Table of Contents

Authors Charlie Ablon Jackson Lifford Harry Ainsworth Gautam Mitra Kaley Arnof Elizabeth Clapp Oakes Austin James Kilzer Geo Baker Lizzy Goldman Ari Benkler Marcus Patalano Ava Boudreau Esther Lovett Tristan Young Alec Chapman Ross Harrison Alex Cohen Matt Galvin Rory Conway Josh Prez Ryan Corcoran James Lamphier Abigail Cozier Lauryn Jacobs Title The effect of soil phosphorous on DBH

The effect of water phosphate on D.O.

The effect of soil pH on water pH

The effect of soil pH on plant species diversity within a 1 meter square

The effect of slope on turbidity

The effect of plant mass on percent saturation of dissolved oxygen

The effect of cultivation on the level of potassium in soil (K1-4)

The effect of turbidity of water (NTU) on total dissolved solids (S)

The effect of diameter at breast height (dbh) on crown diameter of Hemlocks and Red Pines The effect of phosphorus in soil on tree height

The effect of distance (m) away from the tree on the pH of soil

The effect of duckweed levels on water pH

Authors Nicky DaglioWorthy Rae Alex Daly Bayard Eton Angela Duong Shannon Griffin

Title The effect of soil phosphorus on water phosphate levels

The effect of diameter at breast height (dbh) and tree type on the amount of potassium in the soil. The effect of canopy coverage on soil percolation

Menelik Epee-Bounya The effect of canopy coverage on soil electrical conductivity Thomas Mandile Alex Evenchk Erica Yuen Josie Fitzgerald Emma Jacobs Charlotte Foote Claire Wagner Cecelia Galligan Nell Fusco Simone Geary Leandra Klein Ryan Guan Kian Golshan Ellie Gozigian Carter Liou Matthew Siff Brooke Graves Natalie Madden The effect of water turbidity on water conductivity

The effect of distance from a pond (cm) on the pH of soil

The effect of tapped and untapped maples on glucose levels in new buds

The effect of canopy coverage on soil pH

The effect of water D.O. on algae concentrations

The effect of proximal distance from the tree in meters on nitrate levels in parts per million The effect of sunlight on the number of freshwater aquatic organisms.

The effect of age of compost on conductivity

Authors Jenn Herrera Caroline Nelson Charlie HeveranAlex LichtenbergerJeffrey Yao Cassandra Kane Sammy Wong Lukas Kauth Maximilian Wiegand Aaron Kaufer Issay Matsumoto Andrew KelloggPeeler Peter Mankiw Owen Lasko Nick Piccirillo Brita Mackey Josiah Siegel Liv Manganella Izzie Schmaltz Henry Marshall Andrew Siff Lexie Massa Maia Noyes Michelle Meredith Anna Pandolfi

Title The effect of pond location on nitrate level

The effect of soil pH on tree height and DBH

The effect of tree species on bark pH

The effect of depth on macroinvertebrate species and abundance

The effect of soil density on soil nitrogen

The effect of land use on soil nitrogen

The effect of hemlock age on resistance to wooly adelgid

The effect of turbidity on temperature

The effect of aspect on soil moisture

The effect of soil depth on pH and K

The effect of dissolved oxygen on aquatic animal number

The effect of horizontal elevation on soil pH

Authors David Nazemi Andrew Rasnick Will Nemirovsky Nate Wolf Julie PengSofia Sulikowski Gary Rasin Harry Theodore Jenna Selden Sophie Wang Emma Voligny Lucia Winton

Title The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm)

The effect of age on compost pH

The effect of chloride and phosphate levels on macroinvertebrate number and biodiversity The effect of manure on soil pH

The effect of animal species on soil pH

The effect of canopy coverage on soil pH

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

PHOR%THE%LOVE% OF%NATURE%
!

BY:! CHARLIE!ABLON!! &! JACKSON!LIFFORD!

The!effect!of!Phosphorus!on!tree!DBH!(Diameter!At!Breast!Height) ! ABSTRACT!I:! The!purpose!of!this!experiment!was!to!see!if!Phosphorus!affected!the!tree! DBH!(Diameter!At!Breast!Height)!at!each!site.!The!effect!of!Phosphorus!was!tested! by!taking!the!soil!and!churning!the!soil!into!a!solution!creating!a!1:5!soil!to!water! ratio.!When!getting!the!results!from!the!solution,!droppers!transferred!the!solution! into!a!testing!chamber.!In!that!testing!chamber,!a!Phosphorus!pill!was!placed!into! the!solution!and!after!ten!minutes!the!color!of!the!solution!was!compared!and! recorded!with!the!levels!on!the!side.!To!test!the!tree!DBH,!a!piece!of!tape!was! marked!about!1.5m!from!the!base!of!the!tree!and!then!a!tape!measure!was!wrapped! around!the!tree!once!and!the!data!was!recorded!and!divided!by!pi.!All!of!our!results! were!found!to!be!inconclusive!and!didnt!support!the!hypothesis,!which!was,!if!there! is!more!Phosphorus!in!the!area!then!the!tree!DBH!will!be!higher!because! Phosphorus!accelerates!growth!(!http://passel.unl.edu).! ! INTRODUCTION!II:! Phosphorus!is!an!essential!nutrient!to!the!growth!of!all!living!organisms.!It! is!classified!as!one!of!the!vital!nutrients!and!is!in!almost!all!fertilizers.!The!role!of! phosphorous!inside!of!the!plant!is!to!transfer!energy!and!accelerate!growth.! Without!phosphorus!many!plants!would!not!grow!and!therefore!it!is!vital!to! agriculture.!Experimenting!on!how!phosphorus!levels!affect!growth!is!a!key!subject! because!although!it!is!known!how!phosphorus!affects!plant!growth,!specifically!how! it!affects!the!DBH,!or!diameter!at!breast!height!(usually!the!larger!the!DBH,!the! healthier!the!tree)!of!trees!is!unknown.!! ! Phosphorus!is!essential!to!the!growth!of!crops!at!Drumlin!farm,!which!has! fields!of!crops!and!uses!fertilizer!on!many!of!them,!and!some!of!the!ingredients!in! fertilizer!are!manure!and!compost.!Both!of!these!are!rich!in!Phosphorus!and!will! pass!it!onto!the!plants!and!general!environment.!This!means!that!there!will!be!a! change!in!the!environment!depending!on!the!location.!The!environments!with!more! Phosphorus!will!generally!have!more!growth!due!to!the!fact!that!phosphorus!is!a! nutrient,!which!has!been!known!to!enhance!growth!(http://www.plantphysiol.org).! A!major!factor!that!could!contribute!to!the!Phosphorus!levels!in!a!certain!area!is!its! proximity!to!a!field.!As!previously!mentioned!the!fields!at!Drumlin!Farm!use! fertilizer,!which!is!very!high!in!Phosphorus.!This!means!that!the!Phosphorus!may! have!been!absorbed!into!the!soil!around!the!fields!and!could!be!affecting!tree! growth.!! ! Phosphorus!is!classified!as!a!macronutrient!(unknown!author,! http://www.extension.umn.edu),!this!means!that!it!is!a!substance!required!in! relatively!large!amounts!by!living!organisms.!It!also!helps!regulate!protein! synthesis.!Protein!synthesis!is!when!DNA!is!transcribed!into!a!messenger! molecule,!which!must!be!translated!to!produce!protein.!Mineralization!is!when! Phosphorus!is!in!an!organic!form!and!must!be!converted!so!that!plants!can!use!it.!An! example!of!this!happening!could!be!an!animal!dying!close!to!a!tree.!The!process!of!

mineralization!will!occur!so!the!Phosphorus!in!its!organic!form,!can!be!converted! into!a!form!usable!by!the!tree.!This!would!then!increase!the!DBH!of!the!same!tree!as! the!Phosphorus!is!absorbed!into!the!soil!around!the!tree!and!the!tree!itself! (http://www.ipni.net).! ! The!proposed!experiment!is!to!investigate!how!the!Phosphorous!levels!of! the!soil!at!the!base!of!a!tree!affects!the!DBH!of!said!tree.!The!independent!variable!is! the!Phosphorus!level!in!the!soil!at!the!base!of!the!tree.!The!dependent!variable!is!the! trees!DBH.!!The!hypothesis!is!as!follows:!!If!there!is!a!high!Phosphorus!level!in!the! soil!then!the!tree!will!have!a!larger!DBH!because!phosphorus!accelerates!growth! (http://www.ipni.net).!This!was!tested!by!using!a!Phosphorus!test!kit!to!measure! the!phosphorus!levels,!and!a!tape!measure!was!used!to!measure!the!DBH!of!the!tree.! There!are!several!important!controlled!variables!such!as!the!amount!of!soil!tested,! the!temperature!of!testing!soil,!and!the!proximity!of!the!soil!to!the!tree.!If!the!tested! tree!is!closer!to!the!fields,!then!the!trees!will!have!a!higher!DBH!because!Phosphorus! accelerates!growth!and!Phosphorus!is!in!the!animal!feces!and!the!fertilizer!that!is! used!on!the!crops!at!Drumlin!Farm.!! ! This!experiment!will!help!determine!whether!Phosphorus!affects!tree! growth.!It!will!determine!the!strength!with!which!Phosphorus!affects!the!growth! process.!!It!will!discover!how!much!Phosphorus!is!required!to!make!a!significant! impact.!This!experiment!is!relevant!to!Drumlin!farm!in!the!way!that!Drumlin!Farm! has!a!big!agricultural!element!and!Phosphorus!is!a!significant!part!of!the!growth!of! plants.! ! Materials!&!Methods!III:! To!perform!the!experiment!named!the!Phosphorus!effect!on!tree!DBH! (Diameter!at!Breast!Height),!the!following!materials!will!be!needed.!To!measure!the! tree,!1!tape!measure!will!be!needed!and!to!mark!the!spots!on!the!tree,!1!roll!of!white! masking!tape!is!required.!Once!the!tree!DBH!is!recorded!then!4!markers!will!help! show!where!the!soil!is!going!to!be!taken.!To!take!the!soil!out!of!the!ground!1!auger!is! going!to!be!used.!After!recording!the!tree!DBH!and!getting!the!soil!out!of!the!ground,! 2!1L!bottles!of!distilled!water!will!be!needed!to!dilute!the!soil!in!1!of!the!24! containers.!To!prevent!leaking,!the!containers!will!be!into!a!ziploc!bag.!After!the! water!and!soil!solution!settles,!1!of!the!24!Blue!Phosphorus!testing!pills!will!be! placed!in!the!testing!kit.! ! The!following!steps!were!required!to!test!Phosphorus!levels.!We!started!by! measuring!.5m!away!from!the!base!of!the!tree!that!was!tested.!A!marker!was!then! placed!at!that!.5m!mark!and!next!to!that!marker!an!auger!was!used!to!take!soil!out! of!the!ground!(each!auger!was!confirmed!to!be!at!least!1/5th!full).!After!taking!the! soil!out!of!the!ground,!10mL!of!soil!was!measured!in!a!50mL!beaker!and!placed!into! a!ziplock!container.!Then,!40mL!of!distilled!water!was!measured!and!placed!into!the! container.!Following!the!previous!step,!the!ziplock!container!was!shaken!to!create!a! solution!and!then!placed!to!a!ziplock!bag!to!prevent!leaking.!After!waiting!24+!hours!

after!completing!the!last!step,!the!diluted!soil!was!transferred!from!the!ziplock! container!into!a!Phosphorus!testing!chamber.!Then!a!Phosphorus!testing!pill!was! placed!into!the!Phosphorus!testing!kit!and!after!ten!minutes!the!color!of!the!soil!in! the!kit!was!then!compared!and!recorded!in!the!chart!on!the!side!of!the!kit.!This! procedure!was!then!recorded!for!the!other!23!tests.! !

Below!is!a!picture!of!a!Phosphorus!Testing!!Chamber

Phosphorus! explanation:!
The!left!side!of!the!capsule!is! where!the!powder!is!placed! and!on!the!right!side!there!is! the!color!chart!used!to! compare!the!color!of!the! water.!!For!further! information!please!visit!! http://blog.makezine.com/l aboratory_53_examine_the_ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! chemical!!

! To!find!out!the!tree!DBH!the!following! procedure!was!followed.!The!procedure!started!by!measuring!1.5!meters!up!from! the!base!of!a!tree.!At!that!mark!a!3cm!long!piece!of!tape!was!used!to!show!where!to! record.!Then!a!tape!measurer!was!used!to!record!the!circumference!of!the!tree!at! 1.5!meters.!Once!the!tape!measure!wrapped!around!the!tree!once,!the!data!was! recorded.!This!exact!procedure!was!repeated!for!all!24!trees!being!tested.!! ! ! ! RESULTS!IV:! Explanation!of!graph!one,!scatterplot!of!phosphorous!levels!and!DBH! ! The!first!important!aspect!of!this!graph!is!the!low!R^2!value!of!.05.!The!data!ranges! from!45!Centimeters!to!163!centimeters!for!the!DBH!while!Phosphorus!level!range! form!0!(scale!unit)!to!1!(scale!unit).!Many!of!the!data!points!lie!in!on!the!Y_axis!while! a!couple!are!in!the!middle,!and!some!are!to!the!right!side!of!the!graph.!There!are!no! observable!trends!in!this!graph.!The!precision!for!the!phosphorus!levels!is!very!high,! however!the!precision!for!the!DBH!is!medium!to!low.! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Graph!1:!Scatterplot!of!Phosphorus!levels!and!DBH!

DBH!(cm)!
180! 160! 140! 120! 100! 80! 60! 40! 20! 0! 0! DBH!level!(cm)!

R!=!0.05301!

DBH!(cm)! Linear!(DBH!(cm))!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

phosphorus!level!(scale!unit)!

! ! Explanation!of!graph!two,!bar!graph!of!the!DBH!at!each!location!! ! The!average!bars!show!the!average!tree!DBH!at!each!site.!!The!average!bars!are!all! within!10!centimeters!of!100!centimeters.!The!error!bars!all!overlap!even!though! one!error!bar!spans!65!centimeters!while!another!only!spans!30!centimeters.!No! trends!can!be!observed!in!this!set!of!data.!!The!Red!Pine!data!has!good!precision! while!the!MAS!has!ok!precision,!with!the!Spruce!forest!having!the!worst!data! precision.! ! Graph!2:!Bar!graph!of!the!DBH!at!each!location!!

Average!DBH!!
160! 140! DBH!(cm)! 120! 100! 80! 60! 40! 20! 0! Spruce! Red!Pine! Location! MAS!

! ! Explanation!of!graph!three,!bar!graph!of!average!phosphorus!levels!at!each!location! ! The!Red!Pine!and!MAS!forest!average!bars!both!have!exactly!the!same!average! phosphorus!level!at!.25!while!Spruce!forest!has!an!average!soil!phosphorus!level!of! 0.!All!3!error!bars!overlap!and!there!are!no!trends!to!be!observed.!The!precision!of! this!data!is!quite!high!for!Spruce!forest!and!ok!for!MAs!and!Red!Pin!forest!but!the! accuracy!is!very!poor!at!all!3!sites.! ! Graph!3:!Bar!graph!of!average!Phosphorus!levels!at!each!location!!

Average!Phosphorus!level!
Phosphorus(scale!unit)! 0.8! 0.6! 0.4! 0.2! 0! Spruce! Red!Pine! Location! MAS!

! ! DISCUSSION!V:! This!experiment!was!undertaken!to!test!the!correlation!between!Phosphorus! levels!and!the!DBH!(Diameter!At!Breast!Height).!The!hypothesis!for!this!experiment! was:!if!there!is!more!Phosphorus!in!the!area!then!the!tree!DBH!will!be!higher! because!Phosphorus!accelerates!growth!(!http://passel.unl.edu).!Although!sources! may!say!that!Phosphorus!accelerates!growth!and!DBH!near!fields,!this!particular! hypothesis!did!not!come!to!the!same!conclusion.!! ! Due!to!all!the!errors!throughout!the!experiment!all!of!the!data!was! inconclusive.!There!was!a!very!slight!trend!showing!that!the!r2!value!was!.05!and! because!of!these!results,!the!data!showed!very!little!correlation!between! Phosphorus!and!tree!DBH.!An!explanation!for!these!results!could!be!that!a!certain! tree!was!much!older!than!another!and!as!a!result!it!was!much!wider.!These!results! could!also!be!affected!by!another!component!such!as!moisture!or!amount!of! sunlight.!!But!as!stated!before,!the!data!collected!had!a!very!slight!correlation!and! shouldnt!be!taken!as!accurate!results.!!If!the!experiment!was!modified!for!little!to! no!errors,!chances!are!there!would!have!been!a!correlation!between!Phosphorus! and!tree!DBH.!The!reason!Phosphorus!effects!tree!DBH!is!because!Phosphorus!helps! regenerate!new!tissue!and!transfer!energy!to!help!roots!grow!more!efficiently! (http://ohioline.osu.edu).!Since!the!whole!entire!first!site!had!a!consistent! Phosphorus!level!of!0,!all!the!tests!at!that!site!were!inaccurate.!The!other!two!sites!

showed!very!few!signs!of!Phosphorus!levels!with!both!averaging!just!.25!out!of!4! pms!on!the!Phosphorus!testing!levels!kit.!! ! As!a!result!of!all!this!insufficient!data,!the!results!were!extremely! inaccurate.!With!all!the!errors!that!occurred!during!the!testing!process!there!is!no! confidence!in!the!results!collected.!It!was!also!hard!to!prove!the!data!conclusive! because!all!of!the!data!was!in!between!0!and!1!pms,!which!showed!that!all!of!the! data!was!clumped!together!making!it!hard!to!prove!its!conclusiveness.!Having!a! Phosphorus!testing!kit!that!has!more!detailed!Phosphorus!levels!would!have!made! our!data!more!precise.!!Had!this!process!been!redone,!there!would!be!a!higher! confidence!level!in!the!collected!results!because!of!the!experience!with!the!proposal! and!speed!of!efficiency.!! ! ! Had!this!experiment!been!revised,!there!would!be!multiple!revisions!and! changes!to!improve!the!experiment.!From!the!beginning!of!the!project!the! procedure!wasnt!fully!up!to!quality!to!perform!an!efficient!experiment.!Getting!a! perfect!10mL!of!soil!was!a!challenge!because!we!would!get!pieces!of!soil!that! clustered!so!getting!exactly!10mL!was!based!on!best!guess.!Without!the!exact!ratio,! the!solution!could!be!too!muddy!making!it!hard!to!record!the!data!or!too!diluted! making!it!equally!as!hard!to!record!data.!Transferring!the!soil!out!of!the!auger!and! into!the!50mL!beaker!was!also!a!challenge.!It!was!also!hard!to!get!only!soil!into!the! container,!occasionally!a!few!hay!needles!or!other!solid!objects!such!as!twigs!would! mix!with!the!solution.!This!made!transferring!the!solution!into!the!testing!kit! difficult.!To!eliminate!those!errors!a!masher!could!have!been!used!to!compact!the! soil!so!it!is!easier!to!tell!when!there!are!10mL!of!soil.!! ! ! While!recording!the!data!back!at!the!science!lab,!there!were!also!some!errors.! For!site!A,!pouring!the!solution!from!the!ziplock!container!and!into!the!Phosphorus! testing!chamber!resulted!in!zero!results!because!the!solution!was!too!muddy!for!the! Phosphorus!pill!to!show!positive!results.!After!site!A,!our!approach!to!getting! accurate!results!changed!by!transferring!the!liquid!with!droppers.!This!method! appeared!to!be!more!efficient!due!to!the!more!solvent!and!water_based!solution.! While!pouring!the!Phosphorus!pill!powder!into!the!testing!chamber,!not!all!of!the! powder!ended!up!in!the!kit.!Had!all!the!powder!been!in!the!testing!chamber!the! color!of!the!liquid!could!have!been!a!different!color.!To!avoid!this!complication!in! the!future,!a!funnel!could!be!used!to!avoid!spillage.!Some!future!experiments!that! could!be!conducted!include;!Does!Phosphorus!affect!the!temperature!of!soil;!or!does! Phosphorus!affect!moisture!of!soil?! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Works!Cited!VI:! !Cartoon'Tree.!N.d.!Photograph.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.!! ! Daniels,!Mike.!"Soil!Phosphorus!Levels:!Concerns!and!Recommendations."!N.p.,! 1993.!Web.!7!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/Documents/Soil_P_Levels_Concerns_and_Re commendations.pdf>.!! ! "Forensics!Lab!5.3."!MAKE.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!25!Apr.!2013.! <http://blog.makezine.com/laboratory_53_examine_the_chemical/>.!! ! "Functions!of!Phosphorus!in!Plants."!(n.d.):!n.!pag.!Better'Crops.!1999.!Web.!6!Mar.! 2013.!<http://www.ipni.net/publication/bettercrops.nsf>.!!! ! Green'Plant.!N.d.!Photograph.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.!! "The!Nature!of!Phosphorous!in!Soils."!The'Nature'of'Phosphorous'in'Soils.!University! Of!Minnesota,!2009.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc6795.html>.!! ! "Phosphorus!and!Potassium!in!the!Soil."!Plant'and'Soil'Sciences'ELibrary.!N.p.,!2011.! Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule =1130447043>.!! ! Schachtman,!Daniel!P.!"Phosphorus!Uptake!by!Plants:!From!Soil!to!Cell."!Phosphorus' Uptake'by'Plants:'From'Soil'to'Cell.!N.p.,!Feb.!1998.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/116/2/447.full>.!! ! "Understanding!Soil!Tests!for!Plant_Available!Phosphorus."!Ohio'State'Extension.! Ohio!State,!2007.!Web.!7!Mar.!2013.!<http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf_ fact/pdf/Soil_Tests.pdf>.! !

These Results Are Prephosphorus!

The Effect of Water Phosphate (ppm) on Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)

By Gautam Mitra and Harry Ainsworth

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section __________________Primary Author Abstract Ainsworth, Harry Introduction Mitra, Gautam Materials and Methods Ainsworth, Harry Results Mitra, Gautam Discussion Ainsworth, Harry Acknowledgements Works Cited ______________________Page 1 1 3 4 7 8 9

I. ABSTRACT
The experiment conducted was focused on finding a way to control the levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) using phosphate. By controlling the DO levels in a pond or any other large body of water, biologists would be able to make habitats more suitable for the species living in them. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was: if a pond has a higher tested level of water phosphate (ppm), then the pond will have a smaller level of dissolved oxygen (ppm), because an increased number of plants will result in a greater intake of dissolved oxygen, potentially starving other aquatic life (Lake Whatcom Management Program, http://lakewhatcom.wsu.edu). Samples were taken from three different locations, Poultry Pond, Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond. Testing the samples involved taking test tubes and placing DO and phosphate pills in them and matching the sample color to the DO/phosphate color charts. Unfortunately, Not enough samples were taken for the data to be conclusive. A major error in the testing occurred; no samples were taken from the center of the ponds, as there was no way to get there. The phosphate and DO levels could have been considerably different in the middle.

II. INTRODUCTION
Phosphate is a key ingredient to any body of water or environment. It helps the growth of aquatic plants as it is a natural fertilizer (Corporate Document Repository, www.fao.org). Since phosphate causes more plants to grow, it has a large effect on the dissolved oxygen levels. Dissolved oxygen is used up by plants, therefore having more phosphate causes a lower amount of dissolved oxygen. There is a multitude of ways that phosphate enters into bodies of water. The most prominent way is the natural occurrence in rocks and soil. (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, www.ccme.ca). Another way is through human agriculture in the form of chemical fertilizers and human waste. Dissolved oxygen can enter the environment through the atmosphere with the help of flowing water and the crashing of waves, (Water Action Volunteer, watermonitoring.uwex.edu). Water phosphate and dissolved oxygen are measured in parts per million (ppm). A healthy ppm of water phosphate is .05 - .01 ppm and a healthy level of dissolved oxygen is 5 - 10 ppm. (Omega Lake Services, http://www.omegalakeservices.com/) The proposed experiment will take place at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary, in Lincoln, MA. The samples will be taken from three of the five ponds at Drumlin Farm. For this field study, the following 3 ponds will be tested: Bathtub Pond, Ice Pond, and Poultry Pond. Bathtub Pond is surround in an enclave of trees and bushes and is on the foot of one side of the drumlin. Ice Pond is downhill from the 1|Page

Drumlin Farm parking lot and is on the northern side of the drumlin. Poultry Pond has farm animals that graze the fields nearby. Due to the separate locations of the ponds, there may be multiple variables that could vary the phosphate and dissolved oxygen levels such as; difference in shade, amount of plant growth, nutrient runoff, animal feces are all necessary variables to consider when conducting such an experiment. Another important factor to take note of is that if the phosphate levels are at the perfect level, plant growth will be at the point where the plants take in a lot of dissolved oxygen but release even more during photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, aquatics plants give off an abundant supply of dissolved oxygen, however as the night comes continued use of the dissolved oxygen by plants, microorganisms and vegetation cause a large consumption. This may cause the dissolved oxygen levels to vary from very little in the morning to very high in the afternoon when the sun is at its peak. If there is too much water phosphate then an abundance of algae and other surface plants can suddenly choke the supply of dissolved oxygen causing death in aquatic animals and below water plants. Thus making it absolutely crucial to limit the amount of phosphate fertilizer used, if any (Unknown, http://www.ccme.ca). In an experiment conducted by the Everglades Management Team, it was found that in areas with increased phosphate loading the levels of dissolved oxygen declined (McCormick + Laing, http://link.springer.com) The proposed experiment is the effect of water phosphate (ppm) on the levels of dissolved oxygen (ppm) in a given pond. The objective of this experiment is to determine how much phosphate can affect or cause a detrimental effect on the dissolved oxygen in a body of water. The aforementioned will be measured by taking samples of water in randomized locations in Drumlin Farm ponds. Eight samples will be taken from each of three ponds. The independent variable for this experiment is the water phosphate level of each pond in parts per million (ppm). The dependent variable will be the level of dissolved oxygen in each pond in parts per million (ppm). Some important control variables include the water samples being taken at the same depth, making sure the sample includes no debris, and taking the samples on the same day. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is, if a pond has a higher tested level of water phosphate, then the pond will have a smaller level of dissolved oxygen, because an increased number of plants will result in a greater intake of dissolved oxygen, potentially starving other aquatic life (Lake Whatcom Management Program, http://lakewhatcom.wsu.edu) This field study will teach how phosphate levels can affect the ponds at the Drumlin Farm. Those working at the Farm will need to understand the correct levels of nutrients in the ponds so that they can manage and protect the environment of Drumlin Farm. It is essential to have a knowledge of what is healthy and unhealthy for the pond ecosystems. 2|Page

The more people that study the correlation between phosphate and dissolved oxygen, the better the water quality will be in the worlds bodies of water.

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this experiment to be conducted, certain materials were needed. In order to take the samples, one 50mL graduated cylinder was needed. 8 water DO test tubes, 8 phosphate test tubes, 48 DO testabs, 24 phosphate testabs, a timer, 1 DO color chart, and 1 phosphate color chart were needed to test the samples. All items used to test the water can be found in the LaMotte DO and Phosphate test kits. Using the graduated cylinder, 50mL of water was scooped from the surface of the pond (8 samples were taken from the edges of each pond; Bathtub Pond(C), Poultry Pond (A) and Ice Pond (B) [all located at Drumlin farm, Lincoln, MA]). DO test: One of the DO test tubes was filled to the top with the water collected from the pond. Two DO Testabs were dropped into the tube and the lid was fastened. The tube was shaken until both testabs were fully disintegrated. The tube was left to rest for 5 minutes to allow the color to develop. The sample color was Figure compared to the B DO color chart (Figure A) and the result was recorded. Figure Phosphate test: A One phosphate test tube was (Figure A) filled to the 10mL with a sample from the pond. One phosphate testab was dropped into the tube and the lid was secured. The tube was then shaken until the testab was disintegrated. After waiting 5 minutes, the sample color was compared to the phosphate color chart and the result was recorded. After both tests were conducted, the test tubes were rinsed with distilled water to prevent the next sample from being contaminated. (Figure B)

3|Page

Control variables and helpful hints: all samples should be collected and tested on the same day to avoid errors. The samples should be taken from the same depth each time and the samples should all be the same volume/size. The samples should all be taken from different places in the pond to avoid recording the same phosphate and DO levels every time. To help save time, take all the samples at once and then test them all at once. This way avoids having to wait 5 minutes in between taking samples.

IV. RESULTS
Table 1: The effect of Water Phosphate on Water Dissolved Oxygen in Poultry Pond Poultry Pond Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.6

Phosphate (ppm) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Average

5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 4.0 5.3

Table 2: The effect of Water Phosphate on Water Dissolved Oxygen in Ice Pond Ice Pond Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.6 5.0 2.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 5.3

Phosphate (ppm) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Average

4|Page

Table 3: The effect of Water Phosphate on Water Dissolved Oxygen in Bathtub Pond Bathtub Pond Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.9

Phosphate (ppm) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Average

4.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.1

Graph 1: The effect of Water Phosphate on Water Dissolved Oxygen in Poultry Pond

Poultry Pond
9 8 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Phosphorus (ppm) 3 3.5

R = 0.0023

4.5

5|Page

Graph 2: The Effect of Water Phosphate on Water Dissolved Oxygen in Ice Pond

Ice Pond
8 7 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

R = 0.8647

0.5

1.5

2 2.5 Phosphorus (ppm)

3.5

4.5

Graph 3: The Effect of Water Phosphate on Water Dissolved Oxygen in Bathtub Pond

Bathtub Pond
8 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Phosphorus (ppm) 1.2

R = 0.2758

1.4

1.6

6|Page

The first graph shows the results from Poultry Pond. In the graph, the r2 value shows how steep the linear regression is. The data of dissolved oxygen ranged from 4 ppm to 8 ppm and the data of phosphate ranged from 0 ppm to 4 ppm. Dissolved oxygen had an average of 1.6 ppm and phosphate had an average ppm of 5.3. The results had a meager r2 value of 0.0023 which is supported by the fact that the data from this pond was highly scattered. Due to such erratic results the tests at Poultry Pond provided no useful information. There was no major trend or clearly visible pattern that could be determined from the Poultry Pond. The second graph shows the test results from Ice Pond. The results of this test was in ordinance with the proposed hypothesis. The data of dissolved oxygen ranged from 2 ppm to 7 ppm and the phosphates range was 0 ppm to 4 ppm. Dissolved oxygen had an average of 1.6 ppm and phosphate had an average ppm of 5.3. There was a small level of inconclusiveness as 1 ppm of water phosphate yielded 3 different levels of dissolved oxygen (5, 6, and 7 ppm). The data had a clear negative correlation with an r2 value of 0.8647. The third graph shows the results found in Bathtub Pond. The data of dissolved oxygen ranged from 4 to 7 ppm and the phosphate level ranged from 0 to 1.5 ppm. Dissolved oxygen had an average of 0.9 ppm and phosphate average was 5.1 ppm. The results of this test were somewhat inconclusive as 1 ppm of water phosphate had 5 different levels of dissolved oxygen (3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 ppm). The r2 value, while not as prominent as in graph 2, was still rather high with a value of 0.2758. As suggested previously this graph also showed a slight negative correlation. V. DISCUSSION The purpose of this experiment was to discover if water phosphate levels have an effect on dissolved oxygen levels. The results do, in fact, answer this question. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was: if a pond has a higher tested level of water phosphate (ppm), then the pond will have a smaller level of dissolved oxygen (ppm), because an increased number of plants will result in a greater intake of dissolved oxygen, potentially starving other aquatic life (Lake Whatcom Management Program, http://lakewhatcom.wsu.edu). This hypothesis was not supported because of the low r values. The data for Ice pond is the only data in agreement with the hypothesis as the r value is 0.86472. The closer the r value is to 1 the more the data is in accordance to the hypothesis. The data for Bathtub pond is considerably less conclusive; the r value is 0.27578. Poultry ponds r value is 0.00228, rendering the data inconclusive. Due to the low r values, there is no confidence in the experiment. The data from Ice pond suggests that there is some correlation between phosphate and DO, but because of the data from the other ponds, a valid conclusion cannot be drawn. Sufficient data was not collected; at least 8 more samples should have been taken from each site for there to be sufficient data collected. The reason why high levels of water phosphate lead to low levels of DO are phosphate speeds up a process called eutrophication (USGS Water Science School, 7|Page

http://ga.water.usgs.gov). Eutrophication is the process in which a large body of water takes in a large amount of nutrients. These excessive nutrients cause algae to grow rapidly (US Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov), and because of this, the algae soaks up a large amount of DO. Phosphate is naturally present in water, although in small amounts (FAO Corporate Document Repository, http://www.fao.org). Phosphate normally reaches a high level due to soil erosion as phosphate is leached from rocks and minerals when it comes into contact with water (Robert Blake, 94). Several answers asked during the planning of the procedure remain unanswered. Does the depth affect the amount of DO/phosphate, is there a way to control the amount of DO/phosphate in a pond by introducing certain substance to the water, and what effect do humans have on the DO/phosphate levels?, were all questions ask throughout the experiment. A further study that would be interesting to conduct would be the effect of water DO on duckweed percentage. This way, it could be seen how phosphate levels indirectly affect duckweed. If this experiment were to be repeated, it would be useful to have more test tubes so that all the samples from each location could be tested at once. By doing this, all of the samples would have the pills in them for the same amount of time eliminating an error. Another giant error in the experiment was that no samples were taken from the middle of the ponds. If the experiment were to be repeated, it would be beneficial to find a way to take samples from the middle of the ponds, such as using a boat/canoe.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Harry Ainsworths Acknowledgements: I, Harry Ainsworth, would like to thank Gautam Mitra for being my lab partner during the experiment. He was very resourceful and great to work with. I would like to thank Mr. Ewins for helping us edit our papers and for answering our questions when we got confused. I would like to thank Mrs. Currier, Mr. Senabre, and Mrs. Canaday for helping us and supervising us at the three ponds at which we conducted our experiments. Finally, I would like to thank the Drumlin Farm staff for showing where the areas we were visiting were located and for allowing us to work on their property. Gautam Mitras Acknowledgements: I, Gautam Mitra, would like to thank Harry Ainsworth for being an amazing lab partner throughout the Knights of Science field study. He was very punctual and always around to help. I would like to thank Mr. Ewins for teaching us how to conduct our field studies, and to answer our questions when we were stuck. I would like to thank Mrs. Currier, Mr. Senabre, and Mrs. Canaday for helping us and supervising us at the three ponds at which we conducted our experiments. I would also like to thank the staff of Drumlin Farm for assisting us in finding our way to our sites and also giving us permission to work on their property. Finally, I would like to thank Microsoft, Charles Simonyi and Richard Brodie for developing and updating Microsoft Word so that I could type this. 8|Page

VII. WORKS CITED

Citations Used For Introduction: "17. Phosphorus." CHEMICAL FEATURES OF WATER. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC183E/AC183E17.htm>. "CCME: Phosphorus." CCME: Phosphorus. Government of Canada, 15 Apr. 2009. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ccme.ca/sourcetotap/phosphorus.html>. McCormick, Paul V., and James A. Laing. "Effects of Increased Phosphorus Loading on Dissolved Oxygen in a Subtropical Wetland, the Florida Everglades Springer."Effects of Increased Phosphorus Loading on Dissolved Oxygen in a Subtropical Wetland, the Florida Everglades (2003): n. pag. Web. <Effects of increased phosphorus loading on dissolved oxygen in a subtropical wetland, the Florida Everglades>.
The Pond Ecosystem Chapter 3 of the Guide to Optimum Pond Dynamics." The Pond

Ecosystem Chapter 3 of the Guide to Optimum Pond Dynamics. Omega Lake Services, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://www.omegalakeservices.com/The_Pond_Ecosystem.html>. "Water Action Volunteer - Dissolved Oxygen." Dissolved Oxygen. Water Action Volunteer, 2007. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. Citations Used For Discussion: "17. Phosphorus." CHEMICAL FEATURES OF WATER. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC183E/AC183E17.htm>. "Aquatic Life Criteria For Dissolved Oxygen." US Environmental Protection Agency. 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/dissolved/do facts.cfm> Blake, Robert W. Inside-out: Environmental Science in the Classroom and the Field, Grades 38. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2010. 94. Print. The Effects of Urbanization on Water Quality:Phosphorus." Phosphorus in Water: The USGS Water Science School. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/phosphorus.html>. 9|Page

! ! ! ! ! pHinding!pH!
The!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH
Ellie!Clapp!8685 Kaley!Arnof!8581! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sections!! ! ! Abstract! ! ! ! Introduction! ! ! ! Materials!and!Methods! ! !Results! ! ! ! Discussion!! ! ! ! Acknowledgments!! ! ! ! ! Work!Cited!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Table!of!Contents! !
Primary!Author! Clapp,!Ellie! ! Arnof,!Kaley! ! Clapp,!Ellie! !

!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!Page!Number! ! ! 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! 2! 4! 7! 8! 10!

Arnof,!Kaley! ! Clapp,!Ellie! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ABSTRACT:! The!objective!of!this!experiment!was!to!test!the!effects!of!soil!pH!on!water!pH! of!three!different!pond!locations!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!MA.!The!purpose!was! to!see!how!strongly!the!soil!and!water!pH!correlate!and!whether!location!changes! this!correlation.!The!procedure!was!to!take!four!evenly!spaced!samples!of!soil!and! water!around!the!pond!at!each!of!the!three!ponds!and!test!the!pH!level!to!see!if! there!was!a!relationship.!It!was!expected!that,!if!the!pH!of!the!soil!was!very!acidic,! then!the!pH!of!the!water!would!also!be!acidic!because!both!the!water!and!soil! experience!the!same!precipitation!which!directly!affects!the!pH.!In!addition,!the! rainwater!creates!runoff!into!the!soil,!bringing!the!soil!particles!with!it!and!causing! the!pH!of!the!water!and!soil!to!mix!(Perlman).!After!collecting!the!data,!there!was!no! correlation!found!because!when!soil!and!water!meet,!their!acidity!levels!do,!in!fact,! interact!and!combine!to!influence!each!other,!but!ultimately,!the!water!drains!away! and!the!soil!pH!remains!mostly!the!same.! ! INTRODUCTION:! Have!you!ever!wondered!whether!the!pH!of!the!soil!affects!the!pH!of!water?! This!experiment!explores!the!relationship!between!pH!level!of!soil!and!water!at! three!ponds!at!Drumlin!Farm.!The!results!will!help!with!understanding!the!runoff! stage!in!the!water!cycle,!as!well!as!the!basic!pH!of!soil!and!water!at!Drumlin!Farm.!!!! Drumlin!Farm!is!a!wildlife!sanctuary!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts.!There!are! five!ponds!at!Drumlin!Farm,!three!of!which!will!be!used!in!this!experiment:!Poultry! Pond,!Bathtub!Pond!and!Boyce!Pond.!Poultry!Pond!is!near!the!Farm!Life!Center;!the! top!layer!of!water!is!usually!covered!with!duckweed,!a!plant!that!commonly!grows! in!fresh!water.!The!pond!is!large,!oval!shaped!and!is!surrounded!by!large!trees!and! shrubs.!A!field!and!a!trail,!as!well!as!a!Bird!Conservation!Area!surrounds!Bathtub! Pond.!Bathtub!Pond!is!very!oval!shaped,!and!is!covered!in!ice!for!part!of!the!year.! Also,!the!west!side!had!a!steep!slope!along!side!the!pond.!Boyce!Pond!has!a!field! surrounding!it.!It!is!a!circular!shape,!with!trees!touching!or!surrounded!by!water.! pH!measures!the!acidity!of!a!solution!on!a!!0V14!scale.!Seven!is!neutral!pH.! Any!object!that!has!a!pH!below!seven,!like!lemon!juice,!is!acidic.!If!something!has!a! pH!over!seven,!like!corn!syrup,!it!is!basic.!The!pH!is!determined!by!the!concentration! of!a!hydrogen!ion!in!a!given!solution.!Acids!have!higher!hydrogen!concentration,!and! bases!have!a!higher!hydroxide!concentration.!When!acids!and!bases!combine,!H2O!is! formed,!as!well!as!a!neutral!reaction.!The!healthiest!range!of!pH!for!soil!is!between! 3V9,!with!the!majority!of!soil!falling!from!4.5!to!7.5! (http://www.gardeningsingapore.org).!A!healthy!range!of!water!pH!for!animals!is! from!5V9!(http://www.phperformancewater.com),!while!plants!in!water!do!better! when!the!pH!is!acidic!(Budzinski).!Climate,!mineral!content!and!soil!texture!are! factors!that!affect!soil!pH.!(http://soils.usda.gov/).!Water!pH!can!be!affected!by! precipitation,!organic!material,!and!some!rock!types!(Oran).!This!experiment!will! demonstrate!whether!soil!pH!also!affects!water!pH.! There!is!a!significant!amount!of!runoff!that!varies!depending!on!location,! which!affects!the!chemical!makeup!of!soil.!The!water!cycle!is!one!of!the!main! reasons!that!the!two!pH!values!mix.!The!water!cycle!is!the!recycling!process!that!all! water!in!nature!goes!through.!Precipitation,!or!small!drops!of!water!that!fall!from! !

the!sky!when!water!vapor!and!cloud!droplets!get!too!dense!to!be!held,!is!an! important!part!of!the!water!cycle!(Perlman).!The!rainwater!soaks!into!the!water,! and!when!the!soil!cannot!hold!anymore!water,!this!creates!runoff! (http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/).!!The!runoff!will!continue!in!separate!streams!until!it! reaches!a!bigger!stream,!river,!or!in!this!case,!pond.!Some!ponds!lead!to!bigger! bodies!of!water,!but!the!ponds!in!this!experiment!do!not,!so!the!runoff!will!still!in! the!pond!until!it!evaporates.!When!soil!and!water!come!into!contact,!their!pH!mixes! and!influences!each!other.!Both!pH!concentrations!can!change!to!match!each!other! (Budzinski).!This!is!because!when!the!two!hydrogen!concentration!levels!mix,!the! ratio!between!the!hydrogen!concentration!and!the!hydroxide!concentration!mix!and! average!out,!combining!the!pH!level.!!Once!the!water!interacts!with!the!soil,!slowly! the!soil!turns!the!water!slightly!more!acidic!(Budzinski).!It!takes!more!to!change!the! pH!of!the!water!than!soil,!but!once!it!changes,!it!keeps!that!pH!longer.!Soil!changes! more!easily,!and!can!change!when!rainfall!comes!in!contact!with!particles.!This!can! cause!the!soil!to!be!acidic.!! This!experiment!will!test!the!effect!of!soil!pH!on!water!pH!at!three!different! locations.!The!objective!is!to!see!how!strongly!the!soil!and!water!pH!correlate,!and!if! the!location!changes!this!correlation.!At!each!location,!four!soil!samples!and!four! water!samples!will!be!tested.!The!independent!variable!for!this!experiment!is!the! soil!pH;!the!dependent!variable!is!water!pH.!Some!important!controlled!variables! are:!same!brand!of!Rapitest!for!testing!the!soil!pH,!same!amount!of!soil!tested,!same! distance!underwater,!same!brand!of!pH!probe!for!the!water,!and!same!sample! amount!tested!in!the!water.!The!hypothesis!for!this!experiment!is:!if!the!pH!of!the! soil!is!more!acidic,!then!the!pH!of!the!water!will!also!be!more!acidic!because!both! the!water!and!soil!undergo!the!same!precipitation,!which!directly!affects!the!pH.!In! addition,!the!rainwater!will!create!runoff!into!the!soil,!bringing!the!soil!particles! with!it!and!causing!the!pH!of!the!water!and!soil!to!mix!(Perlman).! From!this!experiment,!the!correlation!between!soil!pH!and!water!pH!will!be! understood.!Drumlin!Farm!will!learn!the!pH!of!both!the!soil!and!water!at!these! locations.!One!of!the!benefits!of!learning!the!pH!of!the!soil!and!water!is!to!help!know! which!plants!will!grow!best!on!the!land.!Because!Drumlin!Farm!keeps!the!area!as! natural!as!possible,!this!will!help!Massachusetts!know!the!basic!pH!of!the!land.!!! ! MATERIALS!AND!METHODS:! This!experiment!tested!the!effect!of!soil!pH!on!water!pH!at!three!different! pond!locations.!In!order!to!conduct!this!experiment,!twelve!226!mL!Red!Solo!cups! were!marked!2/3!of!the!way!full!with!a!Sharpie!pen.!Then,!the!HANNA!pH!meter! was!calibrated!to!the!appropriate!settings!by!using!the!directions!attached!to!the! device.!! Samples!were!first!collected!from!Poultry!Pond!at!Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln!MA! (see!figure!1).!Four!spots!were!marked!around!the!diameter!of!the!pond!as!close!to! North,!South,!East,!and!West!as!the!terrain!would!allow!by!using!a!Suunto!Compass! (see!figure!2).!The!first!samples!were!collected!from!the!North!side!of!the!pond.!One! plastic!cup!was!filled!to!the!previously!marked!line!with!water!20!cm!from!the!bank! and!20!cm!under!the!surface.!The!pH!meter!was!immersed!into!the!cup!of!water!and! was!gently!stirred!until!the!reading!stabilized.!The!pH!shown!on!the!screen!was! !

recorded.!The!water!sample!and!pH!test!were!repeated!once!at!each!spot!around!the! pond.! A!metal!spoon!was!used!to!collect!soil!20!cm!into!the!water.!The!RapiTest!pH! Soil!Test!Kit!test!chamber!(see!figure!3)!was!filled!to!the!designated!dotted!line!with! soil.!Distilled!water!was!poured!into!the!same!test!chamber!and!filled!to!the!upper! dotted!line.!The!provided!capsule!was!held!horizontally!over!the!test!chamber,!and! the!two!halves!of!the!capsule!were!separated,!then!the!powder!was!poured!into!the! test!chamber!with!the!water!and!soil.!The!test!chamber!was!shaken,!and!then! remained!still!for!a!minute.!The!pH!was!recorded!by!matching!the!colors!in!the! chart.!This!procedure!was!repeated!once!at!each!of!the!four!cardinal!compass! points.!Once!done!at!Poultry!Pond,!this!procedure!was!repeated!at!Bathtub!Pond,! then!Boyce!Pond.!!! ! ! Figure!1:!Drumlin!Farm!Map!

! ! Figure!2:!Plot!sampling!at!ponds!!!!! !!!!!!!
N!!

W!

!!!!! !!

! !

! !
S!

E!

! !

! !

!!!!!!!!!!!

Figure!3:!RapiTest!pH!soil!test!chamber!

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RESULTS! Table!1:!The!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!at!Boyce!Pond!

! ! ! Table!2:!The!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!at!Bathtub!Pond!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Table!3:!The!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!at!Poultry!Pond!

! ! ! Table!4:!The!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!(Averages)!

! ! ! Graph!1:!The!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!by!Location!
7.4# 7.2# 7#
Water&pH&

6.8# 6.6# 6.4# 6.2# 6# 5.8# 6#

R#=#0.16667# R#=#0.58947# R#=#0.45973#

Boyce#Pond# Bathtub#Pond# Poultry#Pond#

6.2#

6.4# Soil&pH&

6.6#

6.8#

7#

! ! ! ! !

! ! Graph!2:!The!Overall!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!

! ! Graph!3:!The!Average!Effect!of!Soil!pH!on!Water!pH!

Graph!1!plots!all!the!samples!collects!with!three!R2!values,!each! corresponding!to!one!location.!!Test!1!at!Poultry!Pond!and!Test!3!at!Bathtub!Pond! have!the!highest!water!pH!(7.3).!!The!lowest!water!pH!value!of!6.3!occurred!on!Test! 3!at!Poultry!Pond!and!Test!1!at!Bathtub!Pond.!!The!highest!soil!pH!value!(6.8)! happened!on!Test!3!at!Bathtub!Pond,!and!the!lowest!soil!pH!value!(6.0)!occurred!on! Test!1!at!Bathtub!Pond!and!Test!4!at!Poultry!Pond.!!The!R2!!value!of!Boyce!was!the! lowest!(0.17),!while!Poultry!had!0.46!and!Bathtub!had!0.59.!! !

Graph!2!shows!the!overall!data.!While!the!range!of!data!is!the!same!as!Graph! 1,!Graph!2!shows!the!average!R2!value!(0.43).!This!is!an!accurate!representation!of! the!data.!! Graph!3!represents!the!average!soil!and!water!pH!values!at!each!location.!! The!water!pH!values!are!slightly!higher!than!the!soil!pH!values.!!Bathtub!and!Boyce! Ponds!have!the!same!soil!pH!(6.5).!!Poultry!Pond!has!a!slightly!lower!soil!pH!value!of! 6.4.!!Bathtub!and!Poultry!Ponds!have!the!same!water!pH!(6.6).!!Boyce!Pond!with!a! water!pH!of!6.7!is!slightly!higher.!!All!of!the!error!bars!overlap.!!The!standard! deviation!of!Boyce!Ponds!water!pH!overlaps!the!least!with!Poultry!Pond.!!The! standard!deviation!(error!bars)!for!Boyces,!Bathtubs,!and!Poultrys!soil!pH!is!0.1,! 0.4!and!0.3!and!for!water!pH!is!0.3,!0.5!and!0.6.!!! ! DISCUSSION:! This!experiment!tested!the!effects!of!soil!pH!on!water!pH!at!three!different! locations.!The!objective!was!to!see!how!strongly!the!soil!and!water!pH!correlate!and! if!the!location!changes!this!correlation.!The!hypothesis!was:!if!the!pH!of!the!soil!is! more!acidic,!then!the!pH!of!the!water!will!also!be!more!acidic!because!both!the! water!and!soil!are!exposed!to!the!same!precipitation!which!directly!affects!the!pH.! In!addition,!the!rainwater!will!create!runoff!into!the!soil,!bringing!the!soil!particles! with!it!and!causing!the!pH!of!the!water!and!soil!to!mix!(Perlman).!Even!though!there! was!a!small!range!in!data,!there!was!no!correlation!between!soil!pH!and!water!pH! because!as!the!soil!got!more!acidic!the!water!did!not!change!and!vice!versa.! The!R2!values!for!all!the!ponds!were!close!to!0.41!which!shows!that!there!is! little!correlation!between!the!two!sets!of!data:!soil!and!water!pH.!Individually,!the! three!ponds!do!not!appear!to!have!an!obvious!trend,!but!when!taken!together,! shown!most!effectively!in!Graph!two,!the!data!appears!to!be!more!linear.!This!lack!of! trend!is!clearest!at!Boyce!Pond!where!the!R2!value!was!0.17.!This!could!be!due!to!the! fact!that!there!was!tree!canopy!over!the!water!which!prevented!rain!from!soaking! the!soil!around!the!edge!of!the!pond.!This!low!correlation!at!Boyce!Pond!may!be! explained!by!information!provided!by!the!Drumlin!Farm!Teacher!Naturalist!who! indicated!that!it!was!the!only!pond!that!did!not!have!a!lot!of!frogs!living!in!it!which! could!impact!the!pH!levels!because!of!their!feces.!Bathtub!Pond!had!the!highest! correlation!between!soil!and!water,!with!an!R2!value!of!0.58.!This!slightly!stronger! correlation!may!be!because!of!the!ice!partially!covering!the!pond,!which!may!have! caused!a!difference!in!pH!because!ice!tends!to!be!neutral!which!would!cause!the! water!and!soil!to!be!more!neutral.! The!soil!and!water!pH!was!predicted!to!be!strongly!correlated!because!there! was!a!significant!amount!of!runoff!that!varies!depending!on!location,!which!affects! the!chemical!makeVup!of!soil!(Budzinski).!When!soil!and!water!come!into!contact,! the!pH!values!mix!and!influence!each!other.!Both!concentrations!can!change!pH! levels!to!match!each!other,!but!the!data!in!this!experiment!showed!otherwise.!One! reason!for!this!may!be!because!water!retains!its!pH!level!more!than!soil,!so!it!takes! larger!amounts!of!highly!acidic!soil!to!change!the!pH!of!the!water.!Because!the!soil! was!fairly!neutral,!it!did!not!affect!the!water;!therefore,!they!did!not!change!based! on!each!other!(Budzinski).!Also,!when!soil!and!water!meet,!their!acidity!levels!

interact!and!combine!to!influence!both.!Ultimately,!the!water!drains!away!and!the! soil!remains!mostly!the!same!(http://answers.yahoo.com).! Judging!by!the!error!bars!in!graph!4,!the!data!is!not!very!precise,!although!the! water!samples!had!a!smaller!range!in!general!than!the!soil!samples.!Only!one!test! was!taken!at!each!of!the!four!locations!around!the!pond!which!decreases!confidence! in!the!results.!Of!all!the!locations,!Boyce!Pond!had!the!smallest!error!bars!because!it! was!the!first!pond!location!so!more!time!was!taken!to!make!the!data!collection!more! accurate.! There!was!sufficient!data!collected!due!to!the!fact!that!a!valid,!well!controlled! experiment!was!conducted!even!though!there!was!no!correlation!between!the!water! pH!and!soil!pH.!Although!sufficient!data!was!collected,!there!are!still!many!things! that!could!be!modified!for!this!experiment!to!be!improved.!The!first!would!be!to! take!more!data!samples!at!each!pond!in!order!to!achieve!more!accurate!results.!If! ten!or!more!spots!were!tested!around!the!pond,!then!the!sampling!locations!could! have!been!more!random,!thus,!enabling!more!of!a!range!or!trend!in!data.!! ! A!few!errors!occurred!while!conducting!this!experiment.!The!first!was!that! the!data!samples!were!not!exactly!taken!at!North,!South,!East,!and!West.!By!not! having!them!evenly!spread!out,!it!could!have!affected!the!data!because!the!pH!levels! were!different!around!the!pond!so!it!could!have!made!a!smaller!range!in!data.!Being! more!accurate!with!the!compass!could!have!prevented!this.!Another!cause!for!error! was!that!it!was!difficult!to!clean!everything!with!the!materials!available,!so!the!pH! probe!was!not!always!perfectly!cleaned.!This!could!have!swayed!the!data!because! old!water!and!new!water!might!have!mixed!and!created!a!different!pH.!If!the!pH! probe!had!been!cleaned!off!with!a!paper!towel,!then!put!in!distilled!water,!the!old! water!would!have!been!washed!off!and!the!probe!would!have!been!clean!for!the! new!sample.!! Knowing!if!the!pH!of!soil!has!an!affect!on!the!pH!of!water!could!help!with! gardening.!Having!the!right!pH!is!essential!in!growing!plants.!It!is!now!known!that!it! is!not!necessary!to!base!the!pH!of!the!water!on!the!pH!of!the!soil!because!they!do!not! have!a!correlation.!A!future!experiment!could!be!to!test!the!effect!of!the!water!pH!on! the!soil!pH!depending!on!the!distance!away!from!the!pond.!! ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:! We,!Kaley!Arnof!and!Ellie!Clapp,!would!like!to!thank!everyone!who!helped!us!with! the!Knights!of!Science!Project.!We!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Nagler,!Ms.!Jamison,!and! Mr.!Dwyer!for!proctoring!and!making!sure!everything!went!smoothly!while!we!were! out!in!the!field!collecting!data.!We!would!also!like!to!thank!Ms.!Schultheis!(sp!)!for! staying!after!the!set!time!to!let!us!finish!collecting!our!data!and!Boyce!Pond.!Thank! you!to!our!Drumlin!Farm!Teacher!Naturalists!who!provided!us!with!valuable! information!about!each!pond.!!A!special!thanks!to!our!parents,!Sunshine!Greene,!Ian! Arnof,!Caleb!Clapp,!and!Elizabeth!Lowrey,!for!providing!transportation!and! materials!needed!to!complete!the!experiment.!Ms.!Svatek!deserves!a!big!thank!you! for!guiding!us!through!this!project.!Drumlin!Farms!allows!us!to!use!their!habitats!to! collect!our!data,!and!for!that,!we!would!like!to!give!thanks.!I,!Kaley!Arnof,!would! specifically!like!to!thank!Ellie!Clapp,!my!partner,!for!making!this!project!perfect!and! being!great!with!all!the!details.!I,!Ellie!Clapp,!would!like!to!give!a!huge!thanks!to! !

Kaley!Arnof!for!her!great!enthusiasm!throughout!the!project!and!completing!all!of! her!assigned!sections!on!time!with!thoughtfulness.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

WORKS!CITED:! Introduction! Perlman,!Howard.!"Water!Properties:!pH."!,!from!USGS!WaterVScience!School.!USGS,! 10!Jan.2013.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.!<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/ph.html>.! ! Budzinski,!Jonathan.!"How!Does!Soil!Affect!the!pH!of!Water?"!GardenGuides.!Garden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!Guides,!2010.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.gardenguides.com/139493VsoilVaffectVphVwater/>.! !! "Michigan!State!University!MSU!Extension."!MSU$Extension.!Michigan!State! University,!2013.!Web.!02!Apr.!2013.! <http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/understanding_soil_ph_part_i>.! ! Oran,!Brain.!"What!Is!PH?"!Water$Quality,$Drinking$Water,$Corrosion$and$Water$PH.! N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.waterV research.net/Watershed/pH.htm>.!! ! "Singapore!Gardening!Society."!Singapore$Gardening$Society.!Singapore!Gardening! Society,!2009.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.gardeningsingapore.org/>.! ! "Soil!pH!and!Plant!Nutrients."!Soil!PH!and!Plant!Nutrients.!Alberta,!2003V2013.!Web.! 13!Mar.!2013.!<http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/! agdex6607>.! ! "Understanding!Soil!pH."!Leaflet!No.!2!Dpi.nsw.gov.au.!Joint.!Acid!Soil!Action.!NWS! Agricultural,!2000.!Web.!11!Mar.!2013.! http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/167187/soilV ph.pdf/>.! !! "What!Is!PH!Water?"!PH$Performance$Water$PH$Water$Alkaline$Water$PH$Water$ Benefits.!PH!Performance!Water,!2013.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.phperformancewater.com/?page_id=65>.! ! Discussion!! Budzinsk,!Jonathan.!"How!Does!Soil!Affect!the!PH!of!Water?"!GardenGuides.!N.p.,!n.d.!! ! Web.!07!Apr.!2013.!! ! ! "Does!Soil!Affect!to!PH!of!Water?"!Yahoo!$Answers.!Yahoo!,!n.d.!Web.!08!Apr.!2013.!! "Is!Ice!an!Acid!or!Base?"!Questions$&$Answers.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!08!Apr.!2013.!! Lacoma,!Tyler.!"How!Does!Soil!Affect!the!PH!of!Water?"!EHow.!Demand!Media,!05! Nov.!2009.!Web.!27!Feb.!2013.!!

! ! Perlman,!Howard.!"Water!Properties:!pH."!,!from!USGS!WaterVScience!School.!USGS,! ! 10!Jan.2013.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.!<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/ph.html>.! ! !
!

pHun at Drumlin
The Effect of Soil pH on Species Variation Within a One Meter Square

By James Kilzer and Oakes Austin

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited 1 1 2 4 9 10 11

ABSTRACT This experiment was designed to find the correlation between soil pH and plant diversity. The hypothesis laid out for this experiment was: if soil pH is between the levels of 5.5 and 7 is tested, then the species count at the test location will be higher because most plant nutrients become more available in neutral to slightly acidic conditions, and it is easier for beneficial bacteria to operate at these levels (Perry, ww.pss.uvm.edu/). To test this correlation, a 50 by 50 meter grid was made and random x and y points were plotted within it. It was discovered that on average, there was a slight trend between soil pH and plant count, however the data was very imprecise and the R values were very low. INTRODUCTION Soil pH can affect the amount of plant diversity in an environment. In this experiment, the correlation between soil pH and plant diversity will be found. PH measures the acidity and basicity of a liquid solution. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14, seven being neutral. Anything below 7 is an acid and anything above 7 is a base. PH specifically measures the amount of H+ ions and OH- ions in a substance. To make it possible for a plant to flourish soil pH must be close to 7. If the soil of the plant is too acidic or too basic, the plant will not flourish. At Drumlin Farm, there are multiple sites that have different pH levels. This results, in different levels of plant density since a soils pH is essential for crop growth. At Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln, MA, there is a wide range of fields forests and ponds. Three sites will be investigated at Drumlin Farm; Boyce Field, MAS Forest, and Poultry Pond. Boyce Filed is made up of steep wet hills, which are used for growing multiple types of crops. At the MAS forest, there are many pine trees and small budding blueberry bushes. Poultry pond is surrounded by rocky and moist soil. It is predicted that Boyce Field will have the most neutral pH level. Once the pH is tested, the species count will be measured within a one meter radius. When a crop flourishes, the pH ranges from 5.5 to 7.5. This is because when the soil is too acidic or too basic the soil can burn the roots resulting in a dead plant (Fernndez, http://extension.cropsci.illinois.edu). PH is the hydrogen ion concentration within a solution. It is measured by a comparing a pH color scale with the color that is created by the solution. These scales are called indicators, which are usually strips of paper used to show the physical pH of a solution. It is essential for soil pH levels to stay neutral in order for plant nutrients to flourish. (Buchee) This is because with a neutral pH the root remains safe since the soil cannot be burned as a result of the soil being too acidic or too basic. The objective of this experiment is to investigate the effect of soil pH on species count in different habitats: field, forest, and pond. The independent variable is the level of pH in the soil gathered. The dependent variable is plant count within a one meter radius. Multiple variables in this experiment will need to be controlled. Such as, the same amount of soil, the same set of universal litmus paper strips, the same amount of water,

and the same number of trials for each site. If these variables are all controlled, then the experiment will be a precise and accurate as possible. The hypothesis set forth is: If soil pH is between the levels of 5.5 and 7 is tested, then the species count at the test location will be higher because most plant nutrients become more available in neutral to slightly acidic conditions, and it is easier for beneficial bacteria to operate at these levels (Perry, ww.pss.uvm.edu/). Once the experiment is finished, information can be examined. Information will be examined to show the best place to grow plants at Drumlin Farm. The objective of this experiment is to demonstrate the correlation between pH levels and species count in soil samples from three different sites at Drumlin Farm. MATERIALS AND METHODS The first step to this experiment was completed prior to testing and was to generate 10 random x,y points on a 50 by 50 meter grid with the TI-Nspire calculator using the formula: rand(20)*50. At the test site (Boyce Field or MAS Forest- refer to figure 1) the grid was then measured out using the flags and meter tape. The tape was then stretched 50 meters in a straight line and then a flag was placed every 10 meters. At each coordinate point, a one meter square was made centering on the coordinate point using 4 flags tied together with a meter of string between each. A soil sample was taken with the trowel at the coordinate point by inserting it to the handle in the center of the square. The soil sample was put in a container, labeled and 10 drops of distilled water were added. Universal litmus paper was used to measure the pH of the solution. This method was used for everything except the pond site. At Poultry Pond (refer to fig. 1), a 50 meter distance was marked along the shore with the meter tape and flags, and only the x coordinates were used to mark test spaces along the shore. The testing method was the same. The second part of the experiment involved counting the plant species in a square meter around the test site. Four stakes with a meter of string tied between each were used to measure the test area centering around each coordinate point. The number of different plant species within the square was counted and the data recorded in the logbook. A separate species was determined by looking at all characteristics: branching pattern, leaf type (size, shape, blade, needle, compound, etc.) bark, stem type and size as well as whether it was deciduous or herbaceous or if it was dormant. If a plant was different in every characteristic or if it was clearly in a different plant group (grasses, deciduous, coniferous, fern etc.) it was determined to be a separate species. These steps were repeated 10 times at each test site (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Map of Drumlin Farm, Lincoln MA Test Sites (in red): 4-Boyce Field, 9 MAS Forest, 11 Poultry Pond

RESULTS Table 1: The Effect of soil pH on species count at Boyce Field trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Soil pH 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 # of Species 4 4 7 4 5 3 7 6 6 3

Graph 1: The Effect of soil pH on species count at Boyce Field

8# 7# #"of"Species"(#)" 6# 5# 4# 3# 2# 1# 0# 4.8# 5# 5.2# 5.4# 5.6# 5.8# 6# 6.2# R#=#0.00718#

Soil"pH"

Table 2: The Effect of soil pH on species count at Poultry Pond

Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Soil pH # of Species 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6

3 5 4 3 1 0 5 4 8 0

Graph 2: The Effect of soil pH on species count at Poultry Pond

9# 8# #"of"Species"(#)" 7# 6# 5# 4# 3# 2# 1# 0# 4.8# 5# 5.2# 5.4# 5.6# 5.8# 6# 6.2# R#=#0.34343#

Soil"pH"

Table 3: The Effect of soil pH on species count at MAS Forest

Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Soil pH 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

# of Species 2 1 3 1 0 3 1 1 3 1

Graph 3: The Effect of soil pH on species count at MAS Forest

3.5# 3# #"of"Species"(#)" 2.5# 2# 1.5# 1# 0.5# 0# 0# 1# 2# 3# Soil"pH" 4# 5# 6#

Table 4: The Effect of soil pH on species count at All Three Sites Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Soil pH 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Species 4 4 7 4 5 3 7 6 6 3 3 5 4 3 1 0 5 4 8 0 2 1 3 1 0 3 1 1 3 1

Graph 4: The Effect of Soil pH on Species Count at All Three Sites

9# 8# #"of"Species"(#)" 7# 6# 5# 4# 3# 2# 1# 0# 4.8# 5# 5.2# 5.4# 5.6# 5.8# 6# 6.2# R#=#0.01414#

Soil"pH"

The purpose of the testing was to determine the effect of soil pH on Species Count within a 1 meter radius of where the sample was taken. On average, the soil pH ranged from 5-6, therefore having a weak acid level. On average the species count ranged from 0-8, therefore having a very wide range. In chart one, it showed that the data for soil pH had a small range. This means that Boyce Fields soil pH collection is precise. The data collected for species variation was not precise, as the range of data was large. Table 1 shows that at Boyce Field, the soil is acidic. Table 1 also shows that at Boyce Field the species count is consistently low, averaging out at 4.9 species counted within a 1 meter radius. In graph 2 the soil pH ranges from 5-6, making the data collected precise. The species variation at Poultry Pond is not precise, since the range of data is quite large. The species count at MAS forest is not precise, since the range of data collected was large. Table 3 shows that the average pH was consistent throughout the experiment, measuring out at 5 every trial. Table 3 also shows that there is a low species count at the MAS forest, averaging out at 1.6 species counted within a 1 meter radius. The total average of species counted was not precise, ranging from 0-8. Although the species count was not precise, the soil pH was. The soil pH ranged from 5-6 all throughout the experiment.

DISCUSSION This experiment was designed to find the correlation between pH and the diversity of plants that can grow in a one-meter plot of soil. It was hypothesized that If soil pH between the levels of 5.5 and 7 is tested, then the species count at the test location will be higher, because most plant nutrients become more available in neutral to slightly acidic conditions, and it is easier for beneficial bacteria to operate at these levels (Perry, ww.pss.uvm.edu/). The average pH and species count for all sites showed that species variation does increase from pH 5 to pH 6, however the correlation between species and pH was very weak, having a R value of 0.01414. Boyce field had the least trend in data, with an R value of only 0.00718, and Poultry pond had the highest, with a value of 0.34343. Poultry pond showed a downtrend, with species count decreasing as pH increased, not supporting our hypothesis. At MAS forest, all pH measurements were the same, and no correlation was evident between pH and diversity of plants. Overall, these results were inconclusive and so they did not support the hypothesis. PH directly impacts the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms in soil, as well as impacting nutrient availability to plants. Nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous are more available at neutral or slightly acidic pH levels, but availability drops off below a pH of 6 (McKenzie, www1.agric.gov.ab.ca). On the other hand, as soil goes above pH of 7, plants lose many vital micronutrients and minerals (Hofmann, www.agric.wa.gov.au). Because of this, there was a slight trend between pH and plant diversity, however the pH measurements and species counts were not precise enough to show an accurate trend. One error that arose was that the 50 by 50 meter grid used to measure out the test sites, and in the case of the pond, the 50 meter section of shore, may not have been perfectly sized. In each environment there were many land features and plants that made it impossible for the meter tape to be laid perfectly flat or perfectly straight, so some of the test points may not have been accurate. The species count may not have always been correct either, because there was a possibility of some of the plants in each area being dormant or otherwise unnoticeable. Species were not specifically identified, so some plants may have been of the same species despite looking different in all characteristics, and some plants may have been different but looked alike. This experiment could have been improved by taking more time to make sure the plot measurements were accurate as well as clearing paths for each side of the square. The species count could have also been improved by testing in the summer when all plants would be growing, and by identifying each plant individually. The data collected was not precise since litmus paper can only measure large changes in pH, while the changes in this experiment were small. A different measuring

tool would make the results more accurate. In future experiments pH data collection could be more precise and instead of measuring species diversity, plant density could be measured to show how pH impacts plant vigor and reproduction. Individual plant species could be tested in soil of varying pH levels as well. This and future experiments could lead to improved farming and gardening techniques based on altering the pH of the soil to better suit specific plant species or a wide variety. Crop yields could be improved, or fertilizer could be economized by altering the pH to a more favorable level for each individual plant type.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For this experiment, I would first like to thank my mom who bought the containers which held each soil collection. Without this, our experiment would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Mrs. Crewdson and Mrs. Currier who helped us and encouraged us at Boyce field and MAS forest respectively, and our teacher naturalists who gave us help and information at all sites. Finally, I would like to thank Mrs. Svatek and all the science teachers who organized this field trip and made the whole experiment possible, and my partner James who worked with me throughout the whole project. I would first like to thank my mom for buying containers to hold soil. Without these, we would have had a very hard time collecting our data. I would like to thank Ms Crewdson and Ms Currier with encouraging us to collect our data and to help us at each site. I would also like to thank Ms. Svatek and the Science Teachers for organizing the trip for us. Lastly I would like to thank my partner Oakes who worked with me throughout the whole project.

Works Cited Bickelhaupt, Donald. "Soil PH What It Means." SUNY-ESF, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. ESF, 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://www.esf.edu/>. Cover Photo. Digital image. Wiki Media. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Ploughed_field%2C_Hid cote_Boyce_-_geograph.org.uk_-_679087.jpg>. Fernndez, Fabin G., and Roberto G. Hoeft. "Managing Soil PH and Crop Nutrients." Illinois Agronomy Handbook. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://extension.cropsci.illinois.edu/handbook/pdfs/chapter08.pdf>. Hoffman, Harald. "Soil PH and Plant Health in the Home Garden." Garden Note. Western Australia Department of Agriculture and Food, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Jeavons, John. How to Grow More Vegetables: Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains, and Other Crops. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed, 1995. Print. McKenzie, Ross. "Soil PH and Plant Nutrients." Soil PH and Plant Nutrients. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Developement, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Perry, Leonard. "PH for the Garden." PH for the Garden. University of Vermont, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. "Soil PH For Field Crops." Cornell University Cooperative Association. Cornell University, 2005. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nnyagdev.org/PDF/SoilpH.pdf>.

"The Effects of Soil PH on Plant Growth." Singapore Gardening Society, 2009. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://www.gardeningsingapore.org/index.php?option=com_content>.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! Love!That!Dirty!Water! The!Effect!of!Slope!on!Turbidity! Geo!Baker!(S84A1)!and!Lizzy!Goldman!(S84A3)!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Index! !
Section! ! ! ! Primary!Author!
Baker,!Geo!!

!
!

Page!Number!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2! 2A3! 3A4! 5A8! 7A8! 8A9! 9A10! 11A12!

Abstract! ! ! ! ! Introduction! ! ! ! Materials!and!Methods! ! Tables!and!Graphs! ! ! Results! ! ! ! ! Discussion!! ! ! ! Acknowledgements! ! ! Works!Cited! ! !

Goldman,!Lizzy! ! Baker,!Geo!! !

Goldman,!Lizzy! ! Goldman,!Lizzy! ! Baker,!Geo!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

1!

Abstract! ! During!the!time!at!Drumlin!farm!before!the!experiment!was!conducted!it!was! noticed!that!there!are!many!different!ponds,!with!different!types!and!amounts!of! plant!and!animal!life.!The!objective!of!the!experiment!was!to!determine!which!pond! had!the!highest!turbidity,!or!fogginess.!Then!the!slope!of!the!hills!around!the!ponds! was!found!and!the!results!were!looked!at!to!see!if!there!was!a!relationship!between! slope!and!turbidity.!The!procedure!for!this!experiment!was!to!measure!the!turbidity! of!the!water!and!the!slope!of!the!hill!in!the!same!area.!Runoff!is!one!of!the!most! common!reasons!for!a!high!turbidity!in!water,!therefore!it!was!expected!that!Ice! Pond!would!have!the!largest!turbidity!because!it!had!the!steepest!hills!surrounding! it!and.!The!results!showed!that!runoff!is!not!the!only!factor!affecting!the!turbidity! and!that!other!ponds!in!Drumlin!Farm!have!many!other!factors!affecting!it!besides! runoff.! ! Introduction! ! When!observing!water,!the!amount!of!floating!solids!or!matter!can!be! estimated!by!measuring!its!turbidity.!Turbidity!is!defined!as!the!amount!of! sediment!or!organic!matter,!which!is!either!dissolved!or!suspended!in!the!water! (www.thefreedictionary.com/).!Water!can!have!a!high!turbidity!with!a!large!amount! of!sediment!or!particles!or!can!have!low!levels!and!be!relatively!pure.!The!level!of! turbidity!is!mostly!influenced!by!nutrient!runoff.!When!a!large!amount!of!nutrients! enters!a!pond,!it!produces!more!plants!and!organisms!which!quite!frequently! becomes!excessive!and!overwhelm!the!ecosystem.!The!excessive!amount!of!plants! that!are!produced!can!block!sunlight!from!entering!the!lower!depths!of!the!water.! Sunlight!needs!to!be!able!to!reach!all!areas!and!depths!in!a!pond!for!it!to!remain! healthy.!Therefore,!nutrient!runoff!can!be!highly!dangerous!for!a!pond!because!an! excessive!amount!of!aquatic!organisms!can!lead!to!an!unstable!environment!in!the! pond.!A!pond!that!has!a!moderate!level!of!turbidity!can!stay!largely!free!of!pond! algae!and!remain!healthy!(blog.aquaticponds.com/).!However,!if!there!is!too!much! algae,!the!pond!water!appears!green!and!murky!with!a!high!turbidity!and!it!is!not! only!unpleasant!to!look!at!but!is!very!unhealthy!for!aquatic!life!in!a!pond. This!experiment!was!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm,!a!Massachusetts!Audubon! Wildlife!Sanctuary!in!Lincoln,!MA.!At!the!farm,!there!are!five!different!ponds,! however!this!experiment!tests!turbidity!in!three!of!the!ponds:!Bathtub!Pond,!Poultry! Pond!and!Ice!Pond.!While!conducting!this!experiment,!there!were!several!variables! that!were!controlled:!the!amount!of!sunlight,!the!amount!of!water!collected,!the! slope!of!the!hills!and!the!time!the!samples!were!taken. Turbidity!measures!the!clarity!of!certain!waters!and!the!sediment!in!the! water.!When!light!is!shone!through!water,!it!expresses!a!certain!level!of!murkiness.! Water!that!has!a!higher!level!of!turbidity!prevents!the!sunlight!from!penetrating!to! lower!depths!and!limits!organism!growth!below!the!surface.!Materials!such!as!clay,! silt!and!microscopic!organisms!like!algae!cause!water!to!be!more!murky!and!turbid,! especially!at!the!surface.!Water!with!a!higher!level!of!suspended!solids!is!more! turbid!(University!of!Minnesota!Duluth,!www.lakeaccess.org/). ! 2!

Organisms!and!materials!can!be!increased!by!runoff!and!can!travel!into!a!pond!or! source!of!water!from!the!flow!of!rainwater.!The!slope!of!a!hill!that!water!travels! down!and!flows!into!a!pond!represents!a!major!factor!impacting!the!nutrient!runoff! in!a!pond.!When!runoff!is!increased,!the!pond!water!quality!becomes!more!murky! and!crowded!with!sediments,!nutrients!and!chemicals,!and!the!turbidity!increases! (Australian!Institute!of!Marine!Science, www.aims.gov.au/).!Some!factors! influencing!runoff!are:!agriculture,!aquaculture,!septic!tanks,!urban!wastewater! runoff,!urban!storm,!water!runoff,!and!industrial!and!fossil!fuel!combustion!(World! Resources!Institute,!www.wri.org/). This!experiment!tested!the!effect!of!the!slope!of!the!area!or!hill!outside!the! ponds!on!the!turbidity!of!the!pond!water.!The!independent!variable!of!the! experiment!was!the!slope!of!the!hills!and!the!dependent!variable!was!the!turbidity! of!the!ponds.!Turbidity!of!water!is!measured!in!a!Jackson!Turbidity!Unit!(JTU).! During!the!testing,!it!was!highly!important!to!maintain!consistency!by!testing!and! gathering!all!of!the!data!on!the!same!day!and!close!to!the!same!time.!It!was!also! important!to!take!note!on!the!amount!of!sun!and!the!specific!locations!where!the! samples!were!taken.!The!experiment!was!controlled!by!collecting!the!same!amount! of!water!at!each!pond.!!To!do!so,!each!partner!on!the!team!would!stand!at!the! bottom!of!the!pond!while!the!other!partner!would!stand!at!the!top!when!conducting! the!measurement!of!the!slope.!If!Ice!Pond!is!tested,!then!it!will!be!the!most!turbid! because!when!there!is!a!higher!and/or!steeper!slope!from!the!surrounding!area,! then!there!is!more!runoff!causing!the!pond!to!be!highly!turbid!because!particles!are! collected!in!the!runoff!(Zachary!M.!Easton!and!A.!Marton!Pertovic,! consensus.fsu.edu/). This!experiment!teaches!about!the!turbidity!levels!in!ponds!and!can!further! explain!how!to!manage!excessive!plants,!nutrients!and!aquatic!life.!Runoff!can!play!a! major!role!in!maintaining!a!healthy!pond!ecosystem.!Therefore,!this!experiment! explained!the!healthy!levels!in!ponds!with!runoff!and!whether!changing!or!adapting! runoff!can!help!maintain!a!healthier!environment!for!aquatic!plants!and!animals.!! Materials!and!Methods!

Diagram'1'

3!

The!three!pond!areas!being!tested!(Bathtub!pond,!Poultry!pond,!and!Ice!pond!as! seen!in!diagram'1)!are!in!different!locations!of!Drumlin!Farm.!Ice!pond!is!located!on! the!northern!part!of!the!farm,!Bathtub!pond!is!by!the!southern!side!of!the!farm,!and! Poultry!pond!is!on!the!northeastern!side!of!the!farm.!Each!pond!has!a!different!slope! and!turbidity.!At!each!site,!slope!and!turbidity!will!be!measured.! ! Diagram'2'

!Take!the!clinometer!to!the! north!end!of!the!pond!and!have!the!first!person!stand!at!the!bottom!of!the!hill!with! the!clinometer!in!the!hand.!Once!that!is!done,!point!the!clinometer!at!the!angle!of! the!hill!and!look!through!the!hole!of!the!clinometer.!Then!determine!the!number! where!the!line!inside!the!clinometer!lies!and!match!it!with!the!top!of!the!meter!stick! that!the!second!person!is!holding!at!the!top!of!the!hill!(as!seen!in!diagram'2).!Repeat! this!for!the!east,!south!and!west!points!of!the!pond!and!record!the!data.!After!all!of! this!is!finished,!the!turbidity!must!be!collected!for!the!same!site.! To!conduct!the!turbidity!of!the!ponds!the!LaMotte!turbidity!test!is!used.!Mark!the! north,!east,!south!and!west!points!to!the!pond!by!using!a!compass!and!every!point! directly!in!between!with!sticks!in!the!ground.!Take!25!mL!of!water!with!the!beaker! from!each!point!in!the!pond.!Pour!the!north!sample!into!the!turbidity!tube!and!pour! the!distilled!water!into!the!other!tube.!Add!standard!turbidity!reagent!(STR)!drops! into!the!distilled!water!until!there!is!the!same!clarity!or!fogginess!of!the!two! substances!in!both!tubes.!Record!the!number!of!drops!of!the!STR!added!to!the! distilled!water!and!refer!to!the!turbidity!sheet!to!calculate!the!turbidity.!Do!these! steps!for!northeast,!east,!southeast,!south,!southwest,!west!and!northwest!points!of! the!pond.!These!steps!will!have!to!be!done!at!each!site.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

4!

Results! ! Table!1:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)!(Ice!Pond)!! ! !! Turbidity!(JTU)! Cardinal!Direction! Standard! (Slope,!degrees)! Trial!1! Trial!2! Average! Deviation! North!(20)! 30! 40! 35! 7.1! East!(40)! 50! 200! 125! 106.1! South!(15)! 40! 40! 40! 0.0! West!(45)! 40! 20! 30! 14.1! ! ! Table!2:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)!(Poultry!Pond)!! ! !! Turbidity!(JTU)! Cardinal!Direction! Standard! (Slope,!degrees)! Trial!1! Trial!2! Average! Deviation! North!(10)! 10! 50! 30! 28.3! East!(15)! 10! 50! 30! 28.3! South!(13)! 30! 40! 35! 7.1! West!(10)! 120! 160! 140! 28.3! ! Table!3:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)!(Bathtub!Pond)!! ! !! Turbidity!(JTU)! Cardinal!Direction! Standard! (Slope,!degrees)! Trial!1! Trial!2! Average! Deviation! North!(14)! 70! 30! 50! 28.3! East!(10)! 40! 30! 35! 7.1! South!(29)! 30! 40! 35! 7.1! West!(8)! 30! 30! 30! 0.0! ! Table!4:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)!! ! !! Turbidity!(JTU)! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Averag Standard! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! e!! Ponds! Deviation! 30! 40! 30! 30! 40! 30! 30! Bathtub! 70! 37.5! 13.9! 30! 40! 50! 200! 40! 40! 40! 20! Ice! 57.5! 58.2! 10! 50! 10! 50! 30! 40! 120! 160! Poultry! 58.8! 53.6! ! ! ! 5!

Graph!1:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)! !
200!

150!

Turbidity!(JTU)!

100!

50!

0! North! Z50! East! South! West!

Z100!

Cardinal!Direction!

! ! Graph!2:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)! !
160! 140! Turbidity!(JTU)! 120! 100! 80! 60! 40! 20! 0! 0! 10! 20! 30! 40! 50! Slope!(degrees)! R!=!0.00503! R!=!0.2912! R!=!0.14129! ice! Poultry! Bathtub!

! ! ! ! !

6!

Graph!3:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)! !

! ! Graph!4:!The!Effect!of!Slope!(degrees)!on!Turbidity!(JTU)! !
140! 120! 100! Turbidty!(JTU)! 80! 60! 40! 20! 0! Z20! Bathtub! Ice! Cardinal!Direction! Poultry!

Graph!one!shows!the!effect!of!cardinal!direction!on!the!turbidity!(JTU)!at! each!pond!location.!The!data!point!with!the!highest!turbidity!was!the!west!side!of! Poultry!Pond!with!a!turbidity!of!140!JTU.!Interestingly,!the!east!point!at!Ice!Pond! had!the!highest!error!bar!(125!JTU),!which!overlapped!with!every!other!data!points! error!bar.!Every!error!bar!overlaps!with!at!least!nine!other!error!bars.!The!east! point!at!Ice!Pond!has!the!least!precise!data!because!its!error!bar!is!the!largest.!The!

7!

south!point!at!Ice!Pond!and!the!west!point!at!Bathtub!Pond!have!the!most!precise! data!because!their!error!bars!are!the!smallest.! Graph!two!shows!the!effect!of!slope!(degrees)!on!turbidity!(JTU).!This!graph! shows!the!data!points!(12!points)!plotted!together.!Each!color!represents!a!different! pond.!The!lines!going!through!the!graph!are!the!trend!lines,!which!show!the!r2!value.! Bathtub!Pond!had!the!r2!value!furthest!from!one!(0.00503).!Poultry!Pond!had!an!r2! value!closest!to!one!out!of!all!three!(0.2912).! Graph!three!shows!the!effect!of!slope!(degrees)!on!turbidity!(JTU).!This!graph! shows!the!three!different!ponds!as!one!color!and!one!set!of!data.!It!has!one!trend! line!and!one!r2!value,!which!was!0.02485.!Trend!lines!show!the!pattern!in!the!data.!! Graph!four!shows!the!effect!of!cardinal!direction!on!turbidity!(JTU).!It!shows! the!average!of!each!ponds!data!as!one!bar,!therefore!there!are!three!bars!on!the! graph.!Each!error!bar!overlaps!with!the!other!two.!Ice!pond!and!poultry!ponds! error!bars!are!larger!than!the!average.!Ice!Pond!has!the!least!precise!data!because! the!error!bar!is!the!largest.!Bathtub!Pond!has!the!most!precise!data!because!the! error!bar!is!the!smallest! ! Discussion! ! The!purpose!of!this!experiment!was!to!see!if!slope!affected!the!turbidity!of! water!(JTUs)!or!the!optical!characteristic!of!the!liquid,!which!describes!the!haziness! or!clarity!of!the!water!(www.optek.com).!The!hypothesis!of!this!experiment!was,!if! Ice!Pond!is!tested,!then!it!will!be!the!most!turbid!because!when!there!is!a!higher! and/or!steeper!slope!from!the!surrounding!area,!then!there!is!more!runoff!causing! the!pond!to!be!highly!turbid!because!particles!are!collected!in!the!runoff!(Zachary!M.! Easton!and!A.!Marton!Pertovic,!consensus.fsu.edu/).!It!was!thought!that!the! hypothesis!would!be!correct!because!slope!is!supposed!to!have!a!major!affect!on! turbidity.!Things!like!runoff!really!affect!the!turbidity!of!the!water! (consensus.fsu.edu/)!Overall!the!hypothesis!was!not!supported!because!many!error! bars!overlapped!with!each!other!in!the!bar!graph.!There!is!no!conclusive!data!from! the!experiment!because!all!the!error!bars!overlap!with!at!least!another!error!bar.!! The!results!happened!the!way!they!did!because!there!are!many!other!things! affecting!the!turbidity!of!water!just!as!much!or!even!more!than!slope.!Things!like! phytoplankton,!algae!growth,!waste!discharge,!and!more!affect!turbidity! (www.lenntech.com).!The!data!was!inconclusive!because!almost!all!the!error!bars! overlap.!The!reason!why!all!the!error!bars!overlap!is!because!runoff!is!not!the!only! thing!affecting!the!turbidity!of!the!pond.!Some!areas!may!have!more!phytoplankton! or!algae!growth!than!another!pond.!! Ice!pond!did!have!the!highest!slope,!which!means!it!should!have!the!highest! amount!runoff.!But!Bathtub!pond!had!more!people!around!the!area,!roads,!so!it! could!lead!to!more!waste!discharge!in!the!pond.!Poultry!pond!had!the!most!algae!life! in!the!pond,!which!can!also!cause!turbidity!in!the!water.!There!were!many!other! things!in!play!that!were!not!thought!about!when!conducting!this!experiment.!! There!is!little!to!no!correlation!between!the!slope!and!turbidity!in!the!three! ponds.!The!highest!r2!value!(according!to!graph!2)!was!around!30%!so!that!shows! there!are!other!things!affecting!the!turbidity.!Graph!one!shows!the!effect!of!cardinal! ! 8!

direction!on!the!turbidity!at!each!pond!location.!The!data!point!with!the!highest! turbidity!was!the!west!side!of!Poultry!Pond!with!a!turbidity!of!140!JTU.!The!east! point!at!Ice!Pond!had!the!highest!error!bar!(125!JTU),!which!overlapped!with!every! other!data!points!error!bar.!Every!error!bar!overlaps!with!at!least!nine!other!error! bars.!This!means!that!there!are!other!things!affecting!the!water!that!were!not! accounted!for!when!conducting!this!experiment.!Ice!pond!may!have!the!highest! slope!but!bathtub!pond!could!have!more!waste!discharge!because!it!was!near!more! houses!and!roads!so!its!more!open!to!the!public.!All!of!this!was!not!taken!into! account!when!conducting!this!experiment.!The!confidence!in!this!experiment!is! obviously!not!very!high!due!to!the!amount!of!overlap!in!the!error!bars.!So!it!cannot! be!said!what!pond!had!the!highest!amount!of!turbidity.!! The!field!study!could!be!modified!for!improvement!by!having!more!trials!so! that!the!average!could!be!more!accurate.!If!there!are!more!trials!there!is!a!better! chance!of!there!being!a!better!correlation!between!the!slope!and!the!turbidity.! There!was!not!enough!data!collected!because!there!were!only!two!trials!that!were! conducted.! Errors!were!that!the!slope!could!not!always!be!measured!because!of!thorn! bushes!and!other!plants!so!sometimes!the!slope!had!to!be!guessed!and!it!was!also! hard!to!get!to!a!certain!area!to!gather!the!water!sample!for!the!turbidity!test.!These! errors!could!be!eliminated!by!wearing!better!clothing!in!order!to!not!be!hurt!by! thorns!and!bushes.!This!experiment!could!help!people!in!the!future!who!try!to!find! drinking!water!while!living!in!the!wild.!The!more!turbidity!in!the!water,!the!dirtier! the!water!is.!This!experiment!would!help!them!understand!that!if!the!pond!or!lake! has!large!hills!around!it!then!it!most!likely!has!a!higher!amount!of!turbidity.!Also! someone!could!add!to!this!experiment!by!figuring!out!the!amount!of!fish!living!in! each!pond.!Then!that!person!could!figure!out!how!much!turbidity!affects!how!many! fish!live!in!the!pond,!or!even!figure!how!long!the!fish!live!in!the!pond.! ! ! Acknowledgements! ! I!would!most!importantly!like!to!thank!my!partner!Geo!Baker!for!helping!me! with!my!parts!of!the!project!and!helping!conduct!and!perform!this!experiment! equally.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!Rachel!Jamison,!Jorge!Senabre!and!Wendy!Svatek! for!being!at!the!ponds!when!they!were!needed!and!supervising!us!while!collecting! the!data.!Next!i!would!like!to!thank!Emma!Jacobs!and!Josie!Fitzgerald!for!letting!Geo! Baker!and!I!borrow!their!distilled!water!when!there!was!no!distilled!water!at!the! pond.!Also!I!would!like!to!thank!Drumlin!farms!specialist,!Becky!for!sharing!her! knowledge!about!the!ponds!with!the!group!and!helping!guide!us!to!our!data! samples.!Lastly!and!most!importantly!I!would!like!to!thank!Kelley!Schultheis!for! providing!us!with!the!materials!needed!and!for!making!this!experiment!possible! with!suggestions!and!ideas.! ! I!would!like!to!thank!my!partner,!Lizzy!for!correcting!and!editing!my!paper! and!helping!me!conduct!the!experiment.!Ms.!Schulteis!also!corrected!and!gave!me! edits!and!helped!me!conduct!the!experiment.!I!also!give!my!thanks!to!Mr.!Senabrae,! ! 9!

Emma!Jacobs,!and!Josie!Fitzgerald!for!giving!me!supplies!when!I!was!in!need.!Lastly,! I!would!like!to!thank!my!mom,!Irene!Baker,!for!helping!me!find!some!good!web! sources!for!the!experiment.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10!

! Introduction!Works!Cited! ! "Aquatic!Ponds."!Pond'Supply'Blog'RSS.!Pond!Suplies!Before!Whole!Sale,!n.d.!Web.!12!! Mar.!2013.!<http://blog.aquaticponds.com/pondZalgae/keepingZpondZhealthyZ pondZalgae.htm>.! ! ! "Effect!of!Hill!Slope!on!Nutrient!Runoff!from!Turf."!Consensus.fsu.edu.!Zachary!M.!! Easton!and!A.!Martin!Petrovic,!Ph.D.,!n.d.! Web.<http://consensus.fsu.edu/fertilizerZtaskZ force/industry/Effect%20of%20hill%20slope%20on%20nutirent%20runoff%20fr om%20turf.pdf)>.! ! ! Farlex.!"The!Free!Dictionary."!The'Free'Dictionary.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!! <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turbidity>.! ! ! Host,!George.!"Turbidity!in!Lakes."!Turbidity'in'Lakes.!University!of!Minnesota!! Duluth,!n.d.!Web.!12!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.lakeaccess.org/russ/turbidity.htm>.! ! ! "Impact!of!Runoff!Z!AIMS."!Impact'of'Runoff'C'AIMS.!AIMS!Index!of!Marine!Industry,!! n.d.!Web.!12!Mar.!2013.!<http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/waterZ quality/runoff/impactZofZrunoff.html>.! ! ! "Sources!of!Nutrient!Pollution."!World'Resources'Institute.!World!Resources!! Institute,!n.d.!Web.!12!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/about/sources>.! ! ! Discussion!Works!Cited! ! B.V,!Lentech.!"Turbidity."!Turbidity.!Water!Treatment!Solutions,!1998.!Web.!10!Apr.!! 2013.!<http://www.lenntech.com/turbidity.htm>! ! ! Easton,!Zachary!M.,!and!A.!M.!Petrovic.!"Effect!of!Hill!Slope!on!Nutrient!Runoff!from!! ! ! Ocean Explorer, NOAA. "A Turbidity Current Is a Rapid, Downhill Flow of Water Caused by Increased Density Due to High Amounts of Sediment." What Is a

11!

Turbidity Current? NOAA, 11 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/turbidity.html>. Optek.!"Turbidity!Overview:What!Is!Turbidity!and!How!Is!It!Measured?"!What'Is'' Turbidity'and'How'Is'Turbidity'Measured?!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.optek.com/Turbidity.asp>.! ! ! Turf."!Consensus.fsu.edu.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.!2013.! <http://consensus.fsu.edu/fertilizerZtaskZ force/industry/Effect%20of%20hill%20slope%20on%20nutirent%20runoff%20fr om%20turf.pdf>.! ! ! Materials!and!Methods!Works!Cited! ! Waugh, Alice. "Drumlin Farm Raising Money for New Education Center, Exhibits." The Lincoln Squirrel. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.lincolnsquirrel.com/drumlinZfarmZraisingZmoneyZforZnewZeducationZ centerZexhibits/>. ! !

12!

Draining Duckweed
The Effect of Plant Mass (g) on Percent Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen
By Ari Benkler & Marcus Patalano
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Author Page Number Abstract.......................Ari Benkler..................................3 Introduction.................Marcus Patalano........................3 Materials and Methods...Ari Benkler..............................4 Results..........................Marcus Patalano.......................6 Discussion....................Ari Benkler.................................9 Acknowledgments.........Combined...............................11 Works Cited....................Combined..............................12

ABSTRACT Dissolved oxygen is an important water quality parameter known to influence and be influenced by the amount of plant life in a body of freshwater. The experiment was conceived and subsequently conducted in an attempt to identify the correlation between percent saturation of dissolved oxygen in three pond environments at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA: Bathtub Pond, Ice Pond, and Poultry Pond. Mass of plant life inhabiting those same ponds was also inspected. The procedure for this experiment was to measure the dissolved oxygen levels three times in each pond and obtain a value for the percent saturation levels, averaging them to obtain an overall correlated value. It was then necessary to sweep a plankton net through the water five times and remove the plant life from the capture bottle to complete a trial for the plant mass, of which six were completed at each pond. It was predicted that if the water percent saturation of Bathtub Pond is tested, then it will yield the highest plant mass, because it is the most isolated from locations around the farm that could be the source of harmful runoff which could kill native vegetation. (EPA, http://water.epa.gov/). However, the results failed to show any conclusive difference between the ponds in terms of plant mass, with all three ponds lacking a conclusive difference between any of the others. INTRODUCTION: This experiment explores the connection between the amount of plant life present in a pond, or other body of water, to the dissolved oxygen saturation. In theory, more plants should raise the dissolved oxygen saturation significantly, considering that the chemical reaction known as photosynthesis yields oxygen (6CO2 + 6H2O C6H12O6 + 6O2). Dissolved oxygen is an important parameter to measure because it is essential for all aquatic animals and plants. If a pond is holding as much oxygen as possible, then it is said to be one hundred percent saturated. If a Pond is holding half of the oxygen that is possible to hold at that given temperature than it is fifty percent saturated. (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bays RIVERTRENDS manual) The independent variable in this experiment is the dried plant mass collected from the ponds tested. The dependent variable in this experiment is the dissolved oxygen saturation in the ponds tested. There are many factors that should be controlled in this experiment. Make sure to use the same dissolved oxygen test kit in each of the tests. Also make sure to use the same coffee filter types in each of the tests. Possibly the most important factor to control in the experiment is the amount of sweeps done with the plankton net. Also make sure to clean and wash the plankton net after each test. The experiment was designed to control these variables as best as possible. The hypothesis is as following: If the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen at Bathtub Pond is tested, then it will be the highest and yield the highest plant mass, because it is the most isolated from locations around the farm that could be the source of harmful runoff which could kill native vegetation, which would mean more plants, which would in turn cause a higher percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (EPA, http://water.epa.gov) If this vegetation were to die, there would be far less dissolved oxygen in the pond because there are no autotrophs producing oxygen through photosynthesis (6CO2 + 6H2O C6H12O6 + 6O2). This would ultimately deplete the dissolved

oxygen from the pond, making life in the pond a strenuous task. However there are other factors in a pond that would cause the ponds overall dissolved oxygen levels to still be well over zero percent saturation. An autotroph is defined as an organism who can produce nutritional organic substance from inorganic substances. These substances may include carbon dioxide or sunlight. In the case of photosynthesis, the chemical reaction used by plants, six oxygen molecules are yielded as a byproduct. However there are some fungis, known as chemoautotrophs, or more commonly chemotrophs, who can still manage to produce their own food and in many cases do not yield oxygen from this reaction. This means there could be a small amount of chemoautotrophic fungi that does have any affect dissolved oxygen levels, but could hinder the results of the experiment. (Gogolos, Jean. "Autotrophs and Heterotrophs in Nature." United States, Wincester. Jan.Feb. 2012. Lecture.) This is an important variable to keep in mind, and should be controlled as best as possible, however is nearly impossible to control. This means that the experiment is not one hundred accurate, but should be precise enough for our case. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a pond in Drumlin Farm, Lincoln, MA, the dissolved oxygen and temperature of the water was tested three times to obtain an average value for the percent saturation of the water. Three pond sites were chosen for data collection, pictured below. Bathtub Pond was visited first, followed by Ice pond and Poultry Pond. It was also desired to take samples of plant mass in the ponds. Sites of plant mass testing are indicated in the pictures below.

This is a picture of Bathtub Pond, one of the data collection sites, shown here are the sites used for testing in the pond. (Google, maps.google.com)

The second site that was tested was Ice Pond, with testing sites shown in the above photograph. (Google, maps.google.com)

This is a picture of the final testing site, Poultry Pond, with the tested areas depicted. (Google, maps.google.com) The testing goal was accomplished by measuring the temperature of the pond and submerging the test tube into the water to obtain a sample. The tube, full to the brim, was then removed from the water and two TesTabs pills were placed in the sample. In order to obtain a measurement for the dissolved oxygen levels in the water, the cap was then screwed on tight, leaving no air bubbles in the test sample. The tube was then inverted rapidly multiple times in order to stir the water sample until the tablets disintegrated. Five minutes were then allowed for

the samples to settle, and then a color comparison was made to the DO chart, which gave a DO reading in parts per million. This was then compared with the percent saturation chart and matched with the recorded temperature yielding a final percent saturation value. Once that value was obtained, it was then averaged with the other two that were taken at that pond to create a final average percent saturation level for each pond. To determine the locations in which data for the plant mass (g) would be collected, the following steps were taken: the pond was roughly sketched as a clock, then using a random number generator, six numbers one through twelve were selected and data was then collected at spots around the pond roughly corresponding to those numbers. To obtain samples of plant life that could be dried and massed in sufficient quantities such that they could be distinguished from each other, a plankton net was swept back and forth five times in the water. This sample was then drained through a colander lined by a coffee filter. The coffee filter was then put into a Ziploc bag where the sample could be safely transported back to the lab for drying and weighing. This was then repeated five more times at each pond, and each sample was put in a coffee filter and brought back for weighing. Once all eighteen samples were brought back to the lab, they were all dried using a Fisher Isotemp Oven 100 Series Model 126G set at temperature level eight and left for eighty minutes and then left to sit out for twenty-hours before being massed on a precise scale. The weight of a coffee filter dried in the same manner was then subtracted from the recorded weight to yield a final dry mass for the plant life. RESULTS: Table 1: The Effect of Pond Location on Plant Mass (g) Dried Plant Mass (g) Standa rd Deviati on

Locati on Bathtu b Ice Poultry

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

Trial 5

Trial 6

Avera ge

0.132 0.628 0.251

0.060 0.364 0.241

1.129 0.364 0.030

0.084 0.071 0.172 0.231 0.468 1.166

0.351 0.468 0.232

0.037 0.232 0.171

Table 2: The Effect of Pond Location on Percent Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen (%) Percent Saturation (DO) Standard Deviation 0.00% 19.86% 7.51%

Location Bathtub Ice Poultry

Trial 1 39% 78% 78%

Trial 2 39% 39% 39%

Trial 3 39% 78% 39%

Average 39% 65% 52%

Table 3: The Effect of Pond Location on Pond Temperature (C) Temperat ure C Standard Deviation 0 0 0

Location Bathtub Ice Poultry

Trial 1 14 14 14

Trial 2 14 14 14

Trial 3 14 14 14

Trial 4 14 14 14

Average 14 14 14

Graph 1: The Effect of Pond Location on Plant Mass (g)

Graph 2: The Effect of Pond Location on Percent Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen (%)

Graph 3: The Effect of Pond Location on Pond Temperature (C)

Table 1 shows the amount of dried plant mass in grams. The DATA collected for trial 5 and Trial 6 at Bathtub pond was lost. Also The DATA collected for trial 6 was lost. Each pond had at least one major outlier. The standard deviation is especially small in Bathtub pond (0.037) and especially large in Ice pond (0.232). 8

Graph 1 shows the visual representation of table 1. It shows average plant dried mass in grams. Each of the error bars, showing standard deviation, overlaps. This makes the data less precise. Ice pond yielded the highest plant dry mass average at 0.468 grams. It also had the largest error bars. Poultry pond had the lowest average at 0.232 grams. Bathtub pond had a slightly lower average plant dried mass at 0.351 grams. However its error bars were far smaller. Table 2 shows the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen in the ponds tested. Bathtub pond yielded a precise 39% saturation of dissolved oxygen for all three trials. Ice Pond was yet again inconsistent in results, and yielded a huge standard deviation of 19.86%. Poultry pond had a standard deviation of 7.51% and an average percent saturation of dissolved oxygen of 52%. Graph 2 shows a visual representation of table 2. It shows the average percent saturation of dissolved oxygen at each pond location tested. Bathtub pond had the lowest average percent saturation of dissolved oxygen tested at 36%. It also had a standard deviation of zero, and has no error bar. Ice pond had the largest average percent saturation of dissolved oxygen at 65%, yet it has a standard deviation 19.86%. Poultry had an average of 65% percent saturation of dissolved oxygen. It also yielded a standard deviation of 7.51. This trend shown in this graph is that the error bars get higher if the DATA is higher. Table 3 shows the temperature of each pond tested. Each pond yielded 14 C for each trial. DISCUSSION: The problem that was noticed by the scientists and eventually lead to the conducting of the experiment was why some ponds have more plant life growing in them than others. This question was then researched and the parameter of percent saturation of dissolved oxygen was selected for testing of its correlation to plant mass. The agreed upon parameter was percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (%). After further research specifically about dissolved oxygen, its causes, and its effects, a hypothesis was formed, reading thus: If the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen at Bathtub Pond is tested, then it will be the highest and yield the highest plant mass, because it is the most isolated from locations around the farm that could be the source of harmful runoff which could kill native vegetation, which would mean more plants, which would in turn cause a higher percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (EPA, http://water.epa.gov). After testing was completed and the data was analyzed, it was shown that this hypothesis was not supported, possibly due to external factors that could not be controlled, such as the variety in the levels of chemicals in the tested ponds and the comparative ice sheet coverage of each pond, which differed significantly. The results for this experiment were completely inconclusive, complete error bar overlap among the plant mass of the pond sites. This may have occurred due to the overwhelming nature of the other parameters that would influence plant growth such as phosphate levels, nitrate levels, pH, or alkalinity, things that could not be controlled for to be identical in all three ponds (Georgia Aquarium, http://www.georgiaaquarium.org). However, it was true that the

tested parameter, percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (%), differed slightly in its value for the Bathtub Pond, though the other pond sites were statistically similar with overlapping error bars. Despite this, it is believed that this small difference was not enough to overcome the vast potential error that could have been and indeed was introduced through the non-uniformity of the other parameters. The data set precision was quite poor, as none of the ponds had independent error bars in plant mass (g) than any of the others. The error bars for all three pond sites overlapped a great deal. The data failed to show the difference in plant life that the dissolved oxygen levels should have illustrated due to a number of other elements of the pond that could have diluted the experiment (MN Dept. of Natural Resources, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us). The confidence in the results is high, due to the highly imprecise and conclusively inconclusive nature of the data. Simply stated, the conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that in any given ponds the difference in plant mass (g) and its relation to dissolved oxygen, or indeed any other parameter, cannot be conclusively determined without first controlling for the other potential water quality parameters that could impact the results. This essentially means that the experiment was at its heart invalid due to the failure of the experimenters, through circumstances beyond their control, to control the most important variables that could, and in fact did affect the results. However, there exist similar, though not identical, experiments in which the other water quality parameters were effectively controlled, which led to significant conclusive results (Suyantohadi, et al., 2010). The main area in which the experiment could, and indeed must be modified for improvement is to control the other parameters which could affect water quality. These external influences created white noise that blurred the attempted measurement of the correlation between dissolved oxygen and plant mass (g) to such an extent that the data was entirely inconclusive. To have a more statistically clear experiment, it might also be helpful to have more samples and to not lose some of the samples that were collected, which due to the human error of the scientists collecting the data proved to be a moderate to serious problem. The data collection might have been done with a more uniform sweep length of the plankton net, which was not assigned a particular length or technique of sweeping. This could have caused significant variance in the data which could be eliminated in a future experiment with better planning. One of the most significant errors was the loss of three of the data samples for plant mass. Two were lost from Bathtub Pond and one was lost from Poultry Pond. This may have introduced serious error into the testing results, due to a smaller quantity of testable data and an uneven number of samples for each pond, which constitutes a failure on the part of the scientists to control for the number of data samples taken at each pond. Another notable error in testing was the collapse of the handle on the plankton net towards the end of the final data collection. This caused the last two samples at Poultry Pond to be collected by sweeping the plankton net through the pond by hand rather than with a handle. Another important source was the thermometer used to measure the ponds temperatures, which only went to 14 degrees Celsius, which was the reading for all three ponds, but it is believed that the actual temperature was lower and had a greater variance, only that it was beyond the display capabilities of the thermometer that was provided for the experiment. A future idea for another experiment would be a repeat of this one with better control of variables, such as the plant extraction method, the

10

water quality parameter levels, and the depth of the sweeping of the plankton net. This would lead to a more accurate picture of the actual correlation between dissolved oxygen levels and plant mass, as opposed to the muddle picture which the data shows due to all the conflicting factors. Another experiment might be on the collection not of free-floating plants but on the density of rooted submerged plants in water and its correlation with any one of the multiple water quality parameters. Both of these would require effective control of the levels of the other water quality parameters, which was a central part of the problem with the conducted experiment

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ari Benkler This project has been a wonderful learning and growing experience for me in science and in learning and writing more generally. However, this wonderful venture could not possibly have succeeded without the help of a few crucial people. First and foremost I would like to thank my partner, Marcus Patalano, without whose diligence, tech savvy, commitment, hard work, and overall good cheer and sense of humor this project wouldnt have gotten off the ground. I could not have asked for a better partner. I would also like to note the indispensable work of my amazing teacher, Ms. Schultheis, whose comments, thoughts, enthusiasm, and willingness to push us to take our work to the next level was crucial to fostering the interest and the will to make this experiment work. Of course a huge thanks is due to my parents for allowing me use of a few home materials and giving me space to work and advice on how to conduct the experiment. Also worthy of note are Ms. Hardy, Ms. Jamison, and Mr. Dwyer for being phenomenal site supervisors who were tremendously helpful in answering any questions they knew how and helping to remind us of the schedule and give us a clear sense of what needed to be done. Without the structure and support we would not have been successful at gathering our data. Without the expertise and kindness of the Drumlin Farm teacher-naturalists, our experiment would not have been as rich in knowledge and natural interest as it was. A huge thanks is due to them. And above all, a big thank you is in order to my classmates for their enthusiasm, their willingness to share and refine ideas, and their free-spirited approach to the process that made the whole experience that much more fun.
Marcus Patalano I would like to take this wonderful opportunity to thank all the people who made this project possible and helped it be a learning experience for me. I would like to thank my parents for their support and love through the project. I would also like to thank the teachers, Ms. Hardy, Ms. Jamison, and Mr. Dwyer, who were present at the ponds and were tremendously helpful along with the Drumlin Farm Teacher-Naturalists. Ms. Schultheis tireless work and her will to see us succeed was crucial to the end product, and we couldnt have done it without her. We also had some help from our fellow students, specifically Emma Jacobs and Josie Fitzgerald for their assistance with some of the testing. And of course lastly I would like to thank my partner, Ari Benkler, for working tirelessly and with incredible dedication to make this project a success. 11

Works Cited Intro Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. "Dissolved Oxygen." Longwood.edu. N.p., 2010. Web. http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/world_water_monitoring_va/resized%20image s/water_quality_parameter_info_acb.pdf 7 Mar. 2013. Causey, L. "Dissolved Oxygen AQUAPLANT." Dissolved Oxygen AQUAPLANT. N.p., 2013. Web. http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/faq/dissolved-oxygen/ 2013. EPA. "5.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand." Home. N.p., 6 Mar. 2012. Web. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm 14 Mar. 2013. Gogolos, Jean. "Autotrophs and Heterotrophs in Nature." United States, Wincester. Jan.- Feb. 2012. Lecture. Suchocki, John. Conceptual Chemistry: Understanding Our World of Atoms and Molecules. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2001. Print.

