Table 2 The comparisons of diatom indices between river (Ri) and tile drainage (TD) sites
From: Diatoms as an indicator for tile drainage flow in a German lowland catchment
Diatom indices | Ri (n = 63) | TD (n = 40) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min | Max | Mean | SD | Min | Max | Mean | SD | |
Density (cells/L)** | 33,480 | 750,804 | 202,544 | 113,400 | 156 | 565,041 | 67,643 | 121,417 |
Biomass (mg/L)** | 0.09 | 2.53 | 0.52 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 1.93 | 0.19 | 0.37 |
Diversity indices | ||||||||
 Margalef’s** | 0.79 | 2.21 | 1.26 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 1.47 | 0.82 | 0.40 |
 Evenness | 0.47 | 0.88 | 0.78 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 1.00 | 0.81 | 0.15 |
 Richness** | 14.00 | 35.00 | 22.89 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 25.00 | 13.03 | 6.68 |
 Shannon–Wiener** | 1.56 | 2.87 | 2.42 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 2.73 | 1.84 | 0.65 |
 Simpson’s** | 0.08 | 0.47 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 1.00 | 0.26 | 0.21 |
 Berger–Parker* | 0.14 | 0.68 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 1.00 | 0.38 | 0.20 |
 McNaughton** | 0.27 | 0.72 | 0.42 | 0.11 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 0.20 |
 Odum** | 0.03 | 0.81 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 12.26 | 1.96 | 2.51 |
 Menhinick** | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.37 | 0.11 | 0.07 |
 HillN1** | 4.76 | 17.61 | 11.70 | 3.10 | 1.00 | 15.31 | 7.38 | 3.64 |
Moisture indices | ||||||||
 AqZo% | 3.70 | 38.24 | 17.29 | 7.51 | 0.00 | 76.67 | 19.60 | 18.03 |
 AqRi%** | 25.00 | 80.08 | 53.58 | 14.68 | 0.00 | 75.00 | 23.84 | 17.74 |
 RiZo%** | 7.85 | 63.33 | 28.13 | 12.16 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 52.26 | 23.61 |
 RiUp% | 0.00 | 4.21 | 1.00 | 1.05 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 4.30 | 16.01 |
 UpZo% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
 Aquatic% | 95.79 | 100.00 | 99.00 | 1.05 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 95.70 | 16.01 |
 Terrestrial% | 0.00 | 4.21 | 1.00 | 1.05 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 4.30 | 16.01 |