The Effect of Soil Percolation on Plant Density

Maggie Foot and Oliver Resnick

"#$ %&'(
)'*+,-* ./$+-
0$1, 2$+,3
2.+*' 0$
4+5# 6+78$1,9
!

T ABL E OF CONT ENTS

Section Author Page

Abstract Maggie Foot 3

Introduction Maggie Foot 3

Materials and Methods Maggie Foot 5

Results Oliver Resnick 6

Discussion Oliver Resnick 10

Acknowledgments Maggie Foot & Oliver Resnick 12

Works Cited Maggie Foot 13

Works Cited Oliver Resnick 14



























!

ABSTRA CT
Soil percolation is the rate at which water is absorbed by soil. Soil types often
change depending on the distance they are from a pond. When soil types change, the soil
percolation rates change due to the fact that more clay based soils have lower percolation
rates and sandier soils have higher percolation rates. Using this knowledge, an
experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA to see if there was a
correlation between distance from the pond/soil percolation rates and plant density. It was
expected that the closer the distance is to the pond, the plant density will be lower,
because the soil is more clay based and therefore has lower soil percolation rates. To
conduct this experiment, a soup can was inserted three centimeters into soil at specific
distances in each cardinal direction at three different ponds and their surrounding areas. A
certain amount of water was poured into each soup can, and the time needed for the water
to drain was recorded. While this was happening, a 25 cm by 25 cm quadrat was placed
around the can that was being drained, and the amount of living, rooted, green plants
inside the quadrat were hand counted and this number was then recorded. The r value
was 0.01 for the effect of soil percolation on plant density. This allows the conclusion to
be drawn that there is little to none correlation between plant density and soil percolation
rates. However, there was large room for error during the experiment, making it hard to
decide if the information from the experiment was conclusive.

I NTRODUCTI ON
Global warming affects everything, from polar ice caps, to rare plants growing in
the Amazon. Since there has been such exponential population growth, the human race
has started to urbanize, and take up much of the space that used to be for oxygen
producing trees and other plants. Mankind needs plants to survive because plants take in
carbon dioxide, and release the oxygen humans need to breathe. Being autotrophs, which
means they produce their own food, plants are also the ultimate source for all of the
humans race`s food. In order for plants to grow, they need to have a suitable soil
structure, with several factors making this up. One of these is soil percolation. Soil
percolation is the rate at which water is absorbed by soil (treepeople.org). It plays an
important part in soil structure, and can be a determining factor in whether a species of
plants survives or not. Since the human race needs plants to survive in order for their own
survival, everyone should pay more attention to what sort of impact their actions have on
the soil environment, especially soil percolation.
The experiment set forth in this paper will be looking at the effect of soil
percolation on plant density and will be conducted at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts
Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary, in Lincoln, MA. It consists of several different ecosystems
all in the same vicinity, such as forests, fields, and ponds. Once at Drumlin Farm, the
focus will be on the ponds and surrounding wetlands. Bathtub Pond, Poultry Pond, and
Boyce Pond are the three ponds that the data will be collected from. Poultry Pond lies
relatively close to the paved road for outside traffic, and is also directly downhill from a
chicken coop. Bathtub Pond is located in an area with an abundance of underbrush and
trees. Boyce Pond is near Boyce Field, and is surrounded by forest. Wetland soil, such as
the ones around the ponds, is usually much more clay based, and the type of soil is a very
important component of soil percolation rates.
Soil percolation is a crucial aspect when looking at plant growth in an ecosystem.
It is affected by several factors, such as texture, soil structure, and grain size. Grain size is
!

the most prominent factor in soil percolation rates. Gravel, sand, and clay are the most
commonly referred to types of grains. Gravel and sand have the largest particles, which
means that they have large soil pores, also known as 'macropores. Pores are the spaces
in between soil particles/aggregates. It is hard for soil particles of both gravel and sand to
group together and Iorm a clump because they don`t have a large amount oI organic
material (depi.vic.gov.au). This also makes it harder for them to store large amounts of
water, because the water enters quickly, and then keeps draining through. Clay based
soils, on the other hand, have a very fine texture, and very small pores, also known as
'micropores. This makes it very hard Ior water to enter the soil and pass through it. This
means that the soil can store water for longer, but it can be harmful if there is so much
clay that plant roots can`t take root and start to suffocate ( passel.unl.edu). The ideal
growing condition for plants would be if the soil percolation rate is just in the middle,
meaning the soil has a little clay and a little sand, but not enough of either one to
completely tilt the scales.
The proposed experiment is to explore the effect of distance from the pond
(meters), on plant density. The distance from the pond will change soil percolation rates
because as the distance from the pond increases, the soil type will change and therefore
so will the percolation. The experiment will be performed by running soil percolation
tests to the North, South, East, and West of each pond, with each sample being taken at
set distances farther and farther away from the pond. There were two hypotheses in this
experiment, although the main focus in this paper is on the latter one. The first one is if
that the closer the distance is to the pond, then soil percolation rates will be lower,
because the soil is more clay based
(epa.gov/gmpo/education/pdfs/DesigningWetland.pdf). The independent variable was
distance from the pond, and the dependent variable was soil percolation rates. This was
more of a preliminary hypothesis to set the stage for the independent variable in the next
one. The next hypothesis that this paper mostly focuses on is if the soil percolation rates
are lower, then plant density will be lower because the soil is more clay based, and this
makes it more difficult for plants to take root and breathe (Lucke,
www.earthsciweek.org). The independent variable is the soil percolation, which relates to
the first hypothesis because although the soil percolation cannot be controlled, the
distance from the pond can be, which in turn makes distance and percolation rates almost
equal. The dependent variable is plant density. Some control variables designed for this
experiment include distance increment for each measurement, the amount of water used,
the amount of soil tested, the same testing day and the diameter of the coffee can.
The data gathered from this experiment could potentially help farmers in the
future. When farmers at Drumlin Farm are deciding where to put in a new field, they will
want to have the most efficient spot that will produce the largest amount of crops.
Depending on the results of this experiment and where the highest plant density is,
farmers will be able to determine which distances from the ponds will work the best.
Even if their plans do not include a pond, the farmers still should have some idea of the
overall effect of soil percolation on plant density, because the percolation will play a big
part in plant growth no matter the location. Farmers everywhere should keep the relativity
of soil percolation to plant density in mind if they are looking to boost their crop
production and have the most efficient farming possible. If there are more plants, there
will also be more oxygen given off, which is good for the human race. As more people
!

become educated about this relationship, the less space, time, money, and land will be
wasted.

MAT ERI ALS AND ME T HODS
The following was completed in the lab before the experiment was performed in
the field. Three soup cans, (16 ounces), had their tops and bottoms removed using a can
opener. The soup cans then had lines drawn around the inside and outside circumference
so when conducting the experiment in the field it was clear how deep to press the can into
the ground. These lines were made by marking the inside of the coffee can three
centimeters high from the rim with a Sharpie. These marks were repeated in two
centimeter increments around the inside circumference of the coffee can until the line
could be traced connecting all of them together. This process of marking was then
repeated on the outside of the coffee can, on the same end that the inside was marked on,
also three centimeters high. A 16 ounce plastic water bottle had its bottom cut out, and a
line drawn around the outside to where water should be poured to to get 13 ounces. Two
gallon jugs were filled with water.

Figure 1: These are some of the materials that
were used. 1 is a phone opened to a stopwatch.
2 is the permanent marker used to mark the
inside of the coffee cans. 3 is the compass that
was used to align and locate the different
locations at each pond.

The next part consists of the in-field
experimentation that was performed at
Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. The three
locations that data was collected from were
Poultry Pond, Boyce Pond, and Bathtub Pond.
A compass was aligned at each location so that all cardinal directions were known and
accurate. The first testing point was found by going to the location facing North, and
inserting a flag right next to the pond. A meter tape was then used to measure fifteen
meters out, still facing North, and two flags were placed; one at five meters and one at
fifteen meters. One of the soup cans was pushed into the ground right next to the flag,
until the soil came up to the three centimeter line on the can. The plastic 13oz. bottle was
then filled with water to the marked line from one of the two gallon jugs, and was slowly
poured into the soup can. As soon as the first drop of water hit the soil, the stopwatch was
started. While the first can was draining its water, a second can was pushed into the
ground in the same style as how the first one was, but at five meters. Water measured
from the 13 oz. bottle was once again poured into the soup can. While the first and
second ones were draining, a third can was going through the same procedure fifteen
meters away from the first point. Each location was observed and once the water had
fully drained into the soil, the stopwatch was stopped and the time was recorded for each
point. While the water was draining at the first point, a 25 cm. by 25 cm. quadrat was
placed so the flag was in the middle. The number of plants in that area were hand counted
and recorded. Only living, green plants that were rooted in the ground were counted.
After moving to the next data point, a measured five meters away from the first point,
!

still in the northern direction, the procedure of collecting and testing plant density was
repeated. The same procedure for collecting and testing was repeated at the third data
point, the fifteen meter distance. After finishing one cardinal direction, the next one was
tested, until all four had been completed. This entire process was then repeated at each
location.

Figure 2: A sketch of a generic pond and the
general idea of where the samples are going to be
collected at each location.














RESUL TS
Table 1: Poultry Pond- The effect of distance from pond (meters) on soil percolation time
(minutes).

Percolation Time In Minutes
Distance T1 T2 T3 T4 Average
Standard
Deviation
0 m 1.7 2.5 2.7 5.0 3.0 1.2
5 m 4.3 0.4 10.0 0.2 3.7 4.0
15 m 0.4 1.5 9.8 0.9 3.2 3.9


Table 2: Poultry Pond- The effect of distance from pond (meters) on plant density (plants
per quadrat).

Plant Density (plants per quadrat)
Distance T1 T2 T3 T4 Average
Standard
Deviation
0 m 11 3 0 1 3.8 4.3
5 m 7 4 6 3 5.0 3.1
15 m 1 0 0 2 0.8 0.8




!

Table 3: Bathtub Pond- The effect of distance from pond (meters) on soil percolation
time (minutes).

Percolation Time In Minutes
Distance T1 T2 T3 T4 Average
Standard
Deviation
0 m 7.4 4.1 10 6.2 6.9 2.1
5 m 1.6 10 10 10 7.9 3.6
15 m 1.9 8.3 1.6 1.9 3.4 2.8

Table 4: Bathtub Pond- The effect of distance from pond (meters) on plant density (plants
per quadrat).

Plant Density (plants per quadrat)
Distance T1 T2 T3 T4 Average
Standard
Deviation
0 m 2 2 3 0 1.8 1.1
5 m 4 0 2 3 2.3 1.5
15 m 6 1 117 2 31.5 49.4

Table 5: Boyce Pond- The effect of distance from pond (meters) on soil percolation time
(minutes).

"#$%&'()*&+ ,*-# .+ /*+0)#1
2*1)(+%# ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 78#$(9#
:)(+;($;
2#8*()*&+
< 3< =>5 3< ?>@ ?>< 3>@
@ 3< 3< 3< 3< 3<>< <><
3@ 3< 3< 3< 3< 3<>< <><

Table 6: Boyce Pond- The effect of distance from pond (meters) on plant density (plants
per quadrat).

"'(+) 2#+1*)A BC'(+)1 C#$ D0(;$()E
2*1)(+%# ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 78#$(9#
:)(+;($;
2#8*()*&+
< 5 4 4 6 4>F <>F
@ 4 < 5 G 5>< 4>@
3@ G = 3 33 =>5 5>=






!





Graph 1: The effect of distance from pond (m) on percolation time (minutes).


Graph 2: The effect of distance from pond (m) on plant density (plants per quadrat).


!"#$
$#$
"#$
&#$
'#$
(#$
)$#$
)"#$
)&#$
$ * + * )+ *
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
%
*

,
-
)
*
.
(
"
/
0

1)/('*$" ,-0
,-./012
34050.6
3-278
$#$
)$#$
"$#$
9$#$
&$#$
+$#$
'$#$
:$#$
($#$
;$#$
$ * + * )+ *
!
&
'
*
(

1
"
*
/
)
(
2

,
3
&
'
*
(
/
3
"
#

4
.
'
5
#
'
(
0

1)/('*$" ,-0
,-./012
34050.6
3-278
!

Graph 3: The effect of soil percolation time (minutes) on plant density (plants per
quadrat) in each pond.



Graph 4: The effect of soil percolation (minutes) on plant density (plants per quadrat).

Graph 1 shows effect of distance from pond on soil percolation time. At each
distance the data from Poultry Pond and the data from Bathtub Pond are exactly the same.
At 0 meters the percolation at Boyce Pond took longer on average than it did at either of
the other ponds. At 5 meters it was similar. Poultry Pond and Bathtub Pond remained on
level with themselves at eight minutes, however they had a bit longer percolation rates
than at 0 meters, whilst Boyce Pond`s percolation rates were significantly higher. At 15
meters as well, Poultry and Bathtub stayed on level with each other, however decreasing
more than the past two distances. Boyce Pond`s percolation rates remained the same as at
the 5 meter distance with a percolation rate of 10 minutes, and remained larger than the
other two ponds. The error bars at the 0 meter distance all overlapped. At 5 meters they
!" $ %&'(%
!" $ ()(*%+
!" $ ()(+,,
(
-
.
*
/
0(
0-
()( -)( .)( *)( /)( 0()( 0-)(
!
"
#
$
%

'
(
$
)
*
%
+

,

!
"
#
$
%
)

-
(
.

/
0
#
1
.
#
%
2

!(.34"#%*4$ ,5*$0%()2
1234567
895:53;
827<=
!" $ ()(0%,
()(
-)(
.)(
*)(
/)(
0()(
0-)(
( %( 0(( 0%(
6
4
*
"

-
(
.
3
4
"
#
%
*
4
$

,
5
*
$
0
%
(
)
2

!"#$% '($)*%+ ,-"#$%) -(. /0#1.#%2
>=6?=@0
!"

also all overlapped, however at the 15 meter distance Boyce Pond`s error bars did not
overlap with the other two ponds. Poultry and Bathtub however did overlap. As a whole,
all of the data overlapped. The averages for the first ponds percolation rates were three
minutes, three point seven minutes, and three point two minutes, making it a precise data
set. The average percolation rates for Bathtub Pond were six point nine minutes, seven
point nine minutes, and three point four minutes, also making this set imprecise. The
average percolation rates for Boyce Pond were nine minutes, ten minutes and ten
minutes, making it a fairly precise data set. The highest data point was at Boyce Pond,
with a ten minute draining time. The lowest was at Poultry Pond with a three minute
draining time
Graph 2 showed the effect of distance from pond on plant density. At all distances
the plant density appears lowest at Bathtub pond with the exception of the 15 meter data
where it is much higher than any other data point with a plant density of 117 plants per
quadrat. At 0 meters and 5 meters Poultry Pond seems to have the highest average,
however at 15 meters it has less than both Boyce and Bathtub. Every single error bar, in
every data set overlapped. The average plant density`s Ior Poultry Pond were three point
eight plants, five plants, and point eight plants, making this a very imprecise data set. The
average plant density`s at Bathtub Pond were one point eight plants, two point three
plants and thirty one point five plants making this the most imprecise data set. The
average plant density`s in Boyce Pond were two point eight plants, three plants, and six
point three plants making this a fairly imprecise data set. The highest data point on this
graph was at Bathtub Pond with thirty-one point five plants in the area. The lowest data
point was at Poultry Pond with zero point eight plants in the area.
Graph 3 was the effect of percolation time on plant density at each pond. Poultry
Pond`s data points are spread out pretty evenly; however they seemed to cluster in the
area between 2-4 plants and 0-2 seconds. Bathtub Pond`s data points are pretty evenly
spread through the entire thing, and Boyce Pond`s are all lined up along the 10 minute
mark, however it has a good plant density range. The r squared value for Poultry Pond
was .00053, the r squared value for Bathtub Pond was .06, and the r squared value for
Boyce Pond was .03. The Poultry Pond trend line only hits two of the data points with
most significantly above or below. The trend line for Bathtub Pond hits three of the data
points, but still misses a majority of them. The trend line for Boyce Pond also only hits
two data points, however it misses a majority of them significantly.
Graph 4 shows the effect of soil percolation on plant density. The r squared value
is 0.02. There appear to be clusters of data points around 2.00 minutes and 10.00 minutes.
The highest point for plant density was at around 117 plants per quadrat. The lowest
included many data points with zero data points at that quadrat. The highest soil
percolation time were multiple data points clustered around the 10 minute mark and the
lowest points were sub two minutes. The data was very imprecise which is shown
through the large spread of the numbers.

DISCUSSI ON
The core problem being examined in this experiment was whether or not soil
percolation had any affect on plant density. The main hypothesis was: if the distance is
closer to the pond, than plant diversity will be lower because the soil is more clay based,
and therefore percolation rates are lower (Lucke, http://wwwearthsciweek.org/ncli). The
!!

hypothesis was not supported because there was no correlation between soil percolation
and plant density.
There was no correlation between soil percolation and plant density because of a
connection drawn incorrectly. It was assumed that areas with higher clay contents would
have lesser percolation rates because the particles would be smaller, causing water to run
through the spaces in between the particles slower (Lucke,
earthsciweek.org/ncli/edact/properties.html). This was also not supported however,
because the soil closer to the pond presumably had higher clay levels, due to the moisture
of the soil, but there was no correlation between distance from pond and percolation
rates. The aforementioned incorrectly drawn conclusion was in the assumption that the
moisture of the soil had any effect on plant density. It was assumed that the more water
in the soil, then the more plant life could be supported. Assuming this led to the
assumption that the percolation of the soil effected the amount of plants grown, however
it was later researched that although water, obviously, is necessary in plants survival,
there is no immediate correlation between the moisture of the soil and the density of plant
life in that area (Veihmeyer, annualreviews.org/doi/abs). I cannot give a new hypothesis
because the two variables showed no correlation making it irrelevant.
The r squared values show the correlation between the independent and dependent
variable in what is being examined. The closer the r squared value is to one, the higher
correlation the two have. When examining whether there was a correlation between soil
percolation and plant density, the r squared value was .02, which is quite distant from
one. This lead us to believe that there was no conclusive correlation between our
variables. On graphs 1 and 2, there were also no conclusions that could be made because
all the error bars overlapped on both graphs, making it impossible to draw any
completely certain assumptions about the data.
The data set precision was surprisingly high due in part to errors the scientists
made. For example, at Boyce Pond the average percolation rates were 9.0 minutes, 10
minutes, and 10 minutes. This was due to the fact that in order to save time a number of
tests had to be cut off at the 10 minute mark. This means that they could potentially have
gone on for another five minutes anywhere up to a couple hours. This led to very precise,
but very inaccurate data points. The most imprecise data set we had was for Bathtub
Pond`s plant density. The averages were 1.8 plants, 2.3 plants, and 31.5 plants. This was
because one of the distances ended up being on grass, so the scientists counted the blades
of grass, which heightened that specific data set significantly.
The experiment could have definitively been modified for an improved result. To
start, there was no reason to do all three distances, at all four directions, at all four ponds.
This was incredibly excessive, and although it seemed like a good idea in order to have
all necessary samples and a good, varied data set, it ended up being more harm than
good. The amount of time required in order to support these number of samples made it
so the thoroughness of the samples that were gotten were not up to scientific standards.
On any sample that went above ten minutes, the time was marked as 'ten plus and had
to be cut off in order to collect all the data. Cutting out some of these trials would be very
beneficial to anyone who wishes to try this experiment at a later date.
One error that occurred during collection was the can in which the percolation
was tested bent and possibly obstructed the trustworthiness of the results. The cans are
delicate and should be handled with care. Another error that occurred was perfecting the
!"

method in which the plant density is counted. For one grassier area, the blades of grass
were counted individually, while for others, anything green was counted as a plant and
added to the plant density count. In order to maintain the integrity of the experiment these
are errors that could be fixed with some preparation and care.

AC KNOWL EDGMENTS
Maggie Foot:
The Knights of Science project is a very time consuming, important project, and
there are many people I would like to thank for helping me get to where I am right now.
First, I would like to thank my partner Oliver Resnick, for proof-reading, helping
innovate our procedure, detangling my hair from thorns when we were trekking through
the wilderness, and being there to create this project with me. Without him, none of this
would be possible. I would also like to thank the invaluable help of Ms Schultheis. She is
always there to encourage and lend words of wisdom, whether it is editing all the
different pieces, or the daily problem solving, from how to make a graph, to how to avoid
carrying nine gallons of water with us on the day of the experiment. Another thanks goes
out to all of the field guides at Drumlin Farm, who provided insightful knowledge into
the workings of all the different environments. I would like to give a special thanks to
Barbara and Jonathan Foot, who have the utmost patience and are willing to drive to
Lowe`s at ten o`clock at night Ior the sake of science materials. Finally, I would like to
thank everyone that I am not able to name for helping me complete this long and trying
process.

Oliver Resnick:
I would first like to thank Maggie Foot for being nothing short of an amazing
partner. The Knights of Science Project is a long term, and at times tedious project, and it
takes up a major portion of the eighth grade year. Having a partner that is flexible,
forgiving, and always willing to help in any situation you may find yourself in, is
fundamental in the success of this project. That is exactly what Maggie was. No amount
of gratitude could appease the number of thanks I owe to Maggie.
Next I would like to thank Ms. Schultheis, our teacher, for not only assisting us in
any way we needed, and there were times help was necessary, but also for carrying all the
projects, for every group, in both her classes. That is the kind of responsibility and
empathetic teaching attitude that all teachers should come to learn and participate in.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to the four people who anonymously
reviewed our paper. Although I am unaware of who it was, it was great help in editing the
paper. I would also like to thank my parents for reading over the paper and assisting me
in my edits, as well as remaining flexible in order to get supplies necessary to complete
the project








!"

WORKS CI T ED
Author 1
"Factors Affecting Plant Growth." Factors Affecting Plant Growth. The
Agricultural Institute College of Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina
State University, n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.
<http://broome.soil.ncsu.edu/ssc051/Lec3.htm>.
Gardner, Robert. Soil : Green Science Projects for a Sustainable Planet.
Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2011. Print.
"How Do the Properties of Soils Affect Plant Growth." Department of
Environment and Primary Industries. State Government of Victoria,
30 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. <http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-
food/dairy/pastures-management/fertilising-dairy-pastures/how-do-the-properties-
of-soils-affect-plant-growth>.
"How to Do a Percolation Test." Grey Water Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar.
2014.
<http://greywateraction.org/content/how-do-percolation-test>.
"Lecture 8: Soils and Percolation." Geology. Western Washington
University, N.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://geology.wwu.edu/rjmitch/L8_soils_percolation.pdf>. PDF.
Lucke, Kristen. "Soil Properties." Earth Science Week. American
Geosciences Institute, 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.earthsciweek.org/ncli/edact/properties.html>.
"Percolation Test." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 01 Mar. 2014. Web.
09 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_test>.
!"

"Soil Genesis and Development, Lesson 6 - Global Soil Resources and
Distribution."Plant and Soil Sciences ELibrary. National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, n.d. Web. 07 Mar.
2014.<https://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule
=1130447033&topicorder=3&maxto=12&minto=1>.
"Soil Percolation Rates." Tree People. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.treepeople.org/soil-percolation-rates>.
Author 2
Lucke, Kristen. "Soil Properties." Earth Science Weekly. American Geosciences Institute,
2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
<http://wwwearthsciweek.org/ncli/edact/properties.html>.
Veihmeyer, F. J., and A. H. Hendrickson. "Soil Moisture In Relation To Plant Growth."
Annual Reviews. Research4life, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs>.

Cover Art
Soil Quotations. Digital image. Urbantext.illinois.edu. NRCS, n.d. Web. 1 May 2014.
<http://urbanext.illinois.edu/soil/quotes/quotes.htm>.
























That Slope Makes Your Water Look
Turbid!
The Effect of Slope of Pond (degrees) on
Turbidity of Pond (NTU)
By: Brooke Shachoy and Olivia Friend
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section: Author: Page:

Abstract Olivia Friend 2

Introduction Brooke Shachoy 2-3

Materials & Methods Olivia Friend 3-4

Results Brooke Shachoy 5-8

Discussion Olivia Friend 8-9

"
ABSTRACT
Shown by previous experiments, it has been said that increased rainfall on steep
slopes causes higher turbidity readings. This experiment was conducted to test the
relationship between pond slope and water turbidity. It was expected that the pond with
the steepest slope would end up having the highest turbidity results. Two ponds were
used at Drumlin Farm for this study: Ice Pond and Boyce pond. The pond slope was
tested at one location at each pond using a Suunto Clinometer and two meter sticks
aligned along the slope. The turbidity was then tested using a turbidity sensor. Samples of
water were put into the sensor to calculate the data. Two scatter-plot graphs were created
to display the results for each pond. Another was formed to show all of the data together
along with a bar graph that was created to compare averages. It was found that there was
no correlation between pond slope and water turbidity due to a wide range of data and
small r
2
values.

INTRODUCTION
Turbidity is the measurement of the clarity of liquid. It is a visual characteristic of
water and is a measurement of light that is scattered throughout the water, when a light is
shined into a sample (water.usgs.gov). When turbidity levels are high the water becomes
cloudy and foggy and could represent a health hazard. There are many ways to measure
turbidity, but it is most commonly measured with a Vernier Turbidity Sensor. Slope is a
mathematical term that describes the steepness of a line. Slope is measured with a
clinometer, a small device placed with a small window that is looked through at a
meter stick and then the slope is read. When there is a steeper slope around an area of
water, there is thought to be a higher turbidity level, because when rain falls, it could
force soil particles from the ground into the water (www.snh.org).
At Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln, MA, a member of the Massachusetts Audubon
Society, the turbidity and slope of two ponds (Ice & Boyce Ponds) were tested in fourteen
different locations around the two ponds. The levels were then compared to determine
whether or not the slope of the pond effects turbidity. The ponds that were measured will
have designated locations using a randomization technique, and a total of fourteen trials
took place at each pond. The ponds are all different shapes and sizes and ultimately will
have different turbidity levels and slopes of their banks.
An experiment was conducted at the Journal of Sedimentary Research where the
comparison of slope of the ponds effect on turbidity currents. The hypothesis was
supported and it showed that turbidity currents are affected by slope, and that slope and
turbidity have a connection (http://sabotin.ung.si.) Another experiment was conducted
specifically about the rainfall amounts at Duke University testing the effect the slope-
flow on the deposition from a continuous turbidity current (scholars.duke.edu). It was
found that with a steeper slope the turbidity currents are stronger. Both of these
experiments will provide useful information for this study and will be helpful resources
to look back at after the Drumlin Farm visit is concluded.
The independent variable for the experiment is slope (degrees) of the ponds
(Boyce and Ice Ponds) at Drumlin Farm. The dependent variable is the turbidity (NTU)
of the ponds water. The turbidity will be tested at equal distance from the ponds outer
edge, with the same turbidity sensor. The weather on the day Drumlin Farm is visited
will be an important factor for our analysis because as mentioned before, rainfall can
"
affect turbidity. The Clinometer and meter sticks that will be used to determine slope will
be used consistently throughout each trial. All of the variables listed above will be
controlled during the trials. The hypothesis for the experiment is: If the pond slope is
steeper, then the waters turbidity will be higher, because rainfall moves downward on
steeper slopes which will result in the pond having more soil particles suspended in the
water thus increasing the turbidity (Giambelluca, Thomas) (A.J. Jakeman)
(www.snh.org).
Various important lessons will be learned from the experiment. Some lessons that
will be learned are that turbidity measures the clarity of the water and slope measures the
steepness of the bank of the pond. It could potentially show a correlation between slope
and turbidity. Turbidity affects the health of fish. Some direct influences are sediments at
the bottoms of lakes and ponds, smothering fish eggs, and affecting organisms living at
the bottom of a lake or pond (Newton, David E.). How to use a clinometer and a turbidity
sensor will also be mentioned (see materials and methods). New knowledge will be
discovered about slope and turbidity and new skills will be developed, in completion of
this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
At Drumlin Farm (Figure 1), located in Lincoln, MA, two wetlands were chosen
to test the effect of pond slope (degrees) on water turbidity (NTU). In each location, Ice
Pond and Boyce Pond, one spot around the perimeter of the pond was chosen to measure
the slope. To do this, Rand (n)*x was plugged into the calculator. N stood for the
number of random numbers wanted, so 5 was plugged in. X stood for the maximum
number, so 360 was plugged in, since this number represents the total degrees within a
compass. One of the randomized numbers was chosen to be the primary test location for
fourteen trials. At the pond, one person held the compass and moved it around until the
random number was pinpointed. The waters turbidity was tested directly in front of that
specific area. These steps were repeated for each of the two ponds.
In each wetland, the slope of the ponds outer edge was measured with a Suunto
clinometer (figure 2) measured in degrees. To measure the pond slopes, one individual
stood at the top of the slope with a meter stick. The other person stood at the bottom of
the slope with another meter stick and the Suunto clinometer. This person held the
clinometer up to one eye so that the conversion table was on the right and the spinning
dial was on the left. The meter sticks at the top and bottom of the slope were aligned.
Then the individual with the clinometer looked through the viewfinder and lined it up
with the horizontal line that was created between the meter sticks. This same person
noted where the horizontal line crossed the left hand scale inside the viewfinder. Then
that number was used on the conversion table located on the other side of the clinometer.
The slope measurement was recorded and these steps were repeated for fourteen trials at
each pond.






"




















Water was collected at each sample site using a 50 mL cylinder adjacent to where
the slope was measured. The cylinder was filled 2/3 of the way. The Vernier sensor
(figure 3) was connected to a TI-Inspire Calculator to become activated. The pond water
was transferred from the graduated cylinder into the blank cuvette. The lid was sealed on
top and the outside of the cuvette was wiped with a tissue to eliminate any excess water.
The mark on the cuvette was aligned with the mark on the turbidity sensor, and the
cuvette was placed in the slot inside the sensor (figure 4). The display was watched until
the turbidity readings showed. Once the final reading was displayed, the turbidity
measurement, measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), was recorded. These
two procedures for collecting and testing were repeated at each of the two wetlands for
fourteen trials.












RESULTS

Table #1: The effect of Slope of Pond on Turbidity of Pond at Boyce Pond
Figure 2: Suunto Clinometer used for
calculating the slope at each pond.
Figure 3: Vernier Turbidity Sensor used
for measuring turbidity (NTU). Two
cuvettes used for putting the samples in.
Figure 4: Cuvette placed in the
sensor, ready to be tested.
Figure1: Drumlin Farm, the location where
testing took place. Destinations 11, 12, & 13
were used.
"
RESULTS

Trial Slope (degrees) Turbidity (NTU)
1 17 525.4
2 11 525.4
3 19 395.5
4 17 401.7
5 14 137.9
6 14 404.7
7 11 306.2
8 17 321.9
9 14 162.7
10 9 398.5
11 17 237.2
12 14 341.2
13 17 154.9
14 11 175.3
Average 14 320.6
Standard Deviation 3 131.2

Graph #1: The effect of slope of pond on Turbidity of pond at Boyce Pond




Graphs 1 and 2 show the effect of pond slope versus turbidity at each individual
pond. In graph 1, Boyce Pond, the r
2
value is 4.9E-05 and at Ice Pond, the r
2
value is
0.00059. The highest slope was 39 degrees and the lowest was 24 degrees. The highest
#$ % &'()*+"
+
,++
-++
.++
&++
"++
/++
+ " ,+ ," -+

"
#
$
%
&
'
&
(
)

*
+
"
,
-

./012 *'23$224-

"
calculated turbidity was 529.4 NTU and the lowest was 191.0 NTU. This represents a
wide range of data with low data set precision.

Table #2: The effect of slope of pond on turbidity of pond at Ice Pond

Trial Slope Turbidity
1 39 191.0
2 33 525.4
3 35 525.4
4 33 401.7
5 35 276.4
6 35 496.0
7 31 210.6
8 29 525.4
9 37 221.3
10 29 347.0
11 31 252.3
12 35 405.7
13 24 217.5
14 33 529.4
Average 33 360.6
Standard Deviation 4 136.4

Graph #2: The Effect of slope of pond on turbidity of pond at Ice Pond



#$ % &'&&&()
&'&
*&&'&
+&&'&
,&&'&
-&&'&
(&&'&
"&&'&
& *& +& ,& -& (&

"
#
$
%
&
'
&
(
)

*
+
"
,
-

./012 *'23$224-
7



In graph 3 the slope and the turbidity are shown at Ice and Boyce Ponds. The data
is very similar and has a huge range within it. The smallest slope at each of the ponds was
9 degrees and the largest slope was 39 degrees. The r
2
value for both Ice and Boyce
Ponds is 0.02785, which is very small. A correlation between pond slope and turbidity
cannot be concluded.

Graph #4: The effect of a ponds average slope on average turbidity at Ice and Boyce
Ponds




R` = u.u278S
u
1uu
2uu
Suu
4uu
Suu
6uu
u S 1u 1S 2u 2S Su SS 4u 4S
!
"
#
$
%
&
%
'
(

*
+
!
,
-

./012 *&23#224-
u
Su
1uu
1Su
2uu
2Su
Suu
SSu
4uu
4Su
Suu
Aveiage slope Aveiage Tuibiuity
!
"
#
$
%
&
%
'
(

*
+
!
,
-

5
6
&

.
/
0
1
2

*
&
2
3
#
2
2
4
-

Boyce Ponu
Ice Ponu
uiaph #S: The effect of slope on tuibiuity at Ice anu Boyce Ponus
"
Graph 4 displays the effect of average pond slope on average turbidity. The
largest turbidity reading at both ponds was 529.4 NTU and the smallest turbidity reading
was 137.9 NTU The error bars do not overlap for the average slope at Boyce Pond with
the average slope at Ice Pond, however the average turbidity at Boyce and Ice ponds do
overlap.

DISCUSSION
This experiment was conducted to test the correlation between pond slope and
water turbidity. The hypothesis set forth in this experiment was: If the pond slope is
steeper, then the waters turbidity will be higher, because rainfall moves downward on
steeper slopes which will result in the pond having more soil particles suspended in the
water thus increasing turbidity (Giambelluca, Thomas) (A.J. Jakeman) (www.snh.org).
The hypothesis was not supported due to a wide range of data and small r
2
values.
As seen in Graphs 1 and 2, there is minimal correlation between the slope of the
ponds and the ponds turbidity. An r
2
value was calculated to determine if there was a
trend in the data. For Boyce Pond, the r
2
value was E-05=10
-5
. The trend line crossed
through only two points of data along with the r
2
value being extremely small. Looking at
the graph, there are many points that are located far from the trend line, concluding that
there is wide range of data. By looking at the r
2
value and the trend line, it cannot be
concluded that there is a correlation between pond slope and water turbidity.
For Ice pond, the r
2
value was 0.00059 and the trend line only hit one of the
fourteen points of data. Comparing the two r
2
values at each pond, Ice Ponds

r
2
value is
smaller. The data is spread out, concluding that there is a wide range of data points.
Because of the small r
2
value and a trend line that doesnt cross through the majority of
the data, it can be concluded that there is no correlation between pond slope and water
turbidity. However, if errors did not impact the experiment, the results could have been
more conclusive.
For both Ice and Boyce Pond, the graphs display low data-set precision because
the data points are scattered throughout the graph, and the majority do not line up with
the trend line. There is minimal confidence in the data, because the data ranges are so
wide. If the data had been more precise, there would have been more confidence in the
results. Sufficient data was not collected due to the fact that no correlation was found.
However, the fact that no correlation was found is relevant. If there had been another
fourteen data points, a small correlation could have maybe been found.
The average turbidity and slope for both ponds was also compared. This is
displayed in graph 4. The error bars for the slope averages did not overlap, showing that
Ice pond had a conclusively steeper slope than Boyce. However, the error bars for the
turbidity averages overlap, so it cannot be concluded which pond had higher turbidity
readings.
A previous experiment was tested to see if canopy coverage effected rainfall. The
results showed that the higher percentage of canopy coverage, the less rainfall hitting the
ground. At Boyce Pond, one of the ponds being tested in this experiment, there were
large trees surrounding the pond, which could have been the cause for an extremely low
correlation in the results. The trees overhead could allow less rain to hit the pond slopes,
causing fewer soil particles to drift into the pond, thus causing lower turbidity (Xiao,
Qingfu). As for Ice Pond, the slopes may have been too stable to have soil drop into the
"
pond, creating turbid water. It is said that slopes are created in certain areas to be able to
deal with its natural surroundings and weather conditions. Its best to avoid having loose
slopes around areas of water, because it creates more turbid water (http://ntl.bts.gov) The
rainfall in the area could have also been light, not putting enough force on the slopes to
collapse (Nelson, Stephen A.).
There are aspects of the experiment that could be modified for this experiment to
be improved in the future. The first would be to test the waters turbidity exactly in front
of where the slope was tested. This could result in a more precise range of data, because
each testing would have been done in the same exact spot each time. Another thing to be
modified would be to pick ponds that werent covered by large tree canopies because that
could decrease the ponds turbidity (www.itreetools.org).
A few errors occurred while carrying out the two procedures. While trying to test
turbidity at Bathtub Pond, the calculator stopped working, so data could not be collected
at that pond, so only two ponds were included in the correlation. Next time, it would be
helpful to bring an extra calculator just incase it broke down. In the procedure, it said to
test the turbidity directly in front of where the slopes were calculated. It was difficult to
do that at Boyce pond, because there was so much brush blocking the area of water that
needed to be accessed. This was a common error during our data collection and the
turbidity was tested two feet from where the slope was measured. For future research of
this particular study, scientists could test pond slope on turbidity at different points
around the pond, instead of in just one area. This could help farmers at Drumlin Farm
know if the water is too turbid in certain areas on one pond. The farmers could then
figure out ways to make the pond slopes shallower, so less rainfall would force soil into
the pond.

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS
I would like to thank multiple people for helping me complete this experiment. At
Drumlin Farm, our teacher naturalists, Carol and Danielle, were very helpful with
directing us to safe points around the pond to collect our data along with supplying us
with information that enhanced our study. Ms. Jamison was a great help at Ice Pond,
hanging with my partner and I when we completed our testing. Mrs. Hardy supervised
my group at Boyce pond, and helped us complete our data collection in a timely fashion.
I would also like to thank Mr. Sarzana for watching over our testing at Bathtub Pond,
even though we ended up not collecting data there. Mr. Ewins was very helpful in class
when Mrs. Svatek was absent by helping my partner and I fully understand how to use
the clinometer. Mrs. Svatek was a huge help; first introducing us to this interesting
project and then helping us to get organized and prepared for our Drumlin Farm visit.
Lastly, I would like to personally thank Brooke, for being a cooperative and hard working
partner who supplied our group with many materials for our poster.
--Olivia Friend

Many people supplied me with helpful information to help me complete this
project. I would like to thank Ms. Jamison, Ms. Hardy, and Mr. Sarzana for chaperoning
us at the three ponds we visited and providing us with useful information, and hanging
out with us after we had completed all of our testing. I would like to thank Mr. Ewins for
helping my partner and I with the clinometer, which enhanced the accuracy of our trials.
"#
Ms. Svatek was a key component to the success of our project. She supported us through
the whole process and I am very grateful for all of her encouragement and suggestions. I
would like to thank my partner Olivia, for all of her hard work and commitment through
out this project; I never could have done it without her. It was challenging with my
absence, but we managed and are very proud of our work. I would also like to thank my
parents for allowing Olivia and I to take over our dining room and turn it into a major
sparkle fest, and my nanny Susan. for delivering our final printed report.

--Brooke Shachoy

WORKS CITED: AUTHOR 1

"Common Forestry Tools." SCFC Learn Some. South Carolina Forestry Commission,
2010. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. <http://www.state.sc.us/forest/edutools.htm>.

Giambelluca, Thomas. "Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii." Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Geography
Department- University at Hawai'i Manoa, 2011. Web. 07 Mar. 2014.
<http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu/rainfall.html>

Jakeman, A.J. PDF. Cranberra, Australia: Center for Research and Enviornmental
Studies, n.d. <http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM95/Vol%201/Post.pdf>


Leong. "The Effect of Antecedent Rainfall on Slope Stability." Springer Link. Springer,
Part of Springer Science+Business Media, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1013129725263>.

Nelson, Stephen A. "Slope Stability." Slope Stability. EENS 3050, 10 Dec. 2013. Web.
16 Apr. 2014. <http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/slopestability.htm>

"Rivers and Their Catchments: Causes and Effects of Turbid Water." Rivers and Their
Catchments: Causes and Effects of Turbid Water. Information and Advisory Note
Number 22, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. <http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-
line/advisorynotes/22/22.htm>.

Slope Stabilization and Stability of Cuts and Fills. Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, RITA, Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
<http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24600/24650/Chapters/M_Ch11_Slope_Stabilization
. pdf.>

"STEM Inventory." STEM Inventory. The Center for STEM, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
<http://inventory.stemideas.org/view_item.php?item_id=34>.

Turbidity. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.

""
"Vernier Turbidity Sensor." Vernier Turbidity Sensor. VWR, 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
<https://ca.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?product_id=8891865>.

Xiao, Qingfu, Gregory McPherson, James R. Simpson, and Susan L. Ustin. "RAINFALL
INTERCEPTION BY SACRAMENTO'S URBAN FOREST." Itreetools., July 1998.
Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.itreetools.org/streets/resources/rainfall_interception_by_sacramentos_uf_xia
o.pdf>.




WORKS CITED: AUTHOR 2

HORACIO TONIOLO,1* GARY PARKER,1{ VAUGHAN VOLLER,1 AND R. T.
BEAUBOUEF2. DEPOSITIONAL TURBIDITY CURRENTS IN DIAPIRIC
MINIBASINS ON THE CONTINENTAL SLOPE: EXPERIMENTS: NUMERICAL
SIMULATION AND UPSCALING. Houston, Texas: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, n.d. PDF.

Jakeman, A.J. PDF. Cranberra, Australia: Center for Research and Enviornmental
Studies, n.d. <http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM95/Vol%201/Post.pdf>

Leong. "The Effect of Antecedent Rainfall on Slope Stability." Springer Link. Springer,
Part of Springer Science+Business Media, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1013129725263>.

Newton, David E. Chemistry of the Environment. New York: Facts on File, 2007. Print.

Perlman, Howard. "Turbidity." - Water Properties, USGS Water Science School. USGS,
24 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. <http://water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>.

Pratson, Lincoln F. "Scholars@Duke." Clinoform Progradation by Turbidity Currents:
Modeling and Experiments. Journal of Sedimental Research, 2008. Web. 12 Mar.
2014. <https://scholars.duke.edu/display/pub705216>.

"Rivers and Their Catchments: Causes and Effects of Turbid Water." Rivers and Their
Catchments: Causes and Effects of Turbid Water. Information and Advisory Note
Number 22, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. <http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-
line/advisorynotes/22/22.htm>.














The Effect of Dissolved Oxygen
(Mg/L) on Water Turbidity (NTU)

By Kim Vetrano and Lidia Goldberg
Table of Contents

Section Author Page
Abstract Goldberg 1
Introduction Vetrano 1
Materials and Methods Goldberg 3
Results Vetrano 4
Discussion Goldberg 8
Acknowledgements Goldberg & Vetrano 10
Works Cited Goldberg 10
Works Cited Vetrano 11

ABSTRACT

At the previous trip to Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts, it was noticed that many
of the ponds looked dark and muddy. Also it was noticed that there were many living
organisms in the water. The initial question asked here was, does the level of dissolved
oxygen affect the turbidity? The experiment tested was the effect of dissolved oxygen
(mg/L) on water turbidity (NTU). The idea of the hypothesis of this experiment was, the
ponds with the higher dissolved oxygen would have a higher turbidity. This experiment
was conducted by taking water sample a meter from the shore, and then they were
collected in a plastic cup, attached to the end of a mater stick. Then they were tested for
their dissolved oxygen level and turbidity level using a dissolved oxygen probe, and
turbidity sensor. Both were Vernier, and the Vernier Lab Quest2 was used to collect the
data. It was shown that there were data effects between the variables of the study. All the
ponds had around the same average dissolved oxygen, the turbidity varied drastically
from pond to pond.

INTRODUCTION

Turbidity is the measure of the blurriness, or haziness, of water and is caused by small,
individual particles suspended in water. One factor that could possibly affect the turbidity
of water is dissolved oxygen due to the warming of water, which cannot hold as much
oxygen, or the amount of organisms taking in oxygen within the pond
(http://water.usgs.gov). Dissolved Oxygen is the measure of the amount of oxygen
present in water. Fast moving streams tend to consist of more dissolved oxygen while
stationary ponds or lakes tend to contain less. A body of water gains oxygen from the
atmosphere, so rushing water will dissolve more oxygen when it meets the surface than
still water. Dissolved Oxygen is crucial for organisms living in bodies of water because it
is needed in order to breathe. Breathing becomes more difficult when there is less
dissolved oxygen in the water (http://water.usgs.gov). A healthy amount of dissolved
oxygen within a body of water is a minimum of 4-5 ppm. With too little, dissolved
oxygen can cause the death of wildlife, while too much does not have an effect on the
organisms. It is important to note the specific factors that could vary the dissolved
oxygen level such as water temperature, sunlight, living organisms, plant life and algae
(http://www.lenntech.com).
This experiment will be conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts.
Drumlin Farm consists of a variety of different environments, including five ponds. The
three ponds that are going to be tested are Vernal Pool, Boyce Pond, and Poultry Pond.
Vernal Pool is a seasonal body of water located north east of the Drumlin which fills up
by melted snow, rainwater and rising groundwater. Boyce Pond is southeast of the
drumlin and contains many different organisms and is surrounded by trees. Located
northeast of the Drumlin is Poultry Pond which contains a thin layer of duckweed in the
Fall and a variety of tree species.
A high level of dissolved oxygen is not only beneficial to fish, but it also results
in healthier water for humans. However, it is also important to note that if there is too
little dissolved oxygen within a body of water it can be extremely harmful to aquatic life
and potentially deadly (http://www.unc.edu). A sign that a pond may include a
insignificant amount of dissolved oxygen is if the water temperature is warm. This is
usually because the pond is overpopulated with bacteria or aquatic life, causing the
dissolved oxygen to be used in great amounts. Another factor that affects the dissolved
oxygen level within a pond is over fertilization of water plants by runoff from farm fields
containing chemicals that make up fertilizers. When this occurs, it causes excessive water
plant growth, causing more dissolved oxygen to be used by them. When these plants
eventually die, bacteria multiplies after using it as food causing dissolved oxygen to then
be used in a greater amount (http://www.lenntech.com).
One factor that can affect water turbidity is plant and animal decay. Once the
bodies die, suspended particles are released, making the water more more turbid.
Flooding can also be a reason for water turbidity. As the water rises during flooding, it
can bring along new, both organic and inorganic, particles from the land surface
(http://bcn.boulder.co.us).
The experiment that will be conducted is the effect of dissolved oxygen (ppm) on
water turbidity (NTU) at Poultry, Vernal, and Boyce Ponds. The objective of this
experiment is to test if the dissolved oxygen level affects the water turbidity level at each
pond. This will be tested by using a Vernier Dissolved Oxygen Probe and Vernier
Turbidity Sensor. The independent variable for this experiment is the dissolved oxygen
level of each pond in parts per million (ppm), and the dependent variable is the water
turbidity level in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Important controlled variables
consist of the amount of water tested, number of trials at each pond, method collected,
and depth of water tested. The hypothesis set forth for this experiment is: if a pond has a
lower dissolved oxygen level, then it will result in a higher turbidity, or blurriness of
water, because lower dissolved oxygen indicates more microscopic organisms taking up
dissolved oxygen causing the water to be more turbid (http://water.usgs.gov).
This experiment and research will demonstrate how dissolved oxygen can
influence turbidity which can affect aquatic life significantly. It is very important for the
naturalists to be aware of the effects of dissolved oxygen in order to limit the risk of
overpopulating ponds. It is essential to understand this concept well so that runoff from
farm field fertilizers are reduced in order to not harm the aquatic life active within the
pond. It is also important to know why there is more dissolved oxygen and a larger
turbidity level within a pond as opposed to another pond. The more people who know
about the effect of dissolved oxygen of different ponds on water turbidity, the more
beneficial it is to the world because not only will it improve water quality, but it will also
keep living organisms healthy.