Discussion Butz, Stephen D. Science of Earth Systems. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning, 2008. Print. "Dissolved Oxygen." Dissolved Oxygen. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ririvers.org/wsp/CLASS_3/DissolvedOxygen.htm>. "Dissolved Oxygen." Earth Force. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.earthforce.org/ViewResource.php?AID=3>. "Managing Urban Runoff." Home. EPA, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm>. Suyantohadi, A., T. Kyoren, M. Hariadi, H. M. Purnomo, and T. Morimot. "IFACPapersOnLine." : Effect of High Consentrated Dissolved Oxygen on the Plantgrowth in a Deep Hydroponic Culture under a Low Temperature. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.ifac-papersonline.net/Detailed/42816.html>.

12

"Where Aquatic Plants Grow." - Aquatic Plant Guide: Minnesota DNR. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2013. <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/shorelandmgmt/apg/wheregrow.html>. Wilson, Mark V. "3. How to Measure." Bot 440/540: How to Measure. Oregon State University, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/bot440/wilsomar/Content/HowToMeasure.html>.

13

! The!Effect!of!Cultivation!on!Potassium! Levels!in!Soil! !
By:!Ava!Boudreau,!Esther!Lovett,!and!Tristan! Young! !

K$ultivation!

!
! 1!

! TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Abstract Introduction Primary Author Tristan Young Tristan Young Esther Lovett Page 1 1 2 4 6 7 9

Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Ava Boudreau Esther Lovett

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!

Ava Boudreau,
2!

Esther Lovett, Tristan Young

! ABSTRACT!
Potassium is an essential macro mineral which aids plant growth. This experiment was conducted to discover a correlation between cultivation and the level of potassium in soil. The procedure for this experiment was to take a sample of soil from random coordinate points in cultivated and uncultivated plots of field at Drumlin Farms Boyce Field in Lincoln, MA. Samples were measured using a Rapitest Potassium Soil Test Kit assessing the soil on deficiency to surplus of potassium. It was predicted that if a plot of the field was cultivated then the potassium levels would be higher, because when a field is cultivated, macro minerals are circulated throughout the soil from lower depths to the surface. Results conclusively showed that the potassium levels in cultivated plots were greater than uncultivated plots. The cultivated fields had an average of a sufficient amount of potassium. The average amount of potassium of the uncultivated fields was depleted.

INTRODUCTION!
Potassium is an essential macro mineral for plant growth. Plants use potassium as an enzyme to produce proteins and sugars. Potassium is commonly applied to gardens, lawns and orchards as part of a balanced fertilizer. Often called potash, potassium helps plants use water and resist drought. When plants are cultivated, it is important to keep a balance of macro minerals and nutrients in the soil in order for the crops to flourish. Cultivation is the act of digging into or cutting up an existing soil bed in order to better prepare it for planting. Organic cultivation, which is applied at Drumlin Farm, means getting soil into good shape using non-chemical and pesticide-free methods. Farmers use fertilizer containing essential minerals for plant growth when cultivating land. During the process of cultivation, the process of the soil growth is sped up which leads to damaging the soil structure in the long run (Allan). Drumlin Farm, a wildlife sanctuary located in Lincoln Massachusetts, cultivates three fields during each growing season. The fields that are cultivated are Sandpit, Boyce, and Overlook field. Using the organic cultivation method on Sandpit and Overlook field, healthy crops are harvested without polluting the environment. Boyce Field is an L-shaped field which is cultivated around the southern edge. Neighboring Drumlin Farms compost deposit, and a stream flowing into Bathtub Pond, Boyce Field is neighboring Overlook Field. Multiple factors affect soil potassium such as soil moisture, soil aeration and oxygen level, soil temperature, all affected by cultivation. Higher soil moisture usually means greater availability of potassium. Increasing soil moisture increases movement of potassium to plant roots and enhances availability. Air is
! 3!

necessary for root respiration and potassium uptake. Root activity and following potassium uptake decrease as soil moisture content increases to saturation. Root activity, plant functions, and physiological processes all increase as soil temperature increases. This increase in efficiency in the way in which a living organism functions leads to increased potassium uptake (Rhonda). In this experiment, soil samples will be taken in cultivated and uncultivated soil plots. The independent variable in the experiment is soil from cultivated and uncultivated plots of field. The dependent variable in the experiment is potassium (ppm). Variables that are controlled in the experiment are: depth of soil testing, same tool used when testing, random data points to avoid bias, amount of soil collected, and the exact ratio of soil collected to water added when using the potassium soil test kit. The hypothesis set forth in this experiment is, if a cultivated area is tested, then it will have a higher level of potassium because in the process of cultivation macro minerals are circulated from the lower horizons of the soil to the surface of the ground (Knapp 18). Knowledge gained from this experiment can be used to find a successful method of cultivating land while not damaging the soil and the environment around it. If the regular soil has a similar amount of mineral levels without cultivation, there is no need to enhance the soil to speed up the growth process of soil. This will decrease the amount of gas used from power tillers and mattocks farmers use to create furrows in the soil and break up any rough soil.

MATERIALS!AND!METHODS!
! First!RAND(12x25)!was!typed!into!a!TI$nspire!CX!graphing!calculator! to!obtain!the!random!data!points.!!These!data!points!were!used!to!locate!the! spot!in!which!each!soil!sample!was!to!be!taken.!!The!previous!steps!were! repeated!for!each!of!the!four!plots!marked!for!testing.!!! Twenty$four!soil!samples!were!taken!from!Boyce!Field!(refer!to!Figure! 1)!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!MA.!!The!uncultivated!spaces!and!cultivated! spaces!throughout!Boyce!Field!were!located!with!the!help!of!the!teacher! naturalist.!!A!fifteen$meter!by!fifteen$meter!plot!was!located!in!a!cultivated!or! non$cultivated!field!(two!of!each!in!total)!and!the!corners!were!flagged.!!A!TI$ nspire!CX!calculator!was!used!to!generate!six!random!data!points!that!were! next!plotted!in!the!fifteen!meters!squared!testing!plot.!Twenty$four!total! points!were!plotted.!!Next,!the!random!data!points!obtained!above!were!used! to!locate!the!random!spots!at!which!the!soil!tests!would!be!performed.!!The! previous!steps!were!repeated!for!each!plot!that!was!tested.!!!The!soil!auger! was!pushed!into!the!soil!at!each!random!data!point,!fifteen!mL!of!soil!was! scooped!out!of!the!auger!and!placed!into!one!of!the!empty,!pre$labeled!plastic! containers.!!Seventy$five!mL!of!distilled!water!was!added!into!a!container! with!the!soil.!!The!soil!and!water!in!the!container!were!then!shaken!for!one! minute.!!The!steps!from!the!time!the!auger!was!pushed!into!the!soil!were!
! 4!

repeated!five!more!times,!one!for!each!remaining!random!data!point!for!this! patch,!then!eighteen!more!times!for!the!remaining!three!testing!plots.!!Then,! the!container!of!soil!and!water!sat!overnight.!The!water!from!the!top!of!the! container!was!removed,!and!was!poured!into!the!Rapitest!soil!comparator! (refer!to!Figure!2).!!The!soil!tester!was!filled!with!this!water!to!the!mark!on! the!side!signifying!that!it!is!full.!!One!orange!potassium!capsule!was!added!to! the!soil!test!chamber.!!The!full!soil!tester!was!shaken!for!one!minute,!then! allowed!to!sit!for!ten!minutes.!The!color!of!the!soil!comparator!chamber!was! compared!to!the!color!chart!and!the!amount!of!potassium!(0,!1,!2,!3,!or!4)!was! recorded.!! ! !

! Figure!1.!!Map!of!Drumlin!Farm!showing!the!location!of!testing,!Boyce!Field.! ! ! ! ! !
! 5!

! !! Figure!2.!!The!Rapitest!soil!kit!that!was!used!to!measure!the!amount!of! potassium!in!the!soil! ! Rapitest!Soil!Comparator.!Digital!image.!Tinyfarmexperience.com.!Tiny!Farm! Experience,!n.d.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.!<http://tinyfarmexperience.com/wp$ content/uploads/2012/04/its$science$pt2$2.jpg>.! ! !

!

RESULTS
Table 1: The Effect of Cultivation on Potassium Levels
!

Trial 1 Cultivated (plot one) Cultivated (plot two) Uncultivated (plot one) Uncultivated (plot two) 2 3 0 1

Trial 2 1 3 0 0

Trial 3 1 4 0 0

Trial 4 2 3 1 0

Trial 5 3 4 1 1

Trial 6 3 4 1 0

6!

Table 2: The Effect of Cultivation on Average Potassium Levels Standard Average Deviation Cultivated 2.7 1.0 Uncultivated 0.4 0.5

Graph 1: The Effect of Cultivation on Average Potassium Levels

4.0! Average!Potassium!Level!! 3.5! 3.0! 2.5! 2.0! 1.5! 1.0! 0.5! 0.0! Cultivated! Cultivation! Uncultivated!

$0.5!

Graph 1 shows that the cultivated plots had a higher average potassium level than the uncultivated plots. The average level of potassium for the cultivated plots was 2.7 and the average for the non-cultivated was about 0.4. The highest potassium level for the cultivated plots was 4 and lowest was 1. The highest potassium for the uncultivated plots was 1 and the lowest was 0. The range of data for the cultivated fields, as shown by the error bar, was fairly large, it spanned from 1.5 to 3.5. The error bar for the uncultivated plots was smaller than the error bar for the cultivated plots. The error bar calculated for the uncultivated plots spanned from -0.1 to .98. The plots used for the uncultivated data had dark green grass, which was about 3 cm long. There was also some dry patches scattered along the edges of the plots and a few wild flowers spread throughout the plots. The cultivated plot was mostly made up of light brown dirt and dusting of faint green grass. There was nothing growing (besides the grass) that was visible.

7!

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this experiment was to search for a correlation between recent soil cultivation and the amount of potassium in the soil. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was: If cultivated soil is tested then the amount of potassium will be higher because in the process of cultivation, the macro minerals are circulated from the lower horizons to the top of the soil (Smith). The experiment answered the original question and the results supported the original hypothesis. Cultivation is a very important part of gardening and farming. Over time, soil becomes compacted, which is harmful for the plants because they have difficulty accessing the nutrients that they need in order to grow properly. When cultivation occurs, the soil is loosened for planting so that the new plants have an easy time reaching the nutrients they need (Shakhashiri). Potassium is a macro mineral, and is an example of a nutrient that could be trapped between layers of soil (Knapp). When the soil is cultivated, the potassium is released from the layers and is accessible to growing plants (Smith). The data is not very precise because the error bars are fairly large. The uncultivated plots were more precise because there was less variability in the data making the error bar smaller than the error bar was for the cultivated plots. The error bar for the cultivated bar ranges from approximately 1.6 to approximately 3.6. The error bar for the non-cultivated bar ranges from just under 0 to just under 1. The confidence in these results is high due to the precise and conclusive results. A previous potassium test done by Professor Laboski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, tested the seasonal variability of potassium in soil (Laboski). This experiment showed the potassium tends to be lower around September and August. This experiment could be a possible extension of the current project which is testing the potassium levels based on the cultivation of the field by combining these two variables. In the future this project could be modified so soil samples could be collected from the entire cultivated field, instead of the perimeter. Also, it could be modified so that one sufficient block of time could be used to test the amount of potassium in all the soil samples. Sufficient data, 24 samples, was collected during the fieldtrip and it was done efficiently so no changes are recommended to the data collection process. However, there were a number of errors and limitations that could have impacted the data. The most significant limitation was that the data collectors were not allowed to walk anywhere on the fields. This procedure was adjusted to accommodate this constraint by determining that when the y point (the second part of the random data point) was too far to walk into the plot, the auger was reached in as far as possible. Another potential error was the movement of the bus that somewhat shook around all the soil during the trip back to the BB&N Middle School. This could have affected the results by slightly

8!

aerating the soil. Also, the testing was done on two consecutive days and therefore some of the soil had a much longer time to settle and separate. While opening the pills to test the potassium some powder spilled out onto the counter, which could have decreased the kits sensitivity. The timing could have been slightly off and some of the soil samples could have sat with the powder for longer than others. The only large block of time to test was during study hall and that was too short for the testing to be completed. Testing on site with sufficient time would eliminate the soil and water jiggling during transportation. Future tests could be done testing potassium in cultivated and uncultivated plots but using the specific times of cultivation to make more specific conclusions. Another idea for a future experiment extending the current study might be to test other factors affecting potassium availability such as soil CEC, soil test kit, cation balance, soil moisture, soil pH, soil temperature, soil compaction, soil drainage/aeration, and soil salinity (Agronomic Library).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bracebridge Heming Young III, a local intern at the string instrument petting zoo in Nantucket Massachusetts, included knowledge of his extensive care of these animals, and how they effect cultivation, and how their emission helps as a fertilizer. Zachary ONeill Lovett, an avid gardener and a card-carrying member of the Garden Club Federation of Massachusetts, gave mind-boggling advice on how potassium affects dirt. Mr. Lovett has plenty of background knowledge on such subjects due to his many gardening plots located in the backyard of 156 Brattle Street. He was kind enough to lend us his prized trowel. We would like to thank Mariana Jane Young for her fantastic editing and her love and care throughout the process of the project. We would like to thank Martha Slone, who made us think beyond the previous parameters of our experiment. She pushed us to think outside of the box and encouraged a deeper layer of thought to surface. Ms. Crewdson, the most brilliant lookout to walk this earth, singlehandedly thought up a complex sign language code to alert the members of our team when a problem was about to occur. We would like to thank Mr. Rossiter for watching over us all afternoon with humor and good will.

9!

We send a big thank you to Ms. Svatek for her helpful editing and kind encouragement. This project could not have been a success without her brilliant guidance, scientific insight, and patient instruction. We would like to thank all of our parents for their careful editing and amazing support throughout this project. We would especially like to thank Richard Lovett for going out of his way to multiple stores to find us the perfect containers for our project. ! ! ! ! ! !

10!

WORKS CITED
Ava Boudreau Jafari, S., and M. Baghernejad. "DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals." DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2007. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract>. Rehm, Schmitt. "11.the Influence of Potassium Fertilizer on the Production of Potato (solanum Tuberosu L.) at Kembata in Southern Ethiopia." 11.the Influence of Potassium Fertilizer on the Production of Potat... N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Shakhashiri, Professor. "Chemical of the Week." Scifun.org. Scifun, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/Agricultural_Fertilizers.pdf>. Smith, S.E., and O. Wallace. "What Is Soil Cultivation." WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. Esther Lovett "Agronomic Library." Potassium Basics. Spectrum Analytic, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Potassium_basics.ht m>. Knapp, Brian. Potassium to Zirconium. Danbury, CT: Grolier Educational, 2002. Print.

11!

Laboski, Carrie A.M. "SEASONAL VARIABILTY IN SOIL TEST POTASSIUM." Fyi.uwex.edu. University of Wisconsin-Madison, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://fyi.uwex.edu/discoveryfarms/files/2011/06/Laboski-kvariability.pdf>. "Plant Nutrients." Plant Nutrients. North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm>. Shakhashiri, Professor. "Chemical of the Week." Scifun.org. Scifun, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/Agricultural_Fertilizers.pdf>. Smith, S.E., and O. Wallace. "What Is Soil Cultivation." WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soilcultivation.htm>. Tristan Young Ashman, M. R., and G. Puri. Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to Soil Science. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002. Print. Fulton, Allan. "Primary Plant Nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium." Ucanr.edu, Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2013. http://cetehama.ucanr.edu Janke, Rhonda, Rebecca Moscou, G.Morgan Powell, and Ted T. Cable. "Kansas Water." Kansas WATER. Kansas State, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.
! 12!

<http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/kswater/images/Soil_Test.htm>. Jafari, S., and M. Baghernejad. "DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals."Directory of Open Access Journals. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2007. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract>. Knapp, Brian. "Potassium to Zirconium (P to Z) (Elements) [Hardcover]." Potassium to Zirconium (P to Z) (Elements): Brian Knapp: 9781862140790: Amazon.com: Books. Grolier Educational, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. Rehm, George. "Potassium for Crop Production." Potassium for Crop Production. University of Minnesota, 2002. Web. 22 Jan. 2013. Shakhashiri, Professor. "Chemical of the Week." Scifun.org. Scifun, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/Agricultural_Fertilizers.pdf>. Smith, S.E., and O. Wallace. "What Is Soil Cultivation." WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soilcultivation.htm>. "Alkali Earth Metal Picture." Google Images. N.p., Apr. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. <http://kgortney.pbworks.com/f/elem_alkaliearth1.gif>.

! COVER PHOTOGRAPH

13!

Gardening Trowel Isolated on a White. N.d. Photograph. Www.123rf.com. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <http://www.123rf.com/photo_6254996_gardening-trowelisolated-on-a-white.html>. !

14!

! The!Effect!of!Cultivation!on!Potassium! Levels!in!Soil! !
By:!Ava!Boudreau,!Esther!Lovett,!and!Tristan! Young! !

K$ultivation!

!
! 1!

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Abstract Introduction Primary Author Esther Lovett Ava Boudreau Tristan Young Page 1 1 2 4 6 7 9

Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Ava Boudreau Esther Lovett

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Ava Boudreau,

2!

Esther Lovett, Tristan Young

! ABSTRACT!
Potassium, the seventh most abundant metal on earth, is a primary macro mineral that aids plant growth. There is often a lack of potassium in soil because plants use potassium in generous amounts to aid their growth and living. The objective of this experiment was to find a correlation between recent cultivation of a field, and the amount of potassium in the soil. This experiment was conducted by taking soil samples from both cultivated and non-cultivated plots located at Boyce Field within Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, and testing the amount of potassium in the samples using a Rapitest soil tester. The expected results of this experiment were that the cultivated plots that were tested would have a higher amount of potassium because when cultivation occurs the macronutrients are moved from the lower horizons to the upper layers of the soil. The results supported the hypothesis set forth for this experiment. The potassium levels of the samples taken from cultivated plots were conclusively higher than the potassium levels of the samples taken from non-cultivated plots.

INTRODUCTION
When growing crops, potassium is a vital nutrient needed for success. If fields were not cultivated for a few years, but allowed to lie fallow, would the potassium levels go down; or would they rise? Or do growing crops indicate more or less potassium? Potassium is an element that makes plants grow faster, helps them withstand insects, and helps keep them alive during harsh weather conditions (Rehm). The objective of this experiment is to test cultivated and uncultivated plots to find out which has more potassium. Answering these questions could help farmers and gardeners save money by buying less fertilizer and help them save time for planting by understanding potassium. At Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln MA there are a few large fields that are cultivated in mass quantities every year. In Boyce Field there are strips of land that are cultivated currently and strips that are resting or, fallow. A fallow field is a space of land that is allowed to grow freely for a few years to regain nutrients it might have lost during cultivation. A field that is being cultivated means that crops are currently growing on it. Nutrients that are necessary for plant growth are able to circulate by being absorbed and used by the plant. (Jafari) Then, when dead matter (such as a dying leaf) is discarded from the plant it quickly turns into nutrients; beginning the process again. Farmers need to let land fallow so it can regain its original nutrients without the use of harmful fertilizers. Then, healthy plants will get the nutrients they need from the soil until resources run out, and

3!

farmers need to step in and use fertilizer so plants can get the sustenance they need (Shakhashiri). Plants need potassium to help them become sturdy and protected from bugs and harsh weather; it also aids them in saving water. Soil with a healthy amount of potassium will be a medium brown; this means that the plants living in the soil have access to the right amount of potassium to keep them alive and growing strong (Rehm). For this experiment random transects will be created on both cultivated and uncultivated parts of Boyce Field. Then six random spots within the transect will be found using calculators, soil samples will be taken and put into a container. A potassium test will be performed on each one. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is: If a cultivated patch is tested, then potassium levels will be higher because in the process of cultivation the minerals are circulated from the lower horizons to the top of the soil (Smith). It can be learned from this experiment if using fertilizer in hefty amounts, or multiple times during a growing season, is necessary. Knowledge about the element potassium, which can help people be more knowledgeable about farming, can be obtained. This experiment can help Drumlin Farm spend less money on (all natural) fertilizer so they can devote those costs to something else. This experiment can help BB&N because it will give the students a better understanding of the element potassium behaves in soil; which could lead to studies of other elements in the soil. It can help the State of Massachusetts because knowing when to use less fertilizer can save the farms extra money, resulting in a more ecofriendly farming system. This would result in assisting Massachusetts in become a greener state. This experiment could help all of science because potassium growth in cultivated vs. uncultivated land could help scientists during experiments with fields, and also gain knowledge on how potassium works and how it aids plant growth.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Twenty-four soil samples were collected with a 30-cm soil auger at Boyce Field at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA (see Figure 1, site 1).

4!

Six random data points in a 15 by 15 meter plot area were generated using the TI-nspire graphing calculator. These points were plotted in the 15 by 15 meter plot on the southern edge of the L-shaped Boyce Field (see Figure 1). There was limited field space to be plotted except for the southern edge of the field. Due to limited field space, there was only one possible option of where to gather necessary date. It was decided to use two strips of land, one 15 by 45 meter strip of cultivated field, and one strip of 15 by 45 meter uncultivated field. One marker flag was placed at each corner of every 15 by 15 meter plot. A soil augur was used to collect the soil by pushing 30 centimeters into the ground. Fifteen ml of soil was measured using a tablespoon. The soil was then put into containers corresponding to the plot and coordinate number. This was repeated at each coordinate point for the two cultivated and two uncultivated plots. Once the soil was in the correct container, water was measured and poured into the container in a five to one ratio with the soil; 75 ml of water was added to each

5!

container. The container was shaken for one minute and let settle for twenty-four hours. Once the soil samples at Drumlin Farm were collected and let to sit for twenty-four hours, the Rapitest Potassium Soil Test Kit was used to measure the sufficiency of potassium in the soil (see Figure 2) Rapitest Soil Comparator.

Twenty-four packaged potassium pills were collected and sorted on a countertop. The soil test kit was prepared with a dropper, a soil tester, and the soil samples collected at Drumlin Farm. Water was filled to the marked line of both the testing and observation chambers of the soil test kit (refer to figure 2). Then the powder from one pill was poured into the skinny chamber of the test kit. The kit was shaken for approximately one minute and was left to settle for ten minutes. This was repeated for each soil sample of every patch. There was a total of six tests per patch, and a total of 24 tests.

RESULTS
Table 1: The Effect of Cultivation on Potassium Levels
!

Trial 1 2 3 0

Trial 2 1 3 0

Trial 3 1 4 0

Trial 4 2 3 1

Trial 5 3 4 1

Trial 6 3 4 1

Cultivated (plot one) Cultivated (plot two) Uncultivated (plot one)

6!

Uncultivated (plot two)

Table 2: The Effect of Cultivation on Average Potassium Levels Standard Average Deviation Cultivated 2.7 1.0 Uncultivated 0.4 0.5

Graph 1: The Effect of Cultivation on Average Potassium Levels

4.0! Average!Potassium!Level!! 3.5! 3.0! 2.5! 2.0! 1.5! 1.0! 0.5! 0.0! Cultivated! Cultivation! Uncultivated!

$0.5!

Graph 1 shows that the cultivated plots had a higher average potassium level than the uncultivated plots. The average level of potassium for the cultivated plots was 2.7 and the average for the non-cultivated was about 0.4. The highest potassium level for the cultivated plots was 4 and lowest was 1. The highest potassium for the uncultivated plots was 1 and the lowest was 0. The range of data for the cultivated fields, as shown by the error bar, was fairly large, it spanned from 1.5 to 3.5. The error bar for the uncultivated plots was smaller than the error bar for the cultivated plots. The error bar calculated for the uncultivated plots spanned from -0.1 to .98. The plots used for the uncultivated data had dark green grass, which was about 3 cm long. There was also some dry patches scattered along the edges
! 7!

of the plots and a few wild flowers spread throughout the plots. The cultivated plot was mostly made up of light brown dirt and dusting of faint green grass. There was nothing growing (besides the grass) that was visible.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this experiment was to search for a correlation between recent soil cultivation and the amount of potassium in the soil. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was: If cultivated soil is tested then the amount of potassium will be higher because in the process of cultivation, the macro minerals are circulated from the lower horizons to the top of the soil (Smith). The experiment answered the original question and the results supported the original hypothesis. Cultivation is a very important part of gardening and farming. Over time, soil becomes compacted, which is harmful for the plants because they have difficulty accessing the nutrients that they need in order to grow properly. When cultivation occurs, the soil is loosened for planting so that the new plants have an easy time reaching the nutrients they need (Shakhashiri). Potassium is a macro mineral, and is an example of a nutrient that could be trapped between layers of soil (Knapp). When the soil is cultivated, the potassium is released from the layers and is accessible to growing plants (Smith). The data is not very precise because the error bars are fairly large. The uncultivated plots were more precise because there was less variability in the data making the error bar smaller than the error bar was for the cultivated plots. The error bar for the cultivated bar ranges from approximately 1.6 to approximately 3.6. The error bar for the non-cultivated bar ranges from just under 0 to just under 1. The confidence in these results is high due to the precise and conclusive results. A previous potassium test done by Professor Laboski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, tested the seasonal variability of potassium in soil (Laboski). This experiment showed the potassium tends to be lower around September and August. This experiment could be a possible extension of the current project which is testing the potassium levels based on the cultivation of the field by combining these two variables. In the future this project could be modified so soil samples could be collected from the entire cultivated field, instead of the perimeter. Also, it could be modified so that one sufficient block of time could be used to test the amount of potassium in all the soil samples. Sufficient data, 24 samples, was collected during the fieldtrip and it was done efficiently so no changes are recommended to the data collection process. However, there were a number of errors and limitations that could have impacted the data. The most significant limitation was that the data collectors were not allowed to walk anywhere on the fields. This procedure was adjusted to accommodate this constraint by determining that when
! 8!

the y point (the second part of the random data point) was too far to walk into the plot, the auger was reached in as far as possible. Another potential error was the movement of the bus that somewhat shook around all the soil during the trip back to the BB&N Middle School. This could have affected the results by slightly aerating the soil. Also, the testing was done on two consecutive days and therefore some of the soil had a much longer time to settle and separate. While opening the pills to test the potassium some powder spilled out onto the counter, which could have decreased the kits sensitivity. The timing could have been slightly off and some of the soil samples could have sat with the powder for longer than others. The only large block of time to test was during study hall and that was too short for the testing to be completed. Testing on site with sufficient time would eliminate the soil and water jiggling during transportation. Future tests could be done testing potassium in cultivated and uncultivated plots but using the specific times of cultivation to make more specific conclusions. Another idea for a future experiment extending the current study might be to test other factors affecting potassium availability such as soil CEC, soil test kit, cation balance, soil moisture, soil pH, soil temperature, soil compaction, soil drainage/aeration, and soil salinity (Agronomic Library).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bracebridge Heming Young III, a local intern at the string instrument petting zoo in Nantucket Massachusetts, included knowledge of his extensive care of these animals, and how they effect cultivation, and how their emission helps as a fertilizer. Zachary ONeill Lovett, an avid gardener and a card-carrying member of the Garden Club Federation of Massachusetts, gave mind-boggling advice on how potassium affects dirt. Mr. Lovett has plenty of background knowledge on such subjects due to his many gardening plots located in the backyard of 156 Brattle Street. He was kind enough to lend us his prized trowel. We would like to thank Mariana Jane Young for her fantastic editing and her love and care throughout the process of the project. We would like to thank Martha Slone, who made us think beyond the previous parameters of our experiment. She pushed us to think outside of the box and encouraged a deeper layer of thought to surface. Ms. Crewdson, the most brilliant lookout to walk this earth, singlehandedly thought up a complex sign language code to alert the members of our team when a problem was about to occur.
! 9!

We would like to thank Mr. Rossiter for watching over us all afternoon with humor and good will. We send a big thank you to Ms. Svatek for her helpful editing and kind encouragement. This project could not have been a success without her brilliant guidance, scientific insight, and patient instruction. We would like to thank all of our parents for their careful editing and amazing support throughout this project. We would especially like to thank Richard Lovett for going out of his way to multiple stores to find us the perfect containers for our project. ! ! ! !

10!

WORKS CITED
Ava Boudreau Jafari, S., and M. Baghernejad. "DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals." DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2007. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract>. Rehm, Schmitt. "11.the Influence of Potassium Fertilizer on the Production of Potato (solanum Tuberosu L.) at Kembata in Southern Ethiopia." 11.the Influence of Potassium Fertilizer on the Production of Potat... N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Shakhashiri, Professor. "Chemical of the Week." Scifun.org. Scifun, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/Agricultural_Fertilizers.pdf>. Smith, S.E., and O. Wallace. "What Is Soil Cultivation." WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. Esther Lovett "Agronomic Library." Potassium Basics. Spectrum Analytic, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Potassium_basics.ht m>. Knapp, Brian. Potassium to Zirconium. Danbury, CT: Grolier Educational, 2002. Print.
! 11!

Laboski, Carrie A.M. "SEASONAL VARIABILTY IN SOIL TEST POTASSIUM." Fyi.uwex.edu. University of Wisconsin-Madison, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://fyi.uwex.edu/discoveryfarms/files/2011/06/Laboski-kvariability.pdf>. "Plant Nutrients." Plant Nutrients. North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm>. Shakhashiri, Professor. "Chemical of the Week." Scifun.org. Scifun, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/Agricultural_Fertilizers.pdf>. Smith, S.E., and O. Wallace. "What Is Soil Cultivation." WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soilcultivation.htm>. Tristan Young Ashman, M. R., and G. Puri. Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to Soil Science. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002. Print. Fulton, Allan. "Primary Plant Nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium." Ucanr.edu, Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2013. http://cetehama.ucanr.edu Janke, Rhonda, Rebecca Moscou, G.Morgan Powell, and Ted T. Cable. "Kansas Water." Kansas WATER. Kansas State, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.
! 12!

<http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/kswater/images/Soil_Test.htm>. Jafari, S., and M. Baghernejad. "DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals."Directory of Open Access Journals. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2007. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract>. Knapp, Brian. "Potassium to Zirconium (P to Z) (Elements) [Hardcover]." Potassium to Zirconium (P to Z) (Elements): Brian Knapp: 9781862140790: Amazon.com: Books. Grolier Educational, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. Rehm, George. "Potassium for Crop Production." Potassium for Crop Production. University of Minnesota, 2002. Web. 22 Jan. 2013. Shakhashiri, Professor. "Chemical of the Week." Scifun.org. Scifun, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/Agricultural_Fertilizers.pdf>. Smith, S.E., and O. Wallace. "What Is Soil Cultivation." WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soilcultivation.htm>. "Alkali Earth Metal Picture." Google Images. N.p., Apr. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. <http://kgortney.pbworks.com/f/elem_alkaliearth1.gif>.

13!

COVER PHOTOGRAPH Gardening Trowel Isolated on a White. N.d. Photograph. Www.123rf.com. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <http://www.123rf.com/photo_6254996_gardening-trowelisolated-on-a-white.html>.

14!

The Effect of Turbidity of water (NTU) on Total Dissolved Solids (S)

By Alec Chapman and Ross Harrison

1!

Table of Content pg. 3: I. Abstract - Ross Harrison pg. 3-4: II. Introduction - Alec Chapman pg. 4-6: III. Materials and Methods - Ross Harrison pg. 7-8: IV. Results - Alec Chapman pg. 8-9: V. Discussion - Ross Harrison pg. 9: VI. Acknowledgements - Alec Chapman and Ross Harrison pg. 10: VII. Works Cited - Alec Chapman and Ross Harrison

2!

I. ABSTRACT

This experiment was to test turbidity and compare it to total dissolved solids (TDS) of water at Ice Pond in Drumlin Farm Lincoln, MA.. It was expected that a water sample with a higher turbidity would have a lower TDS because there would be less dissolved solids in the water making it transparent. The turbidity was tested by scooping a bucket, at a specific location, into the water and pouring the water into a turbidity tube. The extra water was put into a container to test the TDS. To test the TDS, the TDSTestr 3 was put into a container of water until a correct reading came up. It was expected that if the turbidity, in NTU, is low then the TDS, in S, will be high because with more solids in the water, the less transparent the water becomes. The results showed that water with a high turbidity sometimes had a low TDS, but there wasnt enough confidence and precision to say for sure this would consistently happen. The r value of the results was .46, proving the data was inconsistent because a 1 r value is linear and .46 is inconsistently from linear data.
2 2

II. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the experiment being done is to test the effect of total dissolved solids (TDS) on the turbidity of water. Total dissolved solids are small particles in the water that are created from pollution, runoff, etc. turbidity is a way of measuring how foggy the water is and what could cause it. Research says the amount of total dissolved solids has a major effect on the level of turbidity. (Perlman, USGS). This experiment will be conducted in Ice Pond at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Wildlife Sanctuary, in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Drumlin Farm spans 312 acres and has around five ponds. Out of all the ponds, Ice Pond was chosen for the experiment because of the fact that it is the largest and deepest pond at Drumlin Farm. Along with that, Ice Pond contains running water. With these factors in mind, it makes Ice Pond one of the best ponds to test in. Total dissolved solids (also known as TDS) are the small particles from organic and inorganic substances in liquids. Generally speaking, the particle must be small enough to be able to filter through a sieve the size of two micrometers. (EPA 5.8 http://water.epa.gov/). Most of the time, TDS is measured in parts per million (ppm) but can also be measured in other units and translated into ppm. TDS can only be measured in freshwater because of the fact that the salt in salt water can affect the TDS. TDS is mainly studied to find the water quality in certain water sources such a ponds, rivers, and lakes. (EPA 5.8 http://water.epa.gov/). Turbidity is the measurement of how foggy or cloudy a fluid is. This is measured in NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) with standards of 5 (cleanest), 50 (decently clean), and 500 (solid white). The particles that determine how high the turbidity is, are generally invisible to the naked eye, until in a large group. (EPA, 5.5 http://water.epa.gov/). Total dissolved solids relates to turbidity in a lot of ways and can also affect each other in major ways. The more particles in the liquid, the more the liquid will become less transparent. So if the liquid is filled with ! 3!

particles and has a low amount of NTUs, the water will have a high amount of ppm and will be dirty. (EPA 5.8 http://water.epa.gov/). The objective of the experiment is to test how turbidity levels in different locations in Ice Pond effect the total dissolved solids (TDS) levels . The independent variable of the experiment is the different turbidity levels (NTUs). There are 24 different locations on the northern side of Ice Pond that will be chosen at random and the turbidity levels will be tested from those locations. From there, the TDS will be measured from the same locations and will be compared to the results of the turbidity levels. The dependent variable of the experiment is the total dissolved solids levels (ppm). Some important controlled variables within the experiment would be the tools used must stay the same, water samples must be measured at the same depth, the same distance from the shore must be used, the weather must stay constant throughout, and the experiment should be conducted all around the same time. The hypothesis for the experiment is: If the turbidity (NTUs) is low then the TDS (ppm) will be high because with more particles in the water, the water becomes more foggy and less transparent. (EPA, 5.8 http://water.epa.gov/). This happens because of the fact that if you have more particles in a fluid, the fluid will become less transparent because of the particles. Many things can be learned from this experiment. First, it can help Drumlin Farms with showing how clean and how clear Ice Pond is. It can also help show the condition that the Ice Pond is in. One of the main ways that this experiment can help others is it can help spread the word about total dissolved solids and turbidity and help raise awareness of what it is. If more people understand what TDS and turbidity are, it can help protect the environment.

III. MATERIALS & METHODS This experiment was conducted to test turbidity and total dissolved solids, the right equipment was needed to get conclusive data. One TDS Tester, measured in S, will be needed to test the total dissolved solids (TDS) of a solution. To test turbidity, a turbidity tube with a secchi disk at the bottom, measured in cm (later converted into NTUs) was used. One bucket collected samples of water was used along with one meter stick/measuring tape to measure the distance from the shore. Twenty-two Tupperware containers 4 cm high, and two 5 cm high Tupperware containers were used to store the samples of water. Other materials used were: two pencils, two field notebooks to write down the data collected, one map of Ice Pond to find where the marked locations to test for data, one paper/plastic bag to carry the materials, a towel to dry off the TDSTestr 3, and two calculators for randomization. In order to pick random points where the data will be collected, a randomizing procedure must take place. First, the number of pixels was counted on the shoreline of the map of Ice Pond.. Using the total number of pixels of the picture, 24 random numbers were calculated. The 24 different numbers were plotted on the shoreline of the pond. Those points were where data was collected. The experiments procedure begins with traveling to Ice Pond at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA (Figure 1, 13). At Ice Pond, the random points where data was to be !

4!

collected were found and marked. At the first spot 40 cm were measured from the shore into the water. The bucket was scooped into water of the location. The water from the bucket was then poured into the turbidity tube until it was full. One more bucket of water was scooped, and the water put into a labeled Tupperware container to store for later testing the TDS. Using the clamp on the turbidity tube, water was slowly released until the secchi disk was visible and the number, in cm, was recorded in a field notebook, and then converted into NTU using (Table 1). At the other 23 locations the turbidity test was repeated. Before the TDSTestr 3 was used it was calibrated according to the directions. The on button was pressed, and then the electrodes were dipped into a Tupperware container of water. The electrodes were taped at the bottom of the container to release any air bubble that could compromise the experiment, and then there was a wait until the reading had properly adjusted to the correct value. The number shown was then recorded in a field notebook. The electrodes were dried off with the towel until the water from the last test was dry. Testing the TDS was repeated until all containers of water were tested. Table 1: Conversion Chart cm to NTUs

Distance from bottom of tube (cm) < 6.25 6.25 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9.5 9.5 to 10.5 10.5 to 12 12 to 13.75 13.75 to 16.25 16.25 to 18.75 18.75 to 21.25 21.25 to 23.75 23.75 to 26.25 26.25 to 28.75 28.75 to 31.25 31.25 to 33.75 33.75 to 36.25 36.25 to 38.75 38.75 to 41.25 41.25 to 43.75 43.75 to 46.25 46.25 to 48.75 48.75 to 51.25 51.25 to 53.75 53.75 to 57.5 57.5 to 60 Over the top

NTU's > 240 240 185 150 120 100 90 65 50 40 35 30 27 24 21 19 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6

5!

Figure 1: Map of Drumlin Farm

6!

IV. RESULTS TABLE 1: The Effect of Turbidity of water (NTU) on Total Dissolved Solids (S)
Location Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Average TDS (S) 460 440 470 460 430 390 440 450 450 450 460 290 430 460 370 520 480 460 550 510 430 500 510 490 454 Turbidity (NTU) 10 15 1 10 40 12 14 6 7 7 6 65 28 5 27 16 1 9 1 28 17 15 5 4 14

7!

GRAPH 1: The Effect of Turbidity of water (NTU) on Total Dissolved Solids (S)

SUMMARY: Graph 1 shows that in Ice Pond, the more total dissolved solids, the lower the turbidity. This is shown by the trendline going diagonally downwards toward the right and the r-squared value of .46. Throughout the experiment, it was noted that there was a lot of fungus in the water that could have also been a factor in determining the results. The precision of the experiment is fairly good. There were a few outliers, an example being the test that has 65 NTUs and 290 S, but in general, the results seem very reasonable and there is nothing too unusual other than the few outliers.

V. DISCUSSION

This experiment was conducted to test the effect of turbidity of water (NTU) on the level of TDS in S. The hypothesis for this experiment was: If the turbidity (NTU) is low, then the TDS (S) will be high because with more solids in the water, the less light can reflect in the water, making it less transparent. (EPA, 5.8 http://water.epa.gov). This hypothesis was not strongly supported by the data because some data points with high TDS also had high turbidity. The results came out the way they did because turbidity is the measurement of light scattered by particles in water (EPA, 5.5 http://water.epa.gov). Solids in water such as soils, silts, clays, calcium, iron and other matters can block scattered light from traveling within the water making the water have a low turbidity (EPA, 5.8 ! 8!

http://water.epa.gov). On Graph 1, the r value is 0.46 with 1 being perfectly linear. The value of 0.46 shows that the data has a low correlation because between the TDS range of 290-550 S, some unseen ions dissolved to create a high TDS value. Also on some samples more than just the water was scooped up and put into the turbidity tube creating a lower turbidity out of the range of 1-65 NTU. The data points have a low correlation because when multiple water samples have the same TDS, the turbidity was sometimes different. In some samples pond scum from the bottom was scooped up and put into the turbidity tube. This made it harder to see the secchi disk, because the pond scum was in the way, not because the water was less clear (Vail, www.silverlakenaturecenter.org). The data sets for this experiment were not precise. In the data, two or three water samples had the same turbidity, but the TDS was sometimes different, and in some cases samples with the same TDS had a different turbidity measurement. Since the data wasnt precise there is low confidence in the results of the experiment. This means that errors were made while performing the experiment. To improve this experiment, making more locations to collect data and getting more containers for more water to test would have more data points to see if there is a correlation. In the procedure, more time should have been taken to make sure any major leaves or pond scum was out of the turbidity tube to be able to see clearly. If more data had been collected, the more data points would even out the outliers of the data. More care could have been taken to collect the water from the same exact spot each time. The errors in this experiment impacted mostly the turbidity testing, but some of the TDS. When the water was scooped from the bucket, then poured into the turbidity tube, the water was poured quickly, creating a large amount of bubbles that affected the vision to the bottom. This could be eliminated by gently pouring the water along the inner side of the turbidity tube. Furthermore, during the turbidity testing, a leaf got stuck in the clamp, stopping the water and exposing it to more light than the other samples, which allows the light to scatter in the water longer, compromising that sample. To stop this, more time should have been taken to check for leaves and pond scum in the scooping bucket. During the TDS testing some samples had less water within the container making less volume for solids to dissolve. Those samples should have been put in the shade to decrease sun exposure. Overall these errors led to an imprecise experiment. In the future, instead of testing turbidity and TDS it would be interesting to test turbidity with depth of water in a much larger and deeper pond than Ice Pond, or in the ocean. Another option is to research total suspended solids (TSS), which is much like TDS, and to compare that to turbidity and TDS. Lastly just a question that would be interesting is what a solid in water looks like?!
2

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We, Ross Harrison and Alec Chapman, would like to thank the organization at Drumlin Farm for allowing us to do this experiment. We would also like to thank Margaret Hardy for being the BB&N chaperon who answered to the best of her knowledge the questions we had. Of course we thank our teacher Wendy Svatek on

9!

behalf of the whole science department for creating this project allowing us to test something we are interested in about nature. VII. WORKS CITED

"5.5 Turbidity." Home. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm>. "5.8 Total Solids." Home. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms58.cfm>. Perlman, Howard. "Turbidity." - Water Properties, USGS Water Science School. USGS, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>. Vail. "Silver Lake Nature Center." Silver Lake Nature Center. Silver Lake Nature Center, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.silverlakenaturecenter.org/index.php?option=com_content>.

10!

Abstract: Crown width greatly affects the growth and health of any type of tree. This experiment was conducted to see if the DBH affects the crown width. To conduct this experiment we had to measure the DBH and crown width. These measurements were then used to see if there is a relationship between the two. It was expected that as the width of the DBH increased the crown would also increase. Within each species there is a direct correlation with the growth of different parts of a tree. The results showed there is a correlation between the DBH and crown. As the DBH increased the crown also increased. Introduction: Contrary to popular belief, forests are a very competitive environment for trees. In a forest its a constant struggle for sunlight. This causes trees to grow straight up to the top of the forest and then spread out or increase their crown diameter (R.K.V. Schafer, www.ican.csne.utah.edu). They do this so they can acquire the maximum amount of sunlight possible. The crown of each tree determines the amount of sunlight and nutrients each tree gets. Pine trees are generally more than other tree species which means they dont need as much sunlight. These trees still grow tall but spread and grow more evenly. At Drumlin Farm most trees are in a forest because crops take up the open land. The crown diameter, which is the average distance from the farthest ends of the tree, is significant in their lives. The trees crown diameter directly affects its life because the more sunlight directed onto the leaves the more nutrients will be produced by the tree (Matthew B. Russell,www.umaine.edu). Leaves or needles take sunlight and using photosynthesis turn the sunlight into nutrients for the tree. This will allow certain trees to dominate their area. DBH helps determine how much a tree is worth. The larger the DBH the more wood a lumberjack can get from that tree. The DBH is increased every year as more rings are created within the trunk and also if a tree is making more nutrients they become put to use by making the tree larger. The crown and DBH of the tree will be tested in this experiment. The objective of this experiment is to see if the DBH of a tree affects the crown and how this relationship varies between the red pine and eastern hemlock tree species. A few variables that will be controlled are the canopy of each forest, the person who measures the DBH, the tape measure used, the day the results are collected and the approximate slope of the ground around the selected tree. The canopy is important to control because if their is a significant difference in the canopy there will be more or less competition, this would cause the trees to grow differently. If the tree has a larger DBH then the crown will be larger because trees grow all parts evenly (Neil I. Lamson, www.fed.us). This could also help employees at Drumlin Farm determine which trees will need more nutrients/care due to a smaller crown, or what forests need to be thinned out. This will help keep a healthy environment for the growing trees and animals living in the area.

Materials and Methods: The first step in this experiment is to gather all of the required materials. Next travel to the Hemlock Forest and select ten hemlock trees using the individual selection method. To do this, number all of the trees in the area. Then generate 6 random numbers using the formula rand(6)15 on a TI-nspire calculator. Finally round the random number to the nearest whole for the selected tree. Take the selected trees and measure the diameter at breast height of each one. After measuring the DBH then measure the trees crown and then record your data. Continue these steps until all data is collected then switch locations to the Red Pine Forest. The DBH is measured by wrapping a tape measure around the trunk of the tree at approximately 4.5 feet from the ground. When this is measured that number must be divided by pi to find the diameter. The crown is measured by placing flags around four sides of the tree where the branches reach out the farthest. If a line connected these flags it should make a square around the farthest branches of the tree. Then, measure the distance of the flags facing opposite each other and average these measurements out. To conduct this experiment a tape measure is a necessity. Four flags will also be needed for this experiment. A calculator is also necessary to randomize the data collection spots. A densitometer is also necessary to control the canopy. To use the densitometer point it at the sky and level it. Then estimate the percentage of the sky covered. All recordings, observations, and sketches should be written in a field notebook in a blue or black ink pen.

Results: Table 1: The effect of tree type on the diameter at breast height (m) Diameter at Breast Height (m) Tree Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial AVE STDV Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hemlock 0.318 0.222 0.509 0.143 0.159 0.381 0.222 0.190 0.222 0.270 0.264 0.112 Redpine 0.413 0.413 0.095 0.477 0.525 0.509 0.286 0.413 0.429 0.350 0.391 0.126

Table 2: The effect of tree type on the diameter of the crown (m) Tree Type Hemlock Red Pine Trial 1 7.90 10.90 Trial 2 7.52 7.80 Trial 3 10.30 3.80 Trial 4 5.05 10.70 Diameter of the Crown (m) Trial Trial Trial Trial 5 6 7 8 4.05 7.85 7.73 6.40 12.90 10.10 6.45 8.45 Trial 9 6.30 8.05 Trial 10 5.35 6.20

AVE 6.85 8.54

STDV 1.80 2.68

Graph: 1 The effect of tree type on the diameter of the crown (m)
12.00# Average'Crown'Diameter'(m)' 10.00# 8.00# 6.00# 4.00# 2.00# 0.00# Hemlock# Tree'Type' Redpine#

Graph: 2 The Effect of tree type on the DBH (m)

0.500# 0.450# 0.400# Average'DBH'(m)' 0.350# 0.300# 0.250# 0.200# 0.150# 0.100# 0.050# 0.000# Hemlock# Tree'Type' Redpine#

Graph: 3 The Effect of Crown Diameter on DBH in Hemlock and Red Pine Trees (m)
14# 12# Crown'Diameter'(m)' 10# R#=#0.69646# 8# 6# 4# 2# 0# 0# 0.1# 0.2# 0.3# 0.4# 0.5# 0.6# Diameter'at'Breast'Height'(m)' R#=#0.78242# Hemlock# Red#Pine#

This experiment studies the effect of diameter at breast height of the tree on the crown of the tree on different tree species. The Hemlock tree and the Red Pine tree were conducted on. The data for the experiment was precise for both types of trees. On graph 1, the data collected for the Hemlock forest was most precise, meaning the range in data was very close together. For the crown of the tree, the two trees were equal in their precision. However, it is conclusive that the red pine tree had a larger average for the diameter of the crown, due to no overlap in the error bars. The data for the DBH, is inconclusive due to an overlap in the error bars. In table1, the effect of tree type on the DBH, the lowest diameter for the Hemlock Forest was, 143m. There was no way to prevent this small diameter, because of the random tree selection method. The smallest diameter for the Red Pine Forest was .095m. For the crown of the tree, the smallest diameter for the Hemlock Forest was 5.05m. The lowest diameter for the Red Pine forest was 6.2m. On graph 3, the correlation between the Crown diameter and the DBH is shown. The R^2 value for both of the trees line of best fit, is above 50%. The Red pine forest has a stronger correlation than the Hemlock Forest due to the R^2 value.

Discussion: This experiment was conducted to find out whether or not the crown of a tree has any affect on the diameter at breast height in different species of trees. The hypothesis for the experiment is: If the tree has a larger DBH, then the crown will be larger because there is a direct relationship between the two (Neil I. Lamson, www.fed.us). This hypothesis in fact was correct at the conclusion of the experiment. The data shows that whenever the DBH was collected, the crown was always larger. The results for the experiment show that when the Hemlock tree is chosen, it will have a smaller DBH than the Red Pine Tree. It is possible to tell which diameter at breast height is larger due to no overlap in the error bars. However, it is not possible to tell which tree type has a larger crown because of overlap in error bars. Red pine trees generally have a 1-1.5 ft. diameter (http://www.oplin.org/). The average diameter in the Red Pine tree was 3.91m, which is 1.3 ft. (www.oplin.org/). The R^2 value for both of the trees line of best fit, is above 50%. The Red pine forest has a stronger correlation than the Hemlock Forest due to a 78% R^2 value. The data for the experiment was not very precise in both of the trees crown diameters and their DBH measures. This was due to large error bars The standard deviation, which is the average amount in which the data deviated from the average, was 0.112m for the Hemlocks DBH, and 0.126m for the Red Pines DBH. The Standard deviation for the crown of the Hemlock tree was1.80m, and

the Red Pine was, 2.68m. If the error bars had been closer together, it would have been possible to make valid conclusions about the data set. The field study could have been improved by less time given to the scientists to conduct the experiment and more time to work on and focus on the post-field trip needs. The data collected was not completely sufficient because there was no calculator used to average the two diameters of the tree for the first two trees in the Hemlock Forest. Mental math was used instead, yielding an estimate that was not completely accurate for the first two trees in the hemlock forest. Additionally, the first two trees experimented upon in the Hemlock forest were not chosen using the random tree selection method, which cold have potentially impacted the data because of the tree that could have been chosen. The errors in the field study could have been eliminated through a more carefully thought-out procedure and a better prepared materials list to bring to the forest for the experiment. As mentioned, using the random tree selection method could also eliminate uncertainty about the integrity of the data. Lastly, some of the trees chosen were dead (as indicated by missing branches, bare or leaves). The fact that these trees were not alive could have affected the diameter of the crown. A Further extension of the study could include an examination of how tree age affects diameter. Data of this nature could be readily collected, given the forest contains trees of all ages, and age can be ascertained by counting rings.

Works Cited: "Eastern Hemlock." Eastern Hemlock. The Ohio Historical Society, 1997. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. ##############http://www.oplin.org/tree/fact pages/hemlock_eastern/hemlock_eastern.html Lamson, Neil L. D.b.h./Crown Diameter Relationships in Appalachian Hardwood Mixed Stands.Http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_ papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp610.pdf. N.p., n.d. Web. <www.fs.fed.us>. Russell, Matthew B., and Aaron R. Weiskittel. Maximum and Largest Crown Width Equations for 15 Tree Species in Maine.Http://www.umaine.edu/cfru/All_coop/Publications/RussellAndWe iskittel_2011_Crown_Width.pdf. N.p., n.d. Web. <www.umaine.edu>. R. Schafer, K.V. the effect of tree height on crown level stomatal conductance N.p..., t(2000). web.26 feb. 2013 <http://ican.csne.utah.edu>.

!"#$%"$&'(&

)*+,-*+./,0&1&23456& %/4.3784&
9*7&7::7;4&+:&)*+,-*+./,&38&,+36&67<76&+8&4.77&*73=*4&>?@&
% $%&'"()*+,"-".%*/"0%123/" 4567568!9"

% % %

!"#"! " # $ " %

ABSTRACT Phosphorus is a vital nutrient to plants and trees. The experiment was conducted to discover how the phosphorus level in soil affects tree height. The procedure for this experiment was to take samples from 30 trees and measure their phosphorus levels, and then measure the corresponding trees. We then used the results to find out which phosphorus level was best for the tree growth. It was expected that if the phosphorus levels in soil were at a medium level, then tree would be taller because phosphorus levels that are too high or too low can stunt plant growth. The results showed that medium levels of phosphorus were best for tree growth. There was a high correlation in the graphs that showed this. The Hemlock and Spruce Forest Graphs showed that our hypothesis was correct, but the Red Pine Forest graph did not. Although a lot of the phosphorus levels were the same, Spruce Forest had the tallest trees. INTRODUCTION Phosphorus is one of the three nutrients generally added to soils in fertilizers (www.extension.umn.edu). Phosphorus is part of a DNA molecule, with individual cells that utilize it as an energy source, and it is usually found in rocks. Animal waste contains high amounts of phosphorus, helping recycle plants. Phosphorus is one of three nutrients generally added to soils in fertilizers. In addition, transferring energy is one of the key functions of Phosphorus in living organisms. In order for plants to photosynthesize, they need to go through a vital phase of life-cycle completion: helping plants produce sugars and oils. This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary, in Lincoln, MA. Drumlin Farm contains 4 different forests and 2 fields. The phosphorus levels should vary in 10 different tree locations in each forest to find the effect of its tree height. For this experiment, the 3 forests that will be tested are the Spruce Forest, Red Pine Forest, and Hemlock Forest. Spruce Forest is surrounded with of different heights, and is also located far away from the other forests. Red Pine Forest also has different heights of trees with various soil layers to test from similar to the Hemlock Forest. There are numerous variables that could make the phosphorus levels at each tree create different tree height, photosynthesis, and plant growth. If the Phosphorus levels are too low, it would stunt plant growth and decrease nutrient levels in soil. Fertilizer is an important component containing Phosphorus that is used to increase the levels in soil. It is important that to know about mineralization, which is the release of inorganic phosphate from organic phosphates, and is caused by microorganisms, and is breaking down organic, compounds (www.extension.umn.edu). Microorganisms are influenced by soil temperature and soil moisture. This process occurs when soils are warm and moist but well drained. It can be lost through soil erosion and water running over or through the soil. High levels of Phosphorus in the soil are always good for the environment. The proposed experiment is the effect of soil Phosphorus levels on Tree Height (cm). The objective of this experiment is to figure out whether Phosphorus levels affect how tall a tree is in forests. This experiment will be tested by collecting 10 soil samples 6"#"! " # $ " %

from each tree in each of the different forests at Drumlin Farm. The independent variable for this experiment is the soil Phosphorus levels, measured in depleted, deficient, adequate, sufficient, or surplus. The dependent variable for this experiment will be the tree height, measured in centimeters (cm). The controlled variables include the same depth of the soil in each location, equal distances from base of the tree, same procedure, same day tested, and the soil samples must be off the walking path. The hypothesis for this experiment is if the phosphorus level in soil is medium, then the tree will be taller because phosphorus levels that are too high or too low can stunt plant growth (www.extension.umn.edu). This research will determine how Phosphorus levels in soil are affecting the tree height in the forests of Drumlin Farm. It would be interesting to identify and fix any growth problem because of its phosphorus levels; especially to have healthy and full grown trees. It is essential to get an understanding of all of the aspects that phosphorus has in the surroundings of its animals and ecosystems. The more facts people know about the relationship between Phosphorus in soil and tree height, it can hopefully help the ecosystems with artificial or natural fixes to these problems that could resolve stunt growth (www.ipni.net). MATERIALS & METHODS To figure out which trees to test, a calculator with a randomizing function was needed to generate to represent which trees to choose from. First, finding the area being tested around each forest and sketched a basic map of the area and number the trees. Then, generated ten random numbers on a calculator with the formula of rand (n)*x (Field Studies Section, Randomize this). While choosing each tree, there was number of random numbers wanted that was x (the maximum range for the numbers that is 10). Rounded each random number to the nearest whole number and, once ten different numbers were identified, and circled the trees with the corresponding number below. As a result, these were the final 10 trees that were used for testing the set of trees on the field. After determining the trees, a soil sample from each tree was taken, and filled by one of the 30 containers (120 mL) with 1/5 cup of soil and the rest with distilled water. Then, carefully shook the soil and distilled water together for 1 minute. Afterwards, allowed the mixture to rest for 10 minutes. The solution varied, the clearer the solution the better, the cloudiness does not affect the accuracy of the test (Phosphorus Testing Kit). Before the cap is removed, take out the blue capsules. The dropper was used to fill the chamber to the designated mark on the chart with solution of soil sample, and then removing one of the 30 blue capsules from the poly bag, separating the two halves pouring the powder over the test chamber. After that moment, the cap was put back on the tester, and shook thoroughly again for 1 minute. It settled for 10 minutes afterwards, while later comparing the color of the solution in the tester with the soil sample with distilled water on the other side of the tester (Phosphorus Testing Kit). This was repeated and recorded in the field notebook for 10 trials of each of the 3 different forests.

9"#"! " # $ " %

After arriving at the each testing site at Drumlin farm, the tree height was found by marking 10 cm with tape on a 120 centimeter ruler. After taking out the materials, person A stood at the base of the tree, while someone else held it up in front of their eyes at a distance moving back until they could see the whole tree from top to bottom between the 0 cm and 100 cm. Then, the person who was holding the ruler found the rulers 10 cm mark to a point on the trunk above the base, allowing the person near the tree to mark the point on the trunk while finding the height of the tree with a tape measure. After that moment, the distance from base of the tree was measured to the previous identified mark. In the field notebook, the height was multiplied the measurement by 10 to get an approximate height of tree (Field Studies Section, Finding Tree Height). These steps were repeated and recorded in the field notebook for 10 trials of each the 3 different forests as well.

% % % %

4"#"! " # $ " %

&'"()%*+%,)$%$--$./%0-%!)01()0'21%3$4$31%05%/'$$%)$6#)/%%%%%%%

GB*CH+"I%*+&>J":'+"+KK+H>"%K" ('%&B'%*C&"D+E+F&"L1":*++" ;+<='>"?@A"

<;% ><%

:*++";+<='>"?@A"

>;% =<% =;% 7<% 7;% *<% *;% <% ;% ;% ;?<% *% *?<% 7% 7?<%

('%&B'%*C&"D+E+F"
% % % &'"()%7+%,)$%$--$./%0-%!)01()0'21%3$4$31%05%/'$$%)$6#)/%89:%

.+M"(<1+"I%*+&>J":'+"+KK+H>"%K" ('%&B'%*C&"D+E+F"%1":*++";+<='>" ?@A"

:*++";+<='>"?@A"
7<% 7;% *<% *;% <% ;% ;% ;?<% *% *?<% 7% 7?<% =% =?<% >% >?<% @%A%;?*7<BC%D%*7?E*B% FG%A%;?;;;<B%

('%&B'%*C&"D+E+F"
% 7"#"! " # $ " % %

&'"()%=+%,)$%$--$./%0-%!)01()0'21%3$4$3%05%/'$$%)$6#)/%89:

;+@F%HP"I%*+&>J":'+"+KK+H>"%K" ('%&B'%*C&"D+E+F"L1":*++";+<='>"?@A"
:*++";+<='>"?O+>+*&A"
=<% =;% 7<% 7;% *<% *;% <% ;% ;% ;?<% *% *?<% 7% 7?<% @%A%M?;=;BC%D%*;?=*B% FG%A%;?E>;*N%

('%&B'%*C&"D+E+F&"

% F$H%!65$%I0'$1/+%J--$./%0-%!)01()0'21%K$4$3%05%,'$$%L$6#)/%89:% )*+,-*+"&,$ !"##$1#23*4$ !"##$%&'(#"$ .#/#0$ 5'6$ (& (& (A& B& A& C& D& F& E& '& G& (I& B& C& B& C& A& (& (& (& B& B(& ((& BA& E& (G& (DHD& FH&E& DH(& CHD&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

N"#"! " # $ " %

Table 2: The effect of Phosphorus level on Spruce Forest tree height (m)

!"##$ %&'(#"$
(& B& A& C& D& F& E& '& G& (I&

)*+,-*+"&,$ .#/#0$ (& B& B& B& (& (& B& I& I& I&

!"##$1#23*4$ 5'6$ (C& BI& BB& BC& (E& (F& CC& (DHC& E& D&

Table 3: The effect of Phosphorus level on Hemlock Forest tree height (m)

J7?6+;K&L+.7,40&$::7;4&M:&)*+,-*+./,&N7<76& M8&9.77&J73=*4
!"##$%&'(#"$ (& B& A& C& D& F& E& '& G& (I& )*+,-*+"&,$.#/#0$ I& B& (& (& (& I& (& (& B& B&

&&

!"##$1#23*4$5'6$ (B& BE& BA& B(& (E& FHD& (G& B(& BC& AB&

Data & Results

The Hemlock Forest Graph has a trend line that suggests that as the phosphorus level increases the tree height goes up. Three data points that back this trend line up are tree #1, tree #7, and tree #2. Tree #1 has a phosphorus level of P0 and a height of 12 meters. Tree #7 has a phosphorus level of P1 and a height of 19 meters. Tree #2 has a phosphorus level of P2 and a height of 27 meters. According to the graph and data tables the tallest tree tested in the Hemlock forest (tree #10) is 32 meters high. This tree has a phosphorus level of P2. The shortest tree tested in the Hemlock Forest (tree #6) is 6.5 Q"#"! " # $ " %

meters tall. This tree has a phosphorus level of P0. There were no trees in this forest that had a phosphorus level higher than P2. The Red Pine Forest graph has a trend line that suggests that as the phosphorus level increases the tree height stays roughly the same. A few data points that back this up are tree #1, tree #10, and tree #3. Tree #1 has a phosphorus level P1 and a height of 13 meters. Tree #10 has a phosphorus level of P2 and a height of 9.5 meters. Tree #3 has a phosphorus level of P4 and a height of 11 meters. According to the Red Pine Forest graphs and data tables, the tallest tree tested in the Red Pine forest (tree #4) is 23 meters tall and has a phosphorus level of P2. The shortest tree tested in the Red Pine Forest (tree #9) has a height of 5.1 meters and a phosphorus level of P1. The Red Pine graph and tables also showed that trees with a phosphorus level of P2 are the tallest. The Spruce Forest graph has a trend line that suggests that as the phosphorus level increases, the tree height goes up. Three data points that back this up are tree #9, tree #5, and tree #4. Tree #9 has a height of 7 meters and a phosphorus level of P0. Tree #5 has a height of 17 meters and a phosphorus level of P1. Tree #4 has a height of 24 meters and a phosphorus level of P2. The tallest of the trees tested in the Spruce Forest is tree #7. Tree #7 has a height of 44 meters and a phosphorus level of P2. This tree was the tallest tree of all the trees in all the forests tested in. The shortest tree of the trees tested in the Spruce Forest (tree #10) has a height of 5 meters and a phosphorus level of P0. This was the shortest tree of all the trees in all of the forests tested in. According to all the graphs and tables, the Red Pine forest had the greatest range of phosphorus levels. The range of phosphorus levels (of the 10 trees tested) in the Red Pine forest is P1-P4. Both the Spruce Forest and the Hemlock forests had smaller ranges of P0-P2. The Spruce Forest had the greatest range of tree heights. The range of tree heights in the Spruce forest (of the 10 trees tested) is 5-44 meters. The Hemlock Forest has a range of 6.5-32 meters. The Red Pine Forest has a range of 5.1-23 meters.%

Discussion
This experiment was conducted to test the correlation between the phosphorus level in soil, and the height of the tree next to the soil at Drumlin Farms. The hypothesis was: If the phosphorus level in soil is medium (2), then the tree will be taller because phosphorus levels that are too high or too low can stunt plant growth (www.extension.umn.edu). The hypothesis was supported because the results showed that the tallest trees had phosphorus levels of 2, and the shorter trees had deficient and surplus levels (1, 4). Many studies indicate a strong correlation a strong correlation between phosphorus level and tree height if the phosphorus level in soil is medium (2), then the tree will be taller because phosphorus levels that are too high or too low can stunt plant growth (www.extension.umn.edu). The reason for this is that too much phosphorus in soil causes plants to obtain leaf burns and wilting. Too little phosphorus in soil can lessen the leaf surface are on a plants which causes less chlorophyll to be present, which can slow down or stop the plants photosynthesis, preventing the tree from growing. In the results R"#"! " # $ " %

of the experiment there were some outliers. These outliers were some trees that had very high or very low phosphorus levels, but were still tall, or these outliers were trees that healthy phosphorus levels, but were short. These outliers were most likely caused by a sudden change phosphorus levels that have not yet affected the trees. This could be caused by an increase of animal feces in one area, or a shortage of rain water in an area. The experiment produced three graphs based on the three forests visited in the study: Hemlock, Spruce and Red Pine Forests. The r-squared value of the Hemlock Forest was 0.84. This was the strongest correlation of all the graphs. In the Hemlock Forest samples of 0, 1, and 2 levels (depleted, deficient, adequate.) were the only levels found. The trend in the Hemlock Forest indicates that the higher the phosphorus level the taller the tree, but really because there were no levels over 2, it means that a 2 level has the tallest trees. The Spruce Forest had a normal r-squared 2 value of 0.57. This means that the correlation of this graph was rather average. Like the Hemlock Forest in this forest the only levels of phosphorus found were 0, 1, and 2. This also means that this correlation shows that the closer the phosphorus level is to P2, the taller the tree is. The Red Pine Forest had an r-squared value of .00056. This means that no correlation was found between phosphorus levels and tree height. The Red Pine Forest is where a lot of the outliers were found, which is what made the correlation so low. In the experiment some data may not have been as precise as planned. One area where the data was not precise is where the tree was measured with a ruler and tape measure. This was done from far away, and not physically measuring the tree. This caused the height of the trees to not be exactly correct. Another area where errors where made was when the soil was extracted from the ground. The soil was supposed to be from 20 cm below the surface, but sometime the soil auger would not go as deep as hoped for. To modify this experiment many things would have to be done. The most important modification would be to find a more accurate way to measure the trees. This would have to involve a very long tape measure and probably a crane. Another modification would be using some kind of underground radar that would tell if rock were below. This way a soil sample could be taken 20 cm below the surface without the auger being impeded. Data collection could be improved by having more time to finish testing soil samples. Overall, the impact of errors could be very large, or it could be very small. To find out, an error free experiment would have to be conducted to find out the damage of the errors. To continue this study it would be interesting to see if other species of trees and even other species of plants have the same correlation between phosphorus and tree height as the species we tested. This could help farmers and other growers find a perfect level of phosphorus for each plant they grew. %

S"#"! " # $ " %

Acknowledgements
While preparing for the field trip to Drumlin Farm, Rory and I were stuck on many steps having to do with our experiment. Weeks before we went on the field trip when we were working on our preliminary data, we had the help of Mr. Ewins who helped us figure out the tree height in our experiment. He showed us how to practice test the tree as well as telling us some errors that could lead up to the field trip with trees in the way and such. I would also like to thank Mr. Senabre who guided us as we prepared our field test to make sure we stayed on task and any assistance. In addition, I would love to thank Mrs. LaRocca for letting us borrow equipment needed to conduct the field test, also helping us keep our field notebooks organized while guiding us through the process of editing and revising our papers. Last but not least, I would also like to thank the staff at Drumlin Farm for letting us go there and have a field test that could potentially accomplish our goal. % During our trip to Drumlin Farms and while preparing for the field trip, my partner and I were helped by many kind individuals. Before we went on the field trip, we had to prepare and conduct practice experiments. Mr. Ewins, a science teacher at the Buckingham Browne & Nichols middle school helped us a lot during this step of the journey. He showed us how to properly conduct the practice tests as well as providing us tips to keep in mind while we did the real test. Another individual I would like to thank is Mrs. LaRocca, a science teacher at the Buckingham Browne & Nichols middle School. Mrs. LaRocca let us borrow equipment needed to conduct the field test, and also helped us keep our field notebooks organized. Yet another person I would like to thank is Mr. Senabre, a Spanish teacher at the Buckingham Browne & Nichols middle school. Mr. Senabre watched us while we conducted our field test to make sure we stayed on task. He also helped us measure a few trees. I would also like to thank the whole staff at Drumlin Farms for letting us go there and conduct a field test.

!8"#"! " # $ " %

Work Cited Josh Prez

"Drumlin Farm | Mass Audubon | Nature Connection." Drumlin Farm | Mass Audubon | Nature Connection. N.P., N.D. Web. 5 Oct. 2012. <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/index.php>. Butz, Steven D. N.p.: Thomson, n.d. Print. "Functions of Phosphorus in Plants." (n.d.): n. pag. Better Crops. 1999. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. "The Nature of Phosphorous in Soils." The Nature of Phosphorous in Soils. University Of Minnesota, 2009. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print. "Phosphorus and Potassium in the Soil." Plant and Soil Sciences ELibrary. N.p., 2011. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.

Work Cited Rory Conway

Schachtman, Daniel P. "Phosphorus Uptake by Plants: From Soil to Cell." Phosphorus Uptake by Plants: From Soil to Cell. N.p., Feb. 1998. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. "Understanding Soil Tests for Plant-Available Phosphorus." Ohio State Extension. Ohio State, 2007. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. Spectrum Analytic. "Agronomic Library." Phosphorus (P) Basics. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2013. Sideman, Ph.D., Eric. "Managing Soil Phosphorus." Managing Soil Phosphorus. Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, June-July 2009. Web. 08 Mar. 2013.

The Effect of Distance (m) Away From Tree on the pH of Soil

by James Lamphier and Ryan Corcoran

Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Primary Author Corcoran, Ryan Lamphier, James Corcoran, Ryan Lamphier, James Corcoran, Ryan

Page 3 3 4 6 8 9 10

Abstract: pH is found in water or soil and is used to find out the acidity of the water or soil. The purpose of this experiment was to see if there was any correlation between the distance from a tree (m) and the soil pH. The procedure for this experiment was to randomize five trees in the Red Pine Forest and measure out ten meters extending from the base of the tree outwards. There were increments placed every two meters, which we collected for the five data samples. After the samples were collected the soil was dumped into the pH test kit, added with one capsule each, then mixed with distilled water. The soil was shaken and was measured using visual comparison to the pH levels on the test kit. It was assumed that if the soil was collected closer to the tree then the soil would be more acidic because the acidity of the pine needles from the tree would influence the soils pH, while dropping on the soil. The results showed no correlation between the distance from the tree and the pH of the soil. The two meter increments were the most consistent acidic samples collected. Although tree number two, increment number eight, was the most acidic soil sample collected, it also had the largest range 5.3 to 6.8 in pH levels.

Introduction: The pH of soil is a measurement of the concentration of the hydrogen ion in soil. Basically, it determines whether the soil is acidic or basic, and how acidic or basic the soil is. The pH of soil is a very important factor in forests and anywhere that has plants that need to grow. Different plants grow in different soil acidity. Pine trees are notoriously known for making the surrounding soil acidic because of their needles, and the pH surrounding the pine trees decreases because the hydrogen ion becomes more densely concentrated. The pH is measured on a scale of 1-14 (7 = neutral, <7 = acidic, and >7 = basic). This experiment will take place at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary located in Lincoln, MA. The Sanctuary is 312 acres, and is home to 5 different forests. For this experiment, the focus of the studies will be on on the Red Pine Forest. The Red Pine Forest is located east of the Vernal Pool, and south of the Farm Life Center. The forest is mostly inhabited by White and Red Pines Trees, and there are many creatures in this forest including Garden Snakes. An important fact to note is that when the pH of the soil is too low, plants will be exposed to too much aluminum, fluoride and manganese because these minerals causes the pH to lower, but if the pH of the soil is too high, the plants will not have enough nutrients, like iron, to grow (www.esf.edu). Because of this, each plant grows best in different soil pH. Red Pine Trees grow best in slightly acidic, sandy soil (www.psu.edu) making the soils pH more acidic to start. Soils become more acidic with decomposing organic matter (www.esf.edu), and after the four year life period of the Pine needles, they fall to the 2 forest floor. The needles (organic matter) then decompose creating an acidic mulch. Then the mulch lowers the pH level of the soil. (www.hort.uconn.edu).
3

The proposed experiment will look at the effect of distance from tree (m) on the pH of soil. The objective of this experiment is to find out whether the soil pH is more acidic when it is closer to the base of pine trees. This question will be tested by collecting soil samples at different increments along a transect starting from the base of the pine tree, extending ten meters away from the tree. Five soil samples will be collected from each tree. The independent variable for this experiment is the distance (m) away from the tree. The dependent variable will be the pH of the soil. Important controlled variables include; the tree species is a Red Pine for every tree, the increments along the transect stay the same for each tree, the depth of the soil will be kept the same for every soil collection, the amount of soil is the same, and the amount of water is the same. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is: If the soil is collected closer to the tree, then the pH level of the soil will be more acidic because more acidic pine needles will fall closer to the tree creating an acidic mulch covering the soil making the soil more acidic (www.gardenguides.com). This research demonstrates how pH levels are affected by the notorious pine needles. Naturalists at Drumlin Farm need to know the effect of soil pH, and what is affecting the soils pH because different plants grow better in different acidity. If the pine needles are making the soil too acidic for other plants, then the naturalists need to know that so they can act on the soil and make sure all the plants grow sufficiently. If the naturalists know more about the cause of soil pH change, they will be able to protect the ecosystems of Drumlin Farm. The Naturalists also need to know how to change the pH in case of plants not being exposed to the right acidity or enough nutrients. The more that is known about pH, the better the worlds plants and wildlife can be protected from dangerous pH levels, creating a healthier ecosystem.

Materials and Methods: All of the data was collected at the Red Pine Forest at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA (refer to Diagram 1), which is located on the southwest part of Drumlin Farm. The procedure for this experiment was divided between data collection and data testing. The data collection used a randomization test to collect non-bias soil samples. For this experiment trees were numbered in the Red Pine Forest from 1-15. After numbering the trees in the Red Pine Forest, the randomization test was needed to pick out 5 random and non-bias trees to collect the data samples. Once the trees had been identified in the forest, using the randomization test, measurement began. Ten meters were measured from the base of each tree using a rope and extending the rope outwards until the rope measured ten meters. Every 2 meters were marked with a flag or marker and used as an increment for testing the soil samples. The soil was scooped up from each 2 meter increment and then placed into a plastic bag, for testing Once the measuring was completed, the samples from the 2 meter increments were collected and put into five plastic bags, for each soil sample. A small amount of the five soil samples from each tree were placed into the soil test kit and tested for pH. After the soil was placed into the test kit, a green capsule was opened and placed into the soil sample until the capsule was empty. Then distilled water was added and mixed with the
4

soil sample until the mixture became completely mixed. The samples were measured using sight and comparing the color of the tested soil to the color on the pH test kit. The soil pH was not collected until the soil had settled to the bottom of the test kit, making sure that all data was sufficient. Once the samples were collected, the pH of the soil was recorded in the data tables. These steps were repeated for each of the five trees in the Red Pine Forest.

Title: Drumlin Farm Map Diagram 1:

RESULTS: Table 1: The Effect of Distance (m) From Trunk of Pine Tree on the pH of the Soil Tree Number Distance (m) From Tree 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 pH Level

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.5 5.8 6.0 6.5 5.0 5.3 5.8 6.0 6.5

1 2 3 4 5

10 10 10 10 10

6.0 6.5 6.8 6.0 6.5

Table 2: The Effect of Distance (m) From Trunk of Pine Tree on the Average pH of the Soil Distance (m) 2 4 6 8 10 Average pH 5.9 6.1 6 5.55 6.4 Standard Deviation 0.42 0.22 0.31 0.41 0.38

Graph 1: The Effect of Distance (m) Away From the Tree on the pH of the Soil
8.0 7.0 6.0

pH Levels

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

R = 0.0225

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Distance (m) Away From Tree

Graph 1 shows that in the Red Pine Forest, an increase in the acidity of the soil did not correspond with the distance (m) away from the tree. Although the trend line shows an increase in the pH as the distance becomes farther, the correlation between the two variables is very weak. Overall, the closer the R-squared value is to one, the more correlated the variables are, but this R-squared value is 0.0225, a very low value showing very low correlation. The average pH level for the 2-meter increment was 5.9, an acidic level. A low pH was expected from the closest distance to the tree base. The average pH from 4 meters was 6.1, a slightly more basic pH. The average pH for 6 meters dipped by a tenth becoming slightly more acidic. The 8-meter increment was where the data became uncorrelated. The average pH dropped extra 45 hundredths, becoming the most acidic average. Finally, the 10-meter average pH was 6.4, a slightly acidic soil, but the most basic average. The highest pH level collected was 6.8, a slightly acidic-almost neutral soil pH. The lowest pH level collected was 5.0. The most precise data set was from the 4-meter increments. The Standard Deviation was 0.22, and the range of levels was from 6.0-6.5 - all slightly acidic pH levels. The least precise data set was from the 2-meter increments. The Standard Deviation was 0.42, and the range of levels was from 5.5-6.5. Overall, the data collected was precise. An observation that was made in the Red Pine Forest was the different soil textures from each spot. While the soil was being dug out from the Tree 2 transect, the soil was noticeably gritty, and none of the soils had been that gritty. Also the Tree 4 transect had a much more silt like soil than the rest of the collected so

DISCUSSION: This experiment tested the effect of the distance from the base of the tree on the pH level of the soil. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was; If the soil is collected closer to the base of the tree, then the soil will be more acidic because the pine needles will fall closer to the tree, making it have a lower pH level (http://www.gardenguides.com). The hypothesis for this experiment was not supported because there was no correlation between the tree distance and pH of the soil. The pH level of the soil was slightly more acidic at the two meter marks of each tree, but had a varied range of pH levels between 5.3-6.8. Pine needles have been known to cause the soil near a tree to become more acidic over a long period of time (www.gardenguides.com). This could drop the pH levels below 6 making it an acidic soil. Also, any decomposed matter or minerals could make the soils pH more acidic (http://www.esf.edu).. This showed that the pH of the soil did vary to a certain extent and meant that all controlled variables were in place because all the tree samples were similar. Pine trees easily adapt to a habitat that is slightly to mildly acidic (http://www.gardenguides.com). The pine needles that fell off the tree made the soil more acidic by about 0.5 on the pH scale, which makes it easier for Pine Trees to live within their most comfortable habitat (http://www.gardenguides.com).
8

Both the eight meter mark and two meter mark had the least precise data. The rsquared value was 0.0225 showing no correlation between any two sets of data collected. Since the r-squared value is so low the data is inconclusive and there was not any correlation found between the two variables. There was a precise range found and all data samples were collected within 1.5 on the pH scale. There was a trend in all of the data, hovering around a pH level of 6.0. The eight meter increments had the least precision which would make it inconclusive to draw any correlation. The data collected was not shocking considering that the pine needles tend to fall directly below the tree and stay there for a long period of time, which would influence the soils pH level. This field study could have been modified with a larger distance in between each of the five trees. Although the trees were randomized, there could have been more area of the Red Pine Forest used for this experiment. For instance, instead of using a small portion of the Red Pine Forest there the distance could have been extended longer into the forest. By doing this, the results may have differed and thus supported the hypothesis. Sufficient data was collected for each of the tree samples and for all of the data collection. Improvements could have been made by increasing the depth of the soil that was scooped up from the increments, making sure that the top of the soil was similar to the rest of the soil underneath the tree. The impact of the errors made in this experiment were minimal, but could have been improved upon. Both the location and depth of the trees and soil could have made a difference, which was a direct link to the fact that a real auger was not used while conducting this experiment. For future research in this study, the pH of the soil could be tested with the vertical length of the tree to see if there is an effect on the acidity of soil based on the height of the tree. The width or crown diameter of the tree could also be measured with the same rope used in this experiment , but only measuring the width.

Acknowledgements: James Lamphier I would like to acknowledge and thank Susan, our field instructor from Drumlin Farm for helping us with any questions we had and educating us on the Red Pine Forest. I would also like to thank Mr. Rossiter and Ms. Gellar for monitoring the area through rotation A, B, and C. Lastly I would like to thank Ms. Svatek for helping us figure out our project, and helping me with any edits on my final paper.

Acknowledgments: Ryan Corcoran I would like to thank everyone that helped us on our field trip to Drumlin Farm. First I would like to thank Susan our Drumlin Farm advisor for answering any questions that needed to be answered. I want to thank Mr. Rossiter and Ms. Gellar for watching over us throughout the day through A,B,C rotations. Finally I would like to thank Ms. Svatek for helping us prepare for the field trip and helping as with our project as a whole.

WORKS CITED: Ryan Corcoran "Gardening on Garden Guides." Garden Guides, Your Guide to Everything Gardening. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013 "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What It Means. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013 "Soil PH." Soil Quality: Indicators:. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 201 http://www.neiu.edu/~jkasmer/Biol498D/Readings/treesoilgradie Seth Bigelow, Charles Canam

"Understanding PH." What Is Soil PH and What Does It Mean?: Organic Gardening . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. WORKS CITED: James Lamphier Bicklehaupt, Donald. "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What It Means. Environmental 11 Science and Forestry, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>. Lew, Kristi. Acids and Bases. New York: Chelsea House, 2009. Print. "Pinus Resinosa." Pinus Resinosa. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.hort.uconn.edu/plants/p/pinres/pinres1.html>. "Red Pine Tree (Pinus Resinosa)." Psu.edu. Penn State New Kensington, 15 Dec. 2005. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.psu.edu/dept/nkbiology/naturetrail/speciespages/redpine.htm>.

10

Phun with duckweed

The effect of duckweed on pH samples
By Abby Cozier and Lauryn Jacobs

Table of Contents
Title Abstract Introduction Primary Author Lauryn Jacobs Lauryn Jacobs Page 3 3-4 4-5 5-6 7-8 8 Abby Cozier 9

Materials and Methods Lauryn Jacobs Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited Abby Cozier Abby Cozier

Abstract:
Duckweed is a small-flowering aquatic plant that typically grows on small bodies of water such as ponds or rivers. An experiment was conducted, at three ponds at Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln Ma, to find out if the pH of water effects the duckweed growth on the ponds. Also to determine what pH levels duckweed can grow in. The procedure for this experiment was to test the pH levels at 8 different areas of the pond. Then to estimate the duckweed percentage using a transparency grid, and then to average out both. This information was then used to determine the typical amount of duckweed that grows in a certain pond, with certain pH levels. It was conventional that if the pH is lower than 4.5 or higher than 7.5, then the duckweed percentage would be lower because duckweed grows in a pH range between 4.5-8.

Introduction:
Duckweed is the smallest flowering plant in the world. It is a light-green, seed-bearing,

aquatic perennial plant. It is typically seen in thick mats covering the surface of the water. The leaves of duckweed float freely on the surface of a body of water, and the root hangs low from the surface to absorb the nutrients from the water instead of from the soil (SePRO, www.lakelawnandpond.com). Duckweed has the ability to concentrate minerals by absorbing large amounts of it. Duckweed also gets growth spurts in water that is heavily polluted because of sewage treatment facilities. Duckweed grows on water with high levels of Phosphorous, Potassium, and/or Nitrogen, and can supply the protein needed for the aquatic life. Also, the pH of water affects the biomass, plant materials and animal waste used as fuel, of duckweed and can increase the size of duckweed between 16 hours and 2 days (R. A. Leng, www.fao.org). There are two common species of duckweed that are found in Massachusetts. The first type is Lemna minor, also known as Lesser Duckweed. It has 2-3mm leaves with 3 veins and a single root (www.town.lynnfield.ma.us). The second type is Spirodela Polyrhiza, known as Big Duckweed it is the largest species of duckweed to be found. Big Duckweed has 2-3 rounded leaves and up to nine roots under each leaf (Unknown www.town.lynnfield.ma.us). Duckweed grows across the world except for cold regions and doesnt usually grow in rivers unless there is a reduced river flow (Unkown www.clean-flo.com). The pH of the water is being tested to determine if duckweed affects the pH. The pH is also being tested to find out what type of pH levels, duckweed grows in, and whether it will be basic, or acidic. The sites that will be tested at Drumlin Farm include the Ice Pond, the Poultry Pond, and the Bathtub Pond. The Poultry Pond and Bathtub Pond typically are the only ponds at Drumlin Farm that have duckweed on the surface of the water. The Ice Pond doesnt have duckweed on the surface and that is why it will also be tested. To figure out the pH of a pond with no duckweed, compared to the pH a pond with duckweed.

The Independent variable will be the duckweed percentage that covers the Bathtub Pond, Poultry Pond, and the Ice Pond. The dependent variable is the pH level of the water. The Duckweed samples will be collected from eight different sections of the pond by using the transparency grid to estimate how much duckweed is on one section of the pond and then testing the pH levels. The controlled variables will be the time of year, the location, the tools used, and the depth of the pH samples. If the pH is lower than 4.5 or higher than 8, then the duckweed percentage would be lower because duckweed grows in a pH range between 4.5-8 (SePRO, www.lakelawnandpond.com). This experiment can teach students of how duckweed does not affect the pH of water, but the pH of water does affect duckweed. The pH of water affects the biomass of duckweed, making duckweed increase between 16 hours and 2 days. The importance of studying at Drumlin Farms, is that the students testing in the field were able to go to see what they were testing in its natural habitat. However, when duckweed grows, because of the pH affecting its biomass, it can become a thick mat of duckweed, and protect the aquatic life in that body of water. The importance of this study is to determine if duckweed has an affect on the average pH levels of the ponds at Drumlin Farm. From this experiment, others can also learn what duckweed is like in its natural habitat, what pH levels duckweed can grow in, how the pH of the ponds and can change how much duckweed grows in that pond.

Materials and Methods:

The materials that were needed for this experiment were, a transparency grid, (as seen below) one Rapitest water pH test kit, (as seen below), one field notebook to record the results, and one bottle of distilled water.

Image 1: Transparency grid

Image 2: Rapitest water pH test kit

The water pH and duckweed amount were tested at three sites at Drumlin Farms, (Lincoln, MA). This includes the Poultry Pond, the Bathtub Pond, and the Ice Pond. First, the water pH test kit must be taken to the site that will be tested. Then a pill was taken from the water pH test kit, and submerged into a test tube filled with water from that site. After that, the acidity of the water that was tested was recorded (in field notebook). Then, the test tube was rinsed with distilled water. Repeat the steps listed, seven more times. Next, a transparency grid was taken out and looked through. Then, the scientist estimated how much of the pond was covered by duckweed. The last two steps were repeated seven more times. Finally, all steps were repeated at two more sites. 4

The controlled variables for this experiment will be, the tools used, how they are used, the sites being tested, and the time of day.

Results:
Graph 1: The Effect of Duckweed on pH levels

7.6 7.4 pH samples 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2

The Effect of Duckweed on pH samples

Poultry

Bathtub Ponds on Drumin Farm

Ice

Graph 1 shows the correlation between the three different ponds in Drumlin Farm and duckweed versus pH. The data is conclusive to show that Poultry Pond has the least amount of duckweed in it between Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond. The data is inconclusive to show which pond had the most duckweed because Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond have overlapping error bars. Without the error bars, Ice Pond has the largest pH value, Bathub Pond has the second largest and Poultry Pond has the smallest. Poultry Pond had an average of 6.7 pH units, Bathtub Pond had an average of 7.1 pH units and Ice Pond had an average of 7.3 pH units. Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond, as shown above, are very similar in error bar height and average pH samples.

Table 1: The Effect of duckweed on pH samples (pH samples from each pond)
The Effect of Duckweed on pH samples The pH samples collected from Poultry, Ice and Bathtub Ponds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG STDEV 7 8 7 7 6 6 6.5 6 6.6875 8 7 7 8 6 8 7 7 7.25 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 7.125

Poultry Ice Bathtub

0.65848 0.66144 0.78062

Table 1 shows the effect of duckweed on pH samples taken from each pond. As shown in the table above, the pH samples from Bathtub decrease with each sample, but that Ice pond mostly stays around 7 to 8. Poultry Pond has the lowest pH average with 6.68. Second, is Bathtub Pond with 7.12, and the highest average is Ice Pond with 7.25. With Standard Deviation, Poultry Pond again, has the lowest with .658 then Ice Pond with .661 and the highest Standard Deviation is Bathtub Pond with .780. Overall, Bathtub Pond seemed to have the highest pH samples, and Poultry seemed to always have the lowest.

Table 2: The Effect of duckweed on pH samples (duckweed percentages from each pond)
The Effect of Duckweed on pH samples Percentage of pond covered in duckweed 3 4 5 6 7 75% 45% 60% 35% 75% 85% 25% 15% 65% 45% 0% 0% 5% 5% 10%

Poultry Ice Bathtub

1 25% 82% 10%

2 15% 67% 6%

8 AVG STDEV 65% 49% 0.21424 75% 57% 0.24566 7% 5% 0.03603

Table 2 shows the effect of duckweed on pH samples but specifically with the duckweed percentage measurements taken from each pond. As shown above on the graph, Bathtub Pond has the smallest percentage with its highest being 10%. The highest average is Ice Pond with 57%, then Poultry Pond with 49% and Bathtub Pond with 5%. The highest Standard Deviation went to Ice Pond again with .245, and Poultry Pond came second also with .214 lastly, Bathtub had .036. Overall, looking at this chart Bathtub Pond obviously had the least amount of duckweed covering it and Ice Pond had the most.

Discussion:

This experiment was conducted to test the correlation between duckweed coverage and the pH of water. The hypothesis for this experiment was; if the pH is lower than 4.5 or higher than 8, then the duckweed percentage would be lower because duckweed grows in a pH range between 4.5 and 8 ( SePRO, www.lakelawnandpond.com ). This hypothesis was not supported because there was no pH reading that was higher than 8 or lower than 4.5. The water pH samples that were taken, had a data range of 6-8. This data was insufficient because there is no correlation between the amount of duckweed in the water and the pH of the water. The data was slightly precise because all of the pH readings were taken at the same depth and some were taken right next to each other. This could have given the reading the same outcome and change our data. The duckweed percentage coverage was also sometimes an estimation because it was difficult to get an exact number. The confidence in this data was impacted slightly because they were not huge mistakes but it may have adjusted the data. In Graph 1, Bathtub Pond and Ice Pond have overlapping error bars because they have around the same average of duckweed percentage covered. Poultry Ponds error bar is lower than both of the other Ponds because the percentage covered is lower. This concludes that Poultry Pond had less duckweed percentage covered than Bathtub and Ice Pond. Sources say that there is no correlation between the duckweed percentage and pH of water, but they do state that duckweed can survive in a large pH range, concluding that for a pond to be able to grow duckweed, it should have a large pH range (SePRO, www.lakelawnandpond.com ). In Bathtub Pond, there was not much duckweed and sources say that the reason for that was because when the temperature is warm, duckweed rises and grows. Since Bathtub Pond had half of its surface area covered in ice, and therefore made the water colder, the duckweed went to the bottom and will stay there until the ice melts and the water becomes warmer (Bell, http://www.fao.org ). When the experiment was being conducted, there were many frogs in Bathtub Pond which may also be a reason why there was not much duckweed in Bathtub because duckweed is a plant which provides shelter, but also food to many animals including frogs (Preston, http://www.lrrd.org). Another possibility as to why there is no correlation found between duckweed and the pH of water is that these tests were taken on April 1st when the temperature was around 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The pH of the water depends on many components. One component is the heat of the water which depends on the temperature of the day. The pH of the water may of been higher if the tests were taken on a hotter day and all of the duckweed was floating on the top of the water (Perlman, http://ga.water.usgs.gov). This wouldve changed the tests because no duckweed would have been seen and different pH values which could potentially change the outcome of this experiment. It also wouldve changed the tests because it wouldve proved the hypothesis right or wrong because the pH values wouldve most likely been over 8. There are a few ways this experiment could be improved. The first would be that there should be eight different containers and eight different spots around the pond and then take the pH from the buckets rather than directly from the pond. This will make the experiment more precise because the tests will be taken at the same depth and from different spots around the pond. Also, the tests should be taken in a different season to see the difference in temperature in the air and in the water. This would also help to prove the hypothesis because the pH temperatures would be above 8 and the duckweed would be on the water because of rising temperatures. Duckweed grows to the top of the water in higher temperatures (Landolt, http://www.mobot.org). 7

There were errors that occurred while data was being collected. One of them was that there wasnt enough space to test around the pond so the data couldve been insufficient. That definitely impacted the results because there werent pH samples from everywhere to see how the pH varied. Another error that occurred was that there wasnt enough time spent after the pills were shaken to see what color the water would change. The water was supposed to wait one minute but instead it sat for thirty seconds. Future research that could be taken from our experiment is how the amount of frogs effect the duckweed because there were many frogs and they could potentially have an effect on the amount of duckweed grown.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my family and friends for being there when I needed that extra help. I would also like to thank the BBN teachers that were on staff with helpful comments with our experiments. I would also like to thank the Drumlin Farm Staff for helping us through this and explaining details about our experiment. I would lastly like to thank my partner Lauryn and my science teacher Mr. Ewins because it wouldnt of gotten done without them. I would like to thank my parents, friends and family for being supportive. I would also like to thank the Drumlin Farm Wildlife and BB&N staff for helping us at Drumlin Farms when needed. Lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful science teacher Mr. Ewins and my partner Abby for help along the way.

