.试谈永定河水系存在问题及建议[J].北京水利,2005(1)：12-13
17.郭凯,赵文,殷守仁,李艳颖,徐立蒲,徐峰,陈立斌.北京官厅水库轮虫群落结构与水体富营养化状况[J].湖泊科学.2010,22(2)：256-264
18.郭英卓,冯亚耐,朱瑶.漳卫新河治理工程水环境影响预测评价[J].海河水利.2007,3：14-17
19.韩晨霞,赵旭阳,张灵芝,李冬.滹沱河岗黄段湿地重金属污染的植物修复探讨[J].石家庄学院学报.2007,9(6)：67-71
20.韩茂森.淡水浮游生物图谱[M].北京：农业出版社,1986,1-170
21.胡文,王海燕,查同刚,王宇,蒲俊文,王玉红,王晨.北京市凉水河污灌区土壤重金属累积和形态分析[J].生态环境.2008,17(4)：1491-1497
22.黄俊雄,金桂琴,廖日红,贺晓庆,顾永钢.潮白河顺义城区段非点源污染成因分析与控制对策[J].北京水务.2010,4：4-7
23.姜娜,冯绍元,郑艳侠,孟庆义,唐泽军.北京市北运河流域地表水环境问题分析与治理对策[J].中国农村水利水电.2010,6：9-11
24.蒋燮治.堵南山.中国动物志-节肢动物门-甲壳纲-淡水枝角类[M].北京：科学出版社,1979：1-297
25.金德美,宋玉珍,刘文君,张凡,李力.河流水质监测与评价中生物学指标研究[J].甘肃环境研究与监测,1995,8(1)：12-15
26.雷安平,施之新,魏印心.武汉东湖浮游藻类物种多样性的研究[J].水生生物学报,2003,27(2)：179-184
27.李爱红,李红兵.安阳河流域水污染现状及改善措施[J].河南水利.2004,3：10
28.李纯厚,黄祥飞.略论武汉东湖枝角类种类演替及其与生态因子的关系[J].水生生物学报.1992,16(2)：101-112
29.李凤超,康现江,杨文波,管越强,张晓慧,刘炜炜,沈公铭,李继龙,王宏伟.拒马河北京段原生动物群落特征及其对河流营养状况的指示[J].生物多样性.2006,14(2)：327-332
30.李共国,虞左明.千岛湖浮游动物的群落结构.生态学报[J].2002,22(2)：156-162
31.李共国,虞左明.浙江青山水库轮虫初步研究[J].浙江万里学院学报.1999,12(3)：5-8
32.李科江,曹彩云,郑春莲,王有增.黑龙港蓄污区污水水质监测与评价研究[J].中国生态农业学报.2005,13(3)：191-193
33.李莉娜,陈卫,高思佳,邓楠.北京白河与温榆河浮游动物调查[J].四川动物.2008,27(5)：802-803
34.李玉霜,任连安,刘晓芹.卫河共产主义渠水质污染原因及对策[J].河南水利与南水北调.2008,1：28-29
35.李玉英,王庆林,梁子安,张乃群,韩建忠.白河南阳段水质的生物学检测及评价[J].南阳师范学院学报.2005,4(6)：61-64
36.林秋奇,胡韧,段舜山,韩博平.广东省大中型供水水库营养现状及浮游生物的响应[J].生态学报.2003,23(6)：1101-1108
37.刘成,王兆印,黄文典,余国安.海河流域主要河口水沙污染现状分析[J].水利学报.2007,38(8)：920-925
38.刘建康.高级水生生物学[M].北京：科学出版社,2002：1-199
39.刘衍君.春季灌溉期徒骇河水质对聊城农业生态安全的影响研究[J].农业环境与发展.2005,22(6)：49-50
40.卢敬让,李德尚,周春生.山东省大中型水库浮游生物研究[J].青岛海洋大学学报,1994,24(1)：3-39
41.吕晋,邬红娟,林济东,崔博,卢媛媛.主成分及聚类分析在水生态系统区划中的应用[J].武汉大学学报,2005,51(4)：461-466
42.倪雪梅.精通SPSS统计分析[M].北京：清华大学出版社.2010：220-259
43.沈图芬,陈受忠.武昌东湖浮游动物数量季节变动的初步观察[J].水生生物学集刊,1965,5(2)：133-145
44.沈韫芬,章宗涉,龚循矩著.微型生物监测新技术(第一版)[M].中国建筑工业出版社.1990,100-151
45.石岩,徐锐贤,付春艳,姚伟.南湖着生原生动物群落结构变化与富营养化关系[J].东北水利水电,2000,18(12)：34-35
46.帅伟.北京凉水河(通州段)水环境污染特征及多环芳烃萘的吸附解吸研究.[硕士论文].华南理工大学,2010