!"#$%&"'( "*+ !$#,-+(

Each pond was measured like a compass, 360 around. The ponds that were tested from
were Boyce Pond, Poultry Pond and the Vernal Pool at Drumlin Farm. Before the arrival
at Drumlin Farm a T-inspire calculator was used to generate 8 random degrees to test
from. The sections being tested from were marked with flags. At each section a sample of
water was tested for turbidity and dissolved oxygen. In total there was sixteen data points
per pond, resulting in 48 total data points.

Figure 1: Map of Drumlin Farm

Figure 2: Vernier Turbidity Sensor (www.vernier.com)

First the Vernier Turbidity Sensor was
connected to the Vernier Lab Quest2. The data
collection software was turned on. The sensor
was calibrated according to the directions given.
The water sample was taken a meter from the
shoreline using a plastic cup, attached to the
meter stick. The water was collected deep
enough for the cup to be submerged. Once the
probe was calibrated, the water sample being
tested was poured into a cuvette (a straight
sided, clear container holding liquid samples.) The cuvette was wiped with a tissue and
placed into the sensor. The marks were aligned correctly. The lid was closed, and the
turbidity was measured, using NTU units. The data was then recorded in the table
according to pond, and section. (Out of eight sections)

The Vernier Dissolved Oxygen Probe was connected to the Vernier Lab Quest2. The data
collection software was turned on and the probe was calibrated according to the
directions specified. The blue cap as removed from the probe. The tip of the probe was
placed into the same water sample that was tested for turbidity. The probe was not fully
submerged because the whole probe is not waterproof. The probe was stirred gently in
the water. Then the dissolved oxygen was recorded using Mg/L units. If the probe was
left un-moving in the water, the dissolved oxygen levels would have begun to drop.


Figure 3: Vernier Dissolved Oxygen
(www.vernier.com)







































RESULTS

According to Graph 4, there was minimal correlation between an increase of dissolved
oxygen and an increase of turbidity. Graph 3 shows Poultry Pond had the highest r
2
value
of 0.16418, compared to Graph 2 where Boyce Pond had a value of 0.03286 and Graph 1
where Vernal Pool had a value of 0.001. The r
2
value for all three ponds was 0.12614,
which is a stronger correlation than the three ponds individually. Vernal Pool had the
highest average turbidity (344.3 NTU) compared to Boyce Pond (72.4 NTU) and Poultry
Pond (27.0 NTU). The highest turbidity level at Vernal Pool was 527.3 NTU, while the
lowest was 140.5 NTU. Although these data points were relatively high compared to the
other ponds, the average dissolved oxygen for this same pond (7.4 mg/L) was close to the
average dissolved oxygen level at Boyce Pond (10.6 mg/L) and Poultry Pond (9.3 mg/L).
According to Graph 4, out of all three ponds the highest turbidity level was 527.3 NTU
(at Vernal Pool) and the lowest was -0.4 NTU (at Boyce Pond). The highest level of
dissolved oxygen was 15.8 mg/L and the lowest was -0.4 mg/L (both at Boyce Pond).
Data point six at Poultry Pond was considered an outlier because the turbidity level was
79 NTU, which is far off from the other data points. Out of all three ponds, the lowest
standard deviation for dissolved oxygen was at Vernal Pool (0.5) and the highest was at
Boyce Pond (5.1). The highest standard deviation for turbidity was at Vernal Pool (166.9)
while the lowest was at Poultry Pond (15.7).

Each pond consisted of many unique and interesting features. At Poultry Pond there were
many thorn bushes and trees surrounding the pond. The Pond also consisted of a large
wooden dock and the surface of the water looked dark and cloudy. At Boyce Pond, many
dead sticks and bushes surrounded the pond as well, along with narrow streams and
muddy pathways. There were also large trees standing in the middle of the pond and
towards the shore. Finally, Vernal Pool was the smallest pond out of the three. This pond
consisted of somewhat clear pathways along the shore and a large tree that had uprooted
the ground and fallen into the muddy water.

DISCUSSION

The experiment conducted, tested the effect of dissolved oxygen on water turbidity. The
hypothesis for this experiment was: if a pond has a lower dissolved oxygen level, then it
will result in a higher turbidity, or blurriness of water, because lower dissolved oxygen
indicates more microscopic organisms taking up dissolved oxygen causing the water to
be more turbid (water.usgs.gov). The hypothesis was not supported. An alternate
hypothesis could have been: if a pond has a higher dissolved oxygen level, then it will
result in a higher turbidity, or murkiness of water, because higher dissolved oxygen
indicates more microscopic organisms taking up dissolved oxygen causing the water to
be more turbid (water.usgs.gov). The ponds with the higher dissolved oxygen had the
higher turbidity. This was because the more dissolved oxygen there was, the more pond
life there was. If there were more pond life then the water would be more turbid because
it is crowded with organisms.
At the last pond, Vernal Pool, the water turbidity varied greatly. The lowest water
turbidity was 140.5 NTU, whereas the highest was 527.3 NTU. Vernal Pool had many
uprooted trees bending into it. This caused for some water samples to have more soil and
mud in them. Since water turbidity is measured by the clarity of the water, those testing
locations were affected greatly (www.dnr.mo.gov/.) The other ponds, however, had
turbidity averages that were not as high. Boyce Ponds average turbidity was 72.4 NTU
and Poultry Ponds was, 27 NTU. The total r
2
was 0.12614. The r
2
value was very low for
the data, and it shows a weak correlation. Therefore the trend line does not fit the data
well. In conclusion the data seems relative to the pond that it was tested from. For
example Vernal Pool had the muddiest shoreline, and the test were taken only a meter
from the shore, so it would ultimately have the highest average turbidity
(water.usgs.gov.)
With research, and an experiment done at USGS water science school, show that
rapidly moving water contains more dissolved oxygen. (water.usgs.gov). While
collecting results, this was supported because the ponds are all un-moving. The data at
Boyce and Poultry Pond is all part of a relative range in Dissolved oxygen and Turbidity.
However, at Vernal pool the water turbidity ranges from 140.5 NTU to 527.3 NTU. This
impacts the confidence in the data because its unclear if the tests were taken too deep
underwater, or if it was the actual turbidity, due to the fallen trees.
If this experiment were to be done again, one thing would need to be altered. The
method for collecting samples a meter from the shoreline would have to be strengthened.
Every so often the cup would fall off the end because the tape was not strong enough, and
was not waterproof. Sufficient data was collected for the experiment at hand. However, if
the test was to be done again, samples could be taken every 30 around the pond instead
of random degrees. This is suggested because the tests done at Vernal Pool were more to
one side of the pond than the other. This could have affected the results.
Some errors occurred when testing for water samples was taken the cup fell off
the meter stick. This could have affected the results because then that water sample was
not taken as far from the shoreline as the others. This error could be easily eliminated by
using stronger tape. Also, something stronger that measured a meter could be used, and
bucket could be attached to that. A question that arose was, does the amount of aquatic
life affect the water turbidity? Since dissolved oxygen is needed for aquatic life, the type
and number of organisms could be tested. This test affects dissolved oxygen levels
because plants go through photosynthesis and release oxygen into the water.
(bcn.boulder.co.us) The organisms effect the dissolved oxygen concentration in the
water. A future experiment conducted could be, the amount of aquatic life on water
turbidity and dissolved oxygen.

"#$%&'()*+),)%-.

Author 1

First off, I would like to thank Ms. Svatek, for making the whole experiment
possible, and as easy as possible. Thank you Ms. Hardy for helping us at our first
rotation, Boyce Pond. She helped us figure out the weather, and the time. Thank you Mr.
Rossiter and Ms. Moon, for attending to the habitats, and making sure everyone was all
set to collect data. Thank you naturalist Danielle, you helped us find the easiest way
around Boyce Pond. You told us about some of the factors that affected the ponds
turbidity and dissolved oxygen. Thank you, naturalist Sally for teaching Kim and I about
Vernal Pools, and how they are affected. Also, thank you for being eager to collect our
results to see how our experiments affected the ponds at Drumlin. Thank you to my mom,
for helping me gather some materials from the house, such as tape, and cups. Finally,
thank you Kim for being a great partner. You helped me understand things when I was
confused, and made the whole testing process much more fun!

Author 2

There are a few specific people that I have not yet thanked that I would like to do so for
making this experiment possible and productive. Firstly, I would like to thank Ms. Svatek
for introducing and teaching us this material and for answering the many questions
brought up during the process. Thank you for advising not only us but balancing the
whole class. I would also like to thank all the teacher naturalists for helping us to each
habitat and answering many questions. Thank you Danielle for guiding me a safe route
around the pond in order to collect data in the locations chosen. Thank you Sally for
teaching us the basic details of the ponds while throwing in quite a bit of interesting
history to the discussion. Next, I would like to thank all the science teachers, Ms.
Larocca, Mr. Ewins, and Ms. Schultheis, for keeping us on track and giving helpful
advice to us that include the safest and fastest way to collect data. I would also like to
thank the department for lending us useful materials for data collection. Thank you to Ms.
Hardy, Mr. Rossiter, and Ms. Moon for attending the habitats and making sure everyone
was safe and on track. Lastly, I would like to thank my amazing partner, Lidia Goldberg,
for being so productive and always making the process exciting and interesting. Thanks
for keeping me focused and for lending a helpful hand when needed. I am very grateful
for all these people who helped to make this experiment run smoothly. Thank you.

WORKS CITED

Author 1

Pauley, Sara Parker. Water Quality Parameters. Environmental Services Program.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, n.d. Web. 4 Mar. 2014
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/waterquality-parameters.htm
Walker, Pam, and Elaine Wood. Build and Use of Turbidity Tube. Environmental
Science Experiments. New York: Facts on File, 2010. 27-28. Print.
Water Properties: Dissolved Oxygen. Dissolved Oxygen, from USGS Water Science for
Schools: All about Water. The USGS Water Science School, n.d. Web. 05 Mar.
2014 http://water.usgs.gov/edu/dissolved oxygen.html
"Why Oxygen Dissolved in Water Is Important." Why Is Important the Oxygen Dissolved
in Water. Lenntech, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.lenntech.com/why_the_oxygen_dissolved_is_important.htm>.
"Turbidity." - Water Properties, USGS Water Science School. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar.
2014. <http://water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html>.




Author 2
BASIN: General Information on Turbidity. BASIN: General Information on Turbidity.
USGS Water Quality Monitoring, n.d. Web 01 Apr. 2014
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/NEW/info/Turb.html>.
"Chesapeake Bay Program." Bay Blog RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/bayecosystem/dissolvedoxygen>.
Pauley, Sara Parker. Water Quality Parameters. Environmental Services Program.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, n.d. Web. 4 Mar. 2014
<http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/waterquality-parameters.htm>
Shifflett, Shawn Dayson. Water and Sustainability: Dissolved Oxygen. Water and
Sustainability: Dissolved Oxyegn. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2014
<http://www.unc.edu/~shashi/TablePages/dissolvedoxygen.html.>
Walker, Pam, and Elaine Wood. Build and Use of Turbidity Tube. Environmental
Science Experiments. New York: Facts on File, 2010. 27-28. Print.
Water Properties: Dissolved Oxygen. Dissolved Oxygen, from USGS Water Science for
Schools: All about Water. The USGS Water Science School, n.d. Web. 05 Mar.
2014 http://water.usgs.gov/edu/dissolved oxygen.html
"Why Oxygen Dissolved in Water Is Important." Why Is Important the Oxygen Dissolved
in Water. Lenntech, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.lenntech.com/why_the_oxygen_dissolved_is_important.htm>.


!"# %&&#'( )& *+,)-. *)/#0
), 1)23 42(0)5#,



6. 78'. 9)3:&+0; 1<=>?
@ %/# 902AB"+C 1<=>D

"
!"#$% '( )'*!%*!+


#$%&'() *+&,(- ./0$ 1+23$-

*34&-/%& 5(678/-3 9

:)&-(7+%&'() 5-'24,/; 9<=

>/&$-'/64 ? >$&,(74 5(678/-3 =<@

A$4+6&4 5-'24,/; B<""

C'4%+44'() 5(678/-3 "9<"=

*%D)(;6$70$2$)&4 5(678/-3 ? 5-'24,/; "=

E(-D4 F'&$7 5(678/-3 ? 5-'24,/; "G<"H

2
!"#$%!&$
Nitiogen, founu in soil, is an essential nutiient foi plants. Canopy covei is the
peicentage of tiee canopy that coveis the foiest flooi. The expeiiment testeu the
effect of canopy covei on soil nitiogen. It was conuucteu using samples fiom two
foiests, (Spiuce anu Bemlock) at Biumlin Faim in Lincoln, NA. The pioceuuie foi
this expeiiment was to take soil samples, anu measuie the canopy covei at ianuom
points in each of the foiests. The samples weie latei testeu using a nitiogen piobe.
This infoimation was useu to figuie out if theie was a coiielation between canopy
covei anu soil nitiogen. It was expecteu that if theie was a smallei canopy covei,
then theie woulu be less nitiogen in the soil because moie exposuie to iain causes
soil to leach, theiefoie uiaining the nutiients fiom it. (Buchholz anu Killpack,
extension.missouii.euu) The iesults showeu that canopy covei hau veiy little impact
on soil nitiogen; theie was a weak coiielation, with an i
2
value close to u. Theie was
also laige eiioi bai oveilap, meaning no conclusions coulu be uiawn fiom this uata.

()$%*+,&$(*)
Nitiogen is essential foi all plants anu animals. Soil ieceives nitiogen thiough
the nitiogen cycle. The basic stiuctuie of the nitiogen cycle is that plants anu
animals waste iots, which auus nitiogen to the soil. Then, bacteiia changes nitiogen
into a foim that the plants can use. Next, the plants absoib the nitiogen anu then
people anu animals eat the plants. Aftei this, the animal anu plant wastes auu
nitiogen to the soil again, anu the cycle is completeu. As seen in the oveiview,
bacteiia is an impoitant pait of the nitiogen because bacteiia changes the nitiogen
into an inoiganic foim that the plants can then use (Buchholz anu Killpack,
extension.missouii.euu).
Theie aie many uiffeient ways that nitiogen is uepositeu into soil: such as
iain (atmospheiic nitiogen), nitiogen feitilizeis, anu plants anu animals
uecomposing (Buchholz anu Killpack, extension.missouii.euu). Nitiogen can be lost
in one of foui ways: uenitiification, volatilization, iunoff, anu leaching (Buchholz
anu Killpack, extension.missouii.euu). Benitiification is when bacteiia changes
nitiate in the soil into atmospheiic nitiogen anu the nitiogen is lost by going into
the atmospheie. volatilization happens when bacteiia changes manuies anu
feitilizeis on the soil suiface into gases anu the nitiogen is lost in the atmospheie
again. Runoff is when iainwatei washes the nitiogen fiom manuie anu feitilizeis
away fiom the soil suiface anu into iiveis. Leaching is when iainwatei uiains
nitiogen away fiom the suiface to ueep in the soil anu the plants aie unable to
obtain the nitiogen. 0nce nitiogen is lost, it can be ieplaceu thiough the nitiogen
cycle by miciooiganisms that live in the soil (Buchholz anu Killpack,
extension.missouii.euu).
Canopy covei affects the amount of iain that iuns thiough soil. Rain can
cause nitiogen to be lost thiough leaching. Thus if theie is a laige canopy covei, the
chance of the soil leaching is lowei compaieu to if the canopy covei is small. An
expeiiment conuucteu by Leanne Naloney showeu that plants, unueineath canopy
coveis, have a high giowth iates anu appeai to be healthy (Leanne Naloney,
natuie.beikeley.euu). This shows that theie is enough nitiogen in the soil, which is
helping the plants giow anu iemain healthy. Canopy covei will also influence the
S
amount of nutiients in the soil. Bense canopy coveis block light fiom the soil oi
plants. The canopy layei itself is just below the emeigent layei (Piescott,
tieephys.oxfoiujouinals.oig). The emeigent layei is the tallest of tiees anu has a
laige amount of sunlight (sii.caltech.euu).
The inuepenuent vaiiable foi this expeiiment is canopy covei (%). The
uepenuent vaiiable is soil nitiogen (ppm). The contiolleu vaiiables aie the tools,
pioceuuie, numbei of tiials in each habitat, amount of soil sample, anu amount of
CaCl2. The hypothesis is, if theie is a smallei canopy covei, then theie will be less
nitiogen in the soil, because moie exposuie to iain causes soil to leach, theiefoie
uiaining the nutiients fiom it (Buchholz anu Killpack, extension.missouii.euu).
The objective of this expeiiment is to finu out the effect canopy covei has on
soil nitiogen. This expeiiment coulu help faimeis who caie foi the ciops, because
nitiogen is essential foi plant giowth. If the faimeis leain how nitiogen is lost anu
what has an affect on it, then the faimeis can keep it fiom happening anu ciops will
be tallei. The ciops will also giow to the full height if they can have all of the
nitiogen that is available. Faimeis can leain what the tiees aie auuing, anu how the
tiees aie affecting the faim. This will infoim eveiyone about soil anu tiees anu help
the faimeis with ciops oveiall.

"#$%&'#() #*+ "%$,-+)
The soil samples that weie taken anu testeu weie collecteu fiom Spiuce anu
Bemlock Foiest at Biumlin Faim in Lincoln, Nassachusetts on Apiil 7
th
, 2u14. Fiist,
in the Spiuce foiest, a 2u by Su metei iectangle was maikeu by putting stakes at the
foui coineis. The quauiant was mappeu in the fielu notebook. Next, the fiist paitnei
went to the fiist coinei, anu walkeu five paces to a ianuom point. Aftei picking a
ianuom point, the fiist paitnei lookeu thiough the uensitometei anu measuieu the
canopy covei twice, anu the two measuiements weie aveiageu. The iesults weie
iecoiueu. A 2S mL soil sample was collecteu fiom this point anu put in a containei
foi latei testing. This was iepeateu thiee times at the fiist coinei. This was then
iepeateu at the seconu anu thiiu coineis. The paitnei then walkeu to the fouith
coinei anu chose six ianuom points anu iepeateu the pievious steps. These steps
weie iepeateu at Bemlock foiest.
Latei, the soil samples weie mixeu with CaCl2 in oiuei to piepaie the sample
foi nitiogen testing. Fiist, foi each sample, 2S giams of soil was measuieu anu put
into a 2Su mL beakei. Next, Su mL of CaCl2 was auueu to each sample fiom a
giauuateu cylinuei anu stiiieu eveiy thiee minutes foi fifteen minutes. Aftei this,
the soil samples sat foi five minutes to settle befoie being testeu.
While the soils weie settling, the Nitiate sensoi was connecteu to the TI Nspiie
calculatoi. To calibiate the piobe, the calculatoi was set to two-point calibiation anu
staiteu with high calibiation. The piobe was then put into the calibiation solution,
making suie the watei level uiun't exceeu the aiiow. Next, the piobe was taken out
of high stanuaiu anu iinseu well with uistilleu watei. The piobe was blotteu gently
with a papei towel. The piobe was then placeu in low stanuaiu anu the pievious
steps weie iepeateu but on low calibiation anu the iefeience value was enteieu as
one. The piobe was iinseu well with uistilleu watei, anu blotteu uiy. It was
"
#$%&'()*( (& +(&', (-, %'&., #* (-, +(&')/, .&((0, 1-,* #( 1)+ *&( #* 2+, 34()-$,'5
!"#$%&'()&'"( +"#',-".$"&)/ 01'$"1$ &2,-3(2 !"43',567
8& (,+( (-, *#('&/,* #* (-, +&#0 +)$%0,+5 )9(,' :)0#.')(#*/ (-, %'&.,5 (-,
;#(')(, +,*+&' 1)+ '#*+,< 1#(- <#+(#00,< 1)(,'7 ;,=(5 (-, 0#>2#< 1)+ <')#*,<
:&$%0,(,0? 9'&$ ,):- +&#0 +)$%0, )*< %&2',< #*(& ) +,:&*< .,)@,'7 8& $,)+2', (-,
*#(')(,5 (-, (#% &9 (-, +,*+&' 1)+ %0):,< #*(& (-, 0#>2#<5 $)@#*/ +2', (-, 1-#(, <&(+
&* (-, %'&., 1,', +2.$,'/,<7 8-, 0#>2#< 1)+ (-,* +(#'',< /,*(0? (-',, (#$,+ 2+#*/
(-, %'&.,7 A9(,' (-, ',)<#*/ +().#0#B,< &* (-, :)0:20)(&'5 (-, *#('&/,* C)02, 1)+
',:&'<,<7 8-#+ 1)+ <&*, 9&' ,):- &9 (-, +&#0 +)$%0,+7 A9(,' (-#+5 (-, +,*+&' 1)+
'#*+,< 1#(- <#+(#00,< 1)(,' )*< ',(2'*,< (& #(+ +(&')/, :&*()#*,'7















D#/2', EF G,)+2'#*/ :)*&%? D#/2', HF G,)+2'#*/ >2)<')*(
:&C,' 2+#*/ <,*+#(&$,(,'7 )( 4%'2:, 9&',+(7

















D#/2', IF 4&#0 +)$%0,+ ',)<? 9&' D#/2', "F J)J0H .,#*/ )<<,< (&
(,+(#*/7 :&*()#*,'+7
"























#$%&'( ") *+'&,( -.'(/0 1$2%'23 4$05 '261.3 +.$60/ 32'7(18





















#$%&'( 9) :(3;.,7 -.'(/0 1$2%'23 4$05 '261.3 +.$60/ 32'7(18
"
!"#$%&#

#$%&' () #*' '++',- .+ ,$/.01 ,.2'3 ./ 4.5& /5-3.6'/ 70089 $- :'8&.,; +.3'4-

:'8&.,;
<2'3$6'
=$/.01
=.2'3 7>9
?5-3.6'/
@'2'&4
70089
#35$& ( A(BA CBA
#35$& C D"BE CBF
#35$& G DCBA CBG
#35$& H "BE CBG
#35$& A (FBA (BD
#35$& " ("BE CBH
#35$& F FFBA CBC
#35$& I ICBA CBH
#35$& D ((BE CBF
#35$& (E GFBA GBH
#35$& (( A"BE CBC
#35$& (C "FBA CBH
#35$& (G CFBA CBF
#35$& (H CFBA CBG
#35$& (A GFBA CBC
<2'3$6' H"BD CBH
J-B K'2B GEBG EBG




















"

#$%&' () #*' '++',- .+ ,$/.01 ,.2'3 ./ 4.5& /5-3.6'/ 70089 $- :03;,' +.3'4-

:03;,'
<2'3$6'
=$/.01
=.2'3 7>9
?5-3.6'/
@'2'&4
70089
#35$& A A"BC DBA
#35$& ( E(BC FBA
#35$& F F(BC FB(
#35$& D G(BH (BA
#35$& C GABC FB(
#35$& E IDBH (BC
#35$& " D(BC (BF
#35$& I CABC (BD
#35$& G F"BC (BA
#35$& AH C(BC (B(
#35$& AA EABC (B(
#35$& A( C"BC (BF
#35$& AF EABC (B(
#35$& AD IABC (B(
#35$& AC EIBC (BF
<2'3$6' CGBE (BE
:-B J'2B (AB" HBE


#$%&' F) #*' '++',- .+ *$%5-$- ./ 4.5& /5-3.6'/ 70089

:.5& ?5-3.6'/ 70089
K$%5-$- <2'3$6' :-B J'2B
K'8&.,L (BD HBF
:03;,' (BE HBE












"
#$%&' () *'+ +,,+-. /, -%0/&1 -/2+$ /0 3/45 04.$/6+0 7&&89




#$%&' :) *'+ +,,+-. /, '%;4.%. /0 %2+$%6+ -%0/&1 -/2+$ 7<9







=> ? @A(BCC( => ? :ACDE@B
@
@AB
(
(AB
:
:AB
F
FAB
C
CAB
@ :@ C@ G@ "@ (@@ (:@
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)

*
(
+
(
,
-

.
/
/
0
1

23)&/4 2&+(% .51
H&$I-+
J+85/-K
@
(@
:@
F@
C@
B@
G@
L@
"@
M@
J+85/-K H&$I-+
6
+
(
%
3
'
(

2
3
)
&
/
4

2
&
+
(
%

.
5
1

738#$3$
"
#$%&' () *'+ +,,+-. /, '%01.%. /2 %3+$%4+ 21.$/4+2 5&&67






#$%&' 8) *'+ +,,+-. /, -%2/&9 -/3+$ 5:7 /2 ;/1< 21.$/4+2 5&&67






=
=>?
@
@>?
A
A>?
(
(>?
B+6</-C D&$E-+
"
#
$
%
&
'
$

(
)
*
+

,
*
-
%
)
'
$
.

/
0
0
1
2

3&4*-&-
FG H =>=A??I
=
=>?
@
@>?
A
A>?
(
(>?
8
8>?
= A= 8= I= J= @== @A=
,
*
-
%
)
'
$
.

5
$
#
$
+
6

/
0
0
1
2

7&.)08 7)#$% /92
"#
$%% &'() *)+,-. /0,123 /+3+ 2'%%0230/ &)'4 504%'26 +7/ 8,)(20 &')0.39
504%'26 1. '70 '& 3-0 (71:(0 &')0.3. +3 ;)(4%17 <+)4 =02+(.0 3-0 &')0.3 1. '7 + -1%%9
81720 13 >+. 3-0 .3+)3 '& .,)17*? 3-0)0 >0)0 +%4'.3 7' %0+@0. '7 3-0 3)00.A17.30+/
3-0 %0+@0. 2'@0) 3-0 *)'(7/9 B-0 %0+@0. 2'@0)17* 3-0 &')0.3 &%'') >0)0 @0)C 4'1.3?
=)'>7? +7/ /0+/9 D+7C '& 3-0 =)+72-0. >0)0 =)'607? 3-(. 3-0 &+%%07 3>1*. 2'@0)0/
3-0 *)'(7/9 $%3-'(*- 8,)(20 >+. 7'3 '7 + -1%%? 13 >+. '70 '& 3-0 &0> &')0.3. 3-+3 -+/
+ *)'>17* *)'(, '& ,%+73. =C 3-0 3)+1%9 B-0)0 >+. +%.' + %+)*0 ,1%0 '& 3>1*. 20730)0/
.3)+1*-3 17 3-0 41//%0 '& 3-0 &')0.3 70E3 3' 3-0 ,%+73.9 $%.'? 3-0)0 >+. + .4+%% .3)0+4
&%'>17* (7/0)70+3- 3-0 =)1/*0 17 3-0 20730) '& 8,)(209
F)+,- '70 .-'>. 3-0 )0%+31'7.-1, =03>007 2+7',C 2'@0) +7/ .'1% 713)'*07 17
3-0 3>' .130. 30.30/9 B-0 G .:(+)0/ @+%(0 &') 504%'26 1. H9IJK#L +7/ 3-0 @+%(0 &')
8,)(20 1. #9"LII"? >-12- 40+7. 3-+3 3-0)0 1. +%4'.3 7' 2'))0%+31'79 M@0)+%%? 8,)(20
-+. + %+)*0) )+7*0 '& /+3+ 3-+7 504%'269 8,)(20 -+. ,'173. 3-+3 +)0 -1*- (, +7/ +
&0> 3-+3 >0)0 .2+330)0/ +)'(7/? >-0)0+. 504%'26N. /+3+ ,'173. +)0 +%% 2%(.30)0/
3'*03-0)9 504%'26N. /+3+ +%.' 307/0/ 3' .3+C 17 + .3)+1*-3 %170? =(3 8,)(20N. /+3+ /1/
7'39 8,)(20N. 3)07/ %170 *'0. 17 + /1+*'7+%? +. 504%'26N. 3)07/ %170 1. 2'4,%030%C
.3)+1*-39
F)+,- 3>' ,)0.073. 3-0 )0%+31'7.-1, =03>007 504%'26 +7/ 8,)(20N. +@0)+*0
2+7',C 2'@0)9 8,)(20 -+. + -1*-0) 2+7',C 2'@0) +@0)+*0 3-+7 504%'269 B-0 +@0)+*0
2+7',C 2'@0). +)0 LO9PQ +7/ IP9OQ? )0.,0231@0%C9 504%'26 -+. + -1*-0) .3+7/+)/
/0@1+31'7 3-+7 8,)(209 B-0 3>' .3+7/+)/ /0@1+31'7. +)0 R#9RQ +7/ H"9SQ?
)0.,0231@0%C9 T'3- '& 3-0 0))') =+). '@0)%+,9
F)+,- 3-)00 .-'>. 3-0 )0%+31'7.-1, =03>007 504%'26 +7/ 8,)(20N. +@0)+*0
713)'*07 %0@0%.9 8,)(20 -+. + -1*-0) +@0)+*0 3-+7 504%'26 &') 713)'*07 %0@0%.9 B-0
+@0)+*0 713)'*07 %0@0%. +)0 +='(3 H9P ,,4 +7/ H9I ,,4? )0.,0231@0%C9 8,)(20 +%.'
-+. + -1*-0) .3+7/+)/ /0@1+31'7 3-+7 504%'269 B-0 3>' .3+7/+)/ /0@1+31'7. +)0 #9P
,,4 +7/ #9R ,,49 U160 *)+,- 3>'? ='3- '& 3-0 0))') =+). '@0)%+, +. >0%%9 504%'26?
+%.'? -+. + .4+%%0) 0))') =+) 3-+7 8,)(209
F)+,- &'() ,)0.073. 3-0 '@0)+%% )0%+31'7.-1, =03>007 2+7',C 2'@0) +7/
713)'*07 %0@0%.9 B-0 G .:(+)0/ @+%(0 1. #9#HLLP9 M@0)+%%? 3-0)0 >+. +%4'.3 7'
2'))0%+31'7 =03>007 3-0 3>' @+)1+=%0.9 B-1. 1. .-'>0/ +. 3-0 G .:(+)0/ @+%(0 1.
.4+%%9 B-0 .%',0 +%.' .-'>. 3-1. =02+(.0 3-0 .%',0 1. &%+3 +7/ 3-0 /+3+ ,'173. +)0 &+)
+>+C &)'4 3-0 .%',0? >-12- 40+7. 3-+3 3-0)0 1. +%4'.3 7' 2'))0%+31'79




""


#$%&'( ") *+'&,( -.'(/0





#$%&'( 1) 2(34.,5 -.'(/0
"#
!"#$%##"&'
$%&' ()*(+&,(-. /0' 12-341.(3 .2 '(( %2/ .+(( 10-2*5 126(+ 077(1.' '2&8
-&.+29(-: $%( %5*2.%('&' 72+ .%&' ()*(+&,(-. /0' &7 .%(+( &' 0 ',088(+ 10-2*5 126(+;
.%(- .%(+( /&88 <( 8('' -&.+29(- &- .%( '2&8 <(104'( ,2+( ()*2'4+( .2 +0&- 104'(' '2&8
.2 8(01%; .%(+(72+( 3+0&-&-9 .%( -4.+&(-.' 7+2, &. =>41%%28? 0-3 @&88*01A;
().(-'&2-:,&''24+&:(34B: $%( %5*2.%('&' /0' -2. '4**2+.(3 &- .%&' ()*(+&,(-.
<(104'( .%( 30.0 /0' &-12-184'&6(:
$%( +('48.' '%2/(3 -2 12++(80.&2- <(./((- 10-2*5 126(+ 0-3 '2&8 -&.+29(-:
C6(- .%249% .%( %5*2.%('&' /0' -2. '4**2+.(3; .%(+( 0+( ,0-5 2.%(+ 701.2+'
<('&3(' 10-2*5 126(+ .%0. 10- &,*01. '2&8 -&.+29(-; 8&A( '2&8 .(,*(+0.4+( 0-3
,2&'.4+( =D1E8(880-; 1.0%+:%0/0&&:(34B: F- .%( 305 27 .%( ()*(+&,(-.; 7+2, .%(
2<'(+60.&2-'; &. /0' 0**0+(-. .%0. .%(+( /(+( ,0-5 8(06(' 2- .%( 72+('. 9+24-3; 0-3
-2. 6(+5 ,0-5 2- .%( .+((': $%&' /0' <(104'( 27 .%( /(0.%(+ 0-3 '(0'2-; 0-3
&,*01.(3 .%( ()*(+&,(-. 9+(0.85: G7 .%(+( %03 <((- ,2+( 8(06(' 2- .%( .+(('; .%(- &.
/2483 %06( <((- (0'&(+ .2 9(. 0 ,2+( 0114+0.( 10-2*5 126(+:
$%( 8(06(' 2- .%( 9+24-3 01.(3 0' 0 <0++&(+ <(./((- .%( '2&8 0-3 0-5 *2''&<8(
+0&-: $%&' 104'(3 .%( '2&8 .2 088 %06( '&,&80+ -&.+29(- 8(6(8'; +(90+38('' 27 .%( 10-2*5
126(+'; <(104'( 8(06(' 126(+(3 088 .%( '2&8: G. &' 08'2 *2''&<8( .%0. &. %03 -2. +0&-(3
*+&2+ .2 .%( 30.0 1288(1.&2-; 0-3 .%&' /2483 %06( 1%0-9(3 .%( 8210.&2- 27 .%(
-4.+&(-.'; &-1843&-9 -&.+29(-; 34( .2 .%( 801A 27 8(01%&-9 =E4++0-; H$%+(0.' .2 I2&8
J408&.5KB: G- 0- ()*(+&,(-. 12-341.(3 &- #L"" <5 M(77 N4A('; 0 *+27(''2+ 0. O4+34(
P-&6(+'&.5; &. /0' 724-3 .%0. 7088(- 8(06(' '82/ 32/- '2&8 -4.+&(-. 1518&-9 0-3
3(12,*2'&.&2- =Q088%(&,(+; *(+34(:(34B: $%&' ,(0-' .%0. .%( 7088(- 8(06(' 2- .%(
9+24-3 34+&-9 .%( N+4,8&- R0+, ()*(+&,(-. *+2%&<&.(3 .%( +0&- 7+2, 3+0&-&-9 .%(
'2&8 27 &.' -4.+&(-.'; .%+249% 8(01%&-9; /%&1% &' *0+. 27 .%( -4.+&(-. 1518(: $%&' 104'(3
.%( 801A 27 12++(80.&2- <(./((- 10-2*5 126(+ 0-3 '2&8 -&.+29(-:
$%( +('48.' 27 .%( ()*(+&,(-. /(+( &-12-184'&6( 72+ <2.% I*+41( 0-3
S(,821A 72+('.': R+2, T+0*% "; .%(+( &' -2 12++(80.&2- <(./((- 10-2*5 126(+ 0-3
'2&8 -&.+29(-: $%(+( &' '&9-&7&10-. (++2+ <0+ 26(+80* 72+ .%( 10-2*5 126(+ 0-3
-&.+29(- 8(6(8 06(+09(' 72+ <2.% 72+('.' &- T+0*% #: $%( (++2+ <0+' /(+( 08'2 80+9(;
,(0-&-9 .%( 30.0 /0' &,*+(1&'(: R+2, 822A&-9 0. T+0*% "; .%( +
#
6084( 72+ S(,821A
72+('. &' :LLLL#U: $%&' '%2/' -2 12++(80.&2- 72+ S(,821A 72+('.: $%( +
#
6084( 72+
I*+41( 72+('. &' L:"VUU"; /%&1% '%2/' 0 /(0A 12++(80.&2- 72+ .%&' 72+('. 0' /(88: F-(
24.85&-9 30.0 *2&-. 72+ I*+41( 72+('. '%2/' 0 %&9% -&.+29(- 8(6(8 72+ 0 ',088(+
10-2*5 126(+: $%&' 'A(/(3 .%( .+(-3; 0-3 /(-. 090&-'. .%( %5*2.%('&' .%0. ',088(+
10-2*5 126(+' /2483 %06( 82/(+ -&.+29(- 0,24-.': W33&.&2-0885; .%(+( &' 8&..8(
12-7&3(-1( &- .%( +('48.'; 0' .%( 30.0 /0' -2. 6(+5 *+(1&'( 72+ .%( 10-2*5 126(+
*(+1(-.09(' 72+ <2.% .%( S(,821A 0-3 I*+41( 72+('.' &- T+0*% #: $%( (++2+ <0+ 72+
.%( S(,821A 72+('. 10-2*5 126(+ 06(+09( /0' ('*(1&0885 80+9( 0-3 &,*+(1&'(: $%&'
/0' ()*(1.(3; 0' .%( '1&(-.&'.' %2*(3 .2 9(. 0 /&3( +0-9( &- 10-2*5 126(+
*(+1(-.09(' .2 '(( %2/ .%(5 3&77(+(3: $%( 30.0 72+ .%( -&.+29(- 8(6(8 06(+09(' &-
T+0*% X 72+ (01% 72+('. /0' '8&9%.85 ,2+( *+(1&'( .%(- .%0. 27 .%( 10-2*5 126(+'; <4.
'.&88 8(03' .2 8&..8( 12-7&3(-1( &- .%('( +('48.' 0' /(88: I477&1&(-. 30.0 /0' -2.
1288(1.(3 72+ 0 608&3 12-184'&2-:
W /05 .2 ,23&75 .%&' ()*(+&,(-. /2483 <( .2 4'( .%( +0-32,&?0.&2-
.(1%-&Y4( 2- .%( $GZ'*&+( 1081480.2+ .2 1%22'( .%( +0-32, *2&-.' &- .%( 72+('.: $%&'
1S
woulu simplify the expeiiment anu eliminate eiiois. Insufficient uata was collecteu
foi this expeiiment uue to the lack of piecision in the uata collection. Theie weie
many possible souices of eiioi uuiing the expeiiment. An impoitant one is that
theie is no exact peicentage foi the canopy covei when using the uensitometei. The
human eye is not completely ieliable. Theie is no way to fix this eiioi foi suie, so it
woulu always be a possible eiioi in futuie expeiiments. Anothei eiioi was that the
same spoon was useu to collect each soil sample, anu this coulu have causeu some
contamination among the soils. A way to fix this woulu be to use a uiffeient spoon
foi each sample oi wash the spoon with uistilleu watei in between samples. Buiing
the nitiogen testing, the amount of CaCl2 auueu was not exactly the same foi each
sample, anu this coulu have affecteu the nitiogen amounts. This coulu be fixeu by
measuiing the CaCl2 piioi to the testing. Also, some of the samples hau moie time
with the CaCl2 because it was impossible to auu it to all of the samples
simultaneously. This coulu be fixeu by having moie scientists to auu the chemicals.
Lastly, anothei eiioi was that the scientists uiu not iinse the stiiiei in between
mixing samples. This coulu have causeu some contamination among the samples as
well. This coulu be easily fixeu by iinsing the stiiiei with uistilleu watei in between
samples. Some lingeiing questions aie: uiu the tempeiatuie on the uay of the
expeiiment affect the uata. Anu uo laigei leaves affect canopy covei.
In futuie expeiiments, these eiiois shoulu be avoiueu, oi fixeu when
possible. If the scientists weie able to conuuct anothei expeiiment, they woulu have
to factoi in the effect of season anu othei factois. This woulu leau to moie piecise
uata, anu moie conciete conclusions woulu be maue about the effect of canopy
covei on soil nitiogen levels at these locations.

!"#$%&'()*(+($,-
I woulu fiist like to thank my paitnei, Lucy, foi being so helpful anu
suppoitive thioughout the pioject even though she was injuieu. She came on the
fielu tiip when she just hau suigeiy, she euiteu my iepoits when she coulu, anu
tiieu to come into school to help me as much as possible. I woulu also like to thank
}oseph anu Lucy Chung foi euiting all my papeis anu offeiing iueas when I was
unsuie what to uo. I woulu like to thank Rachael uolufaib who biought Lucy to the
fielu tiip anu pusheu hei aiounu in a wheelchaii thioughout the whole uay. Without
hei, Lucy woulu not have been able to come to Biumlin Faim anu help collect the
uata. Finally, I woulu like to thank Nis. Schultheis foi answeiing my questions,
helping me when my paitnei was absent, anu euiting my iepoits. Ns. Schultheis
helpeu me anu my paitnei put this whole iepoit togethei anu we both aie foievei
giateful.
Fiist of all, I woulu like to thank my paitnei, Eve uiimshaw, foi being
extiemely flexible anu helpful thioughout oui whole pioject. She hau to put up with
many obstacles, anu I am veiy giateful to hei foi hei unueistanuing my situation. I
woulu also like to thank Ns. Schultheis foi guiuing us thiough oui whole
expeiiment, anu helping us pioblem solve. I am giateful to Rachael uolufaib, who
pusheu me in a wheelchaii at Biumlin Faim on oui expeiiment uay. Lastly, I woulu
like to acknowleuge Biumlin Faim foi having us, anu letting us conuuct oui
expeiiment on theii lanu.
14
!"#$% '()*+

Authoi 1,

"4.4 Nitiogen: A Beveloping Thieat to Bealth." !"#$% "'( )*+"' )$",#-. 0pen 0niveisity,
2uu7. Web. 28 Feb. 2u14.
<http:school.uemo.mooule.netpluginfile.php24u2mou_imscpcontent2Item
sx_suk12S_1_1_4_4.html>.
Ashman, N. R., anu u. Puii. .//$'#0", 120, 130$'3$4 5 6,$"% "'( 62'30/$ 7'#%2(*3#02' #2 120,
130$'3$. 0xfoiu: Blackwell Science, 2uu2. Piint.
"Canopy (biology)." !0809$(0". Wikimeuia Founuation, 2u Feb. 2u14. Web. u8 Nai. 2u14.
<http:en.wikipeuia.oigwikiCanopy_%28biology%29>.
"CBAPTER IIIBI0PBYSICALFACT0RS INPARKLANBNANAuENENT."5:%2;2%$/#%< ="%8,"'(/
0' 1*>?1"-"%"' 5;%03". Foiest Bepaitment, n.u. Web. u9 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.fao.oiguociepuuSxS94ueXS94uEu4.htm>.
"CBAPTER IIIBI0PBYSICALFACT0RS INPARKLANBNANAuENENT
(Continueu)." 5:%2;2%$/#%< ="%8,"'(/ 0' 1*>?1"-"%"' 5;%03". Foiestiy Bepaitment,
n.u. Web. u9 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.fao.oiguociepuuSxS94ueXS94uEuS.htm>.
"Bybiius - Noie Than A Numbei. "." @'($%/#"'(0': A0#%2:$' B2// C !<;;$,/ )<>%0(/.
WyFeels Bybiius, n.u. Web. u9 Nai. 2u14. <http:www.wyffels.comagionomic-
solutionsagionomic-uecision-makingunueistanuing-nitiogen-loss>.
Isichei, Augustine 0. "The Effects of Tiee Canopy Covei on Soil
Feiility."D2*'",/E3"+>%0(:$E2%:. }ouinal of Tiopical Ecology, 1u }uly 2uu9. Web. 9
Nai. 2u14.
1S
<http:jouinals.cambiiuge.oigactionuisplayAbstiact;jsessioniu=1BCE989C9CCB
F77C24A2711BC94S128B.jouinals.fiomPage=online&aiu=S2S1272>.
Killpack, Scott C. "Nitiogen Cycle." !"#$# &'()*+,- '- (., /-0')*-1,-(2. 0niveisity of
Nissouii, 0ct. 199S. Web. u7 Nai. 2u14.
<http:extension.missouii.euupWQ2S2>.
"Layeis of a Rainfoiest." 345,)6 *7 4 84'-7*),6(. Caltech, n.u. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.sil.caltech.euupeisonnelkiubaliainfoiestEuitS6us6wwwwhlay
eis.html>.
"Leaching (agiicultuie)." !'9':,;'4. Wikimeuia Founuation, Su Nai. 2u14. Web. u6 Api.
2u14. <http:en.wikipeuia.oigwikiLeaching_%28agiicultuie%29>.
Naloney, Leanne. "The Effect of Canopy Covei anu Soil Conuitions on uiowth
Rate." &4(<),=>,)9,?,5=,;<. Beikeley, n.u. Web. 1S Nai. 2u14.
<http:natuie.beikeley.euuclasseses196piojects2uu7finalNaloney.pu>.
"Natuial Resouices Conseivation Seivice." @*0,) @)*:6. 0niteu States Bepaitment of
Agiicultuie, n.u. Web. 28 Feb. 2u14.
<http:www.nics.usua.govwpspoitalnicsuetailnytechnical.ciu=nics144p2
_u272S2>.
"Nitiogen." &'()*+,-. Ksie.ksu.euu, n.u. Web. 12 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.ksie.ksu.euukswateiimagesnitiogen.htm>.
"Nitiogen." A*'? B4-4+,1,-(. 0niveisity of Bawaii, n.u. Web. u9 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.ctahi.hawaii.euumauisoilc_nutiientsu1.aspx>.
0llingei, Scott v. "Nitiogen Cycling, Foiest Canopy Reflectance, anu Emeigent Piopeities of
Ecosystems." &'()*+,- @5C?'-+D E*),6( @4-*:5 8,7?,C(4-C,D 4-; /1,)+,-( F)*:,)(',6
"#
!" $%!&'&()*&$ %&'() *$+$ ,-.$ /0 123$ 4/"5$
67889:;;<<<$9*2=$>3?;@>*8-*8;""/;4A;B45CA$DEFFG$
%3-=@>88) HI*+J B$ KL7- M*DFE-*@- >D N>3-=8 H2*>9J >* &E83I-*8 HJ@FI*?$K +,)) -.'&/!0!1'$
O*IP-3=I8J >D Q3I8I=7 H>F>R.I2) 4//4$ ,-.$ S 123$ 4/"5$
67889:;;83--97J=$>TD>3+U>E3*2F=$>3?;@>*8-*8;44;"VW"#;""0C$DEFF$9+DG$
'E87>3 4:
XIFF92@Y) (@>88 H$) 2*+ Z23JF QE@77>F[$ K&I83>?-* HJ@F-$K 23/4),&/(' !" 5/&&!6,/
$7()3&/!3$ O*IP-3=I8J >D 1I==>E3I) \@8$ "00C$ ,-.$ /0 123$ 4/"5$
67889:;;-T8-*=I>*$RI==>E3I$-+E;9;,]4V4G$
1@HF-FF2*) L2I$ K&I83>?-*$K 8!/0 96(,/)3( 5:3:1)*)3( "!, 5:6/ ;!63('$ O*IP-3=I8J >D
^2<2II 28 12*>2) 4//A$ ,-.$ /0 123$ 4/"5$
67889:;;<<<$@8273$72<2II$-+E;R2EI=>IF;@_*E83I-*8=/"$2=9TG$
%3-=@>88) HI*+J B$ KL7- M*DFE-*@- >D 87- N>3-=8 H2*>9J >* &E83I-*8 HJ@FI*?$K <7"!,=
>!6,3:0&$ ^-3>* %E.FI=7I*?) " \@8$ 4//4$ ,-.$ 0 123$ 4/"5$
67889:;;83--97J=$>TD>3+U>E3*2F=$>3?;@>*8-*8;44;"VW"#;""0C$DEFF$9+DG$
KL73-28= 8> (>IF ]E2FI8J$K 8%!((/&. $34/,!3*)3( -,!()%(/!3 ?1)3%'$ B+$ `2R-= HE332*$
&28E32F (@>8F2*+) 4/"5$ ,-.$ /0 123$ 4/"5$
67889:;;<<<$=-92$>3?$EY;F2*+;=>IF;873-28=_8>_=>IF_aE2FI8J$2=9TG$
L3>TF-3) (8-P-$ K%F2*8 &E83I-*8=$K 9!,(. ;:,!0/3: @)A:,(*)3( !" ?1,/%60(6,) B
;!3&6*), 8),4/%)&$ &HZ'bH() 4/"5$ ,-.$ /0 123$ 4/"5$
c>F[) Z>*2F+ d$) 2*+ e3-8@7-* (827R-3$ Z-1>==$ C34)&(/1:(/31 $34/,!3*)3(:0 8%/)3%)
(.,!61. C3D6/,'E $34/,!3*)3(:0 8%/)3%) C34)&(/1:(/!3& 2&/31 F),3/), 8)3&!,&$
Q-2P-38>*) \f: c-3*I-3 (>D8<23- b L-@7*>F>?J) 4//A$ %3I*8$
17
Wallheimei, Biian. "Leaves Auveisely Affect Soil Nutiients, Stuuy Shows." !"#$%&'#()
+%,' -%&$#.%. Puiuue 0niveisity, S Api. 2u11. Web. 28 Api. 2u14.
<https:www.puiuue.euunewsioomieseaich2u1111u4uSBukesTannin
s.html>.
