Works Cited:
Introduction & Materials and Methods:
"About Duckweed." About Duckweed. LakeLawnandPond, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <www.lakelawnandpond.com/duckweedabout.html> "About Duckweed." About Duckweed. SePRO Corporation, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013. <www.lakelawnandpond.com/duckweedabout.html> Causey, L. "Common Duckweed AQUAPLANT." Common Duckweed AQUAPLANT. Agrilife Communications, 2013. Web. 03 Apr. 2013. <http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/plantidentification/alphabetical-index/common-duckweed/> "Duckweed: What Is Duckweed & How to Identify Duckweed? - CLEAN-FLO." CLEANFLO RSS. CLEAN-FLO, 2005-2013. Web. 03 Apr. 2013. <http://www.cleanflo.com/weed-algae-identification/duckweed/>

Discussion:
Landolt, E. "Growing Duckweed." Growing Duckweed. Geobot Inst., 5 June 2005. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <www.lakelawnandpond.com/duckweedabout.html> Latsamy, Phounvisouk. "Fly Larvae, Earthworms and Duckweed as Feeds Forfrogs in an Integrated Farming System." Fly Larvae, Earthworms and Duckweed as Feeds for Frogs in an Integrated Farming System. Socorro, Santander, Colombia, 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Leng, R. A., J. H. Stambolie, and R. Bell. Duckweed - a Potential High-protein Feed Resource for Domestic Animals and Fish. Boston: University of New England Armidale, 1995. Print.< http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/supplement/lats2.htm> Leng, R. A., J. H. Stambolie, and R. Bell. Duckweed - a Potential High-protein Feed Resource for Domestic Animals and Fish. Boston: University of New England Armidale, 1995. Print. <http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agap/frg/LRRD/LRRD7/1/3.HTM> SePRO. "About Duckweed." About Duckweed. Sonar A.S., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Unknown. "Water Properties: PH." , from USGS Water-Science School. USA.gov, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <www.lakelawnandpond.com/duckweedabout.html>

Get$On$Phosphoruss$Level!
The$Effect$of$Soil$Phosphorus$on$Water$Phosphate S86=6$$S86=12

By:$Worthy$Rae$and$Nicky$Daglio

Table$Of$Contents
Title&Cover&(Written(by(Worthy(Rae)...............................................................................pg.1 Table&of&Contents&(Written(by(Worthy(Rae)..............................................................pg.2 Abstract$(Written(by(Nicky(Daglio)....................................................................................pg.3 Introduction&(Written(by(Nicky(Daglio)....................................................................pg.3;4 Materials&&&Methods&(Written(by(Nicky(Daglio)...............................................pg.4;5 Results&(Written(by(Worthy(Rae)....................................................................................pg.5;6 Discussion&(Written(by(Worthy(Rae)...........................................................................pg.6;7 Acknowledgments&(Written(by(Worthy(Rae)...........................................................pg.8 Bibliography&(Written(by(Worthy(Rae)..........................................................................pg.9

ABSTRACT Phosphorus(is(a(naturally(occurring(element(that(can(promote(plant(growth(but(if( there(is(a(surplus,(it(can(cause(an(algal(overgrowth.(This(experiment(was(performed(to(Cind( a(potential(relationship(between(the(soil(phosphorus(and(the(water(phosphate(and(test(if( one(affects(another.(To(test(the(water,(get(a(sample(by(Cilling(tube(and(put(the(TesTab(in.( Shake(the(tube(until(the(tablet(is(completely(dissolved,(then(wait(for(the(blue(coloration(to( appear.(For(the(soil(sample,(collect(some(soil(in(a(medium(sized(tupperware.(At(the(lab,(Cill( the(tupperware(with(water(Cive(times(the(amount(of(soil.(Once(the(suspension(has(settled( get(pour(some(water(from(the(tupperware(into(the(testing(canister(and(pour(the(pill( powder(into(the(water.(The(hypothesis(for(this(experiment(was(that(water(phosphate(would( increase(as(soil(phosphorus(did(and(that(poultry(pond(would(have(the(highest(levels(of(P( and(phosphate.(But(because(of(the(inconclusive(data(nothing(can(be(concluded.( INTRODUCTION Phosphorus(is(an(element(used(to(form(rocks.(Through(the(phosphorus(cycle,(it( circulates(the(earth(and(is(distributed(throughout(the(planet.(On(the(Cield(trip(to(Drumlin( Farm(in(Lincoln,(MA,(soil(phosphorus(and(water(phosphate(levels(will(be(tested(and( compared(to(potentially(discover(a(correlation(between(the(two(tests. Phosphorus(starts(as(a(mineral(in(sediment,(but(with(weathering,(the(phosphorus( wears(off(the(rock(and(the(phosphorus(enters(the(soil(as(phosphate.(From(there(the( phosphorus(is(absorbed(by(the(crops(and(plants.(Then,(the(animals(eat(the(agriculture(and( the(phosphorus(enters(the(animals(body(systems.(The(phosphorus(continues(the(cycle( through(the(feces(of(the(animals(for(fungi(and(decomposers(to(do(the(obvious:(decompose( the(fecal(matter((Beatty,(Phosphorus).(This(act(releases(more(phosphate(into(the(soil(for(the( plants(to(absorb(once(again.(Phosphorus(also(enters(the(ecosystem(through(runNoff(as(it( enters(ponds,(lakes,(oceans,(and(enters(the(marine(food(chain.(The(element(then(falls(to(the( bottom(of(the(water(body(and(exists(as(sediment(for(up(to(100,000,000(years.(The( phosphorus(then(enters(the(soil(for(crops(to(absorb((Busman,(www.umn.edu). Phosphorus(and(phosphate(is(not(equally(distributed(throughout(the(earth.(But( because(phosphorus(does(cycle(throughout(the(earth(in(many(locations,(it(has(been(named( the(most(abundant(naturally(occurring(element(in(nature(as(well(as(one(of(the(elements( that(are(essential(to(bodily(needs.(Not(only(is(it(very(common(in(rocks,(phosphorus(also(is(a( crucial(part(of(the(human(body(as(it(is(a(building(block(of(nucleic(acids,(proteins(and(lipids. Part(of(the(phosphorus(cycle,(as(mentioned(earlier,(is(that(phosphorus(circulates( through(the(soil(and(absorbed(by(crops(and(plants.(Once(it(is(absorbed(by(the(plants,(it(is( used(in(the(process(of(photosynthesis(to(produce(adenosine(triphosphate((ATP)(and( nitrogen(adenosine(diphosphate((NADP),(two(chemicals(used(to(harness(the(suns(energy( and(undergo(photosynthesis((Orum,(Ground(Water(Research).(However,(excess(phosphorus( produced(from(manNmade(machines(can(be(harmful(to(the(environment(due(to(the(runoff( into(lakes(and(river(which(cause(an(outburst(or(overgrowth(of(algae(plants(as(well(as(an( unclear(haze(in(the(water.(And(although(phosphorus(is(used(in(plants,(it(is(most(commonly(
3

found(in(rocks.(After(phosphorus(Cinishes(the(phosphorus(cycle(in(water,(it(forms(as( sedimentary,(a(type(of(rock(and(stays(as(rock(for(one(hundred(million(years! For(this(experiment,(the(objective(is(to(see(if(the(soil(phosphorus(levels(have(a( direct(impact(or(link(to(the(water(phosphate(levels.(The(independent(variable(is(the(soil( phosphorus,(while(the(dependent(variable(is(the(water(phosphate(levels.(Different(levels(of( the(IV(include(which(pond(as(well(as(the(speciCic(location(at(each(pond.For(this(experiment( it(is(imperative(to(control(the(amount(of(soil/water(used(in(each(trial.(Also,(the(distance( from(soil(test(to(water(test(should(not(differ.(The(equipment(is(another(controlled(variable. The(hypothesis(set(forth(for(this(experiment(is:(If(the(soil(phosphorus(levels(are( high,(the(water(phosphate(will(also(be(high(because(the(phosphate(travels(through(the( water(before(it(enters(the(soil(so(if(the(phosphate(is(common(in(one(substance((soil),(it(will( be(abundant(in(the(other((water)((Busman,(www.umn.edu).(More(speciCically,(if(the(soil( phosphorus(and(water(phosphate(levels(are(tested(at(Poultry(Pond,(the(phosphorus/ phosphate(levels(will(be(the(highest(because(the(phosphorus(from(cars(on(the(road(above( create(an(overgrowth(of(algae,(or(duckweed. Although(phosphorus(and/or(phosphate(can(help(plants(to(grow,(when(the(levels( are(too(high,(it(can(cause(an(algal(overgrowth.(Knowing(the(phosphorus(levels(of(the(sites( can(help(the(people(to(become(aware(of(the(effects(of(pollution.(Pollution(is(another(cause( for(high(phosphate(levels(and(by(becoming(aware(of(these(high(element(levels,(people(can( work(to(create(a(safer(environment(for(the(water(and(organisms(by(monitoring(the(type(of( cars(driven(and(reducing(the(amount(of(litter. ( MATERIALS/AND/METHODS: For(this(experiment,(the(effect(of(soil(phosphorus(on(water(phosphate(is(being( tested.(The(independent(variable(is(the(soil(phosphorus.(Other(levels(of(the(IV(include( which(pond(as(well(as(the(speciCic(location(at(each(pond.(The(dependent(variable((DV)(is(the( water(phosphate.(Some(controlled(variables(include(the(testing(kit(and(distance(from(water( to(soil((1(meter)(as(well(as(the(amount(of(canopy(coverage(and(amount(of(soil(and(water( collected(for(each(trial.(There(is(no(control(run(for(this(experiment.(The(hypothesis(for(this( experiment(is(as(follows:(if(the(soil(phosphorus(levels(are(high,(the(water(phosphate(will( correlate(and(be(high(as(well(because(the(phosphate(travels(through(the(water(before(it( enters(the(soil(so(if(the(phosphate(is(common(in(one(substance((soil),(it(will(be(abundant(in( the(other((water).(To(be(more(speciCic,(if(the(soil(phosphorus(and(water(phosphate(levels( are(tested(at(Poultry(Pond,(the(phosphorus/phosphate(levels(will(be(the(highest(because( the(phosphorus(from(cars(on(the(road(above(create(an(overgrowth(of(algae,(or(duckweed(in( this(case. ( Some(supplies(or(materials(will(be(necessary(to(conduct(this(experiment.(For(the(soil( test,(one(auger,(two(phosphorus(pills,(one(phosphorus(test(canister(and(one(test(booklet( will(the(necessary(tools(for(this(project.(For(the(water(test(it(will(be(essential(to(have(one( PPM(color(sheet,(one(water(phosphate(testing(booklet,(one(test(tube,(and(Cinally(one(water( phosphate(TesTab.(Now(that(the(correct(materials(are(at(hand,(the(procedure(can(be(set.(To(
4

test(the(water(phosphate,(Cill(the(test(tube(with(10(mL(of(pond(water.(Then,(add(one( phosphate(TesTab.(Cap(the(tube(and(shake(until(the(tablet(is(dissolved((roughly(one( minute).(Wait(Cive(minutes(for(a(blue(coloration(to(appear.(Finally,(compare(the(water(color( to(the(PPM(color(sheet.(If(the(solution(is(colorless(the(PPM(is(equal(to(zero. RESULTS: ( ( Tables/&/Graphs: Table(1:(The(Effect(of(Soil(Phosphorus(on(Water(Phosphate

Boyce Pond soil water phosphorus phosphate 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 Poultry Pond soil water phosphorus phosphate 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 Bathtub Pond soil water phosphorus phosphate 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 0

Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 1

2 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 0

Graph(1:(The(Effect(of(Soil(Phosphorus(on(Water(Phosphate5
2.0 R = 0.4737 R = 0.4762 R = 0.0278 1.0

Amount(of(Phosphorus((ppm)

1.5

0.5

0.75

1.50

2.25

3.00

Boyce(Pond

Poultry(Pond
5

Bathtub(Pond

Overview: ( There(was(no(common(trend(throughout(the(data(due(to(the(overlap(of(error(bars.( Due(to(the(range(of(standard(deviation(.738N.919(the(error(bars(became(very(large(as(the( results(were(only(0,1,2,(or(3(ppm((parts(per(million).(There(was(also(no(maximum(or( minimum(for(the(set(of(data(either(due(to(the(same(reason.(Since(there(were(three(different( locations,(ten(trials(were(spread(throughout(each(other(equally.(Although(the(range(of(data( that(could(have(been(collected(was(from(0N4(ppm,(the(results(never(showed(Phosphorus/ Phosphate(levels(exceeding(above(3.(The(next(two(graphs(are(showing(just(the(levels(of( either(water(Phosphate(or(soil(Phosphorus.(These(two(graphs(were(shown(by(themselves(to( show(how(each(different(location(compared(to(each(other.(While(testing(each(soil(sample,( the(soil(texture(and(color(clearly(differed.(The(texture(of(Boyce(Pond(was(a(thick,(muddy( dark(brown(dirt(while(the(texture(of(Poultry(Pond(was(a(soft,(light(brown(dirt.(Bathtub( Pond(was(a(mixture(of(both(of(the(Ponds(due(to(its(dark(brown(color(and(airy(feel.( DISCUSSION: The(purpose(of(this(experiment(was(to(try(to(Cind(a(correlation(between(Soil( Phosphorus(and(Water(Phosphate(levels.(The(hypothesis(for(the(experiment(was:(If(the(soil( phosphorus(levels(are(high,(the(water(phosphate(will(correlate(and(be(high(as(well(because( the(phosphate(travels(through(the(water(before(it(enters(the(soil((Busman,(www.umn.com).( When(graphed(on(a(xy(scatter(plot(the(data(was(not(conclusive. ( The(data(didnt(support(the(hypothesis(due(to(the(inconclusiveness.(The(trend(lines( in(the(xy(scatter(plot(all(arced(in(a(diagonal(line(going(upwards(as(the(soil(phosphorus(grew.( Although(the(trend(lines(were(all(going(in(the(same(direction,(the(r(squared(values(were(too( low(to(draw(a(conclusion.(For(Poultry(and(Boyce(Pond(the(r(squared(values(averaged(out(to( be(.47(which(were(too(low(for(a(signiCicant(correlation.(Along(with(Poultry(and(Boyce(Pond,( Bathtub(pond(had(a(low(r(squared(value(of(.02.((This(value(means(that(none(of(data(had( even(a(close(correlation(between(each(other(and(that(it(was(all(disconnected(data.(Since(this( value(is(unnaturally(low,(there(must(have(been(many(outliers(or(a(wide(range(of(data.( Due(to(the(use(of(an(alternate(method(of(testing(after(the(proper(steps(werent( followed,(the(experiment(was(altered.(Instead(of(putting(the(soilNwater(mixture(in(into(the( comparator,(the(mixtures(were(left(out(to(sit(while(the(chemicals(in(the(pill(were(ineffective( to(such(a(large(mass(of(liquid.(The(steps(for(our(altered(experiment(included(comparing(the( Ciltered(versus(the(unCiltered(watered(down(dirt(to(Cind(what(phosphorus(level(the(dirt(was.( Although(this(was(an(effective(way(of(testing,(it(was(still(unreliable(due(to(the(fact(that(the( method(had(not(been(used(before.(If(there(was(more(data(collected(there(would(be(a(more( accurate(due(to(a(more(accurate(range(of(data(and(a(smaller(standard(deviation. The(research(conducted(before(this(experiment(was(helpful,(but(not(correct(based( off(of(the(results(gathered.(A(reason(to(explain(why(a(correlation(between(soil(and(water( should(be(possible(is(due(to(the(cycle(of(phosphorus(in(the(environment.(Phosphorus(will( come(down(through(atmospheric(deposition(and(will(run(down(through(the(soil(into(ponds( and(lakes.(As(rain,(snow,(sleet,(etc.(and(will(distribute(phosphorus(to(the(ground(as(well(as( to(the(lake.(As(the(phosphorus(sinks(into(the(soil(and(lake(they(will(constantly(trade( phosphorus(through(microNorganisms(or(through(the(soil(eroding((Orum,(Brian).(Even( though(phosphorus(is(usually(found(in(solids,(phosphorus(still(exists(in(water(although(it(is(
6

not(soluble((Busman,(Lowell).(However,(when(the(area(surrounding(the(lake(is(rich(in( minerals,(the(water(will(often(contain(10(ppb((Parts(Per(Billion)(or(more(of(dissolved( phosphorus((Beatty,(Richard,(Phosphorus).(Most(Cine(to(medium(textured(soil(are(better(at( absorbing(phosphorus(due(to(large(capacities(that(are(used(to(hold(phosphate((AverbuchN Pouchot).(Since(most(light,(airy,(dirt(is(able(to(absorb(phosphorus(than(Poultry(Pond(should( have(had(the(highest(pH(levels.(This(was(why(Poultry(Pond(had(the(steepest(trend(line.( Some(lingering(questions(would(be(does(the(depth(of(the(soil(affect(the(amount(of( pH.(Also(does(water(pH(change(along(with(the(pressure(of(the(water.(We(could(further(study( this(experiment(by(testing(new(locations.(If(the(experiment(was(repeated,(the(tests(on(the( soil(pH(would(have(been(done(correctly(instead(of(using(the(alternate(method.(

Acknowledgments&
& I&Lirst&want&to&thank&my&parents&for&instilling&a&love&of&curiosity&and& Science&in&me&at&an&early&age.&I&also&want&to&thank&my&Science&teacher&Mrs.& Svaltek&for&tirelessly&helping&us&in&making&our&research,&experiment,&and& science&paper&the&best&it&can&be.&I&would&like&to&thank&all&the&teachers&that& volunteered&their&time&to&go&on&the&Drumlin&Farm&Field&Trip.&Finally&I&would& like&to&thank&the&friendly&staff&at&Drumln&Farms&that&answered&any&question& we&had.

Works&Cited& Averbuch;Pouchot,&M.&;T.,&and&A.&Durif.&Topics'in'Phosphate' Chemistry.&Singapore:&World&ScientiLic,&1996.&Print.& Beatty,&Richard.&Phosphorus.&Tarrytown,&NY:&Benchmark,&2001.&Print.& Busman,&Lowell,&John&Lamb,&Gyles&Randall,&George&Rehm,&and& Micheal&Schmitt.&"The&Nature&of&Phosphorous&in&Soils."&The' Nature'of'Phosphorous'in'Soils.&University&of&Minnesota,&2002.& Web.&28&Feb.&2013.& Orum,&Brian.&"Private&Well&Owner&Drinking&Water&Pennsylvania& Ground&Water&Research."&Private'Well'Owner'Drinking'Water' Pennsylvania'Ground'Water'Research.&B.F.&Environmental& Consultants&Inc.,&n.d.&Web.&28&Feb.&2013.

The$effect$of$the$diameter$at$breast$height$and$ the$type$of$tree$on$the$amount$of$potassium$in$ the$surrounding$soil.$ By!Alex!Daly!and!Bayard!Eton! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Eton!Potassium!Daly!

1!

Table!Of!Contents!!!! !!Title!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Main!Author!!!!!!!!!Page!#! ! AbstractAlex$Daly.3$ $ Introduction..Bayard$Eton..4$ $ Materials$&$MethodsAlex$Daly.6$ $ ResultsBayard$Eton..7$ $ DiscussionAlex$Daly.10$ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2!

Abstract$
! Potassium!is!a!mineral!that!trees!need!to!grow!and!thrive.!This!experiment! was!conducted!at!Drumlin!in!Lincoln,!MA!in!the!hemlock!and!MAS!forest.!The! experiment!tested!the!levels!of!potassium!around!trees!and!compared!them!with!the! size!and!then!other!types!of!trees.!For!this!procedure!there!was!a!soil!sample!taken! and!then!it!was!tested!in!a!small!two!chamber!container!that!show!different!levels!of! potassium!(K).!!The!hypothesis!was!that!the!larger!trees!would!have!less!K!around! them!because!it!had!all!been!used!up.!The!results!showed!that!the!larger!trees!did! have!less!K!around!them!then!the!smaller!trees!did.!

3!

Introduction$$
$ While!potassium!is!a!nutrient!found!in!soil!that!is!required!for!various! metabolic!activities!and!physiologic!functions!in!plants,!it!is!also!important!in! xylogenesis!(the!formation!of!wood!in!trees).!Potassium!does!not!form!a!structural! part!of!any!plant!component!or!compound.!However,!a!tree's!growth!may!be!stunted! with!a!deficiency!of!it.!This!is!because!potassium!is!associated!with!the!movement!of! water,!nutrients,!and!carbohydrates!in!plant!tissues.!The!soil!content!of!potassium! varies!widely.!It!is!measured!in!the!soil!in!parts!per!million,!and!the!total!potassium! content!of!soils!is!usually!above!20,000!(ppm).!Interestingly,!nearly!all!of!this! potassium!is!found!within!the!structure!of!soil!minerals!and!is!unavailable!for!plant! growth.!Newly!planted!or!young!and!rapidly!growing!trees!require!some!potassium! supplement!annually!for!rapid!establishment.!Mature!trees!only!require! supplementation!every!two!to!three!years!to!maintain!foliage!color!and!plant!vigor.! Most!trees,!no!matter!their!size,!experience!a!flush!of!growth!in!the!spring,!with! slower!growth!rates!during!the!summer!and!fall!seasons.!Thus,!more!nutrients!are! needed!during!spring!growth.!In!addition,!different!trees!require!different!amounts! of!potassium.!The!location!of!a!tree!is!a!factor!as!well,!as!urban!and!suburban!trees! are!more!highly!stressed!than!those!in!rural!environments!and!may!require! increased!nutrient!availability.!(ext.colostate.edu)! This!experiment!will!be!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm,!a!Massachusetts! Audubon!Wildlife!Sanctuary,!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts.!The!sanctuary!covers!312! acres!and!is!covered!with!young!and!mature!trees!of!the!deciduous!and!evergreen! type!in!the!Massachusetts!Audubon!Society!(MAS)!forest!and!Hemlock!Forests.!Since! these!trees!are!located!in!a!rural!setting,!their!potassium!requirements!will!differ! from!that!of!trees!in!urban!and!suburban!locations.!! Three!forms!of!potassium!exist!in!soil.!Unavailable!potassium!is!potassium! that!degrades!slowly!over!long!periods!of!time,!as!it!is!a!structural!part!of!soil's! rocks!like!feldspars!and!micas.!Fixed!potassium,!or!potassium!that!is!available!via! slow!leaching,!is!"trapped"!between!layers!of!clay!minerals!as!a!reservoir!that!takes! more!than!one!growing!season!to!ionize.!Exchangeable!potassium,!or!ionized! potassium!that!is!readily!available!for!absorption!by!a!plant's!roots,!is!dissolved!in! the!soil's!water!Ninety!to!ninetyYeight!per!cent!of!total!soil!potassium!is!of!the! unavailable!type.!Exchangeable!potassium!constitutes!0.1Y2.0!percent!of!the!total! soil!potassium.!The!potassium!measured!by!routine!soil!testing!procedures!is!of!the! exchangeable!type!(Rehm,!umn.edu).! It!is!important!to!be!cognizant!of!the!fact!that!potassium!is!required!for! various!metabolic!activities!and!physiologic!functions!in!plants.!These!include! protein!production;!carbohydrate!production,!transport,!and!storage;! photosynthesis;!proper!development!of!cell!wall!structure;!control!of!plant!cell! turgor,!giving!the!plant!leaves!the!ability!to!resist!drought!and!stress!via!opening! and!closing!of!a!leaf's!stoma;!and!improved!ability!to!combat!disease!and!insect! damage.!It!is!also!important!in!xylogenesis,!the!formation!of!wood,!in!trees.!!!!!! Potassium!uptake!by!root!systems!is!affected!by!soil!factors!such!as!moisture,! pH,!aeration!and!oxygen!level,!temperature,!and!cation!balance!between!potassium,! ! 4!

calcium,!and!magnesium.!Greater!soil!moisture,!like!that!found!in!the!spring!after! the!snows!have!melted,!allows!for!increased!movement!of!potassium!into!roots.!The! availability!of!potassium!to!root!systems!is!decreased!in!acidic!soils.!Rainwater!has! become!more!acidic!over!the!years,!unfortunately!resulting!in!a!more!acidic! soil.!!Oxygen!is!required!for!respiration!and!potassium!uptake!in!root!systems.!The! optimum!soil!temperature!for!potassium!uptake!is!60!to!80!degrees!Fahrenheit.! Thus,!in!the!early!spring!(unless!snow!has!recently!melted!in!the!soil),!there!is!less! uptake!activity!in!root!systems!on!Drumlin!Farm,!leaving!more!ionized!potassium!in! the!soil.!Although!there!is!no!evidence!that!potassium!has!a!direct!toxic!effect!in! trees,!if!they!get!too!much!potassium,!trees!may!suffer!deficiencies!of!magnesium! and!manganese!(ext.colostate.edu).!An!excess!of!potassium!thus!might!make!a!tree's! appearance!confusing!because!the!tree!would!grow!abnormally.!On!the!other!hand,! plants!that!do!not!get!enough!potassium!grow!less,!flower!less,!wither!in!dry!spells,! contract!more!disease,!and!develop!the!classic,!universal!leaf!sign!of!"marginal! choruses,"!or!the!yellowing!of!the!leaf's!margin!with!a!striped!appearance!in!the!rest! of!the!leaf.!It!has!been!noted!that!the!potassium!required!for!deciduous!tree!growth,! due!to!the!production!of!flowers!and!fruit,!is!greater!than!that!for!evergreen!tree! growth.! The!objective!of!this!experiment!will!be!to!determine!which!tree!size,!by! circumference,!takes!more!potassium!from!the!soil!in!which!it!is!growing.!It!will!also! evaluate!which!tree!type,!deciduous!or!coniferous,!takes!more!potassium!from!the! soil!for!sustenance.!The!circumference!of!each!tree!will!be!measured!and!the!trees! sampled!will!be!divided!into!three!sizeYrelated!groups!based!on!their!circumference.! Each!tree!will!be!categorized!as!deciduous!or!evergreen.! Routine!soil!potassium!testing!procedures!will!be!conducted.!There!are!two! independent!variables!in!this!experiment.!These!are!the!diameter!of!the!tree!at! breast!height!and!the!type!of!tree,!deciduous!or!coniferous.!The!dependent!variable! is!the!amount!of!potassium!in!the!soil!sampled!0.5!m!away!from!the!base!of!the!tree.! The!controlled!variables!are!the!distance!from!the!test!sight!to!the!tree!(0.5m),!the! system!used!to!test!the!potassium,!the!type!of!soil,!the!type!of!tree!(deciduous!or! coniferous),!and!the!length!of!time!the!soil!sits!in!the!container!before!being!tested.! The!hypothesis!set!forth!is;!if!the!diameter!of!the!tree!at!breast!height!is!larger,!then! the!tree!will!take!more!potassium!from!the!soil,!because!a!larger!tree!needs!more! nutrients!to!maintain!function!and!grow!(Rehm,!umn.edu).!The!other!hypothesis!is;! if!the!tree!is!deciduous,!then!it!will!absorb!more!soil,!because!it!has!been!dormant!all! winter,!and!needs!an!extra!kick!to!wake!up!(Rehm,!umn.edu)! This!research!demonstrates!the!relationship!between!size!and!type!of!tree! and!its!potassium!uptake!in!a!rural!setting!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!the!early!spring.! Volunteers!and!naturalists!at!Drumlin!Farm!should!understand!the!effect!of! potassium!content!in!the!soil,!the!size!and!types!of!the!trees!in!their!forests,!and!the! related!factors!affecting!soil!and!tree!life!so!they!are!more!able!to!predict!the! nutrient!requirements!for!potassium.!It!is!essential!that!the!world!gain!an! appreciation!of!the!potassium!health!of!trees!in!rural!forests,!as!well!as!in!our!more! urban!forests,!to!maintain!trees'!survival.!Fertilizer!manufacturers!will!need!to! formulate!their!products!more!specifically!for!addition!to!the!soil!around!a!specific! tree.!Then,!fewer!trees!will!grow!poorly!or!die!from!inadequate!or!excessive! ! 5!

fertilization.!To!these!ends,!more!research!is!needed.!The!more!the!world!knows! about!the!relationship!between!potassium!and!trees,!the!better!it!can!understand! how!to!support!and!protect!forests!in!the!future.! !

Materials$And$Methods$

! This!experiment!will!need!many!materials!to!begin.!First!an!auger!will!be! needed!to!collect!the!soil!sample!from!the!ground!around!the!tree.!After!that!is! completed!plastic!containers!will!be!needed!to!gather!the!soil!samples!in.!once!the! soil!has!been!gathered!more!materials!will!be!needed!to!test!the!soil!K!such!as!pills,! water,!a!test!tube,!and!a!dropper.!Subsequently!you!will!need!a!pen!to!write!your! results!with!and!a!notebook!to!write!them!in.!If!it!rains!you!will!need!something!to! protect!the!notebook!with!like!a!1Ygallon!Ziploc!bag.!! First!of!all!you!need!to!decide!what!tree!will!be!tested.!To!decide!this,!give! each!tree!a!number!and!use!your!calculator!to!randomly!select!the!numbers.!!Once! the!tree!has!been!found!you!must!use!a!tape!measure!to!discover!the!Diameter!at! Breast!Height!(dbh)!of!the!tree.!After!you!have!taken!the!circumference!it!must!be! translated!into!diameter!(divide!by!pi!and!then!square!root!the!answer!and!multiply! by!two).!Finally!record!your!results!for!the!tree!diameter.!! Now!that!you!have!found!the!diameter!of!the!tree!you!must!test!the!soil.!For! the!soil!collection!you!will!use!a!compass!to!find!the!directions!of!north!and!south.! When!north!and!south!have!been!established!there!must!be!one!soil!sample!taken! from!each!direction!at!.5!meters!away.!Once!you!have!taken!the!32!data!points!you! must!test!the!potassium!levels.!! To!test!Potassium!levels!of!the!soil!you!will!need!the!Rapitest!Soil!K.!once!you!have! opened!the!top!of!the!Rapitest!you!must!place!your!soil!in!it!that!has!dissolved!in! water!for!thirty!minutes.!After!you!have!placed!the!dissolved!water!into!the! comparator!you!must!break!the!pill!and!pour!the!powder!into!the!test!tube!side!of! the!Rapitest.!Following!the!powder!you!must!put!the!cap!on!and!shake!it!well.!After! shaking!it!you!must!wait!for!it!to!change!to!one!of!the!colors!on!the!side.!Then! record!the!data!and!repeat!for!the!32!trials.! ! !

6!

Results!
! ! TABLE!1:!The!effect!of!the!diameter!of!the!tree!on!the!amount!of!K!in!the! surrounding!soil.! Amount!Of!K!In!Soil!

! ! ! ! ! Diameter! ! (cm)! Trial!1! Trial!2! Average! Tree!Type! R!Squared!! ! ! 11! 3! 2! 2.5! ! 13! 4! 3! 3.5! ! 22! 2! 2! 2! ! 22.5! 1! 2! 1.5! ! Hemlock! 0.84! 26! 1! 3! 2! ! 31.5! 1! 1! 1! ! 40! 0! 2! 1! ! ! 49! 0! 0! 0! ! 12! 3! 2! 2.5! ! 22! 2! 3! 2.5! ! 25! 1! 2! 1.5! ! 25! 2! 1! 1.5! ! Oak! 0.66! 26! 2! 2! 2! ! ! 27! 2! 1! 1.5! ! 27! 3! 2! 2.5! ! 45! 1! 0! 0.5! ! TABLE!2:!The!effect!of!the!diameter!and!type!of!the!tree!on!the!amount!of!potassium! in!the!surrounding!soil! Tree!Type! Diameter!(cm)! Average!K! STDEV! 0.71! Small!(0Y19)! 3.00! Hemlock! 0.29! Medium(20Y29! 1.83! 0.58! Large!(30+)! 0.67! 0.00! Small!(0Y19)! 2.50! Oak! 0.49! Medium(20Y29! 1.92! 0.00! Large!(30+)! 0.50! ! ! ! ! ! !

7!

GRAPH!1:!The!effect!of!the!size!of!the!tree!on!the!amount!of!potassium!in!the! surrounding!soil.!
4! 3.5! Potassium$Level$ 3! 2.5! 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5! 0! 0! 10! 20! 30! 40! 50! 60! Diameter$Of$Tree$(cm)$ R!=!0.84026! R!=!0.65896! Hemlock! Oak! Linear!(Hemlock)! Linear!(Oak)!

GRAPH!2:!The!effect!of!the!size!and!type!of!the!tree!on!the!amount!of!K!in!the! surrounding!soil.!
4.00! 3.50! Potassium$Level$ 3.00! 2.50! 2.00! 1.50! 1.00! 0.50! 0.00! Small!(0Y19)! Medium(20Y29! Large!(30+)! Hemlock! Oak!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

8!

GRAPH!3:!The!effect!of!the!size!and!type!of!the!tree!on!the!amount!of!K!in!the! surrounding!soil.!
4.00! 3.50! Potassium$Level$ 3.00! 2.50! 2.00! 1.50! 1.00! 0.50! 0.00! Small!(0Y19)! Medium!(20Y29)! Large!(30+)!

Hemlock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Oak!
Tree$Type$

! Graph!1!Explanation.!! ! This!graph!shows!a!downward!slope!for!both!tree!types,!the!larger!the! diameter,!the!smaller!potassium!left!over!in!the!soil.!This!graph!shows!a!steeper! negative!slope!with!the!Hemlock!trees,!that!that!of!the!Oak!trees.!The!Hemlock!trees! have!a!higher!y!intercept!than!the!Oak!trees!y!intercept.!The!highest!amount!of!K! for!the!Hemlock!tree!is!at!diameter!13cm,!and!K!level!3.5.!The!highest!amount!of!K! for!the!Oak!tree!is!at!diameters!12,!22,!and!27cm,!each!with!a!K!level!of!2.5.!The! lowest!amount!of!potassium!for!the!Hemlock!tree!is!at!diameter!49cm!with!a!K!level! of!0.!The!lowest!amount!of!potassium!for!the!Oak!tree!is!at!diameter!45!with!a!K! level!of!0.5.!The!data!is!relatively!precise!as!the!r2!values!for!both!lines!are!above!0.5.! However,!the!Hemlock!(.84)!is!more!precise!than!the!Oak!(.65).! ! Graph!2!Explanation.! ! This!graph!agrees!with!the!graph!above,!showing!a!relationship!as!the!size! increases,!the!amount!of!potassium!in!the!surrounding!soil!decreases.!The!small! (2.5)!and!large!(.5)!Oak!bars!have!no!error!bars!because!there!was!only!one!sample! that!fit!within!those!two!categories.!None!of!the!data,!when!compared!with!the!other! tree!in!the!same!category,!is!conclusive!due!to!error!bar!overlap.!The!Hemlock!trees! small!(3.0)!and!Large!(.67)!are!relatively!imprecise!with!both!standard!deviations! being!over!0.50.!The!largest!amount!of!potassium!for!Hemlock!trees!was!the!small! category!(3.0).!The!smallest!amount!of!potassium!for!Hemlock!trees!was!the!large! category!(.67).!The!largest!amount!of!potassium!for!Oak!trees!was!the!small! category!(2.5).!The!smallest!amount!of!potassium!for!Oak!trees!was!the!large! category!(0.50).!The!largest!amount!of!potassium!overall!was!the!Hemlock!Small! (3.0)!the!smallest!overall!was!the!Oak!Large!(0.50).! ! ! ! 9!

Graph!3!Explanation.!! ! This!graph!is!similar!to!Graph!2,!but!each!bar!represents!the!categories!Small! (0Y19cm)!Medium!(20Y29cm)!and!Large!(30+cm)!diameters,!and!the!x!axis!is!the! tree!type.!This!graph!shows!the!relationship!between!Hemlock!and!Oak!Trees!and! the!Potassium!level.!All!of!the!error!bars!for!each!bar!overlap!with!the! corresponding!bar!for!the!other!tree.!This!shows!that!the!Hemlock!trees!have!an! inconclusively!larger!average!amount!of!Potassium!in!the!soil!in!the!Small!and!Large! categories.!The!highs!and!lows!are!the!same!as!Graph!2! !

Discussion$
! The!experiment!was!performed!Drumlin!farm!Lincoln,!MA.!This!experiment! tested!the!effect!of!tree!size/!species!on!the!amount!of!potassium!in!the!soil!around! it.!If!the!diameter!of!the!tree!at!breast!height!is!larger!or!if!the!tree!is!coniferous,! then!the!tree!will!take!more!potassium!from!the!soil,!because!a!larger!tree!needs! more!nutrients!to!maintain!function!and!grow.!This!hypothesis!ended!up!to!be! supported!in!the!data!that!has!been!collected.!!! Trees!need!many!things!(minerals/!food)!to!survive.!Potassium!is!one!of!the! minerals!that!they!cannot!live!without.!When!the!trees!are!just!saplings!starting!to! grow!they!need!a!lot!of!potassium!around!the!roots!so!they!can!start!to!grow.!Once! the!trees!start!to!age!the!roots!will!spread!out!in!search!of!more!potassium!and!the! other!necessary!minerals.!!With!a!lack!of!potassium!the!trees!growth!can!be!stunted! or!the!tree!could!even!die!if!it!is!serious!enough.!! In!the!results!of!the!experiment!none!of!the!error!bars!overlapped!for! coniferous!or!deciduous!by!themselves!but!some!of!the!error!bars!did!overlap!from! species!to!species!for!the!tree!samples.!The!coniferous!trees!tended!to!sap!more!K! out!of!the!soil!and!to!deplete!the!area!around!them!easily.!! ! potassium!helps!to!increase!protein!production,!improve!efficiency!of!water! use!and!even!help!the!tree!live!through!the!winter.!A!tree!is!constantly!performing! actions!like!producing!protein!and!using!water!to!create!sugars!and!keep!itself!alive.! The!longer!it!lives!the!the!longer!it!performs!these!actions!and!the!more!it!depletes! the!ground!around!it.!The!more!the!ground!is!depleted!the!longer!the!roots!get! looking!for!more!K.!This!is!how!many!trees!will!live!through!most!of!its!life.!As!long! as!it!live!it!will!keep!through!this!cycle!of!finding!K,!taking!it,!and!then!finding! more(extension.umn.edu).!!This!information!supports!our!results!and!the! hypothesis!that!was!originally!created.!! ! The!results!that!were!collected!are!very!conclusive!because!none!of!the!error! bars!overlap!within!the!same!species.!Also!most!of!the!error!bars!on!the!averages! are!very!small!and!in!some!situations!they!are!not!even!there.!Also!both!of!the! graphs!had!a!rYsquared!value!over!.6.!the!rYsquared!value!is!how!much!it!can!relate! to!a!pattern!that!could!happen!in!real!life.!It!symbolizes!a!great!relationship!between! the!values!on!the!x!and!y!axises.!This!shows!that!the!dat!is!extremely! conclusive.!!The!data!is!not!as!conclusive!if!!both!species!are!looked!at!though.!This!

10!

means!that!the!data!is!not!conclusive!for!coniferous!trees!taking!more!K!than!the! deciduous!trees.!! ! In!the!field!if!more!trials!were!collected!the!data!could!have!had!more! sufficient!data.!If!more!trials!in!each!size!of!tree!were!collected!the!data!would!have! had!more!conclusive!data!in!the!comparison!of!tree!type!and!also!better!data!for! each!species!within!itself.!also!doing!the!testing!at!all!different!times!and!once!we! got!home!a!little!bit.!This!could!have!let!some!of!the!samples!settle!and!test!better!or! on!the!bus!ride!home!they!could!have!been!unsettled.!This!experiment!could!be! extended!by!more!tree!species!and!more!trees.!! Once!this!is!all!found!out!the!data!could!be!used!to!know!how!much!K!is! needed!for!a!tree!to!begin!growing.!This!information!could!help!if!a!large! organization!wanted!to!plant!a!forest!and!was!not!sure!if!the!location!chosen!was! able!to!house!the!large!density!of!trees.!It!could!also!help!figure!out!the!rate!of! growth!for!a!tree!and!maybe!even!its!age.! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!

!! !

11!

Works$Cited$ $ Introduction$
"Agronomic Library." Potassium Basics. http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Potassium_basics.htm N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

"Colorado State University Extension - Publications Online, Alphabetical Order." http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09355.html Colorado State University Extension Publications Online, Alphabetical Order. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

"Fertilizing Shade Trees." http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-618.html G6865. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

"Potassium for Crop Production." http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC6794.html Potassium for Crop Production. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

$ $ Discussion$
"Agronomic Library." Potassium Basics. http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Potassium_basics.htm N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

"Colorado State University Extension - Publications Online, Alphabetical Order." http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09355.html Colorado State University Extension Publications Online, Alphabetical Order. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

"Fertilizing Shade Trees." http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-618.html G6865. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

"Potassium for Crop Production." http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC6794.html Potassium for Crop Production. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

12!

The Percs of Being Soil

The Effect of Canopy Coverage of Soil Percolation By Angela Duong and Shannon Griffin

1!

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Abstract by Shannon Griffin...3 Introduction by Shannon Griffin....4 Materials and Methods by Shannon Griffin..5 Results by Angela Duong.....7 Discussion by Angela Duong..10 Acknowledgments12 Introduction Works Cited..13 Discussion Works Cited..14

2!

ABSTRACT
This experiment was conducted in order to discover whether the canopy coverage has an effect on the percolation of soil. It took place in the Hemlock Forest at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. The procedure for this experiment was to take the canopy coverage of a section of the Hemlock Forest. Then, the percolation of the soil was tested directly under the spot where the canopy coverage was taken. The percolation was recorded by timing how fast the water sunk into the soil. It was expected that the less canopy coverage there was the more percolation there would be. The results showed that the data was very inaccurate. There was minimal if any correlation between the canopy coverage and the percolation. There were many outliers in the data, so no conclusions could be made.

3!

INTRODUCTION
Where would the material in the sewer system end up if it werent for percolation? It would all pile up on the streets. Then what would people do where would people go? This experiment is testing the percolation of the soils in four-meter intervals to see how the rate of percolation varies in the different locations in this forest because of the different amounts of canopy coverage each location receives. This experiment will take place in the Hemlock Forest at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. Hemlock trees are coniferous, which means they have needles instead of leaves. They can grow from 12.192 meters up to 21.336 meters tall and 7.62-9.144 meters wide. Their needles grow from 0.635 to 1.905 of a centimeter long, and the fruits are seedless cones, which can grow from a 0.635 of a centimeter to 7.62 centimeters (Wackerman). Hemlock trees prefer moist soils that can obtain a lot of water. The movement of water in soil includes two different forces: downward pull of gravity and the force of attraction between water molecules and soil particles (www.fao.org). Matric forces are intermolecular forces dealing with the relationship between the water moisture and soils. Percolation of soil is how long it takes for the water to sink into the soil. It is important because it can later lead to what nutrients need to be added to fertilizer or what flora can flourish there. Related to percolation, the infiltration rate of soil tests the absorption rate of water in soils. Infiltration rates of soils are measured after the soil has been saturated (www.fao.org). Both can be affected by the soil texture and grain because of the different particle sizes are classified into silt sized minerals, sand sized minerals, and clay sized minerals. The higher the percentage of finer particles, the lower the infiltration rate it will be. Depending on the sizes of the clods of different mineral grains the water either hinders at the entrance or flows right through into the soil. (kula.geol.wwu.edu). A soil with cracks and holes indicate a well developed structure allowing the water to flow easily and be absorbed. Since Hemlock trees prefer moist soils, the soil percolation will be slower (Wackerman) because, if a soil is more sandy and dry, then it is considered to have a coarse texture, which means there are bigger pores for the water to travel through the soil (Stakland). This means it will have a higher percolation rate (Ashman). The canopy coverage will affect the texture and pore sizes of the soil depending on how much sunlight or rain it lets through into the soil. Canopy coverage is a fixed area covered by the crown of plant species measured in percentages. The canopy coverage of a forest can depend on how densely packed the forest is. If a tree falls down, it will open up a section or gap in the forest. The less sunlight the trees let through, the finer, smoother, and more clayey the soil will be, which means the soil will have smaller pores and will be harder for the water to move through the soil (Ashman). This will result in a slower percolation rate. The objective of this experiment is to test if the canopy coverage of certain locations in the forest has an effect on the speed of the percolation of the soils. A percolation test will be used

4!

to determine the speed that the water travels through the soils. The independent variable is the canopy coverage, which is measured in percent. The dependent variable is the soil percolation, which will be measured in seconds. The variables that need to be controlled for the experiment are materials for each trial, the forest, increments between each trial, person testing the canopy coverage, amount of soil. The hypothesis for the experiment is If the canopy coverage is smaller, then the percolation will be greater because coarse soils absorb the most water (Wackerman). What can be learned from this experiment is how different areas that receive different amounts of canopy coverage can impact percolation. Something that can also be learned from this is how different types and textures of soils in the forest can also affect the percolation rate. Finding the percolation of soils are important in the environment because this will be helpful knowledge such as when a leach field for a septic system is needed to be designed. The percolation rate will ensure that the leach field is large enough to accept all the flow sent to it, or else the sewerage will appear at the surface because the water cannot infiltrate and percolate it fast enough.

MATERIALS AND METHODS All the data taken for this experiment took place at the Hemlock Forest at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA (refer to Figure 1). Each trial was four meters apart, starting from the very beginning of the forest to 140 meters into the forest. In the field a densitometer was used. A densitometer is a tool used to find canopy coverage. By looking directly upward, the canopy coverage can be approximated. The experiment was designed too see if the canopy coverage affected the percolation of soil. The percolation of the soil is the time it takes the water to sink into the soil. To prepare for this trip, the metal cylinder (soup can) was cut so the top and bottom were off of it. Then, four centimeters were measured from the bottom on the metal can, and it was marked on the can with a sharpie. The first thing that was done was filling up the container with water, then travel to the Hemlock Forest, which is where the experiment was conducted. The second thing that was done was measuring the canopy coverage. The densitometer was used to do this. By look directly upward at the roof of the forest and approximate a percentage of how much canopy was covering the sky, refer to Figure 2. After that look directly down and put the cylinder into the soil with the four centimeter mark touching the very top of the soil, refer to Figure 3. Pour 100 ml of water into the top of the cylinder while it is still in the ground. Take the stopwatch and time how long it takes for all the water to seep into the soil, or till the water cannot be seen. Stop the stopwatch, and then record the time. Thirty-five trials were taken and each of the steps necessary for each trial were repeated.

5!

Figure 1: In this diagram of Drumlin Farm, the Hemlock forest is clearly pictured. It is number 8.

Figure 2: In this model of how to use the densitometer, it is clear that the densitometer needs to be straight up in the air. There was a device on the side that determines if the densitometer was facing directly upward. In the bubble in the device needed to be in between the two lines in order for the densitometer to be facing upward as straight as possible. Figure 3: In this picture the four centimeter line is clearly matching the top of the soil. The bottom of the can needed to be all the way into the soil in order for this to work.

6!

RESULTS:
Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 % of Canopy Coverage 75 92 50 40 40 15 80 40 Soil Percolation (s) 12.2 41.2 255 300 420 420 232 108

Trial # 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

% of Canopy Coverage 33 50 50 35 25 10 60 60

Soil Percolation (s) 7 15 18 4 49.6 420 305 69

7!

Trial # 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 15 25 30 60 50 35 20

% of Canopy Coverage 420 420 240 26 45 53 4 30

Soil Percolation (s)

Trial # 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

% of Canopy Coverage 20 10 35 60 15 80 50 20

Soil Percolation (s) 8.9 420 125 17.9 420 5.5 304 22.2

8!

Trial # 33 34 35

% of Canopy Coverage 20 5 20

Soil Percolation (s) 14.3 420 17

*420s means that it reached the 7 minute mark and was still going*

Graph 1: The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on the Percolation of Soil(s)

When looking at Graph 1, the highest percentage of canopy coverage was 92%, and it had a percolation rate of 41.2s. This was not the fastest percolation. The fastest percolation rate was four seconds and the canopy coverage for that was 35%. From Graph 1, it is clear that the canopy coverage percentages of 20% have some of the fastest and closest percolation rates. This would indicate that the lower the canopy coverage, the faster the percolation rate. However, the least amount of canopy coverage (10%) had one of the longest percolation rates (420s and still going). Also, at 80%, one of the highest percentages of canopy coverage had one of the fastest times at a 5.5s. The slowest percolation rate was all of the rates that had reached the 420s mark and was still going. The r-squared value in the graph is 0.19. The regression line that runs through Graph ! 9!

1 barely touches two data points, (the canopy coverage of 60% and 80%). There were many patterns found within the graph. Around the 10% to 15% of canopy coverage, the data points for the percolation rates were very close together with rates around 400s. The 20% of canopy coverage also had a close range of data points with rates around 0 to 50s. The 35% canopy coverage is another example of the close range of percolation rates as shown in the graph with data points from 0 to 6s. Lastly, is the 60% canopy coverage with the data points ranging from 0 to 55s. The range of the data points from all of the percolation rates of the soil is 316s (lowest percolation rate 420 4 the highest percolation rate).

DISCUSSION: This experiment was conducted to test whether the percent of canopy coverage had an effect on the percolation of the soil. The hypothesis for this experiment was: If the canopy coverage is smaller, then the percolation rate would be faster because coarse soils absorb the most water (Wackerman). The hypothesis was not supported because of the many outliers found in the data. Therefore, there was no evidence of a correlation between the canopy coverage and the percolation of soil. The r-squared value of the data is 0.19. This value is very close to zero. Therefore, it shows a very weak correlation. Graph 1 shows that 20% canopy coverage had a percolation of 10-25s. This was one of the closest range of data points and the fastest rates from all of the trials. However, it cannot be concluded that the experiment followed the hypothesis because the lowest percentage of canopy coverage (10%) had one of the slowest percolation rates of 420s and still going. There was sufficient data included with a total of thirty-five trials shown in the tables. However, there was no correlation between the two variables leaving very little confidence in the methods. The general range of the data is 316s (percolation rate). Many sources stated that the lower the percentage of canopy coverage, the faster the percolation rate would be. The reason for that is that when soils have small canopy coverage, this allows them to have more exposure to the sunlight. Soils that receive more sunlight become sandier and drier which is considered to have a coarse texture. Coarse textured soils have a higher percolation rate because it has bigger pores for water to easily travel through (Stakland). However, this data showed otherwise. This may be because it had rained the previous night before the experiment was conducted. The areas in the Hemlock Forest had a large variety of different percentages of canopy coverage; therefore, the rain did not affect all the areas equally. All the soils had absorbed different amounts of rain and turned the once coarse soils into a finer, smoother, and a more clay-like texture. These types of soils tend to have a slower percolation rate due to the small pores that are harder for the water to move through (Ashman). In order to modify this experiment for improvement, the experiment would have to be conducted on a day where at least the previous two days had not rained. This would allow some time for the soils with the smaller percentage of canopy coverage to dry and return to its original state. This would then not affect the soil texture, which would allow more precision and accuracy. A few errors occurred while carrying out the procedure. The first was that it was originally planned to record the canopy coverage and the percolation of soil every four meters. However, because of the large amounts of branches and rocks that were located in the testing areas, the experiment was moved a couple of centimeters over. This could have affected the experiment because it changed the percentage of canopy coverage, and the percolation rates of the areas that were not tested couldve followed the hypothesis. Also, the can that was used to test the ! 10!

percolation was never cleaned out fully from one trial to the next. This could have affected the experiment because the percolation rate couldve lasted longer due to the extra amount of moisture at the bottom, which would slow down the traveling of water. The last error was that sometimes the can was placed in the soil further than the four-centimeter mark. This couldve also slowed down the percolation rate, because there was extra soil for the water to absorb and go through. For future research of study, this information can lead to what types of trees can flourish in which types of soils. Depending on the information collected, it could be determined to see what nutrients could be added to fertilizers to help it absorb or exude water. This kind of information would allow more crops to be grown and flora to flourish in certain types of soils and certain locations (Alvardo).

11!

Acknowledgments:
Angela would like to thank Ms.Svatek for helping us pick out specific materials needed in order to conduct this experiment and instructing us how to use it. Angela would like to thank The Geographic Resource Solutions for donating densitometers to use for our experiment.

Angela would like to thank The Hemlock Forest Naturalist for answering any questions when needed.

Angela would like to thank Ms. Nagler for helping us to keep track of time

Shannon would like to thank Ms.Svatek for giving us the topic of our experiment and giving us important information and websites to help us.

Shannon would like to thank Mr.Sarzana for helping us with our materials.

Shannon would like to thank the Naturalists for guiding us to our locations.

12!

INTRODUCTION WORKS CITED:

Ashman, M. R., and G. Puri. Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to Soil Science. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002. "CHAPTER 2 - SOIL AND WATER." CHAPTER 2 - SOIL AND WATER. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/R4082E/r4082e03.htm>. "Lecture 8: Soils and Percolation." Western Washington University. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://kula.geol.wwu.edu/rjmitch/L8_soils_percolation.pdf>. Stakland, Steve. "The Average Percolation Rate for Various Soil Types." EHow. Demand Media, 03 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ehow.com/info_10025612_average-percolation-rate-various-soiltypes.html> Wackerman, Dillon. "Facts About Hemlock Trees." EHow. Demand Media, 28 May 2010. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ehow.com/list_6564770_hemlock-trees.html>.

13!

DISCUSSION WORKS CITED:

Alvardo. Soil Improvement. BIO-MEDIATED SOIL. N.p.,n.d Web. January 2012.<https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnees.org%2Fsite%2Fresources%2F pdfs%2F. Ashman, M.R and G. Puri. Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to Soil Science. Oxford: Blackwell Science 2002. CHAPTER 2- SOIL AND WATER. CHAPTER 2- SOIL AND WATER. N.p.,n.d Web.28 Feb.2013.<http://www.fao.org.docrep/R4082E/r4082c03.htm>. Soil Improvement. Soil Improvement. N.p., n.d Web. 11 Apr. 2013 <http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/how/soilimprovement.html>. Stakland, Steve. The Average Percolation Rate for Various Soil Types. EHow. Demand Media, 03 Aug. 2011. Web.11 Mar. 2013 <http://www.ehow.com/info/10025612/average-percolationrate-various-soil-types.html> Tropical Rain Forest Conversion to Pasture: Changes in Vegetation and Soil Properties. Ecological Society of America. N.p.,n.d. Web.11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.2307/1941940>. Wackerman, Dillon. Facts about Hemlock Trees. Ehow. Demand Media, 28 May 2010. Web. 06 Mar.2013. <http://www.ehow.com/list_6564770_hemlock-trees.html>.

14!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

NEED-LES TO SA Y, W E WERE CONDUCTIN G ALL DAY!

! ! ! ! ! ! The!effect!of!Canopy!Coverage!on!Soil!Electrical!Conductivity!
! Menelik!Epee9Bounya!8593! Thomas!Mandile!8599!

! !
! 1!

TABLE!OF!CONTENTS:! ! !
SECTION! ! ! Abstract! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!

PRIMARY!AUTHOR! ! Mandile,!Thomas!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !

PAGE! !3! !4! !5! 7! 10! 11! 12! 13,!14!

Introduction!! !

EpeeEBounya,!Menelik! Mandile,!Thomas! !

Materials!&!Methods!! Results! Discussion! ! ! ! !

!!EpeeEBounya,!Menelik! Mandile,!Thomas! !

Works!Cited!(Introduction)!!!!!!! Works!Cited!(Discussion)!! !!!!!! Acknowledgments!! ! !!!!

EpeeEBounya,!Menelik! Mandile,!Thomas! !

!Menelik!and!Thomas!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! 2!

ABSTRACT:!

This!experiment!was!conducted!in!order!to!discover!if!canopy!coverage!of! trees!affected!the!soil!conductivity.!!The!procedure!for!this!experiment!was!to! measure!canopy!coverage!and!soil!conductivity!at!different!trees,!and!then! determine!if!there!was!a!correlation!at!the!trees!and!sites!tested!at!Drumlin!Farm!in! Lincoln!MA.!!It!was!expected!that!when!there!was!higher!canopy!coverage,!then!the! ground!would!be!drier,!making!the!soil!conductivity!lower.!!The!results!showed!that! there!was!very!little!to!no!correlation!between!canopy!coverage!and!soil! conductivity!because!the!r2!was!very!low!on!both!locations.!!Both!sites!in!the!Red! Pine!forest,!which!were!the!wild!Red!Pine!stand!and!the!Red!Pine!plantation!had! very!little!conductivity!except!for!a!few!outliers,!which!were!rare.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !
! 3!

INTRODUCTION:!

Soil!electrical!conductivity!is!the!ability!of!a!soil!to!conduct!an!electric! current.!Is!it!often!said!to!be!!the!farmers!key!to!success!as!it!can!help!provide!the! farmer!his!or!her!soil!variability!information!and!help!prevent!further!weed!damage! (Barbosa).!Soil!conductivity!correlates!strongly!with!particle!size!and!soil!texture.!It! is!commonly!measured!in!milliSiemens!(mS/cm).!The!soil!EC!(electrical! conductivity)!ranges!from!0!mS/cm!to!anywhere!above!1.2!mS/cm.!An!EC!rating! below!0.2!means!that!there!are!not!enough!nutrients!and!a!rating!above!1.2!mS/cm! means!that!the!soil!is!too!saline!which!is!dangerous!for!the!plants!(Capewell).! Canopy!coverage is!the!extent!of!the!outer!layer!of!leaves!of!an!individual!tree!or! group!of!trees!(http://en.wikipedia.org),!or!the!amount!of!ground!surface!that!a! tree!covers.!Canopy!coverage!affects!the!soil!temperature!and!causes!the!soil!to!be! drier!which!in!turn!affects!the!living!organisms!that!call!the!soil!home!(Ostertag,! 1294).!It!is!not!only!an!important!role!in!the!forest!but!also!in!the!city.!It!is!measured! in!percentage!(%).! This!experiment!will!be!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm,!a!Massachusetts! Audubon!Wildlife!Sanctuary,!in!Lincoln,!MA.!Drumlin!Farm!stretches!over!200!plus! acres!of!land!and!contains!many!forests!and!ponds!(www.massaudubon.org).!For! this!experiment,!different!locations!in!the!Red!Pine!Forest!will!be!tested.!The!Red! Pine!Forest!is!a!dense!forest,!which!contains!many!red!and!white!pine!trees.!One! part!of!the!forest!has!been!replanted!due!to!the!lack!of!forestation!in!the!area,!while! the!other!half!has!never!been!affected!by!human!activity.!Canopy!coverage!has!a! negative!affect!on!soil!moisture,!as!it!limits!the!rainfall!that!trickles!down!into!the! soil,!which!in!turn!not!only!affects!the!soil!conductivity,!but!also!the!soil! temperature.!(International!Grain!Legume!Information!Center)!Soil!temperature!is! simply!a!soils!temperature!and!is!measured!in!Fahrenheit!or!Celsius,!and!can!be! lowered!by!high!canopy!coverage.!When!a!soils!temperature!is!higher!so!is!the!soils! conductivity.!(Ostertag,!1294)! Another!interesting!key!to!note!is!that!soil!conductivity!does!not!only!help! the!small!rural!farmer,!but!can!also!help!the!big!agriculture!company,!with!money!to! spare,!as!it!helps!grow!their!crops!and!food!as!smart!and!cost!effective!as!possible.! According!to!Southeast)Farm)Press,!EC!ratings!were!used!to!increase!the!cotton! production!in!South!Carolina.!Using!the!Veris!3100,!a!machine!that!measures!the! movement!of!electricity!in!the!soil,!scientists!were!able!to!find!EC!ratings!and! combine!those!ratings!with!aerial!maps!to!produce!zone!maps,!which!predicted!the! amount!of!crops!that!were!going!to!be!produced!in!that!area.!In!2006,!the!Veris! 3100!system!retailed!for!about!$12,000.!This!device!is!not!for!the!average!farmer,! living!in!his!farm!in!Kansas,!but!the!big!agricultural!industry,!pumping!out!tons!of! crops!each!and!every!year.!However!there!are!benefits!of!precision!agriculture;! reduced!chemicals!in!the!environment,!and!frankly!if!this!way!of!farming!is!used! accurately!many!people!will!benefit!financially!wise!in!the!long!run!(Roberson).! The!proposed!experiment!is!the!effect!of!canopy!coverage!(%)!on!the! electrical!conductivity!of!soil!(mS/cm).!The!objective!of!this!experiment!is!to! determine!whether!the!canopy!coverage!affects!the!soil!electrical!conductivity.! Canopy!coverage!and!soil!conductivity!will!be!measured!at!different!locations!in!the!

4!

Red!Pine!Forest,!at!Drumlin!Farm.!The!independent!variable!is!the!canopy!coverage! (%).!The!dependent!variable!is!the!soil!conductivity!(mS/cm).!There!are!several! variables!that!could!affect!the!correlation!of!the!canopy!and!the!soil!conductivity:! soil!moistness!(depending!on!whether!it!was!a!wet!year),!soil!salinity,!soil!texture,! the!temperature!of!the!soil!and!the!air!surrounding!it,!the!type!of!tree,!and!the! location!of!the!samples!are!all!important!to!consider!when!conducting!this! experiment.!The!hypothesis!is,!If,!the!canopy!coverage!is!high,!then!the!soil!electrical! conductivity!will!be!low,!because!high!canopy!coverage!causes!the!soil!to!be!drier! and!to!lower!a!soils!temperature!(Ostertag,!1294)!which!results!in!lower! conductivity.! This!research!was!conducted!because!the!Drumlin!Farm!naturalists!need!to! know!what!factors!affect!their!soils!and!forests.!The!more!people!who!know!about! Drumlin!Farms!forests!the!better!for!Drumlin!Farm!as!a!whole.!This!is!also! important!because!soil!conductivity!is!a!key!part!to!precision!farming!and!will!really! help!all!the!small!farmers,!but!also!the!big!agricultural!companies.! ! !

MATERIALS!&!METHODS:!
The!materials!needed!in!this!experiment!are!as!follows.!!First,!a!HANNA!Soil!Test! Conductivity!Meter!was!needed!to!measure!the!soil!conductivity.!A!meter!stick!used!to! measure!the!distance!from!where!the!soil!is!being!tested.!Thirty!flags!have!been!used!to! identify!the!trees.!!An!old!cloth!was!used!clean!the!HANNA!Soil!Test!Conductivity!Meter! after!each!measurement.!!A!densitometer!was!used!to!measure!the!canopy!coverage!of!each! tree.!!Finally,!a!sharpie!was!used!to!label!the!flags.!!

! Figure!1:! ! Drumlin!Farm! ! Map!The!red! ! circle!is!the! ! location!where! ! the!testing!took! ! place.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! The!red!circle!seen!above!(Figure!1)!signifies!the!location!of!Red!Pine!Forest.!In!this! forest,!30!samples!from!both!locations!have!been!tested.!!Flags!were!numbered! using!a!sharpie!then,!using!the!TIEnspire!CX!Calculator,!the!trees!were!randomized! to!avoid!scientific!bias.!!Once!the!trees!have!been!randomized!the!flags!are!placed!in!

5!

the!ground!one!meter!away!from!the!tree!trunk.!!Samples!were!measured!at!11.5!cm! in!depth!for!uniform!sampling! To!test!the!soil!electrical!conductivity,!a!point!on!the!ground!was!measured!1! meter!away!from!the!tree!trunk!using!a!meter!stick.!Then,!the!HANNA!Soil!Test! Conductivity!Meter!!(Figure!2)!was!stuck!into!the!ground!at!that!point!and!a!reading! was!given.!To!test!the!canopy!coverage!of!each!tree,!a!densitometer!was!used!to! collect!the!reading!of!canopy!coverage;!this!was!measured!in!percentage!(%).!Once! that!was!completed,!the!results!were!recorded!in!logbooks.!!Finally!!all!those!steps! were!repeated!until!all!randomized!trees!were!recorded.!!! ! ! Figure!2:!HANNA!Soil!Test! ! Conductivity!Meter!was!necessary! ! to!measure!the!soil!conductivity! ! and!to!conduct!our!field!studies.!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! 6!

RESULTS:! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Table!1:!The!effect!of!canopy!coverage!on!soil!conductivity!in!a!wild!Red!Pine!stand!

Tree!#! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10! 11! 12! 13! 14! 15! 16! 17! 18! 19! 20! 21! 22! 23! 24! 25! 26! 27! 28! 30!

Canopy! Coverage! Soil!Conductivity! (%)! (mS/cm)! 55! 0.04! 20! 0.01! 40! 0.02! 85! 0.01! 25! 0.05! 90! 0.02! 35! 0.02! 15! 0.02! 60! 0.06! 15! 0.07! 30! 0.03! 60! 0.08! 10! 0.04! 43! 0.02! 40! 0.01! 35! 0.03! 30! 0.03! 70! 0.02! 35! 0.08! 20! 0.11! 40! 0.07! 35! 0.04! 55! 0.05! 20! 0.02! 80! 0.04! 60! 0.02! 50! 0.04! 55! 0.03! 20! 0.05!

7!

Table!2:!The!effect!of!canopy!coverage!on!soil!conductivity!in!a!planted!Red!Pine! stand! ! Canopy! ! Coverage!! Soil!Conductivity! ! Tree!#! (%)! (mS/cm)! ! 1" 60" 0.01" ! ! 2" 55" 0.07" ! 3" 60" 0.02" ! 4" 90" 0.09" ! 5" 30" 0.05" ! 6" 75" 0.03" ! 7" 70" 0.02" ! 8" 15" 0.02" ! 9" 25" 0.03" ! 10" 50" 0.01" ! 11" 75" 0.01" ! ! 12" 70" 0.02" ! 13" 90" 0.01" ! 14" 65" 0.02" ! 15" 80" 0.05" ! 16" 75" 0.02" ! 17" 40" 0.01" ! 18" 60" 0.02" ! 19" 80" 0.04" ! 20" 70" 0.08" ! 21" 40" 0.02" ! 22" 55" 0.05" ! ! 23" 85" 0.04" ! 24" 70" 0.07" ! 25" 70" 0.01" ! 26" 70" 0.01" ! 27" 45" 0.05" ! 28" 60" 0.04" ! 29" 60" 0.06" ! 30" 55" 0.02" ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8!

Graph!1:!The!Effect!of!Canopy!Coverage!on!Soil!Electrical!Conductivity!in!a!Red!Pine! Plantation!and!in!a!wild!Red!Pine!stand.! ! ! !
0.12!

!Soil!Electrical!Conductvity!(mS/cm)!

0.1!

0.08!

0.06!

R!=!E0.6968!

Naturally!Grown!Red!Pine! Trees! Red!Pine!Plantation!

R!=!E0.0536! 0.04!

0.02!

0! 0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100!

Canopy!Coverage!(%)!

! ! ! ! Graph!1!shows!that,!an!increase!in!canopy!coverage!did!not!correspond!to!a! decrease!in!soil!conductivity!in!the!wild!Red!Pine!stand,!and!in!the!Red!Pine! Plantation!the!data!was!too!inconclusive!to!suggest!that!there!was!any!correlation.! The!data!from!the!first!site!has!an!r2!value!of!E0.6968,!and!the!data!from!the!second! site!has!a!low!r2!value!of!E0.0536.!The!wild!stand!was!tougher!to!walk!through,!and! there!were!lots!of!braches!on!the!ground.!However,!in!the!plantation!the!trees!lined! up!perfectly,!there!was!some!seating!area!and!the!soil!was!much!tougher.!The!soil! conductivity!that!was!measured!in!the!plantation!area!was!less!varied,!and!in! correlation!to!canopy!coverage!it!was!much!lower!than!wild!red!pine!tree!stand.!In! the!wild!stand!the!soil!conductivity!ranged!from!0.01!mS/cm!to!0.11mS/cm!and!the! canopy!coverage!from!10%!to!90%.!However,!in!the!red!pine!plantation!soil!

9!

conductivity!ranged!from!0.01!mS/cm!to!0.09!mS/cm!and!the!canopy!coverage! ranged!from!15%!to!90%.!

! DISCUSSION:!
This!experiment!was!conducted!to!test!if!there!was!correlation!between!the! canopy!coverage!of!the!trees!and!the!soil!conductivity.!!The!hypothesis!for!this! experiment!was:!If!the!canopy!coverage!is!high,!then!the!soil!electric!conductivity! will!be!low!because!high!canopy!coverage!causes!the!soil!to!be!drier!and!to!lower! the!soils!temperature,!which!results!in!lower!conductivity!(Ostertag,!1294).!!The! hypothesis!was!not!supported!in!this!experiment,!as!the!r2!values!were!not! conclusive.!!! ! The!results!came!out!in!an!interesting!way.!!Throughout!the!experiment,!two! sites!were!used.!!Site!one!was!a!wild!Red!Pine!stand!and!site!two!was!a!Red!Pine! plantation.!!For!site!one,!the!results!were!fairly!varied.!As!an!example,!tree!number! twenty!had!a!canopy!coverage!reading!of!20%,!but!had!a!soil!conductivity!reading!of! 0.11(mS/cm),!which!is!very!high!compared!to!other!results!such!as!0.3(mS/cm).!!The! reason!the!results!were!so!scattered!was!that!soil!conductivity!can!affect!other! growth!in!the!forest!and!not!only!canopy!coverage.!!When!the!canopy!coverage!is! affecting!other!growth,!the!correlation!between!the!canopy!coverage!and!the!soil! conductivity!was!not!as!reliable!because!other!growth!acts!as!an!outside!source! raising!and!lowering!the!soil!conductivity!(Sudduth).!!The!correlation!between!the! variables!in!each!site!was!very!low.!!For!site!one,!the!r2!value!was!0.69!showing!that! the!results!at!this!location!were!fairly!conclusive.!!In!site!one,!there!were!many! outliers,!but!there!was!strong!canopy!coverage!to!soil!conductivity!correlation.!!At! site!two,!the!r2!was!0.05,!which!was!much!smaller!than!site!one!showing!that!it!was! extremely!inconclusive!and!that!there!was!absolutely!no!correlation!between!the! trees!at!site!two.!! It!can!be!concluded!that!canopy!coverage!was!not!the!primary!factor!in!soil! conductivity.!!It!may!have!a!role!in!how!high!or!low!the!conductivity!was,!but!a!small! role.!!Chemicals!might!be!a!factor!in!the!soil!conductivity,!because!they!bring! different!necessary!elements!into!the!soil!raising!the!conductivity! (http://goo.gl/bJgRX).!!As!an!example,!these!chemicals!would!affect!the!hydraulic! conductivity,!which!was!how!easy!it!was!for!the!water!to!move!through!the!soil,!and! water!increases!the!conductivity.!!With!this!being!said!the!soil!conductivity!was! increased!because!of!chemicals!not!only!the!canopy!coverage!in!the!Red!Pine!trees.!! The!precision!set!in!the!data!wasnt!as!precise!as!hoped.!!The!range!in!the!readings! of!canopy!coverage!were!15%!to!85%!in!location!one.!!In!location!two!the!range!was! 15%!to!95%.!!A!range!was!expected!in!the!canopy!coverage,!but!there!was!very!little! precision!if!any!in!the!results.!!In!location!one!the!precision!was!not!as!poor!as! expected,!but!in!location!two!the!precision!was!poor!and!impacted!the!confidence!in! the!data.!!The!reason!the!low!precision!impacted!the!confidence!in!location!two!was! that!the!data!in!location!two!was!completely!random.!!Some!additional!research!that! may!be!required!would!be!to!see!how!different!chemicals!affect!the!conductivity!and! the!canopy!coverage!or!how!water!affects!the!soil!conductivity.!!Not!enough!data!

10!

was!collected!during!the!tests.!!The!reason!for!this!thought!was!that!the!r2!value!was! very!low!in!both!sites!and!that!could!be!improved!with!more!testing!and!repetition.! ! There!are!many!things!that!could!be!modified!or!improved!in!this! experiment.!!The!first!change!that!should!be!made!would!be!to!measure!the!two! locations!in!different!seasons.!!The!reason!the!locations!should!be!measured!in! different!seasons!are!that!winter!and!spring!are!wetter!seasons!with!snow!melting! and!rain,!thus!releasing!water!and!raising!the!soil!conductivity.!!Also!the!ground!in! location!two!was!much!harder!making!it!tougher!to!get!a!good!reading!with!the! conductivity!meter.!!The!reason!that!the!ground!is!tougher!in!location!two!was!there! was!more!of!a!clear!path!because!of!people!stepping!on!the!ground!and!packing!it! down.!!In!addition,!the!trees!should!be!examined!to!see!if!they!were!healthy!and! could!be!tested.!!Another!reason!the!trees!should!be!checked!would!be!to!see!if!they! are!still!alive!and!all!the!pine!needles!werent!dead,!offsetting!the!results!of!the! densitometers!canopy!coverage!reading.!!In!addition,!the!trees!should!be!measured! to!estimate!root!size,!this!measurement!could!be!collected!by!looking!at!the!trees,! then!averaging!and!estimating!the!dimensions!of!that!tree.!!If!these!roots!were!too! large,!then!they!would!start!to!bulge!out!of!the!ground!making!it!harder!to!get!a! clear!reading!with!the!conductivity!meter.!!Finally,!another!forest!could!have!been! used!because!there!were!mostly!Red!Pine!trees,!which!had!a!different!type!of! canopy!coverage!than,!as!an!example!Oak!trees.!!This!experiment!could!be!related!to! the!future!by!not!only!testing!canopy!coverage,!but!testing!other!chemicals!in!the! ground!and!also!the!hydraulic!conductivity.! ! !

WORKS!CITED!(INTRODUCTION):!

! Barbosa,!Roberto!N.,!and!Charles!Overstreet.!"What!Is!Soil!Electrical!Conductivity?"! LSU)Ag)Center)Research)&)Extension.!LSU!Agricultural!Center,!n.d.!Web.!8!Mar.! 2013.!<http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/E57E82A0E3B99E4DEEE 99B5E CF2AD7C43AEF/77101/pub3185whatissoilelectricalconductivityHIGHRES.p df>.!! "Canopy!(biology)."!Wikipedia.!Wikimedia!Foundation,!22!Feb.!2013.!Web.!08!Mar.! 2013.!<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_(biology)>.!! ! Capewell,!Martin,!and!Agricultural!Solutions!LLC.!"The!Why!and!How!to!Testing!the!

11!

Electrical!Conductivity!of!Soils."!The)Why)and)How)to)Testing)the)Electrical) Conductivity)of)Soils.!Responsible!and!Organic,!Farm!and!Garden!Supplies,!10! Mar.!2013.!Web.!10!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.agriculturesolutions.com/resources/92EtheEwhyEandEhowEtoE testingEtheEelectricalEconductivityEofEsoils>.!! "Drumlin!Farm!Mass!Audubon!Nature!Connection."!Drumlin)Farm)|)Mass)Audubon)|) Nature)Connection.!Mass!Audubon,!n.d.!Web.!09!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_F arm/index.php>.!! Ehsani,!Reza,!and!Matthew!Sullivan.!"Ohio!State!University!Fact!Sheet."!Soil) Electrical)Conductivity)(EC))Sensors.!The!Ohio!State!University,!n.d.!Web.!09! Mar.!2013.!<http://ohioline.osu.edu/aexEfact/0565.html>.!! Roberson,!"Electrical!Conductivity!of!Soil!a!Key!to!Precision!Farming!System."! Southeast)Farm)Press.!Penton!Media,!Inc,!19!Apr.!2006.!Web.!10!Mar.!2013.! <http://southeastfarmpress.com/electricalEconductivityEsoilEkeyEprecisionE farmingEsystem>.!! Ostertag,!Rebecca.!"Belowground!Effects!of!Canopy!Gaps!in!a!Tropical!Wet!Forest."! Ecology!79.4!(1998):!n.!pag.!Print.!! Walp,!L.!Cowpeas.!Nigeria:!International!Grain!Legume!Information!Centre,!1987.! Google!Book!Search.!Web.!13!March! !

WORKS!CITED!(DISCUSSION):!
Barbosa,!Roberto!N.,!and!Charles!Overstreet.!"What!Is!Soil!Electrical!Conductivity?"! ! 12!

LSU)Ag)Center)Research)&)Extension.!LSU!Agricultural!Center,!n.d.!Web.!8!Mar.! 2013.!<http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/E57E82A0E3B99E4DEEE 99B5E CF2AD7C43AEF/77101/pub3185whatissoilelectricalconductivityHIGHRES.p df>.!! Dzombak,!A!David.!Ghosh,!S!Rajat,!WongEChong,!M!George.!Cyanide!in!Water!and! Soil:!Chemistry,!Risk,!and!Management.!CRC!Press,!2010.!Google!Book!Search.! Web.!11!April!2013! Lal,!Ratten.!Humberto,!BlancoECanqui.!Principles!of!Soil!Conservation!and! Management.!Springer,!2008.!Google!Book!Search.!Web.!10!April!2013! Sudduth,!K.A.!"Relating!Apparent!Electrical!Conductivity!to!Soil!Properties!across! the!NorthEcentral!USA."!Elsevier.!Science!Direct,!2004.!Web.!7!Apr.!2013.!! ! <http://afrsweb.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/36221500/cswqE0167E148589.pdf>.! "Saturated!Hydraulic!Conductivity:!Water!Movement!Concepts!and!Class!! History."NRCS)Soils.!United!States!Government!of!Agriculture,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.! 2013.!<http://soils.usda.gov/technical/technotes/note6.html>.!

! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS!(Menelik)! ! I!would!like!to!thank!Susan!for!being!a!great!Drumlin!Farm!teacher!naturalist!
and!making!us!feel!welcome!in!the!Red!Pine!Forest.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!Mr.! Rossiter!and!Ms.!Gellar!for!being!great!rotational!chaperones.!In!addition,!I!would! like!to!thank!Drumlin!Farm!as!a!whole,!for!providing!great!land!for!our!experiment! and!for!being!a!great!organization.!I!would!like!to!give!some!kudos!to!the! Buckingham!Browne!and!Nichols!Middle!School!Science!Department!and!especially! Ms.!Svatek!for!providing!great!tools!and!helpful!advice!for!our!Knights!of!Science! Project.!I!would!like!to!acknowledge!my!partner!Thomas!for!the!wonderful!job!he!

13!

has!done,!during!this!process.!Finally,!I!want!to!show!some!gratitude!to!my!mother! for!providing!a!tote!back,!and!for!proofreading.!

! ! ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS!(Thomas)! ! We!would!like!to!thank!Susan,!our!Drumlin!Farm!teacher!naturalist,!for!her!

insightful!advice.!!Without!her!we!might!not!have!been!able!to!find!the!Red!Pine! forest!!!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!charming!Mr.!Rossiter!for!his!funny!jokes!and! directions!leading!us!to!our!locations!in!the!first!and!second!rotations.!!In!addition,! we!would!like!to!give!kudos!to!Ms.!Gellar!for!helping!us!out!with!the!Narrative!of!the! day!in!the!third!rotation.!!I!would!also!like!to!send!a!big!five!stars!to!the!Drumlin! Farm!dept.!for!giving!us!great!resources!for!our!testing.!!Also,!I!would!like!to!give! gratitude!to!Ms.!Svatek!and!the!entire!science!dept.!for!allowing!us!to!use!their!great! supplies,!and!Ms.!Svatek!for!her!great!tech!skills!and!advice.!!Finally,!I!would!like!to! thank!Mother!Nature!for!her!lovely!weather!on!the!day!of!testing.!!!!! ! !

14!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)! ! By!Alex!Evenchik!and!Erica!Yuen! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
1! !

TABLE!OF!CONTENTS! ! Section! Abstract! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Primary!Author! Alex!Evenchik! ! Erica!Yuen! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page! 3! 4! 5! 7! 11! 14! 15!

Introduction! !

Materials!&!Methods!! Results! Discussion! ! ! ! !

Alex!Evenchik! Erica!Yuen! !

Alex!Evenchik! ! ! ! ! ! !

Acknowledgements! ! Works!Cited! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

2! !

ABSTRACT! ! This!experiment!was!conducted!in!order!to!determine!if!there!was!a!correlation! between!the!turbidity!of!water,!and!its!conductivity.!!This!experiment!was!conducted!at! three!different!ponds!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts.!!The!procedure!for!this! experiment!was!to!collect!a!water!sample!from!one!point!on!the!perimeter!of!the!pond,!and! then!to!measure!its!turbidity!on!sight.!!Then,!that!water!was!taken!back!to!the!lab!where!its! conductivity!was!measured.!!It!was!thought!that!if!a!water!sample!was!murkier!(higher! cm),!it!would!also!have!higher!conductivity,!because!several!factors!that!increase!turbidity! also!increase!conductivity.!!The!results!showed!no!correlation!between!the!conductivity! and!the!turbidity.!!There!was!no!correlation,!with!an!r2!value!of!at!most!.01.!!Bathtub!and! Ice!Pond!had!similar!turbidities,!while!Poultry!Pond!was!only!slightly!lower!than!the! others.!!Even!though!there!was!a!minimal!difference!in!turbidity,!there!was!a!large! difference!in!conductivity.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
3! !

INTRODUCTION! The!world!is!covered!in!76%!water.!!Only!1%!of!it!is!accessible!and!healthy!for! people.!!That!means!75%!of!the!water!is!either!murky,!with!low!clarity!levels!or!salt!water.! Turbidity!is!a!type!of!measurement!that!measures!the!clarity!of!water!due!to!the!amount!of! solid!particles!floating!in!the!water.!!Measuring!turbidity!helps!scientists!determine!how! clear!water!is!and!if!it!is!safe!to!drink!or!not!(http://water.epa.gov).!!It!is!measured!in! Nephelometric!Turbidity!Units!(NTU),!but!for!the!purpose!of!this!experiment,!it!is!recorded! in!centimeter!(cm).!!Conductivity!is!a!measurement!of!how!easily!a!current!passes!through! a!substance!(http://water.epa.gov).!It!is!measured!in!Micro!Siemens!(S).! ! In!this!experiment,!the!data!will!be!collected!and!tested!at!Drumlin!Farm.!!Drumlin! Farm!is!a!232\acre!wildlife!sanctuary!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts! (http://www.massaudubon.org/).!!There!are!five!ponds!at!Drumlin!Farm,!and!each!pond! contributes!as!a!habitat!and!drainage!system!(Science!8!Poster,!Group!5).!!Many!aquatic! creatures!are!residents!of!the!ponds!at!Drumlin!Farm.!!Properties!of!turbidity!help! contribute!to!the!well\being!of!the!aquatic!life,!the!cleanliness!of!the!water,!and!the!state! which!aquatic!life!can!live!in.!!In!fact,!turbidity!increases!the!capacity!to!absorb!and!store! heat!(Botkin,!392\393).!!Along!with!this,!conductivity!increases!when!water!is!warmer! (http://water.epa.gov).!!This!happens!because!when!the!temperature!increases,!particles! move!faster,!and!when!there!is!an!electrical!current,!it!travels!through!these!particles.!!If! the!particles!move!faster,!they!transfer!the!current!faster,!and!therefore!are!more! conductive.!!Both!conductivity!and!turbidity!have!similarities!that!increase!the!other.!! ! Recent!studies!have!proven!that!run\off!to!ponds!affects!the!conductivity!and!the! turbidity!of!the!water!(Univ.!of!Missouri\Columbia,!www.soils.org).!!Depending!on!the! parameters,!land!animals,!plants,!and!even!humans!affect!the!turbidity!and!conductivity!of! water.!!Scientist!use!conductivity!to!measure!impurities!of!the!water,!the!lower!the! conductivity!there!is,!the!smaller!amount!of!impurities!the!water!has.!!Similar!to! conductivity!in!water,!turbidity!is!used!to!test!visibility!of!water!(http://water.epa.gov).! Turbidity!is!used!to!measure!visibility!by!seeing!how!easy!it!is!for!light!to!travel!through! the!water!sample,!through!the!different!solid!particles!(http://water.epa.gov).! ! The!objective!of!this!experiment!is!to!see!if!turbidity!has!a!correlation!with! conductivity.!!The!independent!variable!is!the!turbidity!of!the!test!sites!of!the!three!ponds.! The!three!sites!are!Bathtub,!Ice,!and!Poultry!Pond.!!Bathtub!Pond,!located!in!the!north!of! the!Drumlin,!under!much!shade,!is!overpopulated!with!black!back!fisherman,!a!species!of! beetle.!!Poultry!Pond!will!be!the!second!site!tested.!!Uphill!from!the!pond!are!where!the! chickens!are!located.!!Since!the!chickens!are!uphill,!and!the!pond!is!down,!it!is!likely!that! the!chickens!waste!will!run!off!to!the!pond.!The!third!and!final!site!will!be!Ice!Pond.!!Ice! Pond!is!located!north!east!of!the!parking!lot!and!south!west!of!the!corner!field!(Science!8! map).!!The!dependent!variable!will!be!the!conductivity!of!the!water.!!There!will!be!thirty\ six!trials!overall,!twelve!for!each!pond.!!Data!will!be!collected!from!twelve!points!of!the! pond!such!as!where!the!marks!on!a!clock!would!be.!!The!turbidity,!measured!in! centimeters,!will!be!tested!and!recorded!on!site!of!Drumlin!Farm.!!For!conductivity,! samples!will!be!collected!around!the!clock!to!take!twelve!trials!for!each!pond.!!Back!at!the! lab,!the!data!will!be!collected!using!a!conductivity!meter.!!! For!this!experiment,!there!are!four!main!controlled!variables.!!They!are;!that!the! same!tools!are!used,!that!the!amount!of!sample!tested!will!be!consistent,!that!the!water! samples!will!be!collected!at!approximately!the!same!depth,!and!that!the!size!of!the!
4! !

container!used!to!contain!the!water!samples!will!be!the!same.!!The!hypothesis!for!this! experiment!is;!if!the!pond!with!the!murkiest!water!(least!cm)!is!tested,!then!it!will!have!the! highest!conductivity,!because!the!factors!that!cause!higher!turbidity!(in!NTU,!lower!in!cm)! also!cause!higher!conductivity!(http://water.epa.gov).! The!results!from!this!experiment!could!help!scientists!better!understand!what! causes!turbidity!and!conductivity!to!increase!or!decrease,!as!well!as!help!scientists! understand!the!life!and!conditions!of!aquatic!life!due!to!the!amount!of!turbidity!and! conductivity.!!There!are!many!different!species!of!aquatic!life!in!different!bodies!of!water.! Each!aquatic!life!species!adapts!to!the!habitat!in!which!they!live!in.!!Different!turbidity!and! conductivity!level!changes!could!potentially!kill!the!aquatic!life!species,!if!they!are!not!used! to!those!conditions.!!By!understanding!the!conditions!in!which!aquatic!life!lives!in,!scientist! can!better!understand!the!species!that!they!choose!to!study.!!It!could!also!help!scientist! further!their!research!on!clean!water!and!other!ways!to!test!for!water!clarity.!!There!is!a!lot! of!water!in!the!world,!and!if!there!is!a!correlation!between!conductivity!and!turbidity,!then! these!results!could!help!people!determine!if!water!is!drinkable.!!If!the!hypothesis!is!proven! correct,!people!from!third!world!countries!could!use!a!turbidity!tube,!or!a!conductivity! meter,!to!check!to!see!if!water!is!clean!and!drinkable!water,!easy!tools!would!help!ensure! that!people!would!not!get!sick.! ! MATERIALS!AND!METHODS! At!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts,!three!ponds!were!tested.!!They!were! Bathtub,!Ice,!and!Poultry!Pond!(see!Figure!1).!!36!water!samples!were!collected!(12! samples!at!each!pond).!!To!collect!data,!each!hour!of!a!pond!was!marked!on!a!map!(see! Figure!2)!based!upon!both!where!the!path!leading!to!the!pond!was,!and!what!areas!were! easiest!to!collect!data!from.!!Then,!a!bucket!was!used!to!collect!water!at!the!closest! marking.!!That!water!was!then!poured!into!a!120!cm!turbidity!tube!with!secchi!disk!bottom! until!tube!was!full,!or!bottom!disk!could!not!be!seen.!!Water!was!then!released!from!tube! using!clamp!on!bottom!of!tube,!until!secchi!disk!was!just!visible.!!The!side!of!the!tube!was! then!checked,!and!the!height!of!the!water!was!recorded!in!centimeters.!!The!lower!the! centimeters!recorded,!the!murkier!the!water.!!The!inside!of!the!turbidity!tube!was!then! dried!with!a!piece!of!clean!cloth.!!More!water!was!then!collected!and!put!into!a!Poland! Spring!water!bottle,!either!by!filling!it!in!the!pond,!or!filling!it!from!the!water!that!came!out! of!the!turbidity!tube.!!The!container!was!then!labeled!with!a!sharpie,!as,!Name!of!Pond,! Hour.!!The!container!was!then!placed!into!a!cloth!bag!for!storage.!!This!procedure!was! repeated!for!all!other!hours!and!ponds.! ! After!returning!to!the!lab,!samples!from!one!pond!were!removed!from!the!bag!and! set!up!in!a!row!in!ascending!number!order!(see!Figure!3).!!The!tops!of!the!containers!were! removed,!and!water!was!poured!into!empty!Ziploc!containers!for!testing.!!A!Hanna!Dist!5! EC/TDS/Temperature!Tester!was!turned!on!and!calibrated!based!on!manufacturers! instructions.!!It!was!then!set!to!EC!(electrical!conductivity).!!The!conductivity!of!pond!1,! hour!1!was!then!tested!by!sticking!the!probes!of!the!Tester!into!the!water!sample,!and! waiting!for!the!number!to!stop!increasing!or!decreasing.!!The!results!were!then!recorded!in! Micro!Siemens!(S).!!This!procedure!was!then!repeated!for!all!other!samples!and!ponds,! cleaning!probes!of!Tester!with!distilled!water!and!paper!towels!in!between!each! conductivity!test.!!After!all!testing!had!been!completed,!water!samples!were!dumped!into! bucket!and!poured!outside.!
5! !

Figure!1:!!Map!of!Drumlin!Farm!with!Sights!Highlighted

! Figure!2:!!Hour!Testing!Method!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!

6!

Figure!3:!!Conductivity!Test!Set!Up!

! ! RESULTS! Table!1:!The!Average!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!the!Average!Effect!of!Water! Conductivity!(S)! Standard! Deviation! Standard! Average! Average! of! Deviation!of! Pond! Turbidity! Conductivity! Turbidity!! Conductivity! Bathtub! 77.59! 18.50! 38.14! 6.57! Poultry! 54.80! 459.33! 21.29! 140.72! Ice! 71.25! 379.50! 37.30! 75.57! ! Graph!1:!The!Average!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Average!Effect!of!Water! Conductivity!(S)!

! In!this!experiment;!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!on!Conductivity,!samples!were!taken! from!three!sites:!Bathtub,!Poultry,!and!Ice!Pond!(visited!in!that!order).!!In!Table!1,!among! these!three!sites,!Bathtub!Pond!had!the!highest!average!turbidity!and!the!lowest!average! conductivity.!!Opposite!to!Bathtub!pond,!Poultry!Pond!had!the!highest!conductivity!level,!

7! !

and!lowest!turbidity.!!Ice!Pond!had!both!the!middle!levels!out!of!the!three!sites.!!In!Graph!1,! and!all!of!the!other!graphs,!the!x\axis!is!turbidity!(cm),!and!the!y\axis!is!conductivity!(S).!! In!this!graph,!there!are!two!types!of!error!bars.!The!one!going!along!the!x\axis!is!the! turbidity!error!bar!(cm).!!The!one!going!parallel!to!the!y\axis!is!the!conductivity!error!bar! (S).!!Bathtub!Pond!has!a!low!precision!for!conductivity!and!turbidity.!!Its!average!turbidity! is!at!77.59!cm!and!its!standard!deviation!is!38.14!cm,!which!is!around!50%!of!the!data.!!It! also!has!a!low!precision!in!conductivity.!!It!has!an!average!conductivity!of!18.50!S!and!a! standard!deviation!of!6.57!S,!which!is!30%!of!the!data.!!Poultry!pond!has!a!low!precision! in!both!conductivity!and!turbidity.!!Its!average!turbidity!is!at!54.80!cm,!and!its!standard! deviation!is!21.29!cm,!which!is!again!around!50%!of!the!data.!!Its!average!conductivity!is! 18.50!S!and!the!standard!deviation!is!6.57!S,!which!is!25%!of!the!data.!!Ice!Pond!has!a! low!precision!in!turbidity,!but!a!slightly!higher!precision!in!conductivity.!!Its!average! turbidity!is!71.25!cm!and!its!standard!deviation!is!37.30!cm,!which!is!around!50%!of!the! data.!!Its!average!conductivity!is!459.33S,!and!the!standard!deviation!37.30!S,!which!is! only!around!8%!of!the!data.! ! Table!2:!The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)!at!Bathtub!Pond! Turbidity! Conductivity! (cm)! (S)! Trials! 1! 46.20! 19.00! 2! 95.60! 13.00! 3! 120.00! 25.00! 4! !! !! 5! 114.60! 25.00! 6! 18.80! 27.00! 7! !! !! 8! !! !! 9! !! !! 10! 94.20! 15.00! 11! 94.70! 15.00! 12! 36.60! 9.00! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
8! !

Graph!2:!The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)!at!Bathtub!Pond!
30.00! 25.00! Conductivity!(S)! R!=!0.00975! 20.00! 15.00! 10.00! 5.00! 0.00! 0.00! 20.00! 40.00! 60.00! 80.00! 100.00! 120.00! 140.00!

! ! ! At!Bathtub!Pond,!half!of!the!pond!was!filled!with!ice.!!At!Bathtub!Pond,!there!was! only!eight!data!points!collected,!due!to!time!constraint.!!The!conductivity!measured!at! Bathtub!pond!was!usually!in!the!teens!or!the!single!digits,!whereas!the!other!two!ponds! lowest!conductivity!levels!were!in!the!hundreds.!!The!highest!conductivity!(S)!level!at! Bathtub!Pond!was!25.00,!and!the!lowest!conductivity!level!was!9.00.!!The!highest!turbidity! (cm)!levels!were!at!120+,!and!the!lowest!were!at!18.80.!!Trial!two!had!the!turbidity!level!of! 95.60,!and!a!conductivity!level!of!13.00.!!Trial!one!had!a!turbidity!level!of!46.20,!a! substantial!difference!in!turbidity,!yet!the!conductivity!of!trial!one!was!higher!than!trial! two!by!6.00!(S).!!Another!outlier!at!Bathtub!Pond!is!that!the!lowest!turbidity!collected,!at! trial!six,!had!the!highest!conductivity!level!of!the!trails!at!the!site,!surpassing!the! conductivity!of!the!highest!turbidity!level!(trial!3).!!In!the!graph!for!Bathtub!Pond,!it!shows! that!the!higher!up!the!conductivity!levels!are!the!higher!vertically!the!data!point!will!be!on! the!graph.!!It!also!shows!that!the!higher!the!turbidity!(the!clearer!it!is),!the!farther!right! horizontally!the!data!point!will!be.!!Points!are!scattered!across!the!graph.!!Trial!11!and!12! have!almost!the!same!data!points,!with!a!turbidity!of!94.20!and!94.70!cm,!and!a! conductivity!of!both!15.00.!!The!conductivity!ranged!from9.00\!27.00!(S).!The!data!for!this! pond!was!not!linear,!with!an!r2!value!of!0.0097.! ! Table!3:!The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)!sat!Poultry!Pond!! Turbidity! Trials! (cm)! Conductivity!(S)! 1! 75.00! 550.00! 2! 51.20! 494.00! 3! 55.80! 577.00! 4! 34.90! 427.00! 5! 64.60! 177.00! 6! 101.60! 424.00! 7! 19.50! 323.00!
9! !

Turbidity!(cm)!

8! 9! 10! 11! 12!

56.40! 50.60! 34.20! 66.40! 47.40!

269.00! 488.00! 633.00! 573.00! 577.00!

! ! Graph!3:!The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)!at!Poultry!Pond!!
700.00! 600.00! Conductivity!(S)! 500.00! 400.00! 300.00! 200.00! 100.00! 0.00! 0.00! 20.00! 40.00! 60.00! Turbidity!(cm)! 80.00! 100.00! 120.00! R!=!0.00044!

Table!three!was!data!from!Poultry!Pond,!located!near!the!chicken!coops!and!other! farm!animals.!!The!highest!turbidity!level!was!at!trial!six!(101.60!cm),!and!lowest!turbidity! was!at!trial!seven,!with!a!level!of!19.50!cm.!!The!highest!conductivity!levels!were!at!trials! three!and!twelve,!with!a!conductivity!measurement!of!577.00,!and!the!lowest!was!at!trial! five,!with!a!measurement!of!177.00.!!Trial!five!had!a!turbidity!of!64.60!(29.70!cm!bigger! than!trial!fours!turbidity!levels),!yet!trial!fives!conductivity!levels!where!250.00!S!smaller! than!trail!four.!!Another!outlier!was!trial!six.!!It!had!66.7!higher!turbidity!levels!than!trial!4,! but!only!had!a!3.00!S!difference!in!conductivity.!!In!the!graph!of!Poultry!Pond,!most! turbidity!data!points!ranged!from!25\75!cm.!!Outliers!were!101.60!and!19.50!cm.!!Based!on! the!turbidity!and!conductivity!data!points,!being!as!scattered!as!they!are,!the!data!is!not! linear.!!The!r2!value!was!0.0004.!! ! Table!4:!The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)!at!Ice!Pond!! Turbidity! Conductivity! (cm)! (S)! Trials! 1! 23.90! 395.00! 2! 120.00! 390.00! 3! 35.60! 389.00! 4! 85.90! 396.00! 5! 91.10! 403.00! 6! 108.60! 408.00!
10! !

7! 8! 9! 10! 11! 12!

98.00! 120.00! 53.30! 64.80! 29.90! 23.90!

394.00! 362.00! 210.00! 303.00! 539.00! 365.00!

! Graph!4:!The!Effect!of!Water!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Water!Conductivity!(S)!at!Ice!Pond!
600.00! Conductivity!(S)! 500.00! 400.00! 300.00! 200.00! 100.00! 0.00! 0.00! 20.00! 40.00! 60.00! 80.00! 100.00! 120.00! 140.00! Turbidity!(cm)! R!=!0.00275!

Table!four!was!of!Ice!Pond,!the!last!test!site!visited.!!This!pond!was!filled!with! aquatic!life.!!It!ranged!from!wood!frogs,!to!turtles,!from!Water!Boatmen,!to!mosquitoes.!! The!highest!turbidity!levels!at!Ice!pond!were!120+!cm!(trials!2!&!8),!and!the!lowest!was! 23.90!cm!(trials!1!&!12).!!The!highest!conductivity!level!was!at!trial!11,!with!a!conductivity! of!539.00!S.!!The!lowest!conductivity!was!362.00!S!(trial!8).!!Trial!eight!had!the!highest! turbidity,!yet!it!also!had!the!lowest!conductivity.!!It!is!interesting!to!see!that!two!sets!of!two! data!points!had!the!same!turbidity,!but!they!had!a!different!conductivity.!!Trials!number! one!and!twelve!had!the!same!turbidity!(23.90).!!Trial!one!had!its!conductivity!level!at! 395.00,!and!trial!twelve!had!its!at!365.00,!a!30!S!difference!in!conductivity.!!Another! example!would!be!trial!numbers!eight!and!two.!They!both!had!the!same!turbidity!of!120+,! but!they!had!a!28!S!difference!in!conductivity.!!In!the!graph!for!Ice!Pond,!conductivity!was! consistent,!ranging!around!400.00!S!(trials!1\8).!!The!turbidity!on!the!graph!of!Ice!Pond! was!fairly!precise,!all!ranging!around!100.00!cm.!!The!r2!value!of!Ice!Pond!was!0.0027.!!! ! DISSCUSION! This!experiment!was!conducted!to!determine!if!there!was!a!correlation!between!the! turbidity!of!a!source!of!water,!and!the!conductivity!of!that!water.!!The!original!hypothesis! set!forth!in!this!experiment!was:!if!the!pond!with!the!murkiest!water!(least!cm)!is!tested,! then!it!will!have!the!highest!conductivity,!because!the!factors!that!cause!higher!turbidity!(in! NTU,!lower!in!cm)!also!cause!higher!conductivity!(http://water.epa.gov).!!This!hypothesis! was!not!supported!because!there!was!not!enough!of!a!relationship!between!the!
11! !

conductivity!and!turbidity,!based!on!the!r2!value!and!comparison!of!the!graphs,!throughout! the!different!ponds.! ! The!data!collected!in!this!experiment!is!very!imprecise.!!When!looking!at!the! turbidity!and!conductivity!graph!of!each!individual!pond,!even!if!turbidity!increased,!there! was!no!visible!correlation!with!conductivity.!!Also,!the!r2!values!for!all!the!ponds!were!very! low,!showing!that!there!was!very!little!correlation!between!the!turbidity!and!conductivity.!! The!highest!r2!was!that!of!Bathtub!Pond,!with!an!r2!value!of!0.00975.!!Also,!no!pond! conclusively!had!the!lowest!or!highest!turbidity!because!all!of!the!error!bars!overlapped! too!much,!showing!that!all!pond!water!was!relatively!similar.!!Bathtub!Pond!conclusively! had!the!lowest!conductivity,!but!neither!Poultry!nor!Ice!Pond!had!conclusively!the!highest! conductivity.!!Another!notable!part!of!the!data!was!that!the!conductivity!of!Bathtub!Pond! was!in!the!double!digits!(10\30),!while!the!conductivity!of!the!other!ponds!was!in!the!triple! digits!(300\600).!!Also,!when!the!conductivity!was!tested!again,!the!same!results!appeared.!! These!results!probably!occurred!because!Bathtub!Pond!was!mainly!(approximately!85%)! covered!in!ice,!making!the!water!colder,!and!having!the!water!impurities!trapped!in!the!ice.!! Colder!water!and!trapped!impurities!are!two!things!that!cause!lower!conductivity! (http://water.epa.gov).! ! The!reason!that!the!data!collected!was!so!random!was!because!the!composition!of! each!ponds!water!was!not!taken!into!account.!!Conductivity!and!turbidity!are!affected!by! many!factors,!one!of!them!being!the!amount!of!dissolved!and!solid!solids!in!a!solution! (http://water.epa.gov).!!Although!for!turbidity!it!does!not!matter!what!is!dissolved!in!a! solution!for!turbidity!to!increase,!for!conductivity,!it!does.!!In!order!for!conductivity!to! increase,!there!has!to!be!an!increase!in!inorganic!dissolved!cations!and!anions.!!A!solution! with!more!organic!compounds!(such!as!pond!water)!has!worse!conductivity! (http://water.epa.gov).!!Even!within!each!individual!pond,!these!factors!changed,!varying! the!results.!!For!example;!at!Bathtub!Pond,!some!areas!had!trees!overhead,!which!would! have!lowered!conductivity!(organic!compounds!from!trees),!while!other!areas!had!trails! and!fields!next!to!them,!which!would!have!increased!conductivity!(more!inorganic! compounds).!!At!Poultry!Pond!(most!imprecise!data!set),!this!was!extremely!evident,! because!while!one!area!was!right!behind!the!chicken!coops,!and!received!most!of!the! runoff,!another!area!was!next!to!a!road.!!It!is!unknown!if!sufficient!samples!were!collected! for!this!experiment!because!other!factors!affected!data,!that!could!not!be!removed!by! taking!more!samples!alone.!!There!is!limited!confidence!in!these!results!because!there!were! no!definitive!results!and!no!correlations!in!data.! There!are!many!things!that!could!be!done!to!improve!this!experiment.!!One!way! would!be!to!only!collect!samples!from!one!pond!(with!more!collected).!!This!would!help!to! improve!the!experiment!by!limiting!the!differences!in!what!was!in!the!water!samples,!while! still!having!different!turbidities.!Another!way!would!be!to!test!for!different!substances!in! the!water,!and!then!group!the!samples!not!based!on!pond,!but!based!on!composition.! ! One!major!error!in!this!experiment!was!that!the!conditions!under!which!the! turbidity!tube!was!viewed!changed!from!site!to!site.!!Sometimes!there!were!obstructions!in! the!water!(i.e.!leaves,!twigs!etc.)!that!could!not!be!seen!past,!not!always!with!another! sample!collected!due!to!time!constraint.!!Along!with!this,!sometimes!the!tube!was!viewed!in! the!sun,!while!other!times!it!was!viewed!in!the!shade.!!If!the!tube!was!viewed!in!the!sun!as! apposed!to!the!shade,!more!light!would!shine!through!the!water,!making!it!appear!clearer.!! To!remove!these!errors!one!could,!a)!remove!obstructions!from!water!sample!before!
12! !

turbidity!test!commenced!by!filtering!the!water,!and!b)!make!sure!all!tests!were!done!in!the! sun,!or!at!least!mostly!sun.!!Another!error!in!this!experiment!was!the!fact!that!after!the!first! pond!(Bathtub!Pond)!was!tested,!the!procedure!was!changed!to!collect!water!samples! directly!from!the!turbidity!tube,!not!from!another!gather!in!the!pond.!!This!affected!the!data! by!not!having!the!turbidity\tested!water!be!the!same!as!the!conductivity!tested!water.!!To! remove!this!error,!water!samples!could!be!collected!from!the!beginning!of!testing!directly! from!the!turbidity!tube.! ! Future!experiments!could!include!a!redo!of!this!experiment!with!a!more!controlled! environment,!or!testing!to!determine!if!the!area!a!body!of!water!is!near!affects!turbidity! and!conductivity.!!Another!future!experiment!could!be!to!see!if!animal!population!affects! turbidity!and!conductivity.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
13! !

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! ! Throughout!this!experiment,!many!people!have!helped!me!get!ready!and!test.!!I! would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Svatek!for!helping!me!and!my!partner!come!up!with!our!project! idea,!as!well!as!getting!supplies!for!us,!and!walking!us!to!Poultry!Pond,!making!sure!that!we! did!not!get!lost.!!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!Drumlin!Farm!teacher!naturalist,!who! brought!us!to!Bathtub!Pond,!and!who!helped!us!find!a!safer!and!more!comfortable!way!to! walk!around!the!pond.!!I!would!like!to!also!thank!Ms.!Jameson,!Ms.!Currier,!and!Mr.! Senabre,!for!watching!over!us!at!our!three!different!testing!sites.!!I!would!like!to!thank!my! parents!for!helping!me!gather!materials,!as!well!as!editing!my!project.!!Lastly,!I!would!like! to!thank!my!partner,!Erica,!for!helping!to!construct!and!run!this!experiment!with!me.! ! During!this!project,!there!are!many!people!who,!without!them,!this!experiment! would!not!be!possible.!!Thank!you!to!all!of!the!docents!at!Drumlin!Farm!who!were!willing! to!guide!my!partner,!the!grade!and!me!to!the!sites!needed!to!take!samples!from.!!Thank!you! to!all!the!teachers:!Ms.!Currier,!Ms.!Jamison,!and!Mr.!Senabre,!for!chaperoning!the!trip,! without!them!we!would!not!of!been!able!to!take!the!trip!over!to!Drumlin!Farm.!!Thank!you! to!my!partners!and!my!parents,!for!providing!us!with!the!tools!needed!for!this!experiment.!! Thank!you!to!Alex,!my!partner,!for!helping!me!with!my!lab!reports!and!helping!me!hand!in! my!introduction!on!time.!Thank!you!to!the!bus!driver!from!BB&N!who!drove!the!grade!to! Drumlin!Farm.!!Thank!you!to!Ms.!Brooks!for!helping!us!research!our!experiment.!!Lastly,!I! would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Svatek,!our!science!teacher,!for!guiding!us!into!the!right!direction! and!helping!us!to!create!a!project,!along!with!keeping!us!on!track!when!needed.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
14! !

WORKS!CITED! Alex!Evenchik:! "5.5!Turbidity."!Home.!Environmental!Protection!Agency,!6!Mar.!2012.!Web.!26!Feb.!! 2013.!<http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm>.! "5.9!Conductivity."!Home.!Environmental!Protection!Agency,!6!Mar.!2012.!Web.!27!! Feb.!2013.!<http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms59.cfm>.! "Turbidity!Tube."!Turbidity-Measurement.!World!Health!Organization,!n.d.!Web.!5!! Mar.!2013.! <http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/fs2_33.pdf>.! Walker,!Pamela,!and!Elaine!Wood.!"Build!and!Use!a!Turbidity!Tube."!Environmental-Science-Experiments.!New!York:!Facts!On!File,!2009.!27\30.!Infobase-EBooks.!Web.!11! Mar.!2013.! <http://ebooks.infobaselearning.com/View.aspx?ISBN=9781438129105&InstID=0 >.! Erica!Yuen:! Botkin,!Daniel!B.,!and!Edward!A.!Keller.!Environmental-Science:-Earth-as-a-Living-Planet.! Third!ed.!Vol.!I.!New!York:!J.!Wiley,!2000.!Print.!! "Drumlin!Farm!|!Mass!Audubon!|!Nature!Connection."!Drumlin-Farm-|-Mass-Audubon-|Nature-Connection.!Mass!Audubon!Society,!n.d.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/in dex.php>.!! "Human!Appropriation!of!the!World's!Fresh!Water!Supply."!Human-Appropriation-of-theWorld's-Fresh-Water-Supply.!University!of!Michigan,!2000.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater _supply/freshwater.html>.!!
15! !

Jung,!W.!K.!"Spatial!Characteristics!of!Claypan!Soil!Properties!in!an!Agricultural!Field."!SoilScience-Society-of-America-Journal!70.4!(2006):!1387\397.!Soil-Science-Society-ofAmerican-Journal.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.! <https://www.soils.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/70/4/1387>.!! "Living!With!Wildlife!|!Mass!Audubon."!Living-With-Wildlife-|-Mass-Audubon.!Mass!Audubon! Society,!n.d.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/wildlife/>.!! Satterfield,!Zane,!Ph.d.!"Tech!Brief:!Turbidity!Control."!Nesc-Engineers.!PUBLISHED!BY!THE! NATIONAL!ENVIRONMENTAL!SERVICES!CENTER,!n.d.!Web.!6!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/dw/publications/ontap/2009_tb/turbidity_contro l_DWFSOM89.pdf>.!! "Turbidity."!Environmental-Encyclopedia-2011.!2011.!Science-In-Context.!Web.!6!Mar.!2013.! <http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?f ailOverType=&query=&prodId=SCIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mo de=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting =false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId =&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2644151420>.!! USGS.!"Turbidity."!Water-Properties,-USGS-Water-Science-School.!USA.gov,!n.d.!Web.!26!Feb.! 2013.!<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>.!

16! !

pH, pH In a Bog, Oh My Gosh I See a Frog!

The Effect of the Distance from a Pond (cm) on the pH of Soil

!
By: Josie Fitzgerald & Emma Jacobs
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Table!of!Contents:! ! Section! Abstract! ! ! ! ! ! Primary!Author! Jacobs,!Emma!! Fitzgerald,!Josie! Jacobs,!Emma!! Fitzgerald,!Josie! Jacobs,!Emma!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page!Number! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! 2! 3! 7! 7! 8! 10!

Introduction! !

Materials!and!Methods! Results! Discussion! ! ! ! !

