I'

'\ "

This paper not·to be cited without prior reference to the Authors

A STUDY OF TEE PLANKTON IN A SCOTI'ISH SEA LOCHRECEIVING EFFLUENT FROM A PULP· AND PAPER MILL

International Council forthe Exploration of the Sea C.M. '1976/L:26

Fisheries Improvement Committee/Plankton Committee

by

J A Adams, S J Imy and D D Seaton~~rine Laboratory

Aberdeen UK

Introduction

In 1961, as a result of a proposal to build a pulp and paper mill at AnnatPoint between Loch Eil and Loch Linnhe on the'west coast of Scotl~nd (Figure 1),< chemical and hydrographical study was begun of the two lochs. In November1963 more regular chemical and hydrogTaphical surveys started and detailedsampling of the benthic infauna (by the Scottish IvIarine BiologicalAssociation in association with Scottish Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd - seePearson 1970, 1971a, b, 1972, 1975 and Pearson.and Rosenberg 1976) and ratherlimited sampling of the plankton (by the Marine Labor tory of DAFS) wereadded to the programme.

The mill was ·in fact built and the discharge of effluent began in the springof 1966. Since the mill uses the Swedish Stora pulping process, theundesirable organic and inorganic components of the effluent are much:lessthan those in discharges from mills using·the·older Sulphite pr.oceSSj theslightlY acidic effluent consists largely of a dilute suspension of cellulosefibres which eseapesduring yarious screening proeesses before and afterbleaching, together with dissolved: orgariic matter (ineluding small amountsof toxie sUlphite liquor) that escapes the recovery'stages. The effluenthas an immediate biological oxygen demand (5 day BOD about 200-300 ppm)due primarily to the dissolved organie eontent, and a long term BODresulting mainly from the cellulose fibres of which there are about200mg/l. It is .diseharged via a subm rine multi-port diffuser pipe intoAnnat Narrows for 4.7 hours in every 6.2 'hours (to avoid the times of slaekvater). Even a short distance from the diseharge point the effluent isreasonably weIl dispersed. During the flood tide the effluent is earriedinto Loch Eil, almost exelusively sub-surface (ie below 2m), thereafter slowlyprogressing inwards, mixing both laterally and vertically. During the ebb,part-of this effluent and any new discharge are carried into Loch Linnhe,again sub-surface. A con~iderable portion of the effluent entering LochLinnhe on the ebb is moved out as a result of entrainment in the freshwateroutflow. Retention times are' about 3 days in the near part of Loch Linnhe,7 days'in the near' part of Loch Eil, but 14 or 20 days in the distant partof Loch Eil. Equilibrium effluent dilutions associated with these retentiontimes range from 2 000 in the near part of Loch Linnhe to 1 000 in Loch Eilwhere the associated coneentrations of toxic sulphite liquor is probably between0.1 and 1.0 ppm and on occasion as high as 3.0 ppm.

1

r

" I'

By the end of 1966 the effluent load' (expressed as tons per day of suspendedsolids) bad risen to the level which approximately characterised the followingthree years (about 12 tons per day), but in 1970 the load increased markedlyto about 28 tons per day. By March 1971 however, the effluent load hadreturned to about the previous level (Figure 2a).

Almost immediately the mill had started to discharge effluent it becameclear that there .es a decrease in the oxygen content of the lochs and pulpfibres became a noticeable component of zooplankton sampIes (Fig. 3). Onthe other hand it was some time before changes on the bottom were accepted ashaving taken place. However, it is now weIl established that there have beenchanges in (i) the physical/chemical propertieG,of the bot tom substratum,(ii) the' numbers of benthic species and (iii) the numbers of benthicindividualso For full details see Pearson (1970, 1971a,b, 1972, 1975) andPearson and Rosenberg (1976).

Methods

Although other plankton sampIes were occasionally taken, the present reportdeals only with the 40+ sampIes taken with ~ Nansen-Pettersson insulated ~water bottle from 10m for phytoplahkton and protozoa and the 45+ zooplanktonsampIes taken by horizontal tows at 5 to 10m depth ~ith an Icelandic HighSpeed SampIer (IHSS)', at the routine sampling positions (Fig. 1). Thesampling interval was' variable (Fig. 2b).