47.宋碧玉.长江洞庭湖口原生动物的生态学研究[J].水生生物学报,2000,24(4)：317-321
48.孙胜利,冯琳,杜彩,宋玉珍.黄河兰州段浮游动物种类构成及水质评价[J].甘 肃科学学报.2000,12(1)：80-83
49.唐晓晖,唐曙暇.海河流域漳河上游水环境的治理措施[J].江淮水利科技.2007,3：40-41
50.王春生,刘镇盛,何德华.象山港浮游动物生物量和丰度的季节变动[J].水产学报,2003,27(6)：595-599
51.王海霞,邱万勇.滏阳河衡水段水质污染分析及对策研究[J].衡水师专学报,2003,5(1)：47-48
52.王宏伟,张蕾颖,沈公铭,李凤超,管越强,李继龙,杨文波,康现江.拒马河底栖动物多样性及其水质评价[J].河北大学学报(自然科学版).2007,5：530-536
53.王家辑.中国淡水轮虫志[M].北京：科学出版社,1961
54.王荣花,谢营.马颊河流域生态环境保护存在问题及综合治理研究[J].公共管理.2009,5：66-67
55.王寿兵.对传统生物多样性指数的质疑[J].复旦学报(自然科学版),2003,42(6)：867-868
56.王雯.城市富营养化水体浮游植物群落结构初步研究.[硕士学位论文].南开大学,2004
57.王秀兰,张芸,李兵.大清河水系水环境动态及变化规律分析[J].河北水利科技.1998,19(4)：41-45
58.王学峰,罗晓东,姚远鹰.新乡市卫河两岸蔬菜中重金属含量及污染评价[J].安徽农业科学.2009,37(25)：12125-12126
59.卫立冬,李玉巧.滏阳河衡水市区段水体黑臭现象分析及治理措施[J].赤峰学院学报(自然科学版).2008,24(4)：59-60
60.魏鹏,林秋奇,胡韧,韩博平,林旭钿,杨浩文,钟秀英.高州水库水质与浮游生物动态分析[J].应用与环境生物学报,2002,8(2)：165-170
61.吴生桂,沈韫芬.从时空异质性看东湖富营养化中原生动物的演替[J].生态学报,2001,21(3)：446-451
62.吴志民,刘洪建,张颖,王强.徒骇河流域(德州段)水污染现状及防治对策[J].山东环境.1999,5：61-64
63.谢进金,许友勤,陈寅山,戴聪杰,陈朝阳.晋江流域水质污染与浮游动物四季群落结构的关系[J].动物学杂志,2005,40(5)：8-13
64.谢平,诸葛燕,戴莽.水体富营养化对浮游生物群落多样性的影响[J].水生生物学报.1996,20：30-37
65.谢钦铭,李云,李长春.鄱阳湖轮虫种类组成与现存量季节变动的初步研究.东西科学[J].1997,15(4)：235-242
66.新华社.北京水污染防治形势仍然严峻[N].中国建设报,2009-07-30
67.许木启,王子健.利用浮游动物群落结构与功能特征监测乐安江、鄱阳湖口重金属污染.应用与环境生物学报.1996,2(2)：169-174
68.姚志远.徒骇河聊城市河段水环境质量评价.山东农业大学学报(自然科学版).2009,40(3)：461-464
69.尤洋,李占斌,李鹏.潮河流域水质分析研究.山西建筑.2007,33(21)：3-4
70.于焕民.漳河上游入河排污口调查与分析.地下水.2005,27(6)：429-432
71.于一雷,王庆锁.密云水库及其主要河流入库河段水质的季节变化.中国农业气象.2008,29(4)：432-435
72.袁金良,韩智力,孟振金.彰武南海水库水产养殖与水质污染分析.2006,9：76-78
73.张华,杨虹.用纤毛虫的种群结构和数量分布评价滦河水质的研究.江苏环境科技.2008,21(1)增刊：64-68
74.张克青.环境生物监测.北京：冶金工业出版社,1993
75.张晓伊,杨建设.以浮游生物评价水体质量——试用浮游生物种群及数量评价张公山大唐水质.安徽农业技术师范学院学报[J],1998,12(2)：30-33
76.章宗涉,黄祥飞.淡水浮游生物研究方法[M].北京：科学出版社.1991：232
77.章宗涉,莫珠成,戎克文,黄浩明.用藻类监测和评价图们江的水污染.水生生物学集刊,1983,8(1)：94-104
78.赵飞燕,万贵生.为何地表水水质对地下水水质的影响研究.河南水利与南水北调.2007,6
79.赵帅营,林秋奇,刘正文.南亚热带湖泊——星湖后生浮游动物群落特征研究.水生生物学报.2007,31(3)：405-412