The Effect of pH on Nitrate
Owen Hakim S82-6
Spencer Kuldell S82-14

"
Table Of Contents
Section Author Page
Abstract Kuldell 2
Introduction Hakim 2
Materials & Methods Kuldell 3
Results Hakim 5
Discussion Kuldell 8
Acknowledgements Hakim & Kuldell 9
Works Cited Hakim 10
Works Cited Kuldell 12
"
ABSTRACT
A fine balance between pH and nitrate in pond water is needed for healthy ecosystems.
This study was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA to investigate whether there was a
relationship between the pH and the nitrate in bodies of water. It was expected that at pH values
between six and eight, nitrate levels would be highest because plants can grow and produce
nitrogen best within that range (allaboutalgae.com). Water samples were collected in ten random
intervals around three different ponds: Poultry, Ice, and Vernal. Nitrate and pH were tested in
two different beakers from each pond using Vernier sensors. It was found that the hypothesis was
not supported because ponds of identical pH levels had statistically significant differences in
nitrate levels. The most significant finding in the results was that the relationship between algae
and nitrate levels was different than what was researched.

INTRODUCTION
A pH or nitrate measurement may seem like just another scientific number, but really
they are key to the survival of every plant on earth! Nitrate (NO
3
) concentration measures the
amount of nitrate ions in a substance, while pH measures the acidity of a substance. The concept
of pH is defined as the decimal logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion activity. The
formula for pH is: pH=-log(aH+)=log(1/aH+) if hydrogen ion activity is defined as aH+
(wikipedia.org). A logarithmic increase is comparable to an exponential increase. There are a
few ways in which Nitrate can get into the water. The first is nitrite ions (NO
2
) that are released
by plants into the water, react with oxygen in the water to form nitrate (Figari, amersol.edu.pe).
Another way is if ozone (O
3
) ions in the atmosphere react with nitrogen ions in the air to form
nitrate, it can be absorbed by water (Keuer, depts.alverno.edu). Another nutrient which is vital
Nitrate is measured in parts per million, while pH (the concentration of hydrogen ions per mole)
is measured on a scale of 0-14. Fourteen is most basic and zero is most acidic (lusterleaf.com).
Most ponds, such as those at Drumlin Farm, maintain a pH of six to eight (sancoind.com).
The testing will be conducted at a few of Drumlin Farms ponds. Drumlin Farm is a 312
acre Audubon Society Preserve, in Lincoln, MA. There are five ponds, spread out across the area
of the preserve. The procedure was conducted at Ice Pond, Vernal Pool, and Poultry Pond. Ice
Pond is in between the parking lot and the north side of the drumlin. It is frozen for a large part
of the year. The Vernal Pool is to the far east of the preserve, north of Boyce Field, and is the
habitat with the most wildlife at Drumlin Farm. Poultry Pond is located just north of the Farm
Life Center. This pond gets its name from the nearby poultry and other farm animals that get
their water from it. The pH level of the ponds determines algae growth, and whether nearby
plants can survive off the ponds water. There are many variables that can affect water pH. Algae
growth, water temperature, soil pH, and surrounding plant life are a few examples
(massaudobon.org).
The pH value of a ponds water is essential to algal growth. If a ponds water is too acidic
(about 5 or less) or too basic (about 9 or more), algae wont grow. This causes ponds TDS (total
dissolved solids) level to become very high (as algae absorb many dissolved solids) which
damages the ecosystem by blocking out the sun in the pond (http://allaboutalgae.com). Certain
kinds of algae, called planktonic algae, are also a vital first component in the food chain for any
pond. These algae are eaten by zooplankton, which are consumed by smaller fish, which are
eaten by bigger fish. Many pond owners even supplement their ponds algal growth in order to
promote a healthier stock of fish (www.gotalgae.com/). These algae, along with zooplankton and
fish, prefer a pH of six to eight. Furthermore, an experiment on the effect of pH on algal growth
conducted by University of Michigan students in 2008 showed that a pond with a pH of 6.2-6.8
"
had significantly more algae than one with a pH of 7.6-9.2 (www.gotalgae.com/). Nitrate also
has an effect on algal growth. Algae converts nitrogen and other nutrients into energy, and
congregate where these nutrients are plentiful. A pond with a lot of leaves, animal excrement,
and nitrogen-rich soil nearby will have a large amount of algal growth. This will lead to a rich
ecosystem because the pond will have a first step in the food chain (http://marinebio.org/).
However, excessive nitrogen levels lead to algal overgrowth, which damages other aquatic plants
by blocking sunlight in the pond. This nitrogen excess will also lead to the water being toxic to
fish and other organisms (peer.tamu.edu).
The experiment being proposed is to test the effect of pond water pH ([H+]/mol) on
nitrate levels (mg/L). The experiment will be conducted by taking eight water samples from each
of the three ponds. Then, the samples will be tested (separately) for pH and nitrate with the
respective probes. There will be 30 total trials. The independent variable for the proposed
experiment is pH ([H+]/mol) of the water. The dependent variable will be the nitrate level
(mg/L) in the samples collected. Some important controlled variables are the depth of the water
from which the samples will be taken, the height in the water at which the samples will be taken,
the testing materials, the amount of water taken for each sample, and the shadiness/sunniness of
the sample sites. The hypothesis that is proposed is: if the pH of a sample is between six and
eight, then it will have the most nitrate because at that pH algal growth increases, and algae turn
the nitrate and other nutrients into energy in a process similar to photosynthesis
(http://allaboutalgae.com).
This research illustrates how Drumlin Farms ponds are affected by pH and nitrate levels.
Botanists and naturalists at Drumlin Farm need to know the optimal pH range for their pond
(most likely six to eight), and what that does to the nitrate value in order to keep the algal growth
to a reasonable level. If scientists know more about the effects of certain conditions on nutrients
such as nitrate, then these scientists will be able to better monitor the health of the ecosystem at
Drumlin Farm. The effect of pH on nitrate is important to understand in order to gain better
knowledge of why some ponds are flooded with algae and some are nearly empty despite having
nearly identical pH and dissolved oxygen values. Understanding the factors that impact nutrients
such as nitrate is critical to the entire field of agriculture because farmers need to understand
when to add nitrate-rich fertilizer and when such fertilizer would be excessive, causing elevated
levels in nearby bodies of water. The more people who understand the impact of factors such as
pH on nitrate, the more efficiently and cost-effectively irrigation water resources can be managed.

MATERIALS & METHODS
Water samples were collected from three different ponds at Drumlin Farm: Ice, Vernal,
and Poultry Ponds. The water samples were large enough to measure both the nitrate levels and
the pH. For each pond, eight different samples were collected from the banks of the ponds. Each
sample was 20 mL in volume and was collected in two 50 mL beakers labeled A & B. To
minimize sampling inconsistencies, each sample was collected from the waters surface. They
were measured when the waters depth was 10 centimeters, and they were measured in random
intervals around the ponds. Notes about the controlled variables such as shade vs. sun were
recorded next to the data tables in the Field Note Book.



"
Figure 1: Diagram of water sampling in Drumlin Farm pond (Lincoln, MA). Each water
sample was collected at random intervals around the pond. Each dark dot represents a sample
from one of the three ponds. The depth from the surface represented by the side view shows that
the data was collected from samples 10 centimeters above the ground.


Figure 1:

The pH measurements for each sample were made using a Vernier pH sensor. The sensor
was rinsed with distilled water and dried using a paper towel to remove extra water droplets, then
submerged into beaker A. The sensor measured the pH, and the pH value was recorded into the
data table in the FNB. Values were only recorded 60 seconds after the sensor had been
submerged into the sample. After 60 seconds, the reading had to stay steady for three seconds
before the data was recorded in the data table to the tenths place. Nitrate measurements for each
sample were made using a Vernier Nitrate Ion-Selective Electrode. The probe was rinsed with
distilled water and dried using a towel to remove extra water droplets and then submerged into
beaker B. The probe measured the nitrate and the nitrate value was recorded into the data table in
the FNB. Values were only recorded 60 seconds after the probe had been submerged into the
sample. After 60 seconds, the reading had to stay steady for three seconds before the data was
recorded in the data table to the tenths.


"
RESULTS
Tables 1-3: The Effect of pH on Nitrate
Poultry Pond (1)

Ice Pond (2)

Vernal Pool (3)
Trial # pH
Nitrate
(mg/L)

Trial # pH
Nitrate
(mg/L)

Trial # pH
Nitrate
(Mg/L)
1 5.8 1.6

1 6.3 11.7

1 6.0 7.4
2 6.2 1.6

2 6.2 12.2

2 6.2 7.5
3 6.5 1.8

3 6.0 9.4

3 6.1 6.8
4 6.0 1.8

4 6.2 12.3

4 5.8 2.8
5 6.0 1.8

5 6.2 15.5

5 2.4 3.3
6 6.0 2.0

6 6.2 12.8

6 2.4 5.1
7 6.2 2.1

7 6.3 14.8

7 2.7 5.4
8 6.7 1.9

8 6.2 10.5

8 2.7 6.1
9 6.2 1.8

9 6.2 15.7

9 2.7 6.0
10 6.3 88.6
1


10 6.3 11.8

10 2.7 6.8
Average 6.19 1.82

Average 6.21 12.67

Average 4.0 5.72
St. Dev. 0.26 27.44 St. Dev. 0.09 2.09 St. Dev. 1.78 1.61

Table 4: The Effect of Nitrate on pH (averages)

Standard Deviation Averages

Poultry
Pond
Ice
Pond
Vernal
Pool
Poultry
Pond
Ice
Pond
Vernal
Pool
pH 0.26 0.09 1.78 6.19 6.21 4.00
Nitrate 0.16
2
2.09 1.61 1.82 12.67 4.72




#
$%&' ()*) +,&-* .)' /0123(/( 45,6 *%/ 75)+% 8/1)3'/ &* .)' *,, 631% ,4 )- ,3*2&/5
9
: ()*) +,&-* ;6/-*&,-/( &- 4,,*-,*/ #< .)' /0123(/( 45,6 *%&' 6/)'35/6/-* 8/1)3'/ &* .)' *,, 631% ,4 )-
,3*2&/5
"
Graph 1: The Effect of pH on Nitrate (mg/L) (Poultry Pond)










Graph 2: The Effect of pH on Nitrate (mg/L) (Ice Pond)





#$ % &'&"()
&
&'*
+
+'*
)
)'*
*'" *', " "') "'- "'" "',
!
"
#
$
%
#
&

(
)
*
+
,
-

./

#$ % &'+()*
&
)
-
"
,
+&
+)
+-
+"
+,
*'.* " "'&* "'+ "'+* "') "')* "'/ "'/*
!
"
#
$
%
#
&

(
)
*
+
,
-

./
"
Graph 3: The Effect of pH on Nitrate (mg/L) (Vernal Pool)


Graph 4: The Effect of Location on Nitrate (mg/L) and pH (average values)



Graph 1 represents the data taken at Poultry Pond. In this graph, there was an r-squared
value of 0.07. This shows that at Poultry Pond, there was very little correlation between pH and
nitrate levels. For the most part, Poultry Pond contained the lowest nitrate values (1-2 mg/L),
however there was one major outlier which was 88.6 mg/L. Poultry Pond samples had a
relatively average acidity (around 6 pH). The standard deviation for nitrate was the highest
among the three habitats visited, at 27.4. The average pH was 6.19. The average nitrate was 10.5
mg/L.
Graph 2 shows the data collected from the Ice Pond. Ice pond had the highest average pH
and nitrate values. Unlike in Graph 1, there were no outliers. This graph had an r-squared value
of 0.17, the highest out of the three graphs. Despite this, the actual value shows very little

#$ % &'&(&)
&
*
+
,
)
-
.
"
(
&'& *'& +'& ,'& )'& -'& .'& "'&
!
"
#
$
%
#
&

(
)
*
+
,
-

./
&
+
)
.
(
*&
*+
*)
*.
/012345 /067 89: /067 ;:46<2 /002
<=:4<>: ?@
<=:4<>: AB34<3:
9069:634<3B06
"
correlation. The average nitrate value in Ice Pond was 12.7 mg/L, while the average pH was
6.21, both the highest of the three habitats. Ice Pond, in accordance with the averages, had the
highest nitrate values (10-16 mg/L), and similar pH values to Poultry Pond.
Graph 3 displays the data taken from the Vernal Pool. It had the lowest average nitrate
values (5.72 mg/L). In Graph 3, there was an r-squared value of 0.08, a similar result to Poultry
Pond, also suggesting no correlation. The data suggested that the Vernal Pool was much more
acidic than either of the other pools, with an average pH of 4.0. There were no major outliers in
Vernal Pool.
Graph 4 was made up of the averages of the three locations. Poultry Pond had the lowest
overall error bars, despite having the only error measurement. Vernal Pool had the largest
overall error bars. Ice Pond had the highest average pH and nitrate. Vernal Pool had the lowest
average pH and nitrate.

DISCUSSION
The experiment was conducted to test the effect of pond water pH ([H+]/mol) on nitrate
levels (mg/L). The original hypothesis stated: if the pH of a sample is between six and eight, then
it will have the highest nitrate value because algal growth increases as pH increases, and algae
turns the nitrate and other nutrients into energy in a photosynthesis-like process
(allaboutalgae.com). The hypothesis was not supported in this experiment because between pH
values of six and eight, there were many different nitrate values, ranging from 1.8 to 15.5 mg/L.
Because of the wide range of nitrate values, a reliable comparison to nitrate values outside that
pH range could not be performed, and there was not enough correlation to show a trend in the
data.
The correlation between the pH and the nitrate in the experiment conducted was very
weak with an r-squared value of 0.07. The error bars for the nitrate had no overlap between the
three ponds. The pH error bars had overlaps, however this did not affect the data because the pH
between the ponds was not the variable being tested. The three ponds that were sampled all
showed an r-squared value below 0.2. Because the r-squared values showed no trends, and
because the number of pH measurements outside the range of six to eight was slim, there was
little confidence in the data. In a similar experiment conducted by Amersol College using the
same variables, the r-squared value was also found to be very low (which was shown in their
graph and table) (www2.amersol.edu.pe/). Several explanations could account for the low r-
squared value in the pond environments.
Poultry Pond at Drumlin Farm has a greenish hue. This color was thought to be from
algae or plant growth. The algae may have affected the data because Poultry Pond, excluding the
outlier of 88, had on average the lowest nitrate levels (1.82 mg/L). Ice Pond, which was partially
iced over, had the highest average nitrate values (12.67 mg/L). Because the average pH of these
two ponds was nearly identical (pH = 6.2), the hypothesis that pH affects nitrate levels was not
supported. The two ponds were not likely to have had equal amounts of algae growth because of
the temperature difference between the ponds. This notion is based on the ice in Ice Pond.
Because of the ice, the temperature in Ice pond could be very low, therefore killing the algae and
raising the nitrate levels. The Vernal Pool measurements showed an intermediate nitrate value of
5.72 mg/L. However, the pH measurements of this sample area (average = 4.0) were not the
same as those of the other ponds. Comparisons between Vernal Pool and the other two ponds
suggest that pH, outside the range of six to eight, does not affect nitrate levels. In extremes of
"
pH, according to the research, there would be an absence of nitrate because algae would not be
able to grow; therefore the algae could not disperse the nitrate into the water.
The data collected at each sample area was precise except for an outlier and an error that
are explained below. The pH measurement for Ice Pond had the greatest precision with a
standard deviation of 0.08. Its nitrate measurements were also reasonably precise with a standard
deviation of 2. This gives confidence to the comparison between Ice Pond and the others. For
example the pH of Ice pond and Poultry Pond both average 6.2, while the pH values of Vernal
Pool differ because of an error that occurred. A failure to properly clean the pH electrode lead to
an error that caused the pH to drop from 6 to 2, and this changed the average of the pH to 4 with
a standard deviation of 1.8, and therefore diminished confidence in these results. Another major
error that occurred affected the confidence in nitrate concentrations for Poultry Pond. The
reading of 88.6 mg/L, which was 45 times higher than any other reading, likely occurred because
on that side of the pond, there was a chicken coop that might have drained into the pond
therefore changing the reading. Disregarding the outlier, the data was the most precise in Poultry
Pond.
If this study were repeated, a data set to include should be temperature readings for each
sample. Temperature might affect the algae growth in the pond, therefore resulting in more
conclusive results. Different ponds could be tested for their pH and nitrate levels. This might
reveal differences in ponds that affect data. Sufficient data was collected in this study to draw
conclusions because the standard deviation didnt change that much. Future experiments could
include the effect of algal growth on nitrate. It would be interesting to know if algae released
more nitrates when they die or when they are living. Complex ecosystems like ponds offer many
different experiments to help understand their patterns.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is an enjoyable ego-stroking exercise to say that this report was built upon the pure genius and
innovation of Spencer and that, but I would be a lie. The truth is, there are some people who this
report would simply not have happened without. First, I would like to thank Danny Kutsovsky
and Trevor, who lent us their idea for collecting and testing efficiently in order to avert a late
procedural crisis. Also, I would like to acknowledge Ms. LaRocca, for instructing me on the
intricate process of writing a lab report. Thirdly, I would like to thank the Drumlin Farm
chaperones and staff for guiding us through the data selection process. Lastly, I would like to say
that this report couldnt have happened without The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, by
Douglas Adams, which reminded me of my scientific duties every time I tried to procrastinate by
reading it, and helping me think outside of the box during the research process.

There are many people I would like to thank for help with this project. First of all I would like to
thank my partner Owen Hakim for just helping out with the entire project and without him I
would not be able to do this project. I would also like to thank Ms. LaRocca for encouraging us
and giving us the opportunity to do real science and helping us with the writing of this report.
Thanks also to all of the chaperones and the Drumlin Farm staff for facilitating the whole
project. Finally I would like to acknowledge my parents for raising me and supporting me
through this entire project.

"#
WORKS CITED
Owen Hakim S82-6

"Algae Basics - Benefits of Algae." Algae Basics - Benefits of Algae. Algae Biomass
Organization, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/>.
"Algae Solutions." Algae Solutions. Ed. Ken Rust. Kasco Marine Inc., 2006. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.gotalgae.com/algae_solutions.htm>.
Bergstrom, Carolyn, Casey McKeel, and Suketu Patel. "Effects of PH on Algal Abundance: A
Model of Bay Harbor, Michigan." Deepblue.lib.umich.edu. University of Michigan, 2008.
Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
PDF.<http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/57443/Bergstrom_
McKeel_Patel_2007.pdf?se>.
Eutrophication. Digital image. Wheatleyriver.ca. Wheatley River Improvement Group RSS,
16 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/Eutrphication.jpg>.
Figari, Sebastain, Joseph Hagan, Alvaro Marin, and Alvaro Montalvan. "The Effects of Nitrate
Concentration on Conductivity in Four Water Sources." Amersol.edu. Colegio Franklin
Delano Roosavelt American University of Lima, 2 June 2004. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://www2.amersol.edu.pe/hs/sciences/Projects/FINAL%20G4%20Proj%20M ay04/G
4%20Projects%20May2004%20HTML/G4-Conductivity-vs-
NitrateConc%20HTML/Group4%20AlvaroSebastianJoeAlvaronitrate%20conduct
ivity.htm>.
"Nitrates and Their Effect on Water Quality A Quick Study." Wheatleyriver.ca.
Wheatley River Improvement Group RSS, 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 07 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/current-projects/wrig-pilot-nitrate-study/nitrates-and-their-
""
effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/>.
Numako, Chiya. "Disordered System." Physica B: Condensed Matter. Vol. 208-209.
Geneva: Izumi Nakai, 1995. 388-89. Print. Physica B.
PEER. "Water's the Matter-- Introduction: Nitrates." Water's the Matter--
Introduction: Nitrates. PEER, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
"PH." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>.
This source was only used for formulas.
Sanco Industries Inc. "Pond PH." News RSS. Sanco Industries, 8 Apr. 2011. Web. 08
Mar. 2014. <http://www.sancoind.com/news/pond-ph>.
Vernier Software & Technology. "Nitrate Ion-Selective Electrode." Nitrate Ion-selective
Probe. Vernier Software & Data, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
"Water Quality." Water Quality. Purdue University & Indiana University, n.d. Web.
10 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.cees.iupui.edu/education/Workshops/Project_Seam/water_quality.h tm>.
"Zooplankton." Marinebio.org. MarineBio Conservation Society, 2014. Web. 12 Mar.
2014. <http://marinebio.org/oceans/zooplankton.asp>.


"#
WORKS CITED
Spencer Kuldell S82-14
"Algae Basics - Benefits of Algae." Algae Basics - Benefits of Algae. Algae Biomass
Organization, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/>.
"Algae Solutions." Algae Solutions. Ed. Ken Rust. Kasco Marine Inc., 2006. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.gotalgae.com/algae_solutions.htm>.
Bergstrom, Carolyn, Casey McKeel, and Suketu Patel. "Effects of PH on Algal Abundance: A
Model of Bay Harbor, Michigan." Deepblue.lib.umich.edu. University of Michigan, 2008.
Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
PDF.<http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/57443/Bergstrom_
McKeel_Patel_2007.pdf?se>.
Eutrophication. Digital image. Wheatleyriver.ca. Wheatley River Improvement Group RSS,
16 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/Eutrphication.jpg>.
Figari, Sebastain, Joseph Hagan, Alvaro Marin, and Alvaro Montalvan. "The Effects of Nitrate
Concentration on Conductivity in Four Water Sources." Amersol.edu. Colegio Franklin
Delano Roosavelt American University of Lima, 2 June 2004. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://www2.amersol.edu.pe/hs/sciences/Projects/FINAL%20G4%20Proj%20M ay04/G
4%20Projects%20May2004%20HTML/G4-Conductivity-vs-
NitrateConc%20HTML/Group4%20AlvaroSebastianJoeAlvaronitrate%20conduct
ivity.htm>.
"Nitrates and Their Effect on Water Quality A Quick Study." Wheatleyriver.ca.
Wheatley River Improvement Group RSS, 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 07 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.wheatleyriver.ca/current-projects/wrig-pilot-nitrate-study/nitrates-and-their-
"#
effect-on-water-quality-a-quick-study/>.
Numako, Chiya. "Disordered System." Physica B: Condensed Matter. Vol. 208-209.
Geneva: Izumi Nakai, 1995. 388-89. Print. Physica B.
PEER. "Water's the Matter-- Introduction: Nitrates." Water's the Matter--
Introduction: Nitrates. PEER, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
"PH." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>.
This source was only used for formulas.
Sanco Industries Inc. "Pond PH." News RSS. Sanco Industries, 8 Apr. 2011. Web. 08
Mar. 2014. <http://www.sancoind.com/news/pond-ph>.
Vernier Software & Technology. "Nitrate Ion-Selective Electrode." Nitrate Ion-selective
Probe. Vernier Software & Data, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
"Water Quality." Water Quality. Purdue University & Indiana University, n.d. Web.
10 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.cees.iupui.edu/education/Workshops/Project_Seam/water_quality.h tm>.
"Zooplankton." Marinebio.org. MarineBio Conservation Society, 2014. Web. 12 Mar.
2014. <http://marinebio.org/oceans/zooplankton.asp>.


"

The effect of canopy cover!%" on bark pH.

By; Max Kemper & Jamie Hauswirth
"
Table Of Contents




Section Author Page

Abstract Hauswirth 1

Introduction Hauswirth 1

M&M Hauswirth 2

Results Kemper 3

Discussion Kemper 6

Acknowledgements Kemper 7

Acknowledgements Hauswirth 7

Works Cited Hauswirth 8

Works Cited Kemper 10














!

The Effect of Proximity to Water (m) on Soil pH











!








Table of Contents
Abstract (Armando Hazaveh)...page 3
Introduction (Armando Hazaveh)....pages 3-4
Materials & Methods (Armando Hazaveh)..page 5
Results (Jimin Kang)..pages 6-10
Discussion (Jimin Kang)..pages 11-12
Acknowledgements (Kang & Hazaveh)...pages 12-13
Works Cited (Kang & Hazaveh)..pages 14-15
Appendix: Pictures (Kang & Hazaveh)..page 15





















!







The Effect of Proximity to Water (m) on Soil pH
ABSTRACT
This experiment was conducted in order to define whether there was a relation
between soil pH and water pH based on the soils proximity to the water. This experiment
was conducted at three ponds at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln Massachusetts: Boyce pond
1
,
Ice pond
2
, and the Vernal pool
3
. The procedure for this experiment was to collect a water
pH sample then collect pH soil samples at different directions around the pond. Using a
transect, samples were taken at 1,5,10,and 20m intervals from the waters shore and
tested immediately for their pH. It was thought that the soil would have a pH closer to the
waters pH as its distance from the water was shortened (www.esf.edu/ D. Bickelhaupt
and R. Schemedicke). The results displayed no correlation between the distances from the
pond to soil pH levels. The r
2
value also did not support the point, with the best of all the
values at 49%. The ponds had pH levels that ascended in the order Ice, Boyce, and
Vernal pool. Despite the ponds touching the soil and equalizing the pH levels, the
distances from the pond didnt have any effect on the soil pH.

INTRODUCTION
Does water have a measurable effect on the pH of soil? pH is a measurement of
the [H
+
] ion concentration in a given solution. pH is often tested in soil and water and can
determine how acidic or basic the given solution is. Litmus paper and digital detectors are
some of the materials used to measure the pH on a scale of 0-14. A soil pH of 14 is basic
and a pH of 0 is acidic. pH strongly affects how plants will grow and how well the
nutrients are balanced in the soil; optimal pH for plants is about 6-7 (D. Bickelhaupt and
R. Schemedicke www.esf.edu/). pH in soil can be strongly affected by rainwater taking
away necessary nutrients, and CO
2
that comes from decomposed organic materials
forming a weak organic acid. More strongly acidic soils are typically formed because of
organic matter decay as well as oxidation in the soil which both form strong acids in the
soil (D. Bickelhaupt and R. Schemedicke www.esf.edu/). However, pH can also be
measured in the water, where it can predict the success of sustaining the aquatic flora and
fauna. The death of all fish occurs at 4.2 on the pH scale. (www.epa.gov)
Soil pH can take a very long distance to change (50-100m), and also can change if
stepped on a lot because of the compaction of soil i.e. a path (R. McLaughin
www.homeguide.sfgate.com). The ponds and pools being tested have paths around them
that can affect the longer distance tests. Surrounding plant density also has an effect on
!

pH, roots can give off acidic material and photosynthesis removes CO
2
from the soil both
of which can affect the pH greatly. This is a possible factor in the experiment because it
is very possible that different types plants will be along the transect where samples are
being taken.
The soil pH can vary a lot from site to site; however, when there is a water source
the soil reaches a neutral point as the soil makes contact with the water (D. Bickelhaupt
and R. Schemedicke www.esf.edu). This effect comes about through the process of
diffusion (Where a solution goes from a location of low concentration to one of high
concentration). However the water level does matter because it has an effect on how deep
it goes in terms of affecting pH. The soil type also affects how the waters will effect on
pH. The soil type determines how resistant the soil is to change of pH. This is dependent
on the soil particle size (www.homeguide.sfgate.com, R. McLaughin).
Drumlin Farm presents a great location for a test of how water might affect the
pH of soil. It has 312 acres with a lot of diversity throughout the habitats. It also has
many water sources and a diversity of soils, which will allow for unique conditions to be
averaged.
The proposed experiment is: to test whether the proximity of soil to water will
affect the pH of the soil to make it more similar to the water pH measurement. The
independent variable will be the distance from the water the soil is collected from
(meters). The dependent variable is the pH of the soil. Important controlled variables
include: Time between the collection of oil samples, the testing, and the amount of
distilled water added to the pH measuring chamber. Other controlled variables are: the
plant life in testing area which could affect the pH measurement, and good randomization
of locations at which transects are set up around the water source. The hypothesis for the
given experiment is: If soil is closer to the water source, then its pH will be more similar
to the water pH because the waters interaction with the soil equalizes the [H
+
] ions
through the process of diffusion/ equalization (www.esf.edu/ D. Bickelhaupt and R.
Schemedicke).
The experiment would give new knowledge on how exactly water affect the soil
pH and if in fact the soil does change. New knowledge could be learned about how long a
distance it takes for soil pH to change a measurable amount. If not, however, the opposite
could be concluded thus making the pH a more unpredictable measurement. The new
found un/predictability could have an effect on how a farmer might fertilize and/or
change the type of plants planted in the area closer or farther from the water. (Taking soil
types into account as well) The pH could, allow scientists to further predict what flora
and/or fauna might blossom in the area, as well as how far as it might be from the water
source.



!

Materials and Methods
The testing took place at three locations in Drumlin Farm: The Ice pond, Vernal
pool, and Boyce pond
2
. Each had four transects to take data from, each one of the
transects had five data points taken from it. The water pH was also tested to make the
final comparison.
The material used in the test was be rinsed between tests with distilled water. To
begin the experiment, the TI-nspire (Texas Instruments) calculator was used to generate
three numbers between 0 and 360, the numbers were rounded to the nearest whole
number and should any repeats occur, another number was randomized. These were used
as angles at which to set up transects. Next, the compass was used to determine these
angles around the given water source so that transects can be set up along them as they
are measured. A 50m long tape measure was then used to take samples from the points
along each determined line at 1, 5, 10, and 20 meter intervals. When rolling out the meter
tape caution was taken not to step near the sites where the soil was taken from. Soil
samples were taken from these locations along each of the lines using a 17cm auger with
a 2cm diameter. The auger took samples 5 cm deep (how far it is pushed in). The soil
was then quickly put into the Rapidtest Soil Test Kit
1
for testing. The soil was tested as
quickly as possible so that the soil pH didnt change in the short time.

How the Rapidtest pH kit was used: First the green top was removed from the
testing kit, and then the package of capsules was removed (50). Next, the chamber was
filled with soil to the marked line. Then, the capsule was held over the chamber and split,
pouring the powder into the chamber. Using the dropper, distilled water was added until
the mixture was up to the water line. The cap was then put on again and the mixture was
mixed thoroughly. The mixture sat for about a minute so that the color could settle. Then
the mixture was looked through with sunlight and the color was compared to the pH scale
and the pH was then recorded in a pre prepared table. Any plants in the way were noted
in the table where data was collected in case of an unusual/outlier measurement.

IMAGES: Rapidtest pH tester:






Drumlin
Farm:



!
















Results


Table 1: The effect of proximity to water (m) on soil pH (Ice Pond)
Soil pH
Distance (m) trial 1 trial 2 trial 3 Average Standard Deviation
1 7.5 7.5 6.5 7.2 0.6
5 7.0 7.5 6.0 6.8 0.8
10 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.5 0.5
20 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.7 0.6




Graph 1: The effect of proximity to water (m) on soil pH (Ice Pond)

!

!" $ %&'()*+
'&%
)&%
,&%
(&%
*&%
% ) +% +) -% -)
!
"
#
$

&
'

(#)*+,-. /0"1 2",3 415
./012 34 $ )&%




!

!" $ %&'())*
'&%
+&%
,&%
)&%
*&%
% + -% -+ .% .+
!
"
#
$

&
'

(#)*+,-. /0"1 2",3 415
/0123 45 $ ,&%



Graph 2: The effect of proximity to water (m) on soil pH (Boyce Pond)








Table 2: The effect of proximity to water (m) on soil pH (Boyce Pond)
Soil pH
Distance (m) trial 1 trial 2 trial 3 Average Standard Deviation
1 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.3 0.3
5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 0.0
10 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0
20 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.8 0.3
!

!" $ %&'(')*
(&%
)&%
+&%
*&%
,&%
% ) -% -) '% ')
!
"
#
$

&
'

(#)*+,-. /0"1 2",3 415
./012 34 $ *&%

Table 3: The effect of proximity to water (m) on soil pH (Vernal Pool)
Soil pH
Distance (m) trial 1 trial 2 trial 3 Average Standard Deviation
1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0
5 7.0 6.5 8.0 7.2 0.8
10 7.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 0.5
20 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.2 0.3




Graph 3: The effect of proximity to water (m) on soil pH (Vernal Pool)






!"


In Graph 1, soil samples and pH tests were taken at Ice Pond. One thing that was
unexpected that appeared in the graph is that there is a very big jump from the water pH
to the average pH of the soil one meter away from the pond. The water pH was 5.0. The
highest pH measured is the pH one meter away from the water. The lowest pH measured
is the pH of the water, which is the opposite of what was expected. The trend is as the
soil gets farther from the water, the soil pH gets closer to the water pH. The r-squared
value is 0.4758. The average soil pH one meter away from the pond was 7.2; the average
for five meters away was 6.8, ten meters away 6.5, twenty meters away 6.8. The data
collected was the least precise of all graphs. All the error bars for the soil pH
measurements were very big. The standard deviation for one meter away was 0.6, five
meters away was 0.8, ten meters away was 0.5, and twenty meters away was 0.6. The
data sets at different distances were similar, since all the error bars overlapped. Right next
to the pond there was an evergreen forest. Since pine needles are acidic, the forest could
have possibly affected the data collected.
In Graph 2, soil samples and pH tests were done at Boyce Pond. The water pH
and soil pH had more of a trend; there was no average that was drastically above all the
other averages. The trend of the graph is as the soil gets farther away from the water, the
pH of the soil goes up. The r-squared value is 0.4978, the highest among the graphs. The
water pH of the pond was 6.0. The average soil pH one meter away was 6.3, five meters
away was 6.5, ten meters away was 7.0, and twenty meters away was 6.8. The pH at one
meter overlaps with every average except 7.0 at ten meters away. The average pHs at five
and ten meters do not overlap each other, but they both overlap the average pH twenty
meters away. Almost all the error bars overlap each other, which means there are similar
data sets at different distances in the graph. The data in Graph 2 is much more precise
than the other graphs; the error bars and standard deviation are smaller. The standard
deviation for one meter and twenty meters away was 0.3. The standard deviation for five
and ten meters away was 0.0. At Boyce Pond there were many leaves and branches on the
ground, which could have affected the pH of the soil.
In Graph 3, soil samples and pH tests were completed at Vernal Pool. Like Graph
1, it was unexpected that there was a big leap from water pH to the average soil pH
measurement only one meter away. The trend in Graph 3 is the farther away the soil is
from the pond, the pH of the soil gets higher. The r-squared value is 0.2426, the lowest of
the graphs. The average soil pH for one meter and ten meters away from the pond was
7.0. The average soil pH for five meters and twenty meters away from the pond was 7.2.
After the pH increase from the water to one meter away from the water, the average soil
pH measurements all stay within two tenths of each other, so there is not a big range in
data within the soil pH averages. All the error bars of the soil pHs overlap each other,
which means the data sets in Graph 3 were very similar to one another. The pH of the
water overlaps with every average of the soil pHs. The data in Graph 3 was less precise
than Graph 2, more precise than Graph 1. Most of the error bars were big. The standard
deviation for one meter away was 0.0, when five meters away it was 0.8, ten meters away
0.5, and twenty meters away 0.3. While at Vernal Pool there was water, but there was not
water at the pool during the fall. The soil pH could change depending on the season, since
some seasons the pool has water and some seasons the pool has no water.

!!


Discussion
The purpose of the experiment was to test the effect of soil proximity to water (m)
on soil pH. The hypothesis set for this experiment is: If soil is closer to the water source,
then its pH will be more similar to the water pH because the waters interaction with the
soil equalizes the [H+] ions through the process of diffusion/equalization (www.esf.edu/
D.Bickelhaupt and R.Schemedicke). The hypothesis was not supported because all the
error bars overlapped, thus making the data inconclusive of whether the soil pH samples
were going away from the water pH as the samples were taken farther from the pond. In
Graph 1, the soil pH got closer to the water pH as the samples were taken from farther
distances, rather than closer distances. This was the total opposite of the
hypothesis.
In Graph 1 (Ice Pond) the trend is as the soil gets farther from the water, the soil
pH gets closer to the water pH. One reason this could have happened is because as the
soil samples got farther away from the pond, the samples kept getting closer to the
evergreen forest that is next to the pond. Evergreen forests have pine needles, which
could have affected the soil pH to become more acidic as it got farther from the pond
(http://www.gardenguides.com). The results are not conclusively different, all the error
bars overlapped. In Graph 2 the trend is as the soil gets farther away from the water, the
pH of the soil goes up. Every error bar overlapped except for five and ten meters. The
data was most likely very precise because unlike Ice Pond, there were not many plants or
trees in the surroundings that affected soil pH. The r-squared value is 0.4978, which is
low. In Graph 3 the trend line is almost parallel to the water pH value, but it went up
slightly. The data was almost the same as the water pH level because Vernal Pool is not
always there the whole year. Some seasons there is water in the pool, other seasons there
is no water. The water does not stay long enough to affect the pH of the soil surrounding
the pool. All the error bars overlap. The data sets are inconclusively different. The r-
squared value for the graph is 0.2426, the lowest of all the graphs. Most of the averages
from all the graphs were not precise. This impacts the confidence in the data because the
bigger the error bars, the bigger the range in data, so the data is not reliable enough to
draw conclusions from.
A lot of sources stated soil pH and water pH are correlated, but the data does not
support this. One reason the data could have been so unreliable is that the pH samples
were not taken far enough from the pond to actually have significant differences in pH
(http://depts.alverno.edu/). Perhaps if the soil samples were taken farther from the pond,
the samples would have shown more variety in cultivation the soil has gone through. For
example, if the samples were taken very far from the pond, the data would have been
different. The surroundings would have been different from the ponds surroundings,
which affects pH. The pond could have had more pine needles, while farther away from
the pond there could have been almost no pine needles. Another reason the data could
have been inconclusive is that sometimes soil samples had to be taken outside of the pond
site into the walking paths or the nearby woods. Having soil samples taken in places very
far from the pond could have easily impacted the soil pH, since the ground is much more
disturbed in the woods and walking paths from all the footsteps, leaves, and pine needles.
In summary, there are going to be different variables that affect soil pH very far from the
pond than near the pond. For instance, the pH in the woods could have been less acidic
!"

than the walking paths since more rain (acidic) would fall on the paths rather than the
woods, because of all the leaves covering the ground of the woods (Brimblecombe, Acid
Rain).
There are many things that could be done to improve data collection. Instead of
having 20 meters as the maximum distance, the maximum distance could have been
raised to 50 meters from each pond to see more dramatic differences in the soil pH. Also
instead of collecting pH samples where there was a lot of disturbance or leaf coverage,
pH samples could have been taken where the soil was not disturbed by any of its
surroundings. More trials and data collecting would have helped the graphs be more
precise and reliable. Sufficient data was not collected. It was first planned to take sixteen
pH samples in all per site. Only twelve pH samples per site were collected because
sixteen was too much to do in the time given. One of the errors that occurred in this
experiment is that all of the controlled variables could not be controlled. For example, in
Ice Pond, there was an evergreen forest on one side of the pond. The forest caused the
data to be very different from the water pH, so many of the pH samples were almost as
acidic as the water. The forest impacted the data precision. There was no way to
eliminate errors of the ponds surroundings. For future research of this study, people
could find out whether the depth of the water has any effect on the water pH or not. Since
the ponds most likely had a difference in depth (Vernal Pool was a lot shallower than the
other ponds), more research could be done to see if the depth of the pond had any effect
on the data around the ponds.


Acknowledgements
Jimin Kang
First off I would like to thank my partner, Armando Hazaveh, for cooperating
well with me throughout this whole experiment. He always helped clarify whenever I had
questions with writing my results section and when I was confused with the procedure.
Without his hard work and focus, this experiment would have been much harder to
complete. Also I give thanks to the teachers that supervised at our three worksites,
Margaret Hardy, Wendy Svatek, Rachel Jamison, and Stephanie Moon. They all helped
us with keeping our experiment on track and making sure we were working quick enough
to move on to our next site. I would like to thank Michael Ewins for commenting on our
work and helping us in many ways to benefit our experiment by getting us the materials
we needed and to help polish our procedure. Thanks to all the Drumlin Farm teacher-
naturalists we got all of our questions answered that were necessary to our experiment
and helped us complete our work. Finally I would like to thank my mom, Jungha Gil, by
helping our group buy some of the materials we needed.


Armando Hazaveh
To begin with I would like to thank Jimin Kang my partner who was always there
helping me to get through to the hard work. His partnership was always a great tool
especially when we finally had to do the experiment. He always made sure that we got
everything we needed done. When it became apparent that we would not be able to do
everything we had to do Jimin was there to make the plans for the future of our
!"

experiment. Of course, like Jimin, I would like to thank our site supervisors who kept us
in order and on schedule. In my opinion I think that the most important person to thank is
our science teacher, Mr. Michael Ewins. He has helped us both through each and every
step, giving advice, working through problems, and being a helpful guide through all the
steps of writing and experimenting. I would like to also thank my parents who helped me
work through the load and were upbeat.






















!"

Works Cited
Armando Hazaveh
Ashman, M. R., and G. Puri. "Chapter 6." Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise
Introduction to Soil Science. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002. N. pag. Print
Bickelhaupt, Donald, and Robert Schmedicke. "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What
It Means. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 2014. Web. 09
Mar. 2014. <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.
McLaughlin, Randy. "Home Guides." Home Guides. SFGate, 2014. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.
<http://homeguides.sfgate.com/ph-water-affect-ph-soil-74237.html>.
York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2001. Science in Context. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. "PH Scale." EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/education/site_students/phscale.html>.


Jimin Kang
Ashman, M. R., and G. Puri. Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to
Soil Science. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002. Print.
Baran, Angie, and Meagan Mecklenburg. "Soil PH." Soil PH. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May
2014. <http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/archive/BaranMeck.htm>.
Bickelhaupt, Donald, and Robert Schmedicke. "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What
It Means. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 2014. Web. 01 May
2014. <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.
!"

GardenGuides. "Pine Trees & Acid Soil." GardenGuides. Demand Media, 1997. Web. 01
May 2014. <http://www.gardenguides.com/130318-pine-trees-acid-soil.html>.
(n.d.): n. pag. Web. Peter Brimblecombe 2012. Acid Rain. The Wiley-Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Globalization.
N.p., n.d. Web. "Acidification." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale, 2011. Science in
Context. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.


Appendices:
Boyce pond:










ICE POND: VERNAL POOL:



!"#$ &' '() !"&*+



,() )--).' /- 0/12 (/*13/$ &$4 (&51'&' /$ !"

67 8*1.& "/9&$ &$4 ,*):/* ;/$/:&$
!"#$% '( )'*!%*!+


+,-./01 "2.304 567,
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
!"#$%&'$

)*$%+,-'$.+*

/&$0%.&1# 2 /0$3+,#

40#-1$#

5.#'-##.+*

!'6*+710,8090*$#

:+%6# ;.$0,

:+%6# ;.$0,


5+*+<&*

=+8&*

5+*+<&*

=+8&*

5+*+<&*

5+*+<&* 2 =+8&*

=+8&*

5+*+<&*
>

>

?