Acknowledgements! ! Works!Cited! ! !

! ABSTRACT! ! This!experiment!was!designed!to!determine!if!there!was!a!correlation! between!the!distance!from!a!pond!and!the!pH!of!the!soil!on!the!bank!at!Ice!Pond!and! Bathtub!pond!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!MA.!The!hypothesis!for!this!experiment! was:!if!the!distance!from!the!pond!in!cm!is!greater,!then!the!pH!will!be!lower! because!there!is!less!water!and!as!water!moves!beneath!the!soil!the!water!picks!up! hydrogen!ions!making!the!soil!more!basic!(Bickelhaupt).!This!hypothesis!was!tested! by!taking!soil!samples!every!fifty!centimeters!and!then!testing!the!pH.!The!results! showed!only!a!slight!correlation!between!the!distance!and!pH,!leaving!the! hypothesis!only!slightly!supported.!! ! !

1!

INTRODUCTION! ! Have!you!ever!wondered!about!soil!pH!and!how!it!changes?!The!pH!in!the! soil!can!change!depending!on!rainfall!or!chemical!run!off.!The!rainfall!has!to!go! somewhere,!so!it!ends!up!in!the!ponds.!As!water!moves!beneath!the!soil!it!picks!up! hydrogen!ions!making!the!soil!more!basic.!This!experiment!is!being!conducted!to! see!if!there!is!a!correlation!between!soil!pH,!and!the!distance!away!from!a!pond.!! ! The!experiment!will!be!conducted!at!Ice!Pond!and!Bathtub!Pond!at!Drumlin! Farm!in!Lincoln,!MA.!Some!surrounding!sites!are:!Corner!Field,!Hayfield,!Bathtub! Field,!a!parking!lot,!and!the!Bird!Conservation!Area.!Bathtub!Pond!was!chosen! because!of!the!neighboring!sites,!fields,!more!specifically!Hayfield!and!Bathtub!Field.! Ice!Pond!is!surrounded!on!one!full!half,!by!a!parking!lot.!This!may!add!some!variety! to!the!data!set.!Also,!Bathtub!Pond!has!a!steep!hill!adjacent!to!it,!but!Ice!Pond! doesnt.!This!may!affect!the!pH!because!of!chemical!run!off!into!the!pond,!creating! more!changes!in!the!data!set.! ! Rain!is!a!key!element!in!the!Earths!water!cycle.!The!rainfall!from!the!sky!fills! lakes,!rivers,!and!ponds.!As!the!rainwater!goes!into!the!body!of!water,!it!recharges! the!underground!aquifers!(Perlman).!!An!aquifer!is!a!saturation!of!water!below!a! certain!depth!if!it!is!permeable!enough!to!hold!water.!The!higher!surface!of!the! saturation!is!called!a!water!table!and!the!lower!surface!is!the!aquifer.!Aquifers!are! larger!storages!of!water.!The!water!also!provides!a!drink!for!animals!and!plants! (Perlman).!Some!related!experiments!were!testing!the!dissolved!oxygen!of!a!few! ponds!and!seeing!how!the!data!compares,!or!testing!the!pH!of!the!soil!due!to! different!elevations!to!see!how!the!data!would!change.!! ! pH!is!a!logarithmic!measure!of!hydrogen!ion!concentration!(Senese).!The!pH! scale!measures!how!basic!or!acidic!a!substance!is!(Walke).!The!scale!ranges!from! zero!to!fourteen.!A!pH!of!seven!is!neutral.!A!reading!less!than!seven!is!acidic,!and!a! reading!greater!than!seven!is!basic. Reasons!for!the!changing!of!pH!could!be!caused! by!the!soil!near!a!body!of!water.!The!pH!would!be!lower,!if!it!is!further!from!the! pond!and!higher!closer!to!the!pond.!This!is!because!when!water!moves!away!from! the!pond!beneath!the!soil,!the!water!picks!up!more!hydrogen!ions,!which!then!cause! the!soil!to!be!more!basic.!This!could!also!be!caused!if!the!pond!is!sloped!inwards,! then!the!rain!runoff!could!carry!some!near!by!chemicals!such!as!fertilizers!or! pesticides!into!the!pond!(Bickelhaupt).!This!plays!back!to!one!of!the!reasons!why! the!ponds!were!chosen!for!this!experiment.!Bathtub!has!a!hill!next!to!it!and!is!near! fields!with!possible!chemicals,!and!Ice!Pond!is!near!a!parking!lot.!The!cars!may!let! off!some!oils!or!gas!that!can!spill!into!the!nearby!pond.!Soil!pH!might!also!affect!the! surrounding!habitats,!trees,!and!ponds.!As!water!moves!through!the!soil,!by!rain!or!a! body!of!water,!it!picks!up!and!exchanges!hydrogen!ions!in!the!soil,!which!would! make!the!pH!higher.!This!would!have!different!effects!on!the!surrounding!wildlife,! such!as!overgrowth!and!stunting!of!plant!and!animal!growth!(Bickelhaupt).! The!objective!of!this!experiment!is!to!compare!the!pH!levels!of!the!soil,! depending!on!the!distance!from!a!pond,!meaning!that!it!will!have!more!pond!water! ! 2!

in!it,!or!further!away!from!the!pond,!meaning!that!it!will!have!less!pond!water!in!it! (Whiting).!In!order!to!test!the!hypothesis,!a!twoUmeter!transect!will!be!taken,! starting!ten!centimeters!into!the!pond.!A!soil!sample!will!be!taken!every!fifty! centimeters,!and!the!pH!of!the!soil!measured!with!universal!litmus!paper.!The!pH!of! the!water!will!also!be!tested!in!order!to!compare!the!two.!The!soil!sample!will!be! placed!into!a!glad!container,!mixed!with!distilled!water,!and!then!rinsed!with! distilled!water!thoroughly.!The!independent!variable!will!be!the!distance!from!the! pond!in!cm,!and!the!dependent!variable!will!be!the!pH!of!the!soil.!Some!controlled! variables!for!this!experiment!will!be!the!distance!from!each!body!of!water,!the!soil! auger!used,!the!meter!stick!used,!the!pH!strips!used,!and!the!angle!of!the!transect.! The!hypothesis!for!this!study!is:!if!the!distance!from!the!pond!in!cm!is!greater,!then! the!pH!will!be!lower!because!there!is!less!water,!and!as!water!moves!beneath!the! soil!the!water!picks!up!hydrogen!ions!making!the!soil!more!basic!(Bickelhaupt).! ! Many!things!can!be!learned!from!this!experiment,!such!as!how!pH!is!affected,! for!example!chemical!runoff,!and!hydrogen!ions!being!picked!up!by!rain!water.!Also,! other!information!that!can!be!gained!is!how!surrounding!locations!can!have!a!big! impact!on!pH!and!how!the!pH!changes!within!the!distance!from!a!pond.! ! MATERIALS!AND!METHODS! ! The!materials!needed!for!this!experiment!are:!one!soil!auger!to!take!soil! samples!along!the!transects!for!pH!testing,!one!tape!measure!in!order!to!measure! out!the!transects,!one!small!Glad!plastic!container!for!housing!the!soil!samples! during!pH!testing,!one!stirring!rod!to!mix!the!distilled!water!with!the!soil,!one!metal! scoop!to!remove!the!soil!from!the!auger,!one!squeeze!bottle!of!distilled!water!for! mixing!with!the!soil!before!pH!testing!and!for!rinsing!the!container!after!pH!tests,! and!universal!litmus!paper!to!test!the!pH!of!the!various!soil!samples!and!the!pond! water!at!Bathtub!and!Ice!Pond!(see!Figure!2).!! In!order!to!find!the!relationship!between!the!distance!from!a!body!of!water! and!the!pH!of!the!soil,!a!transect!was!measured!beginning!ten!centimeters!into!the! water!and!extending!two!meters!away!from!the!ponds!edge.!Using!the!universal! litmus!paper,!the!pH!of!the!water!was!tested!so!as!to!provide!a!comparison!between! the!pH!of!the!soil!and!the!pH!of!the!pond.!Beginning!in!the!water,!a!soil!sample!was! taken!at!the!base!of!the!measuring!tape.!The!soil!sample!was!then!placed!in!a!Glad! plastic!container!and!mixed!with!distilled!water.!Using!the!universal!litmus!paper,! the!pH!of!the!water!and!soil!solution!was!tested.!After!testing!the!soil!pH!it!was! recorded!and!the!container!was!rinsed!with!distilled!water.!Continuing!with!this! method,!a!soil!sample!was!taken!every!fifty!centimeters!along!the!transect,!mixed! with!distilled!water!and!then!pH!tested.!Five!soil!samples!were!taken!and!their!pH! tested!from!this!particular!transect.! On!the!same!pond,!another!transect!was!measured.!This!was!measured! approximately!halfway!across!the!pond.!After!this,!two!more!transects!were!made!at!

3!

90!degree!intervals!(see!Figure!1).!Using!the!method!above,!soil!samples!were!taken! and!tested!in!these!various!locations!to!provide!more!precision!and!variety!to!the! results.!Again,!to!provide!various!results,!another!pond!was!tested,!creating!four! transects!around!the!edge!and!taking!soil!samples!every!fifty!centimeters.! ! Figure!1:!This!diagram!represents!the!format! of!the!transects!along!which!soil!samples!were! taken!at!Drumlin!Farm.!The!thick!black!lines! are!the!four!transects!that!were!measured! along!the!bank!of!the!pond.!The!samples!were! taken!at!fifty!centimeter!intervals!along!the! transects!to!give!the!data!set!more!precision! and!more!variety!in!regards!to!the!pH.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Figure!1!Transects!on!different!ponds.!

1. Boyce!Field! 2. Sandpit!Hayfield! 3. Sheep!Grazing!Area! 4. Overlook!Field! 5. Spruce!Forest! 6. Farmyard! 7. Red!Pine!Forest! 8. Hemlock!Forest! 9. MAS!Forest! 10. The!Drumlin! 11. Poultry!Pond! 12. Bathtub!Pond! 13. Ice!Pond! 14. Vernal!Pond! 15. Boyce!Pond! 16. Farm!Life!Center! (for!lunch!and!supplies)!

!15! ! !4!! !

!12! !

!1! !

!5! ! !14! ! !3! !

10! ! !5! !

!2! !

!7! !

!8! !16! ! !11! ! ! !13! ! !3! !

Figure!2!This!is!a!map!of! the!sites!at!Drumlin! Farm.!The!sites!that!will! be!tested!are!12!and!13,! Bathtub!and!Ice!Pond! (see!diagram).!

!9! !

4!

TABLES!&!GRAPHS! TABLE!1!Ice!PondU!The!Effect!of!the!Distance! From!a!Pond!(cm)!on!the!pH!of!Soil! ! ! ! TABLE!2!Bathtub!PondU!The!Effect! of!the!Distance!From!a!Pond!(cm)! on!the!pH!of!Soil! ! ( transect( 1( 2( (3( (((((4( 1( 2( ( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4( distance(from(edge( of(pond((cm)( 0( 0( 0( 0( 50( 50( 50( 50( 100( 100( 100( 100( 150( 150( 150( 150( 200( 200( 200( 200( pH(of( soil( 7( 5( 6( 6( 5( 5( 5( 6( 5( 4( 5( 5( 6( 4( 4( 5( 4( 4( 4( 4(

transect( 1( 2( 3( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4( 1( 2( 3( 4(

distance(from( edge(of(pond((cm)( 0( 0( 0( 0( 50( 50( 50( 50( 100( 100( 100( 100( 150( 150( 150( 150( 200( 200( 200( 200(

pH(of(soil( 8( 7( 7( 7( 7( 7( 6( 5( 8( 6( 5( 5( 6( 5( 5( 5( 5( 5( 5( 4(

5!

! GRAPH!1!The!Effect!of!the!Distance!From!the!Pond!(cm)!on!the!pH!of!the!soil!

pH!of!water:!6! 9! 8! 7! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! 0! 50! 100!

Ice!

Levels!of!pH!

R!=!0.55814!

150!

200!

250!

Distance!From!Pond!(cm)!

! ! GRAPH!2!The!Effect!of!the!Distance!From!the!Pond!(cm)!on!the!pH!of!the!soil!

pH!of!water:!6! 8! 7! 6! 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! 0! 50! 100!

Bathtub!

Levels!of!pH!

R!=!0.54181!

150!

200!

250!

Distance!From!Pond!(cm)!

! ! ! !

6!

RESULTS! Graphs!1!and!2!show!the!relationship!between!the!distances!away!from!the! pond,!in!cm,!on!the!level!of!pH!in!the!soil.!Four!transects!were!taken!around!each! pond!to!randomize!the!data!collection.!Graph!1!shows!that!the!r2!value!for!Ice!Pond! is!0.56;!and!Graph!2!shows!that!the!value!for!Bathtub!Pond!is!0.54.!The!pH!range!of! the!soil!around!Ice!Pond!was!slightly!larger,!ranging!from!4U8,!while!the!highest!pH! level!for!Bathtub!Pond!was!seven!and!the!lowest!was!four.!! At!Ice!Pond!the!soil!was!dry!and!the!pond!was!surrounded!by!thorns,!bushes,! and!trees.!There!was!a!lot!of!wildlife!at!the!pond,!including!turtles,!frogs,!bugs,!and! various!aquatic!animals.!At!Bathtub!Pond!there!was!a!steep!hill!surrounding!the! Western!edge,!and!directly!in!the!back!of!the!pond.!There!was!ice!covering!about! 45%!of!the!pond's!surface!and!patches!of!snow!covering!the!ground!around!it.!The! soil!at!Bathtub!Pond!was!noticeably!wetter!and!darker!than!the!soil!at!Ice!Pond.! There!was!not!as!much!wildlife!surrounding!Bathtub!Pond,!although!many!frogs! could!be!heard.! ! DISCUSSION! ! The!purpose!of!this!experiment!was!to!determine!if!there!was!a!significant! correlation!between!the!distance!from!a!body!of!water,!or!the!moisture!within!the! soil,!and!the!pH!value.!The!hypothesis!was:!If!the!distance!from!the!pond!in! centimeters!is!greater,!then!the!pH!will!be!lower,!because!there!is!less!water!and!as! water!moves!beneath!the!soil,!it!picks!up!hydrogen!ions!making!the!soil!more!basic! (Bickelhaupt).!Looking!at!the!Table!1,!the!pH!values!are!in!descending!order!as!the! distance!increases,!while!looking!at!the!r!squared!value,!there!is!only!a!slight! correlation!between!the!data!suggesting!that!the!hypothesis!wasnt!supported.! While!collecting!the!soil!samples!it!was!also!clear!that!the!soil!did!contain!more! moisture!when!closer!to!the!pond,!one!of!the!main!properties!of!the!soil!mentioned! in!the!hypothesis.! ! One!of!the!main!things!affecting!the!tested!soil!was!the!water.!As!described!in! the!hypothesis,!when!the!soil!is!moist,!the!water!that!moves!beneath!it!picks!up! hydrogen!ions!making!the!soil!more!basic!(Bickelhaupt).!The!amount!of!fertilizers! applied!also!affects!the!pH!of!soil,!but!since!neither!of!the!pond!sites!were!close!to! farmyard!or!field!sites!this!was!not!a!significant!contributing!factor,!and!the! correlation!between!the!two!ponds!stayed!consistent.!The!R!squared!values!of!0.55! and!0.54!for!these!two!ponds!suggest!that!there!was!only!a!slight!correlation! between!these!two!variables.!Although!Table!1!shows!that!the!pH!values!decrease!as! the!distance!increases,!Graphs!1!and!2!do!not!show!a!strong!correlation!between!the! variables!through!the!trendline!and!r!squared!values.!! ! There!were!four!transects!per!pond!tested!and!two!ponds!where!transects! are!made!which!added!up!to!32!total!data!points!for!this!experiment.!There!was!no! need!while!taking!soil!samples!to!take!more!than!one!at!each!interval,!but!since! ! 7!

multiple!transects!and!ponds!were!tested,!this!experiment!resulted!in!a!very!precise! data!set.!Except!for!two!or!three!data!points,!the!pH!values!clearly!go!in!descending! order!as!the!distance!increases.!With!this!many!data!points,!there!is!a!high!level!of! data!set!precision,!which!provides!a!high!level!of!confidence!that!there!was! adequate!data!collected!even!though!the!hypothesis!wasnt!supported.!! ! This!was!a!difficult!field!study!in!terms!of!being!able!to!navigate!around!the! pond!and!collect!and!test!all!soil!samples!in!the!time!allotted.!Starting!at!Ice!Pond,! one!of!the!hardest!parts!of!the!two!visits!there!was!reaching!the!spots!where!the! transects!were!going!to!be!made!because!of!all!the!thorn!bushes,!fences!and!fallen! trees!in!the!way.!There!was!not!a!clear!path!that!continued!around!the!entire! perimeter!of!the!pond,!which!did!cause!some!problems!including!getting!stuck!in! thorns!during!data!collection.!At!Bathtub!Pond!there!were!some!similar!difficulties! because!of!thorns,!but!most!of!the!problems!at!that!site!stem!from!the!fact!that!on! one!edge!of!the!pond!there!is!a!steep!hill!making!it!hard!to!take!soil!samples!and! avoid!the!ice!covered!water.!Despite!this!all!the!data!for!Bathtub!Pond!was!collected! by!splitting!up!data!collection!into!two!roles;!taking!samples!and!testing!them.!! ! Despite!these!errors!data!collection!was!completed!but!the!Ice!Pond!data!was! not!fully!collected!before!the!break!as!expected.!To!improve!this!experiment!it! would!have!been!wise!to!first!figure!out!how!to!get!around!the!pond!so!as!not!to! waste!time!fighting!through!thorns!to!measure!a!transect.!Data!collection!was!split! between!partners,!with!one!taking!samples!and!the!other!testing!which!worked! well,!but!the!data!could!have!been!collected!faster!if!this!method!was!used!at!the! beginning!of!data!collection.!! ! One!of!the!difficulties!in!conducting!this!experiment!was!that!the!tape! measure!used!to!make!the!transects!only!measured!in!feet!instead!of!meters.! Although!this!was!a!problem,!after!conversions!were!done!it!didnt!greatly!affect!the! overall!experiment.!One!other!main!error!was!that!when!the!litmus!paper!was!left! on!the!ground!there!was!a!small!spot!near!the!end!of!the!litmus!paper!that!had! began!to!turn!green,!and!even!though!the!opposite!end!(without!the!green!spots)!of! the!paper!was!used!it!could!have!affected!the!interpretation!of!the!pH!values!by! causing!the!litmus!paper!to!appear!as!a!slightly!different!color.!! ! This!experiment!could!easily!be!expanded!to!adapt!to!the!world!today.!For! example,!farmers!can!control!the!amount!of!water!added!to!crops!so!that!the!pH! would!be!the!right!level!so!that!the!crops!can!grow.!Other!ideas!that!might!stem! from!experiments!like!this!are:!the!effect!of!distance!from!a!river!or!a!highway!on! the!pH!of!the!soil!at!the!edge.!The!two!meter!transects!used!in!this!experiment!could! easily!be!expanded!to!test!kilometers!of!soil!at!a!farm!to!improve!plant!growth.!! ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! First,!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Svatek!for!the!24/7!feedback!given!as!well!as! the!initial!idea!for!our!experiment.!Ms.!Hardy,!our!first!Ice!Pond!supervisor,!was! ! 8!

quite!helpful!by!leading!us!the!right!way!to!the!pond!and!answering!peculiar! questions!that!any!students!had!along!the!way.!Our!Drumlin!Farm!teacher! naturalist!gave!us!extra!information!and!background!about!the!farm,!which!helped! me!out!a!lot!in!the!long!run!for!this!paper.!Ms.!Jamison!was!our!Bathtub!Pond! supervisor,!I!thank!her!for!supplying!me!with!a!bandUaid!after!my!multiple!thorn! scrapes.!Mr.!Senabre!was!nice!enough!to!be!our!second!Ice!Pond!leader,!because!we! did!not!get!all!of!our!data!for!the!experiment!the!first!time!so!we!had!to!go!back.!Ms.! Geller!was!very!helpful!as!to!directing!us!to!Bathtub!Pond,!for!we!could!not!find!our! way!to!get!there!from!Ice.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank!Mr.!Ewins!for!helping!me! come!up!with!the!title!for!our!paper.! UJosie! ! I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Svatek!for!helping!Josie!and!I!develop!the!idea!for! our!experiment!and!write!our!introduction!prior!to!the!trip!to!Drumlin!Farm.!Our! first!teacher!naturalist!added!to!our!knowledge!of!the!farm!throughout!the!field!trip.! Our!first!Ice!Pond!supervisor,!Ms.!Hardy!was!very!helpful!while!we!were!trying!to! set!up!our!first!transects!with!everything!from!mediating!arguments!to!supplying!us! with!extra!distilled!water!for!our!pH!tests.!Ms.!Jamison!and!Mr.!Senabre!were!also! supervisors!at!our!various!sites!and!encouraged!us!to!complete!our!work!on!time.!I! would!lastly!like!to!thank!Ms.!Gellar!and!everyone!else!at!Drumlin!farm!to!help!us! find!our!way!to!our!sites!and!improve!our!overall!experience!and!data!collection.!! UEmma!! ! ! !

9!

WORKS!CITED! ! INTRODUCTION! !! Bickelhaupt, Donald. "Soil pH: What It Means." Soil pH: What It Means. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>. Jeavons, John. How to Grow More Vegetables. N.p.: Ten Seed, n.d. Print. McKenzie, Ross H. "Soil pH and Plant Nutrients." Soil PH and Plant Nutrients. Agdex 531-4, 15 May 2003. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6607>. Perlman, Howard. "Rain: A Valuable Resource." USGS Science for a Changing World. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2013. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrain.html>. Senese, Fred. "What Is PH?" General Chemistry Online: FAQ: Acids and Bases:. N.p., 1997-2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/acidbase/faq/what-is-pH.shtml>. Soil and Water Relationships." Soil and Water Relationships. The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Inc., 1997-2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.noble.org/ag/soils/soilwaterrelationships/>. "Soil Restoration Technologies." Soil Restoration Technologies Inc., 2001-2011. Web. 7 Apr. 2013. "Understanding PH." What Is Soil pH and What Does It Mean?: Organic Gardening. 2011 Rodale Inc., 2011. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.

10!

<http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/understanding-ph>. Walke, Cynthia. "What Is PH?" EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 4 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/measure/ph.html>. Whiting, David. "Soil pH." Soil pH. Colorado Master Gardener Program, 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/222.html>. DISCUSSION! Ashman,!M.!R.,!and!G.!Puri.!Essential)Soil)Science:)A)Clear)and)Concise)) ) Introduction)to)Soil)Science.!Oxford:!Blackwell!Science,!2002.!Print.!

Bickelhaupt,!Donald.!"Soil!pH:!What!It!Means."!Soil)pH:)What)It)Means.!! State!University!of!New!York!College!of!Environmental!Science!and!Forestry,! 2013.!Web.!14!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.! Botkin,!Daniel!B.,!and!Edward!A.!Keller.!Environmental)Science:) )Earth)as)a)Living)Planet.!3rd!ed.!New!York:!John!Wiley!and!Sons,!2000.!Print.! Cobb,!Allan!B.!Earth)Chemistry.!New!York:!Chelsea!House,!2009.!Print.!! Essential!Chemistry.! Lew,!Kristi.!Acids)and)Bases.!New!York:!Chelsea!House,!2009.!Print.! Thomas,!Charles.!"How!Does!the!PH!in!Soil!Effect!the!PH!in!Water?"!EHow.!! Demand!Media,!28!July!2010.!Web.!28!Feb.!2013.! ! 11!

The Effect of Tapped and Untapped Maples on Glucose levels in New Buds
by Charlotte Foote and Claire Wagner

Table of Contents Acknowledgements Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion Works Cited 3 4 4 5 6 8 10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Charlotte: The Knights of Science Project that Claire and I designed was particularly hard to execute, and Im so grateful for the help that we received during the process. I would like to thank my mom, Gina Foote, for helping me gather materials (even gardening shears!) before the trip. Ms. Schultheis was a great resource when our original proposal didnt work out, and she quickly helped us to form a new one. I exchanged emails with a naturalist and maple syrup expert named Robyn before the trip, and she provided background information about the trees that was useful when forming our procedure. Ms. Houg was incredibly helpful and we owe her a huge thanks for chaperoning during our data collection and coming up with new ideas when our original plans went awry. Ms. Svatek and Ms. Larocca also helped us to adjust our original procedure when there werent enough Sugar Maples to sample from. A Drumlin naturalist whose name escapes me (Betsy?) went out of her way to find us untapped Sugar and Norway maples to sample from, leading us through the woods to select healthy trees. When we arrived back at the lab, our results continued to be all zeros, so Ms. Schultheis searched for other ways to test glucose in her free time. Although we didnt end up changing our testing procedure, her advice was helpful and she came up with lots of creative alternatives. Lastly, Id like to thank Claire for being so flexible even when our experiment didnt go as planned, always being open to new ideas, and putting up with me for the entire trip. Claire: The drumlin farm project that Charlotte and I picked was very difficult for us to execute on our own, and we would like to give a huge thanks to the many people that helped us along the way. We would have had a difficult time without you! I would like to give a special thanks to Ms. Houg. She was a huge help in identifying the trees, since she had been an Audubon specialist before, and helped us greatly in finding the specific trees that we needed. I would like to thank Robin, who emailed us and informed us about which trees were tapped and untapped. She was a huge help on getting to the farm and knowing exactly what we were in for. I would like to thank Charlotte Wagner, Chifon Reeder, Kelly Schulteis, and Herb Wagner, who helped me gather materials for this experiment. I would like to give a special thanks to my partner, Charlotte. Without her, I could not have completed this experiment, and I would have had a very difficult time. I think we worked well as a team, and even though our experiment didnt go exactly as planned, we had a great time. I think that Charlotte and I did a great job on this project, but we couldnt have done it without the help of the people listed above.

ABSTRACT: The hypothesis for this experiment was that if a twig from an untapped Sugar Maple was tested, then it would have a higher glucose level than that of a tapped tree because when a tree is tapped, its main source of glucose is being extracted (http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/produc/ sapflow.htm). Upon arrival to Drumlin farm, 6 tapped Norway maple buds, 6 untapped Norway maple buds, 6 tapped Sugar Maple buds, and 6 untapped Sugar maple buds were collected from 3 tapped Norway maples, 3 untapped Norway maples, 3 tapped Sugar Maples, and 3 untapped Sugar maples (2 samples from each tree). They were ground up with a mortar and pestle, placed in 5 mL of water, and mixed. After 2 minutes of sitting so the water could dilute, the solution was tested with a Diastix urine test strip. Unfortunately, the results were extremely inconclusive (but extremely precise) and the results all came out to zero. This could have been caused because the Diastix were not sensitive enough or there was not enough glucose in the buds of the maples to have a reaction. INTRODUCTION: Glucose is a building block for growing (sciencemadesimple.com) in all plant life. Glucose is produced through the photosynthesis process, and is essential for plant growth and healthy foliage. Tree sap is the fluid transported in xylem cells of a tree (What is Tree Sap? gardeningknowhow.com) and is composed of water, sugar, mineral elements, and hormones. During the spring when the temperature rises above freezing, positive pressure develops in a tree. This pumps the sap upwards into the branches and promotes new growth (maple.dnr.cornell.edu). The glucose in the sap provides the necessary energy for new shoots to form and blossom. Each summer, sugars are produced in the leaves of a tree through photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a process in which carbon dioxide, water, and light are converted into sugar and oxygen. These sugars then dissolve into the trees sap and are stored in the trunk of the tree during the winter (maple.dnr.cornell.edu). During cold periods, suction develops, drawing water into the tree through its roots. This replenishes the sap in the tree until the next warm period. During the spring, pressure builds up and sap flows into the branches of the tree. (maple.dnr.cornell.edu). In order to tap a tree, one must drill a hole into the sapwood and insert a spout, allowing sap to trickle down and collect in a bucket. Sapwood is the outer portion of a tree trunk consisting of actively growing cells that conduct sap from the roots to the branches of a tree (maple.dnr.cornell.edu). This extraction of sap could have a large effect on the overall health of maple trees. The trees primary source of water and sugar is removed in large portions through the tapping process, leaving the tree deprived of the energy it needs to grow and prosper. If a tree is lacking in sap, its growth will be stunted, and new shoots will not develop properly. It is important to note that when the sap collection process is over and the buckets are removed, sap continues to flow due to the positive pressure in the tree. This stage is called oozing, and often results in excessive sap loss (maple.dnr.cornell.edu). This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary. There is a Sugarbush (a large group of Sugar Maples) as well as a large patch of Norway Maples on the Drumlin property that are tapped annually for maple syrup production. The Sugarbush and Norway 4

Maples are located in Corner Field, Northwest of the main entrance and east of Lincoln Road and the Town Trail (Drumlin Farm, massaudubon.org). For this experiment, 24 maples will be used for testing. The objective of this experiment was to test the effect of tapped or untapped Sugar and Norway Maples on the glucose levels of young shoots. Samples of these shoots were clipped off of certain maples, crushed using a mortar and pestle, mixed with 5 mL of distilled water, and tested for glucose using Diastix (urine glucose test strips). The hypothesis is that if a twig from an untapped Sugar Maple is tested, then it will have a higher glucose level than that of a tapped tree because when a tree is tapped, its main source of glucose is being extracted (maple.dnr.cornell.edu). Sap has large amounts of glucose that allow new shoots to form and grow, and when sap is forcefully removed from the tree, it is predicted that glucose levels will drop considerably. This research demonstrates the possible side effects of tapping trees on Sugar Maples at Drumlin Farm and around the world. Those in control of maple syrup production need to be aware of the effect that sap extraction has on trees. With these results in mind, the tapping process can be tweaked to induce as little harm as possible on Drumlins tapped maples. It is essential that syrup producers understand the after effects of tapping a tree so that the Sugar Maple species continues to grow and thrive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of sugar and norway maples were located within Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, in Corner Field. These maples were identified by examining the greyish-brown bark and the cone-shaped buds at the ends of the branches (Molly, http://www.wikihow.com). Long wooden poles were attached to broom handles to add height, and a twig with buds was clipped off of the sugar or norway maple tree. With scissors, the bud was cut down to a length of three centimeters. There were three norway maples and three sugar maples that were tapped and there were three norway maples and three sugar maples that were untapped. Two samples were taken from each tree which results in 24 samples. The snack bag was labeled like so: tree type, tapped or untapped, number of tree (1-3). Qualitative observations about the trees were recorded in the field notebook. This procedure was repeated until three norway maples and three sugar maples that were tapped and three norway maples and three sugar maples that were untapped were sampled. The bud was removed from the snack plastic bag and placed on a small chopping block. The bud was sliced into small pieces using a sharp knife. The bud shavings were then placed into a ceramic mortar and pestle and ground for 50 seconds. 5 mL of distilled water (measured using a plastic syringe) were placed in a small paper cup. The ground bud shavings were placed in the paper cup with the water. The water and bud shavings were stirred together with a popsicle stick for 30 seconds. A Diastix urine test strip was placed in the mixture and was allowed to sit in the solution for 10 seconds. The strip was withdrawn from the solution and allowed to react on a paper towel for 30 seconds. The test strip was compared to the color chart on the side of the bottle to determine the glucose level (mL) in the solution. Lastly, the data was recorded and placed in a spreadsheet. This procedure can be viewed in the diagram.

. *Figure 1 RESULTS:

 Table one depicts the effect of tapped and untapped Norway Maples on sap glucose. Table two illustrates the effect of tapped and untapped Sugar Maples on sap glucose. Although the trees were different species and half were tapped, the glucose level of every sample taken was zero. This was a surprising trend that continued throughout the data collection process. As a result of this data, graph one is blank. Had there been higher results, there would be a multi-bar graph depicting the data. The tree type (tapped or untapped) is on the x-axis, and the glucose level is on the y-axis. There is a key in the far right corner signifying the tree species (Norway versus Sugar), but it remains irrelevant because there are no bars needed. Overall, the data set is precise but not varied. The Sugar Maples and Norway Maples were easily distinguishable due to their unique bark textures. The Sugar Maples had layered, flaky bark, easily broken and course to the touch (see diagram one). The bark of the Norway Maples had a distinct pattern of grooves in the bark, and was thick and difficult to break off (see diagram two). The tapped trees were easy to distinguish due to the holes drilled into each trunk. If recently tapped, the hole would be wet with sap. The trees were bare of leaves, as it was early April and the young leaves were just beginning to form within the buds (see diagram three).

DISCUSSION This experiment explored the effect of tapping on maples. The two sub-species of maples that were tested were Sugar Maples and Norway Maples. The hypothesis for the experiment was: If a bud from an untapped Sugar Maple is tested, then it will have a higher glucose level than that of a tapped tree because when a tree is tapped, its main source of glucose is being extracted (http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu). Due to the lack of Sugar Maples at Drumlin Farm, Norway Maples were also tested. This hypothesis was not supported because the experiment did not have measurable results. As there were not measurable results, the hypothesis was not supported nor was it refuted. A new hypothesis was not created because many sources still state that tapped trees will have a lower glucose level than trees that are tapped(http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu). This set of data was extremely inconclusive because it did not have any results. This could have occurred for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons could have been because there was not enough sugar in the solution that was created to have a result. The problem also could have been that the Diastix were not sensitive enough, therefore did not pick up the small level of sugar in the solution. The data that was collected was extremely precise, as all of the data points matched exactly (being zero). The sap is drawn up by capillary attraction, which is due to forces between the molecules of the sap and those of the tree. Without it, water can rise no further than 10 meters as balanced by the atmospheric pressure (http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-196820,00.html). The sap rises only when the temperatures are above freezing, and it rises to the buds of the tree in early May. The sap stays at the trunk of the tree around winter and rises in spring (http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/produc/sapflow.htm). The results that were taken are not believed to be completely reliable because the tree buds do not contain much sugar until the tree is almost budding leaves, 8

which is in early May or in late April (http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/FAQ.htm). It was expected that the glucose content would be higher in an untapped tree rather than a tapped one. Sufficient data was not collected to come to a valid conclusion to this experiment, because there was not enough glucose content in the maple leaf buds to measure the amount of glucose. However, a later experiment on one of the leaf buds did find that there was a minor level of glucose in the maples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict's_reagent). This result supports the theory that there is a small amount of glucose in the buds but the Diastix testing stips that were used were not sensitive enough. There were a couple of errors in the experiment. Before arrival, it was believed that the trees were all going to be in the same location, but they were scattered throughout the farm. This could have interrupted data for many reasons. One being that because the trees were in different places, the moisture in the air could have affected the glucose content in the trees (http://www.fruitionsciences.com/en/login/faq). Also, because the trees were not in the same location, the soil content could have been much different than that of the other places, and could have affected the results. The experiment could have been conducted one month later than it was. This way the buds on the trees would have budded more (maybe into leaves) and the experiment would have had a much better result (http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/FAQ.htm).

Introduction Works Cited "Autumn Leaves and Fall Foliage Why Do Leaves Fall Colors Change?" Autumn Leaves and Fall Colors. Science Made Simple, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/leaves.html>. "Drumlin Map." Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary. Mass Audubon, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. "Maple Sugarbush Q&A." N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. Phipps, Nikki. "What Is Tree Sap?" Gardening Know How. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/what-is-tree-sap.htm>. "Sap Flow." Sap Flow. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/produc/sapflow.htm>.
Materials and Methods Works Cited

"About Maple Trees." About Maple Trees. Aboutgradenplants, uwp. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Philips, Roger. "Maple." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, unknown when published. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. "Sap Flow." Sap Flow. Unknown, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Discussion Works Cited "Cornell University Maple Program Homepage." Cornell University Maple Program Homepage. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/produc/sapflow.htm

"Frequently Asked Questions." Frequently Asked Questions. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/FAQ.htm

Robert D. Simoni, Robert L. Hill, and Martha Vaughan. "Benedict's Reagent." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict's_reagent
10

UK. "Notes and Quieres." When and How Does Sap Rise in a Maple? Guardian.co.uk, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-196820,00.htm>.

11

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

How much pHorest can you cover?

The Effect of Canopy Coverage on Soil pH By Cecelia Galligan and Nell Fusco
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

TABLE!OF!CONTENTS!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Primary!Author! Fusco,!Nell! Fusco,!Nell! Fusco,!Nell! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page! 2! 2! 3! 5! 7! 9! 10!

!
Section! ! Abstract!

Introduction! ! Results! Discussion! ! !

Galligan,!Cecelia! Galligan,!Cecelia!

Materials!&!Methods!!

Acknowledgements! ! Works!Cited! ! !

1!

ABSTRACT This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA in order to discover the correlation between canopy coverage and the pH level of the soil. The procedure for this experiment was to record the canopy coverage of a randomly generated spot in the forest using a densitometer. Then a soil sample was collected from the same spot as the canopy coverage. The soil sample was then tested using a rapidest pH soil tester to collect the pH of the soil. It was expected that if the percent of canopy coverage is higher, then there will be a pH level greater than seven, because a lower, more basic pH provides nutrients for healthy plant growth, therefore, causing the trees canopy coverage to be greater (http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu). The results showed that the canopy coverage of the forest had no effect on the pH of the soil. There was no visual correlation and the r value of all the data, how linear the data was, was very close to zero. Although there was more of a correlation in the Red Pine Forest than the Spruce Forest, they both did not have any trend significant enough to make an impact. INTRODUCTION Forests help the country prosper by giving humans wood for fuel as well as building. Forests not only provide the human population with homes and lumber, but they also shelter many animals too. Within many forests are many aspects to consider, including the trees and soil. Trees are made up of many parts, but in this experiment, only the trees canopy will be looked at. The canopy of a tree includes its branches and leaves. This is approximately measured by using a tool called a densitometer. Directly under these trees, many layers of soil cover the ground. Like trees, soil has many key parts to it, but only its pH will be tested. The pH of the soil determines how acidic or basic soil is. This experiment will be conducted at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary in Lincoln, MA. Drumlin Farm consists of four major forests, but for this experiment, only the Spruce Forest and the Red Pine Forest will be tested. Spruce Forest is located near the center of Drumlin Farm, and the Red Pine Forest is located in the northeast part. Soil pH is a measure of how acidic or basic the soil is. It is measured on a scale of one to fourteen, where one is very acidic, and fourteen is very basic (Lew, 31). When the pH of anything is too low, meaning it is extremely acidic, plant and animal species can be greatly affected. A neutral, healthy number on the pH scale is seven, which is healthy for a natural ecosystem (Lew, 31). But, depending on the plant type, a healthy pH level will differ. Most plants prefer a neutral pH, but plants such as magnolias, blueberries, and potatoes maintain healthy with pH ranging from 4.5 to 6 (Hoffmann, http://www.agric.wa.gov.au). When the pH of soil is very low, the soil is highly acidic and can create a lack of iron to some trees, which can lead to tree decline and stunt in growth. Therefore, the plants will not be as tall and full and will not have as large of a canopy coverage. A more basic soil with a higher pH range provides more nutrients for healthy plant growth (http://www.esf.edu). An important detail to note is that the Drumlin Farm area tends to receive a higher amount of rainfall. Also, it is shown in many graphs that the New England area collects much higher amounts of precipitation per year than other places throughout the country (http://precip.eas.cornell.edu). Soil in moderate to high rainfall areas tend to be more acidic, because of acid rain. Acid rain is caused by chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide which let up into the air and then react with water, oxygen and other chemicals let off by humans 2!

which means all the data collected is going to be more acidic than basic (http://www.epa.gov). If a tree with more canopy coverage is tested, then the soil directly underneath it will be more protected. If the soil is more protected, than it is most likely it will have a higher pH level and be towards the more basic side. The proposed experiment is conducted to determine the effect of percent of canopy coverage on soil pH. The objective of this experiment is to see if there is a distinct correlation between the percent of canopy coverage and the pH of the soil directly below. The question will be tested by approximating the canopy coverage and collecting samples of the soil pH in spots generated randomly within a specified quadrant. Canopy coverage is found by using a tool called a densitometer. The densitometer is crafted to observe how much branch and leaf coverage is found in a certain location. Using the densitometer, a percent of canopy coverage will be found (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu). During this experiment, the corresponding variable will be soil pH. Fifteen samples of both canopy coverage and soil pH will be collected and tested within each forest. The independent variable being tested is the percent of canopy coverage, which is measured using a densitometer. The dependent variable is the soil. All of these data points will be collected in the same day therefore controlling the weather outside and the temperature of the soil. At the time of the collection it will be made sure that the deepness of the soil collection is regulated to 5 cm deep using a shovel, the type of soil pH kit and the same procedure will be followed for collecting percent canopy coverage on soil pH. These controlled variables are made to create the most accurate project possible. The hypothesis being tested is if the percent of canopy coverage is high, then there will be a pH higher than seven, because a higher, more basic pH provides nutrients for healthy plant growth, therefore causing the trees canopy coverage to be greater (http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu). When conducting this experiment, a connection between the pH in the soil and how it affects nature will be key in observations. When collecting data, it is hoped that the line between unhealthy and healthy soil for plants and animals to live and grow in will be clearly defined and how canopy coverage affects soil pH. Acidic soil is not healthy for any sort of plant or animal life living within grounds at Drumlin Farm. Naturalists and volunteers working at Drumlin Farm can use the information and results gathered from this experiment to get a better understanding of forests and the plant life within them. Using the data collected, they can look at the acid solutions causing low pH levels and connect them to pollution in order to create a healthier environment for plants and animals living in today's natural habitats. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data was collected for this experiment at 15 random points in both the Red Pine forest and Spruce forest at Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln MA (see Figure 1). A 50-meter by 50-meter quadrant was measured with a 50-meter tape measure and marked with string 10-meters in from the first tree at the forest entrance. Then, using a TI-nspire calculator, 15 random data points were generated and marked in the quadrant using numbered flags. At each data point a shovel was inserted 5 cm into the ground to collect the soil samples. The soil collected by the shovel was then put into a labeled 4-ounce plastic container so it could be tested for the pH level later in the labs.

3!

Figure 1: Map of Drumlin Farm. Red circles show the testing areas, Red Pine forest and Spruce forest. !

Figure 2: Diagram of the soil pH rapitest, showing the location of the testing chamber, different pH levels and what the indicator capsules look like. (http://sunlightsupply.com) !

A Rapitest Soil Test Kit was used to test the pH of the soil samples. The soil was taken from the plastic container by a scupula, a spoon like utensil, and poured into the test chamber (see Figure 2) of the Rapitest Kit until it reached the soil fill line marked on the testing chamber. One pH capsule was broken open and the content inside was added to the soil in the test chamber. The test chamber was then filled with distilled water to the water fill line, shaken for one minute until the powder from the pH capsule was fully dissolved. Then it was set to settle for 2 minutes. After the soil was completely settled on the bottom of the testing chamber, the pH was recorded by comparing the color of the water in the test chamber to the reference chart. This color was recorded in the tables and determined the level of pH in the soil. The substance in the testing chamber was then poured into an empty milk carton and rinsed with water. This testing procedure was repeated for all 15 soil samples within each of the two forests. At the same 15 locations within the forests that the soil samples were collected, the canopy coverage percent was measured using a GRS Densitometer. One person held the densitometer, looking up at the sky, and leveled it in both directions. Using the cross hairs, the percent canopy coverage was estimated and recorded. This procedure was followed at all 15 sites in both forests. ! 4!

RESULTS

Table 1: The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on Soil pH in Spruce Forest Canopy Coverage Site # Soil pH (%) 1 0 6.0 2 40 7.0 3 20 7.0 4 30 6.5 5 75 6.5 6 85 7.0 7 15 6.5 8 5 7.5 9 15 7.0 10 10 6.5 11 90 6.5 12 95 7.0 13 75 6.5 14 10 6.5 15 55 6.5 Table 2: The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on Soil pH in Red Pine Forest Canopy Coverage Site # Soil pH (%) 1 35 5.5 2 15 6.0 3 40 6.5 4 30 5.5 5 65 6.5 6 50 6.5 7 85 6.5 8 10 5.5 9 0 5.0 10 25 6.0 11 45 5.0 12 25 6.5 13 20 6.0 14 90 6.5 15 70 6.0

5!

Graph 1: The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on Soil pH in Spruce Forest

8! 7.5! 7! Soil!pH! 6.5! 6! 5.5! 5! 4.5! 4! 0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! Canopy!Coverage!(%)! R!=!0.00229!

Graph 2: The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on Soil pH in Red Pine Forest
8! 7.5! 7! Soil!pH! 6.5! 6! 5.5! 5! 4.5! 4! 0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! Canopy!Coverage!(%)! R!=!0.30497!

6!

Graph 3: The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on Soil pH in both the Spruce and Red Pine Forests
8! 7.5! 7! Soil!pH! 6.5! 6! 5.5! 5! 4.5! 4! 0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! Canopy!Coverage!(%)! R!=!0.06111!

Graph 1 shows the percent of canopy coverage verses the pH in the soil at the Spruce Forest. In the Spruce Forest, the canopy coverage ranged from 0% to 95%. The soil pH did not range nearly as far, but instead only spread from 6.5 to 7.5. Out of fifteen soil samples, the soil pH had only a difference of one, whereas the canopy coverage ranged from completely open to almost fully covered. Graph 1 also shows the r value, which in this case is 0.00229. Graph 2 shows the percent of canopy coverage verses soil pH, but at a different location. At the Red Pine Forest, the range of percent of canopy coverage was smaller and stretched from 0% to 90%, five percent less than the range of the Spruce Forest. In terms of soil pH though, the Red Pine Forests data range was larger, stretching from 5.0, the lowest pH level collected throughout the whole experiment, to 7.5, one of the highest. From looking at Graph 2, the r value of 0.30497 is higher than Spruce Forests value making the data more linear. In graph 3, the data for both forests have been combined into one graph. Although it is not clear which data is which, it is clear that the percent of canopy coverage ranges from 0% to 95 and the range of soil pH is from 5.0 to 7.5. The r value is 0.06111. When collecting data from each site, it was noticed that the Red Pine Forest was more open than the Spruce, and many fallen trees and branches covered the Spruce Forest. DISCUSSION This experiment was conducted to test the correlation between canopy coverage and the pH level of the soil. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was if the percent canopy coverage is high, then there will be a pH higher than 7, because a higher, more basic pH provides nutrients for healthy plant growth, therefore causing the trees canopy coverage to be greater (soils.tfrec.wsu.edu). The results from this experiment did not support the hypothesis because there was no specific correlation between canopy coverage and soil pH. As seen in graph 3, the r value was 0.06111. In order for the hypothesis to be supported there would have to be an r value of approximately 1. This would have shown that as the canopy coverage increases, so does pH level. Since the r value of the actual data was not close to 1, it indicates that there is no correlation at all. Precision of the data from this experiment is not ! 7!

applicable because only one test was taken from each data point. The weak correlation between canopy coverage and soil pH shows that there is no connection between canopy coverage and soil pH. Although there was no relationship between canopy coverage and soil pH found there was a sufficient amount of data collected to come to a conclusion. Although there was no correlation in the data collected, there is evidence that the reason for this is because of the type forest the tests came from. Many sources show that there is a relationship between pine trees and the soil that they grow in (www.wildlifegardeners.org) (www.gardenguides.com) (www.psu.edu). Pine trees tend to prosper in more acidic soil making it very hard to grow plants near them, and almost impossible for grass to grow (www.psu.edu). This is why the soil was more acidic than it was predicted to be with the amount of canopy coverage it had and therefore caused the results to show no correlation. There is a high amount of confidence in the methods of this experiment, but the confidence level is not so high in the results. Changing the season in which the data was collected and the type of trees in the forest would definitely improve this experiment. Having tested at the very end of winter, the trees, even though they were coniferous, were very bare. This made the canopy coverage only branches and not leaves or needles that could block sun and rain from affecting the pH of the soil below. If the data was collected in a different time of year, such as the end of spring or early summer, there would have been many more leaves or needles on the trees causing not specifically more canopy coverage, but more leaves in the canopy coverage that can protect the soil. The second improvement that could have been made was conducting the experiment in a different type of forest, specifically a deciduous forest. The results in both forests had very low pH levels and in general, pine needles are known to be very acidic (www.wildlifegardeners.org). One observation made while testing was that both of the forests had pine needles covering the ground. As these pine needles decompose, their acidity will sink into the soil, which will make the soil more acidic (www.gardenguides.com). If the experiment was conducted in a deciduous forest, then the element of the acidity of the pine needles would be eliminated, thus the results would most likely be more basic, and therefore show a stronger correlation between canopy coverage and soil pH. Several errors occurred while conducting the procedure. One was that only one measuring tape was used to make an x/y grid; one axis was measured while the other was somewhat approximated, making the data points not exact. The second error was that the shovel was not washed between sample collections because there was not enough time in the forest. This could cause traces of multiple soil samples to be in each sample and affect the pH level that was recorded. For future experiments of this study, the relationship between canopy coverage and other minerals in soil could be compared to see if canopy coverage has an effect in a different way on soil and plant growth. The knowledge gained in this study about the effect of pH on soil and the effect on pine trees and their needles acidity will be very helpful to farmers in the future and will help them with where to plant crops so that they will prosper. The soil around pine trees and in pine forests are more acidic and therefore farmers may not want their plants growing there because they will not be able to prosper as much as they would in a more neutral soil.

8!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - CECELIA GALLIGAN Throughout the past few months, many people have been very helpful during the Knights of Science project. From the brainstorming process, to the field trip preparation, to the final editing stage, massive amounts of help have been given to me. I would like to first thank my partner Nell Fusco for being so helpful every step of the way. Together we have managed to keep everything very organized and complete each assignment given. Along with Nell, I would like to thank her family for letting us use their kitchen to test thirty soil samples. Aside from the Fusco family, my parents have been very kind in purchasing a handful of plastic containers used for soil collection as well as taking time out of their day to edit my papers. At Drumlin Farms, our densitometer (used for measuring canopy coverage) came in handy. Without the generosity of the company, Geographic Research Solutions, the project could not be possible. I would like to thank them for donating a large number of densitometers. When visiting the Red Pine Forest, Mr. Senabre was there for help and support and when visiting the Spruce Forest, Ms. Gellar and the nature specialist Susan were both very helpful. Lastly, I would like to thank my science teacher, Ms. Svatek. She has been the most helpful by far throughout this long process. She was very beneficial with brainstorming project ideas, giving us research tips, and helping with data collection and edits. Thank you very much for providing us all with the opportunity to further explore our academic interests. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - NELL FUSCO Throughout the last term many people have been very beneficial to the production of this project. I would like to thank my partner, Cecelia Galligan for all the effort she put into this experiment. She did an amazing job of staying on task and having everything ready so we could be efficient on the testing day and get the project done on time. Without her this project would not have been possible. Secondly I would like to thank my science teacher, Ms. Svatek, for her valuable guidance throughout the project. She helped keep us on track and made the overall experience very enjoyable. Mr. Senabre and Ms. Gellar were very helpful in the forest while testing and helped us through difficulties that we came across and did not know how to fix. I would like to recognize James Lamphier for helping with research used in the discussion providing a connection about why the results came out the way they did. I show great gratitude towards my parents for helping proofread drafts of the report and for helping gather materials for the testing day and also for allowing us to conduct out testing of the pH levels in their kitchen. Lastly, I would like to thank Geographic Research Solutions for accepting our grant and sending us a large amount of densitometers to make it possible to measure the canopy coverage and to conduct our experiment. Without those it would have been much harder to collect our data and would have slowed down the whole process. A big thank you to all the people who was involved in helping us complete this experiment and providing us with this great opportunity.

9!

WORKS CITED (INTRODUCTION) "Extreme Precipitation in New York & New England." Extreme Precipitation in New York & New England. NRCC & NRCS, 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://precip.eas.cornell.edu/>. Hoffmann, Harald. "Soil PH and Plant Life in the Home Garden." Garden Note. Department of Agriculture and Food, 6 Jan. 2010. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. <http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/gard/ph.pdf>. Lew, Kristi. Acids and Bases. New York: Chelsea House, 2009. Print. "SNAMP Glossary." SNAMP:. UC Science Team, 5 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/about/snamp-glossary/>. "Soil PH." Soil PH. Washington State University, 22 Nov. 2004. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/soilpH.htm>. "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What It Means. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.

WORKS CITED (DISCUSSION) Isichei, Augustine Onwuegbukiwe, and Joseph Ikechukwu Muoghalu. "The Effects of Canopy Cover on Soil Fertility." JSTOR. Department of Botany, 27 Sept. 2000. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2559741?uid=3739696>. Lew, Kristi. Acids and Bases. New York: Chelsea House, 2009. Print. "Pine Trees & Acid Soil." GardenGuides. Demand Media, 2010. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.gardenguides.com/130318-pine-trees-acid-soil.html>. 10!

PineStraw. "Pine Straw (Pine Needle) Mulch Acidity: Separating Fact From Fiction Through Analytical Testing - Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening." Wildlife Gardeners North American Wildlife Gardening RSS. N.p., 2006. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.wildlifegardeners.org/forum/feature-articles/4905-pine-straw-pine-needlemulch-acidity-separating-fact-fiction-through-analytical-testing.html>. "Rapitest PH Soil Tester Model 1612." National Garden Wholesale. Sunlight Supply Inc., 14 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://sunlightsupply.com/p-12481-rapitest-ph-soil-tester-model-1612.aspx>. "Red Pine Information Page." Red Pine Information Page. Pennsylvania State University, Dec. 2005. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.psu.edu/dept/nkbiology/naturetrail/speciespages/redpine.htm>. Soil PH." Soil PH. Washington State University, 22 Nov. 2004. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/soilpH.htm>. "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What It Means. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.

11!

The effect of dissolved oxygen (% saturation) on the amount of algae found. By Leandra Klein and Simone Geary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Primary Author Geary, Simone Geary, Simone Geary, Simone Klein, Leandra Klein, Leandra

Page 3 3 4 5 9 11 12

ABSTRACT For this experiment, the amount of dissolved oxygen in three different sites at Drumlin Farm was tested on the amount of algae at that site. For this procedure, a 1200 mL sample of water was taken from 12 various locations around each pond. Samples were then taken back to the Farm Life Center and the samples were tested for the dissolved oxygen a total of three times for each site, then averaged. One drop of water was taken out of each sample, counted the amount of algae through a microscope, and recorded the results. The following step was repeated eight times for a variety in results, hopefully making the results more accurate. The original hypothesis for this experiment was; if the dissolved oxygen in water is low, then the density of the simple aquatic organisms in the water will decrease because plants and animals living in aquatic sites breathe in dissolved oxygen, and if there isnt enough they will die (Eric Hopper, http://www.maximumyield.com). The results of this experiment were greatly inconclusive; the site with the most dissolved oxygen had the second most algae and second least and the site with the least dissolved oxygen had the most algae. This in addition to the fact that the error bars were overlapping showing that the data is not conclusive. INTRODUCTION Algae is considered one of the most basic aquatic organisms in the world and is found more commonly in slow moving or closed bodies of water. Dissolved oxygen is essential for healthy lakes and ecosystems (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org). The more oxygen in the water there is the healthier it is and low dissolved oxygen levels show high pollution levels. Oxygen mostly comes from the atmosphere (Unknown, http://bcn.boulder.co.us) and is mixed into the water by waves or tumbling (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org). Algae come in many forms and can be found throughout the world. This experiment will test the correlation between algae and dissolved oxygen and explore whether the dissolved oxygen levels found in the water affect algae growth. Many different factors such as weather, temperature, water depth and season affect the dissolved oxygen (Eric Hopper, http://www.maximumyield.com). Dissolved oxygen is a necessary part of aquatic ecosystems and is essential for healthy lakes (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org). Specific animals and plants need a high amount of dissolved oxygen in the water or they are not able to survive and most plants and animals need a good amount of dissolved oxygen. High dissolved oxygen levels indicate low pollution levels in the water also meaning that the plants are healthy and in a good environment (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org). Due to the fact that dissolved oxygen helps plant life and Algae breathe in water, Algae thrives in areas with high dissolved oxygen levels. Blue-green algae will most likely be found due to the simplicity and single cell reproduction (Shuttleworth, 18). Red algae is unlikely to be found since it is mostly found in saltwater while Brown algae is also likely to be found in some sites due to the abundance of rocks. Lastly, Golden Algae is found normally in freshwater sites such as lakes, ponds and ditches (Shuttleworth, 19) making them the most likely to be found at the tested sites. The locations for this experiment were chosen based on the distance apart and the difference in surroundings. Ice pond is set aside from other fields and one side is facing a parking lot while Poultry pond is close to a road, the Farm Life Center and gets a

decent amount of foot traffic visiting the site or passing by. Bathtub pond on the other hand is on the opposite side of the farm from Poultry pond and is surrounded by fields of crops, hay or trees, farther from civilization. Different location factors can negatively or positively affect the amount of dissolved oxygen or algae levels (http://www.earthforce.org). The amount of sunlight versus shade directly affects dissolved oxygen levels; shade will keep the water cooler making it easier for oxygen to dissolve more easily where direct sunlight will heat the water up after hours of sunlight exposure. Algae, on the other hand use the sun for photosynthesis, making more sunlight good for algae but harder for oxygen to dissolve. This experiment will be conducted on April first at Drumlin Farms. Three different samples will be taken from the sights: Ice Pond, Poultry Pond and Bathtub Pond. These sites were chosen because of the distance between the ponds and the range in surroundings. The independent variable in the experiment is the amount of dissolved oxygen (ppm) in the water collected from three different wetland locations at Drumlin Farm. The dependent variable in this experiment is the amount of simple aquatic species found in each pond. The simple aquatic species samples will be collected from the same depth in the water at each location. Other controlled variables include, amount of water tested for each pond (mL), the number of tests taken at each location, the specific testing materials used, and the weather conditions that occur while testing at each site. The hypothesis for this experiment is; if the dissolved oxygen in water is low, then the density of the simple aquatic organisms in the water will decrease because plants and animals living in aquatic sites breathe in dissolved oxygen, and if there isnt enough they will die (Eric Hopper, http://www.maximumyield.com). Dissolved oxygen is a vital part of aquatic plant life and directly affects plant health as well as entire ecosystems. This experiment will investigate whether dissolved oxygen directly corresponds with the amount of algae found. A high dissolved oxygen level means that there is a healthy, stable ecosystem (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org). This experiment can help the better understanding of why some ponds have more algae or a stable ecosystem and why others do not. How algae growth is affected by sunlight, water temperature and location will all be tested throughout this experiment, helping the overall understanding of how dissolved oxygen works and how it affects algae. MATERIALS AND METHODS For this experiment, a range of materials was necessary to test the amount of algae found in each sample as well as the dissolved oxygen. Two dissecting microscope, three Petri dishes and three droppers were used to measure the amount of algae. Three Dissolved Oxygen Test Kits (Picture #1) created by LaMotte were used to measure the amount of dissolved oxygen (% saturation), and in general, three 2400 mL bottles, one timer or stopwatch, one marker, 12 pieces of tape, one thermometer and one 100 mL graduated cylinder were needed to complete this experiment.

Picture #1: The test tubes used to measure Dissolved Oxygen levels A 100 mL water sample was taken from 12 random locations around the pond. The water sample was then poured into the 1200 mL bottle for all 12 samples. The temperature of the water sample was then taken by leaving the thermometer in the bottle for 5 minutes during the walk back to the Farm Life Center when the water sample from site #1 was taken back to the Farm Life Center. The lid was then taken off of the bottle from site #1 and used to fill the three Dissolved Oxygen Test Kit bottles, submerging them fully in the water samples. Then two Dissolved Oxygen TesTabs were dropped into each tube, closing the lid immediately and inverting the tube repeatedly until the tabs disintegrated or for four minutes. Next, the color of the water sample was compared to the Dissolved Oxygen color chart. Once the color was studied, the resulted color of ppm was recorded. One mL of the water sample was then taken from the bottle using a dropper and was into a petri dish. The petri dish was placed under a dissecting microscope, zoomed in and focused on the water sample while checking if there are any algae in the water sample. The amount of algae was then recorded in the table and all steps were repeated for site #2 and #3. For this experiment accurate results, specific variables had to be controlled, such as the amount of water tested for each pond (mL), the number of tests taken at each location, the specific testing materials used, samples taken on the same day and consistent weather conditions in order to have valid, accurate results. RESULTS Table 1: The effect of location on dissolved oxygen (% saturation) Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) Location Poultry Pond Bathtub Pond Ice Pond Trial 1 27 26 37 Trial 2 18 26 46 Trial 3 18 35 46 Average 21 29 43 Standard Deviation 5.20 5.20 5.20

Graph)1:)The)effect)of)location)on) dissolved)oxygen)(%)saturation))
Dissolved)Oxygen)(%)saturation)) 60" 50" 40" 30" 20" 10" 0" Poultry"Pond" Bathtub"Pond" Location) Ice"Pond"

Table 2: The effect of location on the amount of algae found Algae Location Poultry Pond (21% saturation) Bathtub Pond (29% saturation) Ice Pond (43% saturation) Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Standard Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deviation 3 1 0 0 10 6 3 8 3.88 3.76

0.25

0.71

12

2.75

4.06

Graph)2:)The)effect)of)location)on)the) amount)of)algae)found)
9.00" 8.00" 7.00" 6.00" Algae) 5.00" 4.00" 3.00" 2.00" 1.00" 0.00" Poultry"Pond"(21%" saturation)" Bathtub"Pond"(29%" saturation)" Location) Ice"Pond"(43%"saturation)"

Table 3: The effect of Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) on the amount of algae found on average Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) 21 29 Algae 3.88 0.25

43

2.75

Graph)3:)The)effect)of)dissolved)oxygen)(%) saturation))on)amount)of)algae)foundCAverages)
9.00" 8.00" 7.00" 6.00" Algae) 5.00" 4.00" 3.00" 2.00" 1.00" 0.00" 0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45" 50" Dissolved)Oxygen)(%)saturation)) R"="0.02288"

Graph 1 shows the average amount of dissolved oxygen (% saturation) at each site. These three sites include Poultry Pond, Ice Pond, and Bathtub Pond. The graph shows that Poultry Pond had the lowest average amount of dissolved oxygen (21% saturation), Bathtub Pond had the next greatest average (29% saturation), and Ice Pond had the highest average of dissolved oxygen (33% saturation). Bathtub Pond had a greater average of dissolved oxygen than Poultry Pond, however the error bars from Poultry Pond and Bathtub Pond overlap. Ice Pond is the only site whose error bars do not overlap with any other error bars. Since the error bars from each site are fairly small and the data only had a standard deviation of 0.58, the data can be considered precise. Graph 2 depicts the average amount of algae found at each of the three ponds. Bathtub Pond had by far the lowest average amount of algae (0.25), the next greatest average being Ice Pond (2.75), and the greatest average amount of algae was found in Poultry Pond (3.88). Although Bathtub Pond had the lowest overall average amount of algae and Poultry Pond had the highest, each of the sites error bars overlapped with one another. Since these error bars were so large, and the standard deviations were generally large as well (Bathtub Pond at 0.71, Poultry Pond at 3.76, and Ice Pond at 4.06), it would be correct to say that these tests were not very precise or consistent, with the exception of Bathtub Pond. In Graph 3, the data shows the effect of dissolved oxygen on the amount of algae found on average. The graph shows that in this experiment, an increase in dissolved oxygen does not result in an increase in algae growth. Although the first point has the lowest average amount percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (21% saturation), it has the 8

highest average amount of algae found in the water (3.88), while the second point has the middle average percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (29% saturation) and the lowest average amount of algae (0.25). Finally, the last data point had the highest average amount percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (43% saturation), and the middle average amount of algae found (2.75). However, since the error bars are so large and each of them overlap with every other set of error bars, the data is considered imprecise. DISCUSSION The purpose of this experiment was to determine if dissolved oxygen had an effect on the living organisms, more specifically algae, in that particular pond site. The original hypothesis made was if the dissolved oxygen in water is low, then the density of the simple aquatic organisms in the water will decrease because plants and animals living in aquatic sites breathe in dissolved oxygen, and if there isnt enough they will die (Eric Hopper, http://www.maximumyield.com). This hypothesis was not supported by the results from the collected data. Since the location with the least dissolved oxygen on average resulted in having the most algae, the location with the middle amount of dissolved oxygen resulted in having the lowest amount of algae on average, and the location with the highest dissolved oxygen levels resulted in having the middle amount of algae, the data did not have any particular pattern. This either proves that there is no correlation between dissolved oxygen and algae growth, or that the experiment conducted had inaccurate results. This hypothesis would have to be changed in order to be accurate, however any new hypothesis would not be supported by this data, because of its lack of a trend. Many sources suggest that there is a correlation between dissolved oxygen and algae growth, since algae needs oxygen in order to live and grow (Unknown, http://www.chesapeakebay.net), however the results from this experiment did not support this research. This could have happened because algae needs dissolved oxygen to survive. This means that when there are algae living in a pond they use up some of the dissolved oxygen. Algae and other aquatic plants also produce oxygen during the day by photosynthesis, which they release into the water for other organisms and animals in the pond. It is said that algae produces more oxygen than it consumes, however that means that a pond with more algae will have more dissolved oxygen (Unknown, http://aquaplant.tamu.edu). This was not fully supported, as the results from the collected data did not have any particular pattern. Another source suggests that without proper nutrients from sunlight, dissolved oxygen levels can drop drastically. This drop in dissolved oxygen caused a drop in algae growth (Molly Steen, http://oas.uco.edu). This information explains the idea that weather is a key factor in this experiment, and it may have caused some errors. In Graph 1, it depicts the range of percent saturation of dissolved oxygen levels at each pond. Ice Pond had the highest average percent saturation of dissolved oxygen level, and its error bars do not overlap with Bathtub or Poultry, meaning that Ice Pond conclusively had the highest percent saturation of dissolved oxygen in its water. Bathtub Pond had the next highest average level of saturation of dissolved oxygen, however its error bars overlapped with Poultry Ponds error bars. This means that neither Bathtub nor Poultry Pond conclusively had the next greatest amount of saturation of dissolved oxygen. Some conclusions made from these results are that Ice Pond has the highest percent

saturation of dissolved oxygen of each of the three sites. The data also shows that neither of the remaining two ponds had a conclusively higher or lower amount of saturation of dissolved oxygen. Based on the error bars and the standard deviations (each standard deviation was 5.2), it can be concluded that this data had a low amount of precision, making the data less reliable. Shown in Graph 2 are the average amounts of algae found at each site. Although Poultry Pond had the highest average amount of algae found (3.88), then Ice Pond (2.75), and finally Bathtub Pond (0.25), none of the three sites conclusively had the highest or lowest amount of algae found. Since each sites error bars overlap with every other sites, this means that no conclusions can be drawn from this data. The precision of the data of both Poultry Pond and Ice Pond are low, judging by the high standard deviations and the large error bars. However, Bathtub Pond had an extremely low standard deviation (0.71) and relatively small error bars, making it much more precise than the other two sites. The lack of precision in the first two sites makes it difficult to be confident in this data and its accuracy, even with the precise data from Bathtub Pond. In Graph 3, the effect of dissolved oxygen in percent saturation on the amount of average algae found in that site is measured. The first point with the lowest average amount of saturation of dissolved oxygen also had the highest average amount of algae found within the water. The middle point with the next highest amount of saturation of dissolved oxygen on average has the lowest average amount of algae found. The last point with the highest average amount of saturation of dissolved oxygen also has the middle average amount of algae found out of all the three sites. Because of the fact that the error bars from each data set overlap with one another, none of the ponds conclusively has the most or the least amount of dissolved oxygen or algae. With no conclusive location with the most or least algae, saturation of dissolved oxygen levels and no pattern within the data, no specific conclusions can be drawn from this data or the results. Clearly shown in the large error bars, the standard deviation is very high for each point, except for the second point. This means together as a set, this data is not very precise, and there is minimal confidence in the accuracy and the precision of this data. In order to improve this experiment, many things would have to change in the procedure. Sufficient data was not collected to collect samples and get accurate results. One solution to this problem is to use a more precise and accurate method to test and count the amount of algae at each site. A main reason why the results were very inconclusive is because of the method that was used. This method was taking a drop of water from the 1200 mL of water from a site and looking at it through a microscope and simply counting the amount of visible algae. Many things could be changed to improve this experiment and its results. The first is that the ponds perimeter would be measured, and marked at twelve different spots spread equally around the pond for data collection. This would help to make the data collection even and unbiased. Next, it would be beneficial to the experiment to only count one specific type of algae, instead of all the algae in order to eliminate the source of error that comes from the different properties that come with different types of aquatic organisms. A lot of the algae found at each of the sites were a type of green algae, but the different types were not recorded or taken into account (Shuttleworth, Non-flowering Plants: Over 400 Species in Full Color). A few errors occurred while conducting the experiment. Some were stated earlier, including the fact that the spaces around the pond where the data was collected were not spaced out

10

equally, causing a source of error. Next, the different types of algae were grouped together and counted as one. Another large error was that the procedure was originally carried out measuring just the dissolved oxygen in the water. Later, it was discovered that the data was supposed to be converted to percent saturation of dissolved oxygen. This caused a rush to finish analyzing the results, which may have resulted in more errors. The last error includes not being able to collect samples from one side of the pond at Bathtub Pond, because of the thorn bushes that were blocking that side. This error could be eliminated by using a different tool in order to reach across the thorns and collect water from a safe distance away. For future research of this study, other variables in the environment around ponds could be tested against algae growth because dissolved oxygen is not the only factor that plays a role in algae growth. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Drumlin Farm staff for showing us to our sites, BB&N chaperones for answering any questions we had, and Mr. Ewins for personally assisting us with our experiment. Thank you! -Simone and Leandra

11

WORKS CITED Introduction: "BASIN: General Information on Dissolved Oxygen." BASIN: General Information on Dissolved Oxygen. Basin, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/NEW/info/DO.html>. "Dissolved Oxygen." Earth Force. Earth Force Incorporated, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://www.earthforce.org/ViewResource.php?AID=3>. Hopper, Eric. "Dissolved Oxygen-The Hidden Necessity." Maximum Yeild. N.p., June 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.maximumyield.com/inside-mycom/features-articles/item/180-dissolved-oxygenthe-hidden-necessity>. Shuttleworth, Floyd S., and Herbert S. Zim. "Algae." Non-flowering Plants: Over 400 Species in Full Color : [ferns, Mosses, Lichens, Mushrooms and Other Fungi]. New York: Golden, Discussion: "Chesapeake Bay Program." Bay Blog RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/bayecosystem/dissolvedoxygen>. "Dissolved Oxygen AQUAPLANT." Dissolved Oxygen AQUAPLANT. AgriLife Extension, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/faq/dissolvedoxygen/>. Hopper, Eric. "Dissolved Oxygen-The Hidden Necessity." Maximum Yeild. N.p., June 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.maximumyield.com/inside-mycom/features-articles/item/180-dissolved-oxygenthe-hidden-necessity>. 12 1967. 14-23. Print.

Shuttleworth, Floyd S., and Herbert S. Zim. "Algae." Non-flowering Plants: Over 400 Species in Full Color : [ferns, Mosses, Lichens, Mushrooms and Other Fungi]. New York: Golden, 1967. 14-23. Print. Steen, Molly. "Nutrient Levels and Dissolved Oxygen Levels:Are They Related?" Nutrient Levels and Dissolved Oxygen Levels:Are They Related? N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://oas.uco.edu/03/paper/steen.htm>.

13

The effect of the proximal distance from the tree in meters on nitrate levels in parts per million

(See Image cited)

By Ryan Guan and Kian Golshan

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract by Ryan Guan............................................................... 3 Introduction by Ryan Guan .................................................... 3-4 Materials and Methods by Ryan Guan .................................... 5-6 Results by Kian Golshan ....................................................... 7- 9 Discussion by Kian Golshan ................................................ 10-11 Acknowledgements by Kian Golshan and Ryan Guan ............ 12 Bibliography by Kian Golshan and Ryan Guan ................... 13-17

ABSTRACT:
Plants require many macronutrients to survive. Nitrate is one of the macronutrients, which affects the growth of the plant. The experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA in the Hemlock Forest. The objective was to the test the effect of the proximal distance from tree trunk in meters on nitrate levels in the soil in parts per million (PPM). By finding the nitrate levels, it would be possible to predict the area with the most active feeder roots. Soil was collected from 7 trees with 5 samples at each of the trees in the procedure. The soil was diluted with a calcium chloride mixture which was then left to sit until a clear separation of liquid and the soil had been formed. The clear liquid was then added to an acid reagent mixture and later cadmium was added. This solution created a color that corresponds to amount of nitrate in the soil (PPM). Then the color would be compared to a color chart and the nitrate level would be estimated (PPM). It was expected that the further from the base of the tree you would get, the more nitrate would be found. This is because the feeder roots use the nitrate as a macronutrient, and most feeder roots are located closer to the base of the tree and therefore would absorb more nitrate, leaving less in soil. The results showed that the further from the tree you get, the more nitrate there was in the soil, which supported the hypothesis. There was a significant and high correlation with an r value of 0.86. With few outliers and small standard deviations, the bar graph showed conclusive data on most of the averages that supported the data.

INTRODUCTION:
Sunlight, water and nutrient are three essential elements for the growth of a health tree. While leaves are essential for sun absorption and photosynthesis, the tree roots are used for water and nutrients absorption. Where to properly apply water and nutrients to roots to maximize the absorption is an important but yet often overlooked issues. In trees, feeder roots are roots with a diameter no larger than 0.15 cm that gather nutrients such as nitrate for life (Jacobi & Sillick, ext.colostate.edu). Since the most nutrients/oxygen resides near the topsoil, feeder roots grow near the surface and extend laterally across (See Figure 1) (awqa.org) (Sillick, ext.colostate.edu). Furthermore, nitrate is an essential macronutrient for plant growth, photosynthesis, and is contained in all living cells of plants (ncagr.gov), making it one of the most used macronutrient in plants. Nitrate in the soil can be measured in parts per million (PPM). One ppm is equal to one milligram of material in a kilogram of soil (groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu). Drumlin Farm is a wildlife education and conservation area. It is an area with many trees and paths that are well traveled. These paths can compact soil underneath the trails. This can restrict the growth of feeder roots, which cannot extend farther due to the compacted soil. (ext.colostate.edu) (extension.umn.edu). This study can help design trails that do not compact soil near the areas with the most feeder roots of trees. Thus mitigating the most damage done to the feeder roots, which collects all of the trees water and nutrients. The dripzone of a tree usually has highest density of feeder roots (Hagen, 1989). Furthermore, the drip zone is all the area directly under the canopy of a tree (davesgarden.com). If the restriction of the feeder roots is great enough it can result in the

tree being malnourished and the trees growth can be stunted or death in severe cases (Unknown, ncagr.gov). So, this is why it is important to not compact the soil under roots. It has been observed that nitrogen levels occur in a radial pattern around pine trees, and this is the basis of how this experiment will collect its data (Pinho ,hindawi.com). A radial pattern means that if there was circle around a tree of any size, then any direction the radius goes; it will have similar nitrogen levels to any of the radial distances. The independent variable in this experiment will be the proximal distance from the trunk of the tree, where a soil sample will be collected at each level of independent variable. The proximal distance from the tree means that all distances of the independent variable will be measured from the trunk as reference point. Furthermore, there will be five levels of the independent variable; 0 meters from the trunk, 0.5 meters from the trunk, 1 meter from the trunk, 1.5 meters from the trunk, and 2 meters from the trunk. The dependent variable is the nitrate levels in parts per million. The controlled variables are the depth at which samples will be collected, the slope of the ground, the size of the sample (10 ml of soil+30 ml of calcium chloride mixed with water), the containers the samples will be stored in, and the species of the tree which the study will be conducted on. The hypothesis was; if the soil sample at 0 meters from the trunk is tested, then it will have the lowest nitrate levels in ppm, because all feeder roots start out from the trunk (Hagen, 1989) (Whiting, cmg.colostate.edu). To expand on the reasoning, the feeder roots all must start from the trunk, but all feeder roots must stop somewhere; and so the roots slowly level off the farther away from the trunk one is (See figure 1) (Whiting, cmg.colostate.edu). Different directions of the five levels of the independent variable on a single tree will not need to be measured, because the study shows that nitrogen levels (similar to nitrate) will be similar in any uniform radius from the tree. From this experiment, one can learn where the most efficient parts of feeder roots proximal to the trunk are. This information can also be applied to finding the optimal area to place chemical root killer. It can also be helpful in finding the optimal area to place tree fertilizer, so the feeder roots can get the maximum amount of nutrients. Lastly, this research could be applied to Drumlin farm and much of Northeastern Massachusetts with Hemlock forests. The Hemlock Woolly Adelgid is an invasive species that kills Eastern Hemlock trees and these deaths have been affecting environments adversely in New England (Unknown, http://www.na.fs.fed.us). Using chemical Hemlock Woolly Adelgid killers, it is possible to kill the infested trees before the pest is able to spread to other surrounding trees. Future experiments could be conducted to determine whether chemical Hemlock Wooly Adelgid killers are affected by proximal distance of the chemicals from the stem. Figure 1: (See image cited) Figure 2: The X stands for the tree , while the red line stands for radius.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The soil samples will be collected in the Hemlock Forest. After the tree has been identified as an Eastern Hemlock tree, it will then have its circumference measured using a measuring tape and trees with similar diameters will be used for this study such as this tree (See figure 3). The soil samples will be collected from the proximal distance from the stem in five different distances: 0 meters, 0.5 meters, 1 meter, 1.5 meters, and 2 meters. The 5 distances will be measured using a measuring tape. From each of the distances the auger will be stabbed into the soil for each level of the independent variable. The auger will have the first 5 cm of soil removed. 10 ml of soil will be placed into an individually labeled container. Then add 30 ml of calcium chloride and shake the container well. These steps will be repeated for all 7 trees tested and will amount to 35 trials of the independent variable. One controlled variable will be the diameter of the trees measures, because if there are changing sizes of trees; it will add another independent variable. The second controlled variable is the depth at which the soil is collected, since the nitrate levels change at different depths. The third controlled variable is the sloped direction the soil is collected at; this means that if there is a hill where the trees grow, then the soil samples of all the trees will have samples collected sloping directly downwards. The fourth controlled variable will be the size of soil sample collected, which in the paragraph above said 10 ml of soil. The last controlled variable will be the container the samples will be stored in which is a small Tupperware container. The container will be left alone until the soil in the container settle out from the calcium chloride water The nitrate test kit that will be used is the LaMotte water quality nitrate testing kit (Model number: 3354-01) (See figure 1). The test will be conducted under a fume hoods to contain any dangerous fumes (See figure 2). 2.5 ml of the calcium chloride water will be collected using a pipette from the container into the marked test tube. Then, another 2.5 ml of mixed acid reagent will be added to tube, and the tube will be capped and shaken for 1 minute. The tube will then be left to settle for two minutes. After the two minutes, the tubes will be uncapped and have the nitrate reducing powder (from the bottle) scooped in the small spoon, so the spoon is completely filled. The tube will then be recapped and repeatedly inverted for minute. The tubes will be left to sit for 10 minutes to settle out the particle. Once the 10 minutes have past, the tube will have a slightly colored liquid that should be similar to a color on the color chart. Findings will be recorded on a data table constructed in the FNB. The steps will be repeated for all 35 trials.

Figure 1: (See image cited)

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

DATA & RESULTS:

Table 1:
The effect of proximal distance from the tree trunk on the nitrate levels in PPM.

Distance from tree Trunk (M). 0 meters 0.5 meters 1 meter 1.5 meters 2 meters

Nitrate Levels in Parts Per Million

Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Average SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.46 0.15 * 1.2 2.1 * 2.5 3.2 0.9 1.5 * 2.1 2.9 0.7 0.5 1.3 2.5 3 0.8 1 1.9 2.2 0.7 0.9 1 2.4 0.5 1.2 1.8 2.5 0.68 0.16 1.18 0.21 1.9 0.5 2.67 0.36

* indicates nitrate levels were not measured due to lack of proper supplies Table 2:
The effect of the tree number (cm) on diameter in (PPM).

Graph 1:
3.5 Nitrate levels in parts per million(PPM) 3

The effect of proximal distance from the tree trunk on the nitrate levels in PPM.

2.5 2

1.5 1

0.5 0 0 meters 0.5 meters 1 meter 1.5 meters 2 meters

Distance from the trunk (M)

Graph 2:

The effect of the diameter of the trees (cm) on nitrate levels in (PPM).

0 meters: r2 value: 0.3 0.5 meter: r2 value: 0.08 1 meter: r2 value: 0.003 1.5 meters: r2 value: 0.1 2 meters: r2 value: 0.09 Graph 3:
The effect of proximal distance from the tree trunk on the nitrate levels in PPM.

Nitrate levels in Parts per million

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5

y = 1.1265x + 0.2642 R = 0.8647

2.5

Distance from the tree in meters

Results: Table 1 shows all the data collected during the experiment with averages and standard deviations of each distance from the trunk. The 3 missing data points are the trials that were uncollected. Table 2 shows the diameter of each tree used in the experiment. This data was used in graph 2 to look for any correlation between the diameters of trees on nitrate levels. In graph 1, the general trend without the error bars show that nitrate levels do increase the farther away from the tree. With error bars, the data is has a slight bit of overlapping between 0 and 0.5 meters, and 1.5 and 2 meters. The nitrate levels at 0 meters had the smallest error bars, making it the most precise of the data while the nitrate levels at 1.5 had the largest error bar making it the least precise. This is due to an outlier at the trial of tree 6 on table 2. The 0.5 meter mark is the second most precise, the 1 meter mark is the third most precise, and the 2 meter mark is the second least precise. Lastly, it is possible to look at the correlation between all the data on graph 3. The r2 value was .86 showing a high percentage of correlation between the two, which indicates there is strong general trend between the IV and DV. On graph 2, it is possible to observe if there was general trend between the diameter of the tree and nitrate levels. Although there was not much correlation between the diameter and nitrate levels because the r2 value was only 0.3, but the lowest was 0.003. This shows that there were no significant trends between the diameter of the tree and nitrate levels. Graph 3 shows the correlation between the distances from the trunk on nitrate levels in soil. The scatterplot shows all the data points with a line of best fit showing the r2 value and the correlation between the two variables. With an r2 value of .86, the data shows a strong correlation between the distances from the tree trunk on the nitrate levels in the soil. The day the data was collected. There was a clear blue sky, and it was 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The Hemlock forest was on the sloped side of Drumlin hill (the name for the hill). Lastly, there were many fallen and rotting trees around the Hemlock forest that the funguses were slowly decomposing (See Figure 1).

Figure 1:

DISCUSSION:
This experiment was conducted to explore the relationship between the proximal distance from the tree trunk and the respective nitrate levels in parts per million. The hypothesis was: if the soil sample at 0 meters from the trunk, then it will have the lowest nitrate levels in ppm, because all roots feeder roots start out from the trunk (Hagen, 1989) (Whiting, cmg.colostate.edu). This hypothesis was supported by the data, because it is possible to conclusively state that the distance closest to the tree trunk (0 meter proximally from the trunk) had the lowest nitrate levels, due to the non-significant error bar overlap. The data collected was fairly conclusive. As stated previously in the results, when doing pairwise comparisons, there is slight overlap between the 0 m and 0.5 m error bars and a larger overlap between the 1.5 m and 2.0 m error bars. The 0 m distance had conclusively less nitrate than all the other groups. The 0.5 m distance had conclusively more nitrate than 0 m and conclusively less nitrate than the rest of the other groups. Furthermore, the 1.5 m distance had conclusively more nitrate than 0 m and 0.5 m, while it had conclusively less nitrate than 1.5 m and 2.0 m. The 1.5 m distance had conclusively less nitrate than the 2.0 m distance but more nitrate than the rest of groups. Lastly, the 2.0 m distance had conclusively the most nitrates. The hypothesis, namely the 0 meter distance, would have the least amount of nitrate, can be supported, because all feeder roots must start out from the trunk, so the largest number of active roots will naturally be right next to the trunk (Whiting, cmg.colostate.edu). Another more specific explanation is that the rough estimate of the canopy, the branches in this case, was at most as long as 53cm. (~.5 meters). This meant that working with the idea that the highest density of feeder roots are under the canopy/dripzone; the 0 m distance would be the only group completely under the canopy (Hagen, Tree Roots - Major Considerations for the Developer). Furthermore, the low standard deviation for the 0 m, 0.5 m, 1.0 m distances, which are 0.15, 0.16, and 0.21, can be explained through lack of intersecting roots from neighboring trees. The lack of intersecting roots is due to the fact that most active roots reside in the dripzone, so only a few active and neighboring roots intersect roots at the 3 distances. Conversely, the 1.5 m and 2.9 m distances have larger standard deviation, because there are more intersections from neighboring feeder roots, since in a dense forest, the trunks can be only a few meters away from each other. So, distances 1.5 and 2.0 may be very near or under another trees dripline (Hagen, Tree Roots - Major Considerations for the Developer). The data overall seemed fairly precise due to the small standard deviation, but it should be noted that the testing required a bit of estimating. The procedure required estimating of the relative color of the water-soil solution, which means that there could be precision lost due to human error in estimating. There is much confidence in the results due to the fact that all pairwise comparisons conclusively have one bar that has fewer nitrates than another bar, but the confidence is not 100% since there was human error within the results. One way the experiment could be improved is by having a more precise method or procedure of measuring nitrate levels. The second way the experiment could be improved is by testing all the trials on the same day, so that some trials do not get more concentrated nitrate water from water being evaporated since nitrates do not evaporate

10

with water (epa.gov). Thus when the test tubes were filled to the 40 ml mark with liquidsoil solution it had a higher density of nitrates which could have affected the results. The first error that was encountered during the experiment was that the Hemlock trees were all on a sloped hill. Because it was a sloped area, it meant that nitrates in the soil could have flowed down to the base of hill when it rained, so the results could have been skewed such that there would be less nitrates in areas than if it were on a flat plane. This error may have significantly changed the results of this experiment that it could benefit from an extension experiment done on the Eastern Hemlock tree on a flat plane. Furthermore, another error was that during the tail end of the experiment; there wasnt enough calcium chloride liquid to properly dilute all the trials. It had implication that the soil to calcium chloride may have been in the wrong ratio; therefore, affecting the accuracy of the test. Another follow up experiment could be conducted on oak trees to see whether oak tree/deciduous trees exhibit the same trends as Eastern Hemlock trees.

11

Acknowledgements:
Kian Golshans Acknowledgements There have been many people that have helped make my experiment possible, and run as smoothly as it did. Ms. Schultheis was one of the biggest factors in the organization of our experiment. She supplied us with both solutions for our nitrogen test kit problem, and useful information for how to do our test as efficiently as possible. She also made sure we were safe when using the dangerous chemicals for our procedure. Another person that helped us in our experiment was my mother and father, Parisa Lotfi and Mehra Golshan. They provided materials for our experiment and offered any help necessary including driving to school early to work on the experiment.

Ryan Guans Acknowledgements Our experiment couldnt have been possible without the expertise and help from many people. First, Id like to thank my parents; Rong Guan and Minping Liu, for forcing me to soil drench the soil on our Eastern Hemlock tree when it was infested with Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, which inspired the creation of the experiment. Furthermore, I would like to thank Andrew Kellogg-Peeler for helping create a makeshift graduated cylinder. I would also like to thank Mr. Ewins for giving us advice on the field when we encountered a major problem in our experiment. Lastly, I would like to thank Ms. Schultheis for being such a big part of our experiment. From singlehandedly finding a more precise nitrate test to helping us the mix the calcium chloride solution, or allowing us to borrow many tools, this experiment would not have been possible without her.

12

WORK CITED: Introduction Works Cited:

By Bruce W. Hagen California. Forestry and Fire Protection. California Department of Forestry and Fire. Tree Roots - Major Considerations for the Developer. N.p.: n.p., 1989. Tree Roots. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

"Definition of Drip Line." Definition of Drip Line. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2013. <http://davesgarden.com/guides/terms/go/280/>.

"Northeastern Area." Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/>.

"Parts per Million (ppm) Definition." Parts per Million (ppm) Definition. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/DefP/parts_per_million.html>.

Pinho, Rachel C. "Agroforestry and the Improvement of Soil Fertility: A View from Amazonia." Agroforestry and the Improvement of Soil Fertility: A View from Amazonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aess/2012/616383/cta/>.

13

"Plant Nutrients." Plant Nutrients. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm>.

"SECTION I: SOIL COMPACTION-CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES." Soil Compaction: Causes, Effects, and Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/3115s01.ht ml>.

Sillick, J. M., and W. R. Jacobi. "Healthy Roots and Healthy Trees." Healthy Roots and Healthy Trees. Ext.colostate.edu, 3 Aug. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/02926.html>.

"Soil NItrate-Nitrogen Soil Quick Test." AWQA. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.awqa.org/pubs/waterqual/soilnproced.pdf>.

"Welcome to an Engaged Community." Lombard, IL. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.villageoflombard.org/index.aspx?NID=760>.

14

Material and Methods work cited:

"LAMOTTE Water Testing Kit, Nitrate, 0 to 15 PPM." LAMOTTE Water Testing Kit, Nitrate, 0 to 15 PPM. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

"Soil Nitrate-Nitrogen Soil Quick Test." AWQA. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. http://www.awqa.org/pubs/waterqual/soilnproced.pdf>.

Discussion Work Cited:

Ashman, M. R., and G. Puri. Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to Soil Science. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002. Print.

By Bruce W. Hagen California. Forestry and Fire Protection. California Department of Forestry and Fire. Tree Roots - Major Considerations for the Developer. N.p.: n.p., 1989. Tree Roots. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

"Consumer Factsheet On: Nitrates." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

"Definition of Drip Line." Definition of Drip Line. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2013. <http://davesgarden.com/guides/terms/go/280/>.

"Northeastern Area." Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/>.

15

"Parts per Million (ppm) Definition." Parts per Million (ppm) Definition. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/DefP/parts_per_million.html>.

Pinho, Rachel C. "Agroforestry and the Improvement of Soil Fertility: A View from Amazonia." Agroforestry and the Improvement of Soil Fertility: A View from Amazonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aess/2012/616383/cta/>.

"Plant Nutrients." Plant Nutrients. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm>.

"SECTION I: SOIL COMPACTION-CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES." Soil Compaction: Causes, Effects, and Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/3115s01.ht ml>.

"Soil NItrate-Nitrogen Soil Quick Test." AWQA. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.awqa.org/pubs/waterqual/soilnproced.pdf>.

16

Whiting, David. "Diagnosing Root and Soil Disorders on Landscape Trees." Diagnosing Root and Soil Disorders on Landscape Trees. N.p., Dec. 2011. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

Images cited:
Lamotte Nitrate Test Kit. Digital image. Pet Store. Pet Store, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <petstore.com>. Nitrate molecule. Digital image. 3dchem. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <http://www.3dchem.com/inorganicmolecule.asp?id=1135>. Tree root diagram. Digital image. Rneighbor. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.rneighbors.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture5.jpg>.

17

Drop it like its hot and all day chase those darn bugs away!

The effect of sunlight on the number of fresh water aquatic organisms.

By Matthew Siff, Ellie Gozigian, and Carter Liou

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Section! ! ! ! Abstract! ! ! ! Introduction! ! ! ! Materials!and!Methods! ! Tables!and!Graphs! ! ! Results! ! ! ! Discussion! ! ! ! Acknowledgments! ! ! Works!Cited! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Index! Primary!Author! Carter!Liou! ! Ellie!Gozigian!! Matthew!Siff! ! Ellie!Gozigian!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!Page!Number! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!1! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!1! !!!!!!!!3! !!!!!!!!5!

Ellie!Gozigian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6! Matthew!Siff! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!7! !!!!!!!!9! !!!!!!!10!

! ABSTRACT:! ! ! Sunlight!is!an!essential!factor!to!all!life!on!earth.!!This!experiment!was!conducted!to! determine!whether!sunlight!or!shade!increases!the!amount!of!organisms!in!a!pond.!!The! samples!for!this!experiment!were!taken!at!Ice!Pond,!Poultry!Pond,!and!Vernal!Pool,! Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln!MA.!!The!procedures!for!this!experiment!were!to!scrape!a!fishing! net!against!the!bottom!of!the!pond!to!collect!organisms,!than!empty!contents!into!bin!for! observation.!Make!sure!water!is!added!so!the!organisms!wont!die.!!Count!number!of!bugs,! leeches,!and!animals!in!bin!and!record!number!in!logbook.!!The!hypothesis!for!this! experiment!is:!If!the!trials!are!taken!in!sunny!areas!of!a!pond,!then!more!organisms!will!be! found,!because!when!water!is!exposed!to!more!sunlight,!the!water!is!warmer!and!in! general,!the!higher!the!water!temperature!the!more!biological!activity!due!to!most!aquatic! organisms!being!coldIblooded.!!The!results!show!that!overall!aquatic!animals!thrive!and! live!in!sunnier!areas.!At!Poultry,!and!Ice!pond!the!amount!of!organisms!taken!from!the! trials!ranged!consistently!from!zero!to!fifth!teen.!!Though!at!Vernal!pool!each!trial!in!the! shade!usually!contained!about!twentyIfive!to!forty!five!organisms!and!the!trials!in!the!sun! usually!contained!seventy!five!to!one!hundred!and!five!organisms.! ! INTRODUCTION:! ! ! ! A!pond!is!a!relatively!small!body!of!water!that!contains!some!type!of!living! organisms.!Generally!ponds!will!have!some!species!of!small!aquatic!animals!that!roam! around!throughout!the!water.!As!the!seasons!change,!certain!regions!continuously!get!hit! with!strong!sun!rays,!where!as!others!are!covered!by!trees!or!other!large!objects!that! provide!the!area!below!with!shade,!cooling!the!air.!The!temperature!of!a!pond!has!a!major! influence!on!the!growth!of!the!aquatic!organisms!and!on!their!biological!activity.!This!is! because!most!aquatic!organisms!are!exothermic,!which!means!the!organisms!are!unable!to! internally!regulate!their!own!internal!body!temperature!(www.omegalakeservices.com).!In! general,!the!higher!the!water!temperature,!the!more!biological!activity!there!is.!However,! every!type!of!species!has!a!preferred!temperature!range!at!which!is!best!to!live!in.!When! the!temperature!goes!too!much!over!or!under!this!preferred!range,!a!large!number!of!the! specific!species!will!decrease!and!eventually!perish!(www.omegalakeservices.com).! ! ! During!the!fall,!the!research!team!made!a!trip!to!Drumlin!Farm.!Drumlin!Farm!is!a! working!farm!and!wildlife!sanctuary!located!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts.!This!farm!is!filled! with!many!ponds,!forests,!farming!areas,!and!has!numerous!animals!throughout!the! property!(www.massaudubon.org).!On!the!day!of!the!trip,!the!weather!was!clear!with!blue! sky!and!sunshine,!and!slightly!chilly.!The!topmost!zone!of!a!pond!near!the!edge!of!the!water! is!called!the!littoral!zone.!The!littoral!zone!is!the!warmest!level!because!it!is!shallow!and! can!absorb!the!most!of!the!suns!heat.!This!top!layer!can!be!filled!with!an!abundance!of! different!species!of!creatures!and!organisms!such!as!algae,!rooted!or!floating!aquatic! plants,!insects,!crustaceans,!and!amphibians!(www.ucmp.berkeley.edu).!The!second!level!of! water!is!called!the!limnetic!zone.!!This!zone!is!the!nearIsurface!open!water!that!is!just! below!the!littoral!zone.!The!limnetic!zone!is!highly!populated!by!two!species!of!plankton,! phytoplankton!and!zooplankton.!Plankton!are!small!organisms!that!play!a!major!role!in!the!

food!chain.!Without!aquatic!plankton!there!would!be!very!few!living!organisms!in!the! world.!This!zone!can!also!include!a!variety!of!freshwater!fish.!However,!this!zone!does!not! receive!as!much!sunlight!as!the!littoral!zone!(www.ucmp.berkeley.edu).!If!the!pond!is! extremely!deep,!than!it!may!have!a!third!level!known!as!the!profundal!zone.!This!zone!is! inhabited!by!organisms!that!will!either!crawl!along!the!silt!at!the!bottom!of!the!pond!or! attach!to!these!sediments.!!This!deep!level!does!not!get!any!sunlight! (www.ucmp.berkeley.edu).!! ! ! The!temperature!of!ponds!will!continuously!change!depending!on!how!well!the! ponds!are!circulated.!The!most!apparent!reason!the!temperature!of!the!water!changes!is! due!change!in!air!temperature!(Beatty,!"Rivers,!Lakes,!and!People."!pg!50).!When!the! temperature!drops!or!rises!to!a!certain!point!many!organisms!will!become!nonIactive.! When!the!water!temperature!goes!below!10!!C,!most!organisms!cannot!function!correctly.! When!the!water!temperature!dramatically!rises!above!20!!C!to!22.2!C,!the!productivity! increases!(http://www.omegalakeservices.com).! ! ! Fish!are!most!frequently!killed!by!the!effect!of!water!turnover!caused!by!low! dissolved!oxygen!concentrations!in!pond!water.!The!microscopic!algae!plants!produce!the! oxygen.!These!plants!produce!the!oxygen!when!there!is!sunlight!and!consume!the!oxygen! at!night.!Healthy!algae!levels!will!produce!more!oxygen!than!the!algae!will!need.!!Low! dissolved!oxygen!conditions!often!occur!at!night!or!early!in!the!morning,!especially!when! the!water!temperature!is!warm.!The!algae!and!other!plants!need!sunlight!to!produce! dissolved!oxygen!and!for!survival!(www.hedley.ca).!The!vegetations!will!hang!around!the! littoral!zone!to!receive!the!maximum!amount!of!sunlight!for!the!continuation!of!life.!! ! ! The!purpose!of!this!experiment!is!to!discover!whether!aquatic!organisms!prefer!the! sunny!or!shady!side!of!a!pond.!The!independent!variable!for!this!experiment!is!the!amount! of!sunlight!on!pond!which!is!split!into!two!variables.!!These!are!the!sunny!side!and!the! shady!side!of!pond.!The!three!locations!for!this!experiment!are!Poultry!Pond,!Bathtub!Pond,! and!Vernal!Pool,!which!are!all!located!at!Drumlin!Farm.!The!dependent!variable!is!the! number!of!organisms!found.!The!specific!type!of!organisms!will!also!be!recorded.!The! controlled!variables!for!this!investigation!are!the!amount!of!trials!taken,!the!depth!of!each! water!sample,!the!materials!used,!the!amount!of!swishes!back!and!forth!of!the!net!and!the! exact!procedure.!The!hypothesis!for!this!experiment!states;!If!the!trials!are!taken!in!the! sunny!area!of!the!ponds!then!more!organisms!will!be!found!because!when!water!is!exposed! to!more!sunlight,!the!water!is!warmer!and!in!general,!the!higher!the!water!temperature!the! more!biological!activity!due!to!most!aquatic!organisms!being!exothermic!creatures! (Kaplan,!www.anapsid.org).!!! ! ! This!experiment!will!confirm!how!the!sun!effects!the!location!of!organisms!in!water.! How!the!sunlight!influences!the!wildlife!and!the!aquatic!organisms!of!ponds!will!also!be! discovered.!From!the!results!of!this!experiment,!Drumlin!Farm!and!other!wildlife! sanctuaries!can!improve!the!vegetation!growth!in!the!waters!and!try!to!prevent!a!large! amount!of!aquatic!life!dying!due!to!low!amounts!of!dissolved!oxygen.!It!is!important!to! have!a!large!and!healthy!quantity!of!organisms!in!ponds!to!kept!the!aquatic!food!chain! continuing!also!evidentially!keep!the!whole!world!food!chain!alive!and!running.!!!

! MATERIALS!AND!METHODS:! ! At!Drumlin!Farm,!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts,!the!numbers!of!organisms!were! counted!at!a!shady!and!sunny!location!at!Vernal!pool,!Poultry!pond,!and!Ice!pond.!Vernal! pool!was!a!shallow!pond!due!to!its!seasonal!water!fluctuations!and!deciduous!trees! surrounded!it!at!its!south.!Vernal!pool!was!also!covered!in!lily!pads!and!was!home!to!many! animals!ranging!from!salamanders!to!caddisflies!(Mass!Audubon,! http://www.massaudubon.org/).!Poultry!pond!was!covered!in!Duckweed!and!bordered!by! a!few!White!Birch!trees.!Ice!pond!had!many!trees!to!its!east!and!is!a!larger!pond!with!fewer! animals!neighboring!it!than!Vernal!pool!and!during!the!winter!the!water!freezes!creating! ice!blocks!(see!figure!1!for!locations).!

! Figure!1:!A!map!of!Drumlin!Farm.!Number!11!is!Poultry!pond,!14!is!Vernal!pool,!and! 13!is!Ice!pond.! ! The!method!set!forth!for!the!experiment!began!by!dipping!a!thermometer!into!a! shady!spot!of!Vernal!pool!and!recording!the!temperature!in!the!logbook.!Then!the!fishing! nets!shaft!was!marked!half!way!down!(45!cm)!and!dipped!into!the!water!to!the!mark.!The! net!was!swooshed!back!and!forth!five!times!(figure!2)!and!was!quickly!raised!out!of!the! water!with!the!net!facing!up!to!prevent!any!lost!organisms.!The!net!was!gently!turned!over! the!bucket!(46cm!by!30cm)!allowing!the!loose!organisms!to!fall!into!the!bucket!and!240! milliliters!of!water!was!poured!over!the!back!of!the!net!to!transfer!any!other!organisms!to! the!bucket.!!After!all!the!organisms!were!in!the!bucket,!a!magnifying!glass!was!held!over!the! bucket!to!help!count!the!number!of!organisms.!To!ensure!controlled!data,!each!time!the! organisms!were!accurately!counted!from!the!left!to!the!right!with!the!magnifying!glass.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Figure!2:!The!first!half!of!this!diagram!is!simply!the!net!being!picked!up!and!the!second! half!is!an!example!of!how!the!net!should!be!dipped!into!the!water! (http://tinyurl.com/al4msrn).! ! Common!organisms!that!were!recorded!included!Leeches,!Backswimmers,!Scuds,! and!Water!Scorpions!(see!figure!3).!The!total!numbers!of!organisms!were!recorded!on!a! separate!table!for!each!pond.!Five!tests!were!completed!in!the!shade!and!then!five!tests! were!completed!in!a!part!of!Vernal!pool!that!was!exposed!to!the!sun.!Subsequent!to!the! recorded!data!at!Vernal!pool,!testing!was!done!at!Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond!using!the!same! method.!!!!!

Figure!3:!These!are!common!organisms!found!in!a!freshwater!pond! (http://tinyurl.com/aqusyua).! ! ! !

!!

RESULTS:!! ! TABLE #1: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in Vernal pond Number!of!organisms!in!Vernal!pond!! ! Location! Trial!1! Trial!2! Trial!3! Trial!4! Trial!5! Average! Standard!Deviation! Shady!(24C)! 25.0! 32.0! 45.0! 35.0! 39.0! 35.2! 7.5! Sunny!!! (26!C)! 75.0! 100.0! 85.0! 96.0! 106.0! 92.4! 12.4! TABLE #2: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in Ice pond Number!of!organisms!In!Ice!pond! ! Location! Trial!1! Trial!2! Trial!3! Trial!4! Trial!5! Average! Standard!Deviation! Shady!! (14!C)! 6.0! 10.0! 2.0! 5.0! 2.0! 5.0! 3.3! Sunny!!! (16!C)! 7.0! 10.0! 9.0! 7.0! 6.0! 7.8! 1.6! TABLE #3: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in Poultry pond ! ! ! !Number!of!organisms!In!Poultry!pond! ! ! ! ! ! ! Location! Trial!1! Trial!2! Trial!3! Trial!4! Trial!5! Average! Standard!Deviation! Shady!! (24!C)! 7.0! 4.0! 4.0! 4.0! 4.0! 4.6! 1.3! Sunny!!! (26!C)! 4.0! 9.0! 10.0! 10.0! 11.0! 8.8! 2.8! TABLE #4: on number of !Organisms ! ! The effect ! of sunlight ! ! ! in all ponds ! !! Location! Shady! Sunny! Total!number!of!organisms! Standard! Average! Deviation! 14.9! 15.5! 36.3! 41.6! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

GRAPH #1: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in all ponds

120!

100!

80! Number!Of!Organisms!

60! Shady!! 40! Sunny!!!

20!

0! Ice! Vernal! Poultry! Total!

I20!

Pond!Location!