The 300 ml phytoplankton and protozoa sampIes were preserved with Lugol'ssolution in dark green bottles and manipulated using a slight modificationof the technique described by Lovegrove (1960); using an invetted microscope theorganisms were identified to speeies where p06sible, otherwise to genus,higher taxonomie group or size group.

The organisms in the zooplankton sampIes were counted and identified tospecies whenever possiblej those not identified to speeies being identified topartieular groups as for the phytoplankton. Irrespective of their taxonomiestatus all entities identified or tabulated will be referred to ,as "species".

,The theoretical'volume of water filtered by the IHSS~ whieh'was towed at 6knots for about 15 minutes, was approximately 11.7m3 per mile towed. However,when calculating the numb'ers of organisms pE;lr m3 the volume of water filtered •per mile towed was taken as 10m3•

All the sampIes collected during the period November 1963 to September 1970inclusive were analysed by our former eolleague Dr J H Fraser. SineeDeeember 1970 all the sampIes have been analysed by two of us (S J HandD D S) and have been subjeeted to a more detailed examination than previously.This has resulted in longer lists of "species" being reeorded for,both thephytoplankters and the zooplankters. , '

Although generally only one sampIe of phytoplankton and one sampIe ofzooplankton ~~s taken on eaeh visit to the routine sampling positions, theagreement between the two lochs is so good (Table 1 and Figure 4) as to suggestthat the plankton of the area is fairly homogeneous (at least in terms oftotal numbers) and that the lack of replicate bauls does not invalidate thedata.

2

•

•

---- --

Results and Discussion

Although the.time ~nterval between surveys has been variable and oftenrather 'long, the general impression is that there has been no rnarked changein the abundance oi the various groups throughout the peri~d of the study.Two representative time series are shown in Figure 2b. An examination of thedata for any'evidence of an association between fluctuations in the abundanceof the various groups and'the variation in the effluent load is moreconveniently done however by considering only the data obtained during thespring and autumn ,surveys. This examination suggests that all groups havefluctuated in abundance,independently of the variation in the,effluent load(Figure 5). '

The "species" composition(1) of the' various groups and the frequencieswith which the individuai '''species'' have appeared in the sampies are shownin Tables 2 and 3. Of the phytoplankters the diatoms (in particularSkeletonema costatum and to a lesser extent Nitzschia spp) were of majorimportance. in thei~contribution to the phytoplankton standing stock, whileof the zooplankters the copepo~s (in particular Temora longicornis, Acartiaspp., and Oithona sp~ and to a lesser- extent Pseudocalanus elongatus) werethe most important component of the standing stock. There has beenconsiderable variation in the number of "species" present in any one sampiebut there is no evidence that the variation is associated with variation in thequantity of effluent, although the evaluation of the evidence is complicatedby the increased number of "species" identified since December 1970.

We are unable to demonstrate any significant effects of the effluent from thepulp and paper mill on the plankton of Loch Eil and Loch Linnhe.

Abstract

Some results of a limited plankton sampling programme in an area of LochLinnhe and Loch Eil receiving effluent from a pulp and paper mill aredescribed. Data are available for the period 1963-75 and fail to show anyeffects which Can be associated with the addition· of effluent at a rate ofabout 12 tons suspended solids per day over the periods 1966-69 and 71-75and about 28 tons per day in 1970-710

Acknowledgements

The autnors wish to thank Miss C Johnston for statistical advice andassistance, Dr R Johnston for his comments on the draft and Scottish Pulpand Paper Mills Ltd for their cooperation.

(1)A more detailed analysis than is indicated by the tables has frequentlybeen carried. out eg three species of Acartia (Ao clausi, Ao longiremisand A. discaudata) have been recorded and nine hydromedusae have beenidentified to species. However since the inclusion of all the specieswould make the tables rather long and since it has not been possible toidentify to species level on all occasions, only the abbreviate listsare presented here. Fuller details are given in the two Internal Reportson which this report is largely based - Adams, Fraser, Seaton and Hay(1973) and Adams, li~y and Seaton (In preparation).

3

Adams, J 0 A.,Fraser, . J 0 Ho,Seaton, Do Doand Hay, So J o

Adams, J. A.,Hay, So J.and Seaton, D. D.

Hendey, No 1.

Lovegrove, To

Marine BiologicalAssociation

Parke, r1" andDixon, Po So

Pearson, To H.

Pearson, To H.

Pea:rson, T. H.