@

A

B

C

>D
"
!"#$%!&$
#$% &' () *(+, $-* - ,-./% %))%01 (2 *(+, $-3+1-1* -24 ,(0-1+(2*5 #$+* %6&%.+7%21
8-* 0(24901%4 +2 (.4%. 1( *%% +) 1$% (&&(*+1% +* 1.9%: +) *(+, $(.+;(2 -24 *(+, ,(0-1+(2
$-<% -2 %))%01 () *(+, &'5 #$% &.(0%49.% +2<(,<%4 1-=+2/ *(+, 0(.%*> 4%1%.7+2+2/ *(+,
$(.+;(2*> -24 1%*1+2/ 1$-1 $(.+;(2 )(. &'5 #$% +2)(.7-1+(2 8-* 1$%2 9*%4 1( 0(20,94%
8$+0$ )+%,4* -1 ?.97,+2 @-.7 +2 A+20(,2> BC -.% 7(.% -0+4+0 1$-2 (1$%.*> -24 8$+0$
$(.+;(2 DC (. EF 8-* 7(.% -0+4+05 #$% &.%4+01%4 .%*9,1* 8%.% 1$-1 1$% E '(.+;(2 8(9,4
3% 7(.% -0+4+0 1$-2 1$% C $(.+;(2> 3%0-9*% () ,%-0$%4 7-1%.+-,* +2 1$% *(+, $(.+;(25 #$%
*%0(24 $G&(1$%*+* &.%4+01%4 1$-1 E(G0% @+%,4 8(9,4 3% 7(.% -0+4+0 1$-2 H$%%& I.-;+2/
-24 J<%.,((= )+%,4*5 E%0-9*% () *1-24-.4 4%<+-1+(2 -24 %..(. 3-.*> 1$% 4-1- 8-*
92)(.192-1%,G +20(20,9*+<%5 '(8%<%.> 3-*%4 (2 -<%.-/%*> *(7% 0(20,9*+(2* 7-G 3%
7-4%> *90$ -* 1$% )-01 1$-1 1$% E $(.+;(2 8-* 7(.% -0+4+0> 8+1$ - &' () K5LM5 #$% E(G0%
@+%,4 8-* -,*( 7(*1 -0+4+0> *$(8+2/ 1$-1 8$+,% 1$% 4-1- 8-* +20(20,9*+<%> 1$%
$G&(1$%*%* 8%.% *$(82 1( 3% 0(..%015

'($%)*+&$')(
#$% -0+4+1G (. -,=-,+2+1G () *(+,> (1$%.8+*% =2(82 -* &'> 0-2 4.-7-1+0-,,G -))%01
&,-21 ,+)%> 1$9* $-<+2/ - 7-N(. +7&-01 (2 1$% 8(.,4 -24 +1*O %0(*G*1%7*5 #$+* +* 3%0-9*%
8$%2 - *(+, *(,91+(2 +* 1(( -0+4+0 (. -,=-,+2%> 1$% 291.+%21* 2%0%**-.G )(. &,-21 *9.<+<-,
*90$ -* 2+1.(/%2 0-22(1 3% 4+**(,<%4> 1$9* 1$%G 0-22(1 3% 1-=%2 9& 3G 1$% .((1* () -
&,-21 DPQC> 8885(./-2+0/-.4%2+2/50(7F5 #$% &' () 1$% *(+, +* -))%01%4 +2 7-2G 8-G*>
0$+%),G 1$.(9/$ 7-2 7-4% )%.1+,+;%.*> 8$+0$ -44 7+2%.-,* 1( 3-,-20% 1$% &'5 P-19.-,,G>
*(+,* 3%0(7% 7(.% -0+4+0 3%0-9*% () .-+28-1%. ,%-0$+2/ (91 +(2*5 J1$%. )-01(.* 7-G -,*(
-))%01 1$% -0+4+1G () *(+, DB5R5 C*$7-2> I5 S9.+> T**%21+-, H(+, H0+%20%F5 #$% $%-,1$G .-2/%
() &' )(. - &,-21 <-.+%*> $(8%<%. - &' () M5M -24 3%,(8 8(9,4 3% 0(2*+4%.%4 *1.(2/,G 1(
%61.%7%,G -0+4+0> K5U 1( K5M 8(9,4 3% *,+/$1,G 1( 7(4%.-1%,G -0+4+0> K5K:V5W 8(9,4 3%
2%91.-,> V5X:Y5X 8(9,4 3% *,+/$1,G 1( 7(4%.-1%,G -,=-,+2% -24 Y5M -24 -3(<% 8(9,4 3%
*1.(2/,G 1( %61.%7%,G -,=-,+2% D?5 E+0=%,$-9&1> 8885%*)5%49F5
#( 1%*1 8$%1$%. 1$% &' () 1$% *(+, +* -))%01%4 3G 1$% $(.+;(2 -24 $-3+1-1 () 1$%
*(+,> -2 %6&%.+7%21 8+,, 3% 0(24901%4 -1 ?.97,+2 @-.7> - 8+,4,+)% *-2019-.G ,(0-1%4 +2
A+20(,2> B-**-0$9*%11*> (82%4 3G 1$% B-**-0$9*%11* C9493(2 H(0+%1G5 #$%.% -.% 7-2G
)+%,4* 8+1$+2 1$% *-2019-.G> *(7% () 8$+0$ -.% 9*%4 1( /.(8 (./-2+0 &.(490%> (1$%.*
8$+0$ -.% 9*%4 )(. -2+7-, /.-;+2/ -24 *(7% 1$-1 -.% &.%*%21,G 92(009&+%45 #$% &' ()
1$% )+%,4* 4%1%.7+2% 1$% $%-,1$ () 1$% *(+,> -24 -* ?.97,+2 @-.7 *%,,* 1$% &.(490% +1
0.%-1%*> 1$% &' () 1$% )+%,4* +* 0.90+-, 1( &.(490% - *900%**)9, 0.(&5 @(. 1$+* %6&%.+7%21>
E(G0%> H$%%& I.-;+2/ -24 J<%.,((= )+%,4* 8+,, 3% 1%*1%45 E(G0% @+%,4 +* -2 -/.+09,19.-,
)+%,4 (2 8$+0$ 7-2G 0.(&* -.% /.(82> +20,94+2/ 391 2(1 ,+7+1%4 1( 0-..(1*> 1(7-1(%* -24
,%1190%> %-0$ () 8$+0$ 2%%4* *(+, 8+1$ - &' +2 - *&%0+)+0 .-2/%5 #-,,> <+3.-21 ),(8%.* -.%
-,*( )(924 +2 1$% )+%,45 #$% *(+, () E(G0% @+%,4 +* - *+,1G 0,-G ,(-7 -24 1$% 0(,(. +* /.%G:
3.(82 DZ$-22-> Z($,%.> R(**> Y1$ /.-4% &(*1%.*F5 C* 8%,, -* 1$% *$%%& 1$-1 /.-;% 1$%.%>
H$%%& I.-;+2/ )+%,4 +* -,*( $(7% 1( *(7% 0$+0=%2*> 1$% )%0%* () 8$+0$ 0(9,4 -))%01 1$% &'
() 1$% *(+,5 #$% /.(924 +* 0(<%.%4 3G 4-.= /.%%2 /.-** -24 1$%.% -.% 18( H9/-. B-&,%
1.%%* 1$%.%5 #$% *(+, 1G&% +* *+,1 ,(-7 D[$(> ?(2(<-2> A-7&$+%.> Y1$ /.-4% &(*1%.*F5
J<%.,((= @+%,4 +* 2(1 9*%4 )(. -2G *&%0+)+0 $97-2 &9.&(*% 09..%21,G> 1$9* 1$% )-92-
1$%.% +* 7(*1,G 8+,4),(8%.* -24 8%%4* *90$ -* /(,4%2.(4 -24 7+,=8%%45 #$%.% -.% -,*(
8+,,(8 1.%%* +2 1$% )+%,4 -24 3,9%3+.4* -.% )(924 +2 1$% *9..(924+2/ -.%-5 #$% *(+, 1G&%
-1 J<%.,((= @+%,4 +* *+,1G 0,-G ,(-7 -24 1$% 0(,(. +* (,+<% /.%%2Q39.21 *+%22- DT,,*8(.1$>
Z-2/> H0$%%.> Y1$ /.-4% &(*1%.*F5
2
The habitat of soil is shown to affect soil pB on a laigei scale, chiefly uue to
uiffeiences in iainwatei. Locations with moie iainfall become moie aciuic uue to
iainwatei leaching mineials away. Bowevei, lanu use tenus to affect the pB of soil the
gieatest. Agiicultuial lanus tenu to be moie aciuic uue to cations, which balance the pB,
not being ietuineu to the soil when plants uie but iathei being moveu away as piouuce
(N.R. Ashman, u. Puii, Essential Soil Science). Bowevei, oveiall foiest habitats tenu to
be moie aciuic than fielu habitats uue to the loss of acius fiom uecomposition. The loss
of oiganic mateiials gieatly changes the aciuity of soil, because uecaying oiganic mattei
cieates acius such as nitiic anu sulfuiic aciu. Caibon uioxiue fiom uecaying plant mattei
also foims a weak oiganic aciu (B. Bickelhaupt, www.esf.euu). Nateiials within the soil
aie also shown to have an impact on its pB. Soils with a gieatei clay content aie shown
to be moie iesistant to aciuification anu alkalization uue to theii laige oiganic content.
The two soil hoiizons closest to the suiface commonly founu in fielu habitats aie the A
anu B hoiizons. The A hoiizon is maue up of a mix of oiganic mateiials anu leacheu
mineials, while the B hoiizon is maue up of majoiity leacheu mineials such as iion anu
aluminum as well as humus, which is nonliving oiganic mattei. Iion anu aluminum
oxiues aie both aciuic. The oiganic mateiial in both hoiizons howevei, as mentioneu
above, woulu make them less vulneiable to changes in pB (NA, www.nics.uusa.gov).
The pioposeu expeiiment is the effect of soil habitat anu soil hoiizon on pB. The
objective of this expeiiment is to bettei unueistanu how enviionmental factois affect
soil pB, specifically within each hoiizon. The question will be testeu by obtaining soil
samples of both the A anu B hoiizons at thiee uiffeient fielus at Biumlin Faim, five
samples of each hoiizon pei fielu. The pB of the samples will be ueteimineu by using a
Rapitest soil pB test kit. The inuepenuent vaiiables foi this expeiiment aie the soil
habitat anu hoiizon anu the uepenuent vaiiable foi this expeiiment is the pB of the soil.
Impoitant contiolleu vaiiables foi this expeiiment incluue having the same peison
conuuct the soil pB test, the ianuomization technique useu to ueteimine the testing
locations within the thiee fielu habitats, the soil pB test pioceuuie, the uepth that the
soil augei is uug into the giounu anu the expeiimental pioceuuie. The fiist hypothesis
foi this expeiiment is: If the pB of Boyce, 0veilook anu Sheep uiazing fielus aie testeu,
then the pB of Boyce Fielu woulu be lowei, because pB balancing cations aie not
ietuineu to the fielu but aie insteau taken away as piouuce, making the fielu moie
aciuic. Fuitheimoie, compost is uepositeu on the soil, which consists of uecaying
oiganic mattei that foims a weak aciu (N.R. Ashman, u. Puii, Essential Soil Science)
(NA, www.esf.euu) (N. Stiombeigei, www.extsoilciop.colostate.euu). The seconu
hypothesis is: If the pB of the A anu B hoiizons aie testeu, then the B hoiizon woulu be
the most aciuic because the B hoiizon contains leacheu mateiials such as aluminum anu
iion oxiues which aie aciuic (K.Schultheis, class notes) (NA,
www.oiganicgaiuening.com).
This expeiiment is impoitant to Biumlin Faim anu the gieatei scientific
community because it shows how enviionmental factois affect soils. This coulu help
Biumlin Faim ueciue how to put each fielu to use anu it coulu also help them bettei
manage theii soil to maintain it's health. It is essential to unueistanu how
enviionmental factois affect pB because agiicultuie is ciucial to the suivival of life on
eaith, as agiicultuie cleaily pioviues foou foi both humans anu animals. If moie
faimeis unueistanu how pB in soil is affecteu, fielus can become moie efficient anu
moie foou can be piouuceu.

S
!"#$%&"'( * !$#+,-(
0n the tiip to Biumlin Faim, ianuom locations weie not pioviueu by the science
uepaitment, insteau asking the scientists to finu a methou of ianuomization. Ranuom
cooiuinates weie founu using a Texas Instiuments nspiie CAS calculatoi, as the
equation RANB(S)*1Su.
The following pioceuuie was followeu to contiol the expeiiment's accuiacy anu
keep eiiois to a minimum. The mateiials weie gatheieu, then sample site one within
Boyce Fielu was tiaveleu too. Steps thiee anu foui weie to uiill the soil augei one metei
into the soil, then to make qualitative anu quantitative obseivations about the soil. Step
five was to extiact the soil augei (Figuie 2), anu the "Fill with soil" line on the pB Test
(Figuie 1) was filleu up to with the soil sample. We filleu up to the seconu line with
uistilleu watei, then emptieu the gieen capsule of it's powuei. Step nine is to fix the cap
on the pB test anu shake thoioughly. The soil sample must iest foi one minute, then be
compaieu to the pioviueu coloi chait. Recoiu iesults, then, using iinse watei, clean the
pB test kit by uepositing the testeu soil into the waste watei bottle.




!"#$%& () *+", ", -+& ,."/ 01 -&,- 2"- -+3- 4"// 5& $,&67 *+& 3%%.4 "86"93-"8# :;"// 4"-+ ,."/<
=&38, -. ;"// $0 -. -+3- /"8& 4"-+ -+& ,&/&9-&6 ,."/ ,3=0/&7 *+& ,3=& ", -%$& .; -+& 3%%.4
"86"93-"8# :;"// 4"-+ 43-&%7<

"


!"#$%& () *+", ", -+& .&-&% /01# ,0"/ 2$#&% -+2- 32, $,&4 -0 50//&5- ,2.6/&, 2- 7%$./"1
!2%.8
!"#$%&#
()*%"#
#$%&' () #*' '++',- .+ *$%/-$- $01 2./& *.3/4.0 .0 2./& 56


#$%&' 7) #*' '++',- .+ *$%/-$- .0 2./& 56
*$%/-$-
$8'3$9'
2./& 56
2-$01$31
1'8/$-/.0
:.;,' +/'&1 <=< >=?
@8'3&..A +/'&1 <=B >="
C$3D;$31EF*''5
93$4/09 <=B >=G

#$%&' G) #*' '++',- .+ 2./& *.3/4.0 .0 56
*.3/4.0
$8'3$9'
2./& 56
2-$01$31
1'8/$-/.0
H <=I >=?
: <=G >=G


"
!"#$%&
#$%&' () *'+ +,,+-. /, 0/12 '/$13/4 /4 &5




#$%&' 6) *'+ +,,+-. /, 0/12 '%71.%. /4 &5





"89
"8:
98;
986
98<
989
98:
=8;
=86
=8<
> ?
(
)
*
+

$
,

,)"*-). /0$1
?/@-+
AB+$2//C
D%$E@%$FGH'++&
"89
"8:
98;
986
98<
989
98:
=8;
=86
=8<
7/@-+ I1+2F /B+$2//C I1+2F ,%$E@%$FG0'++& J$%314J
(
)
*
+

$
,

2)3#4*).
% '/$13/4
7 '/$13/4
6

uiaph S: The effect of soil hoiizon on pB




uiaph 4: The effect of soil habitat on pB


"#$%%&' (&)*+%)
uiaph one shows that on aveiage, hoiizon B was lowei than hoiizon A. The
aveiage pB foi the A hoiizon in Boyce Fielu was 6.7, while the aveiage foi the B hoiizon
was 6.S. The aveiage pB foi the A hoiizon in 0veilook Fielu was 6.8; the B hoiizon was
6.6. In the Sheep uiazing Aiea the aveiage foi the A anu B hoiizons weie 6.9 anu 6.S
u
1
2
S
4
S
6
7
8
A B
,
-
$
+

.
/

/-#$0-' 12.&
S.6
S.8
6.u
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.u
7.2
Boyce Fielu 0veilook Fielu FaimyaiuSheep
giazing
,
-
$
+

.
/

3-45%$-'
7
iespectively. Bowevei, the only conclusive uiffeience in hoiizons was at the Sheep
uiazing Fielu as all of the othei eiioi bais oveilappeu.
uiaph one shows six aveiages. Within the A hoiizon theie aie aveiages foi
Boyce Fielu which has a stanuaiu ueviation of u.S, 0veilook Fielu with a stanuaiu
ueviation of u.4 anu Faimyaiu with the same stanuaiu ueviation of u.4 All of the eiioi
bais aie laige anu oveilap. Within the B hoiizon theie aie thiee aveiages: Boyce,
0veilook anu Faimyaiu fielus. Boyce Fielu has a stanuaiu ueviation of u.S, 0veilook has
a stanuaiu ueviation of u.4 anu Faimyaiu has a stanuaiu ueviation of u.u. Although
Faimyaiu has no eiioi bai, the othei two uata points within the A hoiizon have laige
eiioi bais. uiaph two shows the same aveiages as giaph one.
uiaph thiee shows the aveiages of the pB foi the two soil hoiizons sampleu. The
A hoiizon hau an aveiage of 6.8 while the B hoiizon hau an aveiage of 6.S. The stanuaiu
ueviation foi the A hoiizon was u.S, while the stanuaiu ueviation foi the B hoiizon was
u.S. Both of the eiioi bais oveilappeu.
uiaph foui shows the aveiages of the pB foi the thiee sampleu habitats. Boyce
Fielu hau an aveiage pB of 6.6, while 0veilook Fielu anu Faimyaiu Sheep giazing Fielu
each hau an aveiage pB of 6.7. All of the eiioi bais oveilappeu, as Boyce Fielu hau a
stanuaiu of u.S, 0veilook Fielu hau a stanuaiu ueviation of u.4 anu Faimyaiu hau a
stanuaiu ueviation of u.S.
The soil foi the A hoiizon tenueu to be a uaikei shaue of biown, while the B
hoiizon was closei to ochie in coloiing. Both soils hau similai textuies anu weie maue
up of silty paiticles.
!"#$%##"&'
The objective of the expeiiment was to finu whethei the A hoiizon oi B hoiizon
was moie aciuic, anu to see whethei that helu tiue thioughout uiffeient locations.
Because of the way the expeiiment was uesigneu, theie hau to be two hypotheses to
auuiess both location anu soil hoiizons. The fiist hypothesis auuiesseu the soil location.
If the pB of Boyce, 0veilook, anu Sheep uiazing fielus aie testeu, then the pB of Boyce
Fielu woulu be lowei, because pB balancing cations aie not ietuineu to the fielu but aie
insteau taken away as piouuce, making the fielu moie aciuic. Fuitheimoie, compost is
uepositeu on the soil, which consists of uecaying oiganic mattei which foims a weak
aciu (N.R. Ashman, u. Puii, Essential Soil Science) (NA, www.esf.euu) (N. Stiombeigei,
www.extsoilciop.colostate.euu). The seconu hypothesis coveis what the expecteu
iesults weie foi soil hoiizons. If the pB of the A anu B hoiizons aie testeu, then the B
hoiizon woulu be the most aciuic because the B hoiizon contains leacheu mateiials such
as aluminum anu iion oxiues which aie aciuic (K.Schultheis, class notes) (NA,
www.oiganicgaiuening.com). The aveiages of the iesults pioveu the hypotheses
coiiect.
The iesults confoimeu with the hypotheses, pioving that a sufficient amount of
ieseaich when foiming the hypotheses was uone. Bowevei, the oveilap in eiioi bais
maue the uata inconclusive. This is most likely because the inciements in which pB is
measuieu in is quite laige, with inciements of u.S. Nany test kits actually have laigei
inciements, with inciements of 2.u (www.noitheinbiewei.com) 0n the flip siue, some
veiy piecise pB test kits have inciements of u.2. (NA, lamotte.com) The oveilap was
uisappointing, as the uesiieu iesults hau a veiy small oveilap, if any at all, in oiuei to
make appiopiiate conclusions.
Baseu on aveiages, some conclusions can be maue. uiaph one shows the effect of
soil hoiizon on pB, anu while it looks like theie is a laige uispaiity between the A anu B
8
hoiizons, the Y axis of the bai giaph shows the inciements in which pB is shown in is
quite small. In the collecteu set of iesults, the B hoiizon was moie aciuic, which
confoimeu with oui hypotheses. This is because the B hoiizon contains many leacheu
mateiials like aluminum anu iion oxiue, which inciease the aciuity of soil. (NA,
www.oiganicgaiuening.com) Boyce Fielu was the most aciuic in both the A anu B
hoiizons, anu one of the key uiffeiences between Boyce anu 0veilook anu Sheep
uiazing Fielus was the way it was maintaineu. Accoiuing to the teachei-natuialist,
Boyce Fielu is wheie the majoiity of ciops aie planteu. This means that Boyce Fielu has
a soil that is peifect foi the climate, with a healthy balance of leacheu mateiials, anu a
healthy level of aciuity. ueneially, a healthy level of aciuity in the A hoiizon is 6.S anu
Boyce Fielu's aveiage was the closest to that numbei than eithei of the othei soil
locations.
0nfoitunately the uata was not veiy piecise at all. Foi giaph 2 in paiticulai,
looking at the eiioi bais gave no insight into any conclusions that coulu possibly be
maue. uiaph 1 was slightly bettei, with smallei eiioi bais, meaning moie piecise anu
compact uata, but theie was still an oveilap, meaning the iesults weie inconclusive foi
both of the inuepenuent vaiiables.
It ceitainly woulu have been nice if moie time was gianteu to assuie the
limitation of eiiois when collecting anu testing the soil foi pB. Extia mateiials woulu
have been nice, because the spilling of powuei anu loss of bags, leu to impiovisation
techniques to limit the uamage of which the mishap woulu have of the uata collection.
The piecision anu accuiacy in the uata was not guaianteeu, but with a few assumptions
maue anu eiiois noteu, the uata set is one to have full confiuence in. Some ways in
which the expeiiment coulu have been impioveu involve a laigei time slot, to insuie the
accuiacy anu piecision of the uata set. 0ne of the caieless mistakes that iesulteu fiom
not enough time was on Boyce Fielu Boiizon B sample S, theie was not a goou way to
ueteimine hoiizons because of the uepth of the A hoiizon.

!"#$%&'()*(+($,-
Eiica Bogan
I woulu fiist anu foiemost like to thank the science uepaitment foi all of theii
help with Knights of Science, specifically Ns. Schultheis foi guiuing Tievoi anu I thiough
the many steps of the pioject. I woulu also like to thank all of the natuialists anu
teacheis who chapeioneu the Biumlin Faim Tiip, specifically Ns. Canauay, Ni. Saizana
anu Ni. Senabie. I woulu also like to thank Avi Nausen foi helping me conuuct some of
the soil tests. Finally, I woulu like to thank my paitnei Tievoi Bonovan foi woiking veiy
haiu ovei the past month anu being a gieat paitnei. Thank you again to eveiyone who
maue this papei possible.

Tievoi Bonovan
I'u like to thank the natuialists at Biumlin Faim foi helping me anu Eiica to finu
appiopiiate locations to take soil samples. I'u like to thank Ns. Biooks foi helping me
finu qualifieu souices foi my ieseaich, anu to all of my classmates who helpeu to euit
vaiious paits of the pioject. I'u like to thank Ns. Canauay anu Ni. Saizana foi helping us
to finu the testing location uuiing the fielu tiip. I'u like to thank Ns. Schultheis foi uoing
eveiything she coulu to push oui pioject foiwaiu. Lastly, I woulu like to thank Eiica
Bogan foi being the best paitnei I coulu've askeu foi.

9
!"#$% '()*+

Tievoi Bonovan

Bennett, Pamela. "0hio State 0niveisity Extension Fact Sheet." uiowing Caiiots
In The Bome uaiuen,
Bickelhaupt, Bonalu. "Soil PB: What It Neans." !"##$%$ "' ()*+,")-$)./# 01+$)1$
/)2 3",$4.,5. State 0niveisity of New Yoik, 2u14. Web. 17 Api. 2u14.
<http:www.esf.euupubpiogbiochuiesoilphsoilph.htm>.
BYu16u69S. 0hio State 0niveisity, n.u. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14.
<http:ohioline.osu.euuhygfact1uuu16u6.html>. "A Bettei 0nueistanuing of the
Impacts of uiazing Sheep." A Bettei 0nueistanuing of the Impacts of uiazing Sheep.
0SBA, 14 Nai. 2u1S. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14. <http:phys.oignews2u1SuS-
impactsgiazingsheep.html>.
"Biumlin Faim Wilulife Sanctuaiy." Biumlin Faim Wilulife Sanctuaiy.
Nassachusetts Auuubon Society, n.u. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.massauuubon.oiggetoutuooiswilulifesanctuaiiesuiumlinfaim>.
The Euitois of Encyclopuia Biitannica. "Bumus (soil Component)."
Encyclopeuia Biitannica 0nline. Encyclopeuia Biitannica, n.u. Web. 12 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.biitannica.comEBcheckeutopic2764u8humus>.
Factois Affecting PB. Bigital image. Soil PB. 0SBA, n.u. Web.
<http:www.nics.usua.govInteinetFSE_B0C0NENTSnics142p2_uSS29S.puf>.

Eiica Bogan

Ashman, N. R., anu u. Puii. (44$).+/# 0"+# 01+$)1$6 7 !#$/, /)2 !")1+4$ 8).,"291.+") ." 0"+#
01+$)1$. 0xfoiu: Blackwell Science, 2uu2. Piint.
1u
Bennett, Pamela. "0hio State 0niveisity Extension Fact Sheet." !"#$%&' )*""#+, -& ./0
1#20 !*"30&4 15!678986:;. 0hio State 0niveisity, n.u. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14.
<http:ohioline.osu.euuhyg-fact1uuu16u6.html>.
"A Bettei 0nueistanuing of the Impacts of uiazing Sheep." < =0++0" >&30",+*&3%&' #? +/0
-2@*A+, #? !"*B%&' C/00@. 0SBA, 14 Nai. 2u1S. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14.
<http:phys.oignews2u1S-uS-impacts-giazing-sheep.html>.
Cho, Bonovan, Lamphiei, 8th giaue posteis, 1u1S1S, S1414
"Biumlin Faim Wilulife Sanctuaiy." D"E2F%& G*"2 H%F3F%?0 C*&A+E*"I. Nassachusetts
Auuubon Society, n.u. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14. <http:www.massauuubon.oigget-
outuooiswilulife-sanctuaiiesuiumlin-faim>.
The Euitois of Encyclopuia Biitannica. "Bumus (soil Component)." J&AIAF#@03%*
="%+*&&%A* K&F%&0. Encyclopeuia Biitannica, n.u. Web. 12 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.biitannica.comEBcheckeutopic2764u8humus>.
Ellswoith, Kang, Scheei, 8th giaue posteis, 1u1S1S, S1414
G*A+#", <??0A+%&' L1. Bigital image. C#%F L1. 0SBA, n.u. Web.
<http:www.nics.usua.govInteinetFSE_B0C0NENTSnics142p2_uSS29S.puf
>.
Khanna, Kohlei, Ross, 8th giaue posteis, 1u1S1S, S1414
K.Schultheis, Class Notes, BB&N Niuule School, n.u., S1414
Luzauis, valeiie A. "The Life of a Sugai Naple Tiee." Coinell 0niveisity, n.u. Web. 11
Nai. 2u14. <http:maple.uni.coinell.euupubstiees.htm>.
Nason, Sanuia. "0niveisity of Illinois Extension Seiving Champaign, Foiu, Iioquois anu
veimilion Counties." 1#$ +# M#$0" C#%F L1. 0niveisity of Illinois, n.u. Web. 11
Nai. 2u14. <http:web.extension.illinois.euucfivhomeowneisu8u818.html>.
11
Peiiy, Leonaiu. "PB foi the uaiuen." !" $%& '() *+&,)-. 0niveisity of veimont, n.u. Web.
u9 Nai. 2u14. <http:pss.uvm.euuppppubsohS4.htm>.
"Soil PB: What It Neans." .%/0 !"1 2(+' 3' 4)+-5. S0NY College of Enviionmental
Sciences, n.u. Web. u9 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.esf.euupubpiogbiochuiesoilphsoilph.htm>.
Stiombeigei, Naiy. 6%78%5' 9$$):'5 %- .%/0 ;<+0/'=. .%/0 >)8+&'7)-'. Coloiauo State
0niveisity, n.u. Web.
<http:www.extsoilciop.colostate.euuSoilspoweipointcompostCompostEff
ectsonSoilQuality.puf>.
"0nueistanuing PB." 2(+' 35 .%/0 !" +-, 2(+' >%)5 3' 4)+-?1 @&A+-/: *+&,)-/-A.
0iganic uaiuening Nagazine, n.u. Web. 11 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.oiganicgaiuening.comleain-anu-giowunueistanuing-ph>.
Bennett, Pamela. "0hio State 0niveisity Extension Fact Sheet." uiowing Caiiots
In The Bome uaiuen,






LOvF 1HA1 DIk1f WA1Fk:
Thc Effccl of Pond Locclion on lcccl Coliform Lcvcl













Author 1. Delila Keravuori (S86-9)
Author 2. Chris Attisani (S86-1)
Author 3. Miriam Feldman (S86-6)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Author Page Number

Abstract Delila Keravuori 3

Introduction Delila Keravuori 3

Materials and Methods Chris Attisani 4

Results Miriam Feldman 6

Discussion Chris Attisani 11

Acknowledgements All Authors 12

Works Cited All Authors 14























2
ABSTRACT
The proposed experiment was designed to determine the relationship between Iecal coliIorm
bacteria, the accumulation oI microorganisms that live in warm blooded animals, and pond location at
Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. As determined by scientists, the amount oI Iecal coliIorm
bacteria can increase iI it has come in contact with any sort oI animal waste (KY Water Watch,
state.ky.us.htm). The procedure Ior this experiment was to take seven water samples Irom random
spots around the perimeter oI three diIIerent ponds at the Iarm: Poultry Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Ice
pond. Additionally, seven samples were collected Irom Cambridge tap water to use as a control run.
All samples were then placed into an unheated incubator Ior Iorty-eight hours, during which the water
was expected to change color depending on the amount oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria that had developed.
II the color was red (negative) it was recorded as zero, and oppositely, iI the color was yellow
(positive) it was recorded as one. Any colors in between were recorded as a decimal. As expected,
the water Irom Poultry Pond had the largest average amount oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria (0.94 out oI
1.00). This result was believed to be due to the large amount oI animal manure runoII since it was
located very close to the Iarmyard and chicken coop, as explained in the hypothesis. Ice Pond had an
average oI 0.87 and Bathtub Pond had an average oI 0.76. Due to the inconclusive results, the
hypothesis was not supported.

INTRODUCTION
Little do swimmers know oI the hidden dangers beneath the surIace oI many ponds and lakes.
One potential threat oI swimming in these waters is the large amount oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. Fecal
coliIorm bacteria, a subgroup oI coliIorm bacteria, is an accumulation oI microorganisms that live in the
large intestines oI warm blooded animals and aid in the process oI digestion. By themselves, Iecal
coliIorm bacteria is virtually harmless, but may indicate the presence oI other potentially pathogenic
organisms. It is challenging to test Ior these pathogenic organisms, thereIore Iecal coliIorm bacteria is
tested and used to indicate the presence oI these pathogens. II there is Iecal coliIorm bacteria in any
ambient body oI water, it can be accurately concluded that the water has been contaminated by either
mixing with sewage Ilow, or has come in contact with animal or human waste (KY Water Watch,
state.ky.us.htm). The most regularly tested coliIorm indicator is Escherichia Coli, which can be
evidence oI health risk in both Iresh and salt water. E. Coli has the ability to grow at increased
temperatures, thus resulting in its separation Irom the rest oI the Iecal coliIorm bacteria. The two most
common waterborne diseases one can get when exposed to excessive amounts oI contaminated waters
are Giardiasis and Cryptosporidiosis. In addition to being present in water, Iecal coliIorm bacteria can
exist in animal manure, soil, and submerged wood (Vermont.gov, healthvermont.gov).
This experiment examines the correlation between pond water and the quantity oI Iecal coliIorm
bacteria. The testing will be done at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon wildliIe sanctuary and
working Iarm located in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Spanning across a total oI 206 acres, the Iarm has
many ponds where students will be collecting water samples Irom including Poultry Pond, Ice Pond, and
Bathtub Pond.
In these waters, the presence oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria could raise the general oxygen demand,
or cause cloudy water and unpleasant odors. Scientists believe that some amount oI Iecal coliIorm
bacteria is expected in water due to rainIall and snow runoII, however any levels above 235 organisms
per 100 mL oI water is dangerous to swim in (water.epa.gov). In drinking water, any amount oI Iecal
coliIorm bacteria is unsaIe (Jolley and English, clemson.edu).
In an experiment conducted by Bieniek and Koprowski, testing the relationship between total
3
Iecal coliIorm bacteria in pond water versus lake water, there was more Iecal coliIorm bacteria in pond
water. They concluded that this was because there was a higher accessibility to Iecal material (Bieniek
and Koprowski, depts.alverno.edu). Similarly to this experiment, BB&N students will test ponds, some
being in closer proximity to animal waste. This could lead to more or less Iecal coliIorm bacteria.
The proposed experiment is to test the eIIect oI pond location (either Poultry Pond, Ice Pond,
or Bathtub Pond) on the amount oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. The independent variable is the pond
location, and the dependent variable is the amount oI bacteria. The control run is the Iecal coliIorm
bacteria levels in Cambridge drinking water. Some variables that need to be controlled throughout the
experiment are the size oI the water samples collected (mL), the testing procedure, the length oI
incubation time (hours), and the temperature at which the incubator is set on (C). The hypothesis set
Iorth is, iI the water is tested Irom Poultry Pond, then it will have the highest Iecal coliIorm level, because
it is located in close proximity to the Iarmyard and chicken coop, thus having a large amount oI animal
manure runoII, which is a leading cause oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, water.epa.gov). The other ponds are Iarther away Irom the Iarmyard and chicken coop
thereIore will not mix with as much Iecal material that may contain Iecal coliIorm bacteria. Students will
test their hypothesis by gathering water samples Irom each pond and then, back at BB&N, growing
Iecal ColiIorm bacterial colonies in an incubator Ior Iorty-eight hours. The control run Ior this
experiment is to test the Iecal coliIorm bacteria levels in drinking water.
As a result oI this experiment, Iuture scientists and everyday swimmers will have a better
understanding oI the qualiIications regarding the bacteria in saIe swimming waters. They will also know
how to test coliIorm bacteria in water that has not been previously examined to ensure its saIety. In
addition to swimming, it is crucial to know iI the waters that Iishermen Iish in are contaminated because
eating Iish Irom contaminated waters can be dangerous. Also, in terms oI drinking water, one will learn
how to measure bacteria in drinking water in hopes oI Iecal disease prevention and Iurther
contamination. Lastly, this inIormation could help Drumlin Farm by indicating which oI their ponds have
higher Iecal coliIorm bacteria levels. By knowing this, the Iarm would be more certain about the health
oI their crops. This is because nearby Iecal coliIorm inIested waters could be accessible to the soil
surrounding the growing plants, which could cause the plants to be unsaIe to eat. Not only would this
knowledge be useIul to Drumlin Farm speciIically, but other Iarms could use similar bacterial tests to
determine the amounts oI harmIul bacteria in the soil near their plants due to proximity oI bacteria Iilled
waters. As a result, they would be able to move their gardens and Iields, iI necessary, into a diIIerent
area to prevent any Iurther contamination.

MATERIALS & METHODS
While testing the eIIect oI location on Iecal coliIorm bacteria growth, a speciIic and in depth
procedure was needed to complete the experiment. When collecting the samples, the Iirst step was to
travel to Drumlin Farms in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Next, eight samples were taken Irom each oI the
three ponds, Poultry Pond, Ice Pond, and Bathtub Pond. (see Iigure 3) To take these samples,
twenty-eight 200 mL tupperwares were needed to store the water until testing time. Each pond was
split into a clock-like Iormat, with one through twelve labeled on each pond. To completely randomize
it, two dice were rolled and then the sums oI those die will be the spot on the clock labeled pond that
was tested. The dice that were used, were two red dice, made by Dragons Foot. This was done seven
times. Prior to the Iield trip day, all the tupperwares were sterilized by putting them in a bathtub Iull oI
ten percent bleach, and ninety percent water, and then soaking them Ior thirty seconds each. Two Liters
oI Clorox bleach, and eighteen Liters oI Wellesley tap water was used to create the sterilization mixture.
4
Once the tupperwares were put in the hydrosystem bathtub and soaked, they were dried oII by a
twenty-seven inch by IiIty-two inch towel. Once the spots oI testing Ior each pond were decided at
Drumlin Farms, a tupperware was Iilled with ten milliliters oI water, then immediately capped. This was
done seven times at each pond site, plus seven times with drinking water as the control run.

AIter collection at Drumlin Farm, all samples were taken back to the lab Ior testing. All the tests
took place at BB&N middle school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. First, the samples oI water were
poured into thirty large test tubes made by Lamotte, and Iilled with the Iull ten milliliters oI water. Inside
each test tube, was a Iecal coliIorm tablet. Next, the cap was put on the tube, and the tube was stood
upright on a plastic tray. Next, the tubes were stored Ior Iorty-eight hours, at a consistent temperature,
in a Fisher Isotemp Oven incubator. (see Iigure 1) To Iind out the results aIter Iorty-eight hours, the
tubes oI water were compared to the coliIorm color chart. (see Iigure 2) The results were recorded
using the numbers zero and one to determine negative or positive. II samples were in between negative
and positive, a decimal number was determined.

Once all the testing was done, all the materials and things that were used, were disposed oI.
First, the cap oI the tube was removed. Next, one milliliter oI household bleach was poured into the
tube, and the tube was recapped. Next, shake the tube, and throw it in the trash. Repeat this procedure
Ior all tubes.

Diagrams: The Iigure on the leIt, is an incubator, located in the middle school science lab, and was
kept at room temperature, and used simply as a saIe place to keep the samples.. The Iigure on the right
is a coliIorm color chart, and was used to identiIy whether the sample was negative or positive. The
Iigure on the bottom leIt, is a map oI the pond locations that were visited.

figure 1: Incubator figure 2: ColiIorm color chart












figure 3:
Map oI pond
5
locations






















Table 1: The eIIect oI pond location on Iecal coliIorm level


Graph 1: The eIIect oI pond location on Iecal coliIorm level











Graph 1 shows all the Iecal coliIorm data collected on April 7, 2014 at Drumlin Farm. The
ponds tested had overlapping error bars, though the control run (tap water) was considerably below all
three pond locations. On average, poultry pond had the highest level coliIorm level (0.94 out oI 1.00).
Ice and Bathtub Pond Iollowed with averages oI 0.87 and 0.76 respectively. All three ponds had Iecal
coliIorm values above 0.5, meaning they tested positive Ior Iecal coliIorm (more than twenty colonies
per 100 mL oI water). The control run had the lowest average, 0.11, meaning that (because the average
was below 0.5) there were Iewer than 20 colonies per 100 mL oI the Cambridge tap water. OI the Iour
sets oI data, the least precise was the data collected at Bathtub Pond, which had a standard deviation oI
0.15. Ice pond was only slightly more precise (a standard deviation oI 0.14). The data Irom the control
run and Poultry Pond was considerably more precise. The standard deviations were 0.09 and 0.07
respectively. This means that, in addition to having the highest average coliIorm level, Poultry Pond also
had the most precise data. Despite this, the error bar still overlaps signiIicantly with the Ice Pond error
bar, and has a slight overlap with the Bathtub Pond data.
Though the ponds had similar Iecal coliIorm levels, they all had distinctly diIIerent water colors
(see Iig. 1-3). Also, only two oI the ponds (Bathtub and Ice) had layers oI ice - Poultry Pond had
completely thawed. All pond locations tested positive Ior Iecal coliIorm bacteria, so the water aIter
testing turned similar yellow-orange colors (see Iig 4-6). In contrast, the control tap water (which tested
negatively Ior coliIorm bacteria) turned diIIerent shades oI bright red (see Iig. 7).


fig. 1 - poultrv pond


fig. 2 - bathtub pond


fig. 3 - ice pond



fig. 4 - ice pond water after testing


fig. 5 - bathtub pond water after testing























fig. 6 - poultrv pond water after testing


fig. 7 - control (tap) water after testing





DISCUSSION
In this experiment, levels oI Iecal coliIorm were tested in three diIIerent ponds to determine iI
there was a correlation between coliIorm levels and pond location. The hypothesis Ior this experiment
was iI the water Irom Poultry Pond is tested, then it will have the highest Iecal coliIorm level, because it
is located in close proximity to the Iarmyard and chicken coop which leads to a large amount oI animal
manure run-oII, which is a leading cause oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria (water.epa.gov). This hypothesis was
not supported because there was not a clear diIIerence in Iecal coliIorm bacteria levels between Poultry
Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Ice Pond, as all oI the error bars overlapped.
What was concluded Irom this experiment, was that there was no direct correlation between the
pond location and the levels oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. Since there were signiIicant testing errors, it is
unknown how accurate the conclusiveness oI the data really was.
The data set collected was not particularly precise. For the Iour locations tested (aside Irom the
control run), all the error bars overlapped at least a little bit. The error bars were Iairly big, meaning
there was a large range oI data. These Iew Iactors lead the scientists to be unconIident with the data
collected. For Poultry Pond, the average level oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria was .94, which means the tests
were positive. The average Ior Bathtub Pond was .76, and Ior Ice Pond it was .87. These were both
positive as well. This is not surprising data, because it is completely normal to have some Iecal coliIorm
bacteria. The averages oI each pond location were reasonably close to each other, but the control run
was more oI an outlier. This tells us that the tap water is clean, and that their is no Iecal coliIorm in it, but
the pond water does contain Iecal coliIorm bacteria. The reason the results were positive, is because
these ponds don`t need an absence oI bacteria to thrive. II the bacteria caused problems Ior the pond
or threatened the saIety oI living organisms, then it would most likely be exterminated. With this being
said, scientists are able to inIer that there really is no unsaIe level oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. Drinking
water on the other hand, is unsaIe to drink iI it contains a substantial amount. The average level oI Iecal
coliIorm Ior tap water was .11, which is almost none. Because oI these levels oI bacteria, the tap water
is saIe to drink, but the pond water is not (KY Water Watch, state.ky.us.htm).
There are several modiIications that could be made to improve this experiment. The Iirst one
would be to test each pond location at the same time oI day. This would eliminate variability due to time
oI day because it is unknown iI the amount oI bacteria are aIIected by Iactors such as sunlight or
temperature. The second modiIication would be to test each pond location every day over the course oI
several days. This would help eliminate variability because oI environmental Iactors such as rain and
runoII that might aIIect each site diIIerently. Another modiIication to this experiment, would be to take
samples Irom diIIerent depths oI each pond. It is unknown whether the majority oI bacteria grows at the
top oI the pond or the bottom, so this would eliminate errors due to water depth.
While many data points were collected, additional samples would have improved the accuracy
oI the results to assure that a conclusion could be reached. While at Poultry and Ice Pond, many things
were observed during the sample collection process. At Poultry Pond, there was a busy road across the
pond, and a chicken coop behind it. In relation to the hypothesis, the chicken coop could easily provide
runoII into the pond which could add to the Iecal coliIorm bacteria levels. At Ice Pond, two ducks were
swimming around near the dock, and a lot oI wild turkeys were running around. These animals could
have aIIected the levels oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria because the main cause Ior the bacteria is animal
Ieces.
In addition to observations, a Iew errors occurred during this experiment. First, the data points
recorded weren`t exact, because the measurements were a bit subjective, and measured by the eye,
and not by any special instrument. II the samples were measured more accurately, it`s possible that the
11
results could be diIIerent. The next error that occurred, was that the samples were put into the incubator
Ior Iorty-Iive hours and then tested, instead oI being incubated Ior Iorty-eight hours, which is what the
procedure called Ior. The reason this was an error, is because it is unknown whether all the samples
started out with the same number oI bacteria, because the samples weren`t tested at the time oI
collection. While transporting the containers back to the BB&N Middle School, water could have
leaked out or air could have gotten into the containers and contaminated them. The Iinal error that
occurred, was that one oI the droppers was contaminated, because it was used to test two diIIerent
pond locations. While most oI the droppers were used Ior only one pond location, one oI the droppers
was used Ior two separate ones. Instead oI having water purely Irom one pond, one oI the ponds was
contaminated with water Irom a previous location. For Iuture experiments, diIIerent types oI bacteria
could be tested in the water, because Iecal coliIorm isn`t the only bacteria in pond water, and there may
be conclusive diIIerences between the other types oI bacteria, unlike the Iecal coliIorm levels. A related
question, is whether there is any bacteria that could pose as a threat to the health oI a pond. This is
something that could be explored in the Iuture, and cross reIerenced with the experiment at hand now.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Author 1:
There are many people that made this project possible. First, I would like to acknowledge Ms.
Schultheis Ior her mentoring and assistance throughout this entire process. I would also like to thank the
science department at BB&N Ior supplying us with most oI our materials and organizing the Drumlin
Farm Iield trip. Many thanks to Emily Brower and Jeremy Tang Ior letting us borrow crucial materials,
and Sophia Scanlan who helped us label the many tubes aIter school. Lastly, I would like to express
my gratitude towards my partners Miriam and Chris Ior contributing greatly to this project.

Author 2:
There are many people that I would like to thank that helped our group with this experiment.
First oII, I would like to thank my science teacher Ms. Schultheis Ior guiding us and Ior motivating us to
try a harder experiment. I would also like to thank my mother and my sister Ior helping me to bleach all
the tupperwares. I would like to thank the Drumlin Farms naturalist Carol, Ior explaining the Iarm runoII
system to me. Thank you to Jeremy Tang, and Emily Brower Ior loaning us a container to transport our
samples back to the school. Most oI all, I would like to thank Miriam and Delila Ior contributing to the
project.

Author 3:
I really appreciate the help oI everyone involved with this project. Firstly, I`d like to thank the
Drumlin Farm staII Ior their directions, advice, and habitat inIormation on our visit. Also, many thanks to
Jeremy Tang, Emily Brower, and Sophia Scanlan, who gave our group some much-needed assistance
on the day oI the Drumlin Farm Iield trip. I need to thank Ms. Schultheis and the rest oI the BB&N
Middle School science department as well Ior helping our group obtain the necessary materials and
coliIorm tests, as well as providing support throughout the entire Knights oI Science project. And lastly,
12
I wouldn`t have completed this experiment and report without the indispensable contributions oI my
partners Chris Attisani and Delila Keravuori.




WORKS CITED

Author 1:
Amy and Stacy, Bieniek and Koprowski. Comparison of Total Fecal Coliform Bacteria and E.
Coli in Pond vs. Lake Waters. Rep. N.p., 30 Nov. 2000. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/archive/Bienkop.htm~.

"ColiIorm Bacteria in Water." Department of Health- Agencv of Human Services. Vermont.gov,
2014. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/water/coliIorm.aspx~.

"5.11 Fecal Bacteria." United States Environmental Protection Agencv. Unknown, 6 Mar. 2012.
Web. 09 Mar. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms511.cIm~.

"Fecal ColiIorm Bacteria in Streams." Department of Ecologv State of Washington. One Front
Door- Washington's Outdoors, 1990. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/streamcoliIorms.html~.

Jolley and English, Louwanda and William. "What Is Fecal ColiIorm? Why Is It Important?"
Clemson Cooperative Extension. Clemson University, 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://www.clemson.edu/extension/naturalresources/water/publications/IecalcoliIorm.html~.

KY Water Watch. "Fecal ColiIorm Bacteria." Water Qualitv Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar.
2014. http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpIcol.htm~.

LaMotte Company. Low Cost Water Monitoring Kit. 3-5886 ed. Alexandria, VA: Earth
Force, 2001. Print.

NY Gov. "ColiIorm Bacteria in Drinking Water Supplies." Department of Health Information for
a Healthv New York. N.p., June 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/coliIormbacteria.htm~.


Author 2:
Ashworth, William. The Encvclopedia of Environmental Studies. New York: Facts on File, 1991.

"Extension Forestry & Natural Resources." What Is Fecal Coliform? Whv Is It Important? .
Extension . Clemson Universitv . South Carolina. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Print.

"Home , Water , US EPA." Home [ Water [ US EPA. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Wyman, Bruce, and L. Harold Stevenson. "Total ColiIorm Rule." Science Online. Facts On File,
14
Inc. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://www.IoIweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemIDWE40&SID5&iPinDEST4554&SingleRe
cordTrue~.

Author 3:
"5.11 Fecal Bacteria." Home. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web.
11 Mar. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms511.cIm~.

Ashworth, William. The Encvclopedia of Environmental Studies. New York: Facts on File, 1991.
Print.

"ColiIorm Bacteria in Water." Department of Health Agencv of Human Services. Vermont
Department oI Health, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/water/coliIorm.aspx~.

Davies, C. M., J. A. Long, M. Donald, and N. J. Ashbolt. "Survival oI Fecal Microorganisms in Marine
and Freshwater Sediments." Applied and Environmental Microbiologv. American Society Ior
Microbiology, May 1995. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. http://aem.asm.org/content/61/5/1888.short~.

"Fecal ColiIorm Bacteria." Water Qualitv Information. Kentucky Water Watch, n.d. Web. 11 Mar.
2014. http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpIcol.htm~.

Wyman, Bruce, and L. Harold Stevenson. "Total ColiIorm Rule." Science Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://www.IoIweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemIDWE40&SID5&iPinDEST4554&SingleRe
cordTrue~.

15


LOvF 1HA1 DIk1f WA1Fk:
Thc Effccl of Pond Locclion on lcccl Coliform Lcvcl





Author 1. Delila Keravuori (S86-9)
Author 2. Chris Attisani (S86-1)
Author 3. Miriam Feldman (S86-6)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Author Page Number

Abstract Chris Attisani 3

Introduction Miriam Feldman 3

Materials and Methods Delila Keravuori 4

Results Miriam Feldman 7

Discussion Chris Attisani 12

Acknowledgements All Authors 13

Works Cited All Authors 15


2
ABSTRACT
The objective oI this experiment was to Iind out iI there was any correlation between the pond
location, and the levels oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. All the data collection was done on April 7th, 2014, at
Drumlin Farms in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Samples were taken Irom three diIIerent ponds; Poultry
Pond, Ice Pond, and Bathtub Pond. Locations on each pond were chosen randomly by rolling two dice.
The sums oI the two dice`s numbers were added together, then marked on a clock like Iormat. Once
back at school, the samples were put into test tubes containing a Iecal coliIorm testing tablet. All
samples were incubated Ior Iorty-Iive hours at room temperature. (21 degrees Celsius) The hypothesis
was that iI Poultry Pond was tested, then it would have higher levels oI Iecal coliIorm, because the pond
is located next to the Iarmyard and chicken coop which would provide animal run-oII. (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,water.epa.gov) AIter looking over all the results, none oI the data was
conclusive, aside Irom the outstanding control run. The control run had very minimal amounts oI Iecal
coliIorm bacteria, while the other three ponds had a reasonably large amount oI the bacteria. With all
overlapping error bars, there is not much conIidence in the data collected.