! ! This!experiment!has!two!independent!variables!which!are!the!sunny!side!of!the! pond!and!the!shady!part.!On!the!XIaxis!there!are!the!three!pond!locations!and!then!the!last! point!is!the!total!average!of!all!the!ponds.!The!YIaxis!shows!the!number!of!organisms!found! in!the!ponds.!! ! The!average!number!of!organisms!from!the!sunny!side!of!Ice!Pond,!Vernal!Pond,! Poultry!Pond,!and!Total!averages!were!7.8,!92.4,!8.8,!and!36.3!and!with!a!standard! deviation!of!3.3,!12.4,!2.8,!and!41.6!all!relatively!ordered.!The!average!number!of!organisms! from!the!shady!side!of!the!Ice,!Vernal,!Poultry,!and!Total!averages!were!5.0,!35.2,!4.6,!and! 14.9!with!a!standard!deviation!of!3.3,!7.5,!1.3,!and!15.5!also!all!relatively!listed.!The!average! number!of!organisms!on!the!sunny!side!and!shady!side!of!the!Ice!Pond!has!a!very!minimal! difference!and!the!error!bars!do!overlap.!The!averages!from!the!sunny!and!shady!side!of! the!Vernal!pond!are!very!different!and!the!error!bars!do!not!overlap.!The!averages!number! of!organisms!from!sunny!and!shady!side!of!the!Poultry!pond!are!also!very!close,!however! the!errors!bars!do!not!overlap.!The!total!averages!from!all!sunny!and!shady!locations!have!

both!very!large!error!bars,!however!the!sunny!error!bars!are!incredibly!large!and!the!error! bars!do!overlap.!The!most!number!of!organisms!found!during!one!trial!was!at!the!Sunny! side!of!Vernal!Pond!where!106.0!organisms!were!found!and!the!lowest!amount!found!was! at!the!Shady!side!of!the!Ice!Pond!with!2.0!organisms!found.!! ! ! The!data!from!Ice!pond!was!collected!at!10:15!in!the!morning!with!an!air! temperature!of!7!degrees!Celsius.!The!sun!was!shinning!bright!with!a!few!clouds!but!mostly! blue!sky.!The!pond!was!surrounded!by!many!deciduous!trees!and!a!few!coniferous!trees.! The!water!from!the!Ice!Pond!was!very!murky!and!dirty!and!on!the!sunny!side,!had!a! temperature!of!16!degrees!Celsius!and!had!a!temperature!of!14!degrees!Celsius!on!the! shady!side.!The!data!from!the!Vernal!Pond!was!collected!at!1:06!in!the!afternoon!where!the! air!was!a!lot!hotter!with!a!temperature!of!13!degrees!Celsius.!This!pond!was!very!small!and! shallow.!On!the!sunny!side!of!the!pond!there!was!a!temperature!of!26!degrees!Celsius!and!a! temperature!of!24!degrees!Celsius!on!the!shady!side!with!a!few!fallen!trees!submerged!in! the!water.!The!pond!was!surrounded!by!leaves,!wood!chips,!rocks,!and!there!was!scattered! remains!of!snow.!The!data!from!Poultry!pond!was!collected!at!11:25!in!the!morning!with!a! clear!blue!sky.!The!air!temperature!was!9!degrees!Celsius!however!the!water!temperature! on!the!sunny!side!was!24!degrees!Celsius!and!26!degrees!Celsius!on!the!shady!side.!This! pond!was!completely!covered!with!green!duckweed!and!a!few!tree!branches!we!scattered! around!in!the!pond.!This!pond!also!had!a!large!mosquito,!turtle,!and!frog!population.!! ! DISCUSSION:! ! This!experiment!was!conducted!to!find!the!different!affects!sunlight!has!on!where! organisms!live.!The!hypothesis!set!forth!was:!if!the!trials!are!taken!in!a!sunny!area!of!a! pond,!then!more!organisms!will!be!found,!because!when!water!is!exposed!to!sunlight,!the! water!is!warmer!and!in!general,!the!higher!the!water!temperature!the!more!biological! activity!due!to!many!aquatic!organisms!being!ectotherms!(Kaplan,!www.anapsid.org).!This! hypothesis!was!supported!because!the!ponds!were!at!least!two!degrees!Celsius!warmer!in! the!sunIexposed!locations!making!it!a!popular!living!environment!for!most!of!the! organisms.!In!addition,!the!organisms!were!ectotherms,!which!are!dependent!on!external! sources!of!body!heat,!so!they!do!not!produce!their!own!heat!and!their!enzymes!drop!to! dangerous!temperatures!when!they!are!too!cold.!To!stay!mobile,!these!organisms!find!the! warmest!spots!possible!and!live!in!them!(www.novozymes.com).! ! ! The!Vernal!pool!had!the!largest!average!amount!of!organisms!in!both!the!sunny!and! the!shady!part!of!the!pond.!The!Vernal!pool!had!no!fish!due!to!its!seasonal!water! fluctuations,!allowing!many!smaller!organisms!to!thrive!(http://www.maine.gov).!In!other! words,!macroinvertebrates!could!survive!without!the!predation!pressure!from!the!larger! organisms!(plankt.oxfordjournals.org).!For!instance,!after!embryo!become!tadpoles!fish! usually!eat!them,!but!since!there!were!no!fish,!these!ectotherms!could!survive!and!stay!in! the!warmest!parts!of!the!pond,!which!were!26!degrees!Celsius!(www.whateats.com).! Furthermore,!organisms!like!phytoplankton,!which!specifically!live!in!ponds,!require! sunlight!to!sustain!their!lives,!thus!they!are!spending!their!time!in!the!sunniest!parts!of! ponds!(www.yale.edu).! !

Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond!shared!the!same!types!of!organisms!including! Backswimmers!and!Water!Scorpions.!The!data!collection!was!similar!with!only!an!average! difference!in!the!number!of!organisms!of!0.40!in!the!shady!spot!and!a!difference!of!1.0!in! the!sunny!spot.!As!a!result!of!such!similar!data,!all!of!the!error!bars!overlapped!between! Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond.!It!is!conclusive!based!on!the!error!bars!that!the!Vernal!pool!had! a!higher!average!number!of!organisms!at!the!sunny!and!the!shady!part!of!the!pond!than! Poultry!and!Ice!pond.!The!sunny!spot!of!the!ponds!decisively!had!a!higher!average!in!the! number!of!organisms!than!the!shady!spots!of!21.4!organisms!as!the!ectotherms!gathered! up!in!warmer!places!to!retain!accessibility!(science.jrank.org).!!! !! ! The!data!was!not!precise!because!of!the!large!range!in!data!for!each!pond.!All! organisms,!similar!to!humans,!have!to!move!in!order!to!eat!and!to!release!energy! (www.marietta.edu).!The!organisms!in!a!pond!are!always!moving!yet!they!tend!to!remain! in!the!same!area!(www.biologyreference.com).!For!example,!in!the!Vernal!pool!during!the! first!testing!there!were!75!organisms!while!there!were!25!more!in!the!next!trial!because! organisms!that!were!around!that!area!decided!to!move!to!it.!Since!the!organisms!were! moving!a!lot!between!each!trial!and!the!error!bars!were!sizeable,!there!is!not!much! confidence!in!the!data.!! ! ! There!are!many!modifications!that!could!be!done!to!help!improve!this!experiment.! First!of!all,!because!there!was!not!a!sufficient!amount!of!data!collected,!ten!more!trials! should!be!taken!at!each!location!to!secure!confidence!in!the!data.!Additionally,!a!net!with! smaller!holes!could!be!used.!This!would!decrease!the!chance!of!any!smaller!organisms! falling!through!the!net!while!it!was!brought!to!the!bucket.!Four!more!buckets!could!be! brought!so!that!the!testing!with!the!net!could!be!done!faster!to!prevent!the!suns!position! from!moving!within!a!testing.!Finally,!a!microscope!with!more!magnification!would!be! helpful!to!find!organisms!that!are!not!visible!to!the!human!eye.!! ! ! A!few!errors!occurred!during!the!procedure.!Originally!no!water!was!being!poured! over!the!net.!After!a!few!trials!there!were!some!organisms!that!were!stuck!to!the!net!so! water!was!poured!over!them!but!the!same!amount!of!water!was!not!poured!over!the!net! each!trial.!This!mistake!can!be!fixed!by!simply!measuring!240!milliliters!of!water!with!a! measuring!cup!and!pouring!it!over!the!net.!Moreover,!the!bucket!was!not!rinsed!completely! empty!from!leaves!every!time!with!the!fear!that!rinsing!the!bucket!with!pond!water!would! bring!more!organisms!in!it.!A!few!hundred!milliliters!of!distilled!water!could!be!brought! from!the!Science!lab!to!rinse!out!the!bucket!after!each!trial.!The!net!was!not!inserted!in!the! exact!same!place!every!time,!which!could!be!fixed!by!using!a!different!sunny!spot!for!each! trial!so!that!there!would!be!less!worry!in!not!putting!the!net!back!in!the!same!place!and!the! different!sunny!spots!could!be!compared!to!each!other.!For!a!future!experiment,!other! nutrients!and!the!height!of!the!water!could!be!tracked!in!each!pond!because!sunlight!is!not! the!only!factor!in!how!many!organisms!live!in!a!certain!area!of!a!pond.!For!example,!the!pH! of!three!separate!ponds!could!be!taken!and!the!number!of!organisms!in!the!ponds!could!be! compared!to!its!pH!level.!A!purity!test!could!also!be!completed!at!each!pond!which!will!find! the!amount!of!pollution!in!the!ponds.!The!quantity!of!pollution!in!the!ponds!could!be! associated!with!the!different!types!of!organisms!that!can!survive!in!each!pond.! !

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:! ! I,!Matthew!Siff,!would!like!to!thank!a!few!people!for!helping!me!prepare!for!the! experiment.!First,!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Schultheis!for!providing!me!with!help!on!my! papers!when!I!had!questions!and!on!contributing!a!thermometer!to!measure!the! temperature!of!the!water.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!Ms.!LaRocca!for!showing!Carter,!Ellie,! and!me!how!to!use!the!thermometer!in!the!water!because!we!needed!the!temperature!of! the!water!to!support!our!hypothesis.!In!our!group!I!constantly!had!many!questions!and!I! want!to!thank!the!Drumlin!Farm!team,!specifically!from!Poultry!pond,!Ice!pond,!and!Vernal! pool!for!answering!my!questions!clearly!and!concisely.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank!my! parents!for!supplying!me!with!sharpies!and!a!small!bag!I!was!allowed!to!carry!with!my! shoulder!injury.! ! I,!Carter!Liou,!would!like!to!thank!my!parents!for!helping!me!and!supporting!me! during!Knights!of!Science.!!I!would!also!like!to!thank!my!partners!Matt!and! Ellie.!!Throughout!Knights!of!Science!Mrs.!Schultheis!was!very!helpful!because!she!was! willing!to!meet!with!me!during!many!study!halls.!!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!naturalist!at! Drumlin!Farm!for!telling!us!a!lot!about!the!Vernal!Pool.!!I!would!like!to!thank!the!bus!driver! for!driving!us!to!Drumlin!Farms.!!I!would!like!to!thank!my!Advisor!Ms.!Svatek.!!I!would!like! to!thank!my!dad!for!going!to!Petco!to!get!the!materials!needed!for!my!experiment.!Lastly!I! would!like!to!thank!my!friends!and!family!for!helping!and!supporting!me!throughout!this! project.! ! This!project!could!not!have!existed!and!survived!without!the!help!of!many!people! and!teachers.!I,!Ellie!Gozigian,!would!first!like!to!thank!Ms.!Schultheis!who!pushed!my! group!to!work!at!our!fullest!potential!and!for!helping!me!through!this!whole!process.!Ms.! Schultheis!also!made!sure!we!were!all!fully!prepared!and!was!willing!to!assists!us!with! anything.!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Hardy,!Ms.!Currier,!and!Ms.!Howe!for!all!their!help!when! we!were!at!their!stations.!They!were!all!very!attentive!to!our!needs!and!were!there!for!us! when!we!had!questions!and!problems.!They!also!made!sure!we!followed!all!the!rules,!were! safe,!and!got!all!the!work!finished.!I!want!to!thank!Ms.!Larocca!and!Ms.!Svatek!for!the!help! on!the!day!of!the!trials!at!Drumlin!Farms.!Anytime,!we!had!a!question!or!were!having! trouble,!they!were!there!to!guide!us.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!Ice!Pond,!Poultry!Pond,! and!Vernal!Pond!specialist!at!the!Drumlin!Farms.!The!specialist!were!very!helpful!and!went! over!the!guidelines,!taught!us!how!to!use!all!the!equipments,!and!gave!us!more!of!an! understanding!about!the!specific!location.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!Drumlin!Farms!for! allowing!us!to!use!their!property!to!conduct!our!experiment.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank! my!partners,!Matthew!Siff!and!Carter!Lou!for!all!their!hard!work!and!good!team!work!to! make!our!project!successful!and!fun.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Works!Cited!for!the!Introduction! ! Beatty,!Richard.!Rivers,!Lakes,!Streams,!and!Ponds.!Rivers,!Lakes,!and!People.!Austin,!TX:! Raintree!SteckIVaughn,!2003.!50.!Print.!! ! Biomes!Group!of!the!Fall!96!Biology!1B!Class,!Section!115.!The!Aquatic!Biome.!The! Aquatic!Biome.!Ed.!Stephanie!Pullen.!UC!Berkley,!Apr.!2004.!Web.!13!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss5/biome/aquatic.html>.!! ! Drumlin!Farm!|!Mass!Audubon!|!Nature!Connection.!Drumlin!Farm!|!Mass!Audubon!|! Nature!Connection.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!12!Oct.!2012.!<!http://www.massaudubon.org! ! ! Hedley,!David.!Water!Turnover,!Winter!Kill!and!Low!Dissolved!Oxygen!Concentrations.! Oxygen!in!Ponds.!The!Oxygen!Factor,!n.d.!Web.!12!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.hedley.ca/oxygen2.htm>.!! ! The!Pond!Ecosystem!Chapter!3!of!the!Guide!to!Optimum!Pond!Dynamics.!The!Pond! Ecosystem!Chapter!3!of!the!Guide!to!Optimum!Pond!Dynamics.!Omega!Lake! Services,!08.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.omegalakeservices.com/The_Pond_Ecosystem.html>.!! ! Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/index.php!>.!

10

Water!Properties:!Temperature.!Temperature.!USGA!Water!Science!School,!10!Jan.!2013.! Web.!12!Mar.!2013.!<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/temperature.html>.!! ! Water!Properties:!Temperature.!Temperature.!USGA!Water!Science!School,!10!Jan.!2013.! Web.!13!Mar.!2013.!<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/temperature.html>.!! ! Works!Cited!for!the!Materials!and!Methods! ! ! Google'Search.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!14!Mar.!2013.!<https://www.google.com/search?q=easybib>.! Jpg,!n.d.!Web.!14!Mar.!2013.!<http://4mcn.com/pictures/outdoorIsports/smallIholesI aluminumIalloyIfishingIbrailInetIt00316.jpg>.! ! Key'to'Common'Macroinvertbrates.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!14!Mar.!2013.! <https://docs.google.com/a/bbns.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:eUpIYeMRJksJ:www.dec.ny.go v/docs/administration_pdf/lppondidentifykey.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj RJyCFzvSFquPyH0ie58RwX7tujrAlZLfwRGsd91bPxviCJVRFrEnSn6xOwJvIuFRNcUvnII tb1Xk06ww9ckGZnpcJYQWpQCVnTZlAODaWOTRdgjcPvjLVpiBYP3ulpdo1Y2Ia&sig=AHIEt bQLpDzIEYBSPooClIaxRsL6yG59SA>.! ! Works!Cited!for!the!Discussion! ! 92.05.07:!Pond!Ecology.!92.05.07:'Pond'Ecology.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!08!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1992/5/92.05.07.x.html>.!

11

! Biology!Reference.!Locomotion.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!06!Apr.!2013.!!! <http://www.biologyreference.com/LaIMa/Locomotion.html%20>.! ! Environmental'Biology.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!6!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/ecosystems.htm>.! ! Herp!and!Green!Iguana!Information!Collection.!Melissa'Kaplans'Herp'and'Green'Iguana' Information'Collection.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!06!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.anapsid.org/>.! ! Journal!of!Plankton!Research.!Lake'Thermal'Structure'Influences'Macroinvertebrate' Predation'on'Crustacean'Zooplankton.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.!2013.! <http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/10/1586.full>.! ! Temperature!Regulation!!Externally!Heated!Animals.!Net!Industries,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.! 2013.!<http://science.jrank.org/pages/6749/TemperatureIRegulationIExternallyI heatedIanimals.html>.! ! Vernal!Pools.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!6!Apr.!2013.! <https://docs.google.com/a/bbns.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:76iynS5SxlIJ:www.mai ne.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/pdf/fpminfo/14_vernal_pool.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&src id=ADGEESgxx5zKNEEVi9DFlrm3LbDki2PhflYpwuEHwfQ7eCG4I Fa8MU__rD63j1Rk2Nbv3EbdF3BqhUV6c1Z4LPXM31cYzERVqA_H4IhUlS477MFkFI

12

uRHymijoSPjcF6k7s7S6GsJIaM&sig=AHIEtbS2lq7gtyPisY9lJziSzkAI_xV4IQ>.! ! What!Are!Enzymes?!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!6!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.novozymes.com/en/aboutI us/ourIbusiness/whatIareIenzymes/pages/default.aspx>.! ! WHAT!EATS!A!TADPOLE?!WHAT'EATS'RSS.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!06!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.whateats.com/whatIeatsIaItadpoleI2>.! ! Works!Cited!for!the!front!page! ! N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!24!Apr.!2013.!<http://greenenergyIpower.com/wpI content/uploads/2013/01/SunICartoonICharacter.jpg>.! ! !N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!24!Apr.!2013.! <http://sweetclipart.com/multisite/sweetclipart/files/tadpole.png>.! ! !N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!24!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Hobbies_and_Entertainment/Dances_Fast/Disc o_guy_2.gif>.!

13

Drop it like its hot and all day chase those darn bugs away!

The effect of sunlight on the number of fresh water aquatic organisms.

By Matthew Siff, Ellie Gozigian, and Carter Liou

Section! ! ! ! Abstract! ! ! ! Introduction! ! ! ! Materials!and!Methods! ! Tables!and!Graphs! ! ! Results! ! ! ! Discussion! ! ! ! Acknowledgments! ! ! Works!Cited! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Index! Primary!Author! Matthew!Siff! ! Carter!Liou! ! Carter!Liou! ! Ellie!Gozigian!!

! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!Page!Number! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!1! !!!!!!!!1! !!!!!!!!2! !!!!!!!!4!

Ellie!Gozigian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5! Matthew!Siff! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!6! !!!!!!!!7! !!!!!!!!9!

! ABSTRACT:! ! ! Sunlight,!an!electromagnetic!radiation!emanated!by!the!sun,!is!a!key!factor!to!where! an!animal!settles.!This!experiment!was!conducted!to!discover!whether!the!amount!of! sunlight!could!affect!where!water!organisms!lived.!The!procedure!for!this!experiment!was! to!gather!organisms!in!a!net!from!a!shady!and!sunny!spot!at!Poultry!pond,!Ice!pond,!and!the! Vernal!pool.!The!numbers!of!organisms!were!counted!and!the!gathered!information!was! used!to!find!a!trend!on!what!locations!organisms!preferred!to!live!in.!It!was!anticipated!that! if!the!water!were!exposed!to!sunlight,!then!the!majority!of!organisms!would!live!in!it,! because!ectotherms!cannot!produce!their!own!heat!and!prefer!the!warmest!climate! accessible.!The!results!revealed!that!sunlight!had!quite!a!large!affect!on!where!aquatic! organisms!preferred!to!live.!Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond!had!similar!outcomes,!which!was! that!there!were!a!few!more!organisms!in!the!sunny!spot!on!average,!while!the!Vernal!pool! showed!a!great!difference!in!the!sunny!spot!of!over!50!on!average.!Regardless!of!the!Vernal! pools!distinction!in!the!number!of!organisms!found,!all!of!the!sites!contained!a!high! standard!deviation.!! INTRODUCTION:! ! ! ! Sunlight!is!a!major!component!that!keeps!life!underwater!and!on!land! alive.!!Sunlight!gives!off!photons!that!create!heat!for!many!ectotherms!that!live!in!the! water.!!Ectotherms!are!animals!that!relay!on!their!environment!for!a!heat!source.!!Such! animals!consist!of!frogs,!and!many!different!species!of!turtles!(Ectotherms,!Melissa!Kaplan,! ww.anapsid.com,!1992L2004).!Without!the!heat!of!the!sun,!an!ectotherm!cannot!regulate!its! body!temperature!and!will!die.!!Sunlight!also!plays!a!big!component!in!whether!insects!and! other!small!organisms!thrive!or!die!in!their!environment.!!The!heat!from!the!sun!will!keep! the!water!warm!helping!the!eggs!and!larvae!to!grow!rapidly!(www.George!Philling.com)!! This!experiment!will!be!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm!which!is!a!Mass!Audubon! wildlife!sanctuary,!in!Lincoln,!MA.!!The!farm!is!a!total!of!312!acres!and!has!many!ponds!and! small!vernal!pools.!!The!amount!of!organisms!that!live!in!the!pond!depend!on!the!of!amount! of!sunlight!that!hits!the!water.!!In!this!experiment!the!following!ponds!will!be!tested;! Poultry!pond,!the!vernal!pool!and!Bathtub!pond.!!Poultry!pond!is!a!pond!located!on!the! north!side!of!Drumlin!farm,!it!is!next!to!poultry!house!and!a!main!road.!!Most!of!Poultry! pond!is!in!the!open!sunlight!but!there!are!some!areas!that!are!shaded!by!trees.!!Vernal!pool! is!located!to!the!east!of!the!northern!part!of!the!drumlin.!!Part!of!vernal!pool!is!surrounded! by!trees,!but!the!other!half!is!not!shaded!because!it!is!next!to!a!large!field.!!Lastly!Bathtub! pond!is!directly!south!of!the!Drumlin!and!is!almost!completely!open!to!sunlight.!!Some! variable!that!could!change!the!amount!of!sunlight!reaching!the!pond!are!the!location,!and! the!amount!of!trees!and!other!plants!surrounding!the!body!of!water. When!a!pond!is!shaded,!water!organisms!such!as!insects,!ectotherms!and!many! different!aquatic!plants!cant!live!and!thrive.!!Many!of!the!underwater!plants!that!live!in! ponds!must!perform!photosynthesis!in!order!to!create!nutrients.!!When!all!plants!perform! photosynthesis!they!give!off!oxygen!O2.!!This!gas!is!a!key!factor!for!all!aquatic!insects!and! 1

animals!because!all!living!organisms!need!oxygen!in!order!to! survive.!(http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html).!If!there!are!more!plants!in!the!sunny!part! more!fish!and!other!aquatic!animal!will!go!there!because!there!will!be!more!vegetation!and! more!organisms!to!eat.!!Insects!might!also!better!thrive!in!this!environment!because!they! are!herbivores.!!Also!by!entering!this!thriving!area!they!would!reproduce.!!The!heat!from! the!sun!will!keep!the!water!warm!helping!the!eggs!and!larvae!grow!rapidly,!therefore! making!the!sunny!area!potentially!more!populated!than!an!area!in!the!shade!(Voshell,! 2009). This!experiment!is!based!on!the!effect!of!sunlight!on!the!amount!of!aquatic! organisms.!!The!objective!is!to!determine!whether!or!not!sunlight!positively!or!negatively! affects!the!amount!or!aquatic!organisms!in!a!small!body!of!water.!At!Drumlin!Farm!ten! trials!will!be!taken!from!Bathtub!pond,!Vernal!pool,!and!Poultry!pond.!!At!each!pond!five! trials!will!be!taken!in!the!shade!and!five!will!be!taken!in!a!sunny!area.!!The!independent! variable!for!this!experiment!is!the!amount!of!sunlight.!!The!dependent!variable!for!this! experiment!is!number!of!organisms!found.!!The!controlled!variables!will!be:!data!taken! from!the!same!three!ponds,!trials!taken!at!the!same!depth,!same!procedures!such!as!same! number!of!times!the!net!is!motioned!back!and!forth!to!collect!organisms,!same!amount!of! trials!done,!and!same!materials!used!such!as!bucket,!net,!and!thermometer.!!The!hypothesis! for!this!experiment!is:!If!the!trials!are!taken!in!sunny!areas!of!a!pond,!then!more!organisms! will!be!found,!because!when!water!is!exposed!to!more!sunlight,!the!water!is!warmer!and!in! general,!the!higher!the!water!temperature!the!more!biological!activity,!due!to!many!aquatic! organisms!being!ectotherms!(Kaplan,!www.anapsid.org).!! This!experiment!will!show!whether!or!not!the!number!of!aquatic!organisms!and! plants!will!vary!depending!on!the!amount!of!sunlight.!!This!experiment!will!help!show! Drumlin!Farm,!and!all!of!Massachusetts!how!shady!or!sunny!a!pond!must!be!in!order!to! sustain!numerous!fish,!ectotherms,!insects,!and!aquatic!plants.!!People!in!the!future! generations!must!understand!how!to!help!and!protect!organisms!and!plants!in!ponds!and! whether!a!pond!needs!more!sunlight!or!less.!!This!will!be!important!because!people!will!be! able!to!maximize!the!amount!of!organisms!in!their!pond!without!over!populated!the!body! of!water.! MATERIALS!AND!METHODS:! ! Poultry!pond,!Ice!pond,!and!Vernal!pool!are!located!at!Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln,! Massachusetts.!!These!relatively!small!bodies!of!water!are!partially!shaded!by!trees!making! them!great!places!to!test!whether!or!not!sunlight!affects!the!amount!of!organisms!in!a! pond.!!Figure!1!shows!a!map!of!Drumlin!Farm.!!Vernal!pool!is!to!the!left!of!the!drumlin,!Ice! pond!is!next!to!pond!house!and!a!parking!lot,!and!poultry!pond!is!next!to!the!poultry!house! which!is!location!under!and!a!little!left!of!the!drumlin.! ! ! ! ! ! 2

Figure!1:!Map!of!Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln,!Massachusetts!!!! (Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/maps.ph) !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! The!methods!for!this!experiment!were:!started!by!going!to!a!shady!location!at!the! Vernal!Pool.!!The!bucket!and!fishing!net!were!taken!out.!Next!the!net!was!marked!at!45!cm! with!tape.!The!net!was!then!Swished!at!a!depth!of!!45!cm!(at!the!tape!mark)!back!and!forth! five!times!and!then!lifted!out!of!the!water.!!The!net!was!then!taken!and!all!organisms!in!the! net!were!poured!into!the!bucket.!!The!magnifying!glass!was!then!held!ten!cm!from!one! eye.!!The!organisms!in!the!bucket!were!then!counted!from!left!to!right.!Some!organisms! that!were!found!were!leeches,!backswimmers,!and!water!scorpions,!as!shown!in!figure! 2.!!After!a!thermometer!was!used!to!find!the!water!temperature!in!degrees!Celsius.!!All!data! was!then!recorded!in!a!field!notebook!with!blue!or!a!black!ink!pen.!!Four!more!trials!(five! total)!were!taken!in!shady!area,!then!five!trials!were!taken!in!a!sunny!area!using! procedures!above.!!After!the!data!was!taken!at!Vernal!pool,!the!same!amount!of!data!was! taken!at!Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond!using!the!same!procedures!above. Figure!1:!Map!of!Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln,!Massachusetts!!!! (!Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/maps.ph) !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

! 3

RESULTS:!! ! TABLE #1: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in Vernal pond Number!of!organisms!in!Vernal!pond!! ! Location! Trial!1! Trial!2! Trial!3! Trial!4! Trial!5! Average! Standard!Deviation! Shady!(24C)! 25.0! 32.0! 45.0! 35.0! 39.0! 35.2! 7.5! Sunny!!! (26!C)! 75.0! 100.0! 85.0! 96.0! 106.0! 92.4! 12.4! TABLE #2: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in Ice pond Number!of!organisms!In!Ice!pond! ! Location! Trial!1! Trial!2! Trial!3! Trial!4! Trial!5! Average! Standard!Deviation! Shady!! (14!C)! 6.0! 10.0! 2.0! 5.0! 2.0! 5.0! 3.3! Sunny!!! (16!C)! 7.0! 10.0! 9.0! 7.0! 6.0! 7.8! 1.6! TABLE #3: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in Poultry pond ! ! ! !Number!of!organisms!In!Poultry!pond! ! ! ! ! ! ! Location! Trial!1! Trial!2! Trial!3! Trial!4! Trial!5! Average! Standard!Deviation! Shady!! (24!C)! 7.0! 4.0! 4.0! 4.0! 4.0! 4.6! 1.3! Sunny!!! (26!C)! 4.0! 9.0! 10.0! 10.0! 11.0! 8.8! 2.8! TABLE #4: on number of !organisms ! ! The effect ! of sunlight ! ! ! in all ponds ! !! Location! Shady! Sunny! Total!number!of!organisms! Standard! Average! Deviation! 14.9! 15.5! 36.3! 41.6! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

GRAPH #1: The effect of sunlight on number of organisms in all ponds

120! 100! Number!Of!Organisms! 80! 60! 40! 20! 0! Ice! L20! Vernal! Poultry! Total! Pond!Location! Shady!! Sunny!!!

! ! ! This!experiment!has!two!independent!variables!which!are!the!sunny!side!of!the! pond!and!the!shady!part.!On!the!XLaxis!there!are!the!three!pond!locations!and!then!the!last! point!is!the!total!average!of!all!the!ponds.!The!YLaxis!shows!the!number!of!organisms!found! in!the!ponds.!! ! The!average!number!of!organisms!from!the!sunny!side!of!Ice!Pond,!Vernal!Pond,! Poultry!Pond,!and!Total!averages!were!7.8,!92.4,!8.8,!and!36.3!and!with!a!standard! deviation!of!3.3,!12.4,!2.8,!and!41.6!all!relatively!ordered.!The!average!number!of!organisms! from!the!shady!side!of!the!Ice,!Vernal,!Poultry,!and!Total!averages!were!5.0,!35.2,!4.6,!and! 14.9!with!a!standard!deviation!of!3.3,!7.5,!1.3,!and!15.5!also!all!relatively!listed.!The!average! number!of!organisms!on!the!sunny!side!and!shady!side!of!the!Ice!Pond!has!a!very!minimal! difference!and!the!error!bars!do!overlap.!The!averages!from!the!sunny!and!shady!side!of! the!Vernal!pond!are!very!different!and!the!error!bars!do!not!overlap.!The!averages!number! of!organisms!from!sunny!and!shady!side!of!the!Poultry!pond!are!also!very!close,!however! the!errors!bars!do!not!overlap.!The!total!averages!from!all!sunny!and!shady!locations!have! both!very!large!error!bars,!however!the!sunny!error!bars!are!incredibly!large!and!the!error! bars!do!overlap.!The!most!number!of!organisms!found!during!one!trial!was!at!the!Sunny! side!of!Vernal!Pond!where!106.0!organisms!were!found!and!the!lowest!amount!found!was! at!the!Shady!side!of!the!Ice!Pond!with!2.0!organisms!found.!! ! ! The!data!from!Ice!pond!was!collected!at!10:15!in!the!morning!with!an!air! temperature!of!7!degrees!Celsius.!The!sun!was!shinning!bright!with!a!few!clouds!but!mostly! blue!sky.!The!pond!was!surrounded!by!many!deciduous!trees!and!a!few!coniferous!trees.! The!water!from!the!Ice!Pond!was!very!murky!and!dirty!and!on!the!sunny!side,!had!a! temperature!of!16!degrees!Celsius!and!had!a!temperature!of!14!degrees!Celsius!on!the! 5

shady!side.!The!data!from!the!Vernal!Pond!was!collected!at!1:06!in!the!afternoon!where!the! air!was!a!lot!hotter!with!a!temperature!of!13!degrees!Celsius.!This!pond!was!very!small!and! shallow.!On!the!sunny!side!of!the!pond!there!was!a!temperature!of!26!degrees!Celsius!and!a! temperature!of!24!degrees!Celsius!on!the!shady!side!with!a!few!fallen!trees!submerged!in! the!water.!The!pond!was!surrounded!by!leaves,!wood!chips,!rocks,!and!there!was!scattered! remains!of!snow.!The!data!from!Poultry!pond!was!collected!at!11:25!in!the!morning!with!a! clear!blue!sky.!The!air!temperature!was!9!degrees!Celsius!however!the!water!temperature! on!the!sunny!side!was!24!degrees!Celsius!and!26!degrees!Celsius!on!the!shady!side.!This! pond!was!completely!covered!with!green!duckweed!and!a!few!tree!branches!we!scattered! around!in!the!pond.!This!pond!also!had!a!large!mosquito,!turtle,!and!frog!population.!! ! DISCUSSION:! ! This!experiment!was!conducted!to!find!the!different!affects!sunlight!has!on!where! organisms!live.!The!hypothesis!set!forth!was:!if!the!trials!are!taken!in!a!sunny!area!of!a! pond,!then!more!organisms!will!be!found,!because!when!water!is!exposed!to!sunlight,!the! water!is!warmer!and!in!general,!the!higher!the!water!temperature!the!more!biological! activity!due!to!many!aquatic!organisms!being!ectotherms!(Kaplan,!www.anapsid.org).!This! hypothesis!was!supported!because!the!ponds!were!at!least!two!degrees!Celsius!warmer!in! the!sunLexposed!locations!making!it!a!popular!living!environment!for!most!of!the! organisms.!In!addition,!the!organisms!were!ectotherms,!which!are!dependent!on!external! sources!of!body!heat,!so!they!do!not!produce!their!own!heat!and!their!enzymes!drop!to! dangerous!temperatures!when!they!are!too!cold.!To!stay!mobile,!these!organisms!find!the! warmest!spots!possible!and!live!in!them!(www.novozymes.com).! ! ! The!Vernal!pool!had!the!largest!average!amount!of!organisms!in!both!the!sunny!and! the!shady!part!of!the!pond.!The!Vernal!pool!had!no!fish!due!to!its!seasonal!water! fluctuations,!allowing!many!smaller!organisms!to!thrive!(http://www.maine.gov).!In!other! words,!macroinvertebrates!could!survive!without!the!predation!pressure!from!the!larger! organisms!(plankt.oxfordjournals.org).!For!instance,!after!embryo!become!tadpoles!fish! usually!eat!them,!but!since!there!were!no!fish,!these!ectotherms!could!survive!and!stay!in! the!warmest!parts!of!the!pond,!which!were!26!degrees!Celsius!(www.whateats.com).! Furthermore,!organisms!like!phytoplankton,!which!specifically!live!in!ponds,!require! sunlight!to!sustain!their!lives,!thus!they!are!spending!their!time!in!the!sunniest!parts!of! ponds!(www.yale.edu).! ! Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond!shared!the!same!types!of!organisms!including! Backswimmers!and!Water!Scorpions.!The!data!collection!was!similar!with!only!an!average! difference!in!the!number!of!organisms!of!0.40!in!the!shady!spot!and!a!difference!of!1.0!in! the!sunny!spot.!As!a!result!of!such!similar!data,!all!of!the!error!bars!overlapped!between! Poultry!pond!and!Ice!pond.!It!is!conclusive!based!on!the!error!bars!that!the!Vernal!pool!had! a!higher!average!number!of!organisms!at!the!sunny!and!the!shady!part!of!the!pond!than! Poultry!and!Ice!pond.!The!sunny!spot!of!the!ponds!decisively!had!a!higher!average!in!the! number!of!organisms!than!the!shady!spots!of!21.4!organisms!as!the!ectotherms!gathered! up!in!warmer!places!to!retain!accessibility!(science.jrank.org).!!! !! 6

! The!data!was!not!precise!because!of!the!large!range!in!data!for!each!pond.!All! organisms,!similar!to!humans,!have!to!move!in!order!to!eat!and!to!release!energy! (www.marietta.edu).!The!organisms!in!a!pond!are!always!moving!yet!they!tend!to!remain! in!the!same!area!(www.biologyreference.com).!For!example,!in!the!Vernal!pool!during!the! first!testing!there!were!75!organisms!while!there!were!25!more!in!the!next!trial!because! organisms!that!were!around!that!area!decided!to!move!to!it.!Since!the!organisms!were! moving!a!lot!between!each!trial!and!the!error!bars!were!sizeable,!there!is!not!much! confidence!in!the!data.!! ! ! There!are!many!modifications!that!could!be!done!to!help!improve!this!experiment.! First!of!all,!because!there!was!not!a!sufficient!amount!of!data!collected,!ten!more!trials! should!be!taken!at!each!location!to!secure!confidence!in!the!data.!Additionally,!a!net!with! smaller!holes!could!be!used.!This!would!decrease!the!chance!of!any!smaller!organisms! falling!through!the!net!while!it!was!brought!to!the!bucket.!Four!more!buckets!could!be! brought!so!that!the!testing!with!the!net!could!be!done!faster!to!prevent!the!suns!position! from!moving!within!a!testing.!Finally,!a!microscope!with!more!magnification!would!be! helpful!to!find!organisms!that!are!not!visible!to!the!human!eye.!! ! ! A!few!errors!occurred!during!the!procedure.!Originally!no!water!was!being!poured! over!the!net.!After!a!few!trials!there!were!some!organisms!that!were!stuck!to!the!net!so! water!was!poured!over!them!but!the!same!amount!of!water!was!not!poured!over!the!net! each!trial.!This!mistake!can!be!fixed!by!simply!measuring!240!milliliters!of!water!with!a! measuring!cup!and!pouring!it!over!the!net.!Moreover,!the!bucket!was!not!rinsed!completely! empty!from!leaves!every!time!with!the!fear!that!rinsing!the!bucket!with!pond!water!would! bring!more!organisms!in!it.!A!few!hundred!milliliters!of!distilled!water!could!be!brought! from!the!Science!lab!to!rinse!out!the!bucket!after!each!trial.!The!net!was!not!inserted!in!the! exact!same!place!every!time,!which!could!be!fixed!by!using!a!different!sunny!spot!for!each! trial!so!that!there!would!be!less!worry!in!not!putting!the!net!back!in!the!same!place!and!the! different!sunny!spots!could!be!compared!to!each!other.!For!a!future!experiment,!other! nutrients!and!the!height!of!the!water!could!be!tracked!in!each!pond!because!sunlight!is!not! the!only!factor!in!how!many!organisms!live!in!a!certain!area!of!a!pond.!For!example,!the!pH! of!three!separate!ponds!could!be!taken!and!the!number!of!organisms!in!the!ponds!could!be! compared!to!its!pH!level.!A!purity!test!could!also!be!completed!at!each!pond!which!will!find! the!amount!of!pollution!in!the!ponds.!The!quantity!of!pollution!in!the!ponds!could!be! associated!with!the!different!types!of!organisms!that!can!survive!in!each!pond.! !! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:! ! I,!Matthew!Siff,!would!like!to!thank!a!few!people!for!the!help!they!provided!for!this! experiment.!First,!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Schultheis!for!providing!me!with!help!on!my! papers!when!I!had!questions!and!for!contributing!a!thermometer!to!measure!the! temperature!of!the!water.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!Ms.!LaRocca!for!showing!Carter,!Ellie,! and!me!how!to!use!the!thermometer!in!the!water!because!we!needed!the!temperature!of! the!water!to!support!our!hypothesis.!Additionally!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Svatek!for! helping!us!do!a!few!trials!at!Vernal!pool.!In!our!group!I!constantly!had!many!questions!and! I!want!to!thank!the!Drumlin!Farm!team,!specifically!from!Poultry!pond,!Ice!pond,!and! 7

Vernal!pool!for!answering!my!questions!clearly!and!concisely.!Thank!you!Carter!Liou!and! Ellie!Gozigian!for!making!the!project!enjoyable.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank!my!parents!for! supplying!me!with!sharpies!and!a!small!bag!I!was!allowed!to!carry!with!my!shoulder!injury.! ! I,!Carter!Liou,!would!like!to!thank!my!parents!for!helping!me!and!supporting!me! during!Knights!of!Science.!!I!would!also!like!to!thank!my!partners!Matt!and! Ellie.!!Throughout!Knights!of!Science!Mrs.!Schultheis!was!very!helpful!because!she!was! willing!to!meet!with!me!during!many!study!halls.!!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!naturalist!at! Drumlin!Farm!for!telling!us!a!lot!about!the!Vernal!Pool.!!I!would!like!to!thank!the!bus!driver! for!driving!us!to!Drumlin!Farms.!!I!would!like!to!thank!my!Advisor!Ms.!Svatek.!!I!would!like! to!thank!my!dad!for!going!to!Petco!to!get!the!materials!needed!for!my!experiment.!Lastly!I! would!like!to!thank!my!friends!and!family!for!helping!and!supporting!me!throughout!this! project.! ! This!project!could!not!have!existed!and!survived!without!the!help!of!many!people! and!teachers.!I,!Ellie!Gozigian,!would!first!like!to!thank!Ms.!Schultheis!who!pushed!my! group!to!work!at!our!fullest!potential!and!for!helping!me!through!this!whole!process.!Ms.! Schultheis!also!made!sure!we!were!all!fully!prepared!and!was!willing!to!assists!us!with! anything.!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Hardy,!Ms.!Currier,!and!Ms.!Howe!for!all!their!help!when! we!were!at!their!stations.!They!were!all!very!attentive!to!our!needs!and!were!there!for!us! when!we!had!questions!and!problems.!They!also!made!sure!we!followed!all!the!rules,!were! safe,!and!got!all!the!work!finished.!I!want!to!thank!Ms.!Larocca!and!Ms.!Svatek!for!the!help! on!the!day!of!the!trials!at!Drumlin!Farms.!Anytime,!we!had!a!question!or!were!having! trouble,!they!were!there!to!guide!us.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!Ice!Pond,!Poultry!Pond,! and!Vernal!Pond!specialist!at!the!Drumlin!Farms.!The!specialist!were!very!helpful!and!went! over!the!guidelines,!taught!us!how!to!use!all!the!equipments,!and!gave!us!more!of!an! understanding!about!the!specific!location.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!Drumlin!Farms!for! allowing!us!to!use!their!property!to!conduct!our!experiment.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank! my!partners,!Matthew!Siff!and!Carter!Lou!for!all!their!hard!work!and!good!team!work!to! make!our!project!successful!and!fun.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Works!Cited!for!the!Introduction! ! Ectotherms,!Melissa!Kaplan,!ww.anapsid.com,!1992L2004,! http://docs.google.com/a/bbns.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:98flfsT7PpcJ:www.anaps id.org/pdf/ectotherms.pdf+cold+blooded+site:http://www.anapsid.org&hl=en&gl= us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh8aSpCZqT974jHMmr2KWMutOHBHFyAEnvoLFt556L GY7B8UygXWWqXFywUJXxmPDC2i6wZeP48OXDPjMoLpg_DyL 69dnWj3Japrpjlh6Qg0qqz0jx41czrrMcGDX2devY3LFJ7&sig=AHIEtbQ0BSs1LcgtM7 ZesfV2eylILgvksw! ! Aquatic!Plants,! http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/lifeforms/aquaticplants/fullt extonly.html! ! Virginia!Tech,!May!1,!2009,! http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420L531/420L531.html,!Sustaining!America's!Aquatic! Biodiversity!L!Aquatic!Insect!Biodiversity!and!Conservation,!J.!Reese!Voshell,!Jr.,! Department!of!Entomology! ! Aquatic!Insect!Study,!George!Philling,!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.georgepilling.com/tic/Aquatic%20Insects.pdf!

! 9

Works!Cited!for!the!Materials!and!Methods! ! Marine!Discovery,!University!of!Arizona,!by!Betty!Moore,!Fall!Semester!1999,!Taylor!C.! and!!!!!!!Pople!S.!The!Oxford!Childrens!Book!of!Science.!Oxford!U.P.!New!York,! 1995,!!!!!http://marinediscovery.arizona.edu/lessons/bryozoans/Templates/index. html Works!Cited!for!the!Discussion! ! 92.05.07:!Pond!Ecology.!92.05.07:(Pond(Ecology.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!08!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1992/5/92.05.07.x.html>.! ! Biology!Reference.!Locomotion.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!06!Apr.!2013.!!! <http://www.biologyreference.com/LaLMa/Locomotion.html%20>.! ! Environmental(Biology.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!6!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/ecosystems.htm>.! ! Herp!and!Green!Iguana!Information!Collection.!Melissa(Kaplans(Herp(and(Green(Iguana( Information(Collection.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!06!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.anapsid.org/>.! ! Journal!of!Plankton!Research.!Lake(Thermal(Structure(Influences(Macroinvertebrate( Predation(on(Crustacean(Zooplankton.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.!2013.! <http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/10/1586.full>.! 10

! Temperature!Regulation!!Externally!Heated!Animals.!Net!Industries,!n.d.!Web.!10!Apr.! 2013.!<http://science.jrank.org/pages/6749/TemperatureLRegulationLExternallyL heatedLanimals.html>.! ! Vernal!Pools.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!6!Apr.!2013.! <https://docs.google.com/a/bbns.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:76iynS5SxlIJ:www.mai ne.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/pdf/fpminfo/14_vernal_pool.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&src id=ADGEESgxx5zKNEEVi9DFlrm3LbDki2PhflYpwuEHwfQ7eCG4L Fa8MU__rD63j1Rk2Nbv3EbdF3BqhUV6c1Z4LPXM31cYzERVqA_H4LhUlS477MFkFL uRHymijoSPjcF6k7s7S6GsJLaM&sig=AHIEtbS2lq7gtyPisY9lJziSzkAI_xV4LQ>.! ! What!Are!Enzymes?!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!6!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.novozymes.com/en/aboutL us/ourLbusiness/whatLareLenzymes/pages/default.aspx>.! ! WHAT!EATS!A!TADPOLE?!WHAT(EATS(RSS.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!06!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.whateats.com/whatLeatsLaLtadpoleL2>.! ! Works!Cited!for!the!front!page! ! N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!24!Apr.!2013.!<http://greenenergyLpower.com/wpL content/uploads/2013/01/SunLCartoonLCharacter.jpg>.! !

11

!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!24!Apr.!2013.! <http://sweetclipart.com/multisite/sweetclipart/files/tadpole.png>.! ! !N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!24!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Hobbies_and_Entertainment/Dances_Fast/Disc o_guy_2.gif>.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

12

Is Aging Positive?

The Effect of Age on Conductivity (mS) in Compost

Brooke Graves & Natalie Madden 83-5 & 83-12

TABLE OF CONTEXT

Section

Primacy Author

Page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Work Cited

Madden, Natalie Madden, Natalie Madden, Natalie Graves, Brooke Graves, Brooke

3 3 5 6 8 10 11

ABSTRACT
Compost is added to soil in order to increase the amount of nutrients and aide in plant growth and development. This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln, MA. The compost pile was around 12 meters wide, 3 meters tall, and 2 meters wide. The oldest compost is located at the right of the compost pile. Several soil samples were collected from the compost pile and the conductivity was tested. The procedure for this experiment was to first take four samples from the surface of the compost pile from the six separate sections using a metal scoop and labeled plastic containers. Next, water was added to each compost sample container and the conductivity was tested using the conductivity meter. The age of the compost directly affects the conductivity (mS) because the compost pile produces more ions over time, which allows for greater electrical current. The results show that the age of compost affected the conductivity. The older the compost, the higher the measured conductivity. There are two graphs in the results section. The first graph r2 is .00014. This data shows that it was inconclusive because the closer the r2 is to 1, the stronger the correlation is. The r2 for the second graph is .88667, which indicates that the experiments conclusions are reliable and have a strong correlation. The first graph includes the data collected at zero while the second graphs data doesnt include it. It was left out because it was not reliable testing. It had just been added a few minutes earlier.

INTRODUCTION
Compost is a mixture of various decaying organic substances, such as dead leaves or manure, and is used for fertilizing soil (Unknown, http://dictionary.reference.com). It is also rich in nutrients to help plant blooming and development (Smith, Martha, http:// web.extension.illinois.edu). Electrical conductivity is a measurement of how well a material carries a flow of electric charges. Conductivity can be used for measuring the purity of water, classifying materials, checking for proper heat treatment of metals, and checking for heat damage in some materials (Unknown, http://www.ndted.org). When a plants electrical conductivity is low, it means that it is low in nutrients and will cause yellowing of leaves. When the electrical conductivity is too high the plant will shortly die of stress (DeBoer, William, http:// www.maximumyield.com). When measuring the conductivity of compost, people can measure the amount of nutrients in soil. Compost is useful for plants because it is filled with many nutrients and vitamins used for plant growth and development (Friesen, Marlene, http://www1.agric.gov). Research suggests that the age of compost effects soil conductivity (Haug, Roger, http:// books.google.com). Soil that is rich in nutrients has a higher conductivity (mS) than soil that has a high clay or sand content (Capewell, Martin, http://www.agriculturesolutions.com). A soil sample that has a high conductivity plays a big role in plant growth and development. The older 3

the compost is, the more nutritious. (Capewell, Martin, http://www.agriculturesolutions.com). The more nutritious the soil is the higher the conductivity. Everything that is placed in the compost pile rots at different speeds, which makes compost beneficial. Nitrogen is slowly released into the soil. If nitrogen were quickly released into the soil, then there would be an overdose of nitrogen in the plant (Smith, Martha, http://web.extension.illinois.edu). This concludes that as the compost ages the conductivity increases. This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln Massachusetts, owned by the Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary. Drumlin Farm has 312 acres of farmland, ponds, and agricultural fields. The compost pile is located East of Boyce field. Compost is composed of many different varieties of produce, which were placed in the compost pile at different times. At Drumlin Farm, the scraps are added to the left of the compost. The oldest compost is found furthest right of the compost pile and the youngest toward the left. Compost adds moisture to soil when added, which helps the texture and ability to store nutrients. It also adds potassium, phosphorous, and nitrogen to the soil. In the spring, aged compost releases nitrogen into the soil (Smith, Martha, http://web.extension.illinois.edu). Earthworms are attracted to compost and help break down the material. Compost also repels pests from plants that grow in it. When water is added to compost, the ions and nutrients break up the bonds in the compost. This process is called ionization. The ions then act as good electrical conductors because they can move freely (DeBoer, William, http:// www.maximumyield.com). Over time ions and nutrients are produced from broken down material. This experiment tested the effect of age on conductivity (mS) in compost. The objective of this experiment is to see whether the age of the compost pile, (the older the compost the further right) affects conductivity. To conduct this experiment four different samples at different heights are taken from six equally spaced sections along the length. The independent variable in this experiment is the age of the compost. The age of the compost will be determined by dividing the length of the compost into 2 meter increments. Samples are tested from the surface of the pile at different heights. The dependent variable in this experiment is conductivity (mS). This will be measured by taking readings of different soils using the conductivity meter (mS). Important controlled variables are: the weather, method of gathering samples, equal sections along the compost pile, units of measurement, the time of day samples are collected, and the amount of water added to each sample. There is no control run because soil that doesnt have any age doesnt existent. The hypothesis in this experiment is: if the age of compost is tested, then the conductivity (mS) will increase, because the compost pile produces more ions over time, which allows a greater electrical current (DeBoer, William, http://www.maximumyield.com). This research demonstrates how the age of the compost pile affects conductivity of the compost at Drumlin Farm. This will help Drumlin see whether their compost is high in nutrients and Drumlin will use this information to put compost in places that need more nutrients. It will also tell them how long Drumlin should have the compost sit for. If the oldest compost has a 4

higher conductivity Drumlin will have it sit for that long and if the youngest has the highest Drumlin will not have the compost sit for very long. The reason this would be useful from Drumlin farm and people who have compost piles is that this research will inform them how long the compost has to sit in order to have the optimum amount of nutrients for the plants to survive.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This experiment took place at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. The compost pile was located east of Boyce Field. When this experiment was conducted, several materials were necessary: a measuring tape, Sharpie, conductivity meter (mS), 24 Ziploc containers, 400 ml beaker, 100 ml graduated cylinder, metal scoop, stopwatch, and Scotch tape. When this experiment was conducted, the first step was to first measure the length and height of the compost pile using the tape measurer. The compost was divided into six equal sections along the length and divided the height into four different groups. Next a piece of Scotch tape was placed on each Ziploc container and labeled with the section first then the trial using the Sharpie. The section indicated the length and the trial indicated the height that the sample was taken from. The first sample was taken from the top of the compost pile and the last was taken near the bottom. Samples were scooped from the surface of the compost pile using the metal scoop and then placed in a 100 ml graduated cylinder to measure the right amount from each section. Samples were gathered until twenty-four samples were taken. 300 milliliters of water was added to the Ziploc container and stirred with the metal scoop. The conductivity meter was placed into each of the mixtures. The meter sat in the mixture for one minute, which was timed using the stopwatch, for each trial. After a minute passed, readings were taken using the conductivity meter in (mS) and the result was recorded on the data table.

Hanna Instruments HI 98331 used for taking the readings of the compost samples

Map of Drumlin Farm location of compost pile east of Boyce Field

Ziploc container used for collecting compost samples 5

RESULTS SECTION Table One: The Effect of Age on Conductivity (mS) in Compost
Conductivity (mS) Distance from left pile (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Trial 1 2.28 1.26 0.71 1.44 1.73 0.98 Trial 2 2.32 0.54 0.98 0.45 2.43 3.22 Trail 3 3.62 0.45 0.48 0.31 1.07 1.86 Trail 4 1.95 0.25 0.51 1.38 1.54 1.23 Avg 2.54 0.63 0.67 0.90 1.69 1.82 SD 0.74 0.44 0.23 0.60 0.56 1.00

Chart One: The Effect of Age on Conductivity (mS) in Compost

Chart one shows a big decrease at first then a gradual increase as the distance increased from the left of the compost pile. The least conductive sample was collected 2 meters from the left of the compost pile on the fourth trial (0.25 mS). The most conductive sample was collected from the very left of the pile on trial three (3.62 mS). Most of the data points increased as the age increased, but there was an outlier in our data set. The data collected from the far right of the pile threw off the correlation and trend because the data collected 2 meters from the left of the pile had much less conductivity. The error bars for those two sections of the pile didnt overlap which tells us that the conductivity was definitely lower at 2 meters from the left of the pile then from 0 meters. The R value for this chart is 0.00014. This data wasnt accurate, and nothing could be concluded.

Chart Two: The Effect of Age on Conductivity (mS) in Compost Without Outlier

Chart two shows a positive correlation. On this chart, the data collected from the far left of the compost pile was excluded because it was an outlier that threw off our data set. On this chart the least conductive sample was collected 2 meters from the left of the compost pile on the fourth trial (0.25 mS). The most conductive sample was collected 10 meters away from the left of the pile, all the way to the right, on trial two (3.22 mS). This chart has a trend line and an obvious correlation. The R value for this chart is 0.88667. This data was much more accurate 7

then the pervious chart and it is extremely conclusive. The only error bars that didnt overlap was the data collected from 4 meters and the data collected from 8 meters. This still provides great confidence in our data because it is definite that the soil at 8 meter had a higher conductivity then soil collected at 4 meters.

DISCUSSION
This experiment was conducted to test if there was any correlation between the age of compost and the conductivity. The hypothesis for this experiment was: if the age of compost is tested, then the conductivity (mS) will increase, because the compost pile produces more ions over time which allows a greater electrical current (DeBoer, William, http:// www.maximumyield.com). This hypothesis was supported because there was a positive correlation between age and conductivity. This means that, according to our data, as the age increases, the conductivity increases as well. With the combined information from several sources, enough information was gathered to back up the hypothesis. Compost is a pile of gathered scraps and waste (Richardson Jill, "The Joys and Pleasures of Composting). Research proves that over time the amount of nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur increase in compost (Friesen Marlene, http:// www1.agric.gov). These elements bond with other elements to create ionic bonds. For example, potassium commonly bonds with calcium, iron, and aluminum (Unknown, http:// www.composterconnection.com). Ionic compound occur when oppositely charged ions attract each other and form bonds. These ions form crystal lattice structures where an ion is surrounded by oppositely charged ions. When this structure is dissolved in water, the ions are pulled apart allowing them to flow around. These free ions can easily conduct electricity (Unknown, http:// www.bbc.co.uk). Research also shows that overtime the waste that makes up compost is turned into a nutritious humus like product (Unknown, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov). It has been shown that the more nutrients present in a solution, the higher the conductivity (Unknown, http:// greenhouses.cals.cornell.edu). This would suggest that overtime as more nutrients become present in the compost, the conductivity would increase. In the first chart, several error bars overlapped and the data wasnt strong. There was an R value of 0.00014, which means that there was no correlation. From this graph nothing could be concluded. After looking at the graph, an outlier was observed. The data collected at 0 meters from the left of the compost pile did not fall within the expected correlation. A new graph was made that excluded the data collected at 0 meters. This graph had an R value of 0.88667. This graph provided great confidence, and it was concluded that there was a positive correlation. Although some of the error bars still overlapped in this graph, the data collected at 4 meters and 8 meters did not overlap at all. This provides even more strength to the experiment because it is a known fact that the conductivity definitely increased from 4m to 8m. 8

There could be several modifications made to this experiment to improve the data collection. Instead of collecting samples from the surface of the pile, it might have been more accurate to collect samples directly under the surface using a tool such as a metal scoop. Although the core extractor wasnt able to extract soil, it would have been more accurate to collect samples not surfaced. Something else that would improve this experiment would be to test the samples directly after they were collected. This is because, at the field, the samples were sitting for a long time in the containers and they were all tested after collecting all the samples. This may have cause there to be heat loss, possibly affecting the conductivity. It was assumed that the compactness of the compost wouldnt affect our results. In order to collect samples from different heights along the compost pile, it became necessary to walk on the pile. While walking on the pile, compost was made more compact in some areas and new compost was surfaced. This might have skewed the results because in areas that were more compact more soil would have been collected because more could fit into a smaller space. This might have caused the conductivity at 0 meters to have such a large range because this area was used to climb the compost pile. An error that occurred during this experiment was the data collected at 0m from the left of the compost pile. This was new material that had just been added within a few hours, therefore it hadnt begun to decompose at all. The conductivity of each individual material was tested which ranged as the materials ranged. The data collected at this section of the compost pile didnt have anything to do with the heat of the compost pile. Its best to regard material that hasnt started to decompose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you Brooke Graves for helping me with the Knights of Science project and for fulfilling the requirements in writing the results and Discussion part of the paper. I couldnt have done it without you. I would like to thank Will Nemirovsky and Nate Wolf for helping us provide materials and Ms. Gellar for helping us perform the experiment. I would also like to thank Drumlin Farm for letting us do our experiment on their land. Lastly I would like to thank Mr. Ewins for giving us all the help and support we needed along the way. By, Natalie Madden

I would like to thank my partner, Natalie Madden for completing her part of the project and always being available and helpful even on late weeknights. I would also like to thank Will Nemirovsky and Nate Wolf for providing materials that were necessary in conducting this experiment and helping us collect samples at Drumlin Farm. I would also like to thank the Drumlin Farm staff and Ms. Gellar for providing us with additional information while collecting data. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Ewins for helping us work out problems, answering all our questions, and making this project possible. By, Brooke Graves

10

WORK CITED
Intro (Natalies Sources) Capewell, Martin. "The Why and How to Testing the Electrical Conductivity of Soils." The Why and How to Testing the Electrical Conductivity of Soils. Agriculture Solutions LLC, 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://www.agriculturesolutions.com/resources/92-the-why-and-how-to-testing-theelectrical-conductivity-of-soils>. DeBoer, William. "Electrical Conductivity And Monitoring Plant Nutrition." Maximumyield.com. Maximumyield.com, Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.maximumyield.com/inside-my-com/features-articles/item/112-electricalconductivity-and-monitoring-plant-nutrition>. Haug, Roger Tim. "Chapter 3." The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. Boca Raton: Lewis, 1993. 116-20. Print. Smith, Martha, Duane Friend, and Holly Johnson. "Composting for the Homeowner - University of Illinois Extension." Benefits and Uses -. University of Illinois, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. <http://web.extension.illinois.edu/homecompost/benifits.html>. Unknown. "Compost." Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Science Dictionary, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compost?s=t>. Unknown. "Ndted.org." Ndted.org. Iowa State University, Center for NDE, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ndted.org/EducationResources /CommunityCollege/Materials/ Physical_Chemical/Electrical.htm>.

11

Materials and Methods Pictures Unknown. "Drumlin Farm Trail Map." Drumlin Farm Trail Map. Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary, 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2013 Unknown. "Soil Test Direct Soil Conductivity and Temperature Tester." Clarkson Shopping Cart. Clarkson Shopping Cart, 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Unknown. "Ziploc Container Round 14 Oz." Aubuchon Hardware. Aubuchon Hardware, 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://housewares.hardwarestore.com/38-196-food-containers/ ziploc-container-round-14-oz--685629.aspx>.

Discussion (Brookes Sources) Friesen, Marlene. "Nutrients in Compost." Nutrients in Compost. Agriculture and Rural Development, 29 May 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4466>. Richardson, Jill. "The Joys and Pleasures of Composting - OB Rag." OB Rag [Ocean Beach California 92107] 19 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Print. Unknown. "Best Management Practices for Cornell Greenhouses." CALS Greenhouses. CALS Occupational and Environmental Health, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http:// greenhouses.cals.cornell.edu/BMP_Glossary.html>. Unknown. "Compost--What Is It?" Cal Recycle. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 5 May 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/ compostmulch/CompostIs.htm>.

12

Unknown. "How to Build Garden Soil with Compost." Composter Connection. SparkyBoy Enterprises., 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.composterconnection.com/gardensoil.html>. Unknown. "Properties of Ionic Compounds." BBC News. BBC, 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_21c/chemical_patterns/ group1_7rev5.shtml>.

13

TABLE OF CONTENT Abstract- page three Introduction-pages three and four

Materials and Methods- pages four and five

Results- pages five and six Discussion- page six and seven
Bibliography- pages seven through nine

2!

ABSTRACT The experiment was conducted to see if nitrate levels would vary when testing water in different ponds at Drumlin Farms (Lincoln, MA). The data was collected from three different water sources. The three ponds were; Bathtub pond, which is near fields, Poultry Pond, which is near a farm, and Ice Pond that is surrounded by forest. The water was tested to see how much nitrate it contained by using a test kit. The expected results was that if the location of the pond was closer to animal life then the nitrate levels would be higher because, nitrate comes from the runoff of animals manure (By William S. Carlsen and Nancy M Trautmann, Watershed Dynamics). However, the results did not come out this way. This is because bioretention swales were added near the ponds to stop the nitrate from going into the pond. The swales that were added are man made and shallower than ditches. These swales collect all of the animal manure so the nitrate does not leak into the pond and hurt the aquatic life. ! Introduction Water nitrate is oxidized nitrogen combined and it is often found in different kinds of organic and inorganic compounds. Nitrate is mostly found in fertilizer. This is because Nitrate is high soluble and biodegradability. Biodegradable substances are usually organic materials such as; plants, animal matter, and other substances coming from living organisms. Water nitrate enters ponds, lakes etc. generally by runoff from fertilizer use, sewage, and erosion (EPA, www.water.epa.gov). Water Nitrate is measured in parts per million (ppm). This experiment will be conducted at Drumlin Farm, located in Lincoln, MA. There are five different pond locations at Drumlin Farm. The locations of the ponds will likely vary in levels of nitrate. The experiment will be conducted at Bathtub Pond, Poultry Pond, and Ice Pond. These ponds are located in different types of environment. Bathtub Pond is surrounded by a forest and is somewhat near the Hayfield. Poultry Pond is located near the Poultry House, which may contribute to nitrate in the runoff. A poultry house is a very small chicken coop, which means chicken will poop and pee in it. This house is located right next to Poultry Pond. Finally, Ice Pond is located near the parking lot, which likely has low nitrate in the runoff because runoff usually comes from other lakes/rivers/ or ponds, and since Ice Pond is near a parking lot, not much runoff from the parking lot will go into it. The level of nitrates in the ponds varies depending on where it is. Since nitrate comes from runoff in fertilizer, and animal waste, the closer the pond is to the places with biodegradable substances, the more nitrate should be in the ponds. Runoff is the draining away of water with or without substances in it starting from one area and ending up in another. (www.dictionary.reference.com).

3!

The higher the nitrate, the less water species there are because they may die from lack of oxygen in the blood. (EPA, www.water.epa.gov) The experiment that will be conducted is the effect of location of ponds on levels of water nitrate. The objective of this experiment is to find which locations will have the most nitrate level. The independent variable is the location of ponds. The dependent variable is the level of nitrates in the water. The controlled variables are the test kit used, the day the experiment will be conducted, same measurements for each pond, same color scale, and the same procedure. The hypothesis for this experiment is if the pond is closer to the farm, then it will have higher nitrate levels because nitrate is caused from runoff in fertilizer (Water Nitrate Test Kit). What can be learned from this experiment is that depending on the location of the pond (near a farm, or in the forest), the levels of nitrate can determine the color and/or growth of different types of fish. This future experiment will help solve questions and help classify fish types into certain families. ! Materials and Methods At the first pond that was visited get out the API Aquarium Pharmaceuticals Nitrate Test Kit and empty out the box. All of the materials were lined up including; the three test tubes, bottle number one, bottle number two, and the scale of measurement (parts per million). All of the three test tubes were cleaned inside with cotton swabs in case there was any contamination. Then, the test tubes were filled with water from the pond until it reached the white line on the tube (5 ml). Next, the rubber gloves and goggles were put on so, no chemicals touched any skin or eyes. Next, ten drops from bottle number were added into the five ml of water. The test tube was capped and was shaken thoroughly for approximately one minute. After that one-minute, ten drops from bottle number two was added into the test tube. The bottle was shook thoroughly again for another minute and was left to sit for five minutes. Both qualitative and quantitative observations were recorded in the field notebook with a blue or black ink pen while waiting the five minutes. Pictures of the surroundings were drawn as well as pictures of the surroundings were taken while waiting the five minutes. The scale in the Nitrate Test Kit was then looked at to see what shade the liquid matched up with after, the five minutes was up. When the color was located, the level of Nitrate (ppm) was recorded in the data table in the field notebook. Any other observations; qualitative or quantitative was also recorded in the field notebook. This process was repeated for every trial (ten trials). After all ten trials were completed, the next location was visited. The three locations Bathtub Pond, Poultry Pond, and Ice Pond were visited in this order. The locations were chosen to collect data from three locations with a variety of

4!

different surroundings so the nitrate levels can be tested properly. The same steps were repeated at each pond. ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! RESULTS! ! ! ! ! Bathtu b! Poultry! Ice! ! ! ! Nitrate!Levels!in!ppm! Tria Tria Tria Tria Tria l!4! l!5! l!6! l!7! l!8! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! ! Tria l!10! Average! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! ! St d!

Tria l!1! 0! 0! 0!

Tria l!2! 0! 0! 0!

Tria l!3! 0! 0! 0!

Tria l!9! 0! 0! 0!

0! 0! 0!

5!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

The!Effect!of!Location!on!levels!of!Nitrate! ! ! The Effect of Location of Ponds of Nitrate levels ! 1 !

Nitrate Levels in ppm

Bathtub

Poultry Location

Ice

Summary: All three Ponds have an average of 0 ppm, parts per million. Every trial taken for this experiment (30 trials total, 10 trials each location) had 0 levels of nitrate. Bathtub Ponds location was in a lower elevated location than Ice Pond, but Bathtub Ponds elevation was very similar to Poultry Ponds elevation. DISCUSSION This experiment was conducted to test the nitrate levels in different ponds. Initially, it was thought that if the pond was closer to animals, then there would be higher nitrate levels because, nitrate enters the water through animal runoff (Robert W. Blake Jr., et al., Inside Out). This however, was not supported because all three ponds that were visited have a nitrate level of zero ppm (parts per million). The data collected was conclusive. There were no error bars for this experiment. Each trials results had a ppm of zero. Since all of the trials were the same and there were no error bars and no overlapping of error bars the data was conclusive. With the data having such a small range it is considered precise as well as conclusive. With the results not following the hypothesis, the question why was asked and thought about. After talking to Carol (a naturalist at Drumlin Farms) the question was answered, it turns out that bioretention swales were added. A bioretention swale is a man made ditch that continuously goes around the

6!

pounds and collects excess runoff that comes from any surrounding areas (Carole, personal interview). These swales collect the runoff and, therefore, prevents nitrate from going into the water and having any effect on the animals in the pond. The swales, based off of this experiment and also one from (http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/) proved to be quiet effective when collecting runoff. Swales can also collect rainwater or runoff from highways (http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/). Nitrate can do a lot of damage to fish. It affects the fishs growth and color development in a negative way. When there is too much nitrate in the water it also makes the fish supplement to diseases (www.liveaquaria.com, Foster & Smith Educational Staff). Drs. Foster, on his website, said, [Nitrate] is damaging, if not lethal, to fish. After the naturalists at Drumlin farms found this out, they decided to add the swales to prevent any further damage to the ponds fauna. The experiment could have been modified in many ways. Some ways could have been fixing the errors that came up when testing. One major error was that all the water was collected from one spot. Because of this, only one part of the water was tested, not the overall pond. If this experiment was to be conducted again, the data should be collected from a new area each trial. Even though where the trials were tested could have been changed, the amount of trials was a sufficient amount, based off of the consistency of the data. Another error was that the cotton swabs that were brought to Drumlin Farms were not long enough to reach the bottom of two of the test tubes. These two test tubes were cleaned as thoroughly as possible to get rid of contamination but the bottom of the test tube could still have been contaminated. Both of these errors should be fixed if this experiment was to be conducted again. There are many questions about nitrate that have yet to be answered. One of them being does nitrate levels differ in the same pond? This question could be answered by modifying the original experiment. !

WebsiteLinkTagsParentheticalEditDelete "Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. WebsiteLinkTagsParentheticalEditDelete WebsiteLinkTagsParentheticalEditDelete "Environmental Working Group." Environmental Working Group. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. WebsiteLinkTagsParentheticalEditDelete ! 7!

"Inside-Out: Environmental Science in the Classroom and the Field, Grades 3-8."Alibris Marketplace. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. WebsiteLinkTagsParentheticalEditDelete "NITRATES AND DRINKING WATER." NITRATES AND DRINKING WATER. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. WebsiteLinkTagsParentheticalEditDelete "Nitrates in Drinking Water." Nitrates in Drinking Water. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/ N.p., n.d. Web. 09 "Watershed Dynamics (Cornell Scientific Inquiry Series) - PB162X2S [Illustrated] [Paperback]." Watershed Dynamics (Cornell Scientific Inquiry Series). N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. Carolines Bibliography ABSTRACT: "NSTA - National Science Teachers Association." NSTA Recommends. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: "Www.marineandreef.com." Aquarium Pharmaceuticals Test Kits. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. DISCUSSION: "Aquarium Fish: Tropical Freshwater Fish and Saltwater Fish for Home Aquariums."Aquarium Fish: Tropical Freshwater Fish and Saltwater Fish for Home Aquariums. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. Carol the naturalist N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013

8!

"Robert Blake - College of Education." Robert Blake - College of Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. "Air Pollution (Impact Books) [Library Binding]." Air Pollution (Impact Books): Kathyln Gay: 9780531130025: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

GENERAL: "Old Tank Syndrome." Rethink the Importance of Aquarium Water Changes. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

9!

Table of Contents

Section Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgments Works Cited Appendix A Tables Appendix B Graphs

Primary Author Alex Lichtenberger Charlie Heveran Charlie Heveran Jeffrey Yao Alex Lichtenberger

Page Number 3 3 5 7 10 12 13 15 18

Abstract Soil pH is a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of soil, and affects the amount of readily available nutrients in soil. This experiment was completed in order to determine whether or not the pH of soil affects the height or the DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of trees at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. To perform the experiment, soil samples were taken from the base of a tree, and measured for pH. The height and the DBH of the tree were measured, and recorded to be examined for correlations. Slightly acidic soil was expected to yield the tallest and thickest trees, because pH levels of five to six leach, or lose over time, nutrients slowly, and have lots of nutrients available to start. The results in the end supported this. Saying that almost all of the trees grew in soil that had a pH of 5.0-6.5, although there was little correlation with no r-squared value above 0.5. However, the pH of the samples taken near a road and those taken in the center of the forest did have different pH levels on average, although the heights were no different. The average pH was 6.0, and the tree heights and DBHs were all relatively similar, with few outliers.

Introduction Soil pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity (basicity) of soil. A pH of seven is considered neutral, but the pH scale goes from one to fourteen. One through seven is acidic and seven through fourteen is basic. Some plants flourish and grow at a much faster rate in higher or lower pH levels. For example azaleas, blueberries, and white potatoes all grow better in more acidic soil, or soil with a pH less than seven (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu). This experiment is a test to see whether or not some trees have an increase in growth with varying pH levels. This experiment is set to be performed at Drumlin Farm in the MAS forest in Lincoln, Massachusetts. This forest was chosen to be the experiment site because most of the trees are the same species, white pine. The trees were all planted at the same time as well (Drumlin Farm Field Studies Expert). Both of these factors can affect tree height and DBH, but in this experiment the focus is to test the effect of soil pH, not age or species. One of the reasons why soil pH is so important to plants is that when the soil is acidic, it breaks down some of the key nutrients for plants so that the plants can absorb them. Soil is home to fourteen out of seventeen of the necessary plant nutrients so it is key that the plants are able to utilize them. The term acidic means that a substance has a great amount of H+ ions and basic means that a substance has a large amount of OH-. Acids burn when touched, have a sour taste, and can dissolve metals to form hydrogen gas. Bases feel slippery, dissolve fats and oils, and have a bitter taste. Soil can become acidic by rainwater washing away nutrients, plant and animal decay, natural acids such as sulfuric acid, or even just human pollution (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu). If acidic soil becomes too toxic, it causes a deficiency of magnesium and calcium which may cause stunted growth, but this is only at extremely low levels of pH (Washington State University, Soil pH). When there is a large amount of rainfall in an area, the soil becomes
3

less basic, meaning that areas with little to no rainfall will have very basic soil and generally only contain plants that grow well in basic soil. Many experiments have been conducted to find out what is the optimal pH for crops to grow. In an experiment conducted by Greg Patterson of Certified Crop Advisors Ontario, it was found that most crops have an optimal pH level of between six and seven. (Patterson, www.ccaontario.com). The University of Vermont Department of Plant and Soil Science said that the optimal pH level was around five and a half or six because that is the point where nutrients are most readily available to plants, but a neutral pH of seven is also effective. The source also states that if the pH is less than five, elements like aluminum become toxic and harmful to plants (Perry, www.pss.uvm.edu). In this experiment, the independent variable set forth is the pH of the soil at three different sites within the MAS forest; one by the road, one by the farmyard, and one in the middle of the forest. These three locations were chosen because the sites seemed to be the three places in the MAS forest to have the most diverse pH levels. The dependent variables are the tree height in meters, and the diameter at breast height (DBH) in meters. DBH is the measure of the circumference of a tree at breast height or approximately 1.3 meters above the ground. The controlled variables in this experiment are the same measuring tools, same lime content in the soil, tree type, tree age, depth of soil auger into the ground, type of indicator, and the slope of the hill. If the soil pH is slightly acidic (5.0-6.0), then the tree height and DBH will be greater, because plant nutrients are more available to be absorbed in acidic soil (Perry, www.pss.uvm.edu). Several different experiments on optimal pH levels have proved that a slightly acidic pH level is best because it is just enough acidity to begin to dissolve the nutrients. However, the soil is also not too acidic which would cause stunted tree growth. This is because some elements become toxic when the soil is too acidic. Finally, it has been proven that trees, specifically conifers like the ones found in the MAS forest, grow better in acidic soil. (Gardner, 69) From this experiment, it can be learned what the best pH level for tree growth is. This could be applied to improve tree care so that trees dont die because of an extreme pH level, whether it is too high or too low. Drumlin Farm could use this information to categorize which areas of the farm have good soil for different types of plants and teach guests to the farm about what soil pH means. Would planting more trees away from roads at Drumlin Farm make the trees grow wider and taller? Is it better for gardeners or tree experts to use lower pH levels in their soil? Another experiment could be, the effect of soil pH on the number of trees in that area of soil.

Materials and Methods This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, in the MAS Forest. The MAS Forest is located at the south edge of the farm (Figure 1). The first step of this experiment was to set up. The experiment started by going to the first test area in the middle of the forest. The number of trees inside the given area was counted and then each one was numbered on a table. A TI Nspire CX calculator was used to randomly choose eight trees in the test area using the formula rand(total # of trees)*8. The scientist went to tree number one and measured a distance of one meter uphill from the tree, then went to that point. The soil auger was inserted seventeen centimeters into the ground. All of the collected soil was taken and put into a ziploc bag. Each tree identification number was written by the scientist on the bag in Sharpie and the scientists wrote DBH:____ Height:____ pH:____. The tree where the soil was collected was approached and using the tape measurer on the centimeter/ meter side, it was measured 1.5 meters up the tree trunk from the ground. A measuring tape was used to measure the circumference of the tree at the 1.5 meter mark. The scientist divided the measurement by pi (approx. 3.14) using a calculator, then recorded the resulting number on the bag with the soil collected from that tree after the line labeled DBH____. A twelve inch ruler with two pieces of opaque tape on it, one at the ten inch mark and another at the one inch mark was used to find the height. The scientist held this ruler up to the eye and adjusted it by taking steps back until the entire height of the tree fit between the bottom of the ruler and the ten inch tape mark. Another person went to the tree and marked a point where the one inch tape piece appears to be on the trunk of the tree. That scientist returned to the tree and measured the distance from the ground to the point marked (in meters) then multiplied that number by ten. That was the approximated height of the tree and it was recorded next to the line on the respective ziploc bag that says Height____. The instructions were repeated from this last paragraph for each of the trees in this test area. Finally, the scientists repeated the procedure for each of the three test areas (farmyard, forest, and road). To measure the pH of each soil sample, a Rapitest Soil pH Test Kit was used. The test was started by using the cartridge and filling it with one soil sample until it is filled to the small line that says Fill with Soil (Figure 2). The cartridge was filled with distilled water from the one liter squirt bottle until the line that says Fill with Water was reached (Figure 2). One indicator pill was put in the sample and the top was put on. The scientist shook the sample for ten seconds and then let it settle. Using the color chart on the Rapitest cartridge (Figure 2), the approximate pH level was measured. Using the one liter bottle of distilled water, the test kit cartridge was cleaned out between tests. The pH measurement was then recorded on each respective ziploc bag next to the line that says pH:____ and also in a table in the FNB (Field Notebook). To conduct this experiment, it was required to have the following. One Rapitest soil pH test kit (Figure 2) with enough pH pills for twenty four tests (at least twenty four), a twelve inch ruler, a roll of opaque tape, a TI Nspire CX calculator, a flexible tape measurer, a seventeen
5

centimeter soil auger, a meter stick, twenty four ziploc bags, a black Sharpie, a 750 mL squirt bottle of distilled water, and one FNB for each person performing this experiment.

Figure 1 (top), is a map of Drumlin Farm. The circled area in the south is the MAS Forest where this experiment is set to be conducted. Figure 2 (bottom), is a photo of the Rapitest Soil pH Test Kit. It displays the color scale that is used to read the pH. It also shows how much water should be put in the cartridge compared to the amount of soil. On the right of the cartridge is the indicator pill that changes the color for reading the pH.

Results Table A2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) Height/DBH (meters) pH 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 DBH 0.6 0.48 0.61 0.6 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.47 0.41 0.55 0.49 0.5 0.55 0.58 0.5 0.44 0.48 0.59 0.32 0.45 0.48 Height 27.0 25.0 19.0 26.2 20.0 30.0 17.5 20.5 21.0 20.5 21.0 17.8 20.3 18.5 22.3 19.7 15.0 18.3 19.5 20.7 20.9 15.0 18.0 19.5 ratio 45 52.0833333 31.147541 43.6666667 35.7142857 55.5555556 27.34375 36.6071429 36.8421053 33.6065574 44.6808511 43.4146341 36.9090909 34.6938776 36 35.8181818 25.862069 36.6 44.3181818 43.125 35.4237288 46.875 40 40.625

Graph B2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m)

Graph B2-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m)

Graph B1-i shows the effect of location within a forest on pH in a bar graph. The highest average pH is found near the houses at 6.4, and the lowest average is found in the center of the forest at 5.6. However, all the error bars overlap with each other. The most imprecise data group is found near the road, with a standard deviation of 0.23. Graph B1-ii shows the effect of location within a forest on DBH in a bar graph. The highest average DBH is found near the center of the forest at 0.57m, and the lowest average DBH is found near the houses at 0.48m. However, all the error bars overlap with each other. The most precise data set is found near the center of the forest, with a standard deviation of 0.04m. Graph B1-iii shows the effect of location within a forest on tree height in a bar graph. The highest average tree height is found in the center of the forest at 22.3m, and the lowest average tree height is found near the houses at 19.3m. However, all the error bars overlap with each other. The most imprecise data set is found in the center of the forest, with a standard deviation of 4.94m. Graph B2-i shows the effect of soil pH on DBH disregarding the location in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 8, and the lowest individual soil pH level is 4.5. The highest individual tree DBH is 0.64m, and the lowest individual tree DBH is 0.32m. The r squared value is 0.1895 which shows a low precision level. Graph B2-ii shows the effect of soil pH on tree height disregarding the location in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 30m, and the lowest individual tree height is 15m. The r squared value is 0.2856, which shows a higher precision level than Graph B2-i, but still not a very precise level as there is only 29% chance of finding a new data point being on the line of best fit. Graph B3-i shows the effect of soil pH on DBH near the houses in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 6.5, and the lowest individual soil pH level is 6.0. The highest individual DBH is 0.59m, and the lowest individual DBH is 0.32m. The r squared value is 0.1243, which is shows a low precision level. Graph B3-ii the effect of soil pH on tree height near the houses in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 22.3m, and the lowest individual tree height is 15m. The r squared value is 0.22008, which shows a low precision level. Graph B4-i shows the effect of soil pH on the DBH near the road in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 8, and the lowest individual soil pH is 5. The highest individual DBH is 0.64m, and the lowest individual DBH is 0.41m. The r squared value is 0.1016, which shows a low level of precision. Graph B4-ii shows the effect of soil pH on the tree height near the road in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 25.0m, and the lowest individual tree height is 17.5m. The r squared value is 0.1322, which shows a low level of precision, but a higher level than Graph B4-i. Graph B5-i shows the effect of soil pH on the DBH near the center of the forest in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 6.5, and the lowest individual soil pH is 4.5. The highest individual DBH is 0.61m, and the lowest individual DBH is 0.47m. The r squared value is 0.0687, showing the second lowest precision level of all the XY scatter plots. Graph B5ii shows the effect of soil pH on the tree height in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 30m, and the lowest individual tree height is 15m. The r squared value is 0.4546,
9

showing about average precision on this result, however the highest of all results. Graph B6-i shows the effect of soil pH on ratio of tree height to DBH. The highest individual soil pH level is 8, and the lowest pH level is 4.5. The highest individual ratio is 55.56, and the lowest individual ratio is 25.86. The r squared value is 0.0209, the lowest precision level of all the graphs.

Discussion The original purpose of the experiment was to determine whether the growth of plants, specifically trees, and measured by diameter and height, was affected by the pH of the soil around it. The information could be useful when growing trees for lumber, and even more if it were expanded to more plant species. The hypothesis, which was slightly supported by the data collected, was that: If the soil pH is slightly acidic (5.0-6.0), then the tree height and DBH will be greater, because plant nutrients are more available to be absorbed in acidic soil (Perry, Leonard; PSS.uvm.edu). The results make sense, because according to research conducted before the experiment, white pine trees not only prefer to grow in slightly acidic (5.0-6.5) soil (Perry, Leonard; PSS.uvm.edu), but also, other species of pines lower the pH of the soil around them by up to half of a measurement (Jenkins, D.; Trees and Wildlife in the Scottish Uplands). The pH level also makes sense because nutrient leaching takes place the least at pH levels of 5.5 and 7, and soil aluminum become toxic at any level lower than 5.0 (Perry, Leonard; PSS.uvm.edu). Nutrients are also more readily available to begin with (Perry, Leonard; PSS.uvm.edu), and root growth is easiest from levels 5.5 to 7.2 (Patterson, Greg; ccaontario.com). The reason for the data only being mostly supported is that only one out of twenty four pH tests fell more than half a level outside of this range, and even so the r-squared values all indicate that less than 50% of future data taken will fall on a line of best fit, and some indicate less than 10% will. On the bar graph, with the pH, the average is 6.0 with a standard deviation of almost 1, which, in this case, is not very good. On the other bar graphs involving average DBH and height, though all error bars overlap, it is clear by the averages that there is a difference based on location, if just slightly, and that the trees might have been affected by the fact that they grow on a hill. On the Scatter plot graphs, no r-squared value is over 0.5, and most dont come above 0.3. This shows extremely low correlation of the data, and is another reason that the hypothesis is not completely supported. In general, the data from a specific location is more accurate than all of the data put together, but in some cases, such as Graph B5-ii, looking at the effect of pH on the height of trees in the center of the forest, showed that almost 46% of the data would fall on the line, which is not only more than the general 28%, but is also the strongest correlation of data shown in the experiment. As mentioned earlier, high standard deviations, overlapping error bars, and low r-squared values, mean that the data is neither precise, nor very reliable, and little confidence can be put in the data. Pretty evident that most of the data has little correlation. However, in the center of the
10

forest, where there are the fewest outside forces, there is the most correlation of all. That suggests not only that, unaffected, pH would affect plant growth, but also that outside forces, such as salting of the road, or dissolving mortar, may affect the growth of plants. There are still some lingering questions about the experiment. Which other forces may affect the experiment? How can you eliminate those variables? Although sufficient data was collected (all twenty four data points) the experiment could be improved. First of all, upon arrival at Drumlin farm, the place the experiment took place; it was evident that there were not enough trees near enough to the points defined as the center of an area (center, house, road) to do a random selection. Therefore, it may have been better to do fewer data points, so that there could be random selection, and leave bias out of the experiment even more. Other errors, such as the fact that the measuring of tree height was subject to opinion, and was not accurate in any way, had an impact on the accuracy and precision of the experiment. It was estimated that this could have accounted for up to ten to twenty percent of the error, and could make conclusions more reliable if fixed. This could be eliminated by using a more advanced instrument than a ruler with tape on it, such as taking a scaled photograph, and measuring on paper. The Rapitest soil pH test kit was not accurate, as it only showed half and whole readings, making the data choppy, and only giving a limited number of possible values for the pH of the soil. That could be fixed by using an electronic pH measuring tool, which is more accurate. It also rained the morning before the experiment was conducted, and since rain has an average pH of about 5.6 (Environmental Protection Agency; epa.gov) it may have caused the damper soil in the earlier part of the experiment to have a pH closer to 5.6 than when it was dry and normal. Lastly deer dropping may have caused the pH to change, as they were ever present in the forest. Future experiments could greatly expand on this study. Firstly, only white pine trees were used, and there may be different effects on different trees, as well as on other plants, like crops for instance. Next, all errors could be fixed and that could be a new experiment. Also, it would be interesting to discover what other factors affect plant growth, such as ones mentioned earlier, in addition to soil type or pack, slope of hills, elevation, distance from a water source, and many others. There is an endless line of extensions and research waiting to be done on related subjects, and many could help people, animals, and plants around the world.

11

We would like to thank Jelly Belly Inc. for supplying us with energy during the day. We would also like to thank Mr. Dwyer and Ms. Currier as well as the Drumlin Farm Naturalist on life with us for being helpful during our experiment.

12

Works Cited Introduction citations: Bickelhaupt, Donald. SUNY-EST. Soil PH: what It Means. Soil PH: What It Means. SUNY, 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm Gardner, Robert. Soil: Green Science Projects for a Sustainable Planet. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2011. Print. Page(s) 69-70 Patterson, Greg. Soil PH and Crop Response. Certified Crop Adviser. Ontario CCA, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2013 http://www.ccaontario.com/FCKEditor/File/SoilPH.pdf Perry, Leonard. "PH for the Garden." PH for the Garden. University of Vermont Extension Department of Plant and Soil Science, 2003. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm Unknown Author, Washington State University. "Soil PH." Soil PH. Washington State University, 22 Nov. 2004. Web. 08 Mar. 2013. http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/soilpH.htm Discussion Citations: Unknown Author. Measuring Acid Rain." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/measure/>.

Patterson, Greg. "Soil PH and Crop Response (PDF)." Certified Crop Adviser Ontario. Certified Crop Adviser Ontario, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ccaontario.com/FCKEditor/File/SoilPH.pdf>. Perry, Leonard. "PH for the Garden." PH for the Garden. University of Vermont Extention, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm>.
13

Miles, J.. 1986 What are the effects of trees on soils? In: Jenkins, D., (ed.) Trees and wildlife in the Scottish uplands. NERC/ITE, 55-62. (ITE Symposium, 17).

14

APENDIX A Tables SECTION 1 Small Tables of General Data Points Table A1-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) near houses Height/DBH (meters) pH 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 DBH 0.5 0.44 0.5 0.48 0.55 0.59 0.32 0.45 Height 18.3 19.5 22.3 20.7 19.7 20.9 15.0 18.0 ratio 36.6 44.31818 44.6 43.125 35.81818 35.42373 46.875 40

Table A1-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) near a road Height/DBH (meters) DBH Height Ratio 6.0 0.41 17.8 43.41 5.5 0.64 17.5 27.34 5.5 0.56 20.5 36.61 5.0 0.48 25.0 52.08 6.0 0.55 20.3 36.91 5.5 0.57 21.0 36.84 6.0 0.49 18.5 37.76 8.0 0.48 19.5 40.63 Table A1-iii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) in the Center of a forest Height/DBH (meters) pH 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 DBH 0.61 0.61 0.6 0.47 0.56 0.54 0.6 0.58 Height 19.0 20.5 26.2 21.0 20.0 30.0 27.0 15.0 15 ratio 31.15 33.61 43.67 44.68 35.71 55.71 45.17 32.07 pH

APENDIX A Tables (continued) SECTION 2 Larger tables, Standard Deviation and Averages Table A2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) Height/DBH (meters) pH 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 DBH 0.6 0.48 0.61 0.6 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.47 0.41 0.55 0.49 0.5 0.55 0.58 0.5 0.44 0.48 0.59 0.32 0.45 0.48 Height 27.0 25.0 19.0 26.2 20.0 30.0 17.5 20.5 21.0 20.5 21.0 17.8 20.3 18.5 22.3 19.7 15.0 18.3 19.5 20.7 20.9 15.0 18.0 19.5 ratio 45 52.0833333 31.147541 43.6666667 35.7142857 55.5555556 27.34375 36.6071429 36.8421053 33.6065574 44.6808511 43.4146341 36.9090909 34.6938776 36 35.8181818 25.862069 36.6 44.3181818 43.125 35.4237288 46.875 40 40.625

16

APENDIX A Tables (continued) SECTION 2 Larger tables, Standard Deviation and Averages (continued) Table A2-ii The Effect of Location on average DBH (m) Location DBH house 0.48 road 0.52 center 0.57 average 0.52 Table A2-iii The Effect of Location on average Soil pH Location pH house 6.4 road 5.9 center 5.6 average 6.0 Table A2-iv The Effect of Location on average Soil pH Location Height house 19.3 road 20.0 center 22.3 average 20.6

17

APENDIX B Graphs SECTION 1 Location Oriented Bar Graphs Graph B1-i The Effect of Location on Soil pH

Graph B1-ii The Effect of Location on Tree DBH (m)

Graph B1-iii The Effect of Location on Tree Height (m)

18

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 2 General Scatter-plots, Location is Disregarded Graph B2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m)

Graph B2-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m)

19

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 3 Scatter-plots with Data from near Houses in the Forest Graph B3-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m) Near Houses

Graph B3-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m) near Houses

20

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 4 Scatter-plots with data from near a road in the forest Graph B4-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m) near a road

Graph B4-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m) near a road

21

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 5 Scatter-plots with Data from the Center in the Forest Graph B5-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m) in the Center of a Forest

Graph B5-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m) in the Center of a Forest

22

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 6 Miscellaneous Graphs Graph B6-i The Effect of pH on Ratio of Tree Height to DBH

23

Table of Contents Section/ Primary Author Page Number

Abstract (Alex Lichtenberger)3 Introduction (Charlie Heveran)...3 Materials and Methods (Charlie Heveran)..5 Results (Jeffrey Yao)...7 Discussion (Jeffrey Yao)10 Works Cited...12 Acknowledgements14 Appendix15

Abstract Soil pH is a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of soil, and affects the amount of readily available nutrients in soil. This experiment was completed in order to determine whether or not the pH of soil affects the height or the DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of trees at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. To perform the experiment, soil samples were taken from the base of a tree, and measured for pH. The height and the DBH of the tree were measured, and recorded to be examined for correlations. Slightly acidic soil was expected to yield the tallest and thickest trees, because pH levels of five to six leach, or lose over time, nutrients slowly, and have lots of nutrients available to start. The results in the end supported this. Saying that almost all of the trees grew in soil that had a pH of 5.0-6.5, although there was little correlation with no r-squared value above 0.5. However, the pH of the samples taken near a road and those taken in the center of the forest did have different pH levels on average, although the heights were no different. The average pH was 6.0, and the tree heights and DBHs were all relatively similar, with few outliers.

Introduction Soil pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity (basicity) of soil. A pH of seven is considered neutral, but the pH scale goes from one to fourteen. One through seven is acidic and seven through fourteen is basic. Some plants flourish and grow at a much faster rate in higher or lower pH levels. For example azaleas, blueberries, and white potatoes all grow better in more acidic soil, or soil with a pH less than seven (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu). This experiment is a test to see whether or not some trees have an increase in growth with varying pH levels. This experiment is set to be performed at Drumlin Farm in the MAS forest in Lincoln, Massachusetts. This forest was chosen to be the experiment site because most of the trees are the same species, white pine. The trees were all planted at the same time as well (Drumlin Farm Field Studies Expert). Both of these factors can affect tree height and DBH, but in this experiment the focus is to test the effect of soil pH, not age or species. One of the reasons why soil pH is so important to plants is that when the soil is acidic, it breaks down some of the key nutrients for plants so that the plants can absorb them. Soil is home to fourteen out of seventeen of the necessary plant nutrients so it is key that the plants are able to utilize them. The term acidic means that a substance has a great amount of H+ ions and basic means that a substance has a large amount of OH-. Acids burn when touched, have a sour taste, and can dissolve metals to form hydrogen gas. Bases feel slippery, dissolve fats and oils, and have a bitter taste. Soil can become acidic by rainwater washing away nutrients, plant and animal decay, natural acids such as sulfuric acid, or even just human pollution (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu). If acidic soil becomes too toxic, it causes a deficiency of magnesium and calcium
3

which may cause stunted growth, but this is only at extremely low levels of pH (Washington State University, Soil pH). When there is a large amount of rainfall in an area, the soil becomes less basic, meaning that areas with little to no rainfall will have very basic soil and generally only contain plants that grow well in basic soil. Many experiments have been conducted to find out what is the optimal pH for crops to grow. In an experiment conducted by Greg Patterson of Certified Crop Advisors Ontario, it was found that most crops have an optimal pH level of between six and seven. (Patterson, www.ccaontario.com). The University of Vermont Department of Plant and Soil Science said that the optimal pH level was around five and a half or six because that is the point where nutrients are most readily available to plants, but a neutral pH of seven is also effective. The source also states that if the pH is less than five, elements like aluminum become toxic and harmful to plants (Perry, www.pss.uvm.edu). In this experiment, the independent variable set forth is the pH of the soil at three different sites within the MAS forest; one by the road, one by the farmyard, and one in the middle of the forest. These three locations were chosen because the sites seemed to be the three places in the MAS forest to have the most diverse pH levels. The dependent variables are the tree height in meters, and the diameter at breast height (DBH) in meters. DBH is the measure of the circumference of a tree at breast height or approximately 1.3 meters above the ground. The controlled variables in this experiment are the same measuring tools, same lime content in the soil, tree type, tree age, depth of soil auger into the ground, type of indicator, and the slope of the hill. If the soil pH is slightly acidic (5.0-6.0), then the tree height and DBH will be greater, because plant nutrients are more available to be absorbed in acidic soil (Perry, www.pss.uvm.edu). Several different experiments on optimal pH levels have proved that a slightly acidic pH level is best because it is just enough acidity to begin to dissolve the nutrients. However, the soil is also not too acidic which would cause stunted tree growth. This is because some elements become toxic when the soil is too acidic. Finally, it has been proven that trees, specifically conifers like the ones found in the MAS forest, grow better in acidic soil. (Gardner, 69) From this experiment, it can be learned what the best pH level for tree growth is. This could be applied to improve tree care so that trees dont die because of an extreme pH level, whether it is too high or too low. Drumlin Farm could use this information to categorize which areas of the farm have good soil for different types of plants and teach guests to the farm about what soil pH means. Would planting more trees away from roads at Drumlin Farm make the trees grow wider and taller? Is it better for gardeners or tree experts to use lower pH levels in their soil? Another experiment could be, the effect of soil pH on the number of trees in that area of soil.

Materials and Methods This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, in the MAS Forest. The MAS Forest is located at the south edge of the farm (Figure 1). The first step of this experiment was to set up. The experiment started by going to the first test area in the middle of the forest. The number of trees inside the given area was counted and then each one was numbered on a table. A TI Nspire CX calculator was used to randomly choose eight trees in the test area using the formula rand(total # of trees)*8. The scientist went to tree number one and measured a distance of one meter uphill from the tree, then went to that point. The soil auger was inserted seventeen centimeters into the ground. All of the collected soil was taken and put into a ziploc bag. Each tree identification number was written by the scientist on the bag in Sharpie and the scientists wrote DBH:____ Height:____ pH:____. The tree where the soil was collected was approached and using the tape measurer on the centimeter/ meter side, it was measured 1.5 meters up the tree trunk from the ground. A measuring tape was used to measure the circumference of the tree at the 1.5 meter mark. The scientist divided the measurement by pi (approx. 3.14) using a calculator, then recorded the resulting number on the bag with the soil collected from that tree after the line labeled DBH____. A twelve inch ruler with two pieces of opaque tape on it, one at the ten inch mark and another at the one inch mark was used to find the height. The scientist held this ruler up to the eye and adjusted it by taking steps back until the entire height of the tree fit between the bottom of the ruler and the ten inch tape mark. Another person went to the tree and marked a point where the one inch tape piece appears to be on the trunk of the tree. That scientist returned to the tree and measured the distance from the ground to the point marked (in meters) then multiplied that number by ten. That was the approximated height of the tree and it was recorded next to the line on the respective ziploc bag that says Height____. The instructions were repeated from this last paragraph for each of the trees in this test area. Finally, the scientists repeated the procedure for each of the three test areas (farmyard, forest, and road). To measure the pH of each soil sample, a Rapitest Soil pH Test Kit was used. The test was started by using the cartridge and filling it with one soil sample until it is filled to the small line that says Fill with Soil (Figure 2). The cartridge was filled with distilled water from the one liter squirt bottle until the line that says Fill with Water was reached (Figure 2). One indicator pill was put in the sample and the top was put on. The scientist shook the sample for ten seconds and then let it settle. Using the color chart on the Rapitest cartridge (Figure 2), the approximate pH level was measured. Using the one liter bottle of distilled water, the test kit cartridge was cleaned out between tests. The pH measurement was then recorded on each respective ziploc bag next to the line that says pH:____ and also in a table in the FNB (Field Notebook). To conduct this experiment, it was required to have the following. One Rapitest soil pH test kit (Figure 2) with enough pH pills for twenty four tests (at least twenty four), a twelve inch ruler, a roll of opaque tape, a TI Nspire CX calculator, a flexible tape measurer, a seventeen
5

centimeter soil auger, a meter stick, twenty four ziploc bags, a black Sharpie, a 750 mL squirt bottle of distilled water, and one FNB for each person performing this experiment. .

Figure 1 (top), is a map of Drumlin Farm. The circled area in the south is the MAS Forest where this experiment is set to be conducted. Figure 2 (bottom), is a photo of the Rapitest Soil pH Test Kit. It displays the color scale that is used to read the pH. It also shows how much water should be put in the cartridge compared to the amount of soil. On the right of the cartridge is the indicator pill that changes the color for reading the pH.

Results Table A2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) Height/DBH (meters) pH 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 DBH 0.6 0.48 0.61 0.6 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.47 0.41 0.55 0.49 0.5 0.55 0.58 0.5 0.44 0.48 0.59 0.32 0.45 0.48 Height 27.0 25.0 19.0 26.2 20.0 30.0 17.5 20.5 21.0 20.5 21.0 17.8 20.3 18.5 22.3 19.7 15.0 18.3 19.5 20.7 20.9 15.0 18.0 19.5 ratio 45 52.0833333 31.147541 43.6666667 35.7142857 55.5555556 27.34375 36.6071429 36.8421053 33.6065574 44.6808511 43.4146341 36.9090909 34.6938776 36 35.8181818 25.862069 36.6 44.3181818 43.125 35.4237288 46.875 40 40.625

Graph B2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m)

Graph B2-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m)

Graph B1-i shows the effect of location within a forest on pH in a bar graph. The highest average pH is found near the houses at 6.4, and the lowest average is found in the center of the forest at 5.6. However, all the error bars overlap with each other. The least precise data group is found near the road, with a standard deviation of 0.23. Graph B1-ii shows the effect of location within a forest on DBH in a bar graph. The highest average DBH is found near the center of the forest at 0.57m, and the lowest average DBH is found near the houses at 0.48m. However, all the error bars overlap with each other. The most precise data set is found near the center of the forest, with a standard deviation of 0.04m. Graph B1-iii shows the effect of location within a forest on tree height in a bar graph. The highest average tree height is found in the center of the forest at 22.3m, and the lowest average tree height is found near the houses at 19.3m. However, all the error bars overlap with each other. The least precise data set is found in the center of the forest, with a standard deviation of 4.94m. Graph B2-i shows the effect of soil pH on DBH disregarding the location in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 8, and the lowest individual soil pH level is 4.5. The highest individual tree DBH is 0.64m, and the lowest individual tree DBH is 0.32m. The r squared value is 0.1895 which shows a low precision level. Graph B2-ii shows the effect of soil pH on tree height disregarding the location in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 30m, and the lowest individual tree height is 15m. The r squared value is 0.2856, which shows a higher precision level than Graph B2-i, but still not a very precise level as there is only 29% chance of finding a new data point being on the line of best fit. Graph B3-i shows the effect of soil pH on DBH near the houses in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 6.5, and the lowest individual soil pH level is 6.0. The highest individual DBH is 0.59m, and the lowest individual DBH is 0.32m. The r squared value is 0.1243, which is shows a low precision level. Graph B3-ii the effect of soil pH on tree height near the houses in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 22.3m, and the lowest individual tree height is 15m. The r squared value is 0.22008, which shows a low precision level. Graph B4-i shows the effect of soil pH on the DBH near the road in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 8, and the lowest individual soil pH is 5. The highest individual DBH is 0.64m, and the lowest individual DBH is 0.41m. The r squared value is 0.1016, which shows a low level of precision. Graph B4-ii shows the effect of soil pH on the tree height near the road in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 25.0m, and the lowest individual tree height is 17.5m. The r squared value is 0.1322, which shows a low level of precision, but a higher level than Graph B4-i. Graph B5-i shows the effect of soil pH on the DBH near the center of the forest in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual soil pH level is 6.5, and the lowest individual soil pH is 4.5. The highest individual DBH is 0.61m, and the lowest individual DBH is 0.47m. The r squared value is 0.0687, showing the second lowest precision level of all the XY scatter plots. Graph B5ii shows the effect of soil pH on the tree height in a XY scatter plot. The highest individual tree height is 30m, and the lowest individual tree height is 15m. The r squared value is 0.4546,
9

showing about average precision on this result, however the highest of all results. Graph B6-i shows the effect of soil pH on ratio of tree height to DBH. The highest individual soil pH level is 8, and the lowest pH level is 4.5. The highest individual ratio is 55.56, and the lowest individual ratio is 25.86. The r squared value is 0.0209, the lowest precision level of all the graphs.

