WIEBE ET AL.: RELATION OF VOLUME, WET AND DRY WEIGHTS, AND CARBON 



I 



0.01 



0.001 ' 1 — 



H 1 I I I I III 1 1 I I 



0.1 



1- 10. 



CARBON (mg/m^) 



100. 



i 



I 

 I 



10. 



1.:: 



0.1 



0.01 





1^ 





K I I I I I III 



H 1 — I I I I I II 



-I 1 I I I I I I I 



0.1 



1. 10. 100. 



CARBON (mg/m3) 



1000. 



1000. T 



100. 



I 



10. 



1. :: 



0.1 



Figure 3.-Plots of data used in cal- 

 culating geometric mean regression 

 lines relating dry weight, wet weight, 

 and displacement volume to carbon. For 

 symbols, see Table 1. 



0.01 



H 1 — I I I I I II 1 1 — I I I I I II 1 1 — I I I I I II 1 1 — I I I I I II 



0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 



CARBON (mg/m^) 



appears to have a larger percentage of interstitial 

 water than a large sample. It is evident in our log 

 transformed raw data as well as the data stan- 

 dardized to biomass per cubic meter and then log 

 transformed (see Table 4). The reason why the bias 

 is not significantly influenced by the standardiza- 

 tion to biomass per cubic meter results from the 

 fact that the volume of water filtered in collecting 

 most samples was quite similar, between 100 and 



1,000 m^, while the biomass per cubic meter varied 

 by as much as four orders of magnitude. As a 

 result of the variable bias, it is not valid to assume 

 a simple percentage relationship between the 

 other pairs of biomass estimators. For example, 

 dry weight is approximately 5% of displacement 

 volume for low biomass per cubic meter and 

 approximately 13% for high biomass per cubic 

 meter. 



781 