INTRODUCTION
In the summer, many people go boating and swimming in natural bodies oI water. UnIortunately,
there are many little-known Iactors that can greatly impact the saIety oI these recreational waters. One
oI these Iactors is coliIorm - a type oI bacteria generally tested to determine the quality oI drinking and
recreational waters. Though the testing process usually begins with total coliIorm, tests are also
conducted Ior Iecal coliIorm (a subset oI coliIorm), the microorganisms that are Iound in the intestines oI
humans and other warm-blooded animals. Water can become contaminated with Iecal coliIorm that
originates in outside sources such as wastewater treatment plants, septic systems near the water, storm
runoII, or animal manure (water.epa.gov). Easily noted signs oI Iecal coliIorm in water are cloudiness
and bad odors. Drinking water contaminated with the bacteria can lead to diarrhea, or gastrointestinal
distress, but also many more serious diseases (healthvermont.gov). Fecal coliIorm testing is, other than
Escherichia coli, the primary test used in recreational waters. Its presence, while not always extremely
dangerous itselI, can indicate other more harmIul bacteria or viruses in bodies oI water (water.epa.gov).
Ponds, one oI the main ecosystems at Drumlin Farm, can easily become susceptible to the
presence oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria in the water. Drumlin is a working Iarm in Lincoln, Massachusetts
with a variety oI natural and man-made habitats ranging Irom Iields and Iorests to animal enclosures.
There is also much diversity within the habitats, especially when observing the wetland ecosystems.
Poultry Pond, a man-made pond with a covering oI duckweed, gets its name Irom its location near the
chicken coop. The Ice Pond has an abundance oI wildliIe, making a home Ior turtles and crayIish alike.
Bathtub Pond is a similar habitat; it is another wetland ecosystem with a diverse group oI organisms that
has soil containing much organic material. In all three oI these ponds, Iecal coliIorm tests are crucial Ior
ensuring the saIety oI humans and animals at Drumlin Farm.
Fecal coliIorm is diIIerentiated Irom total coliIorm by its intestinal origin, as well as its ability to
grow at higher temperatures. A positive Iecal coliIorm test indicates the presence oI recent human or
animal Ieces in the body oI water. This can indicate possible pathogens or diseases Irom the Iecal
material. The most common member oI the microorganisms classiIied into Iecal coliIorm (usually with
the genus Klebsiella) is Escherichia coli (www.state.ky.us). EIIects oI E. coli include intestinal illness
and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome - a kidney disease (healthvermont.gov). Because it is diIIicult to test
Ior these less common bacteria, Iecal coliIorm tests are used to indicate the possibility oI Iecal diseases
or viruses. Though Iecal coliIorm is potentially harmIul, there is an acceptable level oI 235
3
organisms/100 mL in swimming areas. Accidental ingestion or exposure to water with a Iecal coliIorm
level signiIicantly higher than that could lead to cramps, gastrointestinal distress, or diseases
(healthvermont.gov). Environmentally, high Iecal coliIorm levels create more polluted water, as well as
increased oxygen demand (water.epa.gov). In C. M. Davies, et al.`s experiment Ior the American
Society Ior Microbiology, it was Iound that there was no decay rate in the survival oI E. coli sediments
Ior 68 days (Davies, et al. aem.asm.org). This supports the resilient and potentially dangerous nature oI
E. coli and other Iecal coliIorm microorganisms.
In this experiment, pond ecosystems at Drumlin Farm will be tested in order to determine the
Iecal coliIorm levels. The independent variable Ior this experiment will be pond location, with samples
being collected Irom Poultry Pond, Ice Pond, and Bathtub Pond. Drinking water Irom the tap will also
be tested as a control run. The dependent variable will be Iecal coliIorm level. When the test is
conducted, results will be recorded with negative results below 0.5 and positive results above 0.5.
Important controlled variables Ior this experiment include (but are not limited to) water sample size
(mL), method Iollowed, length oI incubation period (hours), incubation temperature (C), and consistent
weather conditions at the time oI collection Ior each pond. The initial hypothesis Iormed Ior this test is
that iI the water Irom Poultry Pond is tested, then it will have the highest Iecal coliIorm level, because it
is located in close proximity to the Iarmyard and chicken coop, thus having a large amount oI animal
manure runoII, which is a leading cause oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria (water.epa.gov).
Seeing as Iecal coliIorm is potentially harmIul, any tests conducted at Drumlin Farm will be
useIul. The tests will determine the saIety oI the water Ior wildliIe and human recreation alike
(www.state.ky.us). Still, the greatest possible impact oI this experiment would come iI Iecal coliIorm
were to be Iound in the control run drinking water. Some presence oI Iecal coliIorm is to be expected in
natural bodies oI water, but should be present in drinking water (healthvermont.gov). The United
States Environmental Protection Agency mandates Iecal coliIorm tests Ior all drinking water as a part oI
the SaIe Drinking Water Act (Wyman & Stevenson, IoIweb.com). ThereIore, iI Iecal coliIorm bacteria
was discovered in drinking water, the experiment would become helpIul beyond just BB&N and
Drumlin Farm. Fecal coliIorm is a crucial test Ior knowledge oI the saIety oI a body oI water, so testing
is beneIicial to the immediate community as well as the scientiIic community as a whole.

MATERIALS & METHODS
At Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln, Massachusetts, random locations were chosen around the
perimeter oI three ponds (see Iigure one). At these locations, water samples were collected and tested
Iollowing the procedure as explained below.
4


Figure 1.
Samples were taken Irom pond numbers 11, 12, and 13
(Poultry Pond, Bathtub Pond, Ice Pond).
Figure 2.
BeIore testing, the Ziploc 200 mL tupperwares that would
hold the water samples had to be sterilized to eliminate any bacterial
contamination (LaMotte, 2001). A solution made up oI 18 mL oI
Wellesley tap water and 2 mL oI clorox bleach was poured into a
bathtub. One at a time, each tupperware was then submerged into
the solution Ior one minute. Once a minute had passed, the
tupperwares were then taken out oI the solution and capped very
quickly to prevent the contamination oI other bacteria in the air.
The outsides oI the tupperwares were then dried with a towel.
Another crucial component oI this experiment was the
method oI randomly selecting data points. Each oI the three ponds
were divided equally into twelve sections, similar to those on a
clock. Standing at 'one o`clock, students rolled two dice
determining where the samples would be collected Irom. For
example, iI a six was rolled, samples would be collected Irom the
corresponding point on the pond (see Iigure two). Once there, ten
mL oI water was collected, and then the dice would be rolled again
to determine the next testing location. Seven samples were
collected per pond, making a total oI twenty-one samples, in
addition to the seven samples Irom Cambridge drinking water. The
same testing procedure was Iollowed Ior collection oI the drinking
water samples as well, except that they were collected Irom a sink
as opposed to a pond.

Back at Buckingham Browne and Nichols School, aIter all oI the twenty-eight samples were

collected, the students used disposable droppers to put 10 mL oI water Irom each sample into a
LaMotte test tube (model 3-5886), each containing a Fecal ColiIorm Test Tablet (model number
4880). Then the caps were put back on the tubes, and they were placed upright into a plastic tray, with
the tablet Ilat on the bottom. The tray was then placed into the Fisher isotemp oven 100 series model
126G (see Iigure three). The samples were then leIt in the incubator, out oI all direct sunlight, Ior
Iorty-eight hours (LaMotte, 2001). The incubator was never heated, but the room had to be kept at a
temperature oI 21celsius (approximately 70Iahrenheit). Forty-eight hours later, the tubes were
removed Irom the incubator and the color oI the bacteria inside was compared with the LaMotte
ColiIorm Color Chart (see Iigure Iour). The results were then recorded numerically so that negative
results were equal to zero, and positive results were equal to one. Values in the middle were recorded
as a decimal. For instance, iI the solution was an orange color, it would be recorded as 0.5.

Figure 3. Figure 4.


AIter all testing was complete, the tubes had to be properly disposed in order to kill oII the
cultured bacteria. First, the cap oI the tube was removed, and one mL oI household chlorine bleach
was poured into it. AIter the bleach was added, the tube was recapped. Then the tube was thrown
away into a trash can. This same procedure was repeated Ior all tubes.



Figure 5.







Table 1: The eIIect oI pond location on Iecal coliIorm level


Graph 1: The eIIect oI pond location on Iecal coliIorm level


Graph 1 shows all the Iecal coliIorm data collected on April 7, 2014 at Drumlin Farm. The
ponds tested had overlapping error bars, though the control run (tap water) was considerably below all
three pond locations. On average, poultry pond had the highest level coliIorm level (0.94 out oI 1.00).
Ice and Bathtub Pond Iollowed with averages oI 0.87 and 0.76 respectively. All three ponds had Iecal
coliIorm values above 0.5, meaning they tested positive Ior Iecal coliIorm (more than twenty colonies
per 100 mL oI water). The control run had the lowest average, 0.11, meaning that (because the average
was below 0.5) there were Iewer than 20 colonies per 100 mL oI the Cambridge tap water. OI the Iour
sets oI data, the least precise was the data collected at Bathtub Pond, which had a standard deviation oI
0.15. Ice pond was only slightly more precise (a standard deviation oI 0.14). The data Irom the control
run and Poultry Pond was considerably more precise. The standard deviations were 0.09 and 0.07
respectively. This means that, in addition to having the highest average coliIorm level, Poultry Pond also

had the most precise data. Despite this, the error bar still overlaps signiIicantly with the Ice Pond error
bar, and has a slight overlap with the Bathtub Pond data.
Though the ponds had similar Iecal coliIorm levels, they all had distinctly diIIerent water colors
(see Iig. 1-3). Also, only two oI the ponds (Bathtub and Ice) had layers oI ice - Poultry Pond had
completely thawed. All pond locations tested positive Ior Iecal coliIorm bacteria, so the water aIter
testing turned similar yellow-orange colors (see Iig 4-6). In contrast, the control tap water (which tested
negatively Ior coliIorm bacteria) turned diIIerent shades oI bright red (see Iig. 7).


fig. 1 - poultrv pond


fig. 2 - bathtub pond


fig. 3 - ice pond



fig. 4 - ice pond water after testing


fig. 5 - bathtub pond water after testing























fig. 6 - poultrv pond water after testing


fig. 7 - control (tap) water after testing






DISCUSSION
In this experiment, levels oI Iecal coliIorm were tested in three diIIerent ponds to determine iI
there was a correlation between coliIorm levels and pond location. The hypothesis Ior this experiment
was iI the water Irom Poultry Pond is tested, then it will have the highest Iecal coliIorm level, because it
is located in close proximity to the Iarmyard and chicken coop which leads to a large amount oI animal
manure runoII, which is a leading cause oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria (water.epa.gov). This hypothesis was
not supported because there was not a clear diIIerence in Iecal coliIorm bacteria levels between Poultry
Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Ice Pond, as all oI the error bars overlapped.
What was concluded Irom this experiment, was that there was no direct correlation between the
pond location and the levels oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. Since there were signiIicant testing errors, it is
unknown how accurate the conclusiveness oI the data really was.
The data set collected was not particularly precise. For the Iour locations tested (aside Irom the
control run), all the error bars overlapped at least a little bit. The error bars were Iairly big, meaning
there was a large range oI data. These Iew Iactors lead the scientists to be unconIident with the data
collected. For Poultry Pond, the average level oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria was .94, which means the tests
were positive. The average Ior Bathtub Pond was .76, and Ior Ice Pond it was .87. These were both
positive as well. This is not surprising data, because it is completely normal to have some Iecal coliIorm
bacteria. The averages oI each pond location were reasonably close to each other, but the control run
was more oI an outlier. This tells us that the tap water is clean, and that their is no Iecal coliIorm in it, but
the pond water does contain Iecal coliIorm bacteria. The reason the results were positive, is because
these ponds don`t need an absence oI bacteria to thrive. II the bacteria caused problems Ior the pond
or threatened the saIety oI living organisms, then it would most likely be exterminated. With this being
said, scientists are able to inIer that there really is no unsaIe level oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria. Drinking
water on the other hand, is unsaIe to drink iI it contains a substantial amount. The average level oI Iecal
coliIorm Ior tap water was .11, which is almost none. Because oI these levels oI bacteria, the tap water
is saIe to drink, but the pond water is not (KY Water Watch, state.ky.us.htm).
There are several modiIications that could improve this experiment. The Iirst would be to test
each pond location at the same time oI day. This would eliminate variability due to time oI day because
it is unknown iI the amount oI bacteria are aIIected by Iactors such as sunlight or temperature. The
second modiIication would be to test each pond location every day over the course oI several days.
This would help eliminate variability because oI environmental Iactors such as rain and runoII that might
aIIect each site diIIerently. Another modiIication to this experiment, would be to take samples Irom
diIIerent depths oI each pond. It is unknown whether the majority oI bacteria grows at the top oI the
pond or the bottom, so this would eliminate errors due to water depth.
While many data points were collected, additional samples would have improved the accuracy
oI the results to assure that a conclusion could be reached. While at Poultry and Ice Pond, many things
were observed during the sample collection process. At Poultry Pond, there was a busy road across the
pond, and a chicken coop behind it. In relation to the hypothesis, the chicken coop could easily provide
runoII into the pond which could add to the Iecal coliIorm bacteria levels. At Ice Pond, two ducks were
swimming around near the dock, and a lot oI wild turkeys were running around. These animals could
have aIIected the levels oI Iecal coliIorm bacteria because the main cause Ior the bacteria is animal
Ieces.
In addition to observations, a Iew errors occurred during this experiment. First, the data points
recorded weren`t exact, because the measurements were a bit subjective, and measured by the eye,
and not by any special instrument. II the samples were measured more accurately, it`s possible that the
12
results could be diIIerent. The next error that occurred, was that the samples were put into the incubator
Ior Iorty-Iive hours and then tested, instead oI being incubated Ior Iorty-eight hours, which is what the
procedure called Ior. The reason this was an error, is because it is unknown whether all the samples
started out with the same number oI bacteria, because the samples weren`t tested at the time oI
collection. While transporting the containers back to the BB&N Middle School, water could have
leaked out or air could have gotten into the containers and contaminated them. The Iinal error that
occurred, was that one oI the droppers was contaminated, because it was used to test two diIIerent
pond locations. While most oI the droppers were used Ior only one pond location, one oI the droppers
was used Ior two separate ones. Instead oI having water purely Irom one pond, one oI the ponds was
contaminated with water Irom a previous location. For Iuture experiments, diIIerent types oI bacteria
could be tested in the water, because Iecal coliIorm isn`t the only bacteria in pond water, and there may
be conclusive diIIerences between the other types oI bacteria, unlike the Iecal coliIorm levels. A related
question, is whether there is any bacteria that could pose as a threat to the health oI a pond. This is
something that could be explored in the Iuture, and cross reIerenced with the experiment at hand now.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Author 1:
There are many people that made this project possible. First, I would like to acknowledge Ms.
Schultheis Ior her mentoring and assistance throughout this entire process. I would also like to thank the
science department at BB&N Ior supplying us with most oI our materials and organizing the Drumlin
Farm Iield trip. Many thanks to Emily Brower and Jeremy Tang Ior letting us borrow crucial materials,
and Sophia Scanlan who helped us label the many tubes aIter school. Lastly, I would like to express
my gratitude towards my partners Miriam and Chris Ior contributing greatly to this project.

Author 2:
There are many people that I would like to thank that helped our group with this experiment.
First oII, I would like to thank my science teacher Ms. Schultheis Ior guiding us and Ior motivating us to
try a harder experiment. I would also like to thank my mother and my sister Ior helping me to bleach all
the tupperwares. I would like to thank the Drumlin Farms naturalist Carol, Ior explaining the Iarm runoII
system to me. Thank you to Jeremy Tang, and Emily Brower Ior loaning us a container to transport our
samples back to the school. Most oI all, I would like to thank Miriam and Delila Ior contributing to the
project.



Author 3:
I really appreciate the help oI everyone involved with this project. Firstly, I`d like to thank the
Drumlin Farm staII Ior their directions, advice, and habitat inIormation on our visit. Also, many thanks to
Jeremy Tang, Emily Brower, and Sophia Scanlan, who gave our group some much-needed assistance
13
on the day oI the Drumlin Farm Iield trip. I need to thank Ms. Schultheis and the rest oI the BB&N
Middle School science department as well Ior helping our group obtain the necessary materials and
coliIorm tests, as well as providing support throughout the entire Knights oI Science project. And lastly,
I wouldn`t have completed this experiment and report without the indispensable contributions oI my
partners Chris Attisani and Delila Keravuori.






WORKS CITED

Author 1:
Amy and Stacy, Bieniek and Koprowski. Comparison of Total Fecal Coliform Bacteria and E.
Coli in Pond vs. Lake Waters. Rep. N.p., 30 Nov. 2000. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/archive/Bienkop.htm~.

"ColiIorm Bacteria in Water." Department of Health- Agencv of Human Services. Vermont.gov,
2014. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/water/coliIorm.aspx~.

"5.11 Fecal Bacteria." United States Environmental Protection Agencv. Unknown, 6 Mar. 2012.
Web. 09 Mar. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms511.cIm~.

"Fecal ColiIorm Bacteria in Streams." Department of Ecologv State of Washington. One Front
Door- Washington's Outdoors, 1990. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/streamcoliIorms.html~.

Jolley and English, Louwanda and William. "What Is Fecal ColiIorm? Why Is It Important?"
Clemson Cooperative Extension. Clemson University, 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://www.clemson.edu/extension/naturalresources/water/publications/IecalcoliIorm.html~.

KY Water Watch. "Fecal ColiIorm Bacteria." Water Qualitv Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar.
2014. http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpIcol.htm~.

LaMotte Company. Low Cost Water Monitoring Kit. 3-5886 ed. Alexandria, VA: Earth Force,
2001. Print.

NY Gov. "ColiIorm Bacteria in Drinking Water Supplies." Department of Health Information for
a Healthv New York. N.p., June 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/coliIormbacteria.htm~.


Author 2:
Ashworth, William. The Encvclopedia of Environmental Studies. New York: Facts on File, 1991.
Print.

"Extension Forestry & Natural Resources." What Is Fecal Coliform? Whv Is It Important? .
Extension . Clemson Universitv . South Carolina. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

"Home , Water , US EPA." Home [ Water [ US EPA. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.


15
Wyman, Bruce, and L. Harold Stevenson. "Total ColiIorm Rule." Science Online. Facts On File,
Inc. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://www.IoIweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemIDWE40&SID5&iPinDEST4554&SingleRe
cordTrue~.


Author 3:
"5.11 Fecal Bacteria." Home. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web.
11 Mar. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms511.cIm~.

Ashworth, William. The Encvclopedia of Environmental Studies. New York: Facts on File, 1991.
Print.

"ColiIorm Bacteria in Water." Department of Health Agencv of Human Services. Vermont
Department oI Health, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/water/coliIorm.aspx~.

Davies, C. M., J. A. Long, M. Donald, and N. J. Ashbolt. "Survival oI Fecal Microorganisms in Marine
and Freshwater Sediments." Applied and Environmental Microbiologv. American Society Ior
Microbiology, May 1995. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. http://aem.asm.org/content/61/5/1888.short~.

"Fecal ColiIorm Bacteria." Water Qualitv Information. Kentucky Water Watch, n.d. Web. 11 Mar.
2014. http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpIcol.htm~.

Wyman, Bruce, and L. Harold Stevenson. "Total ColiIorm Rule." Science Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://www.IoIweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemIDWE40&SID5&iPinDEST4554&SingleRe
cordTrue~.



16
















The effect of soil texture on soil percolation
By: Trevor Khanna and Danny Kutsovsky










!"#$%&'$ &)' !$%*"+&,-")
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS



Section Author Page


Abstract Khanna 2

Introduction Kutsovsky 2

Materials and Methods Khanna 4

Results Kutsovsky 5

Discussion Khanna 11

Acknowledgements Khanna & Kutsovsky 14

Work Cited Khanna 15

Work Cited Kutsovsky 16

Appendix: Pictures Khanna & Kutsovsky 17






















"
ABSTRACT
The goal of this experiment was to find the effect of soil texture on percolation.
The experiment was conducted at Bathtub Pond, Boyce Field, and Red Pine Forest in
Drumlin Farm, Lincoln, Massachusetts. The hypothesis for this experiment said if the
ratio of sand to silt to clay is closer to 6:3:1 respectively, then the percolation rate will be
closer to 30 mL/sec, because it will balance both soil permeability and surface yield
(www.lagunahillsnursery.com). The independent variable was the soil texture and the
dependent variable was the percolation. To test the percolation, a can was placed into the
ground and it was filled with water. The time the water took to seep through the ground
was measured. Then, back at the science lab, the soil samples from each site were mixed
with water and left to sit. The soil settled overnight and the percentages of each layer of
soil (sand on the bottom, silt in the middle, and clay on the top) were recorded. At the end
of the experiment, the results stated that there was a slight correlation between clay and
percolation, and silt and percolation. The hypothesis was not supported due to a lack of
samples. Along with low data samples, there was a low R! value. Valid conclusions were
able to be made from the results and therefore, allowed a new hypothesis to be made.

INTRODUCTION
Soil is almost everywhere. If one would look out a window, then one would most
likely find some soil, whether it be in a nearby park or in the cracks of a sidewalk. Soil is
also necessary to sustain plant growth, which contains key element for life. Soil is the
mixture of minerals, organic matter, gases, liquids, and a great amount of microorganisms
(http://en.wikipedia.org). However, most of the soil is composed of different types of
particles. These particles are almost as important as the soil itself. This is because if a
soils particle type is not adequate, then organisms will not be able to survive in that
particular area because water, an essential substance for plants, will not be able to reach
the roots. When water falls onto the surface of soil, it will either absorb into the soil well
or the particles will not hold onto the water. These particles are sand, silt, and clay and
are important because of their different sizes which affect have different size and space
between the particles and in turn, as this experiment will explore, the ability to retain and
transport water. The ratio of these three particles (sand to silt to clay) essentially defines
the soils texture, which directly affects soil water retention. This is how well soil retains
water and nutrients as well as water permeability, which is how well soil transports water
and nutrients (www.co.portage.wi.us). These small particles that go unnoticed and are not
visible to the naked eye, play a crucial part in the healthiness of soil, which as proved
above, can mean the difference between the life and death of the human race.
This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon
Wildlife Sanctuary in Lincoln, Massachusetts. The sanctuary is about 312 acres wide and
has four different forests, three wetlands, and five fields. For this experiment one of each
type of area was tested. The forest area that was selected was the Red Pine Forest. In this
area there were many White Pines and Hemlock trees. On the forest floor there were
many decomposing plant types. The wetland area that was selected was Bathtub Pond.
Bathtub Pond had many flora and fauna that lived there such as duckweed and daphnia.
Lastly, the field that will be tested will be the Boyce field. Boyce field is a fertile land
that grows many vegetables and has colored flowers. These areas are being measured
because the areas are different types of habitats, and will most likely have different soil
"
textures since they foster different types of plants which need different soil growing
conditions (www.co.portage.wi.us).
Sand is the largest particle out of the three types because it the particle has a
diameter of approximately 2.0 - 0.05 mm. Silt is the second largest particle because it has
a diameter of approximately 0.05 - 0.002 mm. Clay is the smallest particle because it has
a diameter of less than 0.002 mm. This means that water and nutrients goes through
quickly through pure sand, making the permeability for it horrible, while on the other side
of the spectrum, clay is so small, water and nutrients go through pure clay slow, making
the permeability horrible, and silt is in between these effects of sand and clay, but is
leaning more towards the speed of clay (http://broome.soil.ncsu.edu).
When water enters the soil from above, it is called infiltration. This infiltration
intake must be controlled or smoothed over or the soil will suffer from over hydration.
This is where the percolation effect comes in. Percolation is the movement of water
within the soil. It controls the infiltration rate because the friction and space between the
particles can speed up or slow down the infiltration based on the size of the particles. A
healthy percolation rate is between five and fifteen minutes, but the closer the soil
percolation to ten minutes, the better. This effect is important because it determines how
fast water and different nutrients will pass through the soil, and if the percolation is too
high then the water will not get absorbed causing the soil to be unhealthy. If the soil has
too low of a percolation then the water will not be able to get through quickly and
efficiently, causing some places to be overhydrated and some places would be
dehydrated. The percolation rate is determined by the grain size (or pore size) which
determines the amount of frictional resistance and the area available for flow. The smaller
the grains, means smaller pores, causing more frictional resistance, and lower hydraulic
conductivity. This lower or higher hydraulic conductivity means either a lower or higher
percolation rate (ftp://ftp.fao.org).
The shape and arrangement of these soil particles help determine
porosity. Porosity is the amount of air space or void space between soil particles.
Infiltration occurs in these void spaces. The soil porosity can also affect the permeability
which means that if the porosity is not good, then the soils health is worse. Not all the
water stored in pore spaces becomes part of flowing or moving groundwater. Water
clings to soil particles due to surface tension. Clay has a greater surface area than sand;
therefore, more water will remain behind clinging to the clay particle surface. This
implies that sand will not cling to water well, but clay has too low of a surface yield
causing too much water to cling. Healthy soil has just enough surface yield to hold on to
water but not so much as to create overhydration (http://www.co.portage.wi.us/).
Combining all of these facts, the optimal soil should have a balance of specific
yield so the amount of water absorption is good. The ratio of sand to silt to clay should be
so that the water flows through the soil at an optimal rate so that the water does not drain
too fast out of the soil but slow enough that all of the soil is hydrated. From the
experience of farmers, they have discovered that the optimal ratio of sand to silt to clay
so that these effects transpire is close to six to three to one
(www.lagunahillsnursery.com).
The object of this experiment is to determine how the ratio of the three different
types of particles (sand, silt, and clay) the soil percolation, and in other words, the
permeability of the soil. This question was tested by collecting soil samples from three
"
different habitats at Drumlin Farm, eight times in each habitat. The independent variable
was the soil texture. To measure the percolation a can was placed in the ground and the
time for water to pass through was recorded. A few controlled variables were the amount
of soil collected, amount of water added for percolation test, the amount of water used for
texture test, and how far the can is placed into the ground for the percolation test. The
hypothesis set forth in this experiment is: If the ratio of sand to silt to clay is closer to
6:3:1 respectively, then the percolation rate will be closer to 30 mL/s, because it will
balance both soil permeability and surface yield (www.lagunahillsnursery.com).
This experiment is useful because the soil permeability and its surface yield are of
utmost importance. If the ratio of sand to silt to clay is off, it would damage the
permeability and the surface yield which can lead to not hydrated soil that is unsuitable
for plant growth. If the farmers at Drumlin farm are not aware of the effects of the
different soil particles, then they may be planting the crops in the wrong places. This can
cause the organisms to die or be unhealthy, which can waste time and money. Also, the
more knowledgeable farmers are of the effects of different soil particles, the healthier
plants they will grow because the soil will be able to contain water better, producing riper
and better fruits, producing a higher level product.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
For this experiment, there were two procedures: one to find the percolation of the
soil and the water retention and another to find the soil texture. The percolation of the soil
was tested in the field, opposed to having tested the independent variable in the field. A
procedure was found at www.planetseed.com. This was adapted to the purposes of this
experiment. Ten coordinates were found Bathtub Pond using a Ti-nspire calculator
random location generator. The first coordinate on the calculators list was then chosen
and a hole about 5 centimeters deep was dug with a trowel. One of the 300 mL cans was
placed into this hole (see fig. 1), and then, about 250 mL of water was poured into the
can. While the water was percolating through the soil, four more of these tests were
started in the next four locations on the list on the calculator by following the same steps.
Each test was carefully examined until the water had completely drained out. When the
water had percolated through the soil, the time it took was recorded. Once the time was
recorded, a simple texture test was performed. The same was done for the other four tests.
This entire procedure was repeated once more in Bathtub pond and then everything was
done again in Boyce Field and Red Pine Forest. A total of thirty data points were
collected (ten at each site).
To test the texture, 100 mL of soil were gathered from each site where the other
tests had taken place. Each sample was placed in a Ziploc bag and brought back to the
lab. After the samples were brought to the lab, each sample was placed into their own
clear container (a total of thirty). Additionally, 120 mL of water was added to this and
three drops of Dawn dishwashing soap. Then the mixture was stirred with a glass rod for
thirty seconds. This new mixture was then left overnight in the lab. The next day each
layer of soil was measured. The sand was on the bottom, then silt, and on the top was
clay. The ratio of sand to silt to clay was found and recorded
(http://www.gardeners.com).


"
Figure 1



RESULTS

Table 1: The effect of soil texture on soil percolation: Bathtub Pond (BP)
Sample
Sand % Silt % Clay % Texture Percolation (mL/sec)
BP 1
15 85 0 silt loam 21.26
BP 2
0 100 0 silt 32.07
BP 3
0 100 0 silt 59.95
BP 4
25 75 0 silty clay loam 8.95
BP 5
20 80 0 silt loam 15.72
BP 6
40 60 0 silty clay loam 31.18
BP 7
0 100 0 silt 10.73
BP 8
0 100 0 silt 11.84
BP 9
60 30 10 silt loam 19.29
BP 10
40 60 0 sandy loam 58.47



"
Figure 2




Table 2: The effect of soil texture on soil percolation: Boyce Field (BF)

Sample Sand % Silt % Clay % Texture Percolation (mL/sec)
BF 1 0 0 100 clay 4.42
BF 2 0 0 100 clay 3.73
BF 3 0 5 95 clay 8.83
BF 4 0 0 100 clay 8.21
BF 5 0 0 100 clay 4.79
BF 6 0 0 100 clay 7.61
BF 7 0 25 75 clay 12.58
BF 8 0 0 100 clay 6.41
BF 9 0 15 85 clay 6.64
BF 10 15 0 85 clay 7.74


Figure 3



"
Table 3: The effect of soil texture on soil percolation: Red Pine Forest (RPF)

Sample Sand % Silt % Clay % Texture Percolation (mL/sec)
RPF 1 10 90 0 silt 20.79
RPF 2 0 100 0 silt 57.86
RPF 3 15 85 0 silt loam 43.85
RPF 4 0 100 0 silt 76.89
RPF 5 10 90 0 silt 32.82
RPF 6 20 80 0 silt loam 37.92
RPF 7 0 100 0 silt 21.59
RPF 8 10 90 0 silt 33.21
RPF 9 0 100 0 silt 30.01
RPF 10 60 40 0 silty clay 28.93



Table 4: The effect of soil texture on soil percolation averages

Habitat Sand % Silt % Clay % Texture Percolation (mL/sec) Standard Dev
BP 20.0 79 1 Silt Loam 26.9 17.8
BF 1.5 4.5 94.0 Clay 7.1 2.4
RPF 12.5 87.5 0.0 Silt 38.4 16.4


Graph 1: The effect of soil particle on percentage in area




#$%&%
%&%
$%&%
'%&%
(%&%
)%&%
*%%&%
*$%&%
*'%&%
+,-.-/0 1234 +2567 897:4 ;74 1937 82<7=-
!
"
#
$
"
%
&
'
(
"

*
+
,

-./0 !'#&/$0"
>,34
>9:-
?:,5
"
Graph 2: The effect of habitat on soil percolation




Graph 3: The effect of texture on percolation











#$#
%#$#
&#$#
'#$#
(#$#
)#$#
*#$#
+,-.-/0 1234 +2567 897:4 ;74 1937 82<7=-
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
%
*

,
-
.
/
0
"
$
1

2'3)('(
#
%#
&#
'#
(#
)#
*#
>9:- ?2,@ >9:- >9:-5 A:,5 ?2,@ A:,5
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
%
*

,
-
.
/
0
"
$
1

4"5(6#"
"
Graph 4: The effect of percent of silt on percolation




Graph 5: The Effect of Percent of Clay on Percolation



WRITTEN RESULTS
In Graph 1, the averages of the dispersion of different soil particle percentages at
Bathtub Pond, Boyce Field, and Red Pine Forest are shown. What is strange in this graph
is that in Bathtub Pond and Red Pine Forest, there is almost no clay and almost all silt.
However, in Boyce Field, it is the opposite- clay is the most while silt is almost none. In
general, in Graph 1, at Bathtub Pond, silt was by far the most common with clay and sand
being small. At Boyce Field, there is little silt and sand, and it is mostly clay. At Red Pine
Forest, it is the same paradigm as Bathtub Pond; however there is absolutely no clay. It
# $ %&'"''( ) *&+,-
./ $ %&0"'*0
%
1%
'%
0%
+%
2%
-%
*%
,%
"%
% '% +% -% ,% 1%% 1'%
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
%
*
+
,
-
.
/
"
$
0

!"#$"*( %2 3)&( +40
# $ 3%&'*++( ) 0'&,0'
./ $ %&+%*1'
%
1%
'%
0%
+%
2%
-%
*%
,%
"%
% '% +% -% ,% 1%% 1'%
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
%
*

+
,
-
.
/
"
$
0

!"#$"*( %2 5&'6 +40
"#
can be visible that in Bathtub Pond the sand average was around twenty percent, the silt
average was seventy-nine percent, and the clay average was one percent. This implies
that the silt particle was the most common in the soil type. However, one cannot say that
clay was the least common particle because the error bars overlap with silt. In Bathtub
Pond, the amounts of clay was the most precise with a standard deviation of three,
followed by sand with a much larger standard deviation of 20, and then silt with a
standard deviation of 22. This means that silt was the least precise as well. At Boyce
Field, the sand average was 1.5 %, the silt average was 4.5 %, and the clay average was
94 %. The standard deviation of the silt is 8.2, the sand is 4.5 and the clay is 8.6.
Therefore the most precise is sand, followed by silt, and then clay. There was no clay at
Red Pine Forest. The average silt was 87.5 % and the sand average was 12.5 %. Silt had a
standard deviation of 31.5, and the sand had a standard deviation of 17.0, making silt the
least precise and sand the most precise.
In Graph 2, the effect of habitat on average percolation is displayed. This graph
displays the average percolation for each of the three habitats. At Bathtub Pond, the
average percolation was 26 mL/sec. It had a standard deviation of 17.8. This made it the
least precise in the data set. At Boyce Field, the average percolation was 7.1 mL/sec. It
had a standard deviation of 2.4, making it the most precise of the data set. At Red Pine
Forest, the average percolation was 38.4 mL/sec. It had a standard deviation of 16.4,
making the precision in the middle. Boyce Field conclusively had the lowest percolation.
Even though the error bars between Boyce Field and Bathtub pond overlapped by .4
mL/sec which is not significant enough to be important.
In Graph 3, the effect of the texture classes found at Drumlin Farm on percolation
is displayed. There were four prominent texture categories found at Drumlin Farm: silt
loam, silt, silty clay loam, and clay. Also, the error bars here were large. Samples
consisting of silt loam had a percolation of 30.58 mL/sec. The standard deviation for this
was 10.5, making it more precise than the norm in this data set. Samples of silt had a
percolation of 35.25 mL/sec. It had a standard deviation of 20.1, making it the least
precise in the data set. Silty clay loam had an average percolation of 20.1 mL/sec and a
standard deviation of 11.1. Clay had an average percolation of 7.1 mL/sec and had a
standard deviation of 2.43, making it by far the most precise in the data set. The pattern
here is that soils with higher silt levels were more permeable and soils with more clay
were less permeable.
In Graph 4, an XY scatter plot is shown depicting the effect of percent of silt on
percolation. It displays that as the percent of silt increases, percolation increases as well.
The rate at which it increases is y = 0.2922x + 7.486. The r
2
value is .39 in this graph.
Here, there is a large cluster at the zero point, indicating that there were points with only
clay and sand. Also, at the 100% mark, there are many points but with a wide array of
percolation values, which resulted in bad precision. At this point this lack of precision led
to values ranging from 10.73-76.89 mL/sec. In between these zero and 100 markers there
are some points but these points in between 0 and 100 is less than the sum of the points at
those two places. This creates a semi-large room for error that has a decent margin of
error.
In Graph 5, an XY scatter plot is show depicting the effect of percent of clay on
percolation. It displays a negative trendline. The equation of this trendline is y = -0.2744x
+ 32.832. This implies that as the percent of clay in soils increase, the permeability
""
decreases. This has a better r
2
value than Graph 4. The majority of the points in this graph
are at the 0 point. The remaining points on the graph go from 75%-100% clay. The
overall precision of the data set was decreased mostly by the scattered values on the 0%
axis. These values ranged from 8.95-76.89 mL/sec.

DISCUSSION
The goal of the experiment was to find out what the ratio of sand to silt to clay
would be to have an optimal percolation rate. The hypothesis for the experiment was if
the ratio of sand to silt to clay is closer to 6:3:1 respectively, then the percolation rate will
be closer to 30 mL/sec, because it will balance both soil permeability and surface yield
(www.lagunahillsnursery.com). The results go against the hypothesis because they state
that the optimal rate of 30 mL/sec requires the soil to be 20% sand, 50% silt, and 30%
clay. This, in a ratio, is 2:5:3, instead of the original theory of 6:3:1.
This may be due to fact that silt varies greatly in size, and can measure from .002
to .05 millimeters in diameter (http://www.co.portage.wi.us). Not only is there a variation
in the size of silt, but there was also a lack of sand. The results had very little samples of
sand and therefore, conclusions for sand could not have been very accurate.
For the first graph on the percentage of sand, silt, and clay, Bathtub Pond was
mostly silt and partly sand, because in order for a pond to form, there must be a slower
percolation rate, hence the silt levels. Then in order for the water to not overflow, there
cannot be a very low percolation rate either, which explains the sand levels. Clay tends to
have a smaller surface yield which causes water to have a very slow percolation rate
(http://www.co.portage.wi.us). The low clay levels make sense because if there was a
large amount of clay, the pond would be more likely to overflow in almost every shower.
The error bars and the low precision are because not all of the soil that was tested came
from near the pond. Some samples came from near the dirt road, and others closer to a
compost heap. Each area would have different samples and range of data was collected.
Boyce Field was mostly clay, but had a mix of silt and sand. The best types of
soils for farms tend to be a mixture of two or more of the three types of soils called loams
(http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu). These loams tend to not have a very fast percolation rate,
which allows for plants to take in the water, and they also tend to not have a very slow
percolation rate, which would allow the water to run-off and not drown the plants. The
area that was chosen was not in use recently and this would explain the higher percentage
of clay. Since there was no reason to tend the field, fertilizer would not have to be placed.
Though as it is a farm, there was a slight mixture of silt and a little sand too. Once again,
the data is not precise as shown by the large error bars, but this is because the
surrounding area that was being used, were two different fields. To the east was a field
that had crops in it which would explain the mixing of loams, because the crops would
need a mixed soil to survive. To the west was a patch of dead plants which again, would
affect the results from the habitat because of the decay.
The samples from Red Pine Forest were mostly silt, but had a decent amount of
sand. The large amount of silt and sand could be from the glacial deposit from thousands
of years ago (http://www.daviesand.com). These glacial tills tend to leave coarser soils
and silt that can reach a diameter of .05 millimeters. Sand is also very coarse and can
range up to 2 millimeters in diameter (http://www.co.portage.wi.us). These soils would
"#
have been dragged to Red Pine Forest by the glacier that created the Drumlin
(http://www.daviesand.com).
In Graph 2, there is a very small overlap between Bathtub Pond and Boyce Field.
There were two outliers; the one in Boyce was only 75% clay whereas the other sample
were at least 85% clay and at Bathtub Pond, the silt in the sample could have been very
fine and more compact, which would cause the water to drain slowly. There is a large
overlap in error bars between Red Pine Forest and Bathtub Pond, because both habitats
recorded a large amount of silt and around the same amount of sand. Since Bathtub Pond
was mostly silty loams, the average percolation rate was around 27 mL per second. Red
Pine Forest, which was made up of sand and silt that was most likely coarse due to the
passing of a glacier, had a higher percolation rate because the void between the coarser
soils would allow water the seep through more quickly. Boyce Field was nearly
conclusively the slowest habitat to percolate due to the fact that it was made up of mostly
clay which tends to have smaller voids (http://www.co.portage.wi.us) and therefore, a
slower percolation rate.
Graph 3 shows that clay, on average, has the lowest percolation rate and this is
because clay particles are very small. This causes the clay particles to pack closely
together which does not leave a lot of room for water to drain. Also, clay has a lower
surface yield and instead of water percolating, the water sticks to the surface of the clay
(http://www.co.portage.wi.us). Silty clay loam had an error bar that slightly overlapped
that of clay. It is also, on average, the second slowest percolation soil texture. Silty clay
loam is a mixture of silt and clay. The clay would cause the water to percolate more
slowly, but since not all of the soil was clay and some was silt, it would not have the
fastest or slowest percolating time. The difference in the silt particle size would account
for the lack of precision in the data too. The silt loam is, on average, the second fastest
percolation time. The error bar overlaps with the silty clay loam error bar because both
most likely contain clay due to the fact that they are loams. However, the silt loam allows
water to pass through more easily, because it contains less clay and more sand. The silt
loam does not have the quickest percolation rate because it was averaged between both
Red Pine Forest and Bathtub Pond. The silt loam could have been packed differently in
the habitats and caused water to drain more slowly, than the silt which was mostly found
in Red Pine Forest. Silt had, only by average, the fastest percolation rate. This can be due
to the fact that the soil was differently packed to allow more water to pass through it, or
that the silt had a larger diameter. The large error bar can be explained because of the
large area tested in Red Pine. Each sample was collected in different places. One was by
a fallen tree which could have compacted the soil, another by a live tree whose roots
could have created air pockets in the soil, and another in a clearing.
In graph number 4 on how silt affected soil percolation showed that there was
very low R! value between silt and percolation, though as silt increased, the percolation
rate also tended to increase. This is because silt varies in many different ways. The way
that the soil is structured causes the percolation rate to change along with the variety in
the size. The only places where silt was found, was by a pond and by a forest. A pond and
forest are two very different habitats. In a forest, the roots of the trees plough into the
ground and change the structure of the soil, whereas by a pond, there arent many ways to
change the structure of the soil once it is placed.
"#
In Graph 5, there is a R
2
value of .40 which signifies a low to no correlation
between clay and the percolation rate. However, if the data points of clay that were
measured at 0% clay were removed, the R
2
value increases to .84 which does signify a
correlation. The trend line indicates that as the clay increases, the percolation rate
decreases. Once again, this is because of the small surface yield and the compactness of
the soil.
Overall, silt was the most abundant soil in Red Pine Forest and Bathtub Pond,
while sand also made up a fair amount of both habitats. Clay made up most of Boyce
Field and if the section that was tested was to be used, then it would be helpful for the
plants if a little bit of sand and silt was mixed into it. Clay had (almost conclusively) the
slowest percolation rate, and then by average, silty clay loam, silt loam, and finally silt.
There was little correlation between the amount of silt and the effect on percolation, but
this is because of the different sizes in the silt particles. Clay, on the other hand, affected
the percolation by an incredible amount. Even though sand was measured, there were
only a few samples that had sand in them and those few samples were not enough to
make a conclusion off of. Due to the lack of sand, a proper hypothesis could not be
formed because it is hard to find an optimal rate from a ratio soil without sand. However
a new hypothesis was formed and it is that if the ratio of sand to silt to clay is closer to
2:5:3 respectively, then the percolation rate will be closer to 30 mL/sec, because it will
balance both soil permeability and surface yield (www.lagunahillsnursery.com). This was
formed by averaging out the percolation rate of all the three types of soil and then finding
the ratio that was the closest to 30 ml/sec.
To conduct this experiment again, a few improvements could be made. First and
foremost, there would be more areas and more time to collect the samples. There was a
lack of sand in the experiment which could have made the hypothesis unsupported,
because the hypothesis was made to include sand in the tests. Also time was short and
things had to be rushed which again, would have caused errors in the procedure. There
were also roots in some samples, leaves in another, grass in yet another, and just soil in
others. The errors in the procedure could have caused the lack of correlation in the results
and therefore, changed the conclusions. To eliminate these future problems, more time
could be allotted or more habitats could be allowed for use. Also the samples could be
examined before placing them in Ziploc bags. Several questions that still remain are that
would there have been a difference if all the samples were collected in the same habitat?
Did the trees and roots affect the outcome? Or would the results stay the same? To
improve upon this experiment, a more detailed texture test could be made, because most
of the tests in this experiment were done by eye. Also, areas that have very different soil
texture could be measured. This would help determine the rate of percolation that each
soil type has.


ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Trevor Khanna:
I would like to thank Carol, the staff member at Drumlin Farm, for helping us get our
experiment started and giving us a place to work
I would like to also thank Danielle for helping us find a suitable place to conduct our
experiment in Boyce Field that did not hinder the growth of the plants.
"#
I would like to thank the science teachers and BB&N faculty for helping us conduct the
experiment and to answer question when need be without them, we would still be stuck
on square one.

Danny Kutsovsky:
First of all, I would like to thank my father, Yakov Kutsovsky, for helping me
form this experiment in the first place. He guided my thoughts to this experiment. He
helped me figure out different ways sort my information. I would also like to thank him
for creating amusement in my life when I was anxious about this project. All through my
life he was the main influence for my level of intelligence and creativity, which led to
this experiment. Also, I would like to thank my mother, Marina Kutsovskaya. She helped
drive me to school every day so that I could complete this experiment. She also raised me
with common sense which helped me solve problems that were encountered in the field
as well in the laboratory. I would like to thank the Drumlin Farm attendants who
graciously allowed our group to enter the Mass Audubon's Drumlin Farm Wildlife
Sanctuary, and conduct our experiment. Without that area, we would have never been
able to complete the experiment. The staff there helped acquaint us with the area, and
gave instructions on where to conduct our tests which led to a successful experiment. In
addition, I would like to thank my brother, Mikhail Kutsovsky, who inspired me to think
outside of the box when creating this unique experiment. Lastly, I would like to give the
largest thanks to my supervisor and educator, Heather LaRocca. She supervised the
formation of this experiment and was with our group, advising on ways to improve, as
well as tell us what not to do.























"#
WORKS CITED

Trevor Khanna
Allaby, Michael. "permeability (geology)." Science Online. Facts On File, Inc. Web. 10
Mar. 2014.
<http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin=EWCR05
37&SingleRecord=True>
Carter, Martin R. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis, 1993.
Print.
Cogger, Craig. "Soil Management For Small Farms." Soil Management For Small Farms.
Washington State University, July 2000. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1895/eb1895.pdf>.
"Experiment: The Permeability of Soil." Permeability Of Soil. SEED, 2014. Web. 10
Mar. 2014. <http://www.planetseed.com/laboratory/experiment-permeability-
soil>.
Davies, Karl. "Forest Soils." Forest Soils. Davies and Company, 1999. Web. April 2014.
<http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Soils/>.
LaLebarte, Kathy. "Building Healthy Soil." Gardeners Supply. Gardening Company, n.d.
Web. 05 Mar. 2014. <http://www.gardeners.com/Building-Healthy-
Soil/5060%2Cdefault%2Cpg.html>
Soil Permeability." Food and Agriculture Organization. Food and Agriculture
Organization, 2 Sept. 2008. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/CDrom/FAO_Training/FAO_Training/General/x6706e/x6706e
09.htm>.
"#
Danny Kutsovsky
Carter, Martin R. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis, 1993.
Print.
Drier, Patty. "Soil Properties That Affect Groundwater." Soil Properties That Affect
Groundwater. Porter County, 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/undrstnd/soil.htm>.
"Lecture 8: Soil and Percolation." Geology Western Washington University Geology
Department. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.geol.wwu.edu/rjmitch/L8_soils_percolation.pdf>.
Soil Permeability." Food and Agriculture Organization. Food and Agriculture
Organization, 2 Sept. 2008. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/CDrom/FAO_Training/FAO_Training/General/x6706e/x6706e
09.htm>.
"Soil." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil>.
"The Soil." Laguna Hills Nursery. Laguna Hills, N.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<www.lagunahillsnursery.com/lecture-GROG-soil_only.doc >.
"Topic 8 Soil Physical Properties." Topic 8 Soil Physical Properties. North Carolina State
University, 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.
<http://broome.soil.ncsu.edu/ssc012/Lecture/topic8.htm>.



"#
APPENDIX
Figure 1

Figure 2


"#

Figure 3



The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height

Christina Knight & Caroline Scheer
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section Author Page
Abstract Scheer 3
Introduction Knight 3
Materials & Methods Scheer 4
Results Knight 5
Discussion Scheer 10
Acknowledgements Knight & Scheer 11
Works Cited Knight 12
Works Cited Scheer 13
3
ABSTRACT
The objective of this experiment was to find if nitrogen levels affected tree
growth. This experiment took place at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. The testing was
done at three forests: Red Pine, MAS and Hemlock forest. The tree height and
circumference were tested with a tape measurer. The nitrogen levels were tested using a
Vernir Nitrogen Probe and a graphing calculator. The expected hypothesis was: if the
nitrogen levels are higher in the soil, then the tree will be taller because of nitrogen
fixation, the process of converting nitrogen gas into ammonium, nitrites and nitrates.
These can then be used as vital nutrients by plants to stimulate their growth
(ctahr.hawaii.edu). The results were in line with what was predicted in the hypothesis.
The results for the tree height were not conclusive because the error bars were large and
overlapped. The data for the nitrogen levels, however, was conclusive and precise
because the error bars were very small with no overlap.