Pearson, T. H.

1973

(Inpreparation)

1974

1960

1957

1968

1970

1971a

1971b

1972

References

The results obtained from plankton samplingin Loch Linnhe and Loch Eil during a study~n the effects of the pulp and paper miII atAnnat Point. Marine Laboratory, hberdeen,Internal Report, IR73-1, 53pp. Unpublishedtypescript.

The results obtained from plankton samplingin Loch Linnhe and Loch Eil from 1972 to 75during a study of the effects of the pulp andpaper miII at Annat Point. ~rine Laboratory,Aberdeen, Internal Reporto Unpublishedtypescript.

A revised check-list of British marinediatoms. Jo mare biol. Ass. UK, 54: 277-300•

An improved form of sedimentation apparatusfor use with an inverted microscope.J. Cons. perm. int. Exploro Mer., 25: 279-2840

Plymouth Marine Faunao 457 pp.

Check-list of British marine algae - secondrevision. J. mar. biolo Ass. UK, ~: 783-832.

The benthic ecology of Loch Linnhe and LochEil, a seR-loch system on the west coast ofScotlando I. The physical environment anddistribution of the macrobenthic fauna.J. exp. maro Biolo Ecol., 2: 1-34.

The benthic ecology of Loch Linnhe and LochEil, a sea.-loch system on the west coast ofScotland. 11. Analysis of the macrobenthicfauna by comparison of feeding groupsoSymposium d'Arcachon, Vie et Mileu Suppl.No. 22'53-91.

The benthic ecology of Loch Linnhe andLoch Eil, a sea-loch system on the west coastof Scotlando 111. The effect on the benthicfauna of the introduction of Pulp Milleffluent. J. exp. m r. Biol. Ecol., 6:211-233.

The effect of industrial effluent from pulpand paper mills on the marine benthicenvironment 0 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 180:469-4850

4

•

•

•

Pearson, Te He

Pearson, T. H_ andRosenberg, R.

1975

1~76

The benthic ecology of Loch Linnhe andLoch Eil, a sea-loch system on the westcoast of Scotland. DI. Changes in thebenthic fauna attributable to organic enrichment.J. exp. mare Biol. Ecol., ~: 1-41.

.A~comparative study of the effects on themarine environment of wastes from celluloseindustries in Scotland and Sweden.Ambio .2: 77-79-

.t .;.11\" ~.r::'~~ .'.: ::;~~.:~:~, :,:::-.[_::,~~.:~ ~ r o·!' ~f 'r

;':!:::' r~.~ :. ,'.' ,'. ;:,' • ~:E J;;:i" [.; C~.=; ~.; ~~':': .~:';:;.:!L"·,:7)',\,:.", :;~'" ,::,) es ·;~~i':·;':·~':~:'-'~'.,Table'1 :~>~~.';':"j'

.f'·.l' ; ()'.; , •.r :::'~'f:;r'~ >: ..,.. ':.Correlation ~oefficientS':·for··the·varieus plankton

,';; ::: gr:0l:lps' between ..the ,total ..nwnbers. in Loch Eil and..... .... ~.•.,.~ ...... ~ .••~t_~ :.;" ..i,.,J" : :., ,,;.'; " '. ~~

:),~.·,L'.!.~ ') ,::,':1 ;;the :toi;al,numbers,in .~ch Linnhe.· 1 •, " . ~ ... .. '" .. ,'," ~ .• , l , .... ". ;,.,i.. "'- ~ .;. ....

~!\: '~~".: ;'>:':',':~ J; ';' ..;~'~"~"~~'::" ;~~ '~.~'.~~.f,,::;!,~ .....;.)\ .. ~: r .. ;., I. ,.

~', \'

. .4'- i~ t:\'~'~,,'!:,>""~;:~

GroupCorrelation Significancecoefficient

Diatoms 0.81+ P(.001Copepods 0.72 <.001Nanoplankton 0.72 <.001Dinofiagellates 0.47 <.01Other fiagellates 0.24 n.s. •Protozoa 0.60 <..001Holoplanktonic 0.46 <"01crustacea

Eggs and larvae 0.64 <'.001Miscellaneous 0.53 <.001

•

6

Table 2

The "species" cO!!1Position .of the various phytoplank~ori ~oups and the percenta'gefrequency with which the individual f1species" have occurred.