Discussion The purpose of this experiment was to see the effect of soil pH on tree height and diameter at breast height. The original hypothesis was: If the soil pH is slightly acidic (5.0-6.0), then the tree height and DBH will be greater, because plant nutrients are more available to be absorbed in acidic soil (PSS.uvm.edu). The hypothesis is slightly supported as the data points in the slightly acidic pH levels are on average higher. One factor in these results is that all of the data points collected were from white pines, or pinus strobus. In previous research conducted before the experiment, white pine trees were found to lower the pH of surrounding white pine trees by up to 0.5 pH (Jenkins, D.; Trees and Wildlife in the Scottish Uplands). Also, in this research, white pine trees were shown to grow best in slightly acidic (5.0-6.0) soil (Gardner, Soil: Green Science Projects For a Sustainable Planet), which may be why there is a slight trend showing better growth in acidic soils. Furthermore, soil that has a pH higher than 5.0 retains aluminium and magnesium in solid combination with other elements in the soil (Johnson and Zhang, okstate.edu). Therefore, at pH levels of 5-6, potentially harmful elements remain in their solid state, removing their ability to be toxins towards tree growth. However, the r squared value is fairly low on the graph that shows the effect of soil pH on tree height and DBH, at 0.1895 and 0.2856 respectively, which means that the data is not very conclusive, because only 19 and 29 percent of the data will follow the trend line. Even though this is a low r squared value, much of the data falls within half a level outside the range, showing much support. However, in the bar graph comparing location with pH level, while the average is 6.0, the standard deviation is 1 which is not very precise. On other bar graphs comparing location on tree height and DBH, the error bars all overlap, showing inconclusive data. There are many sources of imprecision, and the main ones are the errors and assumptions. One of these errors was the inconsistent amount of soil, water, and pH pill mixture in the soil pH test. It was hard to get the exact amount of water, soil, and pill mixture in every test, which may have caused the color of the mixture to differ from the real color. Also, the pH test kit requires the user to use their eye judgment to gauge the color matching up with the pH level, which can cause inconsistency. Furthermore, the tree height measurement is not completely exact, as it is an eyeball estimate; each person will see it slightly differently. Errors, high standard deviations, overlapping error bars, and low r squared values lead to a low confidence in results. It is evident that there is a slight correlation, however, it is also evident that outside forces may have affected the data, because the correlation in the center of the

10

forest with the least outside forces is the highest. Therefore, outside effects such as the salinity of soil near the roads, or waste from houses leaking into the soil. Sufficient data was collected, as there were twenty four data sample at varied locations. There are still some improvements that could be made to the experiment. The measuring tool that was used for measuring soil pH was not very accurate, as it only went to 0.5 of a pH level. If a more accurate tool was used, the data collected would be better. A more accurate measure of tree height would also provide better data, because the current measuring device is an eyeball measurement, which can lead to inaccuracy. There were also some assumptions made during the experiment. One assumption that was made was that the amount of deer droppings near the trees did not affect the soil pH of those areas. The amount of deer droppings was not a controlled variable, and it was assumed that it would not affect the soil pH. Another assumption that was made was that the amount of dead trees in the area would not affect the soil pH of the surrounding soil. The number of dead trees in the surrounding area was not controlled, and it was assumed that it would not affect the soil pH level. Decaying organic matter has shown to cause acidity in nearby soil by adding H+ ions to the soil, so this could have affected the experiment (Johnson and Zhang, okstate.edu). Another assumption that was made was that the previous storms of rain in the recent days prior to data collection did not affect data collection. Rain has been shown to be slightly acidic, and so can cause soils to be slightly acidic as well (SUNY-EST, www.esf.edu). This could have affected the pH of the soil, but this couldnt have been controlled. Some ideas for future experiments may be to see the effect of nitrogenous fertilizers on tree growth. Nitrogenous fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate tend to make soils more acidic (Singapore Gardening Society, gardeningsingapore.org), but it would be interesting to see the effect on tree growth of adding these fertilizers. Also, it would be good to see the effect of soil pH on crops, not just trees. Trees often take a long time to mature, so over the course of many years, there are many possible things that could affect it while crops grow over a season, and are not affected by as much. These experiments could show what the optimal pH levels for plant growth, and help many farmers in the world.

11

Works Cited Introduction citations: Bickelhaupt, Donald. SUNY-EST. Soil PH: what It Means. Soil PH: What It Means. SUNY, 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm Gardner, Robert. Soil: Green Science Projects for a Sustainable Planet. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2011. Print. Page(s) 69-70 Patterson, Greg. Soil PH and Crop Response. Certified Crop Adviser. Ontario CCA, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2013 http://www.ccaontario.com/FCKEditor/File/SoilPH.pdf Perry, Leonard. "PH for the Garden." PH for the Garden. University of Vermont Extension Department of Plant and Soil Science, 2003. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm Unknown Author, Washington State University. "Soil PH." Soil PH. Washington State University, 22 Nov. 2004. Web. 08 Mar. 2013. http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu/webnutritiongood/soilprops/soilpH.htm Discussion Citations: Unknown Author. Measuring Acid Rain." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/measure/>.

Patterson, Greg. "Soil PH and Crop Response (PDF)." Certified Crop Adviser Ontario. Certified Crop Adviser Ontario, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ccaontario.com/FCKEditor/File/SoilPH.pdf>. Perry, Leonard. "PH for the Garden." PH for the Garden. University of Vermont Extention, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm>.
12

Miles, J.. 1986 What are the effects of trees on soils? In: Jenkins, D., (ed.) Trees and wildlife in the Scottish uplands. NERC/ITE, 55-62. (ITE Symposium, 17).

13

We would like to thank Jelly Belly Inc. for supplying us with energy during the day. We would also like to thank Mr. Dwyer and Ms. Currier as well as the Drumlin Farm Naturalist on life with us for being helpful during our experiment.

14

APENDIX A Tables SECTION 1 Small Tables of General Data Points Table A1-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) near houses Height/DBH (meters) pH 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 DBH 0.5 0.44 0.5 0.48 0.55 0.59 0.32 0.45 Height 18.3 19.5 22.3 20.7 19.7 20.9 15.0 18.0 ratio 36.6 44.31818 44.6 43.125 35.81818 35.42373 46.875 40

Table A1-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) near a road Height/DBH (meters) DBH Height Ratio 6.0 0.41 17.8 43.41 5.5 0.64 17.5 27.34 5.5 0.56 20.5 36.61 5.0 0.48 25.0 52.08 6.0 0.55 20.3 36.91 5.5 0.57 21.0 36.84 6.0 0.49 18.5 37.76 8.0 0.48 19.5 40.63 Table A1-iii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) in the Center of a forest Height/DBH (meters) pH 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 DBH 0.61 0.61 0.6 0.47 0.56 0.54 0.6 0.58 Height 19.0 20.5 26.2 21.0 20.0 30.0 27.0 15.0 15 ratio 31.15 33.61 43.67 44.68 35.71 55.71 45.17 32.07 pH

APENDIX A Tables (continued) SECTION 2 Larger tables, Standard Deviation and Averages Table A2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height and DBH (m) Height/DBH (meters) pH 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 DBH 0.6 0.48 0.61 0.6 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.47 0.41 0.55 0.49 0.5 0.55 0.58 0.5 0.44 0.48 0.59 0.32 0.45 0.48 Height 27.0 25.0 19.0 26.2 20.0 30.0 17.5 20.5 21.0 20.5 21.0 17.8 20.3 18.5 22.3 19.7 15.0 18.3 19.5 20.7 20.9 15.0 18.0 19.5 ratio 45 52.0833333 31.147541 43.6666667 35.7142857 55.5555556 27.34375 36.6071429 36.8421053 33.6065574 44.6808511 43.4146341 36.9090909 34.6938776 36 35.8181818 25.862069 36.6 44.3181818 43.125 35.4237288 46.875 40 40.625

16

APENDIX A Tables (continued) SECTION 2 Larger tables, Standard Deviation and Averages (continued) Table A2-ii The Effect of Location on average DBH (m) Location DBH house 0.48 road 0.52 center 0.57 average 0.52 Table A2-iii The Effect of Location on average Soil pH Location pH house 6.4 road 5.9 center 5.6 average 6.0 Table A2-iv The Effect of Location on average Soil pH Location Height house 19.3 road 20.0 center 22.3 average 20.6

17

APENDIX B Graphs SECTION 1 Location Oriented Bar Graphs Graph B1-i The Effect of Location on Soil pH

Graph B1-ii The Effect of Location on Tree DBH (m)

Graph B1-iii The Effect of Location on Tree Height (m)

18

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 2 General Scatter-plots, Location is Disregarded Graph B2-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m)

Graph B2-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m)

19

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 3 Scatter-plots with Data from near Houses in the Forest Graph B3-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m) Near Houses

Graph B3-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m) near Houses

20

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 4 Scatter-plots with data from near a road in the forest Graph B4-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m) near a road

Graph B4-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m) near a road

21

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 5 Scatter-plots with Data from the Center in the Forest Graph B5-i The Effect of Soil pH on Tree DBH (m) in the Center of a Forest

Graph B5-ii The Effect of Soil pH on Tree Height (m) in the Center of a Forest

22

APENDIX B Graphs (continued) SECTION 6 Miscellaneous Graphs Graph B6-i The Effect of pH on Ratio of Tree Height to DBH

23

Barking is RoupH!
The Effect of Tree Species on Bark pH
By Cassandra Kane and Sammy Wong

1!

Index:
Section
Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Tables & Graphs Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Primary Author
Sammy Wong Sammy Wong Sammy Wong Cassandra Kane Cassandra Kane Cassandra Kane Kane & Wong Kane & Wong

Page Number
3 3 4 6 7 7 8 9

2!

Abstract:! ! This!study!was!designed!to!discover!whether!the!bark!pH!also!differed!with! different!species!of!trees!from!Hemlock!Forest!(Tsuga!canadensis),!Red!Pine!Forest!(Pinus! resinosa),!and!Spruce!Forest!(Picea!glauca).!The!procedure!for!this!experiment!was!to!take!a! sample!of!grated!tree!bark!and!test!its!pH!level!using!litmus!paper.!This!information!was! then!used!to!determine!if!there!was!a!correlation!between!tree!species!and!bark!pH.!It!was! expected!that!if!Spruce!bark!was!tested,!then!its!pH!would!be!the!most!acidic,!because!the! average!wood!pH!is!5.3,!the!lowest!of!all!the!tested!samples,!and!it!thrives!on!wet!acidic! soils!(Russell!et!all,!2007)!(Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).!The!results!showed!that!tree!species! did!have!an!effect!on!bark!pH,!but!the!difference!is!relatively!small.!Both!Hemlock!and!Red! Pines!had!similar!bark!pH!levels,!but!Spruce!bark!was!conclusively!more!acidic.! ! Introduction:! ! Tree!bark!is!the!outermost!tissues!of!the!stem!and!roots!in!woody!plants.!It!is! external!to!and!surround!the!living!cells!of!the!wood!(Hon!and!Shirashi,!2000).!The!three! main!components!of!bark!are!fibers,!cork!cells,!and!parenchyma!cells!(ground!tissue)!(E.! Sjostrom,!Wood!Chemistry:!Fundamentals!and!Applications).!There!are!two!layers!of!bark,! the!outer!bark!and!the!inner!bark.!One!major!difference!between!outer!bark!and!inner! bark!is!that!outer!bark!does!not!have!any!living!cells,!while!inner!bark!does!(Russell!et!all,! 2007).!In!this!experiment,!outer!bark!was!tested.!Outer!bark!consists!of!cork!layers,!and!it! protects!the!inner!wood!tissues!from!damage!caused!by!temperature!and!humidity.!pH!is! the!measure!of!hydrogen!ions,!and!its!scale!goes!from!zero!through!fourteen,!zero!being! the!most!acidic,!seven!being!neutral,!and!fourteen!being!the!most!basic.!Every!substance! has!a!pH,!but!the!healthy!level!of!pH!for!certain!trees!differ!(Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).! This!experiment!was!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm,!a!Massachusetts!Audubon! Wildlife!Sanctuary,!in!Lincoln,!MA.!The!wildlife!sanctuary!has!four!different!forest!habitats,! and!in!this!experiment!the!sites!tested!were!the!Hemlock!Forest,!Spruce!Forest,!and!Red! Pine!Forest.!In!all!three!of!these!forests!the!dominant!tree!species!is!the!one!stated!in!the! forest!name.!Along!with!these!main!species!there!are!a!few!other!species.!There!are!many! factors!that!could!affect!the!pH!level!of!the!bark!for!each!species;!the!pH!soil!surrounding! it,!the!overall!health!of!the!tree,!the!moistness!of!the!bark,!and!the!chemical!composition!of! the!tree!are!all!important!variables.! Another!important!thing!to!note!is!that!bark!is!the!nutrient!transport!from!the! leaves!to!the!rest!of!the!tree.!Because!of!this,!if!the!bark!has!a!high!or!low!pH,!the!rest!of!the! tree!will!be!affected!(Hon!and!Shirashi,!2000).!The!negative!effect!of!having!an!extremely! low!pH!ultimately!ends!in!the!death!of!the!tree.!The!average!pH!of!different!species!of!pine! bark!can!range!from!4.4,!which!is!on!the!acidic!side,!to!7.4!which!more!basic!(M.!Ray! Tucker,!http://www.ncagr.gov).!Hemlock,!a!tree!species!native!to!the!United!States,!prefer! a!soil!pH!of!5!to!5.7!(http://www.thegrowspot.com).!Spruce!prefer!a!soil!pH!of!5!to!6,!and! pines!prefer!a!soil!pH!of!4.5!to!6!(Leonard!Perry,!http://pss.uvm.edu).!The!wood!pH!and! bark!pH!can!slightly!differ!because!of!the!difference!in!their!chemical!proportions,!and! there!is!a!higher!mineral!content!in!bark.!However,!both!can!closely!resemble!each!other! and!reflect!the!overall!health!of!the!tree!(E.!Sjostrom,!Wood!Chemistry:!Fundamentals!and! Applications).!The!average!wood!pH!for!Red!Pine!is!6.0,!for!Spruce!is!5.3,!and!for!Hemlock! is!5.5!(Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).!All!of!these!pH!measures!are!slightly!acidic,!which!is! healthy!and!natural!for!trees.! The!proposed!experiment!is!the!effect!of!tree!species!on!bark!pH.!The!objective!of! this!experiment!is!to!determine!whether!or!not!the!tree!species!has!an!affect!on!its!bark!

3!

pH.!This!was!tested!by!collecting!bark!samples!at!three!different!forest!locations!at! Drumlin!Farm.!Ten!bark!pH!tests!were!taken!for!each!species,!and!one!species!was!tested! at!each!location.!The!independent!variable!for!this!experiment!is!the!tree!species.!The! dependent!variables!will!be!the!different!bark!pHs.!Some!control!variables!include!the! amount!of!bark!tested,!the!height!where!the!bark!sample!is!collected,!the!container!the! bark!is!kept!in,!how!long!the!bark!is!stored,!the!type!of!cheese!grater!used!to!grate!the! bark,!and!the!type!of!universal!litmus!paper!(Marmor!and!Randlane,! http://www.ut.ee/ial5/fce/fce43pdf/fce43_marmor.pdf).!The!hypothesis!for!this! experiment!is:!If!spruce!bark!is!tested!than!its!pH!will!be!the!most!acidic,!because!the!the! average!wood!pH!is!the!lowest!at!5.3,!and!it!thrives!on!wet!acid!soils!(Russell!et!all,!2007)! (Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).! From!this!experiment,!a!person!could!learn!about!pH!in!the!context!of!nature.!They! could!also!learn!about!the!bark!of!specific!species,!and!what!the!visual,!and!chemical! differences!are.!The!pH!of!bark!is!good!to!know!because!it!is!used!in!many!ways.!Metals! touching!acidic!bark!or!wood!could!corrode,!and!if!acidic!bark!or!wood!was!used!in! construction!the!adhesive!powers!of!glue!may!not!work!(Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).! Acidic!bark!could!also!affect!the!animal!population!living!in!the!tree!or!the!lifespan!of!each! tree.!! ! Materials2and2Methods:! ! ! ! ! A!bark!sample!of!approximately!five!milliliters!was!taken!from!three!different! species!of!trees!(Red!Spruce,!Hemlock!and!Red!Pine)!at!three!different!forest!locations!at! Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln!MA!(Spruce!Forest,!Hemlock!Forest!and!Red!Pine!Forest).!At!each! forest!location!a!hundred!square!meter!(10!meters!by!10!meters)!area!was!measured!with!a! tape!measure,!and!all!of!the!trees!of!the!species!tested!in!that!location!were!identified.!A! diagram!was!then!drawn!of!the!area,!numbering!each!relevant!tree!(figure!2`4).!Using!an! TInspire!calculator,!ten!trees!were!randomly!chosen!by!multiplying!!rand(10)!by!the! number!of!trees!of!the!species!being!tested!in!the!area!(Red!Spruce,!Hemlock!and!Red!Pine).! On!the!diagram,!the!most!convenient!path!was!drawn!following!the!tree!numbers!the! calculator!randomized.!This!path!was!then!followed!to!the!first!tree.! ! A!sample!was!taken!from!each!tree!at!a!height!of!1.37!m!above!the!ground.!One! person!then!held!a!ziploc!sandwich!size!plastic!bag!beneath!the!measured!point.!This!step!is! shown!in!the!top!right!corner!of!the!diagram.!The!other!person!grated!the!bark!with!a! cheese!grater!at!the!1.37!meter!height!that!was!measured!until!the!inner!bark!shows.!One! 118!milliliter!tupperware!container!was!then!filled!with!five!milliliters!(one!teaspoon)!of! bark.!Ten!milliliters!of!distilled!water!was!measured!in!another!tupperware!container! which!was!marked,!and!was!poured!into!the!tupperware!container!with!the!bark!in!it,!as! shown!in!the!diagram.!This!mixture!of!bark!and!water!was!then!stirred!with!a!toothpick! fifteen!times,!and!a!strip!of!universal!litmus!paper!was!dipped!in!it.!This!litmus!paper!strip! was!then!compared!with!a!color!key!on!the!side!of!the!container!that!holds!the!universal! litmus!paper,!this!key!indicates!the!pH.!This!pH!was!then!recorded!in!a!field!notebook.!This! procedure!was!repeated!for!the!next!nine!trees!chosen!in!that!ten!by!ten!meter!area.!This! procedure!was!repeated!in!the!next!two!forest!locations.! ! ! ! ! ! !

4!

Figure21:! !

2 2

2 2 ! 2 2

Figure22:!Hemlock!Forest!
2 2 ! 2 ! 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

222222Figure23:!Spruce!Forest!

Figure24:!Red!Pine!Forest!

5!

Tables2&2Graphs:! 2 Table21:!The!Effect!of!Tree!Species!on!Average!Bark!pH! ! ! Average!Bark!pH! Tree!Species! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial!! Trial! 1! 3! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! Eastern!Hemlock! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Tsuga! 5.9! 5.6! 5.3! 5.5! 5.7! 5.2! 5.3! 5.1! 5.7! Canadensis)! Red!Pine!(Pinus! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! resinosa)! 5.0! 5.2! 5.8! 4.9! 5.1! 5.0! 5.6! 5.1! 5.4! Spruce!(Picea! glauca)! ! 5.3! ! 4.8! ! 4.9! ! 4.7! ! 4.3! ! 4.9! ! Graph21:2 ! ! 4.2! ! 4.2! ! 4.5!

Trial! 10! ! 5.7! ! 5.7! ! 4.7!

Average! ! 5.5! ! 5.3! ! 4.7!

Standard! Deviation! ! 0.2! ! 0.3! ! 0.3!

Graph21:2The2Effect2of2Tree2Species2on2Average2 Bark2pH2
7.0! 6.0! Average2Bark2pH2 5.0! 4.0! 3.0! 2.0! 1.0! 0.0! Eastern!Hemlock!(Tsuga! canadensis)! Red!Pine!(Pinus!resinosa)! Tree2Species2 Spruce!(Picea!glauca)!

! ! ! ! ! ! 2

6!

Results:! ! Graph!1!shows!the!average!bark!pH!of!different!tree!species!at!Drumlin!Farm.!The! species!tested!in!this!experiment!were!Eastern!Hemlocks!(Tsuga!canadensis),!Red!Pines! (Pinus!resinosa),!and!Spruce!trees!(Picea!glauca).!The!bark!of!the!Eastern!Hemlocks!was! very!flaky!and!thin,!with!a!purple`gray!color!and!large!round!scales.!Underneath!the!outer! bark!was!a!smooth,!dark!brown!inner!bark.!The!Eastern!Hemlocks!had!the!highest!average! bark!pH!(5.5)!and!was!also!the!most!precise!data!of!all!the!tree!species!(standard!deviation! being!0.2).!However,!its!error!bars!overlap!with!the!Red!Pines!data.! ! The!bark!of!the!Red!Pines!was!the!least!flaky!of!all!the!species!tested,!with!vertical,! layered!scales.!The!Red!Pines!had!the!second!highest!average!bark!pH!(5.3)!and!had!one!of! the!least!precise!data!sets!of!all!of!the!tree!species!tested!(standard!deviation!being!0.3).! However,!its!error!bars!overlap!with!Eastern!Hemlocks!data.! ! The!bark!of!the!Spruce!trees!was!flaky!with!large!circle`shaped!scales.!The!Spruce! trees!had!the!lowest!average!bark!pH!(4.7)!and!had!one!of!the!least!precise!data!sets!of!all! the!tree!species!tested!(standard!deviation!being!0.3).!Eastern!Hemlocks!and!Red!Pines! have!overlapping!data!and!error!bars.!However,!the!error!bars!for!Spruce!trees!do!not! overlap!with!any!other!error!bars.!! ! Discussion:! ! This!experiment!was!conducted!to!test!the!effect!of!tree!species!on!its!bark!pH.!The! species!tested!were!Eastern!Hemlocks!(Tsuga!canadensis),!Red!Pines!(Pinus!resinosa),!and! Spruce!trees!(Picea!glauca).!The!hypothesis!was!that!if!Spruce!bark!was!tested,!then!its!pH! would!be!the!most!acidic,!because!the!the!average!wood!pH!is!the!lowest!at!5.3,!and!it! thrives!in!wet!acidic!soils!(!Russell!et!al.,!2007;!Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).!This!hypothesis! was!supported!from!the!data!collected.! While!wood!and!bark!contain!different!chemical!proportions,!they!closely!resemble! each!other!in!the!overall!health!of!the!tree,!including!its!acidity!(E.!Sjostrom,!1981).!The! average!wood!acidity!for!Eastern!Hemlocks!is!5.5,!for!Red!Pines!is!6.0,!and!for!Spruce!trees! is!5.3!(Fengel!and!Wegener,!1984).!Spruce!trees!also!prefer!acidic!soil,!with!an!average!soil! pH!of!5.5!(Leonard!Perry,!http://pss.uvm.edu).!Therefore,!due!to!its!acidic!wood!and!soil! preference,!it!is!logical!to!infer!that!Spruce!trees!contain!the!lowest!average!bark!pH.!From! the!data,!the!average!bark!pH!of!Spruce!trees!(4.7)!were!conclusively!lower!than!the!other! tree!species!(Eastern!Hemlocks!`!5.5,!Red!Pines!`!5.3)!due!to!none!of!its!error!bars! overlapping.!However,!there!was!a!large!overlap!of!data!between!Eastern!Hemlocks!and! Red!Pines.!While!the!overall!precision!of!the!data!was!precise!(Eastern!Hemlocks!`!0.2,!Red! Pines!`!0.3,!Spruce!`!0.3),!the!averages!were!so!similar!that!a!more!precise!data!set!would! have!been!needed!to!be!conclusive.! There!were!a!few!things!that!couldve!been!modified!in!the!experiment.!One!error! that!affected!the!data!collected!was!the!measuring!of!the!pH.!It!was!noticed!that!after! dipping!the!litmus!paper!into!the!mixture!of!distilled!water!and!grated!bark,!it!would! become!darker!over!time.!That!meant!that!some!of!the!data!collected!was!recorded!as!more! acidic!than!other!parts!of!the!data!because!the!litmus!paper!had!been!left!out!in!the!air!for! longer!before!measuring!it.!Another!error!with!measuring!the!pH!was!the!precision!of!the! measurements.!When!comparing!the!dipped!litmus!paper,!the!color!chart!would!only!show! the!pH!to!the!ones!place,!so!it!had!to!be!estimated!what!the!pH!would!be!to!the!tenths!place.! The!measurements!were!estimated!to!the!best!of!ability,!but!it!still!affected!the!accuracy!of! the!data!collected.!

7!

In!order!to!eliminate!these!errors,!a!more!precise!way!of!measuring!pH!would!have! to!have!been!used.!If!the!bark!pH!had!been!measured!with!a!pH!meter!or!RapiTest!pH!Test! Kit,!then!a!more!precise!reading!of!pH!would!have!been!recorded,!creating!more!precise! data!and!giving!more!conclusive!results.!Using!a!pH!meter!or!a!field!kit,!however,!would! have!taken!more!time!than!the!amount!of!time!given!to!measure!the!bark!pH.! There!were!also!a!few!assumptions!made!during!the!experimentation.!One! assumption!was!that!the!varying!sizes!of!the!bark!grated!did!not!affect!the!data.!The!bark!of! trees!have!different!textures,!Eastern!Hemlocks!have!wide,!flat!ridges!(Brand,! http://www.hort.uconn.edu/),!Red!Pines!has!flaky!bark!(http://www.psu.edu/),!and! Spruces!have!rough,!think!scales!(http://new.oplin.org/).!These!differences!in!texture!affect! how!the!bark!is!grated.!The!flakier!the!bark!is,!the!bigger!the!bark!chunks!are!in!the!water.! However,!it!was!assumed!that!the!sizes!of!these!chunks!did!not!affect!the!data.!Some!future! experiments!that!could!be!extended!from!this!study!would!to!see!how!the!bark!pH!affects! the!animal!population!or!diversity.!One!could!also!see!how!the!bark!pH!relates!to!other! parts!of!a!tree,!such!as!the!sap!or!the!leaves.!Bark!is!noticed!in!everyday!life,!and!may!impact! the!world!more!than!it!may!seem.! 2 Acknowledgements:2 2 ! I!(Cassandra!Kane)!would!like!to!thank!many!people!for!helping!out!with!this! experiment.!First,!I!would!like!to!thank!my!mother,!Kay!Kane,!for!allowing!us!to!borrow!a! cheese!grater!and!10!meters!of!string.!Second,!I!would!like!to!thank!the!Wong!family,!for! allowing!us!to!use!thirty!ziplock!bags,!a!teaspoon!measurer,!and!300!milliliters!of!distilled! water.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!BB&N!Middle!School!Science!Department,!for!allowing! us!to!use!thirty`one!tupperware!containers!and!thirty!strips!of!universal!litmus!paper.!I! would!also!like!to!thank!them,!especially!Ms.!Schultheis,!for!all!the!help!and!information! they!gave!throughout!the!duration!of!the!planning!and!experimenting.!Other!teachers!I! would!like!to!thank!include!Ms.!Brooks!for!helping!us!with!research!and!allowing!us!to!use! her!resources,!and!the!teachers!who!proctored!each!forest!location,!which!included!Mr.! Senabre,!Mr.!Rossiter,!and!Ms.!Nagler.!I!would!like!to!thank!Drumlin!Farms!as!well,!for! allowing!us!to!use!their!forests!for!experimenting.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank!my!partner,! Sammy!Wong,!for!not!only!letting!us!borrow!her!calculator,!but!for!helping!out!with!the! planning,!experimenting,!and!writing!the!report.!! I!(Sammy!Wong)!want!to!thank!all!of!the!individuals!who!made!this!project!possible.! First!I!want!to!thank!Ms.!Schulteis!for!guiding!us!through!the!process!of!developing!our! project!topic,!writing!and!perfecting!our!procedure,!and!doing!research.!I!also!want!to!thank! Ms.!Brooks!for!helping!us!find!our!first!few!sources!during!our!researching!period.!I!want!to! thank!the!middle!school!science!department!for!lending!us!tupperware!and!litmus!paper,! and!our!parents,!Kwok!Wong,!Naomi!Simon,!Kay!Kane!and!David!Kane!who!helped!us! gather!our!other!materials!at!home.!I!want!to!thanks!Drumlin!Farm!and!the!many!teacher` naturalists!for!allowing!us!to!come!and!perform!our!experiment.!I!want!to!thank!Ms.!Nagler,! Mr.!Rossiter,!and!Mr.!Senabre!for!watching!over!us!and!keeping!us!on!task!at!the!three!sites! we!tested!at.!I!want!to!thank!Ms.!Svatek,!Ms.!LaRocca,!and!Mr.!Ewins!for!walking!around! Drumlin!farms!throughout!the!entire!day!to!check!on!us.!! 2 2 2 2 2 2

8!

Introduction2Work2Cited:2 ! "All!About!Eastern!Hemlock!`!Garden!Plants!and!Gardening!Forum!`!The!Grow!Spot."!Garden' Plants'and'Gardening'Forum'The'Grow'Spot'RSS.!N.p.,! http://www.thegrowspot.com/know/f7/all`about`eastern`hemlock`51279.html! ! Sept.!2007.!Web.!3!Mar.!2013.! Bates,!Jeff.!"Bark!PH!Determination!for!the!Bryophyte!Habitats!Survey."!n.d.:!n.!pag.!Print.! Fengel,!Dietrich,!and!Gerd!Wegener.!Wood:'Chemistry,'Ultrastructure,'Reactions.! Berlin:!W.!De!Gruyter,!1984.!Print.! Hon,!David!N.!`S.,!and!Nobuo!Shiraishi.!Wood'and'Cellulosic'Chemistry.!2nd!ed.!New!York:!M.! Dekker,!2000.!Print.! Marmor,!Liis,!and!Tiina!Randlane.!"Effects!of!Road!Traffic!on!Bark!PH!and!Epiphytic!Lichens! in!Tallinn."!Institute'of'Botany'and'Ecology.!University!of!Tartu,!2007.! www.ut.ee/ial5/fce43pdf/fce43_marmor.pdf!Web.!5!Mar.!2013.! Perry,!Leonard.!"PH!for!the!Garden."!PH'for'the'Garden.!University!of!Vermont,!2003.! http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm!Web.!3!Mar.!2013.! Russell,!Tony,!Cathrine!Cutler,!and!Martin!Walters.!Trees'of'The'World.!N.p.:!Lorenz,!n.d.! 2007.!Print.!The!Illustrated!Encyclopedia.! Sjstrm,!Eero.!Wood'Chemistry:'Fundamentals'and'Applications.!2nd!ed.!New!York:! Academic,!1981.!Print.! Tucker,!M.!Ray.!"Chemical!Characteristics!of!Pine!Bark."!Media'Notes'for'North'Carolina' Growers.!NCDA&CS!Agriculture!Division,! http://www.ncagr.gov/agronami/pdffiles/pinebark.pdf,!!Feb.!1995.!Web.!3!Mar.! 2013.! ! Materials2and2Methods2Work2Cited:2 ! Bates,!Jeff.!"Bark!PH!Determination!for!the!Bryophyte!Habitats!Survey."!n.d.:!n.!pag.!PDF.! ! Discussion2Work2Cited:! ! Brand,!Mark!H.!"Tsuga!Canadensis."!Tsuga'Canadensis.!University!of!Connecticut,!n.d.!Web.! 08!Apr.!2013.!<http://www.hort.uconn.edu/Plants/t/tsucan/tsucan1.html>.! Fengel,!Dietrich,!and!Gerd!Wegener.!Wood:'Chemistry,'Ultrastructure,'Reactions.!Berlin:!W.!! De!!!!! Gruyter,!1984.!Print.! Moor,!Fred.!"PH!Plant!Preferences!for!Trees."!PH'Plant'Preferences'for'Trees.!N.p.,!1998.!! Web.! 08!Apr.!2013.!<http://web.bethere.co.uk/fm/soil/ph/p010603.htm>.! "Norway!Spruce."!Norway'Spruce.!The!Ohio!Historical!Society,!n.d.!Web.!08!Apr.!2013.! <http://new.oplin.org/tree/fact!pages/spruce_norway/spruce_norway.html>.! Perry,!Leonard.!"PH!for!the!Garden."!PH'for'the'Garden.!University!of!Vermont,!2003.!Web.!3!! ! Mar.!2013.! "Red!Pine!Information!Page."!Red'Pine'Information'Page.!The!Pennsylvania!State!University,! 15!Dec.!2005.!Web.!08!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.psu.edu/dept/nkbiology/naturetrail/speciespages/redpine.htm>.! Russell,!Tony,!Cathrine!Cutler,!and!Martin!Walters.!Trees'of'The'World.!N.p.:!Lorenz,!n.d.! 2007.!Print.!The!Illustrated!Encyclopedia.! Sjstrm,!Eero.!Wood'Chemistry:'Fundamentals'and'Applications.!2nd!ed.!New!York:!! ! Academic,!1981.!Print.!

9!

Does this Nitrogen make me look Dense?

The Effect of Soil Bulk Density on Soil Nitrogen

A Study By

Aaron Kaufer SIN S85-9

Issay Matsumoto SIN S85-13

Table Of Contents
Section
Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results: Graphs and Tables Results: Summary Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Main Author
Issay Matsumoto Issay Matsumoto Issay Matsumoto Aaron Kaufer Aaron Kaufer Aaron Kaufer Combined Combined

Page #(s)
3 3-4 5-6 7-9 9-10 10-11 12 12-15

ABSTRACT The objective of this experiment was to nd the effect of soil bulk density on soil nitrogen levels from locations within Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Each group of soil samples was collected from a different type of habitat: a eld, a pond, and a forest. A bulb planter was used to collect soil. After the soil was collected, the densities of these samples were calculated and their nitrogen levels were tested using a nitrogen testing probe. It was thought that soil with a sandy structure and lesser density would encourage leaching and decrease nitrogen levels, while soil with a clayey structure and greater density would discourage microbial activity and also lower nitrogen levels. Thus, the hypothesis stated that if the bulk density was in the middle of the density spectrum, then the nitrogen levels would be greater. However, the results did not show any conclusive trend between density and nitrogen. INTRODUCTION Soil is the base of all life on Earth. It is a canvas to support life. Most necessities of life directly or indirectly start from the soil. For example, farms use soil to cultivate crops to feed humans and other animals and trees use soil to grow and create healthy ecosystems to sustain life. However, in order to achieve this, soil must be maintained to stay in a healthy condition. It must have the proper structure and nutrients, among other things, for the soil to support life to its optimal level. In its total 232 acres, Drumlin Farm has a variety of different habitats, such as ponds, elds, farmyards, grassland and forest (www.massaudubon.org). Crops are raised in Boyce Field, hemlock trees grow in Hemlock Forest and water plants grow around Ice Pond. Each of these locations hold an important part in the Drumlin Farm ecosystem. Their soil must be kept healthy, otherwise plant and animal life would suffer. The health of soil depends on different factors. Among these factors are bulk density and nitrogen levels. Bulk density is the density (grams per centimeters cubed) of the soil as a whole. This is different from particle density, which is the density of each individual piece of soil. The bulk density of soil is based on the structure of soil: size, porosity, etc. Soil with a greater bulk density generally has a compact, clayey structure, while soil with a lower bulk density generally has a looser, sandier structure (www.agriinfo.in). These structural differences affect the soil greatly. Different soil structures create environments that can either produce nutrients through means such as decomposition of organic matter and soil respiration, or it can lose nutrients through means like leaching and denitrication (soils.usda.gov). Microbial activity is involved in the process of decomposing organic matter to create nitrogen. However, these microorganisms can only create nitrogen with sufcient oxygen and airow. Leaching refers to nitrogen leaking from the topsoil downwards due to rainwater. Denitrication is the process of nitrogen leaving the soil as a gas (soils.usda.gov). Nitrogen is a macronutrient that is essential to the health of plant life. The nutrient mostly comes into soil from the decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms (www.guamsustainableag.org). It is one of the seventeen chemical elements that are required for plant growth (www.cfaitc.org). In order for nitrogen to be used efciently by plant life, a proper soil structure is essential. A looser and less dense sandy structure will have more pores for oxygen ow to increase microbial activity, but at the same time will not retain water well and encourage leaching of nutrients. A tighter
3

and more dense clayey structure will have less pores for oxygen to ow, but will also have less of a leaching problem due to its ability to retain water well. The most basic way to analyze these soil structures is to nd the bulk density. The soil found in elds is generally found to be more dense due to compaction by heavy machinery. However, because this land is cultivated, it is predicted that the soil will have high nitrogen levels due to manually placed fertilizer (www.extension.umn.edu). In forests, soil is generally sandy and less dense due to glacial tilt, which is the soil created by glaciers moving across land. However, due to decomposing tree litter, most soil found on higher horizons will be less sandy and high in nitrogen (www.daviesand.com). In water bodies, the soil found nearby is generally found to be of a more dense silty texture (www.thefreedictionary.com). Due to rainfall leading water downwards to the body of water, this soil will be low in nitrogen due to leaching. Thus, the experiment will test the effect of the bulk density of various soil samples from different sites on the level of soil nitrogen. In order to test this, the density of different soil samples will be found using the formula: density=mass divided by volume. In the case of soil, mass will be measured in grams and volume will be in centimeters cubed. Then, the nitrogen levels of each of the soil sample will be found using a nitrogen soil test probe. The controlled variables in this experiment include: preserving soil density as it comes from the ground; that a one meter gap would be in between each soil sample location; that the bulb planter is inserted perpendicularly into the ground; that the bulb planter is inserted fully into the ground; and that the methods of soil sample storage stay consistent. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is: if the soil bulk density is in the middle of the density spectrum, then the nitrogen level will be higher because the higher bulk density has a more clayey consistency which inhibits aeration to create nitrogen, and the lower bulk density has a sandier consistency which creates an environment that makes nutrient leaching easier (soils.usda.gov). Compact and dense soils have a lack of aeration required to create nitrogen, but loose soil is at risk of nitrogen leaching. These two extremes suggest that soil that is in the middle of the bulk density spectrum will create the optimal environment for the ow and creation of nitrogen. The results from this experiment will help in the discovery of what soil density is preferable in creating conditions to sustain a healthy nutrient ow. Through this experiment, the importance of soil structure and its role in the environment will be learned. Though it is likely that Drumlin Farm does already monitor soil qualities such as soil structure, density and nitrogen, this is still important research. These characteristics are the base of healthy soil. Without a proper understanding of it, life and entire ecosystems can suffer. This is a global problem, as all life around the world requires proper soil to sustain healthy lives and environments. This experiment will help in gaining a better understanding of a few of the many factors that determine the overall health of soil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS ! Prior to collecting and testing soil, certain preparations were completed. The dimensions of the bulb planter were measured in order to calculate the volume, and later, soil density. A ruler was used to nd the base radius, which was then squared and multiplied by pi. Then that gure was multiplied by the height of the bulb planter. The resulting product was the volume of the bulb planter. In addition to this, the tupperware containers that were used to store soil were labeled as B1, B2, B3, etc. for Boyce Field; H1, H2, H3, etc. for Hemlock Forest; and I1, I2, I3, etc for Ice Pond. This was completed to enhance efciency and organization.

Figure 1: Drumlin Farm Map Data collecting began at site #1, Boyce Field and continued through site #8, Hemlock Forest and site #13, Ice Pond. (The specic locations are marked in blue.)

! Soil sample collecting took place at Drumlin Farms in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Collecting started at Boyce Field. In order to nd collection sites, a Drumlin Farm naturalist was consulted. This was to ensure that soil collecting could be made in an effective and safe manner for each habitat. Because of this limitation, the procedure for nding locations was not consistent throughout each habitat. However, sample locations were always measured one meter apart. In order to collect, the bulb planter was inserted into the earth until the soil reached the brim. The bulb planter was then removed from the ground and its contents were put into the appropriately marked tupperware container. Once nine samples were collected for Boyce Field, collecting for the other two locations, Hemlock Forest and Ice Pond, began in that order. The procedure used at Boyce Field was repeated at these other locations. After the collecting procedure was completed at each location and habitat, work at Drumlin Farm was nished.

Figure 2: Vernier LabQuest 2 nitrogen testing probe The nitrogen content of each soil sample was tested by using this probe. Testing was conducted at the science lab of Buckingham Browne & Nichols Middle School. First, the bulk density of the soil was measured. In order to do this, an empty tupperware container was placed on the scale and was then set to a mass of zero. With the scale now calibrated, the tupperware containers with the collected soil were massed, and that mass was then divided by the volume of the bulb planter. These steps were repeated for each of the remaining samples. ! In order to nd the nitrogen content, the soil samples had to be converted into a testable form of nitrogen called nitrate. To do this, thirty milliliters of calcium chloride were measured out, then soil was added until the combined amount of soil and calcium chloride reached forty milliliters. These mixtures were left to sit until the next day. The newly formed nitrate was then measured using a Vernier LabQuest 2 nitrogen testing probe. The probe was placed into a clean vial, then the soil and calcium chloride mixture was added until it passed a white line marked on the probe. Using a stopwatch, thirty seconds were measured. At the end of thirty seconds, the number shown on the digital screen connected to the probe was the ofcial nitrogen content. The probe was then washed in distilled water and dried with a tissue. The contents of the vial were dumped into a waste pitcher and put aside. This testing procedure was repeated for each sample. Once this procedure was completed, all data collection for this experiment was accomplished. ! !

RESULTS

Table #1: The effect of Soil Density (g/cm3) on Soil Nitrogen (ppm)
Hemlock Forest (site #8)
Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Density (g/ cm3) 1.18 1.43 1.27 1.26 0.82 1.14 0.88 1.14 0.81 Nitrogen(ppm) 2.4 2.3 3.6 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.8 2.4

Ice Pond (site #13)

Density (g/ cm3) 0.72 1.10 1.12 1.10 0.85 1.14 1.14 1.12 0.81 Nitrogen(ppm) 2.6 3.7 2.8 2.4 1.8 3.0 3.3 2.2 1.9

Boyce Field (site #13)

Density (g/ cm3) 1.20 1.25 1.10 0.95 1.13 1.22 1.13 1.13 1.13 Nitrogen(ppm) 5.1 4.0 4.7 4.6 3.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 4.1

Graph #1: The effect of Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) on Soil Nitrogen (ppm) at Hemlock Forest (site #8)
6.00 5.04 Soil Nitrogen (ppm) 4.08 3.12 2.16 1.20 0.60 0.78 0.96 1.14 1.32 1.50 Soil Bulk Density (g/cm^3)
7

R = 0.0507

Graph #2: The effect of Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) on Soil Nitrogen (ppm) at Ice Pond (site #13)
6.00 5.04 Soil Nitrogen (ppm) 4.08 3.12 2.16 1.20 0.60 0.78 0.96 1.14 1.32 1.50 Soil Bulk Density (g/cm^3) R = 0.4912

Graph #3: The effect of Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) on Soil Nitrogen (ppm) at Boyce Field (site #1)
6.00 5.04 Soil Nitrogen (ppm) 4.08 3.12 2.16 1.20 0.60 0.78 0.96 1.14 1.32 1.50 Soil Bulk Density (g/cm^3) R = 0.1098

Graph #4: The overall effect of Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) on Soil Nitrogen (ppm) at all locations

! Graph #1 demonstrates widespread data points at Hemlock Forest (site #8), when compared to the other graphs. Its range in Soil Bulk Density was 0.62 g/cm3, which was the highest of the three locations, however its range in soil nitrogen was the lowest of the three locations, at 1.6 ppm. Other than one data point, which had a much higher soil nitrogen level than all the others (3.6 ppm), the nitrogen levels were all very close to each other. One notable fact was that two data points were within 0.1 g/cm3 of density, but had a difference of 1.3 ppm of nitrogen. Due to the fact that when levels of the independent variables were close together, and the corresponding dependent variables were far apart, the precision of this graph is not very high. Because the hypothesis stated that the dependent variable would be more affected when it was more towards the middle of the spectrum, a quadratic regression was analyzed. The R2 value was 0.050, which is the smallest of the three locations, and is small because the data points are generally scattered away from the parabolic trend line. ! Graph #2 shows a strong amount of data points at Ice Pond (site #13) with higher density, and also a few with relatively lesser density. Although the density of the samples range from 0.72 to 1.14 (range of 0.42) g/cm3, there are no data points within the range of 0.85 to 1.11 (range of 26)g/cm3. There are three data points below the empty range, and six above it. Because of the fact that the six above it have very similar density levels (range of 0.04 g/cm3), and their corresponding nitrogen levels are not so similar (range of 1.5 ppm), the precision of the data is not very high. The R2 value
9

of this data was 0.491, which was the highest of them all, being ve times bigger than that of graph #3 and ten times bigger than that of graph #1. This is because only few data points stray far from the line of trend. ! Graph #3 shows a large collection of relatively similar data points at Boyce Field (site #1). Other than one sample, whose density was much lower than the others (0.95 g/cm3), the densities of the samples from Boyce Field were all similar. Four of the data points shared the exact same density of 1.13 g/cm3, however their corresponding nitrogen levels range from 2.8 to 4.1 (range of 1.3) ppm. Other than the exception mentioned earlier, the data seems to fall into semi-vertical lines, where the densities are close to each other but the nitrogen levels are far apart. This causes a low level of precision. The R2 value was 0.110, which was in the middle of the other two sets of data. Due to the semi-vertical lines of data, data points cannot easily fall into the curve of a parabola which is the cause for the R2 value to be so small. ! Graph #4 shows all of the data for each of the different locations side by side with each other. It puts the data for each location into perspective with the data from the other locations. In nitrogen levels, the highest six samples (3.9 to 5.1 ppm) from Boyce Field (site #1), are higher than all other samples from any location. The majority of the data lies between 2.16 and 3.12 ppm of nitrogen, where samples from all three sites are located. A separate majority of data lies between 1.10 and 1.20 g/cm3 of bulk density. The range of density for that set of data is 0.10 g/cm3, however the range of corresponding nitrogen levels is 2.7 ppm, which is a massive range when compared to each individual site. This further goes to show the lack of precision in the data. DISCUSSION ! The purpose of this experiment was to nd out whether or not there was a correlation between the bulk density and the nitrogen level of soil samples from different locations at Drumlin Farms, Lincoln, MA. The hypothesis stated was: if the soil bulk density is in the middle of the density spectrum, then the nitrogen level will be higher because the higher bulk density has a more clayey consistency which inhibits aeration to create nitrogen, and the lower bulk density has a sandier consistency which creates an environment that makes nutrient leaching easier (soils.usda.gov). This hypothesis was not supported due to the fact that almost all of the data collected seemed to lack a trend at all. ! The graphs showed multiple different trends, one for each site, but very different from that of the other sites. Both the forest and the eld showed very low R2 values (0.050 and 0.110), and their data was incredibly scattered. On multiple occasions, the bulk density of the soil would be very similar to those near to it, but the corresponding nitrogen levels would have a great range. Because of this lack of correlation in data, and the fact that both sites had incredibly small R2 values, it can be said that the data collected was inconclusive. At Ice Pond however, a slight trend was noticed (R2=0.491), although it did not conclusively mean anything. The trend is a parabola that is dependent on three data points that were seemingly far away from where the general data for that collection was, and without those three data points, the graph is just one big collection of samples who share a small range in density but a large range in nitrogen, which is just cause for lack of precision and condence in data, thus the data is inconclusive.
10

! One explanation for the lack of correlation in the results is the fact that many more factors affect the nitrogen level of soil than just bulk density. Organic nitrogen in soil is the result of microorganisms breaking down organic matter (lawncare.about.com). The main source of nitrogen however, is the air in the atmosphere, which is 78% nitrogen (ext.colostate.edu). Other sources of nitrogen in the soil come from different kinds of ammonium and nitrate, which come from minerals (lawncare.about.com). The main sources of nitrogen loss are leaching, the process in which nitrogen travels through the soil with water (ipm.iastate.edu), and denitrication, the process where the oxygen is removed from the nitrates in the soil and the nitrogen is left in its gaseous form to escape into the atmosphere (ext.colostate.edu). Because nitrogen molecules are far smaller than soil particles, leaching through water could easily be done no matter how close the particles are together, as long as there is water in the soil for the nitrogen particles to ow through. Also, because denitrication tends to occur only in poorly aerated soil (ext.colostate.edu), it can be said that denitrication is unlikely to correlate with bulk density given that the soil being tested is properly aerated. ! The eld study could have been improved in many different ways. One way would be if the samples were all taken from one specic type of area (eld, forest or wetland) instead of taken from all three. This would eliminate a second independent variable, and the trend (or lack of trend) of bulk density on nitrogen level could be measured better. Typical bulk densities of soils tend to be between 1.1 g/mL to 1.6 g/ mL (www.agriinfo.in), which is a total range of 0.5 g/mL, whereas the data collected had a range of 0.55 g/mL, therefore it can be said that sufcient data was indeed collected. Although sufcient data was collected, the data was not conclusive, therefore the outcome was inconclusive. ! One major reoccurring error was the unreliability of the bulb planter. The soil did not easily slip out, but rather had to be pushed out with force, and this almost always ended with some spillage of soil. The amount of spillage was generally around the same for each collection, which could have easily affected the bulk density that was measured. There were few times when an unusually large amount of soil fell out and that sample had to be discarded and redone. This error could have been eliminated if a cylindrical tin with a set volume had been used. The transfer of soil would have been much easier and the spillage would have greatly decreased or possibly stopped. A potential source of error was the repeated mistrials of the nitrogen level collection. Multiple groups had to test for nitrogen, and that resulted in the science department running out of a certain necessary component of the nitrogen test. After multiple trials, it was decided that a different procedure and test would be used. Before it was known that the test would be changed, the samples of which data had already been collected, which were later rendered null, had been stored without caution, with the assumption that they would no longer be needed. Although it did not cause very much of a disturbance in the soil, the samples that had been previously tested could have had differing results. It is still not known whether or not the soil bulk density has an effect on any of the other major nutrients, such as phosphorus, and thus a further experiment could be designed to test for other possible correlations. Along with this, it is also not known what other elements of the soil structure, such as moisture and porosity, could affect the nitrogen level of the soil, and so another experiment that checks for such correlations could be designed.
11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ! Aaron and Issay would like to thank Ms. Svatek for graciously offering her time and guidance during this difcult project. The two would like to thank Ms. Schultheis for aiding in nitrogen testing. They would also like to thank Ms. Maclaren for lending them a bulb planter, which proved quite helpful during soil collection. Aaron and Issay would like to thank Martha, the Drumlin Farm naturalist for helping us collect safely and effectively. Finally, they would like to thank Ms. Crewdson, Mr. Senabre and Mr. Rossiter for supervising us during the eld trip. WORKS CITED: INTRODUCTION "Bulk Density (Soil Quality Kit, Guides for Educators)." Usda.gov. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/ assessment/files/bulk_density_guide.pdf>. Carlsen, William S. Watershed Dynamics. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2004. Print. DowAgroSciences. "What Causes Nitrogen Loss?" YouTube. YouTube, 14 Mar. 2011. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYaTdC-dCYQ>. "Drumlin Farm | Mass Audubon | Nature Connection." Drumlin Farm | Mass Audubon | Nature Connection. Mass Audubon, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/ index.php>. "Forest Soils." Forest Soils. Daviesand.com, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Soils/>. Guam Sustainable Agriculture. "3.2 What Makes Soil Fertile?" Guamsustainableag.org. Guam Sustainable Agriculture, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://www.guamsustainableag.org/soilfoundation/ifoam_soilfertility_3-2.pdf>.

12

Kulmala, Airi. "Baltic Deal." Maintaining Good Soil Structure. Baltic Deal, 3 Apr. 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://www.balticdeal.eu/measure/maintaining-good-soil-structure/>. Kunickis, Sheryl. "Soil Characteristics and Their Role in Developing Conditions Favorable for Denitrification." Iuss.org. International Union for Soil Sciences, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/Symposium/pdf/ 2117.pdf>. Laudone, G.M. "A Model to Predict the Effects of Soil Structure on Denitrication and N2O Emission." Porexpert.com. ELSEVIER, 10 Aug. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.porexpert.com/publications/Laudone%20et%20al %20%20HYDROLOGY%20model%20of%20denitrification%20and%20N2O %20emission%20IN%20PRESS.pdf>. My Agriculture Information Bank. "Welcome to Agriinfo.in." My Agriculture Information Bank. N.p., 2011. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic>. "NJF Seminar 448: Soil Compaction."Njf.nu. Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, 6-8 Mar. 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.<http://www.njf.nu/filebank/files/ 20120306$042009$fil$yuzkjG386U3wOVpR5ITE.pdf>. "Nitrogen (Guide for Educators)." Usda.gov. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/files/nitrogen_guide.pdf>. "Plant NutrientsNitrogen." Cfaitc.org. California Fertilizer Foundation, 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www.cfaitc.org/factsheets/pdf/Nitrogen.pdf>.

13

"SECTION I: SOIL COMPACTION-CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES." Soil Compaction: Causes, Effects, and Control. University of Minnesota, 2001. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/ 3115s01.html>. "Silt-definition." Thefreedictionary.com. Farlex, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/silt>. "Soil Respiration." Usda.gov. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/files/respiration_guide.pdf>.

WORKS CITED: DISCUSSION "A Closer Look AtNitrogen." About.com Lawn Care. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. ! <http://lawncare.about.com/od/plantnutrition/a/nitrogen.htm>.

Dijkstra, Feike A., and Weixin Cheng. "Increased Soil Moisture Content Increases Plant ! ! N Uptake and the Abundance of 15N in Plant Biomass." Plant and Soil 302.1-2 (2008): 263-71. Print.

"Nitrogen." Soil Management. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. ! <http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/c_nutrients01.aspx>.

"Nitrogen Loss: How Does It Happen? | Integrated Crop Management." Nitrogen Loss: ! ! How Does It Happen? | Integrated Crop Management. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2007/5-14/nitrogenloss.html>.

"Nitrogen Sources and Transformations." Nitrogen Sources and Transformations. N.p., ! n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00550.html>.

"Plant Nutrients." Plant Nutrients. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

14

<http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm>.

"Soil Bulk Density/ Moisture/ Aeration." USDA, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. ! <http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/les/bulk_density_guide.pdf>.

"Soil Datasets." Soil Datasets. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. ! <http://www.soilinfo.psu.edu/index.cgi?soil_data>.

"Welcome to Agriinfo.in." My Agriculture Information Bank. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. ! <http://www.agriinfo.in/?page=topic>.

15

In DEPTH Experiment
The effect of depth on macroinvertebrate species and abundance. By Lukas Kauth and Maximilian Wiegand

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Primary Author Kauth, Lukas Wiegand, Maximilian Kauth, Lukas Wiegand, Maximilian Kauth, Lukas

Page 1 1-2 2-3 3-5 5-6 7 7-8

ABSTRACT The purpose of this experiment was to test whether the depth of a pond has any effect on the macroinvertebrate species and abundance found. The hypothesis was; if the water is swept close to the surface, then there will be a great abundance and diversity of these tiny animals, because the light will be able to penetrate through the water more effectively and therefore nourish at a greater level (Baumgrtne, springer.com). The materials used included; a sweep net (made out of a broom handle and a sifter) a plastic tray and a macroinvertebrate species identification chart. Samples for the experiment were taken at three different ponds at Drumlin Farm; Poultry, Ice and Bathtub ponds respectively. The sweep net was lowered approximately 3 cm below the surface and was swept five times. The macroinvertebrates collected were recorded and the trials were repeated in the middle depth of the pond as well as the floor. The data was not very precise, but it was clear that certain species lived in greater abundances at different ponds. Also, it appeared that the pond floor had the largest population of macroinvertebrates. Our hypothesis was not at all supported, in fact the results were almost the opposite of what was expected. INTRODUCTION Macroinvertebrates are small organisms that vary from visible to almost invisible in size. They are found in large groups and they include species as boatmen, mayfly nymphs, and water scorpions. Many of these species are the larvae of the insects which live around the pond, and they reside in the pond until they are mature enough to fly (http://enviroscienceinc.com). Macroinvertebrates serve their purpose in the environment by being the food for fish or other aquatic animals. The experiment is being run at Drumlin Farm, a nonprofit organization farm and wildlife sanctuary that devotes itself to conservation. Drumlin has many separate wildlife sites, three of which will be visited during testing. The first site is Poultry Pond, which is located directly next to the chicken coop. Poultry Pond is largely covered by duckweed in the summer, and less so in the winter, making it very prone to fluctuations in results. The next site being visited is Ice Pond. Ice Pond is extremely turbid, and located near a highway and the Hemlock Forest. Lastly, there is Bathtub Pond to be visited. Bathtub is not near any important landmarks and has no duckweed, but it maintains much of the ice covering it even into early spring, as opposed to Poultry and Ice in which the ice melts come spring. The independent variable in this experiment is water depth (cm). The dependent variable is variety and abundance of macroinvertebrates. Three trials will be run at each height, and three heights will be tested: surface, middle, and bottom. The test will be done with a net, and they will be performed at all three ponds. The variables that will need to be controlled are, the number of sweeps with the net, the width of the sweeps, and the amount of water poured over the net to clear it of its cargo, and the exact height at which the net is swept. The hypothesis for this experiment is, if the water is swept close to the surface, then there will be a great abundance and diversity of these tiny animals, because the light will be able to penetrate through the water more effectively and therefore nourish at a greater level (Unknown, nynrm.sa.gov). Research shows that light affects the growth of many things in the pond, especially macroinvertebrates, thus the added light is supposed to have a profound effect on what organisms the section of water houses, differently put, separate organisms are attracted to separate conditions, so the light difference is a large factor. It is thought that there will be substantially varying results when the experiment is run. This experiment may branch out into many experiments in the near or distant future. Future scientists could use the collected data on a larger scale, and predict at what depth the targeted animals would be at judging by the amount of sunlight that is healthiest for them. Secondly it would help anybody who would be collecting macroinvertebrates to feed to a specific organism, because it would be known where most of the macroinvertebrates would be, therefore making the collection much easier and more efficient. Finally, it is possible that scientists could control the amount of certain animals in the wild that feed on macroinvertebrates, by changing the amount of macroinvertebrates available for consumption, and this data could help the scient ists to control the levels with the most efficiency. It is hoped that this experiment will unveil some new information about macroinvertebrates and maybe provide a springboard for water experiments at Drumlin Farm to come.
3

Works Cited
1) Benthic Macroinvertebrates." |Aquatic Ecology|Habitat Restoration. EnviroScience, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. 2) "Water Quality and Macroinvertebrates." Water Facts. Water and RIvers Commision, Oct. 2001. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. 3) Rieradevall, M., N. Bonada, and N. Prat. "Substrate and Depth Preferences of Macroinvertebrates along a Transect in a Pyrenean High Mountain Lake." Limentica, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The samples were taken at Ice, Poultry and Bathtub ponds, located at Drumlin Farm. Travel to the first location. Get as deep in the water as possible and take out the sweep net. Stick the sweep net just below the surface of the water and sweep it back and forth five time within a 250 cm radius. Remove the sweep net from the water and hold it above the tray. Pour 250 ml of strained, macroinvertebrate free pond water and pour it over the net in order to flush out any macroinvertebrates remaining in the net. To strain the water , put the sweep nets sifter over one of the cups and pour the pond water over the sifter into the cup. Take out the spoon and pick up one macroinvertebrate. Use the species chart to identify the species of the macroinvertebrate. Put the organism in the plastic cup full of water. Repeat this again, separating the macroinvertebrates by species and recording them on the table in the field notebook. Pour out the water from both the cups and tray and ensure that there are no remaining macroinvertebrates. Take out the rope and measure the depth of the pond by placing it in the water and marking off the point where the surface is. Measure from the mark to the end of the rope. Place the sweep net beneath the water at the halfway point from the surface to the pond floor. Sweep the net back and forth five times and collect the macroinvertebrates as instructed for the surface test. Record the data as told in the previous surface test. Repeat all of these steps once again at the pond floor.

Move to a different location at the pond and measure the depth. Follow the procedure once again and collect the samples from all three depths of the pond and record the data. Once again move to a different location at the pond and conduct the trials. For a final time, find a different location with the same depth and conduct the trials. After recording all of the research at the first pond, move to the second and repeat the procedure. Collect the data from all three depths at all four of the different locations at the pond. After collecting the data from Poultry, Ice and Bathtub ponds clean out the tray, sweep net, spoon and cups with strained pond water.
4

WORKS CITED "Guidelines for Collecting Macroinvertebrate Samples from Wadable Streams." Infotrek.gov. Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Monitoring and Data Assessment Section, June 2000. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. <http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/wdnr_biology/archives/Macroinvproto.pdf>. RESULTS

Table 1 The effect of depth on diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates at Poultry Pond
Surface Species Bloodworm Mosquito Larva Phantom Midge Water Boatman Water Strider Predacious Diving Beetle Whirligig Beetle Caddis Fly Larva Trial 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 3 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 2 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Middle Trial 3 0.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average 0.00 0.33 1.33 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD 0.00 0.58 1.53 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 1 0.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 2 0.00 2.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bottom Trial 3 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aver age 0.00 1.33 4.33 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD 0.00 1.15 0.58 1.15 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 2 The effect of depth on diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates at Ice Pond
Species Bloodworm Mosquito Larva Phantom Midge Water Boatmen Water Strider Predacious Diving Beetle Whirligig Beetle Caddis Fly Larva Trial 1 9.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 Trial 2 6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 Surface Trial 3 5.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 Average 6.67 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 SD 2.08 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.00 2.08 0.00 Trial 1 4.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 Trial 2 6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 Middle Trial 3 3.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 Average 4.33 0.67 2.00 1.00 1.67 0.00 4.33 0.00 SD 1.53 1.15 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.00 1.53 0.00 Trial 1 7.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 Trial 2 3.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 Bottom Trial 3 1.00 7.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Average 3.67 4.33 3.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 3.67 0.00 SD 3.06 3.06 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 3.06 0.00

Table 3 The effect of depth on diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates at Bathtub Pond
Species Bloodworm Mosquito Larva Phantom Midge Water Boatmen Water Strider Predacious Diving Beetle Whirligig Beetle Caddis Fly Larva Trial 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 2 0.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surface Trial 3 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average 0.00 0.33 2.33 1.33 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD 0.00 0.58 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Middle Trial 3 0.00 0.00 3.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Average 0.00 0.33 1.00 2.67 1.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 SD 0.00 0.58 1.73 2.52 2.31 0.58 0.00 0.00 Trial 1 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Trial 2 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bottom Trial 3 0.00 2.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average 0.00 0.67 3.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 SD 0.00 1.15 2.08 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58

Graph 1 The effect of depth on average number of macroinvertebrates caught

3.00
2.50

Average number of organisms

2.00
1.50

1.00
0.50

0.00
Surface -0.50 Middle Bottom

-1.00

Depth

Graph 2 The effect of pond location and water depth on the average number of macroinvertebrates caught

Average number of organisms

1.5

Poultry Ice

0.5

Bathtub

0 Surface -0.5 Middle Bottom

Depth

Graph 3 The effect of pond location on the average number of each individual macroinvertebrate caught
8

7
6 Average number of organisms 5 4 Poultry 3 2 1 0 Bloodworm -1 -2 Mosquito Larva Phantom Midge Water Boatman Water Strider Predacious Whirligig Diving Beetle Beetle Caddis Fly Larva Ice Bathtub

Species

The results are not conclusive, but they do show some major trends in the data. While it was expected that the surface layer would hold the most organisms, this was not the case, graphs 2 and 3 show that most of the time, the bottom had the most average organisms. A simple glance at the bars on graph 3 would reveal that while the surface had somewhere near 0.75 organisms on average and the middle had just barely more, the bottom ended up with 1 organisms on average which was the highest of the three. Another noticeable outlier is the whirligig beetle bar on graph 1 which is greater than its runner up, the mosquito larva by almost 3. The last important trend is on graph 2 where the results from Poultry and Bathtub pond act in opposite ways. Poultrys data goes up from bar to bar in a somewhat linear fashion reaching over 1.5, while Batht ubs data slopes down and bottoms out at around 0.65 Unfortunately the error bars render this experiment inconclusive, because the overlap is tremendous and all three graphs have overlapping error bars for most of their data. In fact on graph 3, the error bars are nearly 3 times the size of the bars. DISSCUSION This experiment was conducted to find out if the depth in a pond affected the species diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates. The hypothesis set forth was: if the water is swept close to the surface, then there will be a greater abundance and diversity of these tiny animals, because the light will be able to penetrate through the water more effectively and therefore nourish at a greater level (Baumgrtne, 2004). The hypothesis was not supported. The experiment found that, when looking at a comparison between ponds, most macroinvertebrates are found in the middle to bottom areas, and less at the surface. Few species stay near the surface, only those that go to the top for oxygen live there (www.ncsu.edu).
7

Graph one showed that, overall, the depth did not affect the amount of macroinvertebrates found. The error bars overlapped completely so no conclusions could be made. Not only that, but the averages were also very similar. This did not support or disprove the hypothesis. However, the ponds were all very different from each other. Poultry pond had very turbid water and a dock where the samples were taken from. The dock allowed for water, deeper than that of all the other ponds, to be swept. Ice pond had a bottom layer of dead leaves, easily seen through the clear water. It was difficult to get to the deeper parts of Ice pond, so the samples taken there were taken in much shallower water than Poultry Pond. Bathtub Pond had a layer of ice in the center, and was surrounded by snow. This led to the assumption that bathtub pond was colder and shadier which could have affected the macroinvertebrate count. These radical differences in the ponds most likely affected the poor precision of the data, as well as the lack of any correlation. Graph one showed that there were no conclusive results of whether the pond affects the macroinvertebrate species found there. The error bars are all very large and overlap significantly. Although the averages of the data differ greatly, the data set precision was very low and therefore, not many conclusions are able to be made. The correlation that was expected, surface being the highest, was proven wrong at all of the locations. No other correlations could be conclusively found due to the lack of precision. Ice pond has higher macroinvertebrate populations than poultry pond, however, bathtub and poultry overlap error bars frequently so there is no conclusively higher or lower pond population. Graph two however did have some significant conclusions that could be made. Going against the hypothesis, the results from Poultry and Ice ponds showed that the bottom of the pond was where the majority of macroinvertebrates were found. Bathtub pond supported our hypothesis, however, with the most macroinvertebrates found at the surface of the pond. This result could have been caused by the lower temperatures at Bathtub pond. Perhaps, more macroinvertebrates were found at the surface because it was slightly warmer there. Graph three showed the totals of macroinvertebrate species for each pond. There were no specific trends between the ponds, but it was clear that certain species were found in more abundance at the different ponds. Certain species are indicators as to the water quality of the pond. These species include bloodworms and mosquito larva, which are both pollution tolerant species (www.water.ncsu.edu). Both of these were present at Poultry Pond in abundance, perhaps indicating that it is a more polluted pond than the others, a reason why other species were not as prevalent. To improve the accuracy and make the results of the experiment more definitive, many changes can be made. First, all of the ponds visited had different depths and the samples were taken at all different ranges of depth. To further conduct this experiment, it would be beneficial to find ponds with similar depths and make the testing sites more uniform in their similarity. Also, Bathtub pond had ice on its surface, while the other ponds did not. Cold water attracts more dissolved oxygen which supports macroinvertebrate life, and also can tolerate cold water, which could have affected the populations (Schumaker, wupcenter.mtu.edu). It was clear that when the ponds were swept in the Spring, there was a larger duckweed cover, another factor that restricts light and indicates the health of the pond ( infotrek.er.usgs.gov) When conducting the experiment again, it would be important to find ponds with similar temperatures and environmental surroundings. Also, more data should have been collected. Only three trials were taken at each location for each level of the Independent Variable. To ensure that the results were more precise and accurate, more trials should have been conducted. An error encountered in the experiment was, when the tray of macroinvertebrates was poured back into the water, it was possible that the macroinvertebrates were caught again during a different trial. To eliminate this, the macroinvertebrates that were caught could have been kept in a separate container, out of the pond, until all the trials were conducted. Also, when the sweep net was being taken out of the water, it was pulled through the surface, possibly catching surface dwelling macroinvertebrates. However, there is no way of eliminating this error. Finally, in the middle of one of the trials, the original sweep net broke and a new one was used. The two sweep nets were different in shape and size and perhaps the change in net affected the amount of macroinvertebrates caught and recorded. A future extension of this experiment could include traveling to different ponds, away from Drumlin, and comparing the data. Also, a comparison between rivers and ponds could be made. With more research about
8

the condition in which macroinvertebrates live, as well as the species found in this region, even more experiments could be created. If a chemical test was used, a correlation between dissolved oxygen, phosphorous or nitrate and the macroinvertebrate population could be figured out. Finding out how different variables affect the macroinvertebrates is important information that could help Drumlin Farm better take care of their pond environments. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank Lynda Dugas and Chris Kauth for helping me gather and purchase the materials we needed to conduct our experiment. Also, thank you to Betsy Canaday, Margaret Hardy and Randi Currier for supervising us at our various testing sites at Drumlin Farm. Thanks to Drumlin Naturalists Pat for her help identifying macroinvertebrate species with us. A very big thank you to Kelley Schultheis, who helped us through the whole process; refining our experiment, conducting data and writing our paper. We could not have conducted the experiment without out all of your help. There are several people that I would like to thank. The first two people for assisting me with this project when I needed it, for providing encouragement when I did not, for giving me an education of a high enough caliber to pull off an endeavor such as this, and for helping me obtain the materials I so desperately needed to conduct the experiments, these two are Beebe and Torsten Wiegand. Next, for providing me with the skills to accomplish the completion of this project, for giving help when it was needed, and for working night and day to make sure that everyone's project was done to their utmost extent of their ability, I would like to thank Ms. Schultheis. Next I would like to thank the Drumlin Farm wildlife naturalists for answering any questions we threw at them with enthusiasm and clarity, and for letting us roam around and use their farm for our experimentation. Finally, I would like to thank my partner Luke, for being patient and understanding when I messed up, for giving me help and feedback on my work, for contributing many of the materials, for doing solid, good quality work, and for having a cheerful mood even on the glummest of days. Works Cited Addy, Kelly, and Linda Green. "Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature." Natural Resources Facts. University of Rhode Island, Mar. 1997. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. "Benthic Macroinvertebrates." North Carolina Extension Water Quality Information System. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/macroinv.html>. Chadde, Joan S. "Macroinvertebrates as Bioindicators of Stream Health." Western U.P. Center for Science, Mathematics & Environmental Education, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 13. <http://wupcenter.mtu.edu/education/stream/Macroinvertebrate.pdf>. "Guidelines for Collecting Macroinvertebrate Samples from Wadable Streams." Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Monitoring and Data Assessment Section, June 2000. Web. 22 Jan. 2013. <http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/wdnr_biology/archives/Macroinvproto.pdf>. "Ponds:." Ponds:. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. "Temperature of Ocean Water." Temperature of Ocean Water. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.
9

"Water What-ifs." Science Junction. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/depot/experiments/water/lessons/macro/>. Baumgrtner, D., 2004. Principles of Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in the Littoral Zone of Lake Constance. Verlag Regionalkultur, Heidelberg. Baumgrtner, D., 2004. Principles of Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in the Littoral Zone of Lake Constance. Verlag Regionalkultur, Heidelberg. Benthic Macroinvertebrates." |Aquatic Ecology|Habitat Restoration. EnviroScience, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. "Water Quality and Macroinvertebrates." Water Facts. Water and RIvers Commision, Oct. 2001. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. Rieradevall, M., N. Bonada, and N. Prat. "Substrate and Depth Preferences of Macroinvertebrates along a Transect in a Pyrenean High Mountain Lake." Limentica, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

10

ABSTRACT' !

! This!experiment!was!conducted!in!order!to!find!out!whether!land!use!affects!the! nitrogen!level!of!soil.!The!soil!was!taken!from!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!MA.!The!procedure! for!this!experiment!was!to!take!eight!soil!samples!from!Boyce!Field,!Overlook!Field!and!the! Farmyard!and!test!the!nitrogen!level!in!each!of!the!twentyBfour!samples.!This!information! was!then!used!to!see!which!field!had!the!highest!nitrogen!level!and!see!if!there!was!a! conclusive!difference!between!the!fields!nitrogen!levels.!It!was!expected!that!soil!from!the! Farmyard!would!have!higher!nitrogen!content!because!animal!manure!in!the!field!would! add!to!the!nitrogen!level!and!agricultural!fields!are!more!likely!to!lose!nitrogen!through! leaching!and!plantBuptake!than!animalBgrazing!areas.!The!hypothesis!was!not!supported.! The!results!were!inconclusive!for!the!most!part,!but!Overlook!did!have!conclusively!less! soil!nitrogen!than!the!other!two.!Boyce!Field!had!the!highest!average!soil!nitrogen!(5.2! PPM),!followed!by!the!Farmyard!(3.2!PPM)!and!Overlook!Field!had!the!lowest!average!(2.3! PPM).!

' INTRODUCTION'

' Soil!nitrogen!is!necessary!for!plant!growth!because!it!helps!build!protein.!Nitrogen! gets!into!soil!in!many!ways.!Soil!nitrogen!enters!the!soil!naturally!through!crop!residues,! animal!manures!and!precipitation.!Farmers!also!add!commercial!fertilizers!to!soil!to!help! crop!production.!Soil!nitrogen!is!lost!through!leaching,!crop!removals,!soil!erosion,! denitrification,!volatilization!and!runoff.!Different!uses!of!land!affect!the!amount!of! nitrogen!in!soil!in!different!ways.' ' This!experiment!will!be!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm,!a!Massachusetts!Audubon! Wildlife!Sanctuary,!in!Lincoln,!MA.!This!sanctuary!encompasses!over!312!acres!of!varied! land!and!ecosystems.!For!this!experiment,!the!following!3!fields!will!be!tested:!Boyce!Field,! Overlook!Field!and!the!Farmyard.!These!various!terrains!all!have!differing!uses!by!humans! and!animals,!which!cause!the!soils!to!have!different!soil!nitrogen!levels.!Boyce!Field!is!a! cultivated!field!that!has!nitrogenBrich!manure!added!to!it!as!well!as!many!crop!residues! (Brown,!soil.gsfc.nasa.gov/).!Overlook!Field!is!preserved!and!only!mown!once!a!year,!and!is! otherwise!unaffected!by!humans.!The!Farmyard!is!an!enclosed!area!where!sheep!graze.!! The!sheep!manure!adds!to!the!overall!soil!nitrogen!level!(Barbarick,! www.ext.colostate.edu/).! ! Leaching!is!the!loss!of!soluble!nitrate!as!it!moves!with!soil!water,!generally!excess! water,!below!the!root!zone.!Denitrification!is!the!process!in!which!soil!nitrogen!is!lost! through!chemical!reduction,!and!volatilization!is!where!soil!nitrogen!is!last!as!ammonia!gas! (OLeary,!Rehm!and!Schmitt,!www.extension.umn.edu/).!!Plants!need!nitrogen!to!grow!and! it!is!almost!impossible!for!nonBwater!plants!to!have!too!much!of!it,!so!many!farmers!add! manures!with!high!nitrogenBcontent!to!their!crops!(OLeary,!Rehm!and!Schmitt,! www.extension.umn.edu/).!However,!despite!this,!crop!fields!often!have!less!soil!nitrogen! because!plants!absorb!a!high!percentage!of!the!nitrogen!and!the!type!of!land!allows!for! more!leaching,!erosion!and!runoff,!as!was!found!in!an!experiment!testing!whether!changing! forest!areas!to!agricultural!lands!affects!soil!nitrogen!(BatlleBAguilar,!Brovelli,!Porporato,!

1!

and!Barry).!NonBagricultural!fields!and!animalBgrazing!fields!are!similar!in!amount!of!plantB absorption!and!leaching!of!nitrogen,!but!animalBgrazing!fields!have!the!additional!benefit!of! animal!manures!that!have!high!nitrogen!contents!(Barbarick,!www.ext.colostate.edu/).!! The!proposed!experiment!is!to!test!the!effect!of!land!use!on!soil!nitrogen.!!The! objective!of!this!experiment!is!to!determine!whether!or!not!different!uses!of!the!land! around!Drumlin!Farm!affect!soil!nitrogen!levels.!This!question!will!be!tested!by!collecting! soil!samples!from!Boyce!Field,!Overlook!Field!and!the!Farmyard,!and!finding!the!soil! nitrogen!level!of!each!sample.!The!dependent!variable!will!be!the!soil!nitrogen!level!(ppm)! and!the!independent!variable!of!this!experiment!will!be!land!use.!The!levels!of!the! independent!variable!are!an!agricultural!crop!field,!animalBgrazing!field!and!natural!field.! The!agricultural!field!that!will!be!used!is!Boyce!Field,!the!animalBgrazing!field!that!will!be! used!is!the!Farmyard!and!the!natural!field!that!will!be!used!is!Overlook!Field.!Important! controlled!variables!include!the!testing!date,!the!container!type!that!the!soil!is!stored!in,!the! slope!and!exposure!of!the!area!where!the!soil!was!collected,!the!depth!where!soil!is! collected!and!the!methods!used!for!collection!and!testing.!The!hypothesis!for!this! experiment!is:!if!soil!from!the!Farmyard!is!tested!then!the!soil!nitrogen!level!will!be!highest! because!animal!manure!contains!high!concentrations!of!soil!nitrogen!and!agricultural!areas! lose!soil!nitrogen!very!easily!(Barbarick,!www.ext.colostate.edu/).!This!hypothesis!was!put! forth!because!it!was!discovered!that!crop!fields!drain!more!easily,!causing!nitrogen!to!leach! from!the!soil!(BatlleBAguilar,!Brovelli,!Porporato,!and!Barry).!AnimalBgrazing!areas!and! natural!fields!do!not!drain!as!easily.!However,!natural!fields!only!receive!additional! nitrogen!from!the!rain,!plant!residue!and!small!animal!droppings.!AnimalBgrazing!areas! have!all!of!these!contributions!to!the!soil!nitrogen!level!along!with!manure!from!larger! animals!that!greatly!boost!the!amount!of!nitrogen!in!the!soil.!Therefore,!the!Farmyard!will! have!the!most!soil!nitrogen.!! ! This!research!demonstrates!how!peoples!use!of!the!land!at!Drumlin!Farm!has! affected!soil!nitrogen!levels.!Volunteers!and!naturalists!at!Drumlin!Farm!need!to! understand!how!they!have!affected!the!soil!nitrogen!levels.!They!also!need!to!learn!how! they!can!improve!them!in!order!to!improve!plant!growth.!Farmers!need!to!learn!whether! agricultural!use!is!good!for!the!land!and!its!crop!yield,!as!well!as!how!to!increase!crop! production!in!ways!that!are!good!for!the!soil.!People!need!to!understand!what!affects!plant! growth!and!realize!how!they!are!affecting!it.!If!they!know!the!variables!that!change!it!in! different!environments,!they!can!also!learn!how!to!help!plant!growth!rather!than!harm!it..! Also,!due!to!chemical!fertilizers,!there!is!too!much!nitrogen!in!the!earth,!which!increases! algae!growth!that!causes!eutrophication,!killing!large!amounts!of!sea!life!(Cherry,! e360.yale.edu/).!People!need!to!see!if!their!use!of!fertilizers!is!worth!the!plant!yield!and! whether!cutting!down!on!fertilizer!use!will!hurt!the!land.!People!need!to!learn!the!effects!of! using!soil!nitrogen!excessively!for!plant!growth!in!order!to!help!the!planet.!

' MATERIALS'AND'METHODS'

' The!first!step!in!this!procedure!was!to!go!to!Boyce!Field!and!measure!the!length!and! width!of!the!field!using!measured!strides.!Then,!a!diagram!of!the!field!was!drawn!in!a!field! notebook.!A!diagram!was!plotted!using!8!coordinates!found!on!a!TIBnspire!calculator!(See! Figure!1).!Collecting!was!done!at!each!of!the!coordinates.!First,!the!surface!debris!was! ! 2!

removed.!Then,!a!garden!trowel!was!inserted!into!the!soil!and!a!clean!plastic!container!was! filled!with!soil!from!16B21!cm!deep!(determined!using!a!ruler).!These!steps!for!collecting! the!soil!were!repeated!at!the!other!seven!sets!of!coordinates.!All!of!these!steps!were!then! repeated!at!Overlook!Field!and!the!Farmyard.!Afterwards,!the!24!soil!samples!were!taken! back!to!the!science!lab!for!testing.! ! In!order!to!test!the!samples,!30!mL!of!calcium!chloride!had!to!be!added!into!a! measuring!cup.!Next,!10!mL!of!soil!was!added!from!one!of!the!plastic!containers!and!was! stirred!up.!After!that,!the!rest!of!the!soil!in!that!particular!plastic!container!was!disposed!of! and!the!container!was!filled!with!the!solution!of!calcium!chloride!and!soil.!These!steps!were! repeated!with!the!rest!of!the!plastic!containers!and!the!solutions!sat!for!24!hours.!8!test! tubes!were!set!up!on!a!wooden!rack.!Next,!the!plastic!containers!were!taken!and!an! eyedropper!was!used!to!fill!each!test!tube!1/3!of!the!way!using!liquid!from!the!top!of!a! calcium!chloride!and!soil!solution.!The!Vernier!Nitrate!IonBSelective!Probe!was!stuck!into! each!solution!and!the!LabQuest!2!was!used!to!take!a!reading!of!the!nitrogen!level.!Then,!the! results!were!recorded!in!a!field!notebook!and!these!steps!were!repeated!with!all!of!the! samples.!!!
! ! Figure!1:!Random!sampling!in!Boyce!Field!taken!from!a!depth!of!30.5!cm! !

10! 8! 6! 4! 2! 0! 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5!

!
! !

Figure!2:!Random!Sampling!in!the!Farmyard!taken!from!a!depth!of!30.5!cm!!

4! 3.5! 3! 2.5! 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5! 0! 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5!

! 3!

Figure!3:!Random!Sampling!in!Overlook!Field!taken!from!a!depth!of!30.5!cm! !

4.5! 4! 3.5! 3! 2.5! 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5! 0! 0! 0.5! 1! 1.5! 2! 2.5! 3! 3.5! 4!

! ! ! ! Figure!4:!Vernier!Nitrate!IonBSelective!Probe!

' ' RESULTS'

The!highest!average!was!Boyce!Field!with!5.1625!mg/L.!The!lowest!average!was! Overlook!with!2.2!mg/L.!The!average!soil!nitrogen!from!Farmyard!was!3.1mg/L.!The!error!bars! of!Boyce!Field!and!Farmyard!overlapped.!Boyce!Field!had!a!standard!deviation!of!2.0!mg/L.! Farmyard!has!a!standard!deviation!of!0.6.!Overlook!had!a!standard!deviation!of!0.2.!The!highest! point!9.7!mg/L,!which!was!taken!from!Boyce!Field.!The!Lowest!point!of!data!was!1.9,!which! was!collected!from!a!soil!sample!from!Overlook!Field.!The!soil!samples!from!Overlook!were! particularly!moist!and!had!many!roots!in!them.!Farmyard!soil!samples!had!large!quantities!of! animal!droppings!particularly!goat!droppings.!Boyce!field!had!loose!from!be!being!plowed!and! possibly!had!fertilizer!and!manure!on!them.! !

4!

Table!1! !!
Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! !! 1! 2! 3! 4! Overlook! 2.3! 1.9! 2.7! 2.2! Boyce! 5.5! 3.5! 9.7! 5.3! Farmyard! 3.5! 2.9! 3.4! 3.5!

Soil!Nitrogen!mg/L! Trial! Trial! Trial! Trial! 5! 6! 7! 8! Avgerage! 2.5! 2.2! 2.1! 2.3! 2.3! 4.7! 4.9! 4.1! 3.6! 5.2! 3.1! 2.0! 3.0! 3.9! 3.2!

Standard! Deviation! 0.2! 2.0! 0.6!

! Graph!1!
8.0! 7.0! 6.0! Soil%Nitrogen%mg/L%% 5.0! 4.0! 3.0! 2.0! 1.0! 0.0! Overlook! Boyce! Loca1on% Farmyard!

' ' DISCUSSION'

! ! ! ! This!experiment!studied!the!effect!of!land!use!on!soil!nitrogen.!The!hypothesis! stated!if!soil!from!the!farmyard!is!tested!then!the!soil!nitrogen!level!will!be!the!highest! because!animal!manure!contains!high!concentration!of!soil!nitrogen!and!agricultural!areas! lose!soil!nitrogen!easily!(http://www.extension.umn.edu).!The!results!showed!that! Overlook!Field!had!significantly!less!soil!nitrogen!then!the!other!fields,!although!Boyce! Field!and!The!Farmyards!results!were!inconclusive.! ! Unlike!expected!results,!Farmyard!had!the!intermediate!level!of!soil!nitrogen! (average=3.2!mg/L).!Overlook!had!conclusively!the!lowest!level!of!soil!nitrogen!then!all!the! other!locations!(average=2.3!mg/L).!Boyce!Field!had!the!highest!average!level!of!soil! nitrogen!(average=5.2!mg/L).!The!Farmyard!had!the!same!amounts!of!soil!nitrogen!

5!

throughout!the!entire!field.!This!would!suggest!that!the!animal!manure!contains!the! roughly!the!same!levels!of!soil!nitrogen!(http://www.extension.umn.edu/)!Boyce!Field! may!have!had!high!levels!of!nitrogen!because!of!fertilizer!and!compost!with!high!levels!of! soil!nitrogen!and!phosphorus!(https://www.agronomy.org/)! ! The!data!was!not!entirely!conclusive!as!the!error!bars!of!Farmyard!and!Boyce!Field! overlapped.!Boyce!Field!had!the!least!precise!data!making!it!have!the!largest!error!bars.! This!may!have!been!the!result!of!not!having!the!same!amount!of!fertilizer!in!all!the! locations!on!the!field.!When!farms!place!fertilizer!on!soil!to!give!the!soil!more!nutrients!the! farm!does!not!always!make!sure!they!place!the!same!amount!of!fertilizer!on!each!area.!This! will!result!in!not!having!the!same!amount!of!nutrients!such!as!nitrogen!in!all!the!areas.! Overlook!field!had!the!most!precise!data!and!the!smallest!error!bars.!Farmyard!data!was! slightly!less!precise!than!Overlook.!The!amount!of!manure!in!areas!of!the!Farmyard!was! greater!in!some!areas!than!other!areas!of!the!Farmyard.!The!data!from!Boyce!field!had!a! large!range!and!was!not!precise!making!it!hard!to!tell!if!the!average!amount!of!data!was!a! fair!assumption!of!the!actual!amount!of!nitrogen!in!the!soil! ! The!field!study!could!have!been!improved!by!having!more!samples!in!order!to! narrow!down!the!precision!of!the!nitrogen.!If!this!was!done,!it!is!possible!that!Boyce!Field! or!Farmyard!could!have!had!the!higher!soil!nitrogen.!Sufficient!data!was!collected!to!find! that!Overlook!had!conclusively!less!soil!nitrogen!then!all!the!other!locations,!showing!that! natural!habitats!have!the!least!amount!of!soil!nitrogen.!One!of!the!errors!was!that!we!had!to! move!the!decimal!place!over!on!the!data!randomizer!otherwise!the!soil!sample!would!have! come!from!the!same!spot.!In!addition!when!measuring,!we!measured!with!paces.!Paces!are! not!the!most!accurate!way!of!getting!the!right!measurements!as!they!are!not!all!the!same! this!may!have!resulted!in!not!getting!data!from!the!actual!spot!that!we!were!supposed!to.! Future!experiments!could!be!to!check!if!different!types!of!plants!have!an!impact!on!the!soil! nitrogen,!if!different!types!of!fertilizer!have!an!effect!on!soil!nitrogen,!or!if!there!different! land!use!rotations!increases!the!amount!of!soil!nitrogen.!

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

6!

It!is!a!pleasure!for!me!to!acknowledge!the!contributions!of!many!people!to!this! report.!My!partner,!Peter!Mankiw,!came!up!with!the!idea!and!worked!hard!to!ensure!that!it! worked.!I!would!never!have!been!able!to!do!any!of!this!without!him.!My!science!teacher,! Kelley!Schulteis,!helped!us!come!up!with!solutions!to!the!many!problems!we!faced.!Ryan! Guan!and!Kian!Golshan!also!tested!soil!nitrogen!and!showed!us!how!to!do!the!test.!Ms.! Hardy,!Ms.!Crewdson!and!Mr.!Breen!all!oversaw!us!as!we!collected!soil!at!Drumlin!Farm! and!they!were!ready!to!help!whenever!we!had!a!setback.!Martha,!a!Drumlin!Farm! Naturalist,!told!us!where!we!should!collect!soil!at!Boyce!Field.!Gary!Rasin!and!Harry! Theodore!explained!to!us!how!to!get!randomized!coordinates!in!a!field!when!we!forgot.! Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank!my!parents,!David!Peeler!and!Katherine!Kellogg,!for! supporting!me!whenever!I!was!frustrated!by!this!project!and!thus,!helping!me!continue!to! do!my!best!work.!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !BAndrew!KelloggBPeeler! !

Acknowledgements' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
! 7!

Works'Cited' '
Introduction'and'Discussion'
Barbarick,!K.!A.!"Nitrogen!Sources!and!Transformations."!Nitrogen)Sources)and) Transformations.!Colorado!State!University,!15!Oct.!2012.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00550.html>.! Barbarick,!K.!A.!"Organic!Materials!as!Nitrogen!Fertilizers."!Organic)Materials)as)Nitrogen) Fertilizers.!Colorado!State!University,!15!Oct.!2012.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00546.html>.! BatlleBAguilar,!J.,!A.!Brovelli,!A.!Porporato,!and!D.!A.!Barry.!"Modelling!Soil!Carbon!and! Nitrogen!Cycles!During!Land!Use!Change."Sustainable)Agriculture!2!(2011):!499B 527.!Print.! Brown,!Eric.!"National!Aeronautics!and!Space!Administration."!Soil)Science)Education.! National!Aeronautics!and!Space!Administration,!26!Feb.!2013.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://soil.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.php?section=81>.! Cherry,!Davis.!"The!Nitrogen!Fix:!Breaking!a!Costly!Addiction."!By)Fred)Pearce:)Yale) Environment)360.!Yale!University,!17!Nov.!2009.!Web.!14!Mar.!2013.! <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_nitrogen_fix_breaking_a_costly_addiction/2207/ >.! Eghball,!Bahman,!and!James!F.!Power.!"PhosphorusB!and!NitrogenBBased!Manure!and! Compost!Applications!Corn!Production!and!Soil!Phosphorus."!Soil)Science)Society)of) America)Journal!63.4!(1999):!n.!pag.!Print.! O'Leary,!Mike,!George!Rehm,!and!Michael!Schmitt.!"Understanding!Nitrogen!in!Soils."! Understanding)Nitrogen)in)Soils.!University!of!Minnesota,!n.d.!Web.!06!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc3770.html>.! "Nitrates."!Earth)Force.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!25!Apr.!2013.! <http://www.earthforce.org/ViewResource.php?AID=5>.!

Materials'and'Methods'
Dana,!Michael!N.!"Collecting!Soil!Samples!for!Testing."!General)Horticulture.!Purdue! University,!n.d.!Web.!6!Mar.!2013.!<http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/HOB71.pdf>.! "NitrateBN!and!Phosphate!In!Water!Test!Kit."!LaMotte)Company.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!25!Apr.! 2013.!<http://www.lamotte.com/images/pdfs/instructions/3119.pdf>.!

8!

Owen Lasko S81-2 Nicholas Piccirillo S81-9

The Effect of Hemlock Age on Resistance to Woolly Adelgid

ABSTRACT: The Woolly Adelgid is a destructive species that is a huge threat towards Hemlock trees. This experiment was created in order to further comprehend the factors that determine a Hemlock trees resistance to the Woolly Adelgid. This experiment was performed at the Drumlin Farms Hemlock Forest. The most important objective was to see if there was a correlation to resistance to Woolly Adelgid and the age of the Hemlock tree. Trees would be weakest while they are very young and then again when they are much older, this is because the bark during its first stages of life is very thin and during its later stages of life are much weaker. To determine this, the DBH was measured to represent age, and the health of the tree was measured by checking the percentage of the tree covered by foliage. The hypothesis was generally supported where the health of the tree seemed to be higher when the trees are roughly 60-120 years old. This means that this is the most resistive time period against Woolly Adelgid for Hemlock Trees. INTRO: There recently was an invasion in North America of a small aphid-like insect called the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. The Woolly Adelgid is so ruthless that scientists predict that the Hemlock species will die out by the year 2663.(Stevens William K.) The insect migrated from Japan in the 1950s and since then has begun to rapidly destroy the population of Hemlocks. From what scientists can tell, so far there is only one effective way to get rid of the Adelgid. That method is to release a predatory bug called the Laricobius nigrinus.(Conservation in a Changing Climate) Unfortunately each one costs three dollars. The Adelgid infects all ages of trees, without too much problem. It normally only takes 2 to 4 years for the Adelgids to kill a tree. The Adelgids go through 2 generations every year which is the same as their life span.(Conservation in a Changing Climate) Some signs of infestation are thinning of the crown or a white wool within which the eggs hatch. These are their egg sacks as well as where they get their name. Hemlock trees are a breed of coniferous tree. The proposed experiment will focus on Eastern Hemlocks. Uninfected Eastern Hemlock trees that grow in the Massachusetts, New York area grow to be about 350 years old on average. Hemlocks generally stop growing after around 200 years. The Hemlocks also are at their strongest when they are around 200 years old. At full growth the trees diameter at breast height, (DBH) normally gets to be around 78 cm.(Tsuga Canadensis) The majority of the population is in a large strip stretching from northern Georgia to Canada and have no resistance to the Adelgid. The Hemlocks in Japan genetically became resistant to the Woolly Adelgid over time, but

the Woolly Adelgid are spreading too fast for in North America for the Eastern Hemlock to become genetically resistant. There is no known correlation between the resistance to Woolly Adelgid and the age of the Hemlocks. On the other hand there is a correlation between Hemlock age and resistance to other infections. Hemlocks are stronger when fully grown, because the bark and wood is as hard and as strong as it will ever be, providing it with strong protection from the Adelgid and other infections. Although no documented correlations have been found between the Woolly Adelgid and the age of Hemlocks, correlations have been found between Hemlock age and resistance to other infections. The proposed experiment seeks to find a correlation between the resistance to the Woolly Adelgid and the age of the Hemlock Trees. The independent variable in this experiment will be the age of the Hemlocks, and the dependent variable will be the percentage of the tree that has been infected. The controls will be, the units that are used to measure the DBH, the way that we select each tree, and the way that we judge the percentage of the tree that has been infected. We are testing trees from preset age groups ranging from 0 years old to around 160. We will find the age of a given tree by measuring DBH and translating it using a table. The table correlates DBH to age using data from Hemlocks in the greater New York area.(Tsuga Canadensis) The controls will be, the units that are used to measure the DBH, the way that we select each tree, and the way that we judge the percentage of the tree that has been infected. The hypothesis set forth for the experiment was, if the hemlock tree is anywhere in between 175 years old and 250 years old then the tree will have a large physical resistance to Woolly Adelgid because the Hemlock trees outer bark will be at its most resistive stage, with a larger bark making the Woolly Adelgid mouthpiece unable to pierce through the protective bark (Hemlock Woolly Adelgid). This experiment will help get the information into the public about age in relation to resistance. This is relevant, because the research behind this experiment did not find any data which followed the premises of this experiment. It is helpful information to know for people with infected trees, because then they can find out how much longer their tree will most likely live, and when they have to worry about it collapsing. Works Cited "Hemlock Woolly Adelgid." Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/hemadelgid.html>. "Conservation in a Changing Climate - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." Conservation in a Changing Climate - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fws.gov/northeast/climatechange/stories/adelgid.html>. Stevens, William K. "Time Is Running Out For Eastern Hemlock." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 1991. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/26/science/time-is-running-out-for-eastern-hemlock.html> "Tsuga Canadensis (L." Tsuga Canadensis (L. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/tsuga/canadensis.htm>.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farms Hemlock forest because of the great quantities of samples to choose from. Before arriving at the test site, two pieces of tape were cut in about 1-2 inch pieces. Then the pieces of tape were placed at the zero inch and ten inch marks of a ruler. Then take Field Notebook and flip to Field Studies section for data collection. The Hemlocks then had to be identified. To determine which trees were Hemlocks, the needles were checked for characteristics being flat and single. If this was true, then the needle was measured with a measuring tape. If the needle length was 0.5 inches with short petiole then it was confirmed as a Hemlock and was numbered. After numbering a large amount of trees, the calculator was used to randomize 24 random integers between 0 and the quantity of samples numbered. After only using the trees whose numbers appeared in the selection, the experiment proceeded onto recording the DBH and Woolly Adelgid measurements of the tree. First, to begin collecting data the tape measure was wrapped around a trees trunk at a height of 4.5 feet. Then the measurement was taken in cm and divided by 3.14. After the final number was compared with graph to determine age. After, age was record by in the Field Notebook. Repeat DBH measurement steps until twenty-four different samples found. In the case

that there was not six samples from each group, then randomize repeat steps until six samples were found for each group. Then, for all sample trees, the Woolly Adelgid was measured by determining the health of the tree. To determine health, the ruler was used and the 0 inches mark was visually lined up with the bottom branch. Then the ten inch mark was aligned with the top of the tree by moving the ruler closer or further away from the viewpoint to line up appropriately. The vertical point in which the needles began to thin on the tree and were lined up with a corresponding point on the ruler. This value was recorded as X in inches. X was then divided by 10 and recorded as a percent. For example the thinning lines up with 3.6 inches on the ruler, then would be divided by 10 to create 0.36. This 0.36 would then be converted into percent form which is 36%. Discussion: The purpose of this experiment was to further comprehend resistance of Hemlock Trees towards the Woolly Adelgid invasive species in the Hemlock forest of Drumlin Farm. This experiment focused in on the age of the Eastern Hemlock Tree and how this affected resistance. This experiment has created further scientific opportunities to better comprehend the factors of resistance of Hemlock trees towards Woolly Adelgid. The initial question that sparked the idea behind this experiment was What factors make a Hemlock tree more susceptible to the Woolly Adelgid? The hypothesis in this study was: If the hemlock tree is anywhere in between 175 years old and 250 years old then the tree will have a large physical resistance to Woolly Adelgid because the Hemlock trees outer bark will be at its most resistive stage, with a larger bark making the Woolly Adelgid mouthpiece unable to pierce through the protective bark (Dr. Mark S McClure, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid). The data collected was on the correlation between Hemlock age and the percent of the tree with dead branches, which indirectly measures the amount of Woolly Adelgid. This data generally supported the results, however the data was not precise enough to conclude that there was a correlation however, based on the data collected a new hypothesis would be: If the hemlock tree is anywhere in between 80 years old and 120 years old then the tree will have a large physical resistance to Woolly Adelgid because the Hemlock trees outer bark will be at its most resistive stage, with a larger bark making the Woolly Adelgid mouthpiece unable to pierce through the protective bark (Dr. Mark S McClure,Hemlock Woolly Adelgid). The data shows that the amount of Woolly Adelgid on a tree is high on younger trees. The Woolly Adelgid seemed to decrease if the tree age hit around mid-aged and then rose back up as it went into the older trees. This shows that in younger and older stages of life is when the Hemlock tree is at its most vulnerable. The data collected, however was by not precise enough to make the conclusion that the age is a major factor of the resistance against Woolly Adelgid. The R squared value was not able to be used because of the hypothesis predicting for a

quadratic formula. However, the age groups were used to create a bar graph with error bars. All the error bars overlap making this data inconclusive with absolutely no reliable conclusions. However if this experiment was performed again there could be many errors eliminated making this data conclusive. An error made was the point that the trees were not closely inspected for a Woolly Adelgid infection. This could greatly throw off the results of the experiment and may be resolved by checking the branches for any evidence of Woolly Adelgid. A second error that was made is that some of the trees got more sunlight, nutrients and other things than other trees. This could greatly throw off our results because of the major health affecting factors. This could not be eliminated in this case but in others, Hemlock trees could be secluded from others in a wide open field with the environment controlled. A assumption that was made was that all of these trees that were suffering health issues were from the Woolly Adelgid. What still remains a question is Why is the Woolly Adelgid such a harmful, destructive insect towards North America and the Hemlock trees located there but not the Hemlock Trees located in Northeastern Asia? To answer this question, data would have to show what makes the two trees different and what is different in the climate and the environment. Perhaps the Hemlock Trees in Northeastern Asia have built up a resistance to the Woolly Adelgid because the Woolly Adelgid is native to Northeastern Asia (Dr. Mark S McClure, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid). Another ideas is that perhaps the environment that the Northeastern Asian Hemlock trees were located in had an excessive amount of the Wooly Adelgids predator, Laricobius Nigrinus. The data collected helps begin to start giving nudges towards finding more about this deadly insect, the Woolly Adelgid. Works Cited: "Hemlock Woolly Adelgid." Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/hemadelgid.html>. "Hemlock Woolly Adelgid." National Parks Service. National Parks Service, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/hemlock-woolly-adelgid.htm>. "Conservation in a Changing Climate - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." Conservation in a Changing Climate - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fws.gov/northeast/climatechange/stories/adelgid.html>. "New Jersey." The Star-Ledger. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nj.com/homegarden/garden/index.ssf/2008/08/use_oils_to_control_hemlock_wo.h tml>.

"Saving Our Hemlocks From Hemlock Woolly Adelgid." Http://www.samab.org/site/. Southern Appellation Man and The Biosphere, n.d. Web. <http://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/Hemlock%20Woolly%20Adelgid.pdf>. Stevens, William K. "Time Is Running Out For Eastern Hemlock." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 1991. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/26/science/time-is-running-out-for-eastern-hemlock.html>. "Hemlock Woolly Adelgid." Entomology (Penn State University). N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/hemlock-woolly-adelgid>. National Parks Service. National Parks Service, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/video-dispatch-hwa.htm>. "Tsuga Canadensis (L." Tsuga Canadensis (L. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/tsuga/canadensis.htm>.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Owen Lasko: I would like to thank a few people for their help on this project. First I want to thank Mr.Sarzana and Ms.Negler for watching us in the woods. I appreciated the fact that first of all they tolerated us, but also that they were not too controlling about what we could and couldnt do, while making sure that we were under control. I am also greatly thankful for my Mom and Dads help and support with the project. Their tips and edits helped the final product greatly. Then Id like to thank my partner in this project Nicholas Piccirillo. He did his part well and was always willing to listen to what I had to say. I am mostly glad that I had a partner who was not too controlling while also doing his part. Most of all I would like to thank our teacher Mrs. LaRocca for all of her support and feedback. I appreciate the fact that instead of only grading each piece of writing she would also make edits and notes on what we should do. I also am really thankful for the time she spent helping me improve my graphs. I could not have done this project without all of the support and help I have been given. Nick Piccirillo: I would like to give thanks to my school BB&N for providing us with the materials, structure and knowledge that was needed in order to pursue this study. I would also like to thank Drumlin Farms for providing us with a place to collect data that was needed in order to see if our hypothesis was supported or not. Ms. La Rocca (or Heather La Rocca) was also a tremendous help by constantly

reviewing drafts and helping us with research and also putting this entire piece together. Lastly I would like to honor my partner Owen Lasko. Without him this project would be far from possible.

LOVE THAT DIRTY WATER

The Effect of Turbidity (cm) on Temperature (C)
Brita Mackey and Josiah Siegel

TABLE&OF&CONTENTS

Section Abstract Introduction Materials!and!Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works!Cited Appendix & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & !

Primary&Author Josiah!Siegel Brita!Mackey Josiah!Siegel! Brita!Mackey Josiah!Siegel

Page 4 5 6! ! 7 14 15! ! 16! ! 18

3!

ABSTRACT& Turbidity,!a!measure!of!the!transparency!of!water,!is!not!only!detrimental!to! plant!growth,!but!also!is!aesthetically!unclean.!The!purpose!of!this!experiment!was! to!determine!whether!turbidity,!through!its!consequences!on!plants,!affects!water! temperature.!In!order!to!determine!this,!pond!water!from!three!ponds!at!Drumlin! Farm!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts!was!measured!by!turbidity!tube!and!thermometer! for!both!turbidity!and!temperature!respectively.!The!results!were!used!to!determine! how!the!two!are!related.!It!was!expected!that!if!the!turbidity!was!higher,!than!the! temperature!would!be!higher!as!well,!because!darker!water!should!absorb!more! light!energy!and!emit!it!as!heat.!The!results!showed!that!the!turbidity!had!almost!the! inverse!effect!on!heat!from!what!was!expected;!as!turbidity!rose,!temperature! dropped.!Most!turbidities!were!within!the!70R100!cm!range,!(moderate!to!low! turbidity)!and!no!temperature!rose!above!15!degrees!Celsius!or!fell!below!0!degrees! Celsius.! ! & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ! 4!