80.赵文,董双林,张美昭,张兆琪,李德尚.盐碱池塘浮游动物的种类组成和生物量[J].水产学报,2001,25(1)：26-31
81.郑凡东,孟庆义,王培京,金桂琴.北京市温榆河水环境现状及治理对策研究.北京水务.2007,5：5-8
82.中国科学院动物研究所甲壳动物研究组.中国动物志-淡水桡足类[M].北京：科学出版社,1979：1-450
83.钟贻诚,李玉和,张蛮光.北塘河口浮游动物生态的初步研究[J].生态学报,1984,4(4)：393-400
84. AL-Kahem H F A S, AL-Akel M J K, Shamsi. Planktonic biomass and Physico-chemical Parameters in Wadi Haneefah stream, Riyadth. Saudi Arabia[J].Dlrasat Naturaland Enginering Science.1998,25(2):363-376
85. Bick H. Ciliated protozoa:an illustrated guide to the species used as biological indicators infreshwater biology. World Health Organisation, Genva,1972:198
86. Bick H. Population dymamics of protozoa associated with decay of organic materials infreshwater[J].1973,13(1):149-160
87. Cairns J Jr, Anza G R L, Parker B C. Pollution raiated to structural and functional changes in aquatic conununlties with emphasis on freshwater algal and protozoa[J]. Proc., Acad, Nat.Sci.Phila.1972,124:79-127
88. Cairns J Jr. The relationship of freshwater protozoan comunities to the Mac Arthur-Wilson Equilibrium Model[J]. Amer Nat.1969,103:439-454
89. Francis M, Kenneth M M, Wellington N W. Biodiversity characteristics of small high-altitude tropical man-made reservoirs in the Eastern Rift Valley, Kenya[J].Lakes Reservoirs:Research and Management,2002,7:1-12
90. Kolkwitz R, Marsson M. Okologie der pflanzlichen Ssaprobien. Betichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft.1908,26A:505-519
91. MacArthur P H, Wilson E O. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography[J]. Evolution,1963,179(4):373-387
92. Margalef D R. Information theoty inecology[J]. CenSystem,1958,3:36-71
93. Sladecek V. Aguide to Limno saprobical organisms[J]. Scientific Papers from Institute of Chemical Technology.1963,543-612
94. Sorokin J L. On the quantative charaeteristies of the pelagic ecosystem of Dalnee Lake (Kamechatka)[J]. Hydrobiologia,1972,65(4):519-552