Linnhe10.6

4.3,31.961.76~4

19.'1,8'.56-.4B~:§8.5

2.14.8:-"',4'.3'

2~1

2.4 4.311.9 '12.8

2 .. 12.4 .' 4.37.1 6.4

57.1 42.62.4

7.1 19.14.8 4.37.14.8 4.3

2.145.2 46.8

~ :~'. 2.~

7.1 ' .

Eil7.1 '

, 33·359.5

21.42.44.8

-2.4'4:8',

Paralia sulcataCoscinodiscus nitidusThalassiosira sppSkeletonema costatumEucampia zoodiacus •.Chaetoceros sppLeptocYlindrus danicusLauderia borealisRhizosolenia sppFragilaria spp

Tbalassiothrix longissi~

Thalassionema nitzechioidesGuinardia flaccida 'Licmg.J'lcnl SPPlrrammataphora sppSyn,edra sppAchnanthes sppCocconeis sppVarious naviculoid diätomsNavicula membranacea

Pleunosie;ma sppGyrosigma fasciolaAmphiprora sppAmphora spp&".:illaria paxilliferNi:tzschia sppSurirella sppAsterionella formosa

,Linnhe

. 2.1

',34:04,.34.3

17.08.5

14.94.3

38~3

'14.940.42.14.32.12.1

4.36.46.4

,10.68.5

2.4

4.8

Eil

- . 2.:431.014.3,4.87.1

11.919.0

28.62.4

11.914.3

Diatoms:

Melosira spp

Dinoflagellates:

Other flagellates:

Cryptomonas sppFlagellatesCoccolithophoresDictyocha speculumEug1..enoids.

Euxuviaella spp.Prorocentrum micansDinophysi s sppAmphidinium sppGymnodinium sppGyrodinium sppQxn:tbi;s rparinaMinuscula bipesPeridinium sppGonyaulax spp

• Ceratium furcaC. fususC. horridumC. lineatumC. minutumC. tripos

•Taxonomy for the dinoflagellatesand other flagellat es , as in Parke and Dixon (196ß),~xonomy for the diatoms as per Hendey (1974)

, (:

.. ,',, .

7

•

•

Linnhe

23.44.32.1

10.612.82.14.3'4.32.1

29.863.819.212.8

"

38.32.1

38.3, 21.327.729.838.329.8

2.1

44.7;14.9

Eil

33.-3

33.325.033.3 '37.547.929.24.2

45.86.22.1

27.1-4.22.18.3

10.42.14.2

Euphausiid furciliaMeganyctiphanes norvegicaNyctiphanes couchiiThysanoessa inermisT. raschiiEggs and larvae of bottominvertebrates:

Eggs'of bottom invertebratesPlanulae .Cypt~nautes larvaeGastropod larvaeLamellibranch larvaePolychaete larvaeCirripedia nauplii (Balanus)Cirripedia cypris (Balanus)Cir~ipedia nauplii

(Rhizocephalus)Decapod larvaeEchinoderm larvaeTornaria

Miscellaneous:

HydromedusaeAgalma elegansMuggiaea atlanticaAurelia auritaPleurobrachia pileusRotifersSpiratella retroversaTomopteris spNereis spSagitta sppAppendiculariansFish eggsFish larvae

Linnhe

2.134'.048 ..9_7~.3

2.157.4

6:440.46 4' '-

•...10.6 '7~.3

19.285.1

14.92.1

,25.5- 6:4, '4'.3'25.538.32.1

4.2

4.2­

54.22~1

6~2'31.2, 4.2_'?179.22.1

16.7,77.1

4.. 241.731.264.6

4:2

Eil

2.122.931.22.12.14.22.12.1

8.3

2.1- 20.8

2.1

and

The "species" composition of the various zooplankton groups and the percentagefrequency \olith ",hich the individual "species" have occur'red.-"

Table 3

Other crustacea:

Copepods:

Copepod eggsCopepod na~plii

Calanus sppPseudo!ParacalanusMicrocalanus spBradyidius armatusAetideus armatusDiaxis hibernicaIsi';; clavipesTemora longicornisEuryt emora spMetridia lucensCentropages sppDiaptomus' sppCandaci~ armataAcart ia sppCymbasoma spCyclopoida (ex Oithona)Oithona' sB'

Bosmina sppChydoridaeDaphnia sppPodon sppEvadne nordmanniMysidsIsopodsAmphipodsOstracodsEuphausiid eggsEuphausiid naupliicalyptopis

vThere appropriate the taxonomy is as used in the Plymouth Marine Fauna (MarineBiological Association 1957).