INTRODUCTION
Nitrogen is a vital nutrient for all plants. Plants require nitrogen more than any
other element in soil. Nitrogen is found in all proteins, chlorophyll and many other
organic compounds and is critical for plant growth (Gardner 70-71). Nitrogen in soil
exists in many different forms, such as ammonium, nitrate and nitrite, and can be found
in a variety of soil conditions. However, 98% of the nitrogen found in soil has not
undergone nitrogen fixation and therefore cannot be used by plants. Many different plant
species use the small amount of nitrogen that is found in the fixed form to grow
(Dechorgnat, jxb.oxfordjournals.org).
This experiment will take place at Drumlin Farm. Drumlin Farm is a Mass
Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with over 206 acres in Lincoln, MA. This experiment will
be conducted in three different forests: Hemlock Forest, Red Pine Forest and MAS (Mass
Audubon Society) Forest. The Red Pine Forest mostly contains red and white pines, but
also has a few varying tree species. The Hemlock Forest is located directly to the right of
the Spruce Forest and has mostly white pines and hemlocks. The MAS Forest is primarily
a pine oak forest, but, like the Red Pine Forest, has many white and red pine trees. The
tree height in these locations may vary slightly due to sunlight and space. Depending on
the weather conditions, the trees can be exposed to varying amounts of nutrients and
varying soil quality, which could change the height of a tree. Also, spacing can affect
growth. Trees need a certain amount of space to grow, and so if trees are too close
together, they will not be able to grow as tall. The trees being tested, Pinus strobus, or
more commonly known as white pines, are thought of to be some of the tallest trees in
North America. They can grow as tall as 70 m, although the trees tested in this
experiment are only in the 10-30 m range. White pines are found in a variety of different
habitats: ranging from highly acidic, dry soils to wet, swampy areas (Minnis,
bioweb.uwlax.edu)
Nitrogen fixation is a complicated process in which nitrogen gas is transformed
into ammonia, nitrate or nitrite so it can be used by plants. Nodules, small lumps, form on
the roots of legume plants. Inside the nodules there are bacteria that are protected by plant
tissue. In exchange for staying in the nodule, the bacteria take the nitrogen gas and
convert it so that it becomes useful for the plant (Wiedenhoeft, fofweb.com). They take
the nitrogen from the air and turn the nitrogen into ammonia, or NH3. After that, the
4
ammonia is converted into nitrite, NO2-, and then further still into nitrate, NO3-. The
plants then utilize this modified nitrogen as a fertilizer to help stimulate growth
(elmhurst.edu). Nitrogen levels are increased by organic matter, crop residues, animal
manures and commercial fertilizers. Nitrogen levels are decreased by leaching,
denitrification (reducing nitrites/nitrates by bacteria into the air) soil erosion and run-off
(OLeary, extension.umn.edu).
The goal of this experiment is to determine whether trees planted in soil with
higher levels of nitrogen will be taller. The independent variable is the nitrogen level
(mg/L) in the soil, the dependent variable is the tree height (m), and the control variables
are the method of measurement, climate conditions, distance of soil from tested tree, type
of tree tested, distance of tested tree to other trees and the circumference of the tree,
which determines the age (approximately). In normal circumstances, trees add one ring
per year, increasing the width of the tree. Depending on the growth conditions from year
to year, the distance between the rings may vary slightly. The process of determining the
history of the tree through its rings is called dendrochronology (Morris, icr.org). For this
experiment, the trees tested will all have similar diameters so the trees will all be
approximately the same age. The possibility that the trees have slightly different ages
due to the distance of rings from each other because of climate change, rainfall etc is a
possible source of error in this experiment. The hypothesis tested in this experiment is: if
the nitrogen levels are higher in the soil, then the tree will be taller because of nitrogen
fixation, the process of converting nitrogen gas into ammonium, nitrites and nitrates.
These can then be used as vital nutrients by plants to stimulate their growth
(ctahr.hawaii.edu).
The outcome of this experiment can help farmers and wildlife professionals with
conservation of trees. The goal of this experiment is to explore the correlation of nitrogen
levels in soil to tree growth. Fertilizer companies can take this information into
consideration when deciding how much nitrogen to include in the fertilizer. If Drumlin
Farm knows the level of nitrogen in each forest they should be able to determine which
areas can tolerate additional planting and whether some areas may need additional natural
sources of nitrogen such as manure or commercial sources such as fertilizer. Also, they
can use this information for land management by being able to tell how fast and tall
certain trees will grow in their forests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The procedure for this experiment consisted of nine steps. First, ten trees of the
same species were located in one of the forests being tested (Red Pine, Hemlock,
Spruce). A tape measurer was used to find the circumference of the trees in order to make
sure there was no more than a one-third of a meter difference between them. This ensured
that every tree was roughly the same age. Then the trees were measured using a technique
where partner one bent down and then walked forward until the top of the tree was just
visible. Then, partner two measured the distance from tester ones hands to the base of
the tree. The data was recorded. Next, the soil auger was used to take a soil sample of 300
cm, one half of a meter away from the base of the tree and put into Tupperware container.
All of the soil testing was done back in the lab at BB&N and not at Drumlin Farm. The
soil sample was mixed with 50 m/L of CaCl2 solution and stirred with a rod to get the
most accurate nitrogen reading. The nitrogen levels of these samples were tested using a
5
Vernir nitrogen probe. In order to read the nitrogen levels, a Golink was needed,
connecting the probe to a graphing calculator. When using the nitrogen probe, it was
necessary to soak it in high standard solution for 30 minutes in the short term soaking
bottle before testing. These steps were repeated with every tree in the same location. The
final step was to repeat all of the above steps for each of the three different locations
being tested.

Figure 1: Vernir nitrogen probe

Figure 2: Tape measurer

RESULTS
Table 1: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (MAS Forest):




Tree
Number
Tree Height
(m)
Nitrogen
Level (mg/L)
1 20.9 2.7
2 20.8 2.4
3 17 2.5
4 21.5 2.7
5 21.1 2.8
6 19.5 2.5
7 21.3 2.8
8 22.4 3.3
9 18.9 2.4
10 21.5 2.6
Average 20.5 2.7
Stand. Dev. 1.5 0.3
6
Table 2: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (Red Pine Forest):

Tree
Number
Tree Height
(m)
Nitrogen
Level
(mg/L)
1 22.1 4.2
2 19.3 3.8
3 26.5 3.1
4 18.3 3
5 16.4 2.8
6 25.1 3.4
7 22.3 4.1
8 18.5 3.6
9 24.1 5.8
10 20.7 3.4
Average 21.3 3.7
Stand. Dev. 3.1 0.8

Table 3: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (Hemlock Forest):

Tree
Number
Tree Height
(m)
Nitrogen
Level
(mg/L)
1 19.5 2.2
2 18.5 2.1
3 24.6 2
4 14.9 1.9
5 13.5 1.5
6 12.5 2.3
7 15.7 2.6
8 18.3 2.4
9 16.4 2.2
10 15.3 2.2
Average 16.9 2.1
Stand. Dev. 3.3 0.3

Table 4: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (all locations):

Forest
Average
Tree Height
Average
Nit. Level
Stand. Dev.
Tree Height
Stand. Dev.
Nitrogen
MAS Forest 20.5 2.7 1.5 0.3
Red Pine
Forest 21.3 3.7 3.1 0.8
Hemlock 16.9 2.1 3.3 0.3

7
Graph 1: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (overall):




Graph 2: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (all Locations):


R! = 0.28155
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
T
r
e
e

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)

Nitrogen Level (mg/L)
R! = 0.41884
R! = 0.13139
R! = 0.00482
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8
MAS forest
Red Pine forest
Hemlock forest
T
r
e
e

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)

Nitrogen Level (mg/L)

8
Graph 3: The Effect of Nitrogen Level on Tree Height (averages):




Graph 1 demonstrates that an increase of nitrogen in the nearby soil (mg/L) did
correspond with the tree height (m). This graph compares the data from all three of the
locations: MAS forest, Red Pine Forest, and Hemlock forest. The R! value, a measure of
correlation between the variables, was fairly low, only 0.28155. The highest nitrogen
level was found near tree #9 in the Red Pine forest (5.8 mg/L) and was 24.1 m tall. The
lowest nitrogen level was near tree #4 at Hemlock forest (1.9 mg/L) and this tree was
14.8 m tall. The tallest tree was tree #6 at Red Pine forest (25.1 m) and had a nitrogen
level of 3.4 mg/L in the soil. The shortest tree was tree #6 at Hemlock forest (12.5 m) and
the soil had a nitrogen level of 2.3 mg/L). Overall, the data had a trend line that
portrayed the correlation of the nitrogen levels in the soil to the tree height, but the data
didnt fit the trend line very well.
Graph 2 shows the comparison of the three habitats and the correlation between
the nitrogen levels and tree heights within each site. The MAS forest has a R! value of
0.41884. The tallest tree in the MAS forest was 22.4 m tall and the shortest was 17 m tall.
The lowest nitrogen level in the MAS forest was 2.4 mg/L and the highest nitrogen level
was 3.3 mg/L. The Red Pine forest has a R! value of 0.13139, the data fit the trend line
even less well that it did in the MAS forest. The tallest tree in the Red Pine forest was
26.5 m tall, and the shortest tree was 16.4. The tree with the highest nitrogen level in the
soil was 5.8 mg/L and the lowest level was 2.8 mg/L. The Hemlock forests data fits its
trend line the worst out of all three of the sites; the R! value was 0.00482. The tallest tree
in the Hemlock forest was 19.5 m tall, and the shortest tree was 12.5 m tall. The highest
nitrogen level in the soil was 2.6 mg/L and the lowest was 1.9 mg/L. Overall, the nitrogen
level data in the Hemlock forest was the lowest all together, then the MAS forest, and
finally the Red Pine forest had the highest overall nitrogen levels.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
MAS Forest Red Pine Forest Hemlock
Tree Height (m)
Nitrogen Level (mg/L)
T
r
e
e

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)

a
n
d

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n

L
e
v
e
l

(
m
g
/
L
)

9
Graph 3 shows the comparison of the average tree height (m) and nitrogen level
(mg/L) from each habitat. Interestingly, the Red Pine forest has the highest average tree
height (21.33 m), as well as the highest average nitrogen level (3.72 mg/L). Also, the
Hemlock forest has the lowest average tree height (16.92 m), and the lowest average
nitrogen level (2.14 mg/L). Finally, the MAS (Mass Audubon Society) forest has both
values in between the other two sites. The average tree height was 20.49 m, and the
average nitrogen level was 2.67 mg/L. The error bar length for the Red Pine forest was
6.2 m for tree height, and 1.61 mg/L for nitrogen level. The error bar length for the
Hemlock forest was 6.62 m for tree height, and 0.56 mg/L for nitrogen level. The error
bar length for the MAS forest was 3 m for tree height, and 0.5 mg/L for nitrogen level.
This shows that in terms of height, the MAS forest had the most accurate data, then the
Red Pine forest then the Hemlock forest. For nitrogen levels, the MAS forest had the
most accurate data, then the Hemlock forest, and then the Red Pine forest. This concludes
that overall the MAS forest had the most accurate data results. All three of the error bars
overlapped in terms of tree height. None of the error bars overlapped for the nitrogen
levels.
In the MAS forest, the trees were all planted in straight rows. Also, it was on a
fairly small hill and the topography was a bit uneven. The Hemlock forest was on a huge
slant and had very uneven ground. The trees were very close together and the ground was
completely covered in sticks and pine cones. Also, most of the trees were bare. The Red
Pine forest had very moist soil and the ground was completely covered in pine needles.
There were also many red pine trees in addition to the white pines. The trees were
slightly further apart than the Hemlock forest. Due to these qualitative observations, it
becomes apparent that the data couldve been fairly inaccurate due to these nuances in the
different forests.

Figure 1: The Rows of Trees in the MAS Forest:


10
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this experiment was to test if nitrogen levels affect tree height.
The hypothesis was: if the nitrogen levels are higher in the soil, then the tree will be taller
because of nitrogen fixation, the process of converting nitrogen gas into ammonium,
nitrites and nitrates. These can then be used as vital nutrients by plants to stimulate their
growth (http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu). The hypothesis was supported because the data
was partially conclusive and accurate. The trees in forests with more nitrogen had
conclusively taller heights than in the forests with less nitrogen.
The results for this experiment supported what was expected. Nitrogen levels
stimulate plant growth and make the trees taller. The places with higher nitrogen levels in
the soil had taller trees than places that had lower nitrogen levels.
(www.tetrachemicals.com). Nitrogen is also in the atmosphere and biological material,
but the only thing measured in this experiment was soil. The nitrogen levels in the air or
the tree could have been factored in to this experiment, and it might have made the results
more accurate (msucares.com).
The error bars for the different forests in this experiment overlapped. A bar graph
was used for measuring the averages of tree height and nitrogen level. When measuring
the tree heights, the error bars overlapped which made for weak correlation among the
tree heights. The error bars for the nitrogen levels however, did not overlap at all which
resulted in a strong correlation between them. The error bars for the tree heights
averages were large meaning that the data was not very precise. The error bars were the
highest on the tree averages in the Hemlock Forest and the smallest for the trees in the
MAS Forest. The error bars were in the middle for the trees in the Red Pine Forest but all
of the error bars overlapped with each other. The error bars for the nitrogen levels were
very small, indicating that the data was very precise. The error bars were the largest in the
Red Pine Forest, and the smallest in the MAS forest. These were logical conclusions for
this experiment because the trees tested may not have had a large variety in height, which
made the data correlate less. There was no conclusive data in this experiment so therefore
a conclusion cannot be drawn.
This experiment could be improved in many ways. One being that the experiment
was not done at an ideal time of year because the trees being tested were mostly the same
species, but it was more difficult to distinguish tree type without the leaves. If the
experiment had been done in a time of year when the leaves were on the trees, it would
have improved the accuracy of the experiment. This would make the experiment easier to
conduct because the leaves would still on the trees, and a dichotomous key would be used
to distinguish tree type.
There was a sufficient amount of data collected in this experiment. At each of the
three locations that were tested, ten different trees were tested. This amounted to a total
of 30 data points, which was plenty of data to get a result. To improve the data collection
it would be logical to get trees that estimated to be relatively similar in height within each
location so that when comparing each location the results would be more precise and
conclusive. Some errors that occurred during this experiment were, the bushes in the
forests. This was an error because when measuring the height of the trees the partner has
to walk away from the tree and if the bushes and sticks were in the way it made this task
especially hard. Another error that occurred was when the soil samples were taken the
soil auger still had pieces of soil from other locations still on it. The soil auger was
11
cleaned when at the sight, but soil from other locations was still on it anyways. In the
future, it would be easy to avoid these errors. This could be done by choosing trees that
have a clearing near them, which would be easy to walk to for measuring purposes. To
avoid cross contaminating the different soils, the soil auger would need to be cleaned
more carefully and made sure that there were no traces of other soils on the auger.

AWKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Christina Knight:

Thank you Mrs. LaRocca for helping Caroline and me immensely throughout this
entire process. You helped us brainstorm ideas for our hypothesis, supervised our
experiment and edited all of our work. I also owe much gratitude to my mother, who
helped edit my Introduction and Results sections of my lab report. My grandfather,
Poppi, has always kept me enthusiastic about science, and was there for constant support
throughout this project. My father helped me flesh out my experiment and figure out the
details of my procedure. But, mostly, I need to thank my lab partner, Caroline Scheer.
She edited all my sections dutifully, worked very hard collecting data at Drumlin Farm,
and is just an overall amazing partner.

Caroline Scheer:

For our experiment, I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the staff at
Drumlin farm for all of their help in this project. Without them none of this would be
possible and they helped out a lot with all of our experiments. For our experiment in
particular, it required a lot of time, and Drumlin Farm provided plenty of time for the
experiment to get done. Drumlin farms and all of its staff provided much help to us for
our experiment and without them, none of this would have been possible. I would also
like to thank my partner Christina for all of her help. She was an amazing partner and we
stayed very focused and organized throughout the entire process which benefited our
project greatly.
















12
WORKS CITED

Christina Knight:

Dechorgnat, Julie. "Journal of Experimental Botany." From the Soil to the Seeds: The
Long Journey of Nitrate in Plants. Oxford University Press, 19 Nov. 2010. Web.
11 Mar. 2014. <http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/4/1349.full>.
Gardner, Robert. Soil: Green Science Projects for a Sustainable Planet. Berkeley
Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2011. Print.
Minnis, Ashley. "Pinus Strobus." Pinus Strobus - Eastern White Pine Tree. University of
Wisconsin - La Crosse, n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
Morris, John D., Ph.D. "Tree Ring Dating." Tree Ring Dating. Institute for Creation
Research, 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <https://www.icr.org/article/7058/>.
"Nitrogen Cycle." Nitrogen Cycle. Elmhurst College, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/outlines/nitrogencycle.html
"Nitrogen." Soil Management. University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
O'Leary, Mike. "Understanding Nitrogen in Soils." University of Minnesota Extension.
University of Minnesota, 2002. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-
management/nitrogen/understanding-nitrogen-in-soils/>.
Wiedenhoeft, Alex C. Root Nodules, Nitrogen Fixation, and Endophytes. Science
Online. Facts On File, Inc. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin=GWPN00
09&SingleRecord=True

13
Caroline Scheer:
"Calcium: A Central Regulator of Plant Growth and Development." Calcium: A Central
Regulator of Plant Growth and Development. American Society of Plant
Biologists, 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.plantcell.org/content/17/8/2142.full>.
"The Importance of Calcium." The Importance of Calcium. Tetra Technologies, 2010.
Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.tetrachemicals.com/Products/Agriculture/The_Importance_of_Calci
um.aqf>.
"Nitrogen Fertility." Nitrogen Fertility. University of Mississippi, 2010. Web. 17 Apr.
2014. <http://msucares.com/crops/soils/nitrogen.html>.
"Nitrogen." Soil Management. University of Hawaii, 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
`<http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/c_nutrients01.aspx>.







"
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,
!"#$%!&$' )
*+$%,-.&$*,+: )
/!$0%*!1# !+- /0$2,-#' 3
%0#.1$#: 4
-*#&.##*,+: 5
!&6+,710-80/0+$#: 9:
7,%6# &*$0-: 99


"
!"#$%!&$'
During past visits to Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA it was looked at that there was
various plant growth and soil compaction. This experiment was conducted to test the effect of
soil percolation on phosphorus levels. The original hypothesis was: if there is a faster soil
percolation, then there will be less phosphorus in the soil, because phosphorus is a non-metal,
and can be carried away by water (Lowell Busman, John Lamb, Gyles Randall, George Rehm,
and Michael Schmitt, http://www.extension.umn.edu/). The data was collected from three
different sites (Farmyard, Boyce Field, Overlook Field) at nine points within those sites. A can
was used to test the percolation and a phosphorus testing kit was used to measure phosphorus
levels. It was found that there was not a strong correlation between soil percolation and
phosphorus levels.
)*$%+,-&$)+*:
Phosphorus is a necessary nutrient for plant life. Phosphorus is a nucleic and acidic
component in the structure of plants (Brittanica Encyclopedia). It helps to develop new protein
tissues which aid plant growth (unknown, passel.unl.edu). When the plant dies, the phosphorus is
released back into the soil, and then can be reused by many other plants (Busman, Lowell, Lamb,
Randall, Rehm, and Schmitt, extension.umn.edu).
Phosphorus is a strong nutrient, but if there isnt enough, or in some cases if there is too
much, there can be outcomes which result in insufficient plant growth and health. If there is not
enough, the plants will die, lacking the nutrients phosphorus provides, which should have helped
their growth and protein production (unknown, passel.unl.edu). If there is too much phosphorus
in the environment, this will take away the plants ability to take up micronutrients such as iron
and zinc, which will eventually lead to the death of the plant (Provin and Pitt,
aggieturf.tamu.edu). A little comparison that may help to understand how phosphorus works in
the environment is the human intake of water. Think of phosphorus as the liquid the human is
drinking. Humans drink the liquid, and it hydrates their bodies. Once the body no longer needs
the liquid, it is released in the form of urine. This urine, if treated correctly can once again be
used for hydration, and can be reused multiple times. In terms of phosphorus, this means that
plants take in the phosphorus to help with their growth. The levels of phosphorus specifically
depend on the amount of plant life, the amount of fertilizer used on each of the areas, and the
amount of water flow through the location. If there are a lot of plants in the desired field of
testing the phosphorus levels will be taken up by the plants, as they need the nutrients to survive
(unknown, passel.unl.edu). Soil percolation, the other part of this experiment, is the speed at
which water moves through soil (unknown, treepeople.org). The soil percolation is really only
affected by two things, which are the size of the particles, and how compact the soil is. If there
are large particles, then there will be larger gaps, which the water can travel through, and if there
is smaller particles, then there will be much smaller gaps for the water to move through
(unknown, treepeople.org). If water is able to flow through the soil easily, then sufficient plant
growth will occur. When water runs through soil, the phosphorus easily dissolves because its a
non-metal, and therefore attracted to the water (unknown, extension.unm.edu).
This experiment will take place at Drumlin Farm, a Massachusetts Audubon Wildlife
Sanctuary, located in Lincoln Massachusetts. This sanctuary has an approximate size of 206
acres, and has six fields. These fields are used for agriculture, animal life, and grass/walking
fields. The fields that will be tested are Overlook Field, Boyce Field, and Farmyard Field. These
"
fields were chosen, to help the scientists get the largest range of data. For example, at Boyce
Field, the soil will have a very fast soil percolation, due to the tilling in the cropping area; as
opposed to Farmyard Field, where sheep are grazing over it all day. Then, in Overlook Field,
because people rarely walk over it, the soil percolation will be quick too. So, in the end, three
completely different fields will be used in order to get a larger range of data.
The proposed experiment is to try to find out the effect of soil percolation on the amount
of phosphorus in the soil. This experiment will be tested by taking eight random samples from
three selected fields at Drumlin Farm. On the day of the testing, only soil percolation will be
tested in the field. The day after the testing day the phosphorus levels will be tested in the lab.
The hypothesis for the experiment is, if there is a faster soil percolation, then there will be less
phosphorus in the soil, because phosphorus is a non-metal, and can be carried away by water
(unknown, extension.unm.edu). In order to make sure that the best results are taken, there will be
five control variables. These are, day tests are taken, weather, amount of water used to test the
soil percolation, depth of soil, and lastly the phosphorus tester.
Soil percolation is a huge part of gardening, and if the gardener knows the rate that water
moves through the soil, then they may in turn plant much healthier plants, and know exactly
where the soil might need to be less compact. Using this same technique, farmers can make these
same decisions, but in a much larger scale.

!"#$%&"'( "*+ !$#,-+(.
This experiment was completed in Lincoln, MA. At Drumlin Farm. The sites for testing
are Farmyard, Boyce, and
Overlook. The procedure is in two
parts. The first is the test of soil
percolation. In the lab, find the location
of testing spots, create a grid on the
field, using the contour and the random
function on the TXI-Inspire calculator.
After that, at the location, the can, with
both ends cut off and a line three
fourths up from the bottom, needs to be
placed in the ground with the can up to
the line in the soil. Then 75mL of water
in a
200mL
beaker
should be
measured
and
poured into the can. While the water is poured the partner starts the
timer and stops it when there is no more visible water. The time
should then be recorded in the appropriate data table.

First, 20mL of soil needs to be collected per sample using a soil
auger. This sample should be taken at the percolation testing
"
location. Along with that, 100 mL of distilled water need to be collected per sample. Then the
soil and water is mixed and shaken heavily for sixty seconds in a tupperware container. Then
wait for thirty minutes to an twenty-four hours for the mixture to settle. Then get the phosphorus
testing kit and capsules. Fill kit to fill mark then very carefully open the capsule above the kit
and pour the powder in. Wait ten minutes and record the data in the appropriate table.

!"#$%&#:
Table 1: The effect of soil percolation on phosphorus level at farmyard field



Graph 1: The effect of soil percolation on phosphorus level at farmyard field


Farmyard ended up having the most phosphorus containing soil; having two more
samples than Boyce field, and one more than Overlook Field. Not only this, but Farmyard also
had very slow soil percolation, which resulted beyond the maximum time of five minutes every
time. This would mean that the soil was very compact, due to sheep walking over it all day. On
the test day, the scientists noticed that the soil had very weird soil patches. In certain places,
"
there would be circular lumps, while in other places it would be very flat, and soft. This could
affect the data, because this may mean that the soil is more or less compact in different places.





Table 2: The effect of soil percolation on phosphorus level at boyce field



Graph 2: The effect of soil percolation on phosphorus level at Boyce field


Sadly on the test day, the scientists were told that samples could not be collected from the
actual cropping portion of the field. Instead, the scientists were told to test on the side of the
walking path. Also, because this was right next to the walking path, the soil was very compact.
The soil was dried out and cracking on the top layer, and very wet about an inch underneath.
Looking at the data, there was absolutely no correlation between the two variables. The only real
exception in the data was the eighth test, where there was only a result because of the large rocks
in the location.
"






Table 3: The effect of soil percolation on phosphorus level at overlook field.



Graph 3: The effect of soil percolation on phosphorus level at overlook field



On the test day, because all of the fields soil percolation was going over five minutes
every single time, the experiment had to be altered a little bit. The can that was being put into the
soil was put in deeper (until the ! mark, no longer the " mark), and half the amount of water
was put in. Not only this, but the scientists let the time run until all of the water was drained out.
Now that the testing was done differently, much more sufficient data was concluded. The data
was much more precise, and in line with how it should be. Comparatively, Boyce Field had an r
"
squared value of three percent, while Overlook Field had an r square value of twenty-four. This
would have been much higher if there had not been that singular outlier in the bottom left corner.



!"#$%##"&':
This experiment tested the correlation between soil percolation and phosphorus levels.
The hypothesis was: if there is a faster soil percolation, then there will be less phosphorus in the
soil, because phosphorus is a non-metal, and can be carried away by water (Lowell Busman,
John Lamb, Gyles Randall, George Rehm, and Michael Schmitt,
http://www.extension.umn.edu/). The hypothesis was not supported because all phosphorus
levels were depleted or deficient.
At the first two fields (Farmyard and Boyce) every soil percolation test was over five
minutes. Along with that all phosphorus levels were between zero and one. The data did not vary
between the two sites. The only slightly sufficient data was collected at Overlook field. The
phosphorus at each field were precise but the soil percolation was not precise at all.
According to a lot of sources, phosphorus should commonly be found in places where
plants are meant to be grown (Lowell Busman, John Lamb, Gyles Randall, George Rehm, and
Michael Schmitt, http://www.extension.umn.edu/), but at Boyce field, which is used for
agriculture, the phosphorus levels were depleted. There could be a lot of reasons why this
happened. A big problem could have been the phosphorous testing kit, it was not a precise kit
and the capsules containing the powder was not always the same. At the same time, the plant
intake of phosphorus in that field could have been higher and depleted the soil of all phosphorous
or the phosphorus could have been in a unavailable form (Schatchman, Daniel P., Robert J. Reid,
S.M. Ayling, http://www.plantphysiol.org/). At the third testing site the phosphorus was also
depleted. This could be because of again, dense brush growth. The phosphorus could have been
in an unavailable state, which it often is (Philip J. White, John Hammond, 224).
A possible reason the soil percolation was inconclusive was because it had rained the
night before. The experiment only tested the soil on one day out of 365 days. The soil at
Farmyard and Boyce was very compact. It was compact at Farmyard because the goats walked
on it all day. At Boyce the experiment had to be conducted on the side of the field because
students were not permitted in the middle of the field. The soil was very wet and compact. At
Overlook the soil was very dense because of all the hay and grass that had a thick root system
throughout.
There are a lot of things that could be changed about this experiment. The biggest one
was time, there was not enough time for all the samples to be collected and the percolation tests
were often cut short. Along with that the procedure could have had less water and it would have
been easier to take percolation tests. Also with the phosphorus, if there was a more precise tool
to measure phosphorus it would be a lot easier to conclude ideas about soil percolation and
phosphorus.

There were some errors while conducting this experiment. First was that the original plan
was for the soil percolation to be tested with 150mL of water. After testing the first two fields
like this, it was realized that it was taking too much time. The procedure had to be revised to be
taken with the can three fourths of the way covered in soil, instead of half, and the soil
"
percolation be tested with 75mL. Also the phosphorus tests were all collected and created on
different days. This was because of insufficient planning. For future studies, other elements
could be tested against soil percolation because percolation might not affect the phosphorus
levels.


"#
!"#$%&'()*(+($,-:

Author 1:
Id like to thank my partner Chris Lang (83-12) for helping me complete this experiment even
when I was out for two days during an important testing period. I would also like to thank my
science teacher Mr. Ewins for helping me write and understand all the data and assignments. My
parents also played a big part in helping me edit and revise my report. I also want to thank Mr.
Sarzana, Ms. Canaday, and Mr. Senabre for supervising my partner and I on the trip. Also, I
want to thank Debbie and Martha for being extremely knowledgeable about all nature topics and
tricks at our testing locations.

Author 2:
I like to thank the environmental specialists, Debbie and Martha for teaching me more about the
environments I was testing in, including the treatments used on it, and what the fields were used
for. I would also like to thank Mr. Sarzana, Mrs. Canaday, and Mr. Senabre for being there when
either my partner or I may need some help. And my parents for getting me all of the materials I
needed for this experiment. I would especially like to thank my science teacher Mr. Ewins, and
my lab partner Isaac Glotzer-Martin. Id like to thank Mr. Ewins for providing my partner and I
with the majority of the materials my partner and I needed, and for advising me with some major
decisions for the written portion and field portion of this experiment. I would like to thank Isaac
for just being a great partner to work with.


























""

!"#$% '()*+:

Author 1:
Beaker with 150 mL of water in it. Digital image. Lab 7: Preparation of Oxygen,
Properties of Oxygen, and Behavior of Oxides. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM130FieldLab/Lab7/Beaker150mLwater.jpg>.
Busman, Lowell, John Lamb, Gyles Randal, George Rehm, and Michael Schmitt. "The
Nature of Phosphorus in Soils." : Nitrogen : University of Minnesota Extension. Regents
of the University of Minnesota, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/phosphorus/the-nature-
of-phosphorus/>.
Gordon, Lisa K. Soi Test Kit. Digital image. House Logic. N.p., 13 Apr. 2012. Web. 11
Mar. 2014. <http://www.houselogic.com/blog/gardens/soil-testing/#.>.
Halka, Monica, and Brian Nordstrom. "Phosphorus." Science Online. Facts On File, 16
Apr. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin=PTNM0006&Si
ngleRecord=True>.
Schatchman, Daniel P., Robert J. Reid, and S.M. Ayling. "Phosphorus Uptake by Plants:
From Soil to Cell." Phosphorus Uptake by Plants: From Soil to Cell. American Society
of Plant Physiologists, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/116/2/447.full>.
Western Washington University. Http://geology.wwu.edu/. N.p.: Western Washington
University, n.d. PDF.
"#
White, Philip J., and John Hammond. The Ecophysiology of Plant-phosphorus
Interactions. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. Print.

Author 2:
Busman, Lowell, John Lamb, Gyles Randall, George Rehm, and Michael Schmitt. "The Nature
of Phosphorus in Soils." : Nitrogen : University of Minnesota Extension. N.p., 2009.
Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-
management/phosphorus/the-nature-of-phosphorus/>.
Daniels, Mike, Tommy Daniel, Dennis Carman, Robert Morgan, John Langston, and Karl
VanDevender. "Soil Phosphorus Levels: Concerns and Recommendations." University of
Arkansas. Agriculture and Natural Resources, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/Documents/Soil_P_Levels_Concerns_and_Recommendati
ons.pdf>.
Provin, T. L., and J. L. Pitt. "Phosphorus: Too Much and Plants May Suffer." Texas Cooperative
Extension. Aggie Turf, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <http://aggieturf.tamu.edu/files-
2005/phosphorus_Provin.pdf>.
Sanderson, R. Thomas. "Phosphorus (P) (chemical Element)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/457568/phosphorus-P>.
"Soil Percolation Rates." Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.treepeople.org/soil-percolation-rates>.
"Soils - Part 6: Phosphorus and Potassium in the Soil." Plant and Soil Sciences ELibrary. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.







"#$ %&&$'( )& *+,-( .$-/0(1
)- 2,($3 "435060(1

"#$)6)3 7480-9:$+0- ;<=9>=? @ A,B$/ C'D,3$1 ;<=9>E?
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,
!"#$%&' )*%+,*- ,.$/&* ),0"
,1!$*,#$ +##,*"-2 3,+"! 4
%'$*&5.#$%&' 6.7%'8-"6%'2 $/"&5&* 4
+,$"*%,6! ,'5 +"$/&5! +##,*"-2 3,+"! 9
*"!.6$! 6.7%'8-"6%'2 $/"&5&* :
5%!#.!!%&' +##,*"-2 3,+"! ;
,#7'&<6"50"+"'$! 4=
<&*7! #%$"5 44



"

ABSTRACT
This experiment was directly focused on the effect of plant density on
water turbidity. By controlling the amount of plants around a pond scientists
could limit erosion, thus lowering the water turbidity. With lower water turbidity,
animals and plants within the pond would be able to thrive. The hypothesis for
this experiment was if the plant density around the pond is the highest, then the
turbidity in the pond will be the lowest because the plants stop soil erosion which
means less particles will come into the water making the water turbidity less.
(http://water.epa.gov/) Samples were gathered from Bathtub Pond, Ice Pond and
Poultry Pond. To do this, random cardinal directions were determined and then
water turbidity was sampled by using water turbidity tube. Then using the same
cardinal direction, plant density was recorded by creating square meters and
recording the plant density by using a plastic square meter grid. Major results
included a plant density ranging from a 4.83% coverage to a 18.33% coverage and
a water turbidity ranging from 7cm to a very clear 110cm. In addition, the R
2
value between the two variables was a very small 0.216, showed a very slight
correlation. Thus, the results collected were incapable of determining a valid
conclusion to the hypothesis.

INTRODUCTION
Water turbidity is a measure of how much matter is floating in the
water. Turbidity is defined as the amount of sediment or particles that are
suspended in the water (http://www.thefreedictionary.com). The turbidity of a
body of water is mainly affected by soil erosion, waste discharge and urban
runoff. High water turbidity can clog fish gills, lower growth rates and affect egg
and larval development. (http://water.epa.gov).
The experiment will be conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA.
Drumlin Farm spans 206 acres and acts as both a wildlife sanctuary and a
working farm, producing naturally grown fruits and vegetables for the public to
purchase (www.massaudubon.org). Testing the water turbidity at each of the
three ponds will indirectly dictate its ability to sustain life by showing how much
the particles in the water will interfere with animal life. In this experiment, the
following three ponds will be tested: Ice pond, Bathtub pond and Poultry pond.
Ice pond is located downhill from a parking lot and contains a drain meaning the
water will be running. The running water could affect the turbidity because the
movement could be stirring up particles from the ground, which would
contribute to a higher turbidity. Bathtub pond is surrounded by many trees and
bushes and is south of the drumlin. This affects the turbidity in two ways. First,
all of the plants roots would slow down erosion, bringing less particles into the
water. At the same time, water running down from the drumlin could pick up
particles and deliver them to the pond resulting in a higher turbidity, however,
having more plants would also slow this down. Finally, Poultry pond is located
downhill from the chicken coop and grazing fields meaning that animal
excrements could be leaking into the pond affecting turbidity. This will mean that
the plant density could play a large role as the roots could help filter the
excrement leaking into the pond.

"
The main impact that water turbidity has on the wildlife is that high water
turbidity will decrease photosynthesis in underwater plants, because it lets less
light through. The reduced photosynthesis will both decrease the amount of
nutrients a plant is generating, which could lead to its death, and the amount of
dissolved oxygen in the water (http://water.epa.gov). Because animals in the
water need the D.O. to breathe, it would definitely affect the aquatic life, also, the
higher water turbidity will lead to the destruction of both the flora and the fauna
in the pond. In extreme cases, the amount of suspended particles can become so
high that the particles will clog fish gills making it impossible for them to breathe
resulting in death. However, in most cases, such effects are only observed over
the course of a larger period time (http://www.watercenter.org/). Because one of
the main factors that contribute to water turbidity is erosion
(http://water.epa.gov), a larger density of plants, which would stop erosion
(http://www.kalkaskacounty.net), would contribute to a lower water turbidity.
The proposed experiment is to test the effect of the plant density around a
pond on the turbidity of the water in the pond. The objective of this experiment is
to determine whether or not the amount of plants actually does slow down
erosion which leads to a lower water turbidity. The question will be tested by
measuring the plant density around the pond and water turbidity sample from
within the pond to see if there is a correlation between them. Three turbidity
samples and nine plant density samples will be taken at each pond. The
independent variable is the plant density around the pond, which will be
measured by seeing how much of the ground is exposed in the quadrat. The
dependent variable is the water turbidity in the pond. Important controlled
variables include the same number of samples at each site, the distance from the
pond at which the plant samples are taken, the depth where the water turbidity
sample will be taken, and the time of year when the samples are taken. The
hypothesis for this experiment is: if the plant density around the pond is higher,
then the water turbidity will be lower because more plants means less erosion
and less erosion means that there will be less particles coming into the water
making the turbidity lower (water.epa.gov/).
The purpose of this experiment is to help the naturalists and farmers at
Drumlin Farm, and people who keep ponds at home, regulate a healthy
cleanliness of their ponds by showing how to plant plants to help regulate
turbidity. This experiment is to show that when deforestation occurs, nearby
water sources will also be affected. Also, if land is cleared near water sources that
are used for obtaining drinking water or similar, the deforestation could have
negative effects on the entire publics health.

MATERIALS & METHODS
Before traveling to Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln MA, a random
number between one and 360 was created by using the random number
generator on a TI-nspire CX calculator (rand(1)360). This number was then
rounded and used as a cardinal direction. Once that direction was located using a
compass, the Water Monitoring Equipment & Supplies water turbidity tube (pre-
rinsed with sample water) was filled with 120 cm
3
of water from the edge of the
pond edge (measured with a meter stick). Then one partner stood and looked

"
down the tube at the secchi disk while the other released the valve at the bottom.
When the secchi disk was visible, the valve was closed and the water turbidity, as
indicated by the amount of water still left in the tube, was recorded in the Field
Notebook.
Now, using the same random cardinal direction, a one by one meter
square or quadrat was constructed on the edge of the pond by using a meter stick
and four colored flags. First, one side was created by using the meter stick while
two flags were placed on the ends. Then the two sides were measured out and two
more flags were placed on the last two corners of the square. Then, if at all
possible, the plastic square meter was used to help determine the plant density,
which was then recorded in the FNB (both scientists wrote down their estimates
to be averaged later). Then another square meter was created right on the edge of
the first and the plant density was recorded using the same procedure above. The
third and final square meter was then created on the edge of the second and the
plant density was recorded once again in the Field Notebook. Once the plant
density was recorded for all of the square meters, the procedure was repeated
three times at the cardinal directions at the site. This procedure was then
repeated at Ice, Bathtub and Poultry Pond. For an example of the sampling
procedure refer to the diagram below.


























Compass direction found (black lines coming from
center), then water turbidity sampled and recorded
(circle), and plant density sampled and recorded
from one-meter squares (squares at edge of circles)

"
RESULTS

Table 1: Effect of Average Plant Density on Water Turbidity
!"#$%&# ()%*+
,#*-.+/ 0%+#$ 12$3.4.+/
56756 897:
567:9 :;
<7:9 <9
597<6 8<
5=78= 559
587== :;
>78= 6
8799 ?>
;78= 56

Graph 1: Effect of Average Plant Density on Water Turbidity











#$ % &'()**+
&
(&
"&
,&
+&
)&&
)(&
&'&& ('&& "'&& ,'&& +'&& )&'&& )('&& )"'&& ),'&& )+'&& (&'&&
!
"
#
$
%

'
(
%
)
*
+
*
#
,

-
.
/
0

12$%"3$ 45"6# 7$68*#, -90

"

Table 2: Effect of Plant Density at edge of Pond on Water Turbidity
!"#$% '($)*%+ ,#%(- ./-0*1*%+
23 4567
2867 79
2267 :5
4:
225
25 79
;67 <
<67 ;3
9 2<


Graph 2: Effect of Plant Density at edge of Pond on Water Turbidity












#$ % &'()*+,
&
-&
,&
.&
/&
+&&
+-&
& - , . / +& +- +, +. +/ -&
!
"
#
$
%

'
(
)
*
+
*
#
,

-
.
/
0

12"3# +$34*#, "# $+5$ 67 863+ -90

"
Table 3: Effect of Plant Density one meter from Pond on Water Turbidity
!"#$% '($)*%+ ,#%(- ./-0*1*%+
234 2534
67 47
7 85
99 28
6:34 995
95 47
9; :
4 6<
934 9:

Graph 3: Effect of Plant Density one meter from Pond on Water Turbidity














#$ % &'("&)(
&
(&
*&
"&
+&
,&&
,(&
& - ,& ,- (& (- .&
!
"
#
$
%

'
(
%
)
*
+
*
#
,

-
.
/
0

12"3# 4$35*#, 63$ 7$#$% 8%9/ 193+ -:0

"
Table 4: Effect of Plant Density two meters from Pond on Water Turbidity
!"#$% '($)*%+ ,#%(- ./-0*1*%+
23 4567
87 73
3 95
8767 49
: 885
;7 73
83 <
8867 2:
: 8<


Graph 4: Effect of Plant Density two meters from Pond on Water Turbidity



Graph 1 shows the average Plant Density vs. the Water Turbidity at the
tested ponds. In the graph, Water Turbidity values ranged from a murky 7 cm to
an extremely clear 110 cm. Average Plant Density at zero to three meters from the
pond ranged from a 4.83% coverage to an 18.33% coverage. The r
2
value of 0.216
shows that while there is a slight increase in Water Turbidity as the plant density
gets higher, it is low enough that one can see no significant effect of one on the
other. There were no major trends or highly unusual patterns.

#$ % &'&&()*
&
+&
,&
(&
)&
-&&
-+&
& . -& -. +& +. *& *. ,&
!
"
#
$
%

'
(
%
)
*
+
*
#
,

-
.
/
0

12"3# 4$35*#, '67 8$#$%5 9%7/ 173+ -:0

8
Graphs 2,3, and 4 show the Plant Density at different distances from the
pond vs. the water turbidity. In all of the graphs the Water Turbidity had a
maximum value of 110 cm and a minimum value of 7 cm while the plant densities
varied in each one. In Graph 2, two significant outliers have been removed,
making a very high r
2
value of 0.937, indicating a significant correlation. In the
graph, the minimum plant coverage is 2.5% and the maximum is 19%. In Graph
3, the lowest Plant Density was a 1.5% coverage with the highest being a 27.5%
plant coverage. The r
2
value of 0.261 was the highest of all the graphs but was still
low enough to indicate that there is very little correlation, even though the Water
Turbidity does get higher on average as the plant density gets higher. Once again
there are no irregular patterns. Graph 4 has the lowest r
2
value of all the graphs,
with a value of 0.00683. This shows that there is no discernable correlation
between the two variables.

DISCUSSION
This expeiiment testeu the affect of plant uensity aiounu a ponu on the watei
tuibiuity of that same ponu. The puipose was to ueteimine the coiielation between
these two factois, thus finuing out if plant uensity ieally uoes affect watei tuibiuity.
The hypothesis foi this expeiiment was: if the plant uensity aiounu the ponu is the
highest, then the tuibiuity in the ponu will be the lowest because the plants stop soil
eiosion which means less paiticles will come into the watei making the watei
tuibiuity less. (http:watei.epa.gov). The iesults gatheieu fiom this test uo not
uefinitively answei the oiiginal question: uoes plant uensity affect watei tuibiuity of
a ponu. 0n aveiage, the iesults show as the plant uensity incieases, the watei
tuibiuity uecieases. Bowevei, the R
2
values of the iesults aie too low to show any
significant effect of one on the othei.
The hypothesis was slightly suppoiteu (because of the tienu in giaph 2) but
theie isn't enough confiuence in the iesults to say the hypothesis was fully
suppoiteu. 0ne ieason the hypothesis still stanus is fiom othei ieseaich. This is
because of the following ieseaich showing how plant uensity stops eiosion (Lisa
Chinn, Bemanu Neuia, http:homeguiues.sfgate.com), anu how eiosion affects
watei tuibiuity (The Nill Cieek Wateisheu uioup,
http:www.millcieek.2um.com). These aiticles aie just some of the few
iefeiences that explain how the hypothesis is tiue. The aiticle on plant uensity
explains how uiffeient types of plants can pievent eiosion, saying, the biggei the
plant, the moie ioots, thus less eiosion. The aiticle on watei tuibiuity elaboiates on
how the seuiments fiom eiosion can impact the enviionment in the watei, incluuing
stopping light fiom ieaching the bottom of the ponu anu how suspenueu seuiment
affect aquatic life. The othei ieason why the hypothesis stanus is because of a tienu
in uiaph 2(Effect 0f Plant Bensity At Euge 0f Ponu 0n Watei Tuibiuity). If two
outlieis in uiaph 2 weie iemoveu the R
2
value woulu now become an almost peifect
u.9S7. This is veiy impoitant because it enfoices one of the smallei hypothesizes in
this expeiiment that is as the plant uensity gets closei to the ponu euge it will have a
much biggei affect on watei tuibiuity (this theoiy is appaient in uiaphs 2,S,4). This
shows that theie is a coiielation between the vaiiables plant uensity anu watei
tuibiuity, which suppoits the hypothesis. Bowevei, whethei to iemove these

9
outlieis in the fiist place is anothei question. Theie might have been a mistake in
the caiiying out of the pioceuuie, which woulu cause foi them to be iemoveu, but
theie may have been some othei natuial vaiiable (such as the amounttype of
plants oi animals in the aiea) that coulu have affecteu the outcome of the tests.
0thei than the tienu in uiaph 2, the iest of the iesults aie too inconclusive to say
the hypothesis was fully suppoiteu by all iesults. To elaboiate on the ieasons why
this hypothesis isn't suppoiteu by these iesults is that this hypothesis states that a
highei plant uensity means lowei watei tuibiuity. Bowevei, in the iesults that isn't
always the case. When looking at specific uata points, the uata is all ovei the boaiu.
The R
2
value is extiemely low showing a veiy small coiielation between the two
vaiiables. 0veiall, the hypothesis stanus baseu off of othei ieseaich anu the tienu in
uiaph 2, but not with the uata collecteu because of its inconsistency.
The uata collecteu fiom this expeiiment was veiy inconclusive. Besiues the
tienu in uiaph 2 explaineu above the R
2
value foi this expeiiment was a measly
u.216 (oi 22% consistency). Although this shows some stability within the iesults,
it's not a whole lot. Although the expeiiment was inconclusive, theie was confiuence
in the pioceuuie, meaning, the way the iesults weie collecteu was almost flawless,
with the exception being a few human eiiois. With a well caiiieu out pioceuuie, the
iesults collecteu weie coiiect (the uata ieally is what it is). Bowevei, paits of the
pioceuuie coulu be put into question (those human eiiois mentioneu eailiei). In
compaiison to an aiticle showing a few suggestions at how to finu plant uensity
(0nknown Authoi http:www.webpages.uiuaho.euu), the plant uensity was
iecoiueu with a plastic giiu while the scientists woulu estimate the peicentage of
plant uensity. This estimate coulu be slightly off, consiueiing that it was baseu off of
an opinion. 0veiall, while theie was enough uata that was accuiate, the R
2
value foi
this expeiiment was just too low to come to a uefinitive conclusion (Becision 411
Foiecasting, http:people.uuke.euu).
Buiing the couise of this expeiiment theie a few othei vaiiables that coulu
have affecteu the iesults. 0ne of these was just the uiffeience in the ponus. The
thiee ponus, Bathtub, Ice, anu Poultiy, all hau uiffeiing enviionments. Foi example,
Poultiy Ponu hau iunoff fiom the faim animals, piouucing moie oiganic mateiial to
make the watei have a much highei watei tuibiuity (Ninnesota Pollution Contiol
Agency, http://www.pca.state.mn.us/). Anothei eiioi that coulu have affecteu the
iesults was that Bathtub Ponu anu Ice Ponu weie both still thawing. Bathtub Ponu
hau about 4u-4S% ice while Ice Ponu hau aiounu SS%. If theie was going to be a
ietest it woulu be best conuucteu at a time when the enviionment of the ponus was
the most similai, incluuing the watei anu foliage. If the expeiiment weie iepeateu
the pioceuuie woulu iemain the same with only the timing of the expeiiment anu
quantity of uata sampleu being changeu. The next step in this expeiiment woulu be
to ueteimine how watei tuibiuity affects the maiine life in the ponu. Anothei iuea
foi futuie testing is to test the otheis factois that affect the plant uensity. These tests
woulu be the final paits to fully wiap up this expeiiment. Fuithei stuuy also
incluues gatheiing much moie uata, this coulu be uone by getting uata fiom some of
the othei ponus anu just conuucting moie tests at each ponu to see if theie aie any
new patteins oi tienus in the uata


"#
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Author 1 Acknowledgments:
I, Theodor Lukin-Yelin , would first and foremost like to thank my lab
partner James McCarey. He always stood by me even when I was having trouble.
I would also like to thank Mr. Ewins for teaching us techniques and helping us
when we were stuck. I would like to thank Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Jamison and Ms.
Brooks for supervising us on the day and the drumlin farm staff for helping us
out around the habitats.