INTRODUCTION! Turbidity!is!the!relative!cloudiness!or!clarity!in!water.!Water!is!almost! always!slightly!turbid,!but!very!turbid!water!usually!occurs!in!natural!settings,!such! as!ponds!and!lakes.!Turbidity!is!caused!by!suspended!particles,!or!by!drifting! sediment!or!matter!in!water.!This!matter!may!include!sand,!clay,!silt,!plankton,!or! algae!(www.waterontheweb.org).!Turbidity!can,!and!usually!does,!have!a!direct! effect!on!the!water!color!and!darkness.!The!purpose!of!this!experiment!is!to!observe! the!effect!of!turbidity!on!water!temperature,!a!relationship!that!may!be!strongly! dependent!on!the!color!change!turbidity!causes!in!natural!water!settings.!The! human!eye!perceives!color!when!light!wavelengths!are!reflected.!DarkRcolored! objects!tend!to!absorb!more!light,!while!light!colored!objects!tend!to!reflect!this!light! (Cuizon,!bukisa.com).!When!an!item!is!reflective,!even!if!it!is!darkRcolored,!it!reflects! light!and!produces!heat!at!a!very!fast!rate.!Since!the!experiment!tests!only!water! bodies!!(which!tend!to!have!the!same!level!of!reflection),!this!will!not!likely!be!an! important!factor!in!the!experiment!(McGrath,!howstuffworks.com).! The!three!ponds!being!tested!in!this!experiment!are!Poultry!Pond,!Ice!Pond,! and!Bathtub!Pond!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln!Massachusetts.!Poultry!Pond!is! located!near!the!farms!animals!as!well!as!roads!and!other!buildings,!and!Ice!Pond!is! near!the!farms!parking!lot!and!buildings.!Bathtub!Pond!is!more!remote,!as!it!is!not! located!near!any!major!roads!or!buildings.!The!locations!of!the!ponds!will!most! likely!affect!the!runRoff!water!and!therefore!the!turbidity.!The!source!of!running! water!also!plays!a!part!in!a!water!bodys!turbidity!level,!due!to!the!fact!that! movement!in!water!stirs!up!particles!and!creates!turbidity! (Pearlman,ga.water.usgs.gov).!It!is!probable!there!are!ties!between!water! temperature!and!color,!as!color!has!a!direct!effect!on!the!heat!of!objects.!When! objects!absorb!light,!a!form!of!energy,!they!then!convert!and!reRemit!it!as!thermal! energy,!or!heat.! Any!particles!that!contribute!to!turbidity!are!usually!referred!to!as! suspended!particles.!In!natural!settings,!and!more!specifically!ponds,!turbidity!is! usually!caused!by!clay!or!silt!from!the!shore,!or!possibly!reRsuspended!sediments! from!the!bottom.!As!previously!mentioned,!running!water!often!suspends!particles! or!sediments!from!the!shores!and!bottom!of!a!water!body,!water!bodies!with!access! to!running!water!are!often!more!turbid.!(Ashworth,!Little,!fofweb.com).!!! In!this!experiment,!a!turbidity!tube!will!be!used!to!measure!the!levels!of! cloudiness!in!water.!This!tool!measures!turbidity!by!measuring!which!level,!or! height!of!water!the!bottom!of!the!tube!is!visible!from.!For!the!purpose!of!this! experiment,!it!is!important!to!note!that!algae!is!not!stimulated!from!turbidity,!but! rather!is!stunted!or!restricted!by!it.!Highly!turbid!settings!can!negatively!affect! aquatic!life,!by!decreasing!dissolved!oxygen!levels,!and!therefore!making!it!harder! for!fish!and!plants!to!thrive.!Turbidity!has!a!clear!and!important!relationship!to! aquatic!life!(Chamberlin,!ehow.com).! ! The!purpose!of!this!experiment!is!to!take!note!of!the!relationship!between! turbidity!and!temperature,!or!the!effect!turbidity!has!on!water!temperature.!As! previously!mentioned,!the!turbidity!will!be!measured!in!centimeters!with!the! turbidity!tube,!and!the!temperature!will!be!measured!in!Celsius!degrees.!!While! performing!this!experiment,!it!will!be!important!to!control!materials!used,!day!of! ! 5!

testing,!general!weather!conditions!and!outside!temperature,!and!depth!of!the!water! measured.!The!water!tested!will!be!collected!from!various!spots!around!each! pond.!!Although!it!cannot!be!controlled,!time!of!day!will!most!likely!affect!the!results! of!this!experiment,!due!to!temperature!changes!throughout!the!day.!! ! The!hypothesis!for!this!experiment!is!as!follows:!Ff!the!pond!has!a!higher! turbidity!level,!then!the!temperature!will!be!higher,!because!the!dark!colored! particles!that!make!up!the!turbidity!will!absorb!light!energy!as!photons!and!emit!the! light!energy!as!heat.!(Gavrin,!webphysics.iupui.edu).!As!previously!mentioned,! turbidity!is!made!up!of!suspended!particles,!which!usually!have!a!dark!color,!and! often!turns!the!water!a!darker!color.!Since!objects!with!darker!colors!absorb!more! light!and!emit!more!heat!than!objects!of!a!lighter!color,!it!can!be!hypothesized!that! darker!colored!water!will!have!a!higher!temperature!than!a!lighter!colored!water.! ! Many!things!can!be!learned!from!this!experiment,!including!the!degree!to! which!turbidity!affects!temperature,!the!effect!of!time!of!year!on!turbidity!and!the! ways!in!which!color!effects!temperature.!One!could!learn!the!best!ways!of!providing! healthier!living!spaces!for!Drumlin!Farms!aquatic!life.!This!experiment!will!address! the!factors!effecting!water!temperature!and!the!general!results!of!high!turbidity.! From!this!experiment,!one!could!learn!the!best!ways!of!providing!healthier!living! spaces!for!aquatic!life!in!natural!environments.!! ! ! MATERIALS&AND&METHODS& The!three!ponds!at!which!testing!was!conducted!were,!in!order!of!testing,!Ice! Pond,!Bathtub!Pond,!and!Poultry!Pond.!Ice!Pond!was!used!for!cutting!and!storing!ice! for!iceboxes!before!the!advent!of!the!refrigerator,!and!is!closest!to!the!parking!lot,!so! the!effects!of!sawdust!(used!to!insulate!ice!for!storage)!and!car!exhaust!must!be! considered.!Bathtub!Pond!was!still!partially!iced!over!at!the!time!of!testing,!so! mobility!and!the!equidistant!nature!of!testing!points!were!affected.!Lastly,!Poultry! Pond!is!so!named!for!the!Poultry!House!not!twenty!meters!away,!and!is!next!to!a! road,!so!the!droppings!of!the!fowl!and!runoff!from!the!street!are!important!factors.! Eight!approximately!equidistant!points!around!the!edge!of!Ice!Pond!were! marked!on!a!map!of!the!pond,!and!numbered!1!through!8.!The!mouth!of!a!120R centimeter!turbidity!tube!was!put!just!above!the!waters!surface!at!point!1!and! lowered!in!slowly!and!so!filled!with!water!while!avoiding!the!collection!of! suspended!particles.!The!tube!was!held!vertically,!and!through!the!aperture!at!the! top!it!was!checked!if!the!black!and!white!Secchi!pattern!at!the!bottom!of!the! turbidity!tube!was!visible.!The!turbidity!was!recorded!as!120!cm!if!it!was.!In!such!a! case,!data!collection!was!continued!for!the!next!of!8!data!collection!points.! If!it!was!not,!one!partner!stood!looking!through!the!aperture!at!the!top!of!the! tube.!At!the!same!time,!the!other!operated!the!crimp!at!the!bottom.!The!crimp!was! opened!for!the!water!to!drain!out!into!a!300mL!glass!beaker.!When!the!beaker!was! full!to!the!300mL!mark!and!the!pattern!was!still!obscured,!any!remaining!water!was! poured!onto!the!ground.!When!the!pattern!just!became!visible,!the!crimp!was! closed.!The!number!of!centimeters!of!water!remaining!was!recorded!as!the! turbidity.!A!thermometer!measuring!in!Celsius!was!placed!in!the!beaker!and!left!for! three!minutes.!After!the!three!minutes!were!up,!the!thermometer!was!removed!and! ! 6!

the!temperature!recorded.!Then!the!next!point!was!continued!to.!The!procedure! was!repeated!at!each!point!until!all!eight!points!from!the!pond!were!recorded.!This! process!was!repeated!at!Bathtub!Pond!and!then!Poultry!Pond.! ! Image!1:!Drumlin!Farm.!Image!source:!Google!Maps.!

RESULTS

Table!1:!Ice!Pond,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)! Ice$Pond$ Turbidity$ Temperature$ Test$ (cm)$ (C)$ 1$ 71.00$ 8.00$ 2$ 94.00$ 9.00$ 3$ 99.00$ 10.00$ 4$ 79.00$ 10.00$ 5$ 95.00$ 9.00$ 6$ 109.00$ 9.00$ 7$ 72.00$ 8.00$ 8$ 70.00$ 9.00$ Average$ 86.13$ 9.00$ St.$Dev.$ 14.97$ 0.76$ ! ! ! 7!

Table!2:!Bathtub!Pond,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)! Bathtub$Pond$ Turbidity$ Temperature$ Test$ (cm)$ (C)$ 1$ 110.00$ 6.00$ 2$ 78.00$ 5.00$ 3$ 94.00$ 5.00$ 4$ 68.00$ 4.00$ 5$ 71.00$ 3.00$ 6$ 42.00$ 2.00$ 7$ 30.00$ 3.00$ 8$ 81.00$ 5.00$ Average$ 71.75$ 4.13$ St.$Dev.$ 25.98$ 1.36$ ! Table!3:!Poultry!Pond,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)! Poultry$Pond$ Turbidity$ Temperature$ Test$ (cm)$ (C)$ 1$ 102.00$ 14.00$ 2$ 116.00$ 14.00$ 3$ 90.00$ 15.00$ 4$ 109.00$ 14.00$ 5$ 64.00$ 13.00$ 6$ 72.00$ 15.00$ 7$ 41.00$ 16.00$ 8$ 51.00$ 14.00$ Average$ 80.63$ 14.37$ St.$Dev.$ 27.77$ 0.92$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

8!

Table!4:!Averages,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C) Averages$ Avg.$ Avg.$Turbidity$ Pond$$ Temperature$ (cm)$ (C)$ Ice$Pond$ 86.12$ 9.00$ Bathtub$ 71.75$ 4.12$ Pond$ Poultry$ 80.62$ 14.37$ Pond$$ ! ! ! ! Graph!1:!Ice!Pond,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

9!

! ! ! ! Graph!2:!Bathtub!Pond,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)

! ! ! Graph!3:!Poultry!Pond,!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)!!

! ! ! ! ! ! 10!

! ! ! Graph!4:!The!Effect!of!Turbidity!(cm)!on!Temperature!(C)!(Overall)!

! ! Image!2:!Ice!Pond!

! ! !

11!

! ! ! Image!3:!Bathtub!Pond!

! ! Image!4:!!Poultry!Pond!

12!

! The!tables!and!graphs!above!represent!the!data!taken!from!the!three!ponds! used!for!testing!(Ice!Pond,!Bathtub!Pond,!and!Poultry!Pond)!at!Drumlin!Farm.!An! observer!should!note!that!the!turbidity!was!measured!in!centimeters!with!a! turbidity!tube,!meaning!that!an!increase!in!centimeters!corresponds!to!a!lower! turbidity!level.!!Tables!1R3!showed!the!individual!results!for!each!of!the!trials.!It!was! expected!that!Bathtub!Pond!would!have!the!lowest!temperatures!(due!to!the!fact!it! was!mostly!covered!in!ice![see!Image!3]),!and!that!Poultry!Pond!would!have!the! highest!temperatures!(as!it!was!the!most!exposed!to!sunlight![see!Image!2]).!All! ponds!were!slightly!covered!by!duckweed,!as!shown!in!Images!2!through!4.! ! !In!Table!1!(Ice!Pond),!most!turbidity!levels!were!between!70.00!centimeters! and!100.00!centimeters.!Data!collected!from!Ice!Pond!had!a!standard!deviation!of! 14.97!for!the!turbidity!levels,!and!0.76!for!the!temperatures.!Table!2!(Bathtub!Pond)! has!the!closest!range!of!data,!where!most!turbidity!levels!fell!between!64! centimeters!and!102!centimeters.!The!data!collected!from!Bathtub!Pond!has! standard!deviations!of!25.98!for!the!turbidity,!and!1.36!for!the!temperatures.!Table! 3!(Poultry!Pond)!had!the!widest!range!of!data,!with!the!majority!of!turbidity!levels! falling!between!68.00!centimeters!and!94.00!centimeters.!Poultry!Pond!had!an! outlier!turbidity!level!of!41.00!centimeters,!and!also!had!the!highest!turbidity!level! of!116.00!centimeters.!Poultry!Ponds!data!had!standard!deviations!of!27.77!for!the! turbidity,!and!.92!for!the!temperatures.! ! Table!4!shows!the!average!turbidity!levels!and!temperatures!for!each!pond.! The!turbidity!does!not!have!a!high!correlation!with!the!temperatures.!Although! Bathtub!Pond!had!the!lowest!average!temperature!(4.12!C)!and!the!highest! turbidity!level!(86.12!cm),!Poultry!Pond!had!a!higher!temperature!(14.37!C)!then! Ice!Pond!by!approximately!4.4!degrees!Celsius,!even!though!Ice!Pond!had!a!lower! turbidity!level!(then!Poultry!Pond)!by!approximately!6.5!centimeters.!!! ! Graphs!1R3!represent!the!individual!trials!done!at!each!pond.!In!Graph!1!(Ice! Pond),!the!highest!and!lowest!turbidity!levels!tested!was!109.00!centimeters!and! 70.00!centimeters,!with!a!range!in!temperature!from!8R10.!The!small! correspondence!between!the!temperatures!and!turbidity!was!shown!by!the!low!R! value!(approximately!.25).!In!Graph!2(Bathtub!Pond),!there!was!more! correspondence,!with!an!R!value!of!approximately!.77!and!decrease!in!turbidity!as! temperatures!increased.!The!highest!turbidity!was!30!centimeters,!and!the!lowest! turbidity!was!110!centimeters.!The!lowest!turbidity!also!had!the!highest! temperatures!(6!C)!and!the!lowest!temperature!had!a!turbidity!of!3!degrees!Celsius.! In!Graph!3!(Poultry!Pond),!the!gradual!slope!was!negative!(opposite!to!Ice!Pond!and! Bathtub!Pond),!although!there!is!still!very!little!correspondence!between!the!two! variables!(with!an!R!value!of!approximately!.12).!!The!highest!turbidity!level! recorded!was!41!centimeters,!and!the!lowest!was!116!centimeters.!Temperatures! ranged!from!2!to!6!degrees!Celsius.!!There!was!a!wide!range!of!data!in!all!of!the!data! tests!taken.!! ! Graph!4!shows!the!overall!data!points!and!compares!each!of!the!ponds!to!one! another.!This!graph!shows!that!there!is!no!overlap!in!the!data!points!from!different! ponds!and!shows!that!the!data!points!do!not!correspond.!All!ponds!had!turbidity! levels!mostly!the!same!range,!though!Ice!Pond!had!a!much!smaller!range!of!levels.!

13!

Poultry!Pond!had!the!highest!average!temperatures!and!Bathtub!Pond!had!the! lowest!temperatures.!! ! & & DISCUSSION! The!purpose!of!this!experiment!was!to!determine!whether!turbidity!affects! temperature!in!certain!ponds!at!Drumlin!Farm!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts.!Due!to!the! fact!that!darker!materials!absorb!heat!faster,!it!was!hypothesized!that:!if!the!pond! has!a!higher!turbidity!level,!then!the!temperature!will!be!higher,!because!the!dark! colored!particles!that!make!up!the!turbidity!will!absorb!light!energy!as!photons!and! emit!the!light!energy!as!heat.!(Gavrin,!webphysics.iupui.edu).!This!hypothesis!was! not!supported,!as!higher!turbidity!often!correlated!with!lower!temperatures,!and! vice!versa.!This!was!the!complete!opposite!of!what!was!expected.! As!turbidity!rose,!temperature!dropped.!Research!indicates!that!this!only! occurs!at!the!bottom!of!ponds,!though.!This!is!likely!due!to!lack!of!light!and! therefore!heat!reaching!the!bottom.!Since!testing!was!only!conducted!at!the!edge!of! ponds,!in!effect!only!the!bottom!was!tested.!An!alternate!hypothesis!is:!at!the! bottom!of!the!pond,!if!the!pond!has!a!higher!turbidity!level,!then!the!temperature! will!be!lower,!because!the!lack!of!light!reaching!the!water!means!that!less!energy!in! general!is!able!to!reach!the!water!(Wallen,!okstate.edu).!In!Wallens!experiment,!it! was!concluded!that!in!most!ponds!tested,!bottom!temperatures!were!generally! lower!in!turbid!ponds!than!in!clear!ponds.!This!supports!the!new!hypothesis.! However,!at!the!surface,!temperatures!follow!the!original!hypothesis.!Due!to! the!fact!that,!at!Poultry!Pond,!a!dock!obscured!the!shore!and!forced!two!sites!to!be! measured!at!the!surface!in!the!center!of!the!pond.!The!effect!of!this!appears!in!the! graph!for!Poultry!Pond,!discussed!later.! In!this!experiment,!if!a!graph!has!a!negative!coefficient!of!x,!that!means!that! as!turbidity!rises,!so!does!temperature.!While!at!Poultry!pond,!though!temperature! and!turbidity!did!appear!to!be!correlated,!the!trend!line!had!a!slope!of!only!R0.0115x.! Both!Ice!and!Bathtub!Pond!have!positive!coefficients.!This!is!likely!a!result!of!the! aforementioned!dock.!By!forcing!two!points!to!be!tested!in!the!center!of!the!pond,! this!gave!insight!into!why!all!other!points!were!the!opposite!of!what!was!expected,! though!it!did!affect!the!R!value.!!The!R!value!was!at!all!ponds!relatively!low.!The! highest!R!value!was!only!0.77,!indicating!that!the!pond!in!question,!Bathtub!Pond,! had!the!most!correlation!between!turbidity!and!temperature.!The!R!generally!was! low,!though,!with!the!lowest!being!at!Poultry!Pond,!an!R!of!0.12.!Overall,!the!data! did!not!fit!the!trend!line!well.! The!accuracy!of!the!data!is!also!somewhat!questionable.!One!deficiency!in!the! experiment!was!the!fact!that!the!operation!of!the!turbidity!tube!relies!on!precisely! timed!actions!by!humans.!The!time!it!takes!for!a!combination!of!electrical!signals! and!sonic!waves!to!be!sent!from!one!partners!brain!to!the!other!is!not! instantaneous,!and!so!the!crimp!must!have!been!closed!slightly!late.!Also,! determining!when!precisely!the!Secchi!pattern!becomes!just!visible!may!vary!from! person!to!person.!Even!with!the!person!as!a!controlled!variable,!it!may!vary!from!

14!

test!to!test.!With!reasonable!certainty!it!can!be!said!that!enough!tests!were! conducted!to!ensure!that!the!average!reflected!the!whole.! Some!errors!may!have!resulted!from!human!error.!It!could!be!that!turbidities!were! not!accurate!due!to!variances!in!judgment!of!what!constituted!the!Secchi!disk!being! visible.!Also,!the!previously!noted!time!passed!between!visibilities!and!closing!the! crimp!affected!results.!However,!there!is!no!practical!way!to!rectify!this!while!still! using!a!120!cm!turbidity!tube,!due!to!its!height.!One!error!may!have!resulted!from! ice!covering!Bathtub!Pond;!to!fix!this,!testing!would!simply!be!performed!on!a!day! with!no!ice!cover.!Some!questions!that!were!raised!include!whether!the!depth!tested! at!affects!the!relationship!between!turbidity!and!temperature,!day!and!time!of!year! tested!at!affects!the!relationship!as!well.! ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! ! Brita&Mackey! ! I!would!like!to!thank!my!teacher!Ms.!LaRocca!for!her!help!and!support!in! both!the!preparation!and!testing!phases!of!this!experiment.!I!would!like!to!thank!the! teachers!who!helped!on!the!day!of!testing,!Mr.!Dwyer,!Ms.!Hardy,!and!Ms.!Jamison,! as!well!as!the!Drumlin!Farm!naturalists!for!their!knowledge!and!support.!Most! importantly,!I!would!like!my!partner,!Josiah!Siegel,!for!his!support!and!collaboration! in!the!making!of!this!journal!article.!Finally,!I!would!like!to!thank!the!BB&N!! School,!as!well!as!Drumlin!Farm!for!making!this!experiment!possible.! ! Josiah&Siegel! The!Knights!of!Science!project!started!in!midRFebruary!2013,!and!as!of!the! publishing!of!this!paper!at!the!end!of!April,!I!have!determined!that!I!have!spent! nearly!four!days!worth!of!my!life!on!this.!Of!course,!I!arrived!at!this!figure!by!using! some!educated!guessing!and!somewhat!questionable!math,!so!its!not!perfectly! accurate!and!of!course!does!not!take!into!account!the!time!I!spent!worrying!about! how!it!all!would!go!and!the!gray!hairs!Ive!developed.!There!are!four!new!ones.! However!one!chooses!to!interpret!this!fact,!I!feel!I!must!thank!the!people!who! helped!this!project!along!the!way. I!will!start!by!thanking!my!parents,!Tom!Siegel!and!Julia!Priest,!for!helping! me!revise!various!parts!of!my!paper,!as!well!as!paying!my!tuition!and!performing! various!unsavory!tasks!related!to!the!parenting!of!younger!and!then!progressively! older!children.!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!LaRocca!for!guiding!us!through!the!process! of!experimenting!and!writing!a!report,!Mr.!Ewins,!Ms.!Svatek,!and!Ms.!Schultheis!for! answering!various!technical!questions,!and!Ms.!Hardy,!Ms.!Jamison,!and!Mr.!Dwyer! for!supervising!the!experiments!and!being!helpful!as!well!as!enlivening!our!trip!to! Drumlin!Farm. I!also!must!thank!various!Drumlin!Farm!personnel!whose!names!I!was!either! unable!to!obtain!or!unable!to!remember,!for!supervising!our!testing!as!well!and! providing!insight!into!the!background!of!our!experiment.!Lastly!and!of!no!less! importance,!I!cannot!overemphasize!how!helpful!my!partner!Brita!Mackey!was,! whether!she!was!working!with!and!sometimes!without!me,!writing!the!other!half!of! this!paper,!or!just!generally!making!the!project!a!happy!experience. ! 15!

Without!these!people!my!Knights!of!Science!project!could!never!have! happened.!I!cannot!thank!them!enough. & & WORKS&CITED& Ashworth,!William,!and!Charles!E.!Little.!"Turbidity."!Science!Online.!Facts!on!File,! n.d.!Web.!08!Mar.!2013.!<http://www.fofweb.com/Science/default.asp>.! ! This!source!provided!basic!information!on!the!units!used!when!measuring!turbidity! and!useful!information!on!using!a!transparency!tube.! ! Brennan,!John.!"What!Absorbs!Heat?"!EHow.!Demand!Media,!19!Apr.!2011.!Web.!10! Mar.!2013.!<http://www.ehow.com/info_8254871_absorbsRheat.html>.! ! This!source!provided!information!on!which!objects!are!most!likely!to!absorb!more!heat! and!differences!between!reflecting!and!absorbing!heat.! ! ! ! Butler,!John!L.!Temperature!Relations!in!Shallow!Turbid!Ponds.!Oklahoma!State! Digital! Library.!Oklahoma!A&M!College,!n.d.!Web.!11!Apr.!2013.! <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v43/p90_95.pdf>.! ! This!source!was!instrumental!in!understanding!the!reason!for!our!original!hypothesis! being!wrong!at!the!bottom!of!ponds!but!right!at!the!surface.! ! ! Chamberlin,!Johnnie.!"Does!the!Level!of!Turbidity!Affect!the!Amount!of!Oxygen!in! Water?"!EHow.!Demand!Media,!08!Sept.!2009.!Web.!05!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.ehow.com/about_5393376_levelRaffectRamountRoxygenRwater.html>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!how!turbidity!affects!the!amount!of!dissolved! oxygen!in!water.! ! Cuizon,!Gwen.!"Color!and!Heat!Absorption."!Bukisa.!N.p.,!14!Apr.!2009.!Web.!28!Feb.! 2013.!<http://www.bukisa.com/articles/64635_colorRandRheatRabsorption>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!how!colors!affect!heat!absorption!and!why!darker!! colored!objects!absorb!more!heat.! ! Gavrin,!Andrew,!and!Giles!Novak.!"Physics!251:!What!Is!Physics!Good!For?!Physics! 251:!What!Is!Physics!Good!For:!Color!and!Temperature.!National!Science!Foundation,! 2001.!Web.!28!Feb.!2013.! <http://webphysics.iupui.edu/warmup/iupui_archive/colorandtemperature.html>.! ! 16!

! This!source!provides!information!on!the!effect!of!color!value!on!temperature,!and!how! various!types!of!radiation!both!interfere!and!relate!to!this.! ! Kittmer,!Lucas.!"What!Colors!Absorb!More!Heat?"!EHow.!Demand!Media,!20!May! 2011.!Web.!10!Mar.!2013.!<http://www.ehow.com/info_8456008_colorsRabsorbR heat.html>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!the!differences!in!heat!absorption!when!colors! change,!and!the!property!of!reflectiveness.!! ! McGrath,!Jane.!"What!Is!the!Urban!Heat!Island!Effect?"!HowStuffWorks.!N.p.,!n.d.! Web.!08!Mar.!2013.!<http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/greenR science/urbanRheatRisland2.htm>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!the!heat!that!black!objects!absorb!and!how!to! decrease!heat!in!urban!settings.! ! Pearlman,!Howard.!"Turbidity."!Water!Properties.!USGS!Water!School,!10!Jan.!2013.! Web.!08!Mar.!2013.!<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!what!turbidity!is!and!how!it!is!caused.!! ! "Turbidity."!Water!on!the!Web.!@WOW,!n.d.!Web.!05!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.waterontheweb.org/under/waterquality/turbidity.html>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!what!turbidity!is!and!the!signs!of!turbidity.! ! Wang,!WunRCheng.!"The!Effect!of!Turbidity!on!Algal!Growth."!The!Effect!of!Turbidity! on!Algal!Growth!(n.d.):!n.!pag.!Web.!8!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/C/ISWSCR121.pdf>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!what!algae!is!in!relation!to!turbidity!and!how!and! when!turbidity!causes!algae!to!grow.!! ! ! "Waterwatch!Australia."!Waterwatch!Australia!National!Technical!Manual:!Module! 4.!Australian!Government,!22!Dec.!2005.!Web.!28!Feb.!2013.! <http://www.waterwatch.org.au/publications/module4/turbidity.html>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!how!to!measure!turbidity!with!Secchi!disks!and! transparency!tube.! ! "Turbidity!Measurement."!WHO!Fact!Sheet!2.33.!WHO,!n.d.!Web.!5!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/fs2_33.pdf>.! ! ! 17!

This!source!provides!information!on!how!to!measure!turbidity!and!the!units!used,! Jackson!Turbidity!Units!(JTU).! ! Wallen,!Eugene.!"The!Relationship!of!Turbidity!to!Temperature!of!Some!Farm! Ponds.!Oklahoma!State!Digital!Library.!Oklahoma!A&M!College,!n.d.!Web.!28!Feb.! 2013.! <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v32/p20_26.pdf>.! ! This!source!provides!information!on!how!turbidity!affects!the!surface!and!bottom! temperatures!of!various!ponds.!It!also!provided!information!about!how!the!date!of! testing!may!affect!this!throughout!the!spring,!though!date!will!be!controlled!in!our! experiment.! ! "Best Clip Art Blog." N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. <http://bestclipartblog.com/clipartpics/pond-clipart-6.png>. The!title!page!image!of!a!cartoon!pond!was!found!on!this!site.! & & & APPENDIX ! Image!5:!Detail!of!Ice!Pond.!Image!source:!Google!Maps.!Parking!lot!is!visible!in! Northeast!corner.!

! ! !

&

18!

Image!6:!Detail!of!Bathtub!Pond.!Image!source:!Google!Maps.!Boyce!Field!is!visible!in! the!Southeast!corner!.!

! ! ! ! ! Image!7:!Detail!of!Poultry!Pond.!Image!source:!Google!Maps.!Farm!Life!Center!is! visible!in!Southwest!corner.!

19!

20!

The Effect of Aspect on Soil Moisture Izzie Schmaltz & Liv Manganella

Table of Contents Abstract/Introduction Materials and Methods Results 3 4 6

Discussion/Acknowledgements 8 Work Cited 10

ABSTRACT The Drumlin is the namesake of Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. This study was designed to test the possible relationship between the aspect and the soil moisture on the Drumlin. The moisture was measured using a soil moisture meter every ten meters on each side of the Drumlin (North, South, East, West). It was expected that the soil on the south side would be drier because of the greater amount of sun exposure. The results supported the hypothesis because the readings collected on the north and west sides were higher and they had higher r2 values. Another thing discovered by this experiment was that the farther down the hill the soil was, the moister the soil was. INTRODUCTION Soil moisture is the amount of water found in soil. The measuring of soil moisture is an extremely important component when it comes to farming. Soil moisture information can be used for reservoir management, early warning of droughts, irrigation scheduling, and crop yield forecasting. (Arnold, http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov) Without the tools used for measuring soil moisture, irrigation systems and watering methods used on farms could be misused and ruined. The moisture of soil could affect the final crop product of a farm. Plants need a certain amount of water and nutrients in order to process, and if the soil cant provide that, then they cant grow. Although how wet or dry a patch of soil is might seem like a miniscule issue, whether crops grow on that patch or not, it is of fundamental importance. All plants need water in order to live, and the moisture in the soil can either provide the right amount of water or not. The moisture of soil is measured using a tool with a scale from one to ten, ten being the moistest, and one being the driest. This experiment will be conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. The farm consists of 312 acres full of fields, forests, and ponds. This experiment will take place along the Drumlin, an approximately 200 meter tall hill located southwest from the visitors center on the farm. The Drumlin consists of many different kinds of coniferous and deciduous trees, such as the White Birch tree, and plants, such as the tall grasses that cover most of the hill. The different moisture levels along each side of the hill will show what each plant type might need in order to sustain life. The northern, southern, eastern, and western sides of the Drumlin all consist of different plant and wildlife variations. Many different factors could affect how wet or dry the soil on each side of the hill is, such as rainfall and sun exposure. If there is heavy rainfall, then the soil moisture level will be high. If the area has not experienced rain in a while, then the moisture levels might be more on the lower side. Soil moisture has a lot to do with the way plants grow. If the soil where crops, trees and plants are suppose to grow is dry, then they will not have the correct amount of nutrients and liquid to develop. The amount of sun, rain, and 3

other sources of water a plant might receive could greatly affects its growth. Sun exposure, and the different aspects of an area, especially on the Drumlin, has to be taken into consideration with plant growth. In this situation, aspect has to do with what direction the slope of a hill is facing. The southern, northern, eastern, and western sides of the hill are all different aspects. This means that since each side of the hill is facing a different way, than the amount of sun rays each side receives will vary. For example, if there is periods of time were the temperatures are extremely high, and the sun is shining, one side of the hill might be drier than the other due to the direction it is facing. Usually, the southern side of a hill gets more sunlight than the northern side; due to the way the sun rises from east to west. The objective is to see whether or not the moisture changes on the different sides of the hill, and how it might affect the crops that grow there. In this experiment, the independent variable will be the different aspects of the hill, and the dependent variable will be the level of soil moisture. This idea will be tested by using a 10-meter rope transect along each side of the hill. A soil moisture measurement will be taken every 10 meters. On each side of the hill at the 100meter mark, the auger will be used to take a soil sample. These samples will be stored in 100 mL plastic containers and will later on be used for exhibition. Throughout the experiment, the same soil moisture meter,100 mL containers, measuring tape and string will be used to remain consistent. The hypothesis for this experiment is if the southern side is tested, then the soil will be less moist because there is more sun exposure (Sharma). This experiment will show how soil moisture is an important factor when it comes to plant life. Visitors need to realize that when crops, trees, flowers, and grasses are planted, a lot of thought, consideration, and little bit of science goes into the process. Without the right level of moisture and the perfect amount of sunlight, a whole entire possible income from crops could be destroyed. This information could be helpful for the general public to understand. The moisture of soil could affect peoples backyard gardens, or the grass growing in the front of their houses. If people dont have a strong understanding on how the moisture of the soil affects the growth of plants, then the plants might not be getting the proper amount of water and sunlight necessary. MATERIALS & METHODS A compass was used to find the four cardinal directions at the top of the Drumlin at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts (see figure 1). Once the directions were determined, one twenty meter transect was cut from string. This transect was then made into a loop which was placed around the necks of the scientists. The procedure was started at the top of the Drumlin on the side facing north. Samples were tested at each ten meter interval. The soil moisture was tested using the General Soil Moisture and Light Meter (see figure 2). The probe was inserted into the soil at root level of nearby plants. The probe was left 4

in the soil for no longer than necessary to take the reading. The meter produced a reading between zero and ten. Zero was the driest and ten was the moistest. The probe was then wiped clean to ensure that each trial was accurate. This process was repeated four more times at each interval. The five trials were recorded and then later averaged. At the one hundred meter mark, a soil sample was collected using an auger. The soil was stored in a 100 mL plastic container. This whole process was repeated on each side of the Drumlin.

Figure 1: Map of Drumlin Farm with the Drumlin highlighted.

Figure 2: General Soil Moisture and Light Meter

RESULTS T1 The Effect of Aspect on Soil Moisture (North) Meters 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Trial 1 1.9 2.1 0.9 0.8 2.1 0.2 2.1 2 5 5.1 6 5 Trial 2 2 2.1 0.8 1.1 3 0.5 2.8 2.9 5 6 5.8 6 Trial 3 1.8 1.5 0.4 0.6 2.9 1 2.7 2.8 4 6.4 5.9 4.9 Trial 4 2.1 1.8 0.7 1 2.4 1 2.4 3 4.9 6.2 5.4 5.5 Trial 5 2.3 2.1 0.8 0.9 2.5 0.6 2.9 3 4.9 5.9 6 5.9 Averages 2.02 1.92 0.72 0.88 2.58 0.66 2.58 2.74 4.76 5.92 5.82 5.46

T2 The Effect of Aspect on Soil Moisture (East) Trial 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 4.8 6.1 6 5 0.2 0.2 0.3 5.4 5.5 2.5 1.2 1 Trial 2 5.3 7.5 8 7 0.3 0.2 0.8 6 5.8 2.7 2 1.9 Trial 3 4.9 8 6.2 7 0.5 0.3 0.1 5.5 6 2.8 1 1.5 Trial 4 5.8 7.5 5 9 0.3 0.5 1 5.2 5.7 2.1 1.5 2 Trial 5 5.6 8 6.3 7 0.2 0.6 0.7 5.7 5.9 3 1.7 1.7 Averages 5.28 7.42 6.3 7 0.3 0.36 0.58 5.56 5.78 2.62 1.48 1.62

T3 The Effect of Aspect on Soil Moisture (West)

Trial 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 1.9 2 1 0.5 0.3 2.3 2 3.6 4 5.4 5.5 6.1

Trial 2 2 1 0.2 0.7 0.2 2.9 2.1 3.2 4 6 6 6

Trial 3 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.3 3.7 3.2 6.1 6.1 5.8

Trial 4 2.1 1.2 1 0.4 0.5 2.5 3 3.2 4.3 5.4 7 6.9

Trial 5 2.3 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 2.6 2.9 4 3.9 5.7 7 6.5

Averages 2.02 1.54 0.78 0.6 0.4 2.5 2.46 3.54 3.88 5.72 6.32 6.26

Table 4: The Effect of Aspect on Soil Moisture (South Transect) Distance from top Trial 1 (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Trial 2 1.7 2 1.2 2.9 1.9 2.5 2.7 3.1 1.3 4 1.5 1.3 2.1 1.5 2.9 2.7 2.3 3 2.8 2.9 2 2.5 1.1 1.5 Trial 3 2.8 1.9 2.1 3 0.9 3.5 1.9 3 1.5 3 1.2 1.2 Trial 4 1.5 2 2.2 3 1.9 3.2 2.3 2.7 2.1 3.1 0.5 1 Trial 5 2.1 2.2 1.9 3.2 2.6 3.4 2.5 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.9 0.9 Averages 2.04 1.92 2.06 2.96 1.92 3.12 2.44 3.02 1.62 3.18 1.24 1.18

Graph 1: The Effect of Aspect on Soil Moisture

8 7 Moisture Level(0-10) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 50 100 Distance From Top of Drumlin (m) 150 R = 0.0436 R = 0.248 R = 0.6937 north east west south

R = 0.7685

Graph 1 shows that the northern and western sides of the hill had the most correlated data. The r-squared value of the north was .69, while the western transect had an r-squared value of a .77. The closer the r-squared value is to 1, the stronger the correlation. The highest soil moisture for the north transect was 5.92, and the lowest moisture was at .66. For the western side, the lowest moisture level was .4 and the highest was a 6.32. The northern side of the hill was densely populated with thorn bushes and grasses, while the western side only had a few small thorn bushes going down the transect. As for the southern and eastern sides of the hill, the correlation was not as strong. The soil moisture measurements for the southern side ranged from 1.18 to 3.18, which are all low and dry measurements. The eastern side had the widest range of data, with a low moisture level of .3 and a high of 7.42. The eastern side went into the Hemlock Forest, and was full of evergreen trees, while the southern side had less of a slope and few small shrubs. DISCUSSION The experiment was conducted to test the correlation between the aspect on the Drumlin and the moisture of the soil. The hypothesis for this experiment was: If the southern side is tested, then the soil will be less moist because there is more sun exposure (Sharma). The hypothesis was supported because the soil moisture levels on the south were the lowest with a smaller range in results. The sources used say that there is a correlation between soil moisture and 8

aspect. The south facing sides are usually warmer, and receive more sun exposure (http://www.fsavalanche.org/encyclopedia/aspect.htm). It was predicted that the south facing side of the Drumlin would have the driest soil. This can be attributed to the amount of sun exposure that each side of the hill gets in comparison. The south side would have some portion of sun on it all day. This is even more true in the case of the Drumlin because the south side was very flat, as opposed to the steeper north, east and west sides. Another correlation was discovered though the experiment. The farther down the hill on the northern and western facing sides, the moister the soil was. This was because of runoff. Runoff is the movement of water over a surface (http://pesticidestewardship.org/water/Pages/Runoff.aspx). This is relevant to the experiment because it rained the night before it was conducted. Soil slope has an important effect on the soil conditions. If the soil is more organic and coarse, the water is easily collected and stored in the soil (http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/epw11920/$FILE/81.pdf). Since the north and west sides were steeper than the south and west, the runoff affected the moisture of the soil more. However the data collected pointed to the fact that as the soil was measured further down the hill, the moister it was. This was only true on the north and west facing sides of the Drumlin. The r2 values for west and north, .76853 and .69367 respectively, show far more of a correlation than the ones for east and south, .24802 and .04356 respectively. The data for south was probably the most precise because it had the smallest range. There was enough data collected to prove the hypothesis correct. The procedure had to be changed during the process of the experiment, but the same amount of data was collected. The data as a whole was not very precise though. The meter used to measure the soil moisture only was scaled by whole numbers, so the reading was estimated to the nearest tenth. This leads to not exact readings. The experiment could have been improved. For example, it was very difficult to test the north side of the Drumlin because it was covered with thorn bushes, making the readings harder to collect and less accurate. The east side also had issues because, in order to get the required amount of data points, the testing had to go into the Hemlock Forest. Another error might be the inaccuracy of the directions. Instead of only taking the aspect at the top of the Drumlin, it should have been taken every interval data was collected at. Acknowledgements Wed like to thank the Middle School Science Department for providing us with containers, a measuring tape, a compass, and a soil moisture meter. Wed also like to thank Mr. Manganella for lending us the string and scissors, and Ms. Svateck for helping us organize and accomplish our experiment.

WORK CITED INTRODUCTION "Aspect." Aspect. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fsavalanche.org/encyclopedia/aspect.htm>. Arnold, James E., Dr. Soil Moisture Study. Soil Moisture Study. Web 14 Mar. 2013. <http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/landprocess/lp_home.html> . Sharma, P.D. Ecology and Environment New Delhi Rastogi Publications, 2009 Google Book Web 14 Mar. 2013 Soil Moisture Essential Climate Variable." ESA CCI Soil Moisture Website. ESA. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.esa-soilmoisture-cci.org/>. DISCUSSION "Aspect." Aspect. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fsavalanche.org/encyclopedia/aspect.htm>. Arnold, James E., Dr. Soil Moisture Study. Soil Moisture Study. Web 14 Mar. 2013. <http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/landprocess/lp_home.html> . "Factors Affecting Nutrient Runoff Losses." N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/epw11920/$FI LE/8-1.pdf>. Gardner, Ron. "The Problem of Runoff." Runoff. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. < http://pesticidestewardship.org/water/Pages/Runoff.aspx >. Sharma, P.D. Ecology and Environment New Delhi Rastogi Publications, 2009 10

Google Book Web 14 Mar. 2013

11

Going&Deep&

The&effect&of&soil&depth&on&pH&and&potassium&
By&Andrew&Siff&and&Henry&Marshall&

INDEX:' ' ' Section' ' ' ''''''''Primary'Author' ' Abstract( ( ( (((((((((Marshall,(Henry(( ( Introduction((((((((((((((( ( ((((((((((Siff,(Andrew( ( ( Materials(and(Methods(((((((((((((((((((Marshall,(Henry(( ( Results( ( ( ((((((((((Siff,(Andrew( ( ( Discussion( ( ( (((((((((Marshall,(Henry(( ( Acknowledgements( ( (((((((((((((((Both( ( ( ( Works(Cited( ( ( ( ((Both( ( ( (

' ( ( ( ( ( ( (

''''''''''''Page'Number' (((((((((((((((((((((1( (((((((((((((((((((((2( ( ( ( ( ( (((((((4( (((((((6( (((((((10( (((((((12( (((((((13(

ABSTRACT' ! This!experiment!was!conducted!to!determine!whether!or!not!the!pH!and! potassium!(both!valuable!nutrients!in!soil)!of!soil!was!altered!based!on!depth.!The! procedure!for!this!experiment!was!to!take!several!samples!of!soil!at!various!depths! using!an!auger.!These!samples!were!then!tested!for!pH!and!potassium!levels.!It!was! expected!that!both!pH!and!potassium!would!decrease!(become!more!acidic!or!more! depleted,!respectively)!as!depth!increased!due!to!less!concentration!of!minerals!in! the!soil.!!The!results!showed!that!the!depth!had!a!minimal!impact!on!the!pH!and! potassium!and!no!conclusion!could!be!drawn.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1!

INTRODUCTION' ' ! Soil!contains!minerals!and!a!mixture!of!organic!remains.!There!are!three! main!layers!of!soil,!which!are!the!ADhorizon,!BDhorizon,!and!CDhorizon!(Covert).!Each! layer!of!soil!has!different!characteristics.!The!minerals!in!soil!can!vary,!but!common! in!soils!is!potassium!(K),!which!is!a!mineral!that!helps!plants!grow.!Every!soil!has!a! pH!level,!which!determines!if!the!soil!is!more!acidic!or!basic.!The!hydrogen!in!soil,! pH,!ranges!from!0D14!and!below!seven!is!more!acidic,!seven!is!neutral,!and!above! seven!is!more!basic.!Potassium!is!measured!in!parts!per!million!(ppm)!while!pH!is! measured!in!pH.!! ! ! This!experiment!will!be!conducted!at!Drumlin!Farm,!a!232Dacre!Wildlife! Sanctuary!in!Lincoln,!Massachusetts!(Massaudubon.com).!There!will!be!three!sites! tested!at!Drumlin!Farm:!Boyce!Field,!Overlook!Field!and!Sandpit!Field.!Boyce!Field! has!crops!growing!and!tall!grass.!There!is!milkweed!surrounding!the!side!of!the!field! and!the!soil!is!dry!(Woods,!massaudubon.com).!The!second!site!that!will!be!tested!is! Overlook!Field.!Overlook!Field!is!mostly!flat.!The!soil!in!Overlook!Field!is!grey,!and!it! is!silty!loam!soil.!The!last!site!tested!is!Sandpit!Field,!which!has!an!elevation!of!200! feet.!The!field!has!two!types!of!grass!that!grow;!tall!grass!and!crab!grass.!The!soil!is! wet!and!gritty!meaning!that!the!soil!is!sandy!loam.'' ! ! The!mineral!nutrients!in!soil!are!divided!into!two!groups:!macroD!and! micronutrients.!Macronutrients!are!made!up!of!primary!and!secondary!nutrients! (Lilly).!Primary!nutrients!are!made!up!of!elements!like!nitrogen!and!potassium.! Plants!need!primary!nutrients!for!growth!and!survival!so!primary!nutrients!are! often!deficient!in!soil.!Secondary!nutrients!are!made!up!of!nutrients!like!sulfur!and! calcium.!Unlike!primary!nutrients,!there!are!usually!a!sufficient!amount!of! secondary!nutrients!in!soil!so!fertilization!of!soil!is!not!always!needed!(Lilly).! Micronutrients!are!also!needed!for!plant!growth!and!contain!minerals!such!as! copper,!iron,!and!boron.!Recycling!organic!matter!is!a!way!to!providing! micronutrients!to!plants!for!growth!because!the!organic!matter!releases! micronutrients!into!soil.!!! ! ! The!amount!of!pH!in!soil!determines!which!nutrients!are!available!for!plants.! Macronutrients!are!less!available!in!acidic!soils!while!micronutrients!are!less! available!in!basic!soils.!The!macronutrient,!potassium,!is!absorbed!by!plants!in! larger!amounts!than!most!minerals!(Lilly).!It!helps!the!building!of!protein!and!fruit! quality!of!plants!by!enzyme!reactions!that!are!activated!(Roberts).!Plants!have!the! ability!to!go!through!photosynthesis!because!of!potassium!which!creates!highD energy!phosphate!molecules!that!contain!the!energy!required!for!plant!metabolism! (Roberts).!A!test!done!at!Spectrum!Analytic!Incorporation!showed!that!most! nutrients!are!available!to!plants!within!a!pH!range!of!6.2D6.8! (Spectrumanalytic.com).!The!soil!pH!affects!the!solubility!of!plant!nutrients!but!in! different!ways.!Some!nutrients!become!more!soluble!as!pH!rises!and!others!do!not.! For!example,!micronutrients!like!zinc!and!iron!become!highly!soluble!as!pH!lowers! ! 2!

while!when!pH!rises,!these!nutrients!are!less!available!to!be!taken!up!by!plants! roots.!! ! The!depth!of!soil!affects!potassium!and!pH,!which!is!why!each!depth! measurement!(i.e.!0D10cm!and!not!0D11cm)!of!soil!will!be!the!same!when!testing.! The!soil!that!will!be!collected!at!each!site!will!be!the!same!amount!and!potassium! will!be!tested!back!at!the!lab.!A!randomization!method!will!be!used!for!all!of!the! fields!for!finding!where!to!test!and!the!same!auger!will!be!used!for!each!field.!The! auger!will!be!inserted!into!the!soil!to!the!same!depth!each!trial!and!rinsed!with! water!between!trials!for!controlled!results.!The!hypothesis!set!forward!for!this! experiment!is:!If!the!depth!of!soil!is!deeper,!then!the!potassium!and!pH!levels!will! decrease,!because!minerals!and!hydrogen!ions!become!less!concentrated!as!soil! depth!is!greater!(McColley,!315).!For!example,!when!rain!sinks!down!into!soil,!the! minerals!like!potassium!and!pH!dissolve.!This!means!that!the!minerals!spread! throughout!the!soil,!rather!than!in!one!spot.!On!account!of!rain,!the!minerals!most! likely!spread!deeper!down!in!the!soil.!The!minerals!also!become!deeper!because!of! leaching,!which!is!when!nutrients/minerals!from!the!top!layer!of!soil!are!carried! down!into!a!lower!layer!of!soil.!The!potassium!will!have!lower!parts!per!million! (ppm)!and!pH!will!decrease!as!the!soil!depth!becomes!deeper.! ! ! This!research!indicates!that!soil!depth!affects!minerals!and!nutrients!in!soil.! It!is!important!to!have!a!certain!amount!of!macroD!and!micronutrients!in!soil!for! healthy!plants.!The!volunteers!at!Drumlin!Farm!have!to!add!organic!matter!to!soil! every!so!often!so!that!plants!can!grow!and!live,!but!they!also!need!to!know!how! much!organic!matter!to!spread!and!how!often.!Too!much!or!too!few!nutrients!(i.e.! fertilizer)!applied!to!plants!could!cause!the!plants!to!have!an!unhealthy!diet!and!die.!! This!is!why!a!volunteer!at!Drumlin!Farm!must!be!an!expert!on!natural!habitats,!soil,! and!plants.!People!in!the!world!who!help!a!garden!or!have!their!own!garden!where! they!apply!fertilizer/organic!matter!to!it!should!have!an!understanding!of!plant! growth!and!nutrients!before!applying!substances!to!their!garden.!Overall,!the!more! people!that!can!understand!the!nutrients!and!minerals!in!soil!can!help!plants!grow! all!around!the!world.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3!

MATERIALS'AND'METHODS! ! Three!different!100!m2!test!sites!were!located!in!Boyce,!Overlook,!and! Sandpit!Field.!(see!Figure!1).!Six!random!numbers!between!0D10!were!found!using!a! TIDnspire!CX!calculator,!they!were!then!plotted!on!the!10!by!10!m!grid!starting!with! Boyce!Field.!A!one!meter!auger!was!inserted!into!the!ground.!It!was!then!carefully! extracted!keeping!it!as!close!to!perpendicular!as!possible.!The!30!cm!of!soil!collected! in!the!auger!was'split!up!into!thirds,!top,!middle,!and!bottom.!Random!numbers! between!1D10!were!found!in!each!third!of!the!test!sample!using!the!TIDnspire!CX! calculator.!100!ml!of!soil!was!collected!in!each!of!the!thirds,!using!random!number! generation.!The!soil!samples!were!then!sealed!in!separate!GLAD!112D180!ml! containers.!12!samples!were!collected!from!each!location!making!a!total!of!36! samples.!The!soil!pH!was!tested!on!site!using!the!detailed!procedure!below.

Figure!1:!Map!of!Drumlin!Farm,!Lincoln!Massachusetts! Soil!samples!were!collected!from!these!locations:! Boyce!Field!(#1),!Sandpit!Hayfield!(#2),!Overlook!Field!(#4).!!

4!

Figure!2:!Rapitest!Soil!Test!Kit!D!Potassium!

! !

The!pH!was!tested!in!the!field!using!the!universal!indicator!strips.!The!soil! samples!were!prepared!in!the!containers!by!mixing!25!ml!of!soil!with!25!ml!of! water.!That!substance!was!stirred!until!uniform!throughout.!The!universal!indicator! strip!was!dipped!into!the!soil!mixture!and!left!for!60!seconds.!The!color!of!the!strip! was!matched!with!the!pH!chart!and!recorded!in!the!field!notebook.!This!process!was! repeated!for!each!of!the!soil!containers!with!pH!marked!on!the!side.!! ! The!following!procedure!was!performed!in!the!lab.!To!test!the!Potassium! samples!collected!from!the!various!locations!(listed!previously),!a!Rapitest!Soil!Test! Kit!was!used!(See!Figure!2).!A!clean!mixing!container!was!filled!with!25!ml!of!soil! and!125!ml!of!distilled!water.!The!sealed!container!was!rapidly!shaken!for!2D3! minutes.!The!soil!mixture!was!left!in!the!lab!for!24!hours.!Then,!the!test!and! comparison!chambers!were!filled!to!the!dotted!line!on!the!test!kit!with!the!soil! slurry!using!the!dropper.!The!orange!capsule!was!removed!from!the!bag!and!held! closely!above!the!open!test!chambers!of!solution.!The!capsule!was!opened,!allowing! the!powder!to!dissolve!into!the!soil!water!mixture.!The!cap!to!the!chambers!was! placed!on!and!then!the!substance!was!shaken!to!let!the!soil!slurry!dissolved.!Then! the!soil!slurry!was!left!to!settle!for!10!minutes.!The!results!were!then!recorded!using! the!color!chart!and!the!process!was!repeated!for!all!of!the!potassium!samples.! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5!

RESULTS' ' TABLE'#1:!The!effect!of!soil!depth!(cm)!on!Potassium! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!Potassium! !! Soil!depth!(cm)! BOYCE! OVERLOOK! SANDPIT! <10! 2! 4! 4! <10! 2! 3! 4! <20! 2! 3! 3! <20! 3! 4! 4! <30! 3! 2! 2! <30! 2! 0! 1! ! TABLE'#2:!The!effect!of!soil!depth!(cm)!on!Potassium!averages! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!Potassium! !! !! Soil!depth!(cm)! BOYCE! OVERLOOK! SANDPIT! Average! St.!deviation! <10! 2.0! 3.5! 4.0! 3.1! 0.9! <20! 2.5! 3.5! 3.5! 3.1! 0.7! <30! 2.5! 1.0! 1.5! 1.6! 1.0! ! TABLE'#3:!The!effect!of!soil!depth!(cm)!on!pH! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!pH! !! Soil!depth!(cm)! BOYCE! OVERLOOK! SANDPIT! <10! 7! 8! 7! <10! 8! 8! 8! <20! 7! 6! 7! <20! 6! 7! 7! <30! 5! 6! 6! <30! 5! 6! 7! ! TABLE'#4:!The!effect!of!soil!depth!(cm)!on!pH!averages! ! ! ! ! !! Soil!depth!(cm)! BOYCE! <10! <20! <30! ' ' ! 6! 7.5! 6.5! 5.0! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!Potassium! OVERLOOK! SANDPIT! 8! 6.5! 6.0! 7.5! 7.0! 6.5! !! Average! 7.7! 6.7! 5.8! !! St.!deviation! 0.3! 0.3! 0.8!

GRAPH'#1:!The!effect!of!depth!(cm)!on!average!potassium!at!Boyce,!Overlook,!and! Sandpit!Fields! !
5.0! Average'potassium'levels' 4.0! 3.0! <10! 2.0! 1.0! 0.0! BOYCE! OVERLOOK! Fields'tested'at' SANDPIT! <20! <30!

! ! GRAPH'#2:!The!effect!of!depth!(cm)!on!average!Potassium!at!all!locations! !

5! Average'potassium'levels' 4! 3! 2! 1! 0! <10! <20! 'Soil'depth' <30!

! ! ! ! ! 7!

GRAPH'#3:!The!effect!of!depth!(cm)!on!average!pH!at!Boyce,!Overlook,!and!Sandpit! Fields! !
9.0! 8.0! 7.0! Average'pH'levels' ' 6.0! 5.0! 4.0! 3.0! 2.0! 1.0! 0.0! BOYCE! OVERLOOK! Fields'tested'at' SANDPIT! <10! <20! <30!

! ! GRAPH'#4:!The!effect!of!depth!(cm)!on!average!pH!at!all!locations! !

9.0! 8.0! Average'pH'levels' 7.0! 6.0! 5.0! 4.0! 3.0! 2.0! 1.0! 0.0! <10! <20! Soil'depth' <30!

8!

! Table!2!shows!the!effect!of!soil!depth!on!potassium!averages.!For!every!test! <10cm,!the!average!at!Boyce,!Overlook,!and!Sandpit!Field!was!3.1.!For!<20cm!the! average!was!also!3.1,!and!for!<30cm!the!average!was!1.6.!Table!1!shows!that! Overlook!Field,!had!the!lowest!potassium!level!at!0,!which!was!depleted.!Boyce! Field,!a!field!wet!from!past!rain,!stayed!around!adequate!and!sufficient!which!was!2D 3.!Sandpit!Field,!a!field!that!was!mostly!dry!with!not!many!plants,!ranged!from!1D4.! Table!1!displays!that!every!test!<30cm!potassium!level!was!0D3,!<20cm!was!3D4,!and! <10cm!was!2D4.!In!table!2,!the!standard!deviation!for!<10cm!was!0.9!while!for! <20cm!was!0.7!and!for!<30cm!was!1.0.!All!of!the!data!for!the!potassium!tests!were! not!precise.!There!was!no!trend!in!standard!deviation!as!shown!in!graph!2.!All!of!the! error!bars!overlap,!and!the!smallest!error!bar!at!<20cm,!had!a!range!of!1.25.!The! largest!error!bar!was!<30cm!and!had!a!range!of!2.1.!! ! ! Table!4!shows!the!effect!of!soil!depth!on!pH!averages.!<10cm!had!an!average! pH!of!7.7,!<20cm!had!6.7,!and!<30cm!had!5.8.!The!pH!level!lowers!as!soil!depth!gets! deeper,!which!is!why!<10cm!had!a!higher!average!than!<30cm.!In!table!3,!the! highest!pH!level!was!8!and!the!lowest!was!6,!which!means!that!most!of!the!soil!is! around!neutral.!For!example,!6!would!be!slightly!acidic!while!8!would!be!slightly! basic.!Graph!3!pictures!the!average!pH!at!each!field,!with!depth!as!an!additional! independent!variable.!Distinguished!in!this!graph,!there!is!a!trend!going!from! <10cmD<30cm.!Mentioned!before,!the!pH!levels!lower.!Graph!4s!error!bars!are!very! small!and!only!>20cm!and!>30cm!error!bars!overlap.!The!data!collected!for!the!pH! tests!were!precise,!due!to!the!fact!that!all!of!the!data!only!ranged!from!6D8.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9!

DISCUSSION! ! ! This!experiment!was!conducted!to!test!whether!soil!pH!and!potassium! increased!as!the!depth!of!soil!increased.!The!hypothesis!was:!If!the!soil!is!deeper,! then!the!potassium!and!the!pH!will!decrease!because!minerals!and!hydrogen!ions! become!less!concentrated!as!soil!gets!deeper!(McColley).!This!hypothesis!was!not! supported!due!to!the!range!in!precision!and!significant!error!bar!overlap.!The! overarching!trend!suggested!that!the!hypothesis!was!supported!however!errors!in! the!experiment!caused!changes!from!the!general!trend!line.!! ! The!results!in!this!experiment!were!found!because!the!minerals!in!the!soil! were!leached!and!more!separated!as!the!depth!increased.!This!was!clear!to!see!both! in!the!lab!and!in!the!field!as!the!deeper!soil!was!a!much!lighter!color!with!a! smoother!texture.!As!the!depth!increased!the!pH!decreased!and!the!potassium!did! not.!However!due!to!such!imprecise!testing,!no!conclusions!could!not!be!drawn! between!each!depth!tested!(especially!in!potassium).!This!same!trend!was!found!in! each!of!the!three!locations.!These!results!were!found!due!to!the!leaching!of!soil!and! the!concentration!of!minerals!as!the!depth!increased!(McColley).!The!error!bars! overlapped!significantly!in!this!experiment.!A!contributing!factor!might!be!that!the! Rapitest!soil!test!kit!tested!in!levels!of!0!(depleted)!to!4!(surplus),!which!limited!the! overall!precision.!The!pH!error!bars!were!smaller!due!to!a!more!precise!testing!tool.! Because!of!the!vast!array!of!results!in!potassium!testing!no!conclusions!could!be! drawn,!however!because!of!more!precise!testing,!conclusions!could!be!drawn! between!the!shallowest!and!deepest!soil!sections.!After!successful!testing!it!was! concluded!that!deeper!soil!is!consistently!lower!in!potassium!and!pH,!both! necessary!parts!of!healthy!and!nutrient!filled!soil! (http://www.spectrumanalytic.com).! ! ! The!data!collected!ranged!in!precision.!All!of!the!pH!tests!were!very!precise! and!easy!to!determine!using!the!color!code!on!the!side!of!the!pH!test.!However,!the! potassium!tests!were!more!difficult!to!read!and!slightly!less!precise!in!the!data.! These!tests!instilled!confidence!because!not!only!were!there!no!unexpected!outliers,! but!the!data!was!similar!to!trends!found!by!previous!researchers.!Although!the!error! bars!overlapped!and!the!averages!were!very!close!on!some!of!the!tests!these!can! still!be!read!with!confidence!because!of!the!small!number!of!possible!outcomes.! ! ! This!experiment!was!successful,!however!there!were!several!things!that! could!be!modified!in!order!to!improve!it.!First!of!all,!the!potassium!testing!would!be! done!on!site!to!insure!that!the!dryness!of!the!soil!would!not!affect!the!results.! Second!of!all,!the!Boyce!testing!would!be!done!on!Boyce!Field!as!opposed!to!a!ditch! next!to!Boyce!Field.!This!would!give!the!research!access!to!a!more!interesting!and! mineral!filled!soil,!which!is!why!Boyce!Field!was!chosen!in!the!first!place.!Finally,!the! potassium!test!would!be!more!accurate!and!easier!to!read!in!order!to!insure!correct! results.!Often!times,!during!testing!the!soil!slurry!was!extremely!difficult!to!match! the!colors.!Sufficient!data!was!collected,!however!the!more!data!collected,!the!more! accurate!and!confident!one!can!be!with!ones!conclusions.!36!samples!in!one!day!of! ! 10!

fieldwork!was!a!challenge,!but!proved!to!be!valuable!in!making!a!confident! conclusion.! ! A!few!errors!occurred!during!fieldwork!and!testing!at!Drumlin!Farm.!The! main!error!was!the!difficulty!to!read!both!the!pH!and!potassium!tests.!During!testing! it!was!obvious!to!see!the!general!range!of!the!soil!color!or!pH!color!but!matching! exactly!posed!a!challenge.!There!is!no!way!to!be!sure!if!the!soil!sample!matched! perfectly!however!the!suspicion!was!that!at!least!one!out!of!the!many!that!were!in! difficult!to!determine!was!incorrect.!Another!error!involved!the!amount!of!soil! collected.!It!was!understood!that!the!collecting!container!was!180!mL!and!the! expected!amount!collected!was!100!mL,!however!there!was!no!instrument!to! measure!exactly!so!the!water!to!soil!ratio!during!testing!may!have!been!slightly!off.! These!positive!results!spring!a!series!of!possible!tests!including!deeper!soil!testing! and!the!testing!of!soil!and!its!dampness.!It!was!found!during!these!tests!that!texture! is!an!indicator!of!the!minerals!in!the!soil.!Perhaps!a!clay!loam!would!have!different! properties!than!a!sandy!silt.!This!could!be!tested!in!future!experiments!based!on! color!of!soil.!The!most!intriguing!future!experiment!is!very!similar!to!this!one.! Changes!made!would!be!made!including!more!precise!instruments!for!collecting! both!potassium!and!pH!as!well!as!greater!differences!in!depth!of!soil.!Perhaps!then!a! positive!conclusion!would!be!found.!! ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ! 11!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS'(A.'Siff)' ' ' Throughout!my!experiment,!there!were!many!people!who!helped!me.!First,!I! would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Slone,!a!naturalist!at!Drumlin!Farm,!for!the!information!she! gave!me!on!Boyce!and!Overlook!Field.!Second,!I!would!like!to!thank!Ms.!Crewdson! and!Ms.!Hardy!for!leading!me!to!Boyce!Field!and!assisting!me!when!needed.!Third,! Mr.!Ewins!saved!me!when!I!was!lost!and!brought!me!to!where!I!was!supposed!to!beD! who!knows!maybe!I!would!still!be!at!Drumlin!Farm!without!him!!Fourth,!I!would! like!to!thank!Ms.!Nagler!for!waiting!at!Sandpit!Field!with!me!and!partner,!while!I! was!running!a!couple!minutes!late!with!testing.!Lastly,!I!would!like!to!thank!my! science!teacher,!Ms.!Svatek,!for!all!the!support!and!corrections!she!has!given!me! both!in!the!field!and!in!the!lab.! ' ' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS'(H.'Marshall) My!study!was!a!big!success!and!I!couldn't!have!done!it!without!a!few! people!that!really!helped!out!along!the!way.!First!of!all,!our!naturalist,!Mrs.!Slone! was!instrumental!in!my!testing!and!led!me!to!where!the!soil!would!be!most!mineral! filled!and!interesting!for!testing.!She!went!out!of!her!to!find!out!answers!to!my! difficult!questions!and!even!contacted!the!farmer!to!find!out!whether!potassium!and! pH!testing!was!done!on!the!fields.!! I!would!especially!like!to!thank!all!of!the!teachers!that!made!the!trek!out!to! Drumlin!Farm!but!especially!Mrs.!Crewdson!and!Mrs.!Nagler.!They!took!interest!in! my!project!and!were!enthusiastic!all!day!long.!Mrs.!Nagler!even!waited!for!me!as!I! travelled!from!Boyce!field!to!Sandpit!field.! Although!others!were!helpful,!Mrs.!Svatek!was!by!far!the!most!helpful!and! answered!all!of!my!many!questions!to!get!me!on!track.!I!understand!that!she!was! very!busy!trying!to!keep!everyone!on!track!and!that!monday!was!a!very!hectic!day.! In!the!lab!and!in!the!field!she!helped!me!whenever!I!had!a!question!or!a!problem.!My! experiment!or!my!science!skills!would!not!be!where!there!are!right!now!without!her! help.!!! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ! 12!

WORKS'CITED'(A.'Siff)' ' !"Agronomic!Library."!Interpreting)Lawn)and)Garden)Soil)Test)Results.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.! ! ! ! ! Covert.!"Soils!D!Part!4:!Soil!PH."!Plant)and)Soil)Sciences)ELibrary.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!12! ! ! ! ! !"Drumlin!Farm!|!Mass!Audubon!|!Nature!Connection."!Drumlin)Farm)|)Mass) ) ! ! ! !Lilly.!"Plant!Nutrients."!Plant)Nutrients.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!12!Mar.!2013.! ! ! !McColley,!P.!D.!Soil)Resource)Inventory,)Wenatchee)National)Forest)Pacific)Northwest) ) ! Region.!Wenatchee:!U.S.D.A.,!1976.!Print.! <http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm>.! Audubon)|)))))) Nature)Connection.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!09!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_F arm/index.php>.! Mar.!2013.! <http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule! =1130447041>.! 12!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Interpreting_Lawn_ and_!Garden_Soil_Results.htm>.!

13!

Roberts,!Terry!L.!"AgriDBrief:!Protein...What's!Potassium!Got!to!Do!with!It?"!AgriH Brief:)Protein...What's)Potassium)Got)to)Do)with)It?!N.p.,!Mar.!1999.!Web.!10! Apr.!2013.! <http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/agbrief.nsf/5a4b8be72a35cd46852568d900 1a18da/7b02964eb91be06785256904006d68e6!OpenDocument>.! ! Woods.!"August!Has!Arrived!at!Drumlin!Farm!"!Views)from)the)Drumlin.!N.p.,!n.d.! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Web.!! 09!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.massaudubon.org/blogs/viewsfromthedrumlin/augustDhasD arrivedDatDdrumlinDfarm/>.!

14!

WORKS'CITED'(H.'Marshall)' ! Agdex.!"Soil!PH!and!Plant!Nutrients."!Soil)PH)and)Plant)Nutrients.!Duke,!n.d.!Web.!05! Mar.!2013.! <http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6607>.! ! "AgriDBrief:!THE!HIGHS!AND!LOWS!OF!SOIL!TEST!POTASSIUM!VARIABILITY."! Potash!and!Phosphate!Institute,!n.d.!Web.!05!Mar.!2013.! <https://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/agbrief.nsf/5a4b8be72a35cd46852568d90 01a18da/0117ea9d0f7c9f9085257235006a4efb!OpenDocument>.! ! "Agronomic!Library."!Potassium)Basics.! ! ! ! "Garden!Soil!Testing,!How!to!Test!Soil,!Soil!Test!Kit."!Garden)Soil)Testing,)How)to)Test)) ) ! ! ! ! Gardner,!Robert.!Soil:)Green)Science)Projects)for)a)Sustainable)Planet.!Berkeley! ! Heights,!NJ:!Enslow,!2011.!Print.! ! )Soil,)Soil)Test)Kit.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!09!Apr.!2013.! N.p.,!n.d.!Web.! <http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/images/m aps/drumlin_trails.gif>.! http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc6794.html! N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!26!Feb.!2013.!

15!

! McColley,!Phillip!D.,!and!Harmon!S.!Hodgkinson.!"The!Effect!of!Soil!Depth!on!Plant! ! ! ! Potassium!for!Crop!Production."!Potassium)for)Crop)Production.! http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Potassium_basics.htm! N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!26!Feb.!2013.! ! Potassium,!Kilzer,!Young.http://share.snacktools.com/AAA767AD75E/fzjl49! nh)! ! "Potassium."!Potassium.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!05!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/kswater/images/potassium.htm>.! ! "Soil!Properties."!(Department)of)Environment)and)Resource)Management).! Queensland!Government,!n.d.!Web.!05!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/science/slr/soil_properties.html! ! "Soil!PH!and!Liming."!University)of)Massachusetts)Amherst.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!05!Mar.! 2013.!<http://extension.umass.edu/turf/factDsheets/soilDphDandDliming>.! ! Growth."!JSTOR.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!05!Mar.!2013.! <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3896385?uid=3739696>.! !

16!

DO You Know Where The Bugs Are?

The Effect of Dissolved Oxygen on Aquatic Animal Number By Lexie Massa and Maia Noyes

1!

INDEX
Section Abstract Introduction Materials & Methods Tables & Graphs Results Discussion Acknowledgments Works Cited Primary Author Massa, Lexie Noyes, Maia Massa, Lexie Noyes, Maia Noyes, Maia Massa, Lexie Page Number 3 3 5 7 9 10 12 13

2!

ABSTRACT During the visit to Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, it was discovered that there is no correlation between the percent of dissolved oxygen saturated and the number of aquatic animals found in the same pond. The original hypothesis of this experiment was: if the pond with the lowest dissolved oxygen level is tested, then the amount of aquatic organisms will be smallest, because animals need oxygen to survive (http://www.earthforce.org/). The procedure for this experiment was to take three DO measurements and 5 randomly placed tests to count the number of organisms at each pond. The information about the DO of the water was then converted to percent saturated out of total possible amount saturated, and used to determine if that data had an affect on the organisms living there. It was expected that if there was more DO at the pond, and therefore more percent saturated, then there would be more aquatic animals found there because organisms need oxygen to survive. It was found that the hypothesis was not supported and the ponds with more DO saturated had less organisms and the ponds with less DO saturated had more organisms. INTRODUCTION Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a necessary component in water for aquatic organisms to survive. Water DO is the measure of gaseous oxygen dissolved in a solution (Unknown, http://ga.water.usgs.go4444juv/). Dissolved oxygen is key to supporting aquatic animal life. Without it, animals wouldnt be able to breathe and therefore, wouldnt survive. Dissolved oxygen is measured in parts per million (ppm), with the normal range being from 0 ppm to 18 ppm. For a healthy natural environment, 5 to 6 ppm is needed to support a diverse population (Grable & Cleveland, http://www.ncsu.edu/). DO comes from the atmosphere and from aquatic plants in the water. Bodies of water with more plants have higher DO levels and the levels are highest at noon time when the sun is at its peak, and when photosynthesis is taking place. Levels are very low right before dawn because the animals have consumed all of the DO during the night (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org/). This experiment will be conducted at Mass Audubon's Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary. Drumlin Farm has a total of five ponds, but only three ponds will be studied in this experiment. The ponds that will be used are Poultry Pond, Boyce Pond, and Ice Pond. Poultry Pond, which is covered with duckweed, gets a fair amount of sunlight. It is located next to the road in the northeast portion of Drumlin Farm. Boyce Pond is covered on all sides by trees and is much smaller than the other two ponds. It is almost always shaded or in the shade because the trees block the sunlight from reaching the pond. It is located on flat ground in the southwest of the property. Ice Pond is very clear and almost mirror like on the surface. Located at the bottom of the drumlin, it gets a substantial amount of runoff and it is in the north of the farm. There are a few different things that could affect the DO levels at different ponds: the amount of sunlight, algae, temperature, and runoff (Unknown, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/) (Carlsen, 2004). Aquatic organisms need DO to survive. When the DO levels become critically low animals can die. This is because animals need oxygen to survive. Animals that live on the muddy bottoms where the DO levels are low only need levels of 1 ppm. Animals

3!

that feed along the bottom of the water need levels of 3 ppm and animals that are in a sensitive stage (such as eggs) need levels of 6 ppm. Areas in the water with 0.2 ppm are considered anoxic, meaning a lack of oxygen (Unknown, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/) (Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/). Most animals cant survive in these areas so this area is given the name dead zones. The fish at Drumlin are warm water fish and can live in levels of 4 ppm (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org/). The oxygen gets into the water from the atmosphere mixing with the water and from when the algae releases oxygen during photosynthesis. The aquatic animals take in the oxygen either through gills or through their skin. When the water passes the gills or skin the oxygen is removed and goes into the bloodstream. Fish gills work better when DO levels are high (Unknown, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/) (Carlsen, 2004). Gills work much like human lungs by taking in oxygen. The main difference is that gills can take in smaller oxygen concentration amounts (Scott, http://www.todayifoundout.com/). The more turbulent the water is, there is more oxygen that dissolves into the water because the water is stirring up the oxygen faster (Sturken, http://www.georgiaaquarium.org/). Oxygen levels are higher in the air than in the water because the water is denser. The oxygen diffuses from the atmosphere into the water and when the water is still or slow moving, this transfer is slow and not much of the oxygen is dissolved into the water. When the water is fast moving the oxygen, the water and the air are mixing more which causes more oxygen to dissolve into the water (Carlsen, 2004). Turbulence, however, wont be a factor at Drumlin Farms due to the fact that the ponds will be flat. Temperature is another big factor on DO. Cold water tends to have higher DO levels than warm water because warm water limits the amount of oxygen that can dissolve. When the water gets warm, the dissolved oxygen bubbles out. This happens because the water is saturated with oxygen at a lower concentration than when the water is warm (Carlsen, 2004) (Stresman, http://www.nicolet.k12.wi.us). The objective of this experiment is to test the effects of DO (ppm) on the amount of aquatic animals and to separate the animals into two different groups: animals with legs and animals without legs. Variables that will need to be controlled are the conditions under which the water sample is taken, the weather, the tools used to collect the data, and the depth the water sample is taken from. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is as follows: If the pond with the lowest dissolved oxygen level is tested, then the amount of aquatic organisms will be smallest, because animals need oxygen to survive (Unknown, http://www.earthforce.org/). This experiment shows how DO levels affect the aquatic life at Drumlin Farms. It is important for the naturalists at Drumlin Farms to know why some ponds have more animals than others and which ponds are healthier. This can also be helpful in a larger scope if a scientist is trying to place eggs in a pond to watch the animals grow, because the scientist would need to know how the DO levels would affect the animals. Also, because pollution is a factor in water DO levels, scientists will also be able to better tell if a pond is polluted or not and try to stop the pollution from going any farther. During the experiment, it will be learned which ponds at Drumlin Farms are more suitable for aquatic organisms to live and thrive. The more people understand the relationship between aquatic animals and DO levels, the more people will be able to help preserve the environment for animals to live in.

4!

MATERIALS AND METHODS In this experiment, the effect of dissolved oxygen on number of aquatic animals with and without legs in an area of the pond was tested. To do this, a sketch was taken of the approximate shape of each pond, and for each sketch, numbers were evenly distributed around the circumference of the pond, labeled one through twelve, like a clock. The three ponds that were tested are Poultry Pond (site #11), Ice Pond (site #13), and Boyce Pond (site #15), all of which are found in Drumlin Farm, Lincoln, MA. For the first site, which was Poultry Pond (site #11), a TI-nspire CX calculator from Texas Instruments was used to generate five random numbers, which dictated the five areas of the pond where the number of animals was counted. The formula to get these random numbers is rand(5)*12. The five different numbers generated and rounded to the nearest whole number were 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12. This means, the five locations the tests were conducted from were the five corresponding numbers on the original sketch. The same formula was used for the other two locations, Ice Pond (site #13), and Boyce Pond (site #15). The five numbers generated for Ice pond were 1, 2,4, 5, and 9. The five numbers generated for Boyce Pond were 2, 3, 4, 9, and 12. The three DO tests at each pond were conducted at the same, most convenient location, due to restrictions in the scientist's testing abilities. The average DO was taken from each pond and converted using a chart to show the percent saturated out of the total possible percent saturated. The areas the DO was tested from are squared in purple on the diagrams below. The areas the animals were collected are circled in yellow on the diagrams below.

Ice Pond

5!

Poultry Pond

Boyce Pond

6!

On the day of testing, April 1st, 2013, the first site that was visited was Poultry Pond. To ensure the inclusion of the DO tests because of time and convenience, the three of them were conducted first at each site. This testing was done in the most open and easily accessible area around the pond. To test the DO, the temperature of the water was taken by holding the thermometer under water for one minute. This is to figure out what percent of the total possible DO the water is holding. Then, the uncovered small tube was submerged under water until it was completely full. The tube was taken out and two DO TesTabs were inserted into the tube and the top was screwed on. All of the stated materials were part of the DO test kit. Then, the tube was shaken for four minutes to let the tablets dissolve. The solution was set out for five minutes to settle, then the sample color was compared to the DO color chart and the results were recorded as ppm. Later the results were converted using a chart to percent saturated. After the three trials of DO testing were conducted, they were followed by the five trials of counting the number of species at five different locations along the ponds shore. To do this, the necessary materials were a net with a long handle, three buckets to strain the organisms into, a water bottle, and a thermometer. At each location that was predetermined for that specific pond, using the random number generator, the scientist held the net arms distance away, and swiped it three times through the water, keeping the length of the swipes fairly consistent each time. The scientist then placed the net flat over the larger empty bucket, and slowly poured the clean water from the water bottle over the net. However much water necessary to completely clean off the net was used. This mixture was then transferred into a larger bucket to make counting the organisms easier. The scientist then carefully counted each organism that has legs, making sure not to count organisms twice due to movement. When this was done, the scientist carefully counted each organisms that does not have legs. The findings were recorded along with any other observations. When the trial was done, the organisms were emptied back into the same spot they were gathered from. The scientist repeated this procedure for the four remaining locations along the pond. This entire procedure was repeated at the second site, Ice Pond, and the third site, Boyce Pond. RESULTS Table 1: The Effect of Pond Location on Percent Saturation of DO
Percent Saturated of Dissolved Oxygen T2 T3 Avg Stand. Dev 42.00% 52.50% 92.25% 21.00% 42.00% 41.00% 31.50% 45.50% 50.08% 0.11 0.06 0.30

Ponds Poultry Pond Ice Pond Boyce Pond

T1

31.50% 42.00% 41.00%

7!

Table 2: The Effect of Pond Location on Number of Aquatic Invertebrates With Legs, Without Legs, and Total Ponds Poultry Pond With Without Total With Without Total With Without Total Aquatic Organism Number T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Average Stand. Dev 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 12.0 9.0 7.0 18.0 9.8 4.0 13.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 8.0 11.0 6.0 3.0 5.8 3.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 3.0 6.6 1.0 0.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 3.0 0.0 1.0 11.0 2.0 3.4

Ice Pond

Boyce Pond

0.7 5.6 6.1 0.8 4.0 3.9 4.1 0.9 4.4

Graph 1: The Effect of Pond Location on Percent Saturation of DO

90.00%! 80.00%! Percent'Saturated' 70.00%! 60.00%! 50.00%! 40.00%! 30.00%! 20.00%! 10.00%! 0.00%! Poultry!Pond! Ice!Pond! Ponds' Boyce!Pond!

8!

Graph 2: The Effect of Pond Location on Number of Aqua tic Invertebrates With Legs, Without Legs, and Total !
20.0! 15.0! 10.0! 5.0! 0.0! With! ;5.0! Without! Total!

Invertabrate'Numbers'

Poultry! Ice! Boyce!

Invertabrates'With'and'Without'legs'and'Total'

! Graph 1 shows the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen. Poultry Pond had the lowest percent at 31.5%, Ice Pond was next lowest at 45.5%, followed by Boyce Pond which had the highest percent at 50.1%. The error bars and precision of the data did not follow the same trend. Ice Pond was the most precise, Poultry Pond was the second most precise, and Boyce Pond was the least precise. All three error bars overlap with each other making the data not precise. Graph 2 shows the number of aquatic invertebrates with legs, without legs, and the total number of aquatic invertebrates at different ponds. At Poultry Pond there was an average of 1 animal with legs, 9.8 invertebrates without legs, and 10.8 aquatic invertebrates in total. At Ice Pond there was on average 0.8 invertebrates with legs, 5.8 invertebrates without legs, and 6.6 invertebrates in total. At Boyce Pond there was on average 2.8 aquatic invertebrates with legs, 0.6 invertebrates without legs, and 3.4 invertebrates in total. Poultry pond had the most aquatic invertebrates, Ice Pond had the second most total invertebrates, and Boyce Pond had the least. The error bars for the data in graph 2 have a significant amount of overlap both across ponds and within ponds. The error bars for the total number of invertebrates across all three ponds overlap. Likewise, the error bars for the number of invertebrates with legs also overlaps across all three ponds. The only data that does not overlap across ponds are for the number of invertebrates without legs. Poultry and Ice Pond overlap but Boyce Pond does not. Similarly, the data within ponds have large overlapping error bars. In Boyce Pond the error bars all overlap. In Ice Pond the number of invertebrates with legs is the only average that doesnt have an overlapping error bar. This is the same for Poultry Pond. A trend that was noticed in the data is that the number of aquatic invertebrates with legs is significantly lower than the number invertebrates without legs, with the exception of Boyce Pond. Another trend and something that was noted throughout the

9!

experiment was the lack of variety of types of aquatic invertebrates in the samples. The Phantom Midge Larva was the most common type of animal that was collected. DISCUSSION The objective of this experiment was to observe the impact the water dissolved oxygen has on the aquatic animals living in that area. The initial hypothesis was: if the pond with the lowest dissolved oxygen level is tested, then the amount of aquatic organisms will be smallest, because animals need oxygen to survive (http://www.earthforce.org/). This hypothesis was not supported. In fact, the data shows exactly opposite results. The pond with the least dissolved oxygen had the most organisms, and the pond with the most saturated DO had the least organisms. On Graph 1, which shows the percent saturation of DO at each pond, there are clear differences in the average percent saturated at each pond. At Poultry Pond, the average percent saturated was 31.50%, which is the smallest. Ice Ponds percent saturated was 45.50%, which is higher than Poultry Pond, but less than Boyce Pond, which had 50.08%. All three of the ponds error bars overlap each other. The error bar for Boyce Pond is the largest, with a standard deviation of 0.3%, making it the least precise out of the DO data. The error bar for Poultry Pond is in the middle, with a standard deviation of 0.11%. The error bar for Ice Pond is the smallest with a standard deviation of 0.06%, making it the most precise DO data. This makes the data inconclusive and shows a large range in data. On graph 2, which shows the total aquatic animals found at each site, the averages show a clear difference in number. The average number of organisms found at Poultry Pond was 10.8, which is the most. The average number of organisms found at Ice Pond was 6.6, which puts it in the middle. And the average number of organisms found at Boyce Pond was 3.4, making it the least. At Poultry Pond, there was on average one organism with legs and 9.8 without. At Ice Pond, there was an average of 0.8 organisms with legs and 5.8 without. At Boyce Pond there was an average of 0.6 organisms with legs and 3.4 without. All three of these error bars also overlap. Poultry Ponds error bar with a standard deviation of 6.14 is the largest, Boyce Ponds error bar is in the middle with a standard deviation of 4.39, and Ice Ponds error bar is the smallest with a standard deviation of 3.91. This means this data is also inconclusive and highly ranged. Because of all of the data overlap in this experiment there was minimal precision, and therefore low confidence in presenting it. To improve this precision, a more sufficient amount of data should have been collected. The reason the data came out opposite from what was expected is because the DO did not affect the number of aquatic organisms, but the number of aquatic organisms affect the DO. Organisms in the pond consume oxygen through their gills, which lowers the DO, and they release carbon dioxide (www.chesapeakebay.net). Research shows that Poultry Pond had the least DO saturation because it had the most organisms feeding off of the oxygen. Boyce Pond had the most DO saturation because it had the least amount of organisms feeding off of the oxygen. A consistent trend found in the data that counts the organisms with and without legs is the small number of organisms with legs at all three sites. All organisms that were found in the trials of this experiment were macroinvertebrates, which means that they are

10!

sensitive to changes in their ecosystem and are susceptible to changes in water quality (Carlsen, 2004). Water quality is the combined measurement of dissolved oxygen, bacteria and algae levels, salinity, turbidity, and other factors to determine the state of the water. Water quality determines which types of organisms can survive in the water (www.floridakeys.noaa.gov). Larger organisms, which in this experiment were the insects with legs, require a higher water quality than smaller, non-legged organisms. Having more organisms without legs found at all three ponds indicate that the water quality is low at the three tested sites. The organisms with legs that were found could most likely survive by coming to the surface of the water to get oxygen and carrying a bubble with them under water through a breathing tube (www.ncsu.edu). A better hypothesis would be: if there are more aquatic organisms in a pond, then the DO saturation will be smaller because more oxygen is being taken in and converted into carbon dioxide (www.chem.duke.edu). To improve this experiment and get more precise data, the scientist should use a more specific way of gathering and counting the organisms that didnt factor in human judgment. More tests should have been made in order to have sufficient data to base conclusions off of. At the first site visited, Poultry Pond, the bucket used to carry the organisms in had a hole in the bottom and most of the water had drained out, possibly along with some organisms, by the time the scientist could count them. This was an obvious error that could have been corrected by testing out the materials before the experiment. In the remaining two ponds (Ice Pond and Boyce Pond), instead of using clean water to wash the organisms out of the net, water from that pond was used, possibly giving more organisms to the sample. This error could be avoided by having a more realistic supply of materials needed for the experiment. Another accommodation that was made, because of the scientists disability, was to go to an unplanned site. The places at the sites where the trials were conducted had not been previously planned, and therefore were not as random as the previous sites. This error could be corrected by planning a back-up site and procedure for that site. An experiment that could extend this would be to test the species of organisms found in the different ponds and find if that has any correlation. From research conducted after this experiment, it is clear that larger bugs tend to live in ponds with a high quality of water, but it would be interesting to study this further into species.

11!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a few people that I would like to thank for helping my partner and I with our experiment and helping to make it happen. First I would like to thank the people at Poultry Pond: Ms. Currier and a teacher naturalist from Drumlin. Both were very helpful when we had questions on how to make provisions to our procedure. Also the lady at the front desk at Drumlin Farms helped us when we couldnt find our way to our next destination. At Ice Pond I want to thank Mr. Senabre, Ms. Hardy, and a teacher naturalist at Drumlin. They were all very helpful and pointing out to us where we were on the map we had drawn out. They also helped us when we were restricted in our mobility to move around. At the last pond we went to I would like to thank Mr. Sarazana and Mr. Rossiter. Mr. Sarazona helped us make it to our destination and stayed with us the whole afternoon and Mr. Rossiter was very helpful helping us collect samples. Lastly, I would like to thank all the science teachers, Ms. Schultheis, Ms. Larocca, Ms. Svatek, and Mr. Ewins, for helping us prep for this day and making us feel very prepared. I want to thank my partner Lexie Massa for helping me throughout the day and making sure that we got everything done that we needed to. Also for being flexible when we had to change some of our procedure. Without these people the field trip would not have run as smoothly as it did and I am very grateful for all their help. --Maia Noyes There are many people that made this experiment possible and practical, which I have not yet had the chance to thank. First of all I would like to thank Ms. Schultheis for introducing us to these subjects, guiding us and making sure we were on the right track, and being there for the numerous questions throughout the process. I would like to thank Ms. Currier, Ms. Hardy, Mr. Senabre, and Mr. Rossiter for being at all of our sites at Drumlin Farm and for keeping us under control and on schedule. I would also like to thank the teacher naturalists, who were masters of the terrain and deepened our knowledge of the sites and the organisms found there. Also, thanks to Mr. Sarzana for bringing Maia and me to a site that was unplanned. I would like to thank the lady at the front desk who guided Maia and me when we got lost on our way to Ice Pond. Also, for helping make the field trip happen, I would like to thank Mr. Ewins, Ms. Larocca and Ms. Svatek. Lastly, I would like to thank my partner, Maia, who was supportive and helpful, and even in a wheelchair managed to contribute hugely to our experiment. --Lexie Massa

12!

WORKS CITED Introduction "AnoxicAbout Our Definitions: All Forms of a Word (noun, Verb, Etc.) Are Now Displayed on One Page." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anoxic>. Carlsen, William S. Watershed Dynamics. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2004. Print. "Chesapeake Bay Program." Bay Blog RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/bayecosystem/dissolvedoxygen>. "Dissolved Oxygen." Earth Force. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.earthforce.org/ViewResource.php?AID=3>. Gary Stresman, Written For Mr. "The Effect of Temperature on the Amount of Dissolved Oxygen in a Salt Solution." The Effect of Temperature on the Amount of Dissolved "How Fish Gills Work." Today I Found Out RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/09/how-fish-gills-work/>. Oxygen in a Salt Solution. N.p., 16 Feb. 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nicolet.k12.wi.us/science_fair/FullPaper.pdf>. Sturken, Rusty. "Effects of Turbulence on Dissolved Oxygen." Effects of Turbulence on Dissolved Oxygen. Georgia Aquarium and NOAA Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://www.georgiaaquarium.org/media/pdf/TurbulenceOxygen.pdf>. "Water Properties: Dissolved Oxygen." Dissolved Oxygen, from USGS Water Science for Schools: All about Water. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dissolvedoxygen.html>. "Water What-ifs." Science Junction. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/depot/experiments/water/lessons/do/>. Materials and Methods Force, Earth. "DO Testing." Water Monitoring Kit. N.p.: Lamotte, n.d. 18-20. Print. In Class Notes. "Field Studies." Randomizing Data Collection (n.d.): 735. Web. 6 Mar. 13. Discussion Carlsen, William S. "Stream Chemistry." Watershed Dynamics. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2004. 28-30. Print

13!

"CHEM WINDOW." CHEM WINDOW. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/water/dorev.html>. "Chesapeake Bay Program." Bay Blog RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013. <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/bayecosystem/dissolvedoxygen>. "Dissolved Oxygen." Earth Force. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.earthforce.org/ViewResource.php?AID=3>. "Why Oxygen Dissolved in Water Is Important." Why Is Important the Oxygen Dissolved in Water. Lennetch, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.lenntech.com/why_the_oxygen_dissolved_is_important.htm>.

14!

The!

Effect

of

l Horizonta

Elevation

(m) on

Soil

pH

By Anna Pandolfi and Michelle Meredith

Table of Contents:
Section Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited Primary Author Meredith, Michelle Pandolfi, Anna Meredith, Michelle Pandolfi, Anna Meredith, Michelle Page Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 8

ABSTRACT: In a recent study conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, it was discovered that the amount of pH in soil can vary. This experiment was set up to determine whether there was a relationship between soil pH and horizontal elevation, the distance from the bottom of a hill to the top. The expected outcome was that the highest level of elevation would have a lower pH amount than the amount of pH at zero meters because of the amount of precipitation each level of the Drumlin received. Precipitation plays an important role in the amount of pH in soil, and an increase or a lack of rain can affect the soil. The pH of the soil was tested by taking five samples of soil from each of the five levels of elevation; 0 meters, 25.15 meters, 50.29 meters, 75.44 meters, and 100.58 meters and testing the pH using a pH test kit. The results were not very conclusive because of multiple error bar overlaps, but there was a mediocre correlation shown between the two variables.

INTRODUCTION: !

pH gives soil the acidity it needs in order to maintain plant growth. pH is the measure of hydrogen ion concentration in a substance or solution. The main reason why soil can be acidic is because the nutrients that it contains either dissolve slowly or doesnt dissolve at all (www.garden.com/). With soil, pH can influence plant growth, prevent matter from breaking down in the soil, and provide a higher amount of minerals and nutrients in acidic soils (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu/). There tends to be a few basic reasons why the soil might have become acidic. Rainwater causes basic ions to drain out of the soil and when there is sand in the soil, it absorbs the rainwater rapidly, which causes it to have a higher pH levels (Zhang, www.soiltesting.okstate.edu/). Carbon dioxide from decomposing organic matter and root respiration increases the acidity in soil when it dissolves into the soils water and forms a weak organic acid. It is most likely that Drumlin Farm will have many different soil pH levels throughout the farm. Every location that is scattered around the entire farm will have different elevation levels and temperature changes. Depending on the elevation and location of the Drumlin hill, the pH levels in the soil could be higher or lower than other areas. When harvesting crops, the basic substance that the soil contains gets lost which results in the soil becoming more acidic. On the pH scale, 6.7 to 7.3 is considered neutral. When the pH is higher than 7.3 it can go from slightly, too low to extremely low pH. This also goes for when the pH is lower than 6.7; the pH levels in the soil can go from being moderately acidic to ultra acidic (McCauley, landresources.montana.edu/). An extremely similar experiment that was conducted included the effect of elevation gain on soil. The experiment was mainly based on how elevation relates to the basics on soil; therefore, the pH levels in the soil were not mentioned. However, it did say that in the regions that were more humid, the scientist found the soil had a higher amount of acidity and the acidity increased with the soil maturity. It was reported that there were noticeable changes in the soil texture, horizon depth, and temperature. As the elevation increases, the soil profiles were less mature which shows that elevation can alter the depths of soil horizons. As the altitude increases, the plant growth decreases, causing there to be less organic matter which may result in lower acidity levels in the soil. (Bromley, web.williams.edu/). The purpose of this experiment is to determine how the horizontal elevation of the Drumlin can affect the amount of pH in the soil. The independent variable for this experiment is the horizontal elevation of the hill (m). While elevation is measuring the actual height of the hill, horizontal elevation is determined by putting transects into the hill and measuring along the transects. The hill is being divided by transects, and these transects are represented by putting flags into the ground. There will be five different levels of elevation throughout the hill and on each level; soil will be tested to determine the pH level at each horizontal elevation point. The dependent variable is the levels of pH in the soil. The controlled variables for this experiment are the same day of testing, the same tools used to measure the pH of the soil, the same amount of soil tested for each level of elevation, the same tools used to find the different levels of elevation, the aspect of the Drumlin must remain the same throughout the experiment, the same soil depth tested. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is if the elevation is 100.58 meters, then the amount of pH in the soil will be lower than the amount of pH in the soil at zero meters, because acidic soils are found in areas with higher elevation due to increased precipitation (McCauley, Jones, Jacobsen, landresources.montana.edu/). This experiment will reveal how soil and pH levels can affect the environment in many different ways. By testing soil at different locations at Drumlin Farm, it will give a !

sense of how pH levels change and could begin further experiments of how pH changes with environment and temperature. The various pH levels at Drumlin Farm can act as a natural fertilizer considering the acidity in the soil affects plant growth by increasing the amount of crop and vegetation. This will help farmers with harvesting their crops and scientists with testing farm vegetation. Studies have shown that farmers or scientists can add sulfur to soil in order to adjust the acidity levels. By doing so, experiments done by both disciplines can start to thrive. Farmers can depict which specific pH level works best with harvesting their crop and vegetation (Nardozzi, www.dummies.com/) MATERIALS AND METHODS:! To begin this experiment, the length from the top of the Drumlin to the bottom was found in order to establish the levels of the independent variable. To do so, a tape measure was placed flat on the ground from the bottom of one side of the Drumlin to the top. The side of the Drumlin used for the experiment was the longest in length so that the spots tested were separated the greatest distance possible. The different levels of the Figure'1:!A!diagram!of!the!flags!in! correlation!to!the!Drumlin.! Independent variable were found next by dividing the length by five so that there were five points evenly spread to fit the Drumlin. Five flags were then placed into the ground at each level of the elevation (see Figure 1). Once data collection points were established, an auger completely stuck into the ground was used to retrieve soil from the first level of elevation. The soil was then taken and placed onto the lid of a container. The larger chunks were broken up and the soil was mixed around to evenly distribute all layers of the soil collected. The canister from the soil pH test kit was then filled up with some of the soil to the first dotted line. A capsule was then carefully opened and half of the powder was poured into the canister. The canister was filled Figure'2:!A!mixture!of!soil,! to the second dotted line with distilled water from the squirt bottle. The cap was placed back onto the canister, and the canister was shook powder,!and!water!being! compared!to!the!colors!on!the! thoroughly. Using a timer, the solution was left to settle for one minute chart.! before the color was compared to the color chart on the canister (see Figure 2) (www.enjoy-your-garden.com). Once the color was compared, the corresponding pH amount was recorded in the table. The auger and the canister were both cleaned out with rinse water and Q-tips to prevent mixture between samples. This soil collection and pH test was repeated four more times for the first level of elevation before moving on to the next level of elevation. Five samples from each of the five levels of elevation were taken for a total of twentyfive pH soil amounts. !

RESULTS: Table 1: The Effect of Horizontal Elevation on Soil pH Soil pH Level ! Horizontal Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Average ST.DEV Elevation (m) 1 2 3 4 5 0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.2 0.27 25.15 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 0.22 50.29 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.7 0.27 75.44 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.6 0.42 100.58 6.0 6.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.6 0.65 Graph 1: The Effect of Horizontal Elevation on Soil pH
7.0! 6.0! Soil!pH!Level! 5.0! 4.0! 3.0! 2.0! 1.0! 0.0! 0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! 120! Horizontal!Eleva1on!(m)! y!=!'0.008x!+!6.3! R!=!0.71426!

Graph 1 shows that throughout the horizontal elevation of the Drumlin hill, the amount of acidity in the soil did not change drastically. However, as the hill went up, there was a moderate change in the average pH levels as the numbers would slightly go down. At 0 meters, the lowest transect tested on the hill, the average pH level was 6.2. It was surprising to see that the average pH level for the transect at 25.25 meters was higher than the pH level at 0 meters. Some qualitative observations taken at the Drumlin hill were that the soil was noticeably compact. When the auger was put into the soil, there were visible soil layers as it was taken out. There wasnt any vegetation or harvested crops at the hill and the grass was distinctly dull and flat. However, after beginning the testing at the third transect, at 50.29 meters, the pH levels started to decrease. At 50.29 meters, the average pH level was 5.7 and at both 75.44 and 100.58 meters the pH levels were 5.6. The graph shows that the data collected at transect 100.58 meters was the least precise because it has the biggest error bars and it overlaps with every other error bar on the graph. The data collected at transect 25.15 meters was the most precise because its error bars barely show. Therefore, it doesnt overlap with any of the other error bars on the graph. !

DISCUSSION: This experiment was conducted to help further understand the correlation between horizontal elevation of the Drumlin 2and the amount of pH in soil at Drumlin Farm. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment was if the elevation is 100.58 meters, then the amount of pH in the soil will be lower than the amount of pH in the soil at 0 meters, because acidic soils are found in areas with higher elevation due to increased precipitation (McCauley, Jones, Jacobsen, landresources.montana.edu/). This hypothesis was not supported because there was a significant overlap between 100.58 meters and 0 meters. A new hypothesis was not created because there were multiple errors that greatly changed the results, and research supports the current hypothesis. Many studies suggest a correlation between horizontal elevation and soil pH because areas with higher elevation receive an increased amount of precipitation, resulting in more acidity in soils with a higher elevation (McCauley, Jones, Jacobsen, landresources.montana.edu/). However, the data collected did not support this. At the first level of the independent variable there was a tree nearby the exact location of testing. The tree limbs and branches hung over the area being tested, so the soil pH could have been affected by leaf litter and canopy drip (southwest.library.arizona.edu/). Most of the error bars overlapped, making the data inconclusive. The error bars for 0 meters and 100.58 meters overlapped with all four error bars. The error bar for 25.15 meters only overlapped with the error bars of 0 meters and 100.58 meters. Both error bars for 50.29 meters and 75.44 meters overlapped with every error bar except for 25.15 meters, thus making this version conclusively different. The data was fairly precise because the first three versions of the independent variable were had small error bars, showing that the precision was high. However, the last two versions of the independent variable had larger error bars, making them less precise. Because of this difference in error bar precision, the confidence in the data is mediocre. The r value of 0.71 showed a moderately strong correlation between the independent variable and the dependent variable, which means that the data was not as clear as it could have been. The results also may have come out this way because of precipitation. When it rains, the precipitation leaches calcium and magnesium from the soil, lowering the pH level in the soil (passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php). Because most of the area tested at 0 meters had tree branches hanging directly above, the branches could have decreased the amount of rain received there, thus not letting as much calcium and magnesium to be leached from the soil, letting the pH remain higher. Another reason could be that the fallen leaves from the tree limbs could have decomposed in the area tested, thus affecting the amount of pH in the soil. There are multiple things that could be modified to improve this experiment. First, the amount of overhead vegetation could have been better controlled. This would eliminate any shortage of precipitation for any given area, and it would control the amount of leaf litter a particular area receives. The amount of data collected could be increased, because the amount taken for this particular experiment was not enough to assure that the results are as precise as needed. Also, to improve data collection, more pH test canisters could be used so that more samples could be taken in the time permitted. This would also expand the amount of time spent with each sample to ensure that each sample is handled carefully to eliminate little errors. There were multiple errors that occurred while conducting this experiment, the first of them involving the breeze and the powder from the capsule. On some of the trials, !

there was a slight breeze that would blow away some of the powder from the capsule from the pH test kit, decreasing the amount of powder put into the soil, water, and powder mixture. The amount of powder put into the mixture was key, as it helped to change the color of the mixture. To avoid this error in the future, a less windy day could be chosen to test on. Another way to avoid this error would be to hold a container under the capsule and the canister to catch any fallout, which could then be added back into the mixture. The second error was associated with the colors of the mixture and the colors on the soil pH color chart. Sometimes, the color of the mixture did not completely match up with the colors given on the chart. One way to avoid this error in the future would be to take the average of the two colors pH amounts. The final error that took place during the experiment involved the material found in the soil samples tested. In some of the samples, little bits of leaves and branches were found, but were still included in testing. These organic materials could affect the soil pH. To prevent this error from occurring again, the organic material could be removed before being broken down and added into the mixture. For future research relating to this experiment, other nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorus could be tested in relation to horizontal elevation, because pH is not the only nutrient found in soil. Another experiment could involve how pH in soil differs in different locations of habitats on Drumlin Farm. One last experiment could include how pH changes in the presence of other nutrients found in soil, and how that could affect plant life and vegetation. ANNAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would first like to thank my amazing partner, Michelle, for helping so much in having our experiment run smoothly and successfully. She would always be available when I needed to ask questions and with her efficiency and determination, we were able to collect the sufficient data needed for this experiment. I couldnt ask for a better partner than Michelle. She is incredibly organized and patient and this couldnt have helped us more. Thank you so much Michelle. I would also like to thank Ms. LaRocca for helping both Michelle and I in the process of our experiment. From actually making this experiment happen, gathering and organizing our materials, and giving us useful and detailed feedback, Ms. LaRocca made sure we would be as prepared as possible for this project. Thank you so much Ms. LaRocca. Finally, I would like to thank both Ms. Canaday and Ms. Jamison for being there at the Drumlin hill in case we needed any guidance or had any questions. Thank you Ms. Canaday for helping Michelle and I find our way through the farm and thank you Ms. Jamison for helping Michelle and I with our fear for a bug that was in our bag. These simple things that both Ms. Canaday and Ms. Jamison did for us, made our day at Drumlin Farm, that much easier. Thanks again, Anna. MICHELLES AKNOWLDEGEMENTS: First, I would like to thank Ms. LaRocca for providing help when it was needed, especially when writing certain sections of the Journal Article. Her feedback was very important when revising, and it helped us to further understand our experiment. I would also like to thank Alex from Drumlin Farm for giving us information about Drumlin Farm that helped my understanding of the Drumlin. Also, I would like to thank Ms. Canaday for leading us through the farm when we needed to get to other places, and Ms. Jamison for making sure we planned our time well and for helping us get a strange bug !

off of our materials bag. Lastly, I would like to thank my partner, Anna, for helping out when instructions were not clear, and when things looked like they were going to go wrong when planning and conducting our experiment. She was always calm whenever things would go awry, whether it was when our materials would blow away in the wind, or when earthworms popped up out of nowhere. Thanks again to everyone.

Michelles Works Cited "1. Soils, What They Are and How They Form." Soils, What They Are and How They Form. University of Arizona, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. McCauley, Ann, Clain Jones, and Jeff Jacobsen. "Soil PH and Organic Matter." Montana State University, 2009. Web. 7 Apr. 2013. "PH." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Jan. 2013. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. "Plant and Soil Sciences ELibrary." Plant and Soil Sciences ELibrary. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. "Quadrat and Transect Activites." Quadrat and Transect Activites. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. "Using a Soil PH Test Kit." How To Use A Soil PH Test Kit. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. Annas Works Cited: 1Bromley, Pam. The Effect of Elevation Gain on Soil. N.p.: n.p., 1995. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. Coulter, Sandee. "The PH of Soils." EHow. Demand Media, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ehow.com/about_6130101_ph-soils.html>. "Garden Articles - The Importance of Soil PH." Garden Supplies. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. "How to Adjust Soil PH for Your Garden." - For Dummies. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-adjust-soil-ph-for-yourgarden.html>. McCauley, Ann. Soil PH and Organic Matter. Bozeman: Douglas L. Steele, 1914. Web. "Welcome to ESF." SUNY-ESF, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. !

DOuble Trouble
The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm). Written by David Nazemi (S81-5) and Andrew Rasnick (S81-10)

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.1 ABSTRACT..2Nazemi INTRODUCTION3Nazemi MATERIALS & METHODS..4Nazemi RESULTS..4Rasnick DISCUSSION8Rasnick ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....9 WORKS CITED..10

"! !

ABSTRACT The parameters being tested at Drumlin Farm were: the effect of dissolved oxygen on turbidity. The original hypothesis put forth in the experiment was: if dissolved oxygen increases, then water becomes less turbid because as water becomes more turbid plants become less able to photosynthesize, lowering levels of dissolved oxygen (Environmental Science Experiments Walker, Wood). The dissolved oxygen was tested by dropping to D.O. TesTabs into a sample of water from the pond being tested. Turbidity was tested by releasing water from a filled turbidity tube until the Secchi image was visible, then recording the measurement. The results disproved the hypothesis put forth, saying that as dissolved oxygen increased, water became more turbid with graph points such as (3, 71.200), (4, 62.000), (5, 60.000). The results were inconclusive and imprecise with R^2 values of just .01 at Bathtub Pond, .003 at Ice Pond, .005 at Poultry Pond and .1 collectively so there can be low confidence in the results.