Corycaeus'H9.rPacticoidaCal1,gus sp

____._,_.._.~_.. • __Q ,. _ ----_..--.._----~._-_._-_ .. _.-

Figura 1e Chart of l..och· Eil and Loch Lirmhe. ~howing the routine ph3toplankton (.) 8.J....dzooplankton. (I-----! ) eampling posii ions.

Figure 2-page 10. (a) Monthly yariation in the sU$pend~d solids in the pulp milleffluent (mean tons per da?) based on data given by Scottish

··Pulp ar.d Paper Mills Ltd (private communicö.tionJ.-Cl?) Variation in the numbers of..dinoflagellat.es (rlumbers per litre)

. . • and copepods (numbers per m..l; in Loch Eil.

I ..' ..

9

..

( b)

f

::[ (al I ~~.1= 1'1

1J~.I \/125~ , \J I

~! ..I ..

: ~: ~t- ~ Ä~ ~r n h Ä ~ f\fi . . ;\~ f I~ \ i ~ .4\y I~\ .1o 10 -_'. p. \ .... ~,~, . Ä ~ A\j/'>- 5~ ,t M \~r y''/, " ji " v • t V~I,

~ • I ~, , ,j- I, , ~ • _ 1ctb.Lw~llUJ..1.U.1ll1J ftuw.w.~.u.~.1.U ..lJl..U,l,U U I~ i W tUt! I 1IIIill:Uü-LJ+W.,Ul.U.LUf.lJ.l,U.UJ...W.+11 I I 11 : 1I 14' ! J ! i I I 'UlllllJ.l..LLLULJ 1 ',Cf964 I '65 '66 ~ j '61j'j 1'58 ! '69 I "10 I '71 I ''12 o! '73 I '74 !'75 ' !

" ,I 1I 1 9o 01, 11, '1 1-~ r, / : ,!Dboficg~H{Jti~s " I ~ ,

~l I, Cl I 1 t I I 0• ! q , I I I , I,I I I I I I~' ,I • 1 I

; ~ : I i I , ! -I' I I /\ ' I ...J '3.. l I I I ,I t I ',. I I /: I \ j 10

I I :) !: : ',l ,. " \ 1\ I I / r \ '1'. J" I I I ~ • • I I,~ ,~. I ,/ I . I. ! . \

1\.. :: !i ~'\ : ~ :: ' ~ ! ~ 11 I " \ ,l ~ TI ,,\ \ ~ I \ I"

'! I • . I I f I i..\" \ 'I' I I' I ;. \ ,,'~ :! j !J. 11 : I r ,i ; \. .~.... '''-'-Q I' \ • 1\ I,' ;' \ ~ I t / 'I

' • I , , , \ f I •• I \ ", I, / . I • J • "I, II ' . I ' I '\"~ I ", I J

I " ~: J!'U '\, j t\: ! \ [i! 0-7\./ \i ?-k/ i i U \\ /~,-~ iV -1 '0~ J" I: P :l : .'3 { '\'! f u-r'~ \: ! \\\l VIii; ~/"" : ~\ /':,' /; \ : t ,'EI I {I,' I.........(J .' •• ; I ~ I I 0 11 I ~', I 0 ~ ; ~ :>

~ ! f' I I ",~ .,y" \ !,I , f I \ I ; ,\ 'I' I '" I , , I \ I J' z'\. I~: . : I I 'i I \:!, " \. \!./ \ I \ ~! 0 V " '\ I n II I, 11 I I \ ,I I I l /' li' • I ~ I' J " I I : I , 1'~ ; : \ ~ . \ · I I jjl ! , , ! ;' \ ,

\: :, (; I 1 \ '» , , I f\ I \ I, j ~ I ! \ \ ..f \ '

I 1 \ J i ! I •• ~ f • t I " '! " ,~ l I ./', I '-1' 10.. ,~ I ' I \ I \1 1 I I \. I f· f " I 1 ' I'j ;. :\; ': ,1. • I \ I "I I : Il; 1 I /' I, • 1\ • i I i ., I t \, ,IJ I 'j I I 11 'I' 11', r I' l I i I ( I \ I ~• , )' 11 \.' »" I I I I 1J, i , I I

