08.03.2013 Views

Koontz, J., D.G. Huggins, C.C. Freeman, D.S. Baker - Central Plains ...

Koontz, J., D.G. Huggins, C.C. Freeman, D.S. Baker - Central Plains ...

Koontz, J., D.G. Huggins, C.C. Freeman, D.S. Baker - Central Plains ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 34. Error bar plots of mean conductivity values for samples grouped by ecoregion.<br />

CDF<br />

100<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1<br />

Mean Conductivity mS/cm<br />

Figure 35. Cumulative distribution frequency (CDF) of mean conductivity for reference (Phase<br />

I) and random (Phase II) populations.<br />

Mean conductivity correlated significantly with many other water quality and FQA parameters<br />

and spatio-temporal features (Table 9). If we consider that conductivity is the measure of the<br />

ionic strength of the water, then measurable concentrations of nutrients and contaminants would<br />

in theory define the ionic activity in the water (i.e. conductivity). Other correlations, though<br />

significant, may play some role in defining the conductivity, but only in as much as those<br />

parameters relate to inherent concentrations of ions measured. Herbicides levels go down as<br />

conductivity increases indicating that herbicides are not contributing to conductivity values but<br />

are merely related to conductivity levels.<br />

49 of 84<br />

Phase One<br />

Phase Two

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!