Author 2 Acknowledgements:
$% &'()* +,-'.)/% 01234 356) 71 78'96 ):)./19) 081 ,197.5;27)4 71 ,.)'759<
'94 ,'../59< 127 785* )=>).5()97? @85* 59,324)4 (/ >'.79). @8)141. A2659BC)359
081 8)3>)4 ('6) 78) >.1,)42.) <1 *(11783/% +.? D059*% 081 >.1:54)4 '33 78) 8)3>
71 ,.)'7) 78) )=>).5()97% '94 @)',8). E'72.'35*7 -'.13 081 8)3>)4 12. <.12> F594
*57)* '94 0'/* 71 9':5<'7) 78)(? G78). >)1>3) $ 01234 356) 71 78'96 59,324) +.?
H0/).% +.*? &'(5*19% '94 +.*? I.116* 081 *2>).:5*)4 12. >.1,)42.) '7 45FF).)97
*57)*?





















""
WORKS CITED:

Works Cited for Author 1:

"5.5 Turbidity." Home. United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.
Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
<http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm>.
"Factors Influencing Erosion." Factors Influencing Erosion. N.p., n.d. Web. 30
Mar. 2014. <http://www.kalkaskacounty.net/planningeduc0043.asp>.
Kalkaska County. "Factors Influencing Erosion." Factors Influencing Erosion.
Kalkaska County, n.d. Web. 01 May 2014.
<http://kalkaskacounty.net/planningeduc0043.asp>.
Mass Audubon. "About Drumlin Farm." About Drumlin Farm. Mass Audubon,
n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.massaudubon.org/get-
outdoors/wildlife-sanctuaries/drumlin-farm/about>.
The Free Dictionary. "Turbidity." The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 13 Mar.
2014. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turbidity>.
"Water Turbidity Effects on Fish and Aquatic Life." Watercenter. Water Center,
n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.watercenter.org/physical-water-
quality-parameters/water-turbidity/water-turbidity-effects-on-fish-and-
aquatic-life/>.

Works Cited for Author 2:
Chinn, Lisa. "Soil Erosion Control Plant List." Home Guides. Demand Media, n.d.
Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://homeguides.sfgate.com/soil-erosion-control-
plant-list-68961.html>.

"#
"Effects of Erosion on Water Quality." Effects of Erosion on Water Quality. The
Mill Creek Watershed Group, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.millcreek.20m.com/page5.html>.
"Measuring Plant Cover." Uidaho. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/range357/notes/cover.pdf>.
"Turbidity: Description, Impact on Water Quality, Sources, Measures."
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. MPCA, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pca.state.mn.us%2Findex.php%2Fview-
document.html%3Fgid%3D7854>.
"What's a Good Value for R-squared?" What's a Good Value for R-squared?
Duke, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://people.duke.edu/~rnau/rsquared.htm>.

1








T HE E F F E CT OF TRE E DBH ON
DE CI DUOUS AND C ONI F EROUS
TRE E SOI L MOISTURE
PERCENT A GE






Rachel Markey
Ryan Sheft
2
!"#$% '( )'*+%*+,
--- ----------------------------------------

.%/+0'* 12+3'4 5"6%,
1#,+4"/+ 78"* 9
:*+4';2/+0'* 7"/3%$ <=>
?"+%40"$, @
?%+3';,
78"* A=B
7%,2$+, 7"/3%$ C=D
E0,/2,,0'* 78"* FG=F9
1/H*'I$%;6J%*+, 78"* @ 7"/3%$ F<
K'4H, )0+%; 12+3'4
F
7"/3%$ F>
K'4H, )0+%; 12+3'4
9
78"* F> = FA






















3

"#$ $%%$&" '% ()# '* ($&+(,',- .*( &'*+%$/',- "/$$ -'+0 1'+-",/$

.)-"/.&"
"#$% &#$'()*+ $' , &+,')*+ #- (.+ ,&#)/( #- 0,(+* $/ (.+ '#$% $/ , 1,*($2)%,*
,*+,3 "#$% &#$'()*+ $' &+,')*+4 )'$/5 , 6+*/$+* "#$% &#$'()*+ 1*#7+ ,/4 (.+ )/$( $'
1+*2+/(,5+'3 8.$' +91+*$&+/( 0,' 2#/4)2(+4 $/ #*4+* (# 4+(+*&$/+ $- (.+*+ 0,' ,/:
2#**+%,($#/ 7+(0++/ (.+ ;$,&+(+* ,( <*+,'( =+$5.( >;<=? #- , (*++ ,/4 (.+ ,&#)/(
#- '#$% &#$'()*+ $/ (.+ 5*#)/43 @/#(.+* $/4+1+/4+/( A,*$,7%+ 0,' 2#/$-+*#)' ,/4
4+2$4)#)' (*++' 0.$2. 0+*+ 2#&1,*+4 (# 4+(+*&$/+ $- #/+ (:1+ #- (*++ .,4 &#*+ '#$%
&#$'()*+ (.,/ (.+ #(.+*3 8.+ +91+*$&+/( (##B 1%,2+ ,( ;*)&%$/ C,*&D $/ E$/2#%/
F,'',2.)'+(('3 8.*++ -#*+'( .,7$(,(' 0+*+ 2.#'+/ (# 7+ (+'(+4G H+4 I$/+D =+&%#2BD
,/4 F@" -#*+'(3 C$*'(D (.+ ;<= #- (*++' 0+*+ &+,')*+4 ,/4 2%,''$-$+4 $/(# ,
2,(+*5#*: >'&,%%D &+4$)&D ,/4 %,*5+?3 @ %,*5+ (*++ .,4 , 4$,&+(+* #- &#*+ (.,/ JK
2+/($&+(+*'D , &+4$)& (*++ 0,' 7+(0++/ LM ,/4 JN 2+/($&+(+*' $/ 4$,&+(+*D ,/4 ,
'&,%% (*++ .,4 , 4$,&+(+* %+'' (.,/ LO 2+/($&+(+*'3 8.+/ )'$/5 , *)%+*D MO
2+/($&+(+*' -*#& (.+ 7,'+ #- (.+ (*++ 0,' &+,')*+4 ,/4 (.+ '1#( 0,' &,*B+43 @-(+*
(.+ '#$% 0,' %##'+/+4 0$(. , 7)((+* B/$-+D , 6+*/$+* "#$% F#$'()*+ 1*#7+ 0,' $/'+*(+4
$/(# (.+ 5*#)/4 ,/4 .+%4 -#* ,11*#9$&,(+%: MK '+2#/4' $/ (.+ 5*#)/43 8.+/ (.+ '#$%
&#$'()*+ 1+*2+/(,5+' 0+*+ *+2#*4+4 #/ , E,7 P)+'( 1*#7+3 8.+ .:1#(.+'$' 0,' (.,(
$- '&,%% 2#/$-+*#)' (*++' 0+*+ (+'(+4 -#* '#$% &#$'()*+ 1+*2+/(,5+'D (.+/ '&,%%
2#/$-+*#)' (*++' 0#)%4 .,A+ (.+ .$5.+'( %+A+%' #- '#$% &#$'()*+ 1+*2+/(,5+'D 7+2,)'+
(.+ /++4%+' ,*+ +9(*+&+%: 0,(+*Q+--$2$+/( ,/4 '&,%% (*++' /++4 %+'' 0,(+* (.,/ (.+
&+4$)& #* %,*5+ (*++' ,/4 #/%: 2#/$-+*#)' (*++' .,A+ /++4%+' &,B$/5 (.+& &#*+
+--$2$+/( (.,/ 4+2$4)#)'3 >R,4$,D 0003*#,&$/5/,()*,%$'(?3 8.+ .:1#(.+'$' 0,' /#(
')11#*(+4 7+2,)'+D #/ ,A+*,5+D 4+2$4)#)' (*++' .,4 .$5.+* %+A+%' #- '#$% &#$'()*+
,/4 (.+ &+4$)& '$S+4 ;<= (*++' .,4 (.+ .$5.+'( %+A+%' #- '#$% &#$'()*+3



















4
!"#$%&'(#!%"
!" $%&'()&*' +,,*-. /"%0 *1*0/&+/ (),*2 34+. +5"%. 0+)67 '6"87 +6&
&0"%94.'2 :")( $")'.%0* -+6 5* .*'.*& ." ;0*;+0* ,"0 .4*'* ./;*' ", &)'+'.*0'< ="
(*+06 $"0* 4"8 ." ;0".*-. /"%0'*(,7 0*+& "6<
:")( $")'.%0* )' .4* $*+'%0* ", 8+.*0 -"6.+)6*& 8).4)6 + -*0.+)6 +$"%6. ",
'")(< :")( $")'.%0* )' .4* 0*'%(. ", ;0*-);).+.)"67 -()$+.*7 +6& 8+.*0 0%6",, ,0"$
6*+05/ '.0*+$' "0 0)1*0' >?06"(&7 888<94--<$',-<6+'+<9"1@< :%0,+-* '")( $")'.%0* )'
.4* $*+'%0* ", .4* $")'.%0* )6 .4* %;;*0 AB -$ ", '")(< C"". '")( $")'.%0* )' .4*
$*+'%0* ", .4* %;;*0 DBB -$ ", '")(< :")( $")'.%0* -+6 +,,*-. *1*0/&+/ (),* +6& %'*&
." ;0*&)-. 8*+.4*0 ;+..*06'7 +' 8*(( +' $+6/ $"0* *61)0"6$*6.+( +';*-.'<
=4)' *E;*0)$*6. 8)(( .+F* ;(+-* +. !0%$()6 G+0$7 + 8)(&(),* '+6-.%+0/7 0%6 5/
.4* H+'' ?%&%5"6 :"-)*./7 ("-+.*& )6 I)6-"(67 H?< =4* '")( $")'.%0* 8)(( 5* .*'.*&
in thiee of Biumlin Faim's foiests: Bemlock Foiest, NAS Foiest, anu Reu Pine
G"0*'.< :")( $")'.%0* )' +6 )$;"0.+6. +';*-. ", *-"'/'.*$' +(( "1*0 .4* 8"0(& >&%* ."
).' )6,(%*6-* "6 .4* -()$+.* +6& .4* ;0*-);).+.)"6 (*1*('<@ J. (+09*(/ +,,*-.' .4*
,"0$+.)"6 ", 8*+.4*0 ;+..*06'7 +6& -+6 5* F*/ )6 -"6.0"(()69 *E-4+69* ", 8+.*0 +6&
4*+. *6*09/ 5*.8**6 (+6& '%0,+-* +6& .4* +.$"';4*0* .40"%94
*1+;"0+.)"6< K"1*06$*6. +9*6-)*' +6& ;0)1+.* -"$;+6)*' %'* '")( $")'.%0* ."
;0*&)-. 8*+.4*0 ;+..*06' +6& ." ;0*;+0* ,"0 ;"'')5(* 6+.%0+( &)'+'.*0' '%-4 +'
,(""&'7 &0"%94.'7 $%&'()&*'7 '")( *0"')"67 +6& $+6/ $"0* *E.0*$* 8*+.4*0
').%+.)"6' >?06"(&7 888<94--<$',-<6+'+<9"1@<
J6 L*8 M69(+6&7 5".4 &*-)&%"%' +6& -"6),*0"%' .0**' +0* 1*0/ -"$$"6
.40"%94"%. ,"0*'.'< !*-)&%"%' .0**' +0* &"0$+6. .40"%94 .4* 8)6.*07 $*+6)69 .4+.
.4*/ 9" .40"%94 + ,"0$ ", 4)5*06+.)"6 ,"0 .4* .0**' +,.*0 .4*/ ("'* .4*)0 (*+1*' )6 .4*
,+((< =4)' 4*(;' ." F**; .4*$ +()1* &%0)69 .4* -"(& 8)6.*0 $"6.4'7 5/ '("8)69 &"86
.4* .0**' $*.+5"()'$7 *6*09/7 -"6'%$;.)"67 8+.*0 %'+9*7 +6& 90"8.4 >N+$;5*((7
888<$66<-"$@< N"6),*0"%' .0**'7 %6()F* &*-)&%"%' .0**'7 &" 6". &0"; .4*)0 6**&(*'
)6 .4* 8)6.*0< The neeules on the conifeious tiees aien't as vulneiable to the colu as
.4* (*+1*' "6 .4* &*-)&%"%' .0**'< I*+1*' 4+1* '."$+.+7 84)-4 +0* ()..(* 4"(*' )6
84)-4 .4*/ -+6 50*+.4* .40"%94< J6 .4* 50"+&O(*+,*& (*+1*'7 .4* '."$+.+ +0* (+09*7
+(("8)69 + (". ", +)0 .40"%947 5%. +('" (*..)69 .4* 8+.*0 .4*/ 4+1* -"((*-.*&7
*1+;"0+.* )6." .4* +)0< J6 -"6),*0"%' .0**'7 .4* 6**&(*' 4+1* '."$+.+ .4+. +0*
')96),)-+6.(/ '$+((*07 +(("8)69 (*'' 8+.*0 ." *'-+;* +' .4*/ 50*+.4*< =4)' +(("8' ,"0
-"6),*0"%' .0**' ." 6**& (*'' 8+.*0 .4+6 &*-)&%"%' .0**' >L+&)+7
888<.4*0"+$)696+.%0+()'.<-"$@<
=4* ;0";"'*& *E;*0)$*6. )' ." .*'. ), .0** &)+$*.*0 +. 50*+'. 4*)94. +,,*-.' '")(
$")'.%0* "6 .40** &),,*0*6. &)+$*.*0' ", .0**'< =4)' *E;*0)$*6. 8)(( .*'. )' ." '** ),
.4*0* )' + -4+69* 5*.8**6 -"6),*0"%' +6& &*-)&%"%' .0**' '")( $")'.%0* &%* ." .4*
&),,*0*6-* ", .4*)0 +-.)1)./ &%0)69 .4* 8)6.*0 $"6.4'< =4)' 8)(( 5* .*'.*& 5/ ("-+.)69
&*-)&%"%' +6& -"6),*0"%' .0**' .4+. 4+1* '$+((7 $*&)%$7 "0 (+09* &)+$*.*0'7 +6&
.*'.)69 .4* '")( $")'.%0* (*1*( +. .4* 5+'* ", .4*)0 .0%6F< =4* )6&*;*6&*6. 1+0)+5(*
8)(( 5* .0** &)+$*.*0 +. 50*+'. 4*)94.7 +('" F6"86 +' !PQ7 $*+'%0*& )6 -*6.)$*.*0'
+6& .0** ./;*7 +6& .4* &*;*6&*6. 1+0)+5(* 8)(( 5* '")( $")'.%0*< =4* 4/;".4*')' ,"0
.4* *E;*0)$*6. )'R ), .4* -"6),*0"%' .0**' +0* .*'.*&7 .4*6 .4*/ 8)(( 4+1* .4* 4)94*'.
'")( $")'.%0* (*1*(7 5*-+%'* -"6),*0"%' .0**' 4+1* 6**&(*' 84)-4 +0* $"0* 8+.*0
5
!""#$#!%&' )*+#%, &-! *)./%& ." 0*&!1 %!!2!2 3)*44!1 .1 4!33' *%2 4!*5#%, ).1!
).#3&/1! #% &-! 3.#4 67*2#*' 0008&-!1.*)#%,%*&/1*4#3&8$.)98
:-#3 1!3!*1$- $*% !;-#<#& * $.11!4*&#.% <!&0!!% 3.#4 ).#3&/1! *%2 $.%#"!1./3
*%2 2!$#2/./3 &1!!38 This can help to leain moie about New Englanu's climate, the
!""!$& &-*& =1/)4#% "*1) -*3 .% >1!$#>#&*&#.%' *%2 &-! /%2!13&*%2#%, ." &-!
$.11!4*&#.% ." $4#)*&! *%2 3.#48 ?& #3 #)>.1&*%& &. )!*3/1! 3.#4 ).#3&/1!' &. )*#%&*#%
* -!*4&-@ !$.3@3&!) *%2 &. *40*@3 <! .% *4!1& ".1 0-*& 0!*&-!13 *1./%2 &-! $.1%!18







































6
!"#$%&"'( "*+ !$#,-+(
This expeiiment was conuucteu to test whethei the uiametei of tiees at
bieast height (BBB) hau an effect on a tiee's soil moistuie. The expeiiment also
compaieu conifeious anu ueciuuous tiees to see which hau highei soil moistuie
levels. The expeiiment location was at Biumlin Faim in Lincoln, Nassachusetts on
Apiil 7, 2u14. The expeiiment was conuucteu in, anu uata was collecteu fiom, thiee
uiffeient foiest habitats at Biumlin Faim: Bemlock, Reu Pine anu NAS foiest. In
each foiest, twelve tiees weie selecteu, six conifeious anu six ueciuuous tiees.
Aftei, the uiametei of the tiees was measuieu anu then the tiee was classifieu as
"small," "meuium," oi "laige." Next, a veiniei Soil Noistuie piobe was attacheu
using a connectoi coiu to a Lab Quest uevice anu the coiu was inseiteu into the
giounu neai the base of the tiee being measuieu to iecoiu the peicentage of soil
moistuie.
Foi the testing site, thiee foiests at Biumlin Faim weie selecteu: NAS,
Bemlock anu Reu Pine. The expeiiment was uesigneu to test six conifeious tiees
(two small, two meuium, anu two laige) anu six ueciuuous tiees (two small, two
meuium, anu two laige) within each foiest. A "small" tiee was consiueieu to be a
tiee with a BBB less than twenty centimeteis in uiametei, a "meuium" tiee was
consiueieu to be a tiee with a BBB between twenty-one anu thiity-foui centimeteis
in uiametei, anu a "laige" tiee was consiueieu to be a tiee with a BBB ovei thiity-
five centimeteis in uiametei.
The fiist foiest visiteu was Bemlock, anu aftei the twelve tiees in Bemlock
foiest weie selecteu, the BBB of each tiee was measuieu using a BBB tape to
confiim that the tiees selecteu fit the paiameteis of the expeiiment. 0nce the BBB
sizes of the tiees weie confiimeu, the following pioceuuie was useu. Aftei
measuiing ten centimeteis away fiom the base of the tiee using a iulei, the soil was
looseneu with a buttei knife. Aftei the soil was ueteimineu to be sufficiently loose,
the Lab Quest uevice was attacheu to the veiniei Soil Noistuie Piobe using a
connectoi coiu. The veiniei Soil Noistuie piobe was then inseiteu into the soil anu
helu in place foi appioximately 1S seconus to iecoiu the peicentage of soil moistuie
in the aiea. The uata was then loggeu into a fielu notebook. The pioceuuie was
iepeateu foi each of the twelve tiees selecteu at the Bemlock Foiest.
Aftei the twelve selecteu tiees in Bemlock foiest weie testeu anu the uata
was iecoiueu, the same pioceuuie of selecting the tiees, testing the soil moistuie
anu iecoiuing the uata was iepeateu at Reu Pine foiest. Finally, aftei all the
selection, testing anu iecoiuing at Reu Pine foiest was completeu, the pioceuuie of
selecting the tiees, testing the soil anu iecoiuing the uata was iepeateu again at
NAS Foiest. In total, S6 tiees weie selecteu anu testeu fiom the thiee uiffeient
foiest aieas at Biumlin Faim.
Figuie 1 below shows a pictuie of the veiniei Soil Noistuie piobe, anu
Figuie 2 shows a map of Biumlin Faim with the thiee foiest habitats visiteu
inuicateu by the ieu aiiows.




7











































Figure 1
This is a picture of the soil moisture sensor
inserted into the ground to get our soil moisture
percentage readings.
Figure 2
This is a map of Drumlin Farms. The locations marked
above are the three forest habitats visited.
MAS
RED PI NE
HE ML OC K
8
!"#$%&#' &)*%"# )+, -!)./#

&)*%" 0' &/" "11"2& 31 ,*/ 3+ #34% 534#&$!" 13! ,"24,$3$# )+,
23+41"!3$# &!""#




&)*%" 6' &/" "11"2& 31 ,*/ 3+ )7"!)-" #34% 534#&$!" 13! ,"24,3$# )+,
23+41"!3$# &!""# )& /"5%3289 5)# )+, !", .4+" 13!"#&#



-!)./ 0' &/" "11"2& 31 ,*/ 3+ #34% 534#&$!" 13! ,"24,$3$# )+,
23+41"!3$# &!""#







9
!"#$% '() *%+ +,,+-* ., /0% .1 2.34 5.32*6+ ,." -.13,+".62 *"++2 #*
%+54.-78 5#2 #1/ "+/ $31+ ,."+2*2


















!"#$% '9) *%+ +,,+-* ., /0% .1 2.34 5.32*6+ ,." /+-3/6.62 *"++2 #*
%+54.-78 5#2 #1/ "+/ $31+ ,."+2*2




"+264*2
In uiaph 1, it is shown that the soil moistuie uata ianges on aveiage fiom
7.8% to 27.S%. The soil moistuie aveiages foi ueciuuous tiees weie: small tiees,
1S.4%, meuium tiees 27.S% anu laige tiees, 22.9%. The aveiages foi conifeious
tiees weie: small tiees 7.8%, meuium tiees 19.8% anu laige tiees 2u.4%. The
stanuaiu ueviations foi conifeious tiees weie: S.9% foi small, 14.7% foi meuium,
anu 9.7% foi laige. The stanuaiu ueviations foi ueciuuous weie: 8.9% foi small,
10
!!"#$ &'( )*+,-). /0+ !1"#$ &'( 2/(3*" 45* 2'6*78 78/0+/(+ +*9,/8,'0 :";$ '&
7)/22 +*<,+-'-7 8(**7. /27' 5/+ 85* 2'6*78 /9*(/3* ="#$ /0+ 5/+ 85* )'78 >(*<,7*
+/8/. /0+ 85* 5,35*78 78/0+/(+ +*9,/8,'0 ??";$ &'( )*+,-) +*<,+-'-7 8(**7 5/+ 85*
5,35*78 /9*(/3* ?="@$ /0+ 85* 2*/78 >(*<,7* +/8/" A-* 8' 85* 7,B* '& 85* *(('( C/(7.
85*(* 6/7 *(('( C/( '9*(2/> /0+ 2'6 >(*<,7,'0"
D(/>57 ?/ /0+ ?C 75'6 85* AEF '0 7',2 )',78-(* &'( <'0,&*('-7 /0+
+*<,+-'-7 7*>/(/8*2G. 6,85 85* 2'</8,'07 '& 85* 8*78,03" H0 D(/>5 ?/ I+*<,+-'-7.J 85*
5,35*78 /9*(/3* 6/7 2/(3* 8(**7 /8 F*)2'<K &'(*78. 6,85 LL"M$ 65,2* 85* 2'6*78
/9*(/3* 6/7 /27' 2/(3*. C-8 /8 NOP &'(*78 6,85 !M";$" 45* 7)/22*78 *(('( C/(7
65*(* /27' 85* 2/(3* F*)2'<K. 6,85 ":$. C-8 <2'7* C*5,0+ 6*(* 85* 7)/22*78 /9*(/3*.
2/(3* 8(**7 /8 NOP &'(*78 6,85 !"!$" P)/22 8(**7 /8 F*)2'<K &'(*78 5/+ 85* 2/(3*78
78/0+/(+ +*9,/8,'0 !1"#$" 45* )/Q'(,8G '& 85* +/8/ 6/7 C*86**0 /('-0+ !!$ /0+
?!$ '85*( 85/0 85* )*+,-) /0+ 85* 2/(3* F*)2'<K /9*(/3*7"
H0 D(/>5 ?C I<'0,&*('-7.J 85* 5,35*78 /9*(/3* 6/7 )*+,-) 8(**7 /8 R*+ S,0*
&'(*78 6,85 @@"#$ /0+ 85* 7)/22*78 /9*(/3* 6/7 )*+,-) 8(**7 /8 NOP &'(*78 6,85
L"1$" 45* 2'6*78 78/0+/(+ +*9,/8,'0 6/7 )*+,-) 8(**7 &(') F*)2'<K &'(*78 6,85
"L$. /0+ 85* 5,35*78 78/0+/(+ +*9,/8,'0. )*+,-) 8(**7 &(') R*+ S,0* &'(*78 6,85 /
78/0+/(+ +*9,/8,'0 '& !@"@$" 45* /9*(/3* 7',2 )',78-(* &'( /22 '& 85* +/8/ (/03*+
&(') @"?$ 8' @@"#$" 45* /9*(/3*7 &'( 7)/22 8(**7 &(') F*)2'<K &'(*78
6*(* 7)/22*( 85/0 C'85 85* )*+,-) /0+ 85* 2/(3* &(') F*)2'<K &'(*78" 45* 7)/22
8(**7 &(') NOP &'(*78 5/+ 5,35*( 7',2 )',78-(* 85/0 C'85 85* )*+,-) /0+ 85* 2/(3*
&(') NOP &'(*78" 45* 7)/22 8(**7 &(') R*+ S,0* &'(*78 5/+ '0 /9*(/3* 2'6*( 7',2
)',78-(* 85/0 )*+,-) /0+ 2/(3* 8(**7 &(') R*+ S,0* &'(*78" P')* T-/2,8/8,9* +/8/
85/8 6/7 0'8,<*+ /8 85* 2'</8,'07 6/7 85/8 /8 NOP &'(*78. 85*(* 6/7 / )'(*
7,30,&,</08 0-)C*( '& >,0* 0**+2*7 <'9*(,03 85* 3('-0+. /0+ 85* 7',2 6/7 )'(* +/)>
8' 85* 8'-<5" O8 R*+ S,0* &'(*78. 85* )/Q'(,8G '& 3('-0+ 5/+ 7-02,358. 5/9,03 85* 7',2
C* 2*77 +/)>"
















11
!"#$%##"&'
!"# %&'%'(#) #*%#&+,#-. /0( .' )+(1'2#& +3 ."#&# /0( 0 1'&&#40.+'- 5#./##-
."# %#&1#-.06# '3 ('+4 ,'+(.7&# 0-) ."# )+0,#.#& 0. 5&#0(. "#+6". '3 .&##( 89:;< 0(
/#44 0( .#(.+-6 ."# )+33#&#-1#( '3 ('+4 ,'+(.7&# 5#./##- 1'-+3#&'7( 0-) )#1+)7'7(
.&##(= !"# ">%'."#(+( /0( ."0. +3 "small" conifeious tiees (less than 2u cm at BBB)
/#&# .#(.#) 3'& ('+4 ,'+(.7&# ."#- ."# (,044 1'-+3#&'7( .&##( /'74) "02# ."# "+6"#(.
('+4 ,'+(.7&# 4#2#4( 5#107(# ."#> 0&# ,'&# /0.#& #33+1+#-. ."0- )#1+)7'7( .&##( 0-)
(+-1# ."#> 0&# (,044#& .&##( ."#> -##) 4#(( /0.#& 3&', ."# 6&'7-) 4#02+-6 ,'&#
,'+(.7&# +- ."# ('+4= 8?0)+0@ ///=&'0,+-6-0.7&04+(.=1',< !"# ">%'."#(+( /0( -'.
(7%%'&.#) 0( ."# (,044 1'-+3#&'7( .&##( "0) ."# 4#0(. 0,'7-. '3 ('+4 ,'+(.7&# '-
02#&06# 5#./##- 044 ."&## 3'&#(. "05+.0.(@ "'/#2#& ."# )0.0 /0( .'' 20&+#) .' 5#
1'-147(+2# '2#&044=
!"# ,#)+7, (+A#) 1'-+3#&'7( .&##( "0) ."# "+6"#(. 4#2#4( '3 ('+4 ,'+(.7&# '-
02#&06#= B- 6&0%" C@ ,'(. '3 ."# #&&'& 50&( "02# (+6-+3+10-. '2#&40% ,#0-+-6 ."#
,0D'&+.> '3 ."# )0.0 +( +-1'-147(+2#= !"#&# +( -' &#(#0&1" ."0. (7%%'&.( ."# +)#0 ."0.
."# ,#)+7, (+A#) .&##( /'74) "02# ."# "+6"#(. ,'+(.7&# 4#2#4(@ 0-) 044 '3 ."#
&#(#0&1" 1'44#1.#) (766#(.( ."0. ."# ">%'."#(+( ("'74) 5# (7%%'&.#)@ 57. +. /0( -'.=
!"# ."&## 3'&#(. "05+.0.( /#&# 044 '- )+33#&#-. (4'%#( 0-) .#&&0+-(@ 0-) %#&"0%( ."+(
hau a laige impact on the expeiiment's uata. ;#,4'1E 0-) F#) G+-# 3'&#(. ,#)+7,
(+A#) 9:; .&##( 1'-147(+2#4> "0) ,'&# ('+4 ,'+(.7&# 4#2#4( ."0- 044 '3 ."# (,044
sizeu BBB tiees. Bemlock foiest's meuium siA#) 9:; .&##( #&&'& 50&( '2#&40%%#)
with Reu Pine foiest's laige sizeu BBB tiee. In contiast, Reu Pine foiests eiioi bais
oveilappeu with both Bemlock anu Reu Pine foiest's laige sizeu BBB tiees. The NAS
3'&#(. /0( "+6"#& 7% '- 0 (4'%# ."0- ."# F#) G+-# 3'&#(. 0-) ;#,4'1E 3'&#(.= H-
02#&06#@ ;#,4'1E 3'&#(. "0) ."# "+6"#(. ('+4 ,'+(.7&# 4#2#4( 0-) +. /0( ."# 4'/#(.
.#&&0+-@ 3'44'/#) 5> F#) G+-# 3'&#(. 0-) IJK /0( '- 0 "+44= !"# )0.0 ("'/( ."0. 3'&
."# )#1+)7'7( .&##( F#) G+-# 3'&#(. "0) "+6"#& ('+4 ,'+(.7&# 4#2#4( ."0- IJK@ /"+1"
060+- /0( '- 0 "+44 ,#0-+-6 /"#- &0+- 3044( +. &'44( )'/- ."# "+44 0-) ."7( +. /'74)
)&0+- )'/- .' ;#,4'1E 3'&#(.= L"#- ."#&# +( %&#1+%+.0.+'-@ ."# &0+- )&0+-( )'/-
."# "+44 0-) 6'#( .' ."# 4'/#(. %'((+54# 4'10.+'-=
8?0)+0@///=&'0,+-6-0.7&04+(.=1',<= J3.#& ."# %&#1+%+.0.+'- 3044(@ ."# /0.#& M7+1E4>
,'2#( )'/-"+44 0-) 3+-)( ."# 4'/#(. #4#20.+'- %'((+54#= B3 ."#&# +( 0 (4'%#@ ."#- ."#
/0.#& ,'2#( )'/- +. 7-.+4 +. 3+-)( 0 2044#>@ '& 0 4'/#& #4#20.+'- ."0- ."# '-# +.
'&+6+-0.#) 3&',= 8N-E-'/-@ ///=/0.#&=7(6(=6'2<
B- ;#,4'1E 3'&#(.@ 044 '3 ."# 1'-+3#&'7( &#(74.( /#&# 1'-147(+2#4> )+33#&#-.@
/+." ."# 40&6# .&##( "02+-6 ."# "+6"#(. ,'+(.7&#@ ."# ,#)+7, .&##( "02+-6 ."# -#*.
"+6"#(. ,'+(.7&# 4#2#4 0-) ."# (,044 .&##( "02+-6 ."# 4'/#(. 0,'7-. '3 ,'+(.7&# +-
."# ('+4= B- ;#,4'1E 3'&#(.@ ."# #&&'& 50&( 3'& ."# (,044@ ,#)+7, 0-) 40&6#
1'-+3#&'7( .&##( )' -'. '2#&40% ,#0-+-6 ."# 40&6# (+A#) 1'-+3#&'7( .&##( +- ;#,4'1E
3'&#(. 1'-147(+2#4> "0) ,'&# ('+4 ,'+(.7&# ."0- ."# (,044 '& ,#)+7,= H-# &#0('-
."0. ."# &#(74.( 10,# '7. 1'-147(+2# ,0> "02# 5##- ."# 301. ."0. ."# 1'-+3#&'7( .&##(
with uiameteis moie than SS cm which weie consiueieu "laige" tiees hau laigei
10-'%> 1'2#& ."0- ."# (,044#& .&##( /"+1" %&#2#-.( ."# (7-4+6". 3&', )&>+-6 '7. ."#
('+4 ,'+(.7&# 0-) ."# ,'+(.7&# #20%'&0.+'- %&'1#(( +( (4'/#) )'/-= !"+( /'74)
%&'2+)# '-# #*%40-0.+'- 0( .' /"> ."# 40&6# 8OPQ1, 9:;< 1'-+3#&'7( .&##( "0) ."#
12
!"#!$%& ($)$(% *+ %*"( ,*"%&-.$/ 0& &!$ &",$ *+ &!$ 12&2 3*(($3&"*45 &!$ 1$3"1-*-% &.$$%
!21 4* ($2)$% %* &!$.$ 62% ($%% 324*78 3*)$.5 %* &!"% $97(242&"*4 *4(8 277("$% &* &!$
3*4"+$.*-% &.$$%/ :*. ;*&! 3*4"+$.*-% 241 1$3"1-*-% &.$$%5 &!$ (2.#$ %"<$1 &.$$% =>?@
3, ABCD 2(%* !2)$ 6"1$.5 1$$7$. .**& %8%&$,% 6!"3! 324 7-(( ,*"%&-.$ +.*, +2.&!$.
*-& +.*, &!$ ;2%$ *+ &!$ &.$$ 241 +.*, 2 #.$2&$. 2.$25 &!$.$+*.$ 4*& .$,*)"4# 2((
,*"%&-.$ +.*, "4 3(*%$ &* &!$ ;2%$ *+ &!$ &.$$/ E4 3*4&.2%&5 &!$ %,2(($. %"<$1 &.$$%
=FGH 3, ABCD5 !2)$ %,2(($. .**& %8%&$,% "4 3(*%$. &* &!$ ;2%$ *+ &!$ &.$$5 &!$.$+*.$
.$I-"."4# &!$ &.$$ &* 7-(( &!$ ,*"%&-.$ +.*, "4 3(*%$ &* &!$ ;2%$ *+ &!$ &.$$ 6!$.$ &!$
12&2 62% ,$2%-.$1 "4 .$(2&"*4 &* &!$ &.$$/ =J&*4$5 666/&!$;."&&*4+-41/*.#D/ K*.$
233-.2&$ .$%-(&% ,28 !2)$ ;$$4 23!"$)$1 "+ &!$ %*"( ,*"%&-.$ ($)$(% 6$.$ &$%&$1 ;*&!
3(*%$ &* &!$ ;2%$ *+ &!$ &.$$ 241 2& &!$ 1."7 ("4$ *+ &!$ &.$$/ =J"(("3L5
666/$9&/3*(*%&2&$/$1-D/
Bemlock foiest's laige anu meuium sizeu ueciuuous tiees hau conclusively
&!$ ,*%& %*"( ,*"%&-.$ ($)$(% +*. &!$". .$%7$3&")$ 32&$#*."$% 2% 3*,72.$1 &* M$1 N"4$
241 K0J +*.$%&%/ O4$ $97(242&"*4 2% &* 6!8 &!$ .$%-(&% 32,$ *-& &!$ 628 &!$8 1"1 "%
&!2& &!$ $($)2&"*4 *+ &!$ &$%&"4# (*32&"*4 "4 K0J +*.$%& 62% %"#4"+"324&(8 !"#!$. &!24
&!$ &$%&"4# (*32&"*4% *+ ;*&! M$1 N"4$ 241 C$,(*3L +*.$%&/ J"43$ &!$ &$%&"4# %"&$ *+
&!$ K0J +*.$%& 62% !"#!$.5 &!$ .2"4+2(( 241 7.$3"7"&2&"*4 .*(($1 1*64 &!$ !"(( 241
,*)$1 &* 2 (*6$. (*32&"*4/ P)$4 &!*-#! C$,(*3L 241 M$1 N"4$ +*.$%& 6$.$ 4*& 4$2.
K0J +*.$%&5 &!$ .2"4+2(( +.*, *&!$. !"((% 6*-(1 ,*)$ &* ;*&! *+ &!$%$ +*.$%&% ;$32-%$
&!$8 !2)$ (*6 $($)2&"*4%/ E4 3*4&.2%&5 248 .2"4+2(( 6*-(1 ($2)$ &!$ &$%&"4# 2.$2 *+
K0J +*.$%& ;$32-%$ *+ &!$ !"#! $($)2&"*4/ Q!"% 7.*)"1$% 2 (*#"32( $97(242&"*4 2% &*
why Bemlock's meuium anu laige conifeious tiees hau highei levels of soil
,*"%&-.$/
Q!$.$ "% ,"4",2( 3*4+"1$43$ "4 &!$ *)$.2(( .$%-(&% 2% 2(( *+ &!$ $..*. ;2.%
*)$.(275 241 &!$.$ "% 4*& ,-3! 3*43(-%")$ 12&2/ Q!$ +"$(1 %&-18 3*-(1 !2)$ ;$$4
3*41-3&$1 ;$&&$. 6"&! ,*.$ 233-.2&$ .$%-(&% "+ ,*.$ &!24 &6* &."2(% 6$.$ 3*(($3&$1
2& $23! &.$$/ Q!"% 6*-(1 2((*6 +*. &!$ *-&("$.% &* 2++$3& &!$ *)$.2(( 12&2 ,-3! ($%%
&!24 &!$8 2++$3&$1 "&/ 0(%*5 211"&"*42( &."2(% 3*-(1 !2)$ ;$$4 3*41-3&$1 +-.&!$. *-&
+.*, &!$ ;2%$ *+ &!$ &.$$5 7$.!27% 3(*%$. &* &!$ 1."7 ("4$ *+ $23! &.$$/ 04*&!$.
3!24#$ "4 &!$ $97$.",$4& 3*-(1 !2)$ ;$$4 &* &$%& 2& &!$ %2,$ $($)2&"*4 2& $23!
(*32&"*4 %* &!$ 62&$. +(*6"4# 1*64 &* C$,(*3L +*.$%& 6*-(1 !2)$ !21 ($%% *+ 24
",723& *4 &!$ .$%-(&%/ O4$ $..*. &!2& *33-..$1 1-."4# &!$ 12&2 3*(($3&"*4 &!2& ,28
!2)$ 2(&$.$1 &!$ .$%-(&% 62% &!2& &!$ R$.4"$. J*"( K*"%&-.$ 7.*;$ 62% 4*& 6*.L"4#
3*..$3&(8 2& C$,(*3L :*.$%&5 241 "& &**L 2 ("&&($ 6!"($ &* &-.4 *4 241 6*.L 3*..$3&(85
%* 7$.!27% &!$ 7.*;$ !21 %*,$&!"4# &* 1* 6"&! %*,$ *+ &!$ .$%-(&% 2& C$,(*3L
+*.$%&/ :-&-.$ $97$.",$4&% &!2& +*3-% *4 &!"% &*7"3 3*-(1 ;$ #.$2&(8 ",7.*)$1 "+ &!$
$($)2&"*4% 6$.$ &!$ %2,$ +*. $23! +*.$%& !2;"&2& 241 "+ &!$ 7.*;$ 62% &$%&$1 ;$+*.$
&!$ &$%&"4# 2& &!$ (*32&"*4% 62% 3*41-3&$1/ J*,$ .$(2&$1 I-$%&"*4% 2.$ "% &!$.$ 248
3*..$(2&"*4 ;$&6$$4 &.$$ ABC 241 %*"( ,*"%&-.$ "4 *4$ %7$3"+"3 +*.$%&/ Q!"% 628 ;8
*4(8 &$%&"4# %2,7($% "4 *4$ +*.$%&5 &!$ 324*78 3*)$. "% ,*.$ %","(2. +*. $23! &!24 "+
,-(&"7($ +*.$%&% 6$.$ &$%&$1/ Q!"% 6*-(1 ",7.*)$ &!$ 233-.238 *+ &!$ $97$.",$4& 2%
6$(( 2% 7.*)"1$ 24*&!$. %","(2. &*7"3 &!2& 3*-(1 ;$ $97(*.$1/ 04*&!$. .$(2&$1
I-$%&"*4 ,"#!& ;$ 6!$&!$. &!$.$ "% 248 %$2%*42( ",723& *4 &!$ ($)$(% *+ %*"(
,*"%&-.$/ =S4L4*645 666/,++/1%"%1/4$&D/ :*. $92,7($5 "+ 12&2 62% 3*(($3&$1 "4 &!$
+2(( 1-."4# 2 )"%"& &* A.-,("4 :2., 241 &!$4 3*(($3&$1 2#2"4 "4 &!$ %7."4# 6"&!
13
!"#$"%& &( &)" #*+" &!""#, -(./0 &)" #(1/ +(1#&.!" /"2"/# 2*!3 0." &( &)" %)*45" 14
#"*#(4 -1&) !"#$"%& &( &)" %(416"!(.#, &)" 0"%10.(.#, (! 7(&)8 94(&)"! !"/*&"0
:."#&1(4 1# -)"&)"! &)" *5" (6 &)" &!""# )*# *43 %(!!"/*&1(4 &( &)" *+(.4& (6
+(1#&.!" 14 &)" #(1/, *# 3(.45"! &!""# )*2" 5!"*&"! -*&"! 4""0# ;<4=4(-4, ---84%>
%/1+*&"84#%.8"0.?@ )(-"2"!, &)1# 0*&* -(./0 7" 01661%./& &( %(//"%& 7"%*.#" 1& -(./0
7" )*!0 &( 0"&"!+14" &)" *5" (6 &)" &!""#8



































14
!"#$%&'()*+($,-
"#$ %&'(#)* +, -.'$&.$ '* / 0/1($ 21+3$.)4 /&5 6+705 &+) 8$ 2+**'80$ 6')#+7)
)#$ #$02 +, /00 )#$ )$/.#$1* /&5 *)/,,9 :$ 6+705 0';$ )+ /.;&+60$5($ /00 )#$ *.'$&.$
)$/.#$1*4 ,+1 </;'&( )#'* 21+.$** /* $/*= /&5 *<++)# /* 2+**'80$ ,+1 /00 )#$
*)75$&)*9 >*9 ?+&,'<4 ,+1 571'&( )#$ @17<0'& A'$05 )1'2 #$02'&( 7* 6#$& '& )#$
8$('&&'&( +, )#$ 5/= 6$ 6$1$ #/B'&( )1+780$ 6')# +7) $C7'2<$&)4 /&5 ,+1 ('B'&( 7*
$D)1/ /5B'.$ /&5 '&,+1</)'+& )+ #$02 7* #/B$ / *<++)# .+00$.)'+& 21+.$**9 :$ 6+705
0';$ )+ /.;&+60$5($ >19 -$&/81$ /&5 >19 @6=$1 ,+1 8$'&( +71 )6+ +)#$1 0+./)'+&
0$/5$1*9 E&5 6$ 6+705 0';$ )+ $*2$.'/00= /.;&+60$5($ >*9 -.#70)#$'*4 ,+1 </;'&(
)#'* 21+3$.) *+ $&3+=/80$4 .1$/)'&( / *)1$** ,1$$ $&B'1+&<$&) ,+1 )#$ /00 ;'5* '& #$1
.0/**$*4 /&5 ,+1 )#$ .+&*)/&) #$02 /&5 *722+1) )#/) *#$ ('B$* 7* )+ .+<20$)$ +71
$D2$1'<$&)* /&5 1$2+1)*9

F& +15$1 ,+1 )#'* 21+3$.) )+ 6+1; *7..$**,700=4 </&= 2$+20$ 5$*$1B$ / 6$00
$/1&$5 )#/&; =+79 A'1*)4 6$ 6+705 0';$ )+ )#/&; >*9 -.#70)#$'* ,+1 #$1 #$02,70
.+<<$&)* /&5 *722+1) )#1+7(#+7) )#$ 21+.$**9 G$D) 6$ 6+705 0';$ )+ )#/&; >*9
?+&,'&4 >19 @6=$14 /&5 >19 -$&/81$ ,+1 )#$'1 #$02 /) @17<0'& A/1< '& $/.# +, )#$
1$*2$.)/80$ ,+1$*)*9 "#'* 21+3$.) ./& 8$ $D)1$<$0= *)1$**,70 /) )'<$* /&5 6$ 6+705
/0*+ 0';$ )+ )#/&; )#$ $&)'1$ *.'$&.$ 5$2/1)<$&) ,+1 +B$1*$$'&( )#$ $&)'1$ 21+3$.)
/&5 $&*71'&( ')* *7..$**9 :$ 6+705 /0*+ 0';$ )+ )#/&; +71 2/1$&)* ,+1 )#$'1 #$02 '&
)#$ 21+.$** /&5 )#$'1 *722+1)9 "#'* '* / 0/1($ 21+3$.) /&5 6')#+7) )#$ #$02 +, /00
)#$*$ 2$+20$ ') 6+705 8$ '<2+**'80$ )+ .+<20$)$ ')9 "#/&; =+7 )+ $B$1=+&$ 6#+
#$02$5 7*H




















15
!"#$% '()*+
,-./01 2

Campbell, Ellen. "Bow Bo Tiees uet thiough the Wintei." NNN. Nothei Natuie
Netwoik, 1S }an. 2u12. Web. 1S Nai. 2u14. <http:www.mnn.comlocal-
iepoits>.

Bi. }ames E. Ainolu. "Soil Noistuie Stuuy." Soil Noistuie Stuuy. uBCC, Su Bec. 1999.
Web. 1u Nai. 2u14. <http:wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov>.

Nauia, Nicole. "The Roaming Natuialist." The Roaming Natuialist. N.p., S Nov. 2u14.
Web. 1S Nai. 2u14. <http:theioamingnatuialist.com>.

Petiopoulos, ueoige P. !"#$%" '"()*(+ $, -(".+/ 0123") 4(5 '$*1 6$*)%2." 7$(%"(%.
N.p.: n.p., n.u. Piint.

0nknown. "CCI Soil Noistuie Team Neets foi the Seventh Piogiess Neeting anu
Annual Review on 12th anu 1SthBecembei 2u1S." ESA CCI Soil Noistuie
Website. ESA, 8 }an. 2u14. Web. 1S Nai. 2u14.<http:www.esa-
soilmoistuie-cci.oig>.

0nknown. Soil Noistuie Sensoi. N.p.: veiniei, n.u. PBF.


,-./01 3

Bi. }ames E. Ainolu. "Soil Noistuie Stuuy." Soil Noistuie Stuuy. uBCC, Su Bec. 1999.
Web. 1u Nai. 2u14. <http:wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov>.


"B0NE PAuE." 896- :;<-. N.p., n.u. Web. u1 Nay 2u14. <http:mff.usisu.net>.

Nauia, Nicole. "The Roaming Natuialist." The Roaming Natuialist. N.p., S Nov. 2u14.
Web. 1S Nai. 2u14. <http:theioamingnatuialist.com>.


Sillick, }N. "Bealthy Roots anu Bealthy Tiees." 8"41%=/ !$$%) 4(5 8"41%=/ >."").
Coloiauo St., n.u. Web. u1 Nay 2u14.
<http:www.ext.colostate.euupubsgaiuenu2926.html>.