I '\: /' 0 '", 0\ . , I I, I 0 I I , I ~J I,' , \ t "\! \. I \ I I I \ I' .; 1

1 Copep(Jds', '! , \.l \ I lf \ , ~, I! V. ~ \ I i • I; \1 Ii -. _ ,. . ._, \~ _ I

d.tP,UJ.J..l:6'.1~'; l~ U,:.!..HJ.1i UJ..lU..1J.J.!i.J~.u.i.U.<..ll.~~J..,fl..4.iÜUJ, ..LUJ+I..Li.l~ LUW+U."~ LU,.!..u.u..l..LC!!!'!...u..UJ1'..l.LU.l.u.JJJ.Lj..1WlJ.LLI.LJ~, UUW.l~)!.I.' _1I ~954 I '63 ! 'f:.c I '67 I '5-3 I 'c·; I '70 I '7~ I '72 '~/3 I '7l. i 75 I

-~o

•

,;"

.j

"e

,"iI

Figure 3. Pulp fibres in a zooplankton sampIe taken with a netof 1m mouth diameter and 250/,u mesh aperture. Theupper photograph ShO",I1S, in aCldition to the pulp fibres,copepods and an appendicularian at a magnification ofabout 23 timesj the lower photograph shows the copepodAcartia sp and pulp fibres at a magnification of about40 times.

11

Figure 4 - page 13. An example (copepods) of the generally closeagreement between the data from the two lochs.

Figure 5 - pages 14 and 15. Annual variation in the amount of effluentcompared with the annual variation in the standingstocks of various plankton groups in Loch Eil for(a) April-May surveys and (b) September-Octobersurveys. Effluent as mean tons of suspended solidsper day discharged during the 30 day period prior to ~the relevant survey (based on data given by ScottishPulp and Paper Mills Ltd (private comrnunication»;nanoplankton in numbers per rnl; other phytoplanktersand protozoa in Dumbers per litre; zooplanktersin numbers per m3•

12

.... ; '...

,.:'

-x(

103.,

X

«V X....cc .'e-- X~ 102

v:J _' X

X• •

..c ,... ,xc..> A

0 X '\X-l X

X X X

L X X.'

10x ...

.... - x.., ~ .. '- '... _,~' X

,xx

, 'v" 'v'-' ",... -.' "X

x

x

x

x

" ..:

'.'.'

~ l' . '. I.

-I

... . ",: ~

·.··.1

..:, i

! I. ' I' I •x-...~_.*....-_._~._._~~-'~'''._-''';''-;'''-_'~'':-x ..-.--l.. .i...__-.J1 10' ._, 102 " 103 ! 104

Eilt

.,

.,;'"

,..'.

.'

13'-I r.• '

:'.

.."'+i'

?-f "'\)."ar: f..He.toins•jIJI

•iItili,

9"''VI 1: \ P-I i 11, , 11, t , tI ,_ I

! \ I I

i 'f ;• ! , !: t 8 iI \:)I , I I# 'I I, I;

6Ö ~ItI ~I •t I§ II~

iI

... 5

,(\ f\1:

\. I ~ :/ \ J ~,

/'" \,' ::\~ t! '\" .! \

I " t',; ~ \'e 0 \

ItO~

. I

10

I,ci•

Il

P'-""O..I ...

I 'b

PI

...'-..

t".:' "f?p ,.. \,,

\

EfHuent ~ \, " ~rf ' I

L/'" \,

6-~_/....I--o_..L _ I ~ ~

Fii;urn 5a - see p!J~e

10ar

~ri !,\onU;.>!Qnk.. ton

ID'~....l!> I/ ~ s il.....,

• \ / v...

lOt:

--J

10

10+

rI '

10'rVi

m'~L..

c..'.0E=' Iz

I·10

i ' •........ ~: :.,

Hs \IIII

,,'" +.,":.•.

q\\,

\

G,\,

\\,,ö

Figure 50

1 September-1·1 October

10

10

lOt'

r '?,,•lI

•10'[" \

IIIIII,I

•tIIt

103

. " '\ ~,,

IIII

UlherFlage~!ctes

G4 65 Hi 5"1 f-B 6'1 70 7i Tl 73 74 75

10 •

tl1I.­GI.DE:J

Z