#! !

INTRODUCTION Dissolved oxygen and turbidity are two major factors in the health of a body of water. Turbidity is the measure of water clarity (ga.water.usgs.gov), it is measured in centimeters using a turbidity tube the higher the number of centimeters, the less turbid the water. Turbidity is the result of material being suspended in a body of water; turbidity has also been directly linked to dissolved oxygen (ga.water.usgs.gov). Dissolved oxygen is oxygen that has been dissolved in water by absorption from the air and plant photosynthesis (www.ncsu.edu). Fish and all aquatic life breathe dissolved (ga.water.usgs.gov) oxygen in some way. Dissolved oxygen is gained in water from plants and the atmosphere, water that is moving absorbs more dissolved oxygen than water that is still (water.epa.gov). Water that is cooler can accommodate more oxygen than warmer water (Environmental Science Experiments, Walker, Wood). Dissolved oxygen is important for the sustainment of aquatic life (bcn.boulder.co.us). The experiments were performed at Drumlin Farm. Drumlin Farm is wildlife sanctuary in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Poultry Pond, Bathtub Pond and Ice Pond were tested in this experiment. Poultry Pond is about 400 meters northeast of the Drumlin at the foot of a few small rises. It has a mildly dry bank where it meets the path; Poultry Pond is surrounded by a thick line of bushes and trees where the path doesnt meet the bank. The surface of Poultry Pond is covered in duckweed. Bathtub Pond is approximately 350 meters south of the Drumlin. It has a very muddy bank around the entrance from the path; the other areas around the pond are inaccessible due to a heavy presence of bushes and trees. The water has an almost solid layer of duckweed on the surface and below that, the water is highly turbid. Bathtub Pond has no way of draining, save being absorbed into the soil around it. Ice Pond is 150 meters north of the Drumlin. Ice Pond is the only one of the three ponds being tested that has a drainage outlet. Ice Pond is also the only pond of the three without a layer of duckweed on the surface. It has a muddy bank and a heavy presence of trees and shrubs around it where there is no path. Dissolved oxygen levels are highly dependent on whether or not the water is flowing. If water is still, only the surface will ever be exposed to the air, so the dissolved oxygen levels will be significantly lower than those of a flowing water source because in a flowing source, water circulates from the surface to the bottom. (bcn.boulder.co.us). Water being still will cause the turbidity to increase because only the waters surface is being exposed to the air, and as dissolved oxygen decreases, water becomes less turbid (Environmental Science Experiments, Walker, Wood). If levels of dissolved oxygen are too low in a water body, the aquatic life in that water body will be unable to consume adequate oxygen to live (ga.water.usgs.gov). When turbidity becomes too high, it can lower dissolved oxygen levels because of the temperature difference, it can also lower the amount of light penetration, hindering the photosynthesis of aquatic plants. Increased numbers of particles suspended in the water can clog the gills of fish that are living in said water. The experiment put forward is the effect of dissolved oxygen (Parts Per Million) on turbidity (centimeters). Five controlled variables are the ponds the water samples are taken from, the weather on the day we are taking the samples, the amount of water in each sample, the depth the samples are taken from, and the location on the pond the samples are taken from. The objective of this experiment is to learn whether the levels of dissolved oxygen in a water body affect the turbidity of the water. The hypothesis put forth in the experiment was: if dissolved oxygen increases, water becomes less turbid because as water becomes more turbid plants become less able to photosynthesize, lowering levels of dissolved oxygen (Environmental Science Experiments Walker, Wood). $! !

This experiment will determine whether dissolved oxygen levels of water affect its turbidity. Turbid water can be a breeding ground for diseases (ga.water.usgs.gov), which, if left unchecked, could potentially infect patrons, employees and fauna of Drumlin Farm and potentially cause an epidemic. Because of this, the dissolved oxygen levels would have to be kept within the healthy range to ensure that the turbidity of the water does not reach such a level that it becomes a human or animal health hazard. MATERIALS & METHODS Testing took place along the shores of Bathtub, Ice and Poultry ponds at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Dissolved oxygen was measured by filling the 250 ml sampling beaker with water from the surface of the sampling location. The small tube from the dissolved oxygen testing kit was filled all the way with water from the 250 ml sampling beaker (left). Two dissolved oxygen TesTabs were then dropped into the filled small tube. The cap was then screwed on the small tube. The capped small tube was then shaken until the TesTabs were completely dissolved. The color of the water was then compared with the color chart in the test kit. The approximate dissolved oxygen level of the sample in ppm was then recorded. The 250 ml beaker was then refilled. This was repeated eight times at each testing location. Turbidity of the sampling location was measured by filling the 120 cm turbidity tube using a separate container with water from the surface at the same location the 250 ml sampling beaker was filled from (left). Water from the turbidity tube was then released until the Secchi image was visible at the bottom of the tube. The measurement was then recorded. The turbidity tube was then refilled. This was repeated eight times at each testing location. RESULTS Table #1: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm) Bathtub Pond Dissolved Trial Oxygen Turbidity Number (PPM) (Cm) 1 3 71.200 2 4 71.000 3 3 71.000 4 3 71.400 5 3 66.000 6 4 74.100 7 3 92.300 8 3 75.600 Average 3 74.075 Standard Deviation 0.5 7.8741

%! !

Table #2: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm) Ice Pond Dissolved Trial Oxygen Turbidity Number (PPM) (CM) 1 5 60.0 2 5 65.0 3 6 60.4 4 5 60.0 5 4 62.0 6 4 59.0 7 3 68.0 8 4 46.1 Average 5 60.1 Standard Deviation 0.9 6.41 Table #3: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm) Poultry Pond Dissolved Trial Oxygen Turbidity Number (PPM) (Cm) 1 4 71.00 2 5 64.30 3 4 62.00 4 4 65.00 5 4 72.00 6 4 70.30 7 4 45.00 8 4 50.00 Average 4 62.45 Standard Deviation 0.4 9.97

&! !

Graph #1: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm)

9:';'"$)807&)
",,+,,,! !"#$%&%'()*+,-) /,+,,,! ',+,,,! %,+,,,! #,+,,,! ,+,,,! !" #" $" %" &" .%//0123&)45(637)*88,-) 345647"! 8694:5!;345647"<! 8694:5!;345647"<! (!)!*#+,$$$-!.!/,+'/$! 01!)!,+,"%#2!

Graph #2: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm)

<=3)807&)
/,+,! =,+,! !"#$%&%'())*+,-) ',+,! &,+,! %,+,! $,+,! #,+,! ",+,! ,+,! !" #" $" %" &" '!" .%//0123&)45(637)*88,-) >?4!@A9B! 8694:5!;>?4!@A9B<! 8694:5!;>?4!@A9B<! (!)!*,+%,/$-!.!'"+2! 01!)!,+,,$%/!

'! !

Graph #3: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm)

80"1'#()807&)
/,+,,! =,+,,! !"#$%&%'()*+,-) ',+,,! &,+,,! %,+,,! $,+,,! #,+,,! ",+,,! ,+,,! !" #" $" %" &" .%//0123&)45(637)*88,-) 345647"! 8694:5!;345647"<! 8694:5!;345647"<! (!)!#+""%$-!.!&$+=#2! 01!)!,+,,&'#!

Graph #4: The effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on turbidity (cm

>11)807&/)
",,+,,,! 2,+,,,! /,+,,,! !"#$%&%'()*+,-) =,+,,,! ',+,,,! &,+,,,! %,+,,,! $,+,,,! #,+,,,! ",+,,,! ,+,,,! !" #" $" %" &" .%//0123&)45(637)*88,-) CDD!@A9B7! 8694:5!;CDD!@A9B7<! 8694:5!;CDD!@A9B7<!

(!)!*&+$$2'-!.!/'+''&! 01!)!,+"/%"%! '!"

Graph #4 shows that there is a slight trend in the data. Graphs #1, 2 and 3 show that the levels of dissolved oxygen were relatively uniform, but the turbidity varied greatly. Graph #1 shows that when the dissolved oxygen increases water becomes more turbid with the exception of one outlier which was (3,92.3). Graph #2 shows that when the dissolved oxygen increases =! !

water becomes more turbid. Graph #3 shows that when the dissolved oxygen increases the turbidity increases as well. In graph #4 when the dissolved increases the turbidity also increases. In graph #1 there are three outliers. The outliers are (4,74.1), (3,92.3) and (4,71). In graph #2 there are three outliers (4,48.1), (3,68) and (5,63). In graph #3 there are five outliers (4,45), (4,50), (4,70.3), (4,71), and (4, 72). There was very little precision in our results. The range of dissolved oxygen at every tested pond was 3(ppm), which shows that the range is fairly large. The range of the turbidity was 26.3(cm), which shows that the data collected, was inconclusive. The results gathered disprove the initial hypothesis of: if dissolved oxygen increases, then water becomes less turbid because as water becomes more turbid plants become less able to photosynthesize, lowering levels of dissolved oxygen (Environmental Science Experiments Walker, Wood). The data shows a trend that as dissolved oxygen increased, the turbidity also increased. DISCUSSION This study was conducted to test the correlation between dissolved oxygen and turbidity. The hypothesis of this experiment was: if dissolved oxygen increases, then water becomes less turbid because as water becomes more turbid plants become less able to photosynthesize, lowering levels of dissolved oxygen (Environmental Science Experiments Walker, Wood). The hypothesis was not supported because as the dissolved oxygen went up water tended to become more and more turbid. All of the water samples had a small range. The turbidity, however, had a very large range. The R^2 level was extremely low which shows that there is little correlation between the dissolved oxygen in water and the turbidity of the water due to the fact that our results varied greatly. The closer the R^2 value is to 1 the greater the correlation is. The further it is away from 1, the lower the correlation between the two or more things being tested. The R^2 value that was recording during the testing is 0.1% which is extraordinarily low. This clearly shows that there is most likely no correlation between dissolved oxygen and the turbidity level. Also, the graphs have a trend line showing that there is no correlation between the dissolved oxygen and the turbidity of the water. The data gathered for testing the dissolved oxygen was precise, but the water used for testing the turbidity was making the data not very precise. Due to the fact that there was little precision in the testing there can very little confidence in the results. If there was greater precision in the water used for testing the turbidity there could much greater confidence in the results. When learning about what dissolved oxygen does in water and what the turbidity of the water is one could assume that there is a correlation between the two (http://ga.water.usgs.gov), but this data proved otherwise. There could be many explanations as for why there is seemingly no correlation between the two. A major reason why there was no correlation between the two was that there was still snow on the ground at one of the ponds that was tested, which had two impacts on the studied. It allowed for sampling in only a very small portion of the pound near the bank where there was a lot of mud, which may have affected the turbidity levels. Also, the snow melting into the pond, which would make the water levels colder, could have affected the levels of the dissolved oxygen (http://bcn.boulder.co.us). Also, the results may have varied because in pond #3 the water samples were collected from the center of the pond, however, in the ponds #1 and 2 the water samples were collected from the shore of the pond. This could have greatly affected the results because the water is warmer in the center of the pond and there is significantly less mud and rocks. The time of day may have also affected the results gathered. /! !

When pond #1 was tested it was around nine in the morning. The temperature was in the mid 40s when pond #1 was tested. As the day progressed the temperature increased into the low to mid 60s. It is assumed that the temperature affected the temperature of the pond. If so, then the higher water temperature could alter the dissolved oxygen level (http://bcn.boulder.co.us). Lastly, there may simply be no correlation between our two parameters based upon the R^2 value. The field study could have improved if more time was available for testing. Also, it could have been improved if the testing occurred later on in the spring. The snow not only made the testing more difficult, but it also may have altered the results of the study. There was a sufficient amount amount of data collected. The data collection could be improved by having the opportunity to test from the center of all the ponds opposed to the edge where there was a significant amount of mud. The mud affected the precision in the turbidity results because the mud altered the clarity of the water. There were several errors that occurred during the testing. The main procedural error was that we had to use a bucket to fill the turbidity with water. This error could have been eliminated if the turbidity tube could have been filled directly from the pond. This is assumed to not have a large effect on the data collected. Also, there was limited time to complete testing while at Ice Pond due to an error in directional ability. This error could have been eliminated had there been sufficient time to complete without the need to rush through the procedure. This may have affected the experiment due to the fact that insufficient time was available to properly follow the procedure. A future extension of this study could be whether or not turbidity affects dissolved oxygen. Another possible future experiment that could be tested is dissolved oxygen on aquatic life. Also, there could be a test on location on turbidity. Lastly, there could be a future experiment to test the effect of turbidity on the amount of nitrate in the water. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, Andrew Rasnick I would like to Mrs. Larocca and all of the middle school science teachers for making this trip possible. They did a tremendous job figuring out and planning the logistics of the trip. I would also like to thank Ms. Jamison for being part of my group and helping my partner and I staying focused while we were testing at Drumlin Farm. Also, I would like to thank my parents because if it werent for them I would not have been nearly as prepared as I was for the field trip. Thank all of you for making it a great. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, David Nazemi I would like to extend my thanks to the entire BB&N middle school science department for creating the opportunity for us to implement our field studies skills. I would like especially to thank Mrs. Larocca for her help in the preparation and writing processes. I would also like to thank Ms. Jamison, Mrs. Hardy, Mr. Senabre and Mr. Dwyer for chaperoning our testing at each site. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their help and support in this process.

2! !

David Nazemis WORKS CITED "5.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm>. "BASIN: General Information on Dissolved Oxygen." BASIN: General Information on Dissolved Oxygen. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/NEW/info/DO.html>. "Turbidity." - Water Properties, USGS Water Science School. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>. Walker, Pam, and Elaine Wood. Environmental Science Experiments. New York: Facts on File, 2010. Print. "Water What-ifs." Science Junction. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/depot/experiments/water/lessons/do/>. Andrew Rasnicks WORKS CITED "BASIN: General Information on Dissolved Oxygen." BASIN: General Information on Dissolved Oxygen. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/NEW/info/DO.html>. "Turbidity." - Water Properties, USGS Water Science School. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>. Walker, Pam, and Elaine Wood. Environmental Science Experiments. New York: Facts on File, 2010. Print. "Water's the Matter-- Introduction: Dissolved Oxygen." Water's the Matter-Introduction: Dissolved Oxygen. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

",! !

pHun with pHertilizer

The effect of age on compost pH

Nate Wolf Will Nemirovsky

Table of Contents
Section
Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements Works Cited

Primary Author
Will Nemirovsky Will Nemirovsky Will Nemirovsky Nate Wolf Nate Wolf

Page
3 3 4 5 6 8 9

Abstract Compost is a form of turning useless materials into fertilizer. Composting is a process in which organic items are allowed to decompose for a long time. It is known to have varied pH levels. This experiment was conducted in order to see how the pH of compost changed over time. The experiment was conducted on the compost pile in Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. One side of the pile was older than the other so samples were gathered from different increments along the pile. The compost was tested using litmus paper and distilled water. It was expected that the pile would get progressively more basic as time went on, but eventually level off. The results showed that the soil got more basic over time. However, between nine months and twelve months the soil became less basic, but not conclusively. It seems to level off around six months. Introduction Nobody likes having to waste materials, but sometimes there are things that seem useless. Luckily, if these seemingly useless materials are organic they can be used for composting. Gathering soil, manure, food, and dead animals and letting them remain in a pile together for an extended of time is composting. Eventually all of these useless products will become great fertilizer and improve soil quality. [KS1] Using compost on soil will increase plant health and growth and also can reduce run off (http://earth911.com.) Drumlin farm has a large compost pile. They pile many products, which would have been useless to them and turned them into something that would improve soil. The compost pile at Drumlin farm is comprised mostly of manure, vegetables and fruit that is not edible, and dead animals. The pH of the compost, the measure of how acidic it is, will change based on how old the compost is. A compost pile has constant chemical reactions occurring. Since it will have experienced more chemical reactions it will have a pH further from neutral as it gets older. According to a study done at Washington State University, different pH levels are useful for different types of plants (http://facops.wsu.edu). It is also stated that it is possible to alter the pH of the compost depending on what is put in to achieve a different level of pH. In order to achieve a higher pH (more basic) the farmer can add a higher percentage of manure. Using biosolids, like manure makes the compost much more acidic. The objective of the experiment is to test the pH at different increments on the compost pile. This is done in order to see how the effect of the age of the compost changes the pH level. The independent variable is the age of compost being tested, the dependent variable is the pH and the controlled variables are: scoop used, cleaning

process between trials, measuring tool used, compost pile used, and if possible the weather. The hypothesis proposed for this experiment is: If the compost is older then it will be more basic, because as compost ages it becomes more basic. (http:// whatcom.wsu.edu) ! Compost is a very useful way for people to turn unwanted material into useful fertilizer to help them grow crops. The more that is known about compost pH levels and how to control them, the easier it will be for someone to achieve a pH level that will be most useful for the kind of crops they are trying to grow. This will result in more efficient compost and a fuller harvest.

Materials and Methods For this experiment a metal scoop for gathering soil from the edge of the compost pile was needed. The scoop was connected to a rod one meter long. The Drumlin Farm compost pile was needed for obtaining the samples. To test the pH of the soil samples, 30 strips of litmus paper and a gallon of distilled water was used. To record the results, a pen and log notebook were used. Boots and a hose were helpful, but not necessary. The first step for testing the compost was to establish which side of the pile was older and establish five age increments so this change in pH over time could be found. After five increments along the pile were chosen, the scoop was connected to the end of the rod. Then a sample was collected from the outside of the compost pile. The sample was put on a strip of litmus paper and sprayed with distilled water. After waiting for the paper to stop changing color the graph on the pH bottle was used to figure out the pH. Results were recorded. The scoop was washed and the litmus paper was thrown out. These steps were repeated four more times within the increment. Different spots within the increment were used to allow more random results. (back of the pile or front and different heights, but always at the same increment). This was repeated at the other four testing increments. Then the materials were cleaned and packed up.

Results Table 1: The effect of age on pH level Month One Three Six Nine Twelve Trial 1 7.9 8.7 8.5 9.5 9.5 Trial 2 8.5 8.9 10 9 9 Trial 3 8 9 9.5 8.7 9.5 Trial 4 7 8.5 9 9 8.3 Trial 6 7.5 8.5 8.5 9.8 9

Graph 1: The effect of age on pH level

Graph 1 shows that for the 1 month old compost, the pH level was most acidic. Even though the averages have a trend of becoming more basic as time increases, with 1 month at 7.78, 3 months at 8.72, 6 months at 9.1, 9 months at 9.2, and 12 months at 9.06. 6 month old compost has the highest standard deviation of .651, this is because of an outlier of 10 in the data, the error bar overlaps with every other one except 1 month old. ! 1 month has a standard deviation of .6, and overlaps with none of the others, even though is has the second largest standard deviation. 12 months had a standard deviation of .5, followed by 9 months at .4. They also overlap with the rest except 1 month. 3 months is the most precise data with a standard deviation of .2, and overlaps with all the other error bars except 1 month.

The older compost was a black-brown in color, was warm, and muddier than the newer compost. It didnt smell as strong as the newer compost. In the middle of the pile, There was a mixture of straw and the mud of the old compost. There was a cardboard box in it, and in some places, was steaming. The newer compost was completely covered in straw, and contained a lot of carrots. It steamed a lot, and smelled strongly of manure, inside the pile, the compost was drier than the older compost, and steamed in all places. Discussion The purpose of this experiment was to test the different pH levels for different ages of compost. For this experiment, the hypothesis was: If the compost is older, then it will be more basic because as compost ages it becomes more basic.(http://whatcom.wsu.edu). This hypothesis was mostly supported. Compost usually starts with a pH of about 5.0- 7.0. Within a few days, the level can drop to as low as 4.0, but then rises, and gets up to around 9.0. (http:// whatcom.wsu.edu). The pH level could rise because of addition of limestone, which is sometimes put into compost in order to keep odors down (Drumlin Farm Guide) For the data collected, the pH average for one month was 7.8, which follows the expected pattern as it is more basic than the expected 7.0 pH. At three months, the average was 8.72. At six months, the average was 9.1, and at nine months it was 9.2. Which continues to follow the expectations of leveling off at 9.0. At twelve months, the pH average went down slightly to 9.06, which also follows the pattern. The data collected was partially conclusive because of overlapping error bars. Conclusively, one month old compost has a more acidic pH than the other months. This is because month ones error bars do not overlap with the others. Month one has the second highest standard deviation of .56, and the pH levels ranged from 7 to 8.5, which is somewhat basic. Month three had a standard deviation of .23 and ranged from 8.5 to 9. Six months had the largest standard deviation of .65 and ranged from 8.5 to 10, which was an outlier. Month nine had the the fourth largest standard deviation of .44, and ranged from 8.7 to 9.8. Month nine had the most basic pH level with an average of 9.2. 12 months had the third largest standard deviation, and ranged from 8.3 to 9.5. The pH of compost begins based on the raw material used to start composting. The drop of pH during the start of the composting process is because of organic acids forming as the material starts to decompose. When the compost is acidic, the organisms cant break down the material very fast. As the process picks up, the pH rises, because the organisms break down the acidic parts of the pile. When the acidic

parts are gone, the bases are left because the organisms breaking the compost down prefer basic compost (ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov). The data collected couldnt show the drop of the pH level because no samples were taken of raw material just added to the pile. The increase to 7.8 at month one indicates that the organic acids once present have been broken down. It increases again to 8.7 at month three, again showing the lack of organic acids in the pile. At month six, the pH level is at 9.1, month nine 9.2, and month twelve 9.06, indicating the basic material left in the pile. Month twelve did not have the most basic pH level. This is because of an outlier of 8.3, which brought down the average significantly. This could have been because of foreign material on the litmus paper, or a small, more acidic pocket not yet broken down. Sufficient data was collected, at five different intervals, five samples were taken from each, for a total of 25 trials. The original method of data collection by taking a core of the pile using a PVC pipe was not used, this is because the compost wouldnt stay in the pipe. Also, the pile was rotated on a monthly basis, meaning that if the core was used, the compost wouldnt be tested by age, which is what was needed. Instead of using a core sampler, a metal scoop was used to take a sample of the compost at certain intervals based on time. The time was estimated, based on information by a Teacher Naturalist at Drumlin Farm, which could mean it was not accurate. The experiment could be changed by using a known material, such as grass clippings to test the pH level at different time intervals. The data collected may not reflect accurately because different materials could have different pH levels. Experiments in the future could include a test on a known material at different months, which would giv7e more accurate data because the starting pH levels would be the same. Tests on what factors raise or lower the pH, such as addition of materials like limestone or ash, r ways to speed up the composting process, by limiting exposure to weather, oxygen, and eliminating unwanted parasites in the pile. Acknowledgements Thanks to Ms. Schultheis for giving us the idea on testing compost, and helped us find ways to collect our data. I would also like to thank Martha, our Drumlin Farm guide for helping us find out how old the compost was. When our original plans for collecting data failed, Natalie and Brooke both helped us thing of new ways to collect data. Ms. Gellar supported us throughout the day, and was a good sport about having to sit next to a pile of compost for three hours.

Works Cited Introduction "The Benefits of Using Compost in Your Garden." Earth911com The Benefits of Using Compost in Your Garden Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. May 2013. <http://earth911.com/news/2007/04/02/benefits-of-using-compost/>. "WSU Whatcom County Extension." WSU Whatcom County Extension. Washington State University, n.d. Web. May 2013. <http://whatcom.wsu.edu/>. "Compost Quality." Compost Quality. N.p., n.d. Web. May 2013. <http://facops.wsu.edu/content/csu-final.htm>. Discussion "WSU Whatcom County Extension." WSU Whatcom County Extension. Washington State University, n.d. Web. May 2013. <http://whatcom.wsu.edu/>. "Compost PH." N.p., n.d. Web. May 2013. ! <http://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wntsc/AWM/neh637c2.pdf> Additional Sources "Compost PH." Colorado State University, n.d. Web. May 2013. ! <http://www.extsoilcrop.colostate.edu/>. "Compost PH." N.p., n.d. Web. May 2013. ! <http://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wntsc/AWM/neh637c2.pdf> "Inexpensive Soil Core Sampling Method for Lessons." YouTube. 2012. Web. May 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upJ03FCE2RI>. "Monitoring Compost PH." Cornell University, n.d. Web. May 2013. <http://compost.css.cornell.edu/monitor/monitorph.html>. YouTube, 03 Sept.

"PH Factor." Rancho Mondo - Compost - Ph Factor. N.p., n.d. Web. May 2013. <http://www.ranchomondo.com/compost/phfactor.htm>.

Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates:
Indicative of Environmental Situation?

The effect of chloride and phosphate levels on macroinvertebrate number and biodiversity.
By Julie Peng and Sofia Sulikowski

Index
Section Primary Author Page Number

Abstract

Peng, Julie

Introduction

Peng, Julie

Materials & Methods

Peng, Julie

Tables & Graphs

Sulikowski, Sofia

Results

Sulikowski, Sofia

10

Discussion

Sulikowski, Sofia

10

Acknowledgements

12

Works Cited

14

ABSTRACT Chloride and phosphate, two important ionic mineral nutrients, affect the environment in different ways. Chloride is known to negatively affect organisms. Phosphate, a primary ion, is known to be essential to all plant and living organism growth. This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. The objective was to discover whether or not chloride and phosphate had any direct correlation or causation with macroinvertebrate abundance and biodiversity. The experiment was also set to determine whether or not proximity to human influences affected ion levels. The procedure for this experiment was to test chloride and phosphate levels in two randomized spots of the pond. Macroinvertebrate numbers and biodiversity were then tested by randomly choosing three sections around the pond to test (per person). Nets were swept around, and the haul contents were recorded. This information was then used to assess which pond had the most macroinvertebrates and biodiversity, and what this had to do with chloride and phosphate. Proximity to possible human influences was also taken note of. It was expected that if Ice Pond had the highest chloride level, it would be above 0.5 ppm and there would be a decreased amount of macroinvertebrates. It was also predicted that Poultry Pond would have the highest level of phosphate, and this would cause plant overgrowth, greatly lessening the macroinvertebrate number and biodiversity. The results showed that there was a significant correlation between the amount of chloride and phosphate with macroinvertebrate number and biodiversity. However, the data ascertains that chloride levels above 0.5 ppm are harmful, as are phosphate levels above 1.0 ppm. The ideal amount of chloride for macroinvertebrates is around 0.5 ppm, and phosphate is 1.0 ppm, as proven by the results. The data for Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond are vague, with low precision. However, it is clear that Poultry Pond, which was closest to a highway route and had the highest chloride and phosphate levels, was the most precise and had the smallest amount of macroinvertebrates. INTRODUCTION As humans continue to influence the environment, it becomes important for scientists to be able to ascertain that pollution has a direct effect upon the world. The number of macroinvertebrates in a pond will often serve as a good indicator of water quality and pollutant effects (www.pubs.ext.vt.edu). Chloride and phosphate are both in direct correlation to macroinvertebrate health, though each in different ways. Chloride levels rise as a result of salty runoff from highway rock salt streams down after rain (www.fws.gov). Once freshwater is contaminated, it becomes difficult to remove the chloride. Seeping into groundwater, chloride also contaminates well water and soil. Chloride levels higher than 0.5 ppm (parts per million) in freshwater pools will typically result in decreased organism numbers, proneness to predation, and deficient egg fertilization (www.trid.trb.org). Phosphate is formed by replacing hydrogen in phosphoric acid. Phosphate is essential during the process of plants building up complex cells. It also has a major role in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) (www.tjhsst.edu). Phosphate is critical to organism

"!

growth and metabolism, but when it is provided in excessively high amounts, can negatively affect the environment. EPA Water Quality Criteria states that in ponds or still bodies of water, phosphate levels should not exceed 0.025 mg/L (www.water.ncsu.edu). Increased phosphate levels in water are typically results of agricultural runoff containing dissolved minerals and chemicals. The overabundant phosphate amounts provide too many nutrients, causing algal blooms and excessive plankton. (Studying the Effect of Different Levels of Nitrate and Phosphate on TheMacroinvertebrate Populations in Different Streams). Phosphate levels above 1.0 ppm are harmful to freshwater organisms. Due to the imbalance in the system, plants will then proceed to take up greater amounts of oxygen during respiration. Afterwards, bacteria and plant decay take up much of the oxygen as well. This leaves many organisms that are not plants with dangerously low oxygen intake, ultimately resulting in problems with reproduction, malnourishment, death, and decreased abundance. However, certain macroinvertebrate species are able to thrive with higher phosphate levels. Since higher phosphate levels encourage plant growth, the extra decaying plants can also serve as food for those macroinvertebrates, potentially raising their population. Although higher phosphate levels could potentially increase the population of certain macroinvertebrate species, it is more probable that is will decrease the pond population (www.ncsu.edu). This experiment will be conducted at Drumlin farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary in Lincoln, MA. The sanctuary spans 312 acres and has six different ponds. The levels of both chloride and phosphate influence the number of macroinvertebrates that are able to thrive in each pond. For this experiment, the following sites will be tested: Ice Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Poultry Pond. Ice Pond is relatively close to route 117 and is downhill from a parking lot. Ice Pond is also surrounded by flora and trees. Bathtub Pond is south of Drumlin and sits on a conservation land surrounded by a forest and drumlin. Nearby, there are dirt roads and hayfields. Poultry Pond sits closest to route 117 and the South Great Road. Being close to the Farm Life Center and it becomes important to note that Poultry Pond is significantly close to a group of chicken coops, since the chicken excrement could potentially affect the phosphate levels in the pond. Ice Pond is predicted to have a moderate amount of macroinvertebrates due to higher chloride levels from the nearby highway. Poultry Pond is predicted to have the smallest number of macroinvertebrates because of its close proximity to a highway route and animal excrement runoff. The agricultural runoff could cause high phosphate levels, allowing plants to grow out of control and take up oxygen, but it could also be helpful rather than detrimental for a few macroinvertebrate species. This would be beneficial for the macroinvertebrate that require less dissolved oxygen. It would also provide another food source for them, since they often eat the decaying plants and bacterial growth. However, for most organisms such as water pennies, stoneflies, and mayflies, dissolved oxygen is critical for survival, and higher phosphate levels would greatly decrease their numbers. The nearby route could also cause increased chloride levels. There are many variables that can make sure that the chloride and phosphate levels will vary. Among these include proximity to human sources, agricultural runoff, and rock salt runoff. Note that the proximity to human sources determined which Drumlin sites to test, along with how natural they were. The three chosen include, one moderately close to human sources, one far away, and one surrounded by potential pollutants.

#!

Macroinvertebrates are organisms that do not have backbones and are visible to the bare eye (www.enviroscienceinc.com). Aquatic toxicology is the study of the effects of environmental contamination though pesticides on aquatic life like these macroinvertebrates (www.fws.gov). Sublethal effects of contamination from chloride include: Weight loss, sterility, low disease resistance, reduced egg production, low predator avoidance (www.pubs.ext.vt.edu). Abundances of phosphate result in plant overgrowth, and a lack of substantial oxygen amounts for macroinvertebrates. Both phosphorous and chlorine are minerals, but have extremely different ways of impacting aquatic life. Previously studied experiments that have been conducted by different scientists have tested the effect of chlorine water treatment beds on macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity and found that the more chlorine was added, the quicker macroinvertebrates like mayflies would die (www.departments.juniata.edu). Another experiment tested by professionals found that increased phosphate would largely encourage bacterial and algal growth, resulting in macroinvertebrates struggling to survive with dangerously low oxygen amounts (www.tjhsst.edu). The proposed experiment is the effect of chloride and phosphate levels on the number and biodiversity of macroinvertebrates. The objective of this experiment is to determine whether or not these elements directly affect the macroinvertebrate population, and how proximity to specific human sources affects this. This question will be tested by collecting phosphate and chloride levels along with net hauls for macroinvertebrate numbers from each of the three Drumlin sites. Six trials (net hauls) will be conducted at each pond, and each net haul or trial will have the net be swept from side to side four times. Both macroinvertebrate biodiversity and numbers will be tested. Chloride amounts will be tested with a chloride testing kit, and the chloride testing strips will be dipped into the water twice per pond. Likewise, the phosphate level of each pond will be tested the same way, except with a phosphate testing kit and capsules. The independent variables will be the amount of chloride and phosphate (ppm), and the dependent variable will be the average number of macroinvertebrates for one net haul. Important controlled variables include the number of net hauls and sweeps per haul, the depth of the sweeping, the mesh size of each net, the splash of the net, and the randomness of the net haul location. The two hypotheses are as follows: If the chloride level in Ice Pond is highest, then there will be a decreased amount and macroinvertebrates, because chloride levels above 0.5ppm prove to be harmful to macroinvertebrate egg fertilization, therefore resulting in decreased numbers (www.umass.edu). If the phosphate level in Poultry Pond is the highest, then there will be the least amount of macroinvertebrates and macroinvertebrate biodiversity, because phosphate levels above 1.0 ppm cause abundance in nutrients for algal blooms and plankton, and after aquatic plants decay, the produced bacteria consumes the dissolved oxygen, decreasing the macroinvertebrate abundance and biodiversity of the pond (www.nynrm.sa.gov.au). This research demonstrates how chloride and phosphate can have such a large impact on the environment and aquatic life. Naturalists need to realize how certain aspects of human sources influence the amount of phosphate and chloride, and how those elements impact the world starting with macroinvertebrates. The more people are aware of such things, the more that places like Drumlin can have better protected ecosystems

$!

within their conservation lands. It serves as an awareness and understanding of how things like road salt and proximity to human sources affect wildlife. Equipped with this knowledge, the construction locations of parking lots and influential human areas can be more thoughtfully considered, and our ecosystem more balanced and better preserved MATERIALS AND METHODS This experiment was conducted at Drumlin farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary in Lincoln, MA. These sites consisted of Ice Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Poultry Pond. On these wetland sites, chloride levels, phosphate levels, macroinvertebrate numbers, and macroinvertebrate biodiversity were tested. In order to test the chloride levels of each pond, a Tetra Testing Strip was held underwater for one second. The strip was then quickly extracted and held in the air for thirty seconds. This was to allow the color to settle. The colored section of the chloride strip was then compared to the chloride color chart to determine the ponds overall chloride level. Results were then recorded in a logbook table. This procedure was then repeated once more. To test the phosphate level of each pond, 10 mL of pond water was poured into a test tube. A TesTabs phosphate capsule was then dropped in the tube, and the test tube cap was tightened. The test tube was then shaken until the capsule dissolved. After waiting five minutes for the blue color to set, the color of the water was then compared to the phosphate chart. The data was recorded in a logbook, and the same procedure repeated once more. In order to test each pond for the amount of macroinvertebrates and biodiversity per sweep, two partners were set around the pond at approximately equal distances from each other. Each individual partner was given two dice and one quarter. Heads was assigned as left, and tails was assigned as right. Each partner flipped the coin and rolled the two dice. The individual then turned and walked the sum of both dice in steps and in the direction indicated by the coin. After walking to the sample location, the individual then extended the 1 m long net stick 1 m into the pond and dipped the net into the water approximately 30 cm deep. The individual then swept the net four times, while alternating direction. The contents was then dumped into a 30 x 20 x 8 cm tub, and the macroinvertebrates were inspected with a magnifying glass. Once the species of a macroinvertebrate was determined, it was recorded on the table with a hashmark. This was done for all macroinvertebrates found from the net hauls, and the general procedure was done three times by each person at each pond. This means that each person did nine trials in total, (three per pond).

%!

! ! !

"#$%&'$! ! ! '()*+!",!'-+!+..+/0!1.!*1/(0213!13!345)+6!1.!5(/61237+60+)6(0+8!! !"#$%&"'( )*+,-.("/(+$#."&'0-.%-,.$%-1(

2.&$3(4( 2.&$3(5( 2.&$3(6( 2.&$3(7( 2.&$3(8( 2.&$3(9( :0-.$;-( <%$'=$.=(>-0&$%&"'( ?#-(@"'=( 9( 49( A( 9( B( A( C( 7( D$%E%*,(@"'=( 47( 48( 44( B( C( 4F( 44( 6( @"*3%.G(@"'=( 5( 6( F( 5( 4( 4( 5( 4( ! ! '()*+!#,!'-+!+..+/0!1.!*1/(0213!13!(51430!1.!9-189-(0+!(3:!/-*162:+!;995< ( @E"1HE$%-(IHH+J( KE3".&=-(IHH+J(

!"#$%&"'( 2.&$3(4( 2.&$3(5( :0-.$;-( <%$'=$.=(>-0&$%&"'( 2.&$3(4( 2.&$3(5( :0-.$;-( <%$'=$.=(>-0&$%&"'( ?#-(@"'=( FLF( FLF( FLF( FLF( FL8( FL8( FL8( FLF( D$%E%*,(@"'=( 4LF( 4LF( 4LF( FLF( FL8( FLF( FL6( FL7( @"*3%.G(@"'=( 5LF( 5LF( 5LF( FLF( 4LF( 5LF( 4L8( FLB(

&!

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

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

=!

D6(9-!",!'-+!+..+/0!1.!*1/(0213!13!345)+6!1.!5(/61237+60+)6(0+8!
"=! "%!

()*+,-*!./01*+!23! 4,5+26.)*+7,1+,7*8!

"#! "E! F! =! %! #! E! G/+!H13:! I(0-4)!H13:! H14*06>!H13:!

&25,762.!

! D6(9-!#,!'-+!+..+/0!1.!*1/(0213!13!0-+!(7+6(A+!(51430!1.!9-189-(0+!(3:!/-*162:+! ;995<!
#K&!

()*+,-*!9:28;:,7*!,.<!=:>2+6<*! ?;;0@!

#KE! "K&! "KE! EK&! EKE! G/+!H13:! JEK&! I(0-04)!H13:! H14*06>!H13:! 9-189-(0+! /-*162:+!

&25,762.!

! !

C!

D6(9-!$,!'-+!+..+/0!1.!*1/(0213!13!010(*!345)+6!1.!5(/61237+60+)6(0+8!(3:! )21:27+6820>K! !
'27,>!4,5+26.)*+7*1+,7*!A62<6)*+867B! C/01*+!
"F! "=! "%! "#! "E! F! =! %! #! E! G/+!H13:! I(0-04)!H13:! H14*06>!H13:! 010(*!)21:27+6820>!345)+6!

(7+6(A+! 5(/61237+60+)6(0+! 345)+6!

&25,762.!

F!

#$%&'!()!*'+!+,,+-.!/,!0/-%.1/2!/2!3%-$/124+$.+5$%.+!2635+$!%27!51/714+$81.9!
;:! >=!

!"#$%&'()'*+,&(-./%&0%$&+0%1'

><! >(! >;! >:! =! <! (! ;! :! ?-+!@/27! A%.'.65!@/27! @/60.$9!&/27!

234%'()'*+,&(-./%&0%$&+0%'

! Graph 1 indicates that Bathtub Pond had the highest average number of macroinvertebrates, with an average of 11 and the second largest standard deviation of 3. Poultry Pond, on the other hand, had both the lowest average macroinvertebrates and standard deviation. Out of all the trials collected, the highest number of macroinvertebrates taken from a single trial was 16. This particular trial was taken at Ice Pond. The highest average at Bathtub Pond was 11 macroinvertebrates. However, the error bars for Ice Pond and Bathtub pond overlapped. Poultry pond had significantly smaller macroinvertebrate amounts, with an average of only 2 macroinvertebrates. The lowest amount of macroinvertebrates collected in a single trial was 0 in Poultry Pond. The data for Ice Pond and Bathtub pond had rather large error bars, which suggests low precision. Poultry Ponds data had a small error bar showing that the data was the most precise of all three ponds. Graph 2 shows that the phosphate levels in poultry pond were highest with an average of 2.0 ppm, whereas Ice Pond, which had an average phosphate level of zero, was lowest. The chloride levels for Poultry Pond were the highest at 1.5 ppm, but it is not possible to conclude which pond had the lowest chloride because even though the lowest chloride average was at Bathtub Pond with 0.7 ppm, the error bar overlaps with Ice Ponds data. Graph 3 compares the average macroinvertebrate number and total biodiversity number at each pond. Bathtub Pond had the highest biodiversity number and average macroinvertebrate number with 16 different macroinvertebrate types, and an average of 11 total macroinvertebrate. Poultry Pond had the lowest in both categories, showing a biodiversity number of 2 and a total macroinvertebrate average of 4. This graph shows correlation with graph 2, which shows that Poultry Pond had both the highest phosphate and chloride, and as graph 3 shows, the lowest average macroinvertebrate number and total biodiversity number. Graph 4 displays the different types of macroinvertebrates, and which location(s) they were found in. Bathtub Pond had the most species and Poultry Pond had the lowest. The height of the bars depict that snails and phantom midge larvae were the most common type of macroinvertebrate found in the Drumlin ponds. Snails, phantom midge larvae and mosquito larvae were the only type of macroinvertebrates found at all three ponds. ! ! DISCUSSION The focus of this experiment was to test the effect of the levels of phosphate (ppm) and chloride (ppm) in ponds on the amount and biodiversity of macroinvertebrates. The results confirmed the initial question of whether chloride and phosphate effected the macroinvertebrate population and also led to further discussion. The three ponds tested were chosen by proximity to possible human pollution sources. Two hypotheses were set forth prior to the experiment, one for the effects of phosphate and the other for chloride. They are as follows: If the phosphate level in Poultry Pond is the highest, then there will be the least amount of macroinvertebrates and macroinvertebrate biodiversity, because phosphate levels above 1.0 ppm cause abundance in nutrients for algal blooms and

"#!

plankton, and after aquatic plants decay, the produced bacteria consumes the dissolved oxygen, decreasing the macroinvertebrate abundance and biodiversity of the pond (www.nynrm.sa.gov.au). The second hypothesis was; if the chloride level in Ice Pond is highest, then there will be a decreased amount of macroinvertebrates, because chloride levels above 0.5 ppm prove to be harmful to macroinvertebrate egg fertilization, therefore resulting in decreased numbers (www.umass.edu). The data for the amount of phosphate was conclusive with no error bars. The lowest phosphate average of 0 ppm at Ice Pond, and the highest being 2 ppm at Poultry Pond. The conclusive data supported the phosphate hypothesis. Macroinvertebrates can be used as indicators of the water quality because of their high sensitivity to external chemicals (http://pubs.ext.vt.edu). If a harmful chemical is in a pond, the macroinvertebrate population will be the first affected. Phosphate is a mineral that is essential in nature, but can be harmful to the environment when in large quantities (http://www.britannica.com). When the level of phosphate rises above 1.0 ppm the sediment, or sludge, at the bottom of the pond begins to build up (http://www.omegalakeservices.com). This raises the water turbidity, which is harmful to macroinvertebrates in many ways. Among these include clogged respiratory surfaces and interference with feeding appendages (http://nynrm.sa.gov.au/). Phosphate occurs naturally in animal waste, and since Poultry Pond was next to the chicken houses, there was a large possibility that the high phosphate levels of 2 ppm were caused by runoff from the chicken excrements (http://kids.niehs.nih.gov\). Excess phosphate causes aquatic plants such as algae to overgrow and when they die, they produce large quantities of bacteria that use up the dissolved oxygen in the water (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/). This leaves less oxygen for the macroinvertebrates to thrive, therefore lowering the total biodiversity number and average macroinvertebrate number in Poultry Pond. Specific macroinvertebrates such as water pennies require a high amount of dissolved oxygen to survive (www. nynrm.sa.gov.au). Water pennies were found at both Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond, which had phosphate levels below 1ppm but not at Poultry Pond, which had a phosphate level of 2ppm. Bathtub Pond did have the next highest amount of Phosphate because it was next to a hayfield, and since phosphate can also come from fertilizers, runoff from the field may have affected the phosphate level in the pond. Bathtub Pond still had the highest number of macroinvertebrate diversity and macroinvertebrates in general, so the phosphate level of 1.0 ppm did not seem to have an affect on the macroinvertebrate population. Most macroinvertebrates eat algae and other organic material, so the acceleration of the growth cycle caused by a low amount of phosphate can be kept in control by macroinvertebrates (http://nynrm.sa.gov.au). The pond with the highest chloride was Poultry Pond with an average of 1.5 ppm. It also had the lowest number of macroinvertebrates. The data was not all conclusive as the error bars for ice pond and bathtub pond overlapped making it impossible to conclude which pond had the lowest chloride. The hypothesis predicted that Ice Pond would have the most chloride and therefore, the least macroinvertebrates. The data only partially supported this since Poultry Pond had the most chloride, but the pond with the highest chloride did have the least macroinvertebrates. Before testing day, Ice Pond was expected to have the highest chloride because of the parking lot on the map that was located near the pond. However, while conducting the trials at Drumlin Farm, it was observed that a

""!

road uphill from Poultry Pond had a closer proximity to the pond than the parking lot located relatively near Ice Pond, Chloride is a mineral supplement that occurs naturally in many foods and is very different from the gas chlorine, although they are closely related. One of the most common chlorine compounds is salt, NaCl. Chloride is a result of the reaction between chlorine and an electrolyte (http://www.traceminerals.com). Therefore, the salt out on the road to melt the ice and snow could have run down into the pond since the chloride ion is highly mobile (%&&'())***+,-.&/0,&/&1&2+345). Although most of the data was conclusive, the error bars for the average number of macroinvertebrates for Ice Pond and Bathtub Pond overlapped. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude which pond had the highest number of macroinvertebrates. The error bars for those two locations not only overlapped, but were also rather large, with Ice Ponds error bar being the largest. The single major problem faced while testing at all three locations was the limited access to the ponds perimeter due to natural obstacles, and the fact that the testers were limited to taking trials from the shore. To improve the project, in the future trials should be taken from the middle of the pond on a boat in order to better assess the macroinvertebrate population accurately. More trials would be necessary for more accurate data. Although there is confidence in these results, in order to have fully representative data, more trials are needed. Some errors were that Bathtub Pond was still partially frozen whereas the other two ponds were not, so the testing should be done later on in warmer weather to make sure all three ponds had similar conditions in areas that arent being tested. Altering certain variables can create future extensions of this project. Bathtub Pond had ice covering half of it, which made certain areas unavailable for testing, but the experiment can be modified to focus on testing the effect of temperature on number of macroinvertebrates from shallow nets weeps versus sweeps from the bottom of the pond. This would analyze the behavior and habits of macroinvertebrates during certain seasons. The affect of amount of dissolved oxygen in water on abundance of macroinvertebrate species could be looked at to determine which type of macroinvertebrate requires higher amounts of dissolved oxygen to thrive. If a pond with more human use is being tested versus one without, the effect of boat use in ponds on macroinvertebrate numbers could be a useful to apply to modern day problems in most ponds, because if macroinvertebrates are being affected, something else is too. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6!*31.7!./82!&3!&%-08!9:!&2-;%24!<2..:!=;%1.&%2/,!>34!'43?/7/05!;30,&41;&/?2! ;4/&/;/,9!&%4315%31&!&%2!>349-&/30!'43;2,,!3>!&%2!2@'24/920&+!!A0!&2,&/05!7-:!-&! B419./0!C-49D!&%2!&2-;%24!0-&14-./,&,!-&!&%2!>3..3*/05!.3;-&/30,(!6;2!E307D!F-&%&1G! E307!-07!E31.&4:!E307D!'43?27!%2.'>1.!/0!9-0:!*-:,!-,!&%2/4!2@'24&!803*.2752!30! &%2!20?/430920&!-0,*2427!314!H12,&/30,+!I%-08!:31!J-45-42&!K-47:D!L-;%2.! M-9/,30!-07!N%4/,!B*:24!>34!,1'24?/,/05!1,!-&!31&!.3;-&/30,+!O!,'2;/-.!&%-08,!&3! P99-!M-;3G,D!F4/&-!J-;82:D!J-45-42&!K-47:D!-07!&%2!&2-;%24!0-&14-./,&!-&!F-&%&1G! E307!>34!-,,/,&/05!*/&%!&%2!>/.9/05+!Q-,&.:D!6!*31.7!./82!&3!&%-08!9:!'-4&024,D!M1./2! E205!-07!P./R-!=&240./;%&+!!

"$!

First and foremost, I would like to thank my teacher Kelley Schultheis, for carefully guiding our team and giving constructive advice and criticism. I would also like to thank my partners Sofia Sulikowski and Eliza Sternlicht. Without these three people, this project would not have been able to become what it now is. Partners Sofia and Eliza contributed hugely to the brainstorming of the project, and research. I greatly thank Eliza for bringing almost all of the testing materials, and Sofia for her writing, tables, graphs, and edits. Unfortunately, Eliza was not able to come to the testing day of April 1, 2013 at Drumlin. I would also like to thank the three teacher naturalists stationed around our Drumlin testing sites; each of them provided us with critical wildlife information and were happy to help us. The teacher naturalist stationed at Bathtub pond was a particularly helpful, she helped film a small portion of our desired video footage, and also helped us identify a few macroinvertebrates we werent sure of. On top of these brilliant people, I would also like to thank Margaret Hardy, Rachel Jamison, Christa Crewdson, and Chris Dwyer, our supervisors. They made this trip possible, and made sure of our safety at all times. I would specifically like to thank Margaret Hardy and Christa Crewdson for filming bits of the video. Chris Dwyers volunteered help must also be made note of. Lastly, I would like to thank students Brita Mackey and Emma Jacobs, for helping Sofia and I record two test procedures when our hands were full.

"S!

Sofia Works Cited:

Dr. Chris Meletis N. D, Chris Meletis N. D, Dr. "Chloride: The Forgotten Essential Mineral." Articles. TraceMinerals Research, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.traceminerals.com/research/chloride>.

"How Does Road Salt Work?" / Winter Road Safety / Uses & Benefits / Home. Salt Institute, 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.saltinstitute.org/Usesbenefits/Winter-road-safety/How-does-road-salt-work>.

Phosphate Mineral. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/457399/phosphate-mineral>.

"The Pond Ecosystem Chapter 3 of the Guide to Optimum Pond Dynamics." The Pond Ecosystem Chapter 3 of the Guide to Optimum Pond Dynamics. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.omegalakeservices.com/The_Pond_Ecosystem.html>.

"Reducing Phosphorus Pollution to Improve Water Quality | WA State Department of Ecology." Reducing Phosphorus Pollution to Improve Water Quality | WA State Department of Ecology. Washington State Department of Ecology, Aug. 2012. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/PhosphorusBan.html >.

"T!

"River and Stream Pollution." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. NIH, n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/explore/pollute/riverstream.htm>.

"TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for Benthic Impairments." TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for Benthic Impairments. Virginia Cooperative Extension, 1 May 2009. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442/442-556/442556.html>.

"Water Quality and Macroinvertebrates." Water Facts. Water and Rivers Commission, Oct. 2001. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://nynrm.sa.gov.au/portals/7/pdf/landandsoil/17.pdf>.

"Water What-ifs." Science Junction. Science Junction, 1998. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/depot/experiments/water/lessons/macro/>.

Julie Works Cited:

Balogh, J., Fausey, N., Harmel, R., Hughes, K., & King, K. (2006, January/February). Nitrate-nitrogen and dissolved reactive phosphorus in subsurface drainage from managed turfgrass. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 61(1), 31-41.

"Benthic Macroinvertebrates." |Aquatic Ecology|Habitat Restoration. N.p., n.d. Web. 09

"U!

Mar. 2013. <http://enviroscienceinc.com/benthic-macroinvertebrates/>.

Bradley, Rebecca, Tanya Dierolf, Ryan Newcomer, and Nicole Taibi. "The Effect of Chloride On Macroinvertebrates In Crooked Creek." Juniata.edu. N.p., 2002. Web. 6 Mar. 2013. <Journal of Ecological Research pdf, 4, 37-42 (2002)>.

Gay, Kathlyn. Trouble in River City. Water Pollution. New York: F. Watts, 1990. 74-83. Print.

Hayes, David, Megan McElroy, Elizabeth Skinner, and Rachel Skokan. "Effect of Experimental Chlorine Water Treatment Beds On Macroinvertebrate Abundance and Diversity In Crooked Creek." Http://departments.juniata.edu. Journal of Ecological Research, 2001. Web. 6 Mar. 2013.

"Pesticides and Aquatic Animals: A Guide to Reducing Impacts on Aquatic Systems." Pesticides and Aquatic Animals: ccccc N.p., 1 May 2009. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420-013/420-013.html>.

"Studying the Effect of Different Levels of Nitrate and Phosphate on The Macroinvertebrate Populations in Different Streams." Studying the Effect of Different Levels of Nitrate and Phosphate on The Macroinvertebrate Populations in Different Streams. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.

"V!

"Water Resource Characterization DSS - Phosphorus." Water Resource Characterization DSS - Phosphorus. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2013. <http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/phos.html>.

Yanamadala, V. (2005, November/December). Calcium Carbonate Phosphate Binding Ion Exchange Filtration and Accelerated Denitrification Improve Public Health Standards and Combat Eutrophication in Aquatic Ecosystems. Water Environment Research, 77(7), 3003-3012.

Julie References:
Schultheis, Kelley Personal Interview

"Water What-ifs." Science Junction. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://nynrm.sa.gov.au/portals/7/pdf/landandsoil/17.pdf>.

"W!

The Effect of Manure on Soil pH

By Gary Rasin And Harry Theodore

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract.... 3 Introduction. 3 Materials and Methods. 4 Results..... 5 - 6 Discussion. 7 Works Cited.. 8 Agknowledgements...... 9

ABSTRACT This experiment was conducted in order to discover whether manure affects the pH of soil, and how drastically the manure would change the levels of pH in the soil. Soil pH is a vital component in the process of plant growth. To conduct the experiment, soil samples were taken from locations in which the soil contained manure and where the soil did not contain manure. The samples were then tested and examined to test the hypothesis, which stated that the soil containing manure would have the lower pH. The results showed that the soil containing manure had a slightly lower average pH, but the data was inconclusive because of overlapping error bars and traces of manure found in the non-manure area. INTRODUCTION The pH of soil plays an important role in the quality and growth of plant life. All plants that grow in soil depend on a certain level of pH. With a pH level that is too high or too low for a plants specifications, that plant wont be able to grow. Different plants require different pH levels of soil in order to grow in that area. The goal of this experiment will be to test how manure can help or hurt plants by affecting the pH of the soil around them. Most plants require an acidic soil in order to grow (Kristi Lew, ebooks.infobaselearning.com), and most soils in New England are found to be slightly acidic, with a pH of between 6.5 and 6.8. Some plants such as potatoes require a pH lower than 6.3 in order to grow. This difference in pH might be solved with the addition of manure (nevegetable.org). On Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, there is a site called the Farmyard where different animals including sheep, cows, chickens, and goats reside. The sheep produce manure which mixes with the soil. The seasonal cycle of the Farmyard consists of a process where all of the grass is eaten, leaving manure to cover the entire ground. In the past, it has been found that manure is acidic, which helps provide more acidity in the soil (nevegetable.org). The acidic quality of manure can be used to the advantage of a farmer because they can put it in their soil to help their plants grow. Manure often solves the problem of having soil that is not acidic enough to grow plants (eap.mcgill.ca). The pH of soil is a vital part of plant growth which is why this experiment is so appealing. In the past, tests have been done to determine the pH of soil. On average, soil has been found to be slightly acidic in farming areas (nevegetable.org). Manure has generally been identified as acidic due to the acids in the intestinal system of the animal that produced it (eap.mcgill.ca). An average sheep produces about 1.8 kilograms of manure daily, which covers approximately 1,700 cubic centimeters of farmland. This experiment will involve testing within a meter-by-meter area, which can be covered by a few weeks of manure production. The goal of this experiment is to find how manure affects the pH of the soil it is in. Collecting soil samples in an area with manure and an area without it will test the hypothesis of this experiment. These samples will be mixed with water and then tested for pH. This will provide an accurate indication as to how soil pH is affected by manure. The independent variable will be the area of testing which in this experiment pertains to soil with and without manure. The dependent variable will be the pH of the soil being 3

tested. Some important variables that must be controlled are: the amount of soil being tested, the water being used to test the pH of the soil because of the effect the water may have on the final pH, the type of litmus paper, and the cleanliness of the beakers test containers being used. The hypothesis set for this experiment: if soil with manure and soil without manure are tested, then the pH of the soil with manure will be lower because manure is acidic which will in turn make the soil around it more acidic (eap.mcgill.ca). Farmers and gardeners can use this experiment in the future because the information that will be discovered in this experiment can be used to determine whether or not the addition of manure is a safe and smart decision for farmers and gardeners to add to their soil. The future of plant growth and the efficiency of its growth could lie in manure production. An experiment that details how manure affects the pH of soil could be useful in further production of fertilizers and manure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS In this experiment, the soil pH of two areas within the Farmyard field at Drumlin Farm was tested. First, two different areas were identified for testing with the help of a Drumlin Farm naturalist. One area was where the sheep had recently roamed, meaning the soil contained manure. The other area, where the sheep had not roamed, was the area that did not contain manure. The length and width, in meters, of each area were measured with the tape measurer. The data was then inputted into the calculator and five random points were generated within each area using the randomizing function. Each coordinate point was located by measuring the appropriate distance away from the marked borders for the x and y axises. Each point was marked with a marking flag. After marking the spots, the soil was extracted from the ground with an auger. To collect the soil, the auger was then thrusted into the ground and twisted downwards until it was mostly hidden in the soil. The auger was then pulled from the ground and the soil was dumped in a container. The samples remained in their containers until it was time for them to be tested. These tasks were performed at all points at both areas. After collecting the soil samples, a test kit was used to measure the pH of the soil. The plastic device used for testing had two chambers, one for testing and one for storing the capsules. First, the soil sample was removed from the container and poured into the far left chamber of the kit until the top of the soil met the lowest line, located roughly four millimeters from the bottom of the chamber. Then, distilled water was added to the same chamber where the soil was located. The water was poured until it reached the highest line, marked near the top of that chamber. Next, the cap of the kit was sealed shut, and the mixture was shaken thoroughly for five seconds. After shaking, thirty seconds was allotted for the mixture to settle. The stopwatch was used to keep track of the time. After the time had elapsed, the color of the water was observed. The color of the mixture was matched with the chart, located to the right of the test chamber, which showed the soil pH level relative to the color of the mixture. The pH level was indicated through the comparing and the results were recorded in the data table, located in the field notebook.

Map of Drumlin Farm: Farmyard is indicated by red circle

RESULTS TABLE 1: The effect of manure on soil pH Trial # 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 pH Level Manure Non-Manure 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 TABLE 2: The effect of manure on average soil pH Manure Average Stan. Dev. 6.475 0.11 Non-Manure 6.6 0.35

GRAPH 1: The effect of manure on soil pH

The data in this experiment was similar throughout but differences in pH could still be identified. Column 1 shows the pH levels identified at all five points within the non-manure area. Column 2 shows the same data for the area with manure. Interestingly, every data point within the manure area except for one was found to have a pH of 6.5, which is slightly acidic. Graph 3 displays the averages for each point within each area as well as the average pH of each entire area. The average pH for the manure area was 6.48, only 0.13 lower than the non-manure area, which had an average of 6.6. The data set shown in Table 1 is extremely precise with a highest pH level at 6.5 and the lowest at 6.0. The standard deviation for this data lies at a low 0.11 creating a precise data set that allows for confidence in results. In Column 2, the data set is less precise due to the seemingly random scattering of pH levels between 7.0 and 6.0 resulting in a standard deviation of 0.35. Some data points were of a neutral pH, however not a single data point was found to be basic. On a large scale these standard deviations are only a fraction of the total possible pH levels, however the size of the error bars causes them to overlap with each other. Graph 1 depicts a comparison between the overall average pH level of the manure area and the pH level of the non-manure area. The manure area has a slightly lower average pH at 6.48 and the non-manure area has a pH of 6.6. This slight difference is however, overcome by the overlapping error bars between the two data sets. During the testing it was observed that the manure created by the sheep and goats came in small spherical forms. The area tested for manure in this experiment was the section of the Farmyard that had the manure packed into the soil instead of their initial ball shape.

DISCUSSION In this experiment, the effect of manure on the pH of soil was tested. The hypothesis stated that if the soil with manure is tested, then the pH of the soil will be lower because manure is acidic, which will make the soil around it more acidic (eap.mcgill.ca). The hypothesis was not supported by the results of the experiment. The results indicated that the soil containing manure had a slightly lower pH than that of the soil without manure. These figures were supported by the hypothesis, but the averages were too close to confidently say which would be more acidic. The data was inconclusive, as the error bars overlapped with each other. The data set precision from the non-manure area was not very precise, with a standard deviation of only 0.35. This is most likely due to the varying amounts of manure within that area, since there were still small traces of manure in that soil. The data collected from the area with manure was more precise, most likely because the soil was much more consistent and concentrated in front of the barn gate where the samples were taken from. Although the hypothesis stated that the soil in the manure area would have a lower pH, the data was not conclusive enough to prove the hypothesis to be correct. Because of the existence of some manure in the non-manure area, the pH of its soil was lowered due to the manures acidic properties (extension.umn.edu, University of Minnesota). Based off of this information, it can be assumed that if the non-manure area truly had no manure, the results would have been conclusive enough to say that the manure areas soil would have had the lower pH. To improve this field study and the experiment for future trials, an area with absolutely no manure would be located. The area that was intended to contain no manure in the soil still had small traces of it. This was one of the major errors that occurred during the experiment. It was believed that sufficient data was collected, although the spacing of the points within each area could have been farther apart to get a more extensive range of data. To improve data collection in future experiments, fewer trials from each point should be taken and the number of points should be increased in order to cover more ground and get a broader range of data. Another error included the amount of powder being inconsistent when poured into the chamber from each pill. In order to eliminate this error, the capsules should be fully emptied when poured out. The results of this experiment can be used to further improve profitability for farmers by giving them more ways to richen their soil, and can also be used to make sure that plants stay healthy and strong.

WORKS CITED (INTRO AND M&M) Agriculture, Ecological. "Manure Management and Composting." Manure Management and Composting. McGill University, 1992. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_4.htm>. Lew, Kristi. Acids and Bases. New York: Chelsea House, 2008. Infobase eBooks. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://ebooks.infobaselearning.com/View.aspx?ISBN=9781438116617&InstID= 0>. "Sheep 201: Nutrient Management on a Sheep Farm." Sheep 201: Nutrient Management on a Sheep Farm. Susan Schoenian, 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://www.sheep101.info/201/nutrientmgt.html>. "Soil PH and Liming." University of Massachusetts Amherst. University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. <http://nevegetable.org/cultural-practices/soil-ph-and-liming>. "Urine PH: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia." U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003583.htm>. Whiting, David. "Soil PH." Soil PH. Colorado State University Extension, Dec. 2011. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://www.cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/222.html>.

WORKS CITED (DISCUSSION) Agriculture, Ecological. "Manure Management and Composting." Manure Management and Composting. McGill University, 1992. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_4.htm>. "Manure Management - Soil Scientist." Manure Management - Soil Scientist. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/7401_02.html

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Harry and Gary First, we would like to thank or science teacher, Ms. Svatek, for providing useful insight and advice for our written reports, and for supporting us along the way. We would like to thank Mr. Breen for accompanying us at our test site during the field trip, and the Drumlin Farm naturalist who helped identify the areas that should be used for testing. Harry I would like to thank all the people above, along with my parents for supplying a report cover and Garys parents for some other materials, including the bag. I would also like to thank the science department for supplying the materials needed to perform the experiment, and Drumlin Farm for allowing us to utilize their facilities. Gary I would like to thank my mom for supplying the bag and offering support along the way. Also, thank you Ms. Svatek for helping me with edits and giving me advice along the way.

Pigs and Chickens and Horses, Oh My!

The Effect of Animal Species on Soil pH
By Jenna Selden and Sophie Wang

!"#$%&'(&)'*!%*!+& & +,-./012&& & & & 34/5647&"8.904&& & !"#$%&'$( ( ( ( ()*+,*-.(/*--&(( ( 0-$%1,2'$31-( 4&-5.()1673*(( ( 8&$*%3&+#(&-,(8*$71,#( ( ()*+,*-.(/*--&( ( 9*#2+$#( ( ( ( (4&-5.()1673*( ( :3#'2##31-( ( ( ( ()*+,*-.(/*--&( ( !';-1<+*,5*=*-$#((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()*+,*-.(/*--&( (((((((( 4&-5.()1673*( ( 41%;#(>3$*,(( (((((((((((()*+,*-.(/*--&( (((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4&-5.()1673*(( & & & 36:,& ?( ( @( ( A( ( B( ( C( ( ( D( ( ?E( (

ABSTRACT This study was conducted at Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln, MA, where several types of poultry and domesticated farm animals reside. The objective of this experiment was to determine the relationship between the species of animal and the pH of the soil in the area that the specific animal resides. The pH of the soil was measured by collecting four soil samples from random locations within Drumlin Farm, the sheep-grazing field, the chicken coop, the horse-grazing field, the cow-grazing field, and the pigpen. It was expected that if the soil is exposed to chicken manure, then it would have the pH closest to neutral, because chicken manure has the highest levels of Nitrogen and Nitrogen-absorbing plants thrive more in soils with a pH of 7 (Peter, www.soils.wisc.edu). Soil samples from each site were inserted into a comparator with distilled water and a capsule, and the color of the solution after 60 seconds determined the pH level of the soil. This hypothesis was supported, as the soil from the chicken coop had a pH of 7, while the other locations had soil with a pH from 6 to 6.5. Chicken manure has a high level of nitrogen, which produced more nutrients than the manure of the other farm animals. The soil and plants absorbed these nutrients, which affected the soil pH and made it closer to neutral.

"!

INTRODUCTION How is knowing the level of pH useful? pH is a measure of the acidity of an object or solution. It is affected by manure, rainfall, and crop production, and can be tested using various techniques, including using a pH kit. The pH of soil is important information to many, especially farmers or gardeners who want to know the best soil to plant certain trees, bushes, flowers, or vegetables or where to put animals. Too high or low levels of pH can be harmful to animals, especially when there are drastic changes in the level in a short period of time. This is similar to plants. Plants also need specific levels of pH in their soil, depending on the type of plant they are, in order to grow and stay alive. Drumlin Farm is a working farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Visitors come everyday to see the various animals, plants, wildlife, and nature on the 232-acre farm (www.massaudubon.org). The sites that will be visited will be the chicken coop, the pig pen, the horse barn, the cow grazing field, the sheep grazing field, and the Drumlin. The chicken coop, the pig pen, the horse barn, the cow grazing field, and the sheep grazing field are all located in the farmyard, since they were inhabited with their respective animal. The Drumlin had no specific animal grazing upon it, and is located on the opposite side of Drumlin Farm as the farmyard. The more nutrients a soil has, the closer the pH level is to seven, or neutral. This is because the more nutrients a soil has, the healthier it is (Peters, www.soils.wisc.edu). Plants grow by absorbing nutrients from the soil into their roots. The more nutrients in soil, the healthier the plants and animals living upon it become. Therefore, the more nutrients in a soil, the healthier it is. Soil must be able to hold these nutrients for the plants to live. Also, it is easier for a plant to absorb nitrogen if the soil has a pH level of seven, being neutral (McKenzie, www1.agric.gov.ab.ca). A healthy pH is not acidic or basic, but is neutral, having a pH level at or close to seven. An acidic or basic soil can be dangerous for many animals. It can hurt them, or even kill them if the levels are too extreme. Most plants (as well as animals) can live with a soil pH of 6-8, a lower or higher level causing them not to grow. There are many reasons a pH level could be the level it is. Some determining factors are rainfall, manure, as well as crop production. The amount of pH in a soil could also have to do with the eating habits of the animal living on it. Pigs are omnivores, and eat pretty much anything (Scott, www.goats4h.com), while cows and chickens must eat greens and foods with high nutrition (Cliff,, www.thisisdairyfarming.com) (Howe, www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustaina bleliving.com). Sheep eat mainly grass and forbs (George, www.sheep101.info), and horses are herbivores, having specific dairy needs, and eat grass and silica (Blocksdorf, www.horses.about.com). Since chickens eat certain plants, they have a hot manure, which means it is high in nitrogen. This causes the soil below them to be very healthy, which would cause them to have a neutral pH level. Animals such as pigs, who are omnivores, would have an unhealthy soil, since they do not eat as many plants as other animals. This would cause their pH level to be more acid. The experiment will be testing the effect of the type of animal inhabiting the location on the soil pH levels. The independent variable in this experiment will be the type of animal, which includes

#!

chickens, cows, pigs, horses, and sheep. The pH of the soil where the animal inhabits will be tested as the dependent variable. The soils are thought to vary due to their manure types, as well as their eating habits, as explained above. In addition to testing the soils underneath these animals, the soil of the Drumlin will also be tested. Since this has no specific animal species inhabiting it, it will be the control run. Some controlled variables that must remain the same during this experiment will be the weather conditions, the amount of soil tested for each trial in each site, the type of materials being used, the test kit being used, the amount of time waited before testing, and the person doing the testing. The hypothesis set forth in this experiment is: if the soil is exposed to chicken manure, then it would have the pH closest to neutral, because chicken manure has the highest levels of Nitrogen and Nitrogen-absorbing plants thrive more in soils with a pH of 7 (Peter, www.soils.wisc.edu). Regardless of the outcome of the experiment, the results will explain a lot about soil pH and what effects it. Not only is the goal to learn if different animals manures make for different pH levels in the soil, but it is hoped that other questions will be answered during this experiment. Is there an effect on the soil if the animals inhabiting it eat the grass? If the manure does not end up affecting the pH level, what causes this trend will hopefully be discovered. Do certain animal species prefer certain soil types, and that is why they inhabit there? Is it due to the grass types or animals eating habits? This would be interesting to learn, and hopefully at the end of the trip to Drumlin Farm there will be answers to these questions. Conducting this experiment and finding the results will be useful to farmers, gardeners, and everyday people as well. By figuring out which soils are acidic, and which are basic, it will be helpful when planting, growing, or placing animals in new homes. By knowing the pH levels of soils and manures from chickens, cows, pigs, horses, sheep, and a field without a certain species of animal inhabiting it, people could use this information to protect the health of animals and plants, since too acidic or too basic levels are harmful and dangerous for them. Farmers will also benefit from knowing which soils are acidic and basic, so they can figure out where to place plants, as well as crops, to grow and harvest to their highest potential. If certain animals create certain levels of pH in the soil they inhabit, farmers could use this information to decide where to place animals to help their crops and plants grow. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Drumlin, which was the control run, was the first location visited. The next locations visited were the sheep grazing area, the chicken coup, the pigpen, the cow fields, and the horse area. These were all in the Farmyard. Four soil samples were collected from each site, for a total of twenty-four trials. The location of the soil samples within each site was determined using the quadrat with coordinates method of randomization (see Figure 1). The quadrat with coordinates system of randomization includes using a random number generator function on a calculator. First the length and width of the sides of the site visited were measured. These were then plugged into the calculator using the formula rand (n)*x with n being the number of samples collected and x being the maximum range for those numbers. This generated four pairs of coordinates, which were recorded in the field notebook.

$!

&!

'! Figure 1: Diagram of Plot Sampling ! Prior to the trip, four clean plastic containers of 6.35 cm by 6.35 cm were labeled trial one through four. The following procedure was found using the soil pH section of the rapitest 1601 Soil Test Kit. The soil auger was placed into the soil roughly five to seven centimeters below ground level at the first of the four trial locations. After the gloves and goggles were applied, the soil sample, which was collected from the auger, was emptied into a clean container. This was repeated for the other three trial areas within the location. The amount of soil in the container varied, but the amount needed for the comparator is considerably small. It needs to loosely fill a space of about 1 cm by 3 cm. Once all four soil samples from the location were assembled, the lid was removed from the comparator (See Figure 2). The color chart was made sure to be secure and in place at the front of the comparator. The first soil sample was mixed using a metal stirring rod so that the clumps of soil were broken up. Then the soil was emptied into the comparator up to the soil fill line indicated on the color chart. A green capsule obtained from the soil test kit was held above the comparator and gently twisted until the two halves separated and the powder inside fell into the comparator. The eyedropper was then inserted into the one liter bottle of distilled water and, once full, was emptied into the comparator two to four times, until the comparator was filled up to the water fill line indicated on the side. Then the lid was tightly secured onto the top of the comparator. The comparator was shaken five times and then set onto a level surface. The timer was set for sixty seconds, and observations were made as the color change took place. Once the sixty seconds passed, the color of the solution was compared with the color scale on the chart in the front of the comparator. The color chart on the side of the comparator showed varying degrees of green and brown and the corresponding level of pH for that particular color of the solution. After the corresponding pH listed next to the color of the solution was recorded, all materials that had been in contact with the soil were washed thoroughly with rinse water and wastewater was disposed of into a wastewater container. This procedure was repeated for each trial and for all trials from every location.

%!

Figure 2: Rapitest pH Soil Comparator RESULTS Table 1: The Effect of Animal on Soil pH Soil pH Levels Animal Chicken Cow Sheep Pig Horse Drumlin (control) Trial 1 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 Trial 2 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.50 Trial 3 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.50 Trial 4 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 Average 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.25 Standard Deviation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29

(!

Graph 1: The Effect of Animal on Soil pH

(*+! (! %*)! !"#$%&'%()*)$% %*%! %*#! %*+! %! $*)! $*%! $*#! ,-./012! ,34! 5-116! 7.8! 93:;1! <:=>?.2! +,#-.$%/0&)%

Graph 1 showed the average pH level of the soil in each site tested. The averages varied from 6.0 to 7.0, the lowest being the soil from the pig pen and the horse barn, and the greatest being the soil from the chicken coop. The soil from the Drumlin, with a pH level average of 6.25, was the only site tested with a standard deviation greater than 0, causing it to have the greatest error bar. The standard deviation was 0.29, and the error bar overlapped with the error bars of four other sites average pH levels. These sites were the cow grazing field, the sheep-grazing field, the pig pen, and the horse barn. The soil from the cow-grazing field had an average pH level of 6.5, and a standard deviation of 0, causing its error bar to be very small. This error bar overlapped with that of the sheep grazing field, as well as the Drumlin. The sheep-grazing field, like the cow-grazing field, had an average of 6.5 and a standard deviation of 0. Its error bar was again very small, and overlapped with the error bars from the cow-grazing field and from the Drumlin. The average pH level of the soil from both the pigpen and the horse barn was 6.0, and they each had a standard deviation of 0, as well as a small error bar. The error bars overlapped with each other, as well as the Drumlin. These averages were the smallest among the sites, whereas the average pH level of the chicken coops soil was the greatest. The soil from the chicken coop had an average pH level of 7.0, and a standard deviation of 0. This site was the only site tested to not have an overlapping error bar. Its error bar was also very small, like most of the others.

)!

Overall, the soil from the cow grazing field and the soil from the sheep-grazing field had the exact same data, and the soil from the pig pen and the horse barn had the same data, which was quite interesting. Another interesting realization about this data was that the soil from the Drumlin was the only one with a standard deviation above zero. Since this was the only one, the data collected was quite precise. Most of it was equally precise, except for the soil collected from the Drumlin and from the chicken coop. The soil collected from the Drumlin was less precise due to the inconsistent data collected for different trials, causing it to have larger error bars that overlap with four of the five other sites. Contrary to this, the soil collected from the chicken coop was the most precise due to the fact that its error bar overlapped with none of the others. An interesting observation made was that all of the soil besides that from the chicken coop was dark brown in color. All of the soil had a similar feel, being moist, except for the soil from the chicken coop. This soil had a light brown color, and was dry, with lots of rocks mixed in it. It easily fell apart and crumbled, unlike all of the other soils. DISCUSSION This experiment was conducted to determine the relationship between the species of domesticated animal inhabiting a location at Drumlin Farm and soil pH in that location. The hypothesis proposed for this experiment was: if the soil around the chicken manure is tested, then it will have the most neutral pH, because chicken manure has the highest levels of Nitrogen and Nitrogen-absorbing plants thrive more in soils with a pH of 7 (Peter, www.soils.wisc.edu). Despite the fact that much of the data was inconclusive due to overlapping error bars, the chicken manure had the most neutral pH and did not overlap with the other animal manure. The hypothesis therefor was supported, and the results answered the initial question, but the research supporting the original hypothesis was incorrect. The manure of the chickens was conclusively closer to neutral compared to the other animals manure, meaning the results supported the original hypothesis. Chicken manure is an excellent source of nutrients and many farmers incorporate it into their fertilizers (Zublena, J. P., www.soil.ncsu.edu). An average sized chicken produces one cubic foot of manure every six months, and the pH of this manure is usually neutral or slightly acidic. One reason chicken manure makes such a good fertilizer is because it contains high amounts of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (Duncan, Judy, seattletilth.org). Most manure contains these elements, but chicken manure contains molecules such at maleate that contain basic cations. The bacteria in the soil break down these molecules, releasing the basic cations. The cations increase the pH of the soil and cause it to be more basic (Mason, scialert.net) The other animals manure has anions within the molecules, so when the bacteria from the soil breaks the molecules down, it releases anions, which make the soil more acidic (Mason, scialert.net). The chicken manure, like most poultry manure, was conclusively closer to a neutral pH than the manure of cow, horse, sheep, and pig. Using this research, a new hypothesis for this experiment would be: if the soil around the chicken manure is tested, then it will have the most neutral pH, because the molecules in chicken manure contain basic cations, and when the bacteria from the soil breaks these molecules down, the basic cations cause the pH in the soil to be more basic (Mason, scialert.net).

@!

Though the soil around the chicken manure was conclusively closest to having a neutral pH, there is no way to determine which animals manure was the most acidic, or closest to a pH of zero, because the pH soil surrounding the manure from sheep, cows, horses, pigs, and the soil from the Drumlin all had overlapping error bars. This is because all error bars other than the chicken manure overlapped with at least one other error bar. There are several possible explanations for these overlaps. It is important to keep in mind that pH levels in animals manure vary depending on the animals age and diet (Royal Horticultural Society, apps.rhs.org). Although each species do not have identical dietary habits, it is likely that the sheep and cows fed on the same species of grass, or nearby grass with the same level of nutrients. The Drumlin Farm naturalist explained that both the sheep and the cows, and at times the horses, fed on grass and weeds in adjacent fields. Since this grass was very close together, and was given the same amount and type of fertilizers by Drumlin Farm, it most likely that the grass had the same properties and nutrients throughout the general area. It is also important to acknowledge that every animal tested was living in the same location, Drumlin Farm, and therefor experienced the same weather changes and climate. All of these factors bring the data closer together. The soil around the sheep and cow manure had a conclusively higher pH than that around the horse and pig manure. This could be because the soil from the sheep and cow areas were both grazing areas, with many plants and dirt not unlike that of the Drumlin. The pigpen was wet, thick, and more muddy than dirty. As discussed later, the horse pen was void of soil, so the manure was tested rather than the soil around the manure. Both of these things could have caused a difference the pH of the two groups. The data was precise. All the locations that animals inhabited had a standard deviation and range of zero. The Drumlin was the only location that had a standard deviation larger than zero. This shows that animals do have a large effect on the pH of the soil they live on. If the species of animals inhabiting an area had nothing to do with the soil pH, there would not have been such clear and precise results. Though there may be other factors that effect soil pH, animals manure goes into the soil, plants absorb its nutrients, and the animals, completing the cycle, eat the plants. Though several of the error bars overlap, they are very short in length, and this allows for high confidence in the data collected. There were several errors that occurred during the testing and data collecting. These were minor, and probably did not affect the experiments results in a major way. The last three levels of the IV, horse, pig, and cow, were more rushed than the first three. The time budget forced the procedure to be slightly modified, and instead of four trials being collected and tested separately, trials one and two and trials three and four were mixed together. This error could be fixed by simply having a longer time to collect results. This impacted the precision of the data, because trial one and two for these levels of the independent variable were guaranteed to have the same number recorded for pH, and the same goes for trials three and four. It is a possibility that one of the combined samples had a different pH then the sample it was combined with. An assumption was also made that the Drumlin did not have animal life on it, while in reality there was most likely some amount of undomesticated wildlife inhabiting it. The area could have been searched for scat or other animal signs, or an inquiry could have been made to a Drumlin expert about the wildlife living there. This affected the experiment because though this was the control run, it was not sure to be void of animal life. If there were animals living on the Drumlin, then it would have been another level of the independent variable, and not the control run. Both of these

AB!

assumptions and errors were minimal, and had only a small impact on the experiment. Confidence in the results is still justified. Since the age of the animal whose manure is being tested affects the pH of the soil, it would be interesting to see how the pH may evolve over generations of animals. The same materials could be used, but the animals would have to be older than they were at the time of this first experiment. If the experiment had one species with the independent variable being the age of the animal, the results would be very interesting. If this same experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in ten years the results might also be very different. The ages of the animals would change, which affects their pH considerably. Similarly, the results may change if this experiment were conducted at a different farm, in a different climate or with different levels of rainfall. It would also be interesting to see how the results would change if the manure was tested directly, as opposed to the soil around the manure. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS- Jenna Selden Putting this project together could not have been done without the help and collaboration of several wonderful people and organizations. This first and most crucial of these is Drumlin Farm. Their hospitality and generosity allowed my partner and me to conduct our tests on their soil- I thank them warmly for that. Among their staff is the extremely helpful Pat (last name). Without her help, we would not have been able to access the areas we needed to complete out testing. I thank her for taking her time to help us collect our data. I would also like to thank Mrs. Canaday and Mrs. Crewdson, who supervised us while we collected soil samples. Mrs. Canaday had very helpful information and her input on our experiment aided us very much. She also seemed to know where everything was! Mrs. Crewdson was present while we faced copious amounts of chicken, horse, and cow manure. Her encouragement was almost as helpful as her humorous remarks about the situation! Another highly crucial part of this experiment was Mrs. LaRocca. Without her extensive scientific knowledge, brilliant teaching skills, and detailed advice, there would be no report. I must also thank my partner, Sophie Wang. Her hard work, organization, and motivation were an essential piece of this report. Without the help of all of these people, this project would not have been able to come together like it did. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS- Sophie Wang There are many people I would like to thank for making the trip to Drumlin Farm possible. First of all, I would like to thank all of the science teachers, Ms. LaRocca, Mr. Ewins, Ms. Schultheis, and Ms. Svatek, for organizing and helping us all through the process. I would also like the thank Ms. Crewdson and Ms. Canaday for being at the sites, and for assisting my partner and me when we needed it. Id like to say a huge thank you to Pat, a Drumlin Farm naturalist expert, as well as the rest of the staff there. She helped us greatly by the farmyard, opening up the gates as well as telling us where to go and what to look for. She had a great deal of knowledge and helped significantly improved the design of our experiment with the information she shared with us. Lastly, I would like to thank my partner, Jenna Selden, for being reliable, responsive, and for so much more.

AA!

WORKS CITED - INTRODUCTION Ano, A.O. Neutralization of Soil Acidity by Animal Manures: Mechanism of Reaction. African Journal of Biotechnology. Academic Journals, 23 Jan. 2007. Web 5 Mar. 2012 <http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/downl oad/56212/446587>.

Blocksdorf, Katherine.. What Horses A Eat. About.com Horses. N.p., 2013. Web. 9 Mar. 2013. <http://horses.about.com/od/feedingyourhorse/tp/wha t-HorsesEat.htm?>.

Bremner, J. M. "The Journal of Agricultural Science." Cambridge Journals 51.01 (1958): 40-52. Print.

Cliff, Alistar. What do cows eat? What Do Cows Eat? Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 2013. Web 9 Mar. 2013. <http://www.sh eep101.info/eating.htmls>.

George. Sheep 101: What Sheep Eat. Sheep 101: What Sheep Eat. Sheep 101, 28 May 2012. Web 9 Mar 2013. <http://ww.sheep101.info/eating.html>.

Howe, Meg. What Do Chickens Eat? A Guide to Chickens Food. What Do Chickens Eat? SBI, n.d. Web 9 Mar. 2013. http://www.small-farm-permaculture-andsustainable-living.com/what_do_chickens_eat

A+!

McKenzie, Ross H. "Soil PH and Plant Nutrients." Soil PH and Plant Nutrients. Agricultural and Rural Development, May 2003. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http:// www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6607>

McLean, George. "Welcome to Mass Audubon!" Welcome to Mass Audubon! Massachusetts Audubon Society, 2003. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ma ssaudubon.org/index.php>.

Peters, John. Understanding Manure. Understanding Manure. Wisconsin Crop Management Conference, 2013. Web 6 Mar. 2013. <http://www.soils.wisc. edu/extension/wcmc/2013/pap/Peters.pdf>.

Scott. Pig Information. Pigs. Irvine Mesa Charros 4H Club, n.d. Web 9 Mar.2013, <http://www.goats4h.com/Pigs.html#feed>. ! WORKS CITED - DISCUSSION "Chicken Manure." / Royal Horticultural Society. Royal Horticultural Society, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

Duncan, Judy. "Composting Chicken Manure." Seattle Tilth. King County Master Gardener and Cooperative Extension Livestock Adviso, Fall 2005. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

Peter, John. "University of Wisconsin - Department of Soil Science." University of Wisconsin Department of Soil Science. University of Wisconsin, Spring 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

A"!

Zublena, J. P. "Poultry Manure as a Fertilizer Source." Index. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Nov. 1997. Web. 09 Apr. 2013

"Rapitest PH Soil Tester, Model 1612." Rapitest PH Soil Tester, Model 1612. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2013.

BBN. "Randomize This!" Field Studies, Science Binder. BB&N Science Department, 03 Jan. 2013. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

Academic, Journals. "Effect of Poultry Manure Rates on Soil Acidity in an Ultisol." Http://scialert.net/jindex.php?issn=1816-4978. International Journal of Soil Science 2, 2007. Web.

A#!

Covering Soil pH
The Effect of Canopy Coverage (%) on Soil pH

Emma Voligny Lucia Winton

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Acknowledgments Works Cited

Primary Author Winton, Lucia Voligny, Emma Winton, Lucia Voligny, Emma Winton, Lucia 4 5 6

Page 3

8 11 11

ABSTRACT pH is a significant factor that affects the growth and health of plants which is why it was tested in the experiment. The objective of this experiment was to find how the canopy coverage affected the soil pH and how this affected the organisms and plants growing in forests at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. It was expected that with more canopy coverage, the soil pH would be higher because with more canopy coverage, there wouldnt be as much acid rain that got to the soil, therefore making it more basic. The procedure for this experiment was to measure the canopy coverage and take eight samples of soil at each of the three locations categorized by canopy coverage: minimum canopy coverage, maximum canopy coverage, and medium canopy coverage. Then the soil pH was tested, using Rapitest Soil Test Kit, and recorded. The results showed that the hypothesis was not supported. The maximum canopy coverage had a lower pH than the others, and the minimum canopy coverage had a higher pH than both medium canopy coverage and maximum canopy coverage. This was because of the tree type (coniferous/deciduous), which wasnt properly controlled for the different levels of the independent variable. This could affect the pH because the soil near coniferous trees is more acidic than the soil of deciduous trees.

INTRODUCTION The pH (power of hydrogen) is the measure of acidity and alkalinity based on the concentration of hydrogen ions (SBI, www.the-compost-gardener.com). pH can range from 0 to 14. A pH of 0 would be a very strong acid and pH of 14 would be a strong base. pH is a necessity to all organisms, because it is a measure of acidity or alkality (www.the-compost-gardener.com/). Without acidity or alkalinity, necessary nutrients would be unavailable. This would be because pH can affect the bonds created between molecules. Certain bonds, like water (two hydrogens plus one oxygen) would not bond very well without some sort of acidity or alkalinity (Hudak-Wise,http://www.ncagr.gov/). In soil, too much acidity or if a bond is too basic can make some nutrients more available to the soil, but some less available. Without certain nutrients though, it is very hard for organisms to survive.That is why there has to be a healthy balance. All soil has a pH, just like many organisms and bonds. However, the natural form of the soil is often compromised when different factors like human disturbances, location, weather, plant run off and organisms living in the soil are in contact with the soil. When it rains, the rain also has a pH. In Massachusetts, there tends to be acidic rain (Krug, gen2.ca). The healthy level of soil pH tends to be between 4.0 and 5.0 (www.epa.gov). Plant run off is another major factor in the pH of soil. If there is more acidic rain, the soil directly in contact with the rain will be more acidic. When it rains, not all plants absorb the water, some simply do not use the water and let it go. This is called plant run-off. It is a major factor in soil pH because plant run off can be either too acidic or too basic, leaving the plants underneath struggling and the plants nearby receive too much (or not enough) nutrients, and the soil is unbalanced (Krug, http://gen2.ca). The experiment conducted at Drumlin Farms measured the effect of canopy coverage on soil pH. In this experiment the MAS Forest, one of Drumlin Farms four forests, was used to measure the pH of soil based on the canopy coverage. Canopy coverage is the percent of how much tree canopy is overlying the forest floor (Kelly, snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu). Often, canopy coverage is associated with shadiness. Canopy coverage in the MAS Forest varies from a very high percentage to a very low percentage. The MAS Forest is located across from South Great Road with minimal human contact. Since human contact can affect pH, and there is a variation of canopy coverage, the MAS Forest is an ideal location.With little or no canopy coverage, the soil tends to be more acidic because there is more direct contact with acidic rain and could dissolve soil layers (Krug, gen2.ca). The purpose of this experiment is to find whether the canopy coverage affects the pH of soil, and if so in what way. The independent variable for this experiment is the canopy coverage ranking, the maximum (95%) the minimum (0%) and some (50%) . The canopy coverage will be approximated with a densitometer. A densitometer is a device that is held vertical to a tree and an estimated percentage of how much of the canopy coverage is viewable is taken. The dependent variable will be the soil pH, measured on a scale of 0 to 14 with a test kit. In this experiment, it is important that there are variables that are controlled to prevent errors from occurring. This means that the same type pH testing powder is used, the same procedure is followed. All samples will be tested using the same water, the data is a collected on the same day to prevent different weather changing the pH, and the same depth of soil will be taken. This is due to the fact that there is a six to eight inch depth that is the best for pH (Troxler, www.ncagr.gov). The hypothesis set for is: If the soil with the least canopy coverage is tested, then the soil pH will be higher because with
4

more canopy coverage less acidic rain will mix with the soil, therefore making it have a higher pH (more basic) (Krug, http://gen2.ca) because acid rain slowly changes the pH of soil. This experiment will show how the pH of soil can be affected depending on the canopy coverage and access to acidic rain. Right now, there is very little research showing which has more effect on the soil; access to acidic or the canopy coverage and plant run off. This experiment will give a better understanding of what changes the pH more. In this experiment, finding the canopy coverages effect on the pH of soil can help biologists and plant experts understand and give explanations as to why the pH is either acidic or basic or why the plants are growing the way they are. MATERIALS AND METHODS In order to make this experiment most precise and accurate, it was critical to follow the same procedure for each trial and variable. After arriving at the MAS forest in Drumlin Farm, Lincoln, MA, three different areas were marked; one with maximum canopy coverage, one with little to no canopy coverage, and one with medium canopy coverage. At each of the marked areas the percentage of canopy coverage was estimated using a densitometer. To estimate the canopy coverage, the person holding the densitometer stood directly under the tree and looked up through the densitometer and record the percentage canopy coverage for each of the three areas by seeing how much of the sky was obscured, and measuring with the grid lines (refer to diagram four). It was made sure that the densitometer was leveled out so that the spirit levels were in the middle. In order to take the soil sample, an area with the correct amount of canopy coverage was spotted out. Next the leaves were cleared off from the spot with the desired canopy coverage. Then, the auger was inserted into the soil and a soil sample the size of the full auger was taken and emptied into a labeled 5cm x 5cm plastic container. The auger was inserted six inches, as that is the depth at which the best soil pH reading can be collected (Troxler, www.ncagr.gov). This was repeated eight times at each location (creating a total of twenty-four times). Once all the soil samples were taken, a soil sample from one of the sites trials was individually filled to the soil fill line on the RapiTest pH Test Kit as seen in figure two. Then the green soil pH capsule filled with powder was emptied into the test chamber (refer to diagram in Figure three) and distilled water was added to the soil and filled up to the fill with water line. After thoroughly mixing up the soil, capsule, and distilled water by shaking the kit, it was left to rest for about one minute, or until soil set at the bottom. Then, the color was matched up to the color chart
5

(red, which is acidic, to green, which is basic) and the pH was recorded in the tables. This pH test was then repeated with the next twenty-three soil samples.

RESULTS Table 1: The effect of canopy coverage (%) on soil pH

Graph 1: The effect of canopy coverage (%) on soil pH

Graph 1 is a representation of the pH of soil with different amounts of canopy coverage in the MAS Forest at Drumlin Farms, Lincoln, Massachusetts. The maximum amount of canopy coverage (95%) showed that the soil pH, on average, was 5.06. 5.06 is an acidic pH. The average soil pH for the minimum canopy coverage (0%) was 6.31. 6.31 was the most basic data collected, but 6.31 is still in the acidic range of soil. This was surprising because it was expected that minimum canopy coverage would be the most acidic. Finally, the average soil pH for the medium canopy coverage (50%) was at 5.94. The maximum canopy coverage was the most precise, while the medium canopy coverage was the least precise. The medium canopy coverage category showed to be the least precise, with a standard deviation of .24. The minimum canopy coverage had a standard deviation of .17 and the maximum canopy coverage had a standard deviation of .11. However, the only error bars that slightly overlap are the minimum canopy coverage and medium canopy coverage. Overall, the data collected was consistently precise. None of the data was very different from another.

Figure 1: This is an image of a soil sample being taken in the least amount of canopy coverage section. There were many dead leaves and small sticks. Underneath some of the leaves, there were emerging green plants and very few pine needles.
7

Figure 2: This is an image of the site with medium canopy coverage. There were many fallen trees and dead leaves. Nearby, there were some pine needles. Here, there was a medium layer of sticks and leaves. Again, there were small green plants.

Figure 3: There was a two--inch layer of pine needles that had to be brushed away in order to take a soil sample. There were mostly dead pine needles, but there were some recently fallen pine needles and pinecones. There were fewer sticks than in any other sample site.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this experiment was to find out how the different levels of canopy coverage (maximum, minimum, or medium) affect the soil pH and how this could help explain why the organisms living in the soil are there, and what organisms are there. The hypothesis set forth was: If the soil with the most canopy coverage is tested, then the soil pH will be higher because with more canopy coverage less acidic rain will mix with the soil, making it have a higher, more basic pH (Krug,
8

http://gen2.ca/DBHS/ScholarlyArticles/Katherine%20Leiva.pdf). The hypothesis was not supported, because some tests were taken closer to coniferous trees, which causes the soil pH to become more acidic. Although the maximum canopy coverage was conclusively different from the others, it did not have the highest pH like predicted; it had the lowest pH. This could be because this soil sample was taken next to a coniferous tree. The plant run off of a coniferous tree has a lower (more acidic) pH (Covert, http://passel.unl.edu/). This is because the tree residue also traps the moisture in the soil which makes it more acidic (Twelvepole, http://www.doityourself.com). If it was warmer outside and the deciduous had full canopies instead of bare branches, the soil samples could have all been taken next to deciduous trees in the MAS forest. This would eliminate the variable of coniferous run off. A new hypothesis would be: If an area next to a deciduous tree with minimum canopy coverage was tested, then the soil pH would be the lowest because with less canopy coverage the easier it is for acidic rain to get to the soil, therefore making the soil more acidic (Krug, http://gen2.ca/DBHS/ScholarlyArticles/Katherine%20Leiva.pdf). Although, trials and samples were taken around all coniferous trees (as that was a controlled variable because the results would vary depending on the tree type), some were taken closer to the tree (maximum canopy coverage) and some were taken farther from the tree (minimum). Also, the medium level of canopy coverage was taken near coniferous and deciduous trees. The residue from coniferous trees tends to be more acidic than deciduous trees which is why the soil pH from the maximum coverage tree was lowest. Also, the medium canopy coverage was taken from near coniferous and deciduous trees (Covert, http://passel.unl.edu/). When looking at error bars, all of the results are conclusive. The errors bars for minimum canopy coverage and medium canopy coverage are close to overlapping and though some could argue that they do overlap, they do not. Maximum canopy coverage (95%) had a conclusively lower pH than both medium canopy coverage and minimum canopy coverage with an average pH of 5.06. medium canopy coverage (50%) had a conclusively higher pH than maximum canopy coverage and a conclusively lower pH than minimum canopy coverage with an average pH of 5.94. Minimum canopy coverage (0%) had a conclusively higher pH than both medium canopy coverage and maximum canopy coverage with a pH of 6.31. The error bars are very small, indicating a high level of precision in the results. However, this precision could be an error because the different soil sample trials were taken from relatively the same spot (about three cm apart)with some small variations. Although precision is always good, one couldnt be fully confident in this experiment because the trials were taken fairly close together, allowing not very much variation in sampling area for each trial. Even the highest pH (minimum canopy coverage) still had an acidic soil (just less acidic than the others). This is because with minimum canopy coverage rain gets to the soil easier, leaching the magnesium and calcium in the soil which decreases the soil pH. Although the acidic rain makes the soil more acidic, compared to the other independent variables, it isnt that acidic. This is because the
9

coniferous trees pH is lower and effects the pH more than the rain (Covert, http://passel.unl.edu/). The rain here in Massachusetts has a pH of 4.9, but only some of this stays in the soil because it evaporates (Gay, David http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/pdfs/LabpH2010.pdf). Although this is true, there were other factors that changed the pH. One of the more prominent ones was the fact that the soil tested wasnt near any coniferous trees, which would make the soil pH more acidic because the pine needles trap the moisture in the soil. So instead the pH was left acidic (because of the acidic rain) but not as acidic as the others (because there were no coniferous trees nearby (Covert, http://passel.unl.edu/). The medium amount of canopy coverage had both coniferous and deciduous trees nearby. Even though the samples were purposefully taken near the coniferous trees, there were still deciduous trees in the area. Finally, there was the maximum canopy coverage samples which were taken directly underneath a coniferous tree that was surrounded by other coniferous trees. This made the soil very acidic because of the coniferous residue and pine needles covering the ground (Wheaton, www.richsoil.com). This field study could be modified by conducting it in the summer or during a season when deciduous trees had a full canopy because deciduous trees do not have a large affect on the pH. That way there wouldnt have to be any coniferous trees nearby that could possibly affect the soil pH. Also the study could be conducted on a flat ground to erase any errors involving the different pH depending on the elevation or slope. Although there were some errors, there was still a sufficient amount of data collected, it would have been more accurate to have data collected from more of a variation of spots, with the same percent of canopy coverage, instead of all in one general spot. That way there would be more variation in the trials, and less bias to just one spot by having all trials in the same soil. The most significant errors were that there were different type of trees (coniferous and deciduous) around where the soil samples were taken and the fact that some samples were taken on a slope which could change the amount of acid rain that got absorbed into the soil. And also there were leaves and pine needles covering the ground, so not all the soil could get rain in it. This could change the soil pH depending on the area. These errors could be eliminated by conducting the experiment during the summer (where deciduous trees would have a full canopy) and where there wouldnt be as many fallen leaves on the ground. If the samples could be taken near deciduous trees, the residue from coniferous trees wouldnt change the pH and there wouldnt. Finally, if the soil samples were taken from areas where there was little to no slope, this wouldnt affect the results. After conducting this experiment, an idea for a future investigation would be, how slope or elevation affects the soil pH. This information would help farmers, gardeners, or anyone else who is trying to grow crops in their soil to know which part of a hill would be best for planting. For instance, if there was a big hill (like the drumlin in Drumlin Farms), where would be the point on that hill that had the most acidic soil, and which points would have the least acidic? Another idea for a future investigation would be, how canopy coverage affects other essential nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous or potassium. Is there any correlation? Knowing how canopy coverage affects the soils essential nutrients
10

could help farmers and gardeners who are trying to make their soil as healthy as possible.

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all the staff at Drumlin Farms in Lincoln for allowing us to use their forests and assisting us in doing our research. Without the staff at Drumlin Farms, we would have had trouble finding sites to collect data. Our staff member who accompanied us was very helpful, she answered our questions and was constantly checking in with us to make sure we were okay. I would also like to thanks our science teacher, Ms. LaRocca. She provided endless resources and helped us understand our research. In addition, I would like to help Ken Stumpf of Geographic Resource Solutions for donating densitometers for our research, because without it we would have had to use a makeshift densitometer. Finally, I would like to thank my partner Lucia Winton for continuously editing, giving positive feedback and helping conduct our research for the Knights of Science project. She always came ready to work and help me understand our data, and if we didnt know the answer, she was resourceful and always found an answer. In order to create and execute this study, lots of people were working hard to help all of the students and make sure each project was a success. I would just like to recognize the people that significantly affected my experiment in a positive way. First off, I would like to thank Ms. LaRocca for helping my partner and I with our project whenever we seemed stuck. Not only did she answer all of our questions, but she also would go above and beyond to make sure our study worked out. Next, I would like to thank our guide and Drumlin Farms staff member for working with us and answering every question we had, whether it was relevant or just out of curiosity. She went out of her way to give a detailed answer that only an expert could give. This whole experiment wouldnt have had been able to happen without Ken Stumpf from Geographic Resource Solutions, who donated the class four densitometers so four groups didnt have to share one. I also couldnt have done any of this experiment without my partner, Emma Voligny. She understood the plan from the start when I still wasnt sure what was going on. Emma also thought of everything and would volunteer to bring supplies in and to plan beforehand. I can honestly say that she thought of everything and had new ideas to things I hadnt even thought of. Thank you all so much, I couldnt have done it without you. WORKS CITED Lucia: "Soils - Part 4: Soil PH." Plant and Soil Sciences ELibrary. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.<http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1130447041 &topicorder=6&maxto=10 > Soil Test Kit. Woodstock: Luster Leaf Products, n.d. Print.
12

"SNAMP Glossary." SNAMP:. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/about/snamp-glossary />. Spector, Christi. "National Aeronautics and Space Administration." Soil Science Education. NASA, 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://soil.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.php?section=88> Troxler, Steve. "Agronomic Services." NCDA&CS Agronomic Division. NCDA&CS Agronomic Services Division, 2 July 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/stfaqs.htm>. Using the RapiTest Soil Test Kit." Luster Leaf. Luster Leaf Products, Inc., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www.lusterleaf.com/img/instruction/1601_instruction.pdf>. "What Is Soil PH?" Soil PH. SBI, 2008. Web. 05 Mar. 2013. <http://www.the-compost-gardener.com/soil-ph.html>. Emma: Hydrogen Ion Concentration as PH from Measurements Made at the Central Analytical Laboratory, 2010." EPA. National Atmospheric Deposition Program/, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/pdfs/LabpH2010.pdf> Kelly, Rebecca. "Soil Health and Fertility." How Earthworms Can Help Your Soil. NSW Government, 16 Aug. 2004. Web. 26 Feb. 2013. <http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/resources/soils/biology/earthworms> Korhonen, Lauri Korhonen, Kari T. Korhonen, Miina Rautiainen, and Pauline Stenberg. Estimation of Forest Canopy Cover: A Comparison of Field Measurement Techniques. Rep. Silva Fennica, 2006. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/full/sf40/sf404577.pdf>. Krug, Edward C., and Charles R. Frink. Acid Rain on Acid Soil: A New Perspective. Www.sciencemag.org. Science Mag, 11 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://gen2.ca/DBHS/ScholarlyArticles/Katherine%20Leiva.pdf>. Jones, Edwin J. "Skip Menu." Trees and Shrubs for Acid Soils. Virginia Cooperative Extension, 1 May 2009. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/430/430-027/430-027.html>. Measuring Canopy Cover Teacher Instructions. Rep. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://ecoplexity.org/files/Measuring_Canopy_Cover_lesson_plan.pdf>.
13

"Rapitest PH Soil Tester, Model 1612." Rapitest PH Soil Tester, Model 1612. Garden Harvest Supply, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www.gardenharvestsupply.com/ProductCart/pc/Rapitest-pH-Soil-Tester-Model-1612 -p3112.htm>.

14

! !
!

Special!thanks!to: !
! Drumlin!Farm,!for!their!support!with!field!trips! and!collecting!data!for!the!8th!graders!projects.! ! Don!Salvatore,!for!sharing!Backyard!Biology!with! families!on!Science!Knight!and!for!his!presentation! workshop!with!the!8th!graders.! ! Eddie!Flores,!for!his!help!setting!up!and!breaking! down!the!Science!Knight!space.! ! Elaine!McGovern!and!Linda!Tran,!for!their! assistance!with!the!details!for!the!Science!Knight! evening.! ! Beth!Brooks,!for!her!help!assisting!with!research.! ! Mary!Dolbear,!the!Middle!School!Faculty,!and!8th! grade!Parents,!for!supporting!the!8th!graders!in! their!quest!to!successfully!design!and!complete! great!projects ! See!all!the!8th!graders!work!in!the!published! 2013%Knights%of%Science%Online%Journal! http://tinyurl.knightsciencejournal2013! ! !
Artwork by David Nazemi