Stone, Belen. >."")? @4%". 4(5 A..*+4%*$(. N.p.: The Biitton Funu, 2u1S. PBF


"The Watei Cycle | Climate Euucation Nouules foi K-12." >=" @4%". 7/B1" C 71*#4%"
-52B4%*$( 6$521") ,$. DEFG. NC State 0niveisity, n.u. Web. u1 Nay 2u14.
<https:www.nc-climate.ncsu.euueuuk12.wateicycle>.
16
"Wateiing Tiees anu Shiubs." College of Agiicultuie anu Sciences, 0niveisity of AZ.
0niveisity of AZ, Sept. 2uu2. Web. 1S Nai. 2u14. <http:ag.aiizona.euu>.













pHunductivity

The Effect of Land Use and Soil pH on Soil Conductivity

By I an McJohn (S84-8) and Victor Chu (S84-2)


1

T ABL E OF CONT ENTS



Section Author Page
Abstract Chu 2
Introduction McJohn 2
Material & Methods Chu 4
Results McJohn 7
Discussion Chu 9
Acknowledgements Chu & McJohn 10
Works Cited McJohn 12
Works Cited Chu 13


2

ABSTRACT
During the previous visit to the three sites (Farmyard, Boyce Field and Overlook) at
Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, an experiment was conducted. The experiment was aimed to
discover the correlation between land use, soil conductivity and soil pH. Soil pH is the measure
of how acidic or basic soil is and soil conductivity is the measurement of how well soil conducts
electricity. With a randomization method involving a map from each site on with XY coordinates
using a TI-Nspire CX, nine random spots were selected from each site. Soil conductivity and pH
data from each spot was collected. There were three hypotheses: First, for the relationship
between land use and soil conductivity, Farmyard would have the highest soil conductivity
because of the nutrients from farming (Riseng, 2011). Second, for the relationship between land
use and pH, if the land is heavily used, the land would be acidic because of the higher amount of
metals such as aluminum in the soil (Hanlon, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu). Lastly, for the relationship
between pH and soil conductivity, if the soil is acidic, the conductivity of the soil would be high
because both pH and soil conductivity depend on amount of nutrient and correlate negatively
(Zhao et al., 2013). Only the hypothesis concerning the relationship between land use and pH
was supported as Farmyard, the site that is used the most, had the lowest pH.

I NTRODUCTI ON
If an agricultural business wants to know how to keep their crops alive, they have to
measure soil conductivity. By measuring soil conductivity, it is possible to tell what factors may
have aIIected the soil`s chemical contents, as those same factors influence conductivity. Some of
the primary influences on soil conductivity are dryness, the amount of metal in the soil, and
which nutrients are in the soil. Substances such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and some metals that
corrode greatly influence pH and can alter conductivity. All of these factors can be affected by
land use, because using land often adds or subtracts substances that get mixed in with the soil
(www.sepa.org.uk). Another influence on soil conductivity is pH. Soil pH is the measure of how
acidic or basic soil is. As soil pH is influenced by many of the stated factors, it is a measurement
often correlated with soil conductivity. Soil pH is measured on a scale from zero to fourteen,
with seven being neutral and anything below seven an acid, and anything above it a base.
Aluminum can become toxic and make soil more acidic, lowering the pH, while the same
metallic content can increase the conductivity of the soil (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu). Soil
conductivity is measured in mS/m, or milliSiemens per meter. By combining the data from soil
pH and conductivity, farmers can learn more about the contents of their soil.
(Barbosa/Overstreet, www.lsuagcenter.com). This experiment attempts to provide a more
detailed summary of what is in specific regions of fields. With more data about the relationship
between soil pH and conductivity, it will be possible to measure one of those factors and
determine the other one based on past knowledge of the correlation.
As previously discussed, farmers often use soil pH and soil conductivity to learn about
their land. Many farms, including Drumlin Farm in Massachusetts, could use conductivity and
pH data to tell which crop to place in particular regions of their fields to maximize growth. The
three sites examined at Drumlin Farm (the Overlook, Boyce Field, and the Farmyard) are used in
different ways, making them ideal test grounds to see how land use and soil pH influence soil
conductivity. While not all of this land is farmland, it is required to use multiple types of land so
as to get larger scale correlation data and to provide farmers data on land they may potentially
convert into farmland. The Farmyard is a typical animal pasture, while Boyce Field is used for
growing crops, and Overlook was natural land, for hiking and other unaltered purposes. Soil pH

3

is used to indicate which plant types are best situated for a particular habitat. This is because
some plants tolerate acidic soil, while some require basic or close to neutral soil. Soil
conductivity can create a semi-accurate reference map for where nutrients are in a particular
body of soil, making positioning crops and fertilizing the soil easier (Hanlon, edis.ifas.ufl.edu).
Because of the varying chemical content between farm, urban, and other types of land, what land
is used for can greatly influence the pH and conductivity of the soil.
The method of determining the contents of land via sampling the soil pH and
conductivity has one major problem. Inside a habitat, there can be major fluctuations in pH and
conductivity between subdivisions. This is because different nutrients can be concentrated in
particular areas. The only way to record accurate data on pH and conductivity for an entire
region is to divide it up into habitats based on the usage of the land (grazing, farmland, etc.) and
to do multiple trials throughout each habitat (RapiTest instruction packet). Different habitats
create different soil conditions and nutrient levels. For instance, the experiment done by Zhao et
al. (2013) demonstrated that urban land use has a very acidic pH, mostly due to the metal
contents of the soil. This study shows that both types and levels of nutrients influence soil pH
and conductivity, making the land use an important independent variable to be tested (Zhao et
al., 2013).
The objective of this experiment is to find the relationship between land use, pH and soil
conductivity. Soil pH and soil conductivity are highly correlated values (Riseng, 2011). For this
reason soil pH will be used as a secondary independent variable. The primary independent
variable is land use. Soil samples will be taken from three different sites, one where land is used
as farmland, one as animal grounds, and one where it is mostly used by wildlife. The primary
dependent variable is soil conductivity. This will be measured in mS/m. Some of the more
important control variables are the time the samples are collected, the method of measurement,
the amount of time the sample is tested for (e.g. how long the probe sits in the cup), the
chemicals added to test pH, the quantity of sample collected, and the amount of time the sample
is stored before testing. Due to the fact that this experiment has several variables involved, there
will be three hypotheses, one for each combination of variables.
The first hypothesis relates to the primary independent variable and the dependent
variable. This is that if the land is used as farmland, such as the Farmyard, then the land will
have a high conductivity level, because the nutrients from farming will greatly increase the
conductivity of the soil (Riseng, 2011). Another hypothesis is used to predict the outcome of the
correlation between the independent variables, stating that if the land is heavily used, such as the
Farmyard or Boyce Field, then the land will be acidic, because the intense usage of the land,
including farming and urban use, causes higher amount of metals such as aluminum in the soil,
increasing the toxicity and lowering the pH of the soil (Hanlon, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu). The third
and final hypothesis tests the relationship between the secondary independent variable and the
dependent variable. If there is a low (acidic) pH, then the conductivity of the soil will be high,
because both factors are related to the amount of nutrients in soil, and correlate positively (Zhao
et al., 2013).







4

The primary application of the data from this experiment is to be applied to farms such as
Drumlin Farm. Knowing the relationship between land use, pH, and soil conductivity will allow
farmers to learn about new aspects of their land. Farmers can learn what parts of their land are
best suited for farmland by comparing its conductivity and pH ratings to those of the ideal
conditions for farming (Riseng, 2011). Another thing farmers can learn is the influence of crops
on soil. This will allow them to figure out the best place to plant particular crops. Also, this
particular field of science can use the experiment to advance the amount of data known about the
fluctuations of pH and conductivity within a habitat.

MAT ERI ALS AND ME T HODS
The objective of this experiment was to find the relation between land use, pH and soil
conductivity. The primary independent variable was land use, the secondary independent
variable was pH, and the dependent variable was soil conductivity. To carry out this experiment
accurately, controlled variables such as the method of measurement, the temperature of the
sample, the time the samples are collected, the method of collecting the sample, and the quantity
of each sample collected were applied.
In this experiment, nine data points of both pH and soil conductivity were collected from
each of the three sites at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA. The three sites were Overlook (Diagram
5), Boyce Field (Diagram 3) and Farmyard (Diagram 5). The experiment was conducted at each
of the three sites, first, Overlook, second, Boyce Field and third, Farmyard. The map of each site
was then put into an XY coordinate system. Then, nine random spots from each site were chosen
by the random coordinate generating function of the TI-Nspire CX calculator (Diagram3,4,5).
Each of the nine random spots from each of the three sites were visited and data,
including pH and soil conductivity, was collected. The following procedure was used on each of
the nine spots to examine the soil conductivity and pH. From each spot, 50 mL of soil was
obtained using a small soil auger. The collected soil was poured into the 200 mL plastic cup and
mixed with 100 mL of distilled water. The solution was thoroughly stirred to make sure the soil
and the distilled water were uniformly mixed. Then, the Vernier Conductivity Probe (Model
Name: CON-BTA) was connected to the TI-Nspire calculator via the USB connector. It was
placed into the solution for a minute. Then, the Vernier Conductivity Probe measured the
conductivity of the soil. Then, the probe was rinsed carefully by distilled water for future use.
The data was recorded in a table.
Next, the following experiment was conducted on each spot to get the pH value of the
soil. Using the soil auger, a small amount of soil was collected and poured into the test chamber
of the RapiTest Soil Test Kit until the soil fill line. To complete the process of measuring pH of
the soil, a small amount of distilled water was poured into the test chamber of the RapiTest Soil
Test Kit until the water fill line, followed by the powder from the capsule from the RapiTest Soil
Test Kit. The test chamber was shaken thoroughly until the three substances were uniformly
mixed. The solution was left untouched for a minute until color appeared in the test chamber.
Then, the pH value was obtained by using the pH chart and recorded in the data table.


5


The Setup of the Vernier Conductivity Probe


Rapitest Soil Test Kit


Boyce Field (locations where samples were collected)


6


Farmyard (locations where samples were collected)


Overlook (locations where samples were collected)








7

RESUL TS
Table 1: The effect of land use on soil pH
"#$% &'
'()$*(*
+,$(%
-
+,$(%
.
+,$(%
/
+,$(%
0
+,$(%
1
+,$(%
2
+,$(%
3
+,$(%
4
+,$(%
5 678,(98
"*:;
<87;
=(,>?(,: 2;@@ 2;0@ 2;/@ 2;@@ 1;3@ 1;/@ 2;-@ 2;@@ 1;5@ 1;53 @;/.
A#?B8
=$8%: 2;1@ 2;5@ 2;1@ 2;4@ 2;2@ 2;1@ 3;1@ 3;@@ 3;.@ 2;4/ @;/1
C78,%##D 2;3@ 3;1@ 2;1@ 3;.@ 2;0@ 1;1@ 2;4@ 2;0@ 2;2@ 2;2. @;12


Table 2: The effect of land use on soil conductivity (mS/cm)
"#$% E#F:GB*$7$*? H>"IB>J
'()$*(* +,$(% - +,$(% . +,$(% / +,$(% 0 +,$(% 1 +,$(% 2 +,$(% 3 +,$(% 4 +,$(% 5 678,(98
"*:;
<87;
=(,>?(,: .1;/@ .3;5@ /-;.@ 12;-@ /@2;@@ /.;-@ 35;.@ -14;3@ -1.;@@ 52;1@ 50;-4
A#?B8
=$8%: -25;@@ -4@;/@ /.4;/@ /.4;1@ -30;1@ -2/;@@ .@@;/@ -.-;@@ --/;@@ -53;10 35;-/
C78,%##D 35;1@ --@;4@ -@4;/@ 34;@@ 3.;@@ 33;@@ 3/;0@ 3-;@@ 4/;@@ 4/;23 -1;-2

Graph 1: The effect of land use on soil pH




@;@@
-;@@
.;@@
/;@@
0;@@
1;@@
2;@@
3;@@
4;@@
=(,>?(,: H6F$>(% 9,(K$F9J A#?B8 =$8%: HE,#& %(F:J C78,%##D HL(*G,(%J
!
"
#
$

&
'
()*+ ,-.

8

Graph 2: The effect of land use on soil conductivity (mS/cm)



Graph 3: The effect of soil pH on soil conductivity (mS/cm)



For graph one, there were several unexpected results. The first was that all of the
averages were about the same, with large error bars. The Boyce Field and Overlook error bars
overlapped, making it impossible to tell which one was higher. Due to the overlap, the highest
data point cannot be determined. If the data is being looked at without error bars, the highest
average pH is Boyce Field (6.83). The lowest average pH is Farmyard (6.03).



!"!!
#!"!!
$!!"!!
$#!"!!
%!!"!!
%#!"!!
&!!"!!
'()*+(), ./01*(2
3)(41035
67+89 '192, .:)7; 2(0,5 <=9)277> .?(@A)(25
!
"
#
$

&
"
'
(
)
*
+
#
,
#
+
-

.
/
!
0
*
/
1
23'( 456
BC D !"!EF
BC D !"!E&
BC D !"$F%
!"!!
#!"!!
$!!"!!
$#!"!!
%!!"!!
%#!"!!
&!!"!!
&#!"!!
!"!! %"!! G"!! H"!! E"!!
!
"
#
$

&
"
'
(
)
*
+
#
,
#
+
-

.
/
!
0
*
/
1
!"#$ 78
'()*+(), ./01*(2
3)(41035
67+89 '192, .:)7;
I(0,5
<=9)277> .?(@A)(25
nuneunan (larmyard
./01*(2 3)(410355
nuneunan (8oyce
'192, .:)7; I(0,55
nuneunan (Cverlook
.?(@A)(255

9

Graph two had large standard deviations. The highest was Farmyard, with a standard
deviation of 94.18 mS/cm. The Farmyard column overlapped with both of the other columns.
Boyce Field and Overlook`s error bars did not overlap, so it could be determined that Boyce
Field had the higher conductivity. Disregarding the error bars, the highest was Boyce Field
(197.54 mS/cm), and the lowest was Overlook (75.96 mS/cm). The trend differs from the soil pH
graph, but the highest for both is Boyce Field. Both the graphs have different lowest values, with
pH as Farmyard and conductivity as Overlook. One important point to note is there was an
outlier in the Farmyard data. It was known to have been caused by artificial influence of rusted
metal deposited into the ground.
The third graph was the hardest to analyze, as different habitats showed different trends.
The first point (Farmyard) had the lowest pH (6.03), but the mid-range conductivity (96.5
mS/cm). The only correlation was where Boyce Field had the highest pH (6.83), and
conductivity (198.1 mS/cm). The r
2
values are not enough to indicate correlation between any of
the three habitats. For Farmyard the r
2
is 0.0053, for Boyce Field it is 0.0833, and for Overlook it
is 0.1729. This provides an unusual outlook, as the highest correlation value has a positive trend
line, while the others have the trend line showing the opposite.
Multiple qualitative observations were made throughout the experiment. One was due to
the outlier in the Farmyard data set. The teacher naturalist stated that there was a drywell where
we did our testing, meaning that some of the metal could have flaked off of it and caused the
conductivity outlier. Another observation was at Boyce Field. Places with different crops had
different conductivity (and pH) levels, even if the soil looked and felt identical. This influence
was seen mostly with conductivity, but on a small scale with pH also.


A Map of Drumlin Farm, where the data was collected from

DISCUSSI ON
This experiment was conducted to test the correlation between the land use, pH and
conductivity of soil. There were three hypotheses for this experiment: If the land is heavily used,
such as Farmyard and Boyce Field, then the land will be acidic, because the intense usage of the
land, including farming and urban use, causes higher amount of metals such as aluminum in the
soil, increasing the toxicity and lowering the pH of the soil (Hanlon, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu); If
the land is used as a farmland, then the land, it will have a high conductivity level, because the
excessive amount of nutrients from farming will greatly increase the conductivity of the soil

10

(Riseng, 2011); and If there is a low (acidic) pH, then the conductivity of the soil will be high,
because both factors are related to the amount of nutrients in soil, and correlate positively (Zhao
et al., 2013). The experiment did not support any hypothesis since there was not any correlated
trend.
The experiment showed that the initial hypothesis about the correlation between the soil
pH and land use was not supported. The experiment was well conducted and the data for soil pH
was valid since the error bars were small, thus yielding precise data. According to the hypothesis,
Overlook would have the lowest soil pH, but Graph 1 showed that Farmyard had the lowest soil
pH. This initial hypothesis was wrong, but by looking at the fact that Boyce Field had
conclusively lower pH than Farmyard, a new hypothesis concerning the correlation between soil
pH and land use can be established. If the land is used for animal grazing, then the land will be
more acidic than land used for plants growing because denser nitrogen concentration in animal
grazing field results in lower soil pH. (Zhao et al., 2013)
The experiment did not support the initial hypothesis about the correlation between the
land use and the soil conductivity. The only conclusive data for soil conductivity was that
Overlook was less conductive than Boyce. Given the length of the error bars for soil conductivity
at Farmyard and Boyce Field, the data was highly imprecise. This impreciseness of data may
have been caused two incidents. A metal drywell at Farmyard caused an outlier, since metal is
highly conductive. Also, sudden malfunction of the soil conductivity probe at Boyce Field
recorded large variance among measured data within the site. Therefore, a different probe was
used to measure the conductivity of soil at Overlook. Nine data points for each site were
sufficient because the data points successfully covered various parts of each site, such as the dry
part, wet part and grassy part.
The research showed the initial hypothesis about the correlation between soil pH and soil
conductivity was not supported. The data points of pH and soil conductivity on the three sites
had low r squared values, (0.0833 on Boyce Field, 0.0872 on Farmyard and 0.1729 on Overlook)
showing that correlation between pH value and soil conductivity does not exist (graph 3). To the
contrast of the relatively consistent data for pH across all three sites, data for soil conductivity
was inconsistent due to the sudden malfunction of the conductivity probe at Boyce Field.
The malfunctioning conductivity probe resulted in inconsistent soil conductivity data at
Boyce Field. This may have caused low r squared values and large error bars in graphs showing
the soil conductivity. This problem can be fixed by using a working conductivity probe. Plus, not
enough data was collected for Overlook. Overlook was approximately three times larger than
Boyce Field and Farmyard, so more than nine data points were needed at Overlook. This
problem can be solved by collecting samples from twenty seven sites at Overlook to make sure
enough data points are achieved. The correlation between the land use and pH can be further
justified by a future research concerning the correlation between the land use and the nitrogen
level. A future experiment that measures nitrogen level of each site can be conducted. The
hypothesis for the experiment would be if the land is heavily used for growing crops, then the
land will have low nitrogen level because the crops consume the nitrogen in the soil.

AC KNOWL EDGE MENTS
Without the help of several people, this KoS project wouldn`t have been possible.
Without the help of our teacher naturalist at Drumlin Farms, Carol, we never would have learned
several key points about the habitat. This would have made interpreting the data harder, or
causing us to arrive at different conclusions. As there were several outliers, Carol helped us

11

understand that these were because of particular artificial land additions (such as a dry well).
Another person who made our project a success was Kelley Schultheis, our science teacher, who
helped us understand the project requirements and properly conduct our experiment. This never
could have happened without my partner Victor Chu, who was invaluable in both the
brainstorming and experimenting processes. Thank you all for making this experiment possible.
There are many people supported our Knights of Science project successfully, who should
be recognized. Special thanks to Ms. Kelley Schultheis for broadening our view and fostering
our curiosity in science by expanding our perimeter from land use and soil conductivity to land
use, soil conductivity and pH. Many thanks to Ms. Carol, who supervised us in Overlook and
gave us valuable explanations and advices when our conductivity probe malfunctioned. She led
us to Ms. Wendy Svatek so that our conductivity probe could be replaced in timely fashion.
Also, many thanks to Ian McJohn for successfully carrying out his part in this project, including
measuring conductivity of soil and organizing the data. Thanks to my parents, Mrs. Mi Lee and
Mr. Samuel Chu for encouraging me and providing a shovel for collecting soil sample.







12

WORKS CI T ED (AUT HOR 1)
Barbosa, Roberto, and Charles Overstreet. "What Is Soil Electrical Conductivity." LSU
AgCenter. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 2011. Web.
<https://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/E57E82A0-3B99-4DEE-99B5-
CF2AD7C43AEF/77101/pub3185whatissoilelectricalconductivityHIGHRES.pdf>.
Bickelhaupt, Donald. "Soil PH: What It Means." Soil PH: What It Means. Environmental
Information Series, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.
Hanlon, E. A. "Soil PH and Electrical Conductivity: A County Extension Soil Laboratory
Manual 1." EDIS New Publications RSS. University of Florida, 2009. Web. 07 Mar. 2014.
<http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss118>.
United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey. Impacts of Agricultural Land Use on
Biological Integrity: A Causal Analysis. By C. M. Riseng. USGS, 2011. Web. 8 Mar.
2014. <http://wa.water.usgs.gov/neet/Riseng%20et%20al_2011_Ecol%20App.pdf>.
Unknown. Trails at Drumlin Farm. Digital image. MassAudubon.org. Mass Audubon, 2014.
Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://www.massaudubon.org/get-outdoors/wildlife-
sanctuaries/drumlin-farm/about/trails>.
Zhao, D., Li, F., Yang, Q., Wang, R., Song, Y. and Tao, Y. (2013), The Influence of Different
Types of Urban Land Use on Soil Microbial Biomass and Functional Diversity in Beijing,
China. Soil Use and Management, Doi: 10.1111/sum.12034



13

WORKS CI T ED (AUT HOR 2)
Aguayo, Albert, and E. A. Howes. The Jthenal of Experimental Biology. Cambridge:
Company of Biologists Limited, 1990. 273-81. Print.
Grisso, Robert, Mark Wysor, David Holshouser, and Wade Thomason. "The Why and How to
Testing the Electrical Conductivity of Hanlon, E. A. "Soil PH and Electrical
Conductivity: A County Extension Soil Laboratory Manual 1." EDIS New Publications
RSS. University of Florida, 2009. Web. 07 Mar. 2014. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss118>.
"NITROGEN: AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN CROP PRODUCTION."NITROGEN: AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN CROP PRODUCTION. Nachurs Alpine Solutions, 2010.
Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nachurs.com/nitrogen.html>.
United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey. Impacts of Agricultural Land Use on
Biological Integrity:A Causal Analysis. By C. M. Riseng. USGS, 2011. Web. 8 Mar.
2014. <http://wa.water.usgs.gov/neet/Riseng%20et%20al_2011_Ecol%20App.pdf>.
Zhao, D., Li, F., Yang, Q., Wang, R., Song, Y. and Tao, Y. (2013), The Influence of Different
The Types of Urban Land Use on Soil Microbial Biomass and Functional Diversity in
Beijing,China. Soil Use and Management, 29: 230239. Doi: 10.1111/sum.12034
"Threats to Soil Quality." Threats to Soil Quality. Scottish Environment Protection
Agency, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.sepa.org.uk/land/soil/threats_to_soil_quality.aspx>.
"






































Got A Red
Pine-t of
Milk
#$ %&'() *(+, ()' -(., /0+12$
324 5664.7 86 9(:.&0; <4=4: &) >8&: 8) ?#@
()' 9()81$ 98=4+(A4
2

























"#$%& '( )'*"&*"+
+,-./01 #2.304 567,
Abstiact
Intiouuction
Nateiials &Nethous
Results
Biscussion
Acknowleugements
Woiks Citeu
Woiks Citeu
Appenuix: Pictuies
}ack Nuiphy
Aiuan Paik
}ack Nuiphy
Aiuan Paik
}ack Nuiphy
Aiuan Paik & }ack Nuiphy
}ack Nuiphy
Aiuan Paik
Aiuan Paik & }ack Nuiphy
2
S
4
6
1u
11
12
1S
14
S
!"#$%!&$

This expeiiment was uesigneu to finu out if theie was a coiielation between the
amount of calcium in the soil anu the giowth of Reu Pine tiees measuieu by uiametei at
bieast height (BBB) anu canopy covei. The testing was uone in Lincoln, Nassachusetts at
Biumlin Faim wheie theie was a laige foiest of Reu Pines. The hypothesis was: If the
calcium levels beneath the selecteu tiees aie low, then the BBB anu canopy covei of the
tiees will be laigei. Reu Pine tiees piefei aciuic soil anu so it was assumeu that they woulu
giow bettei in soil that was ieasonably low in calcium, because calcium is base
(http:www.psu.euu). Aftei the testing anu the iesults weie analyzeu, it was actually
founu that Reu Pines tiees giow best in soil that has a gieatei peicentage of calcium. The
hypothesis was not suppoiteu anu it was thought that this was because calcium, although a
base, is essential in all living oiganisms. It uiu not mattei that the Reu Pine tiees piefeiieu
aciuic soil; gieatei amounts of calcium in the soil iesulteu in healthiei tiees.

()$%*+,&$(*)

Calcium is an alkaline eaith metal anu is the fifth most plentiful element in the
eaith's ciust at S.64% (www.lenntech.com). Calcium is an essential nutiient in the life of
eveiy living oiganism. This element is a base, anu it is one of the main factois in the health
of a plant. Calcium is ciucial foi piopei cell uivision, elongation, anu cell wall uevelopment
(www.spectiumanalytic.com). This expeiiment will be testing how the amount of calcium
in soil (mgL) affects the tiunk uiametei (BBB) anu the canopy covei of Reu Pines.
This expeiiment will be conuucteu at Biumlin Faim. The faim is situateu in Lincoln,
Nassachusetts anu it is a Nassachusetts Auuubon Wilulife Sanctuaiy. The faim stietches
ovei Suu acies anu is home to foui main foiests. The calcium levels of each of these foiests
help to ueteimine which type of plants thiive in that ecosystem. The plants that will be
testeu uuiing the expeiiment aie Reu Pines (!"#$% &'%"#(%)). Reu Pines aie veiy common in
New Englanu anu iely on calcium as one of theii main nutiients. These tiees aie conifeious
meaning they uo not sheu neeules uuiing the wintei season. Reu Pine foiest is locateu on
the euge of Biumlin Faim anu is southeast of the Faim Life Centei. Reu Pine Foiest is one
of the laigei foiests at Biumlin Faim.
Calcium not only helps to ueteimine what types of species live in the enviionment
but also how healthy that species is. Calcium is an essential nutiient foi plants as well as
humans. Like people, all plants have uiffeient iequiiements foi theii levels of calcium.
Calcium is a base, anu it neutializes aciuic soil. Tiees that giow healthiei in aciuic soil
piefei low levels of calcium in soil, while plants that giow bettei in basic soil woulu piefei
highei levels of calcium. Reu Pines piefei aciuic soil to basic soil, anu aie healthiei anu
stiongei in lowei pB (www.nis.fs.feu.us). Buiing a stuuy in 2uu8, it was iepoiteu that
when phosphoius, potassium, calcium anu othei nutiients weie incieaseu in the lives of
*+'& %)++-)&$. saplings anu tiees, the uiametei giowth was incieaseu (uiauowski T anu
Thomas SC, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Canopy covei, is estimateu using a uensitometei. The
uensitometei helps ueteimine the uensity of the canopy using peicentages. In an
expeiiment to test how canopy covei affecteu the calcium levels in Nigeiia, it was
ueteimineu ovei thiee seasons that soil with moie canopy covei, hau moie nutiients than
the soil without (Augustine 0nwuegukiwe Isichei anu }oseph Ikechukwu Nuoghalu,
4
www.jouinals.cambiiuge.oig). The two expeiiments connect because Reu Pine tiees aie
canopy tiees anu covei a laige aiea. Both hau high levels of nutiients, anu this similaiity
coulu be connecteu to the canopy coveiage.
The expeiiment will ueteimine if calcium has a significant effect on the BBB anu
canopy covei of Reu Pines. The inuepenuent vaiiable of this expeiiment is the level of
calcium in the soil beneath the tiee. The calcium levels aie to be testeu by making sluiiy
anu inseiting a veiniei Ion Selective Piobe into the mixtuie. The calcium levels will be
measuieu in mgL. The two qualitative measuiements that will be maue with the selecteu
tiees aie BBB anu canopy covei. BBB is a veiy common measuiement when analyzing
tiees. BBB stanus foi uiametei at bieast height. These obseivations will be testeu by
physically measuiing the tiees. Theie aie some contiolleu vaiiables that neeu to be tenueu
to uuiing the expeiiment. The soil amounts that aie taken fiom the base of the tiee shoulu
be as consistent as possible, as well as the iatio of soil anu watei that is useu foi sluiiy. The
tiees we test have to be the same. Reu Pines anu White Pines look similai anu if a White
Pine is testeu then the iesults may be incoiiectly alteieu. The most impoitant contiolleu
vaiiable is the consistency of the methou. The hypothesis foi this expeiiment is if the
calcium levels beneath the selecteu tiee aie lowei, then the BBB anu canopy covei of the
tiee will be laigei, because Reu Pine Tiees giow bettei in soil that is ieasonably low in
calcium, because the species piefeis aciuic soil anu calcium is a base (www.psu.euu).
The Reu Pine Foiest is one of the main attiactions at Biumlin Faim, which means
that they neeu to keep this exhibit in top conuition. If the faim uoes not know about the
levels of calcium in the soil, it will be haiuei foi them to ueteimine if the scientists neeu to
pay moie attention to that aiea. This ieseaich will help scientists in theii continueu seaich
to uiscovei how aciuic iain affects ceitain species of tiees acioss the woilu. Lots of plants
aie becoming sick anu uying because of this piecipitation. This might answei the question:
Bo some species thiive in aciu iain. Reu Pine Tiees favoi aciuic soil anu aciu iain coulu
potentially help them. Plants pioviue oxygen foi human beings anu the woilu neeus a
bettei unueistanuing of these oiganisms. This expeiiment coulu contiibute to the futuie
geneiations when the aii begins to become moie polluteu.

"#$%&'#() * "%$+,-)
Befoie testing began, it hau to be ueteimineu which tiees woulu be testeu. In the
expeiiment Biumlin Faim in Lincoln, NA (figuie S) was the location anu the tiees in the
Reu Pine Foiest weie chosen to be testeu. Theie was a methou to ianuomly select tiees to
test in oiuei to avoiu a bias that woulu affect the iesults. The methou useu to ianuomly
select tiees was to uiviue the foiest oi aiea into five sections anu then numbei each of the
selecteu sections. Then five uiffeient tiees weie testeu fiom each section that weie not in
the geneial vicinity of each othei.






Figuie 1: veiniei Ion
Selective Piobe - useu to
measuie the calcium in the
soil.

S
When at the selecteu tiee to be testeu, the fiist step was to label anu take notes on
which tiee anu in which section the testing was taking place. Then a shovel was useu to
take a sample of the soil fiom within appioximately two feet of the tiee anu place it into a
plastic bag that was labeleu with the tiee numbei. Next, the BBB measuiing tape was
wiappeu aiounu the tiee at bieast height, until it oveilappeu anu the uiametei of the tiee
was iecoiueu. Finally, each testei stoou towaiu the centei of the tiee anu a uensitometei
was useu to look stiaight up into the bianches. This was to get a goou measuiement of the
peicent of sky that was blockeu out by the bianches of the tiee. Each peison involveu in the
expeiiment took two measuiements pei tiee of the canopy covei with the uensitometei
(figuie 2).
To test the soil back in the lab the veiniei Ion Selectoi Piobe (figuie 1) was wipeu
off anu cleaneu befoie the testing began. The 2u ounces of soil that was to be testeu was
mixeu with Su ounces of uistilleu watei. Befoie testing the soil, the piobe was calibiateu
with a TI-Inspiieu calculatoi. 0nce calibiateu, the piobe was placeu into the sluiiy without
touching the bottom of the giauuateu cylinuei. It sat in the sluiiy foi Su seconus anu then
the measuiement of calcium in paits pei million (ppm) was iecoiueu. This was iepeateu
foi all twenty-five soil samples that weie testeu.











Figuie S: Nap of Biumlin
Faim - Numbei seven on
the map is the Reu Pine
Foiest wheie the testing
was conuucteu.

Figuie 2: Bensitometei
-useu uuiing
expeiiment to estimate
canopy coveiage
"
!"#$%&#

#$%&' ()* !"# %&&#'( )& *+,'-./ 0#1#, -2 3)-, 4/5607 )2 !8## 9:; 4'/7 +2< *+2)=> *)1#8+5#
4?7
&()) *
+,-./01 %)2)- 34
#3/- 5167%8
&()) 9:;
5.18
<2)(,6) +,=3>?
+32)( 5@8
&()) *A ++,- )-.,- +-,-
&()) *B /),- "),- /0,.
&()) *C )),- )0-,- +-,.
&()) *D 01.,- ))2,- /+,+
&()) *E )-,0 .-,- /0,.
&()) *F 032,- )1-,- 2),1
&()) *G ).0,- )13,- "",1
&()) *H ),0 )00,- )+,+
&()) *I +-,- )),- )0,-
&()) *AJ 0)+,- )-1,- .3,.
&()) *AA 1/,- "-,- .),1
"
!"## %&' #$%& $&'%& ()%'
!"## %&( '%& ))%& *(%(
!"## %&) *$%& +'%& '*%(
!"## %&* )#%& ""%& ')%'
!"## %&+ $)%& *'%& "'%&
!"## %&, )*#%& ,(%& "(%(
!"## %&- (*%& $)#%& (+%*
!"## %&. $,%& )+%& "(%(
!"## %'/ #+%& (,%& ""%'
!"## %'& )+*%& $''%& "#%'
!"## %'' $'%& '*%& "+%*
!"## %'( *(%& $,'%& (*%(
!"## %') $)%& #"%& ((%(
!"## %'* '#+%& )$"%& ,&%&
01#"23# $&&%" ,*%& +'%$
452672"7 8#19259:6 $),%" ')%& ))%$
"
#$%&' ()* !"# %&&#'( )& *+,'-./ 0#1#, -2 3)-, 4/5607 )2 !8## 9:; 4'/7



#$%&' (+* !"# %&&#'( )& *+,'-./ 0#1#, -2 3)-, 4/5607 )2 !8## 9:; 4'/7 <=> >?!0@%A 4BCDE
FGH7I


!" $ %&'()*
,
-,
),,
)-,
+,,
+-,
,., ),,., +,,., /,,., 0,,., -,,., 1,,.,
+
,
-
-

.
/
0

1
2
3
4

5672893 :-;-7 <= ><87 13?@:4
!" $ %&AABBA
,
-,
),,
)-,
+,,
+-,
,., -,., ),,., )-,., +,,., +-,., /,,.,
+
,
-
-

.
/
0

1
2
3
4

567283 :-;-7 <= ><87 13?@:4
"

#$%&' ()* "#$ %&&$'( )& *+,'-./ 0$1$, -2 3)-, 4/5607 )2 81$9+5$ *+2):; *)1$9+5$ 4<7



#$%&' (+* "#$ %&&$'( )& *+,'-./ 0$1$, -2 3)-, 4/5607 )2 81$9+5$ *+2):; *)1$9+5$ 4<7 =>?
?@"0A%B 4CDEF GH7I


!" $ %&%''('
,-,
.,-,
/,-,
),-,
+,-,
0,-,
1,-,
2,-,
3,-,
",-,
.,,-,
,-, .,,-, /,,-, ),,-, +,,-, 0,,-, 1,,-,

)
*
+
,
-
.
+

/
-
0
1
2
3

/
1
*
+
,
-
.
+

4
5
6

/-789:; <+*+7 4;.=<6
!" $ %&%>??@
,-,
.,-,
/,-,
),-,
+,-,
0,-,
1,-,
2,-,
3,-,
",-,
.,,-,
,-, 0,-, .,,-, .0,-, /,,-, /0,-, ),,-,
)
*
+
,
-
.
+

/
-
0
1
2
3

/
1
*
+
,

4
5
6

/-789:; <+*+7 1A B197 4;.=<6
1u
The tables anu giaphs pioviue the uata that was collecteu uuiing the expeiiment at
Biumlin Faim as well as back at the laboiatoiy. The calcium level in soil was the
inuepenuent vaiiable of the expeiiment. Both canopy coveiage anu tiunk uiametei (BBB)
weie the uepenuent vaiiables. Two uata collections weie gatheieu at Reu Pine Foiest: BBB
anu canopy coveiage. The BBB uiu not have a consistent ielationship with the levels of
calcium in the soil. Foi the canopy coveiage, the aveiages of each tiee uiu not ielate to the
calcium uata as well. The aveiage R-squaieu tienu foi all the giaphs was u.192142S.
uiaph 1 anu 2 weie the effect of calcium levels on the BBB of each tiee. In uiaph 1,
the highest BBB measuiement in the uata hau a uiametei of 217 cm in ielationship to a
calcium level of S46 mgL. This cooiuinate of uata was an outliei in which none of the
othei iecoiuings came close to this uata point. The lowest BBB measuiement iecoiueu was
11 cm, which was associateu with a calcium level of 8u mgL. Theie was little consistency
in the giaph as some smallei tiees hau laigei calcium levels than laigei tiees oi lowei
calcium levels. Foi example, one Reu Pine with a BBB of 119 cm hau a calcium
measuiement of 2SS mgL compaieu to anothei with a BBB of 12u cm anu a calcium level
of 11 mgL. The lineai R-squaieu value in the uata was u.41S6. In uiaph S the outliei in the
uata was iemoveu in oiuei to get a moie piecise uisplay of uata. The R-squaieu value
uioppeu fiom u.41S6 to u.22772. The next closest uata point to the outliei hau a BBB of
19S cm with a calcium level of only S8 mgL.
uiaph S anu 4 uisplayeu the effect of calcium levels on the aveiage canopy coveiage
of the tiee. The canopy coveiage uata hau oiiginally been collecteu with foui tiials. In the
table anu the giaph, the uata was aveiageu anu iepiesenteu in the tables anu giaphs above
(Full table can be founu in the Appenuix). uiaph S was similai to uiaph 1 because none of
the uata showeu a cleai ielationship to the calcium levels. The uata was not piecise anu
theie was a huge outliei in the uata. The cooiuinate hau calcium level of S46 mgL anu a
canopy covei aveiage of 9u%. The uata was not piecise anu uiu not follow a specific tienu
line. The tienu line was neaily at u with an R-squaieu value of u.u88S8. It became even
smallei when the outliei was iemoveu anu the R-squaieu value uioppeu uown to u.uS667.
None of the uata was piecise anu theie weie no consistent tienus within the giaphs.
Buiing the time of the expeiiment, spiing was just beginning anu some of the pine
neeules flew off when the wintei's stoims came along. The giounu was blanketeu in
neeules anu most of them weie oiange, anu assuming they weie ueau anu hau come off
uuiing the wintei. Anothei obseivation that was veiy obvious was the substantial amounts
of ueau bianches anu mulch within the soil. The uiit was full of oiganic mateiial. 0ne of
these oiganics was ueei uioppings, which often weie beneath the base of the tiee. The Reu
Pine specifically only hau bianches on the top. The othei 9u% of the tiee was lacking leaves
anu possesseu only bianches.

"#$%&$$#'(

Calcium is a necessaiy nutiient in eveiy living oiganism, although it's impoitance
anu impact uiffeis fiom oiganism to oiganism. In some, it is ciitical foi bone stiuctuie anu
in otheis it's ielateu to cell uevelopment. This expeiiment testeu the uiiect ielationship
between the amount of calcium in soil anu tiee size. Piioi ieseaich has shown that Reu
Pines tiees piefei aciuic soil. The hypothesis was: If the calcium levels beneath the selecteu
tiees aie low, then the BBB anu canopy covei of the tiees will be laigei. Reu Pine tiees
11
piefei aciuic soil anu so it was assumeu that they woulu giow bettei in soil that was
ieasonably low in calcium, because calcium is base (http:www.psu.euu). Aftei
conuucting tests acioss 2S tiees anu collecting 2S soil samples, the hypothesis was not
suppoiteu foi this expeiiment. The uata anu tienu lines show that theie is a uensei canopy
covei anu laigei uiametei at bieast height (BBB) with the highei levels of calcium in soil,
even though calcium is a base. The moie calcium the laigei the tiee was.
The expeiiment pioveu that calcium uoes have an effect on the size of tiees,
although it was the opposite of what was pieuicteu in the hypothesis. 0ut of all of the tiees
that weie testeu, the laigei amount of calcium theie was the laigei the canopy covei anu
BBB weie. 0ne potential ieason foi this iesult is that, "Calcium is essential foi many plant
functions such as piopei cell size, elongation anu wall uevelopment"
(http:www.spectiumanalytic.com). Without calcium, tiees woulu not be able to suivive,
much like humans. Although this expeiiment's iesults say that calcium uoes suppoit the
giowth of tiees, when the outlieis weie taken out of the uata it became less uecisive. The
giaphs still showeu a tienu line that was conclusive, but foi both canopy covei anu foi BBB
the tienu lines incline was uecieaseu. Foi example, foi tiee BBB the R-squaieu value went
fiom u.41 to u.22.
"Potassium anu calcium aie essential foi tiee metabolism anu vaiious physiological
piocesses ielateu to giowth" (http:tieephys.oxfoiujouinals.oig). This quote fiom
anothei stuuy uone on how calcium ielates to tiees also suppoits that calcium is neeueu
foi tiee giowth anu health. Although ieseaich anu souices agiee with the iesults, when
testing the calcium in soil theie was a veiy wiue iange in calcium fiom 1.2 mgL. to S46
mgL. This wiue iange seems to be the iesult of some type of eiioi. Theie aie many
ieasons that this coulu have happeneu such as age of the tiees, a bias in tiee sampling oi
human eiioi. The main ieason foi this was thought to be an eiioi in the testing of calcium.
Buiing testing the piobe coulu have been moveu, helu in foi too long oi taken out too soon.
Theie was one sample that hau S46 mgL but then no othei samples testeu above Suu
mgL anu that is unlikely to have been a coiiect measuiement. Aftei all the uata was testeu
no auuitional ieseaich oi testing was uone given time constiaints.
Planting tiees in soil with contiolleu amounts of calcium woulu impiove this
expeiiment gieatly. The BBB anu canopy covei of the tiees in each of the uiffeient soil
enviionments coulu be measuieu anu woulu yielu fai moie accuiate uata. All most human
anu methou eiiois coulu be eliminateu if testing was uone unuei those contiolleu
conuitions. Theie woulu be no auuitional vaiiables to be questioneu. With the conuitions
that the expeiiment was conuucteu in anu the limiteu time, sufficient uata was collecteu foi
conclusive iesults, within a ieasonable uoubt. This ieseaich has the influence to change
many uiffeient aieas of agiicultuie. Foi example fuithei ieseaich coulu be uone on how
calcium affects the amount of fiuit tiees giow to help faimeis. This ieseaich has the ability
to affect many othei agiicultuial stuuies ievolving aiounu tiee nutiients.

"#$%&'()*+,)%-.


I want to the thank the ownei, uiiectoi anu staff at Biumlin Faim foi theii suppoit
anu foi letting us use theii sanctuaiy. I cannot think of a bettei to place to piactice oui
expeiiment. Ns. Svatek, thank you foi youi help anu helping us when we weie in neeu of
12
aiu. This pioject woulu not have been possible without you. Thank you to all the science
teacheis who weie theie foi extia help when we neeueu it. Thank you Ni. anu Nis. Nuiphy
foi letting us use youi mateiials uuiing the expeiiments. It maue the pioject so much easiei
than it woulu've been. I want to thank my mothei anu fathei, Ni. Paik anu Nis. Waigo foi
youi suppoit thioughout the pioject; you guys weie always theie foi me. Foi anybouy I
might have left out, thank you foi all the help anu suppoit you pioviueu foi me anu my lab
paitnei }ack Nuiphy.
!"#$% '$()
Thioughout the Kos pioject I have hau the suppoit of many people. Without theii
help I woulu not have been as oiganizeu oi focuseu anu so I have a lot to thank them foi. I
want to thank Nis. Svatek anu Nis. Bomfim foi theii help in the classioom to piepaie foi
Biumlin Faim. I want to thank my paients foi theii help when uoing wiiting foi this laige
pioject. I am giateful foi the suppoit of classmates like Bobby anu all oui peei euitois. I
coulu not have uone this pioject without them.
*$+) ,-(./0

!"#$% '()*+

!"#$%&' )*

"Calcium - Ca." 1$23( 4(3$253%2 678-2"7%9. LENNTECB, n.u. Web. 7 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.lenntech.compeiiouicelementsca.htm>.
"Calcium Basics." 6.3+2(-5 !%$802"+. N.p., n.u. Web. 8 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.spectiumanalytic.comsuppoitlibiaiyffCa_Basics.htm>.
uiauowski T, anu Thomas SC. "Responses of Acei Sacchaium Canopy Tiees anu Saplings to
P, K anu Lime Auuitions unuei Bigh N Beposition." :$2"7%$8 ;3%23( <7( ="723+/%787>0
?%<7(5$2"7%. 0.S. National Libiaiy of Neuicine, 28 Feb. 2uu8. Web. 12 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmeu18uSS428>.
Isichei, Augustine 0nwuegukiwe, anu }oseph Ikechukwu Nuoghalu. "The Effects of Tiee
Canopy Covei on Soil Feitility in a Nigeiian Savanna." ;$5@("#>3 *7-(%$89 A%8"%3.
N.p., 6 Nai. 1992. Web. 8 Nai. 2u14.
<http:jouinals.cambiiuge.oigactionuisplayAbstiact%SBjsessioniu%SBCSSSAS
B8BFBBS829AAA66196S22S798C.jouinals.fiomPage=online&aiu=S2S1272>.
1S
Knapp, Biian. !"#$#%&'( *+&,$,-% &. /"-.0,%#. vol. 16. Banbuiy: uioliei Euucational, 2uu2.
Piint.
"Reu Pine Nanagement uuiue." 1223%0'34'34#53-'. 0SBA Foiest Seivice, n.u. Web. 12 Nai.
2u14. <http:www.nis.fs.feu.usfmgnfmgipuocsip_eco.puf>.
"Reu Pine Tiee (Pinus Resinosa)." 6,0&-7" 87&-0# 907," 7& :#%% ;&7&# 8#2 <#%',%=&.%. The
Pennsylvania State 0niveisity, 8 0ct. 2u1S. Web. 9 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.psu.euuueptnkbiologynatuietiailspeciespagesieupine.htm>.


"Spectium Analytic Inc." ;>#+&0-$ *%7"?&,+ @%+. N.p., n.u. Web. 16 Api. 2u14.
<http:www.spectiumanalytic.com>.
"Tiee Physiology." AB4.05 C.-0%7"'. N.p., n.u. Web. 16 Api. 2u14.
<http:tieephys.oxfoiujouinals.oig>.

"#$%&'( )*

"Calcium - Ca." 17&#0 90#7&$#%& ;."-&,.%'. LENNTECB, n.u. Web. 7 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.lenntech.compeiiouicelementsca.htm>.
"Calcium Basics." ;>#+&0-$ *%7"?&,+. N.p., n.u. Web. 8 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.spectiumanalytic.comsuppoitlibiaiyffCa_Basics.htm>.
uiauowski T, anu Thomas SC. "Responses of Acei Sacchaium Canopy Tiees anu Saplings to
P, K anu Lime Auuitions unuei Bigh N Beposition." 87&,.%7" D#%&#0 4.0 E,.&#+F%.".=?
@%4.0$7&,.%. 0.S. National Libiaiy of Neuicine, 28 Feb. 2uu8. Web. 12 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmeu18uSS428>.
Isichei, Augustine 0nwuegukiwe, anu }oseph Ikechukwu Nuoghalu. "The Effects of Tiee
Canopy Covei on Soil Feitility in a Nigeiian Savanna." D7$G0,5=# C.-0%7"' A%",%#.
14
N.p., 6 Nai. 1992. Web. 8 Nai. 2u14.
<http:jouinals.cambiiuge.oigactionuisplayAbstiact%SBjsessioniu%SBCSSSAS
B8BFBBS829AAA66196S22S798C.jouinals.fiomPage=online&aiu=S2S1272>.
Knapp, Biian. !"#$#%&'( *+&,$,-% &. /"-.0,%#. vol. 16. Banbuiy: uioliei Euucational, 2uu2.
Piint.
"Reu Pine Nanagement uuiue." 1223%0'34'34#53-'. 0SBA Foiest Seivice, n.u. Web. 12 Nai.
2u14. <http:www.nis.fs.feu.usfmgnfmgipuocsip_eco.puf>.
"Reu Pine Tiee (Pinus Resinosa)." 6,0&-7" 87&-0# 907," 7& :#%% ;&7&# 8#2 <#%',%=&.%. The
Pennsylvania State 0niveisity, 8 0ct. 2u1S. Web. 9 Nai. 2u14.
<http:www.psu.euuueptnkbiologynatuietiailspeciespagesieupine.htm>.

"#$%&'()
*+,-./0 12
>7"+,-$ ?.%@;#"#+&,A# :0.B#. Bigital image. 1223A#0%,#03+.$. veiniei, 2u14. Web. 11 Nai.
2u14. <http:www.veiniei.compiouuctssensoision-selective-electiouesca-
bta>.
*+,-./0 32
CD; E#%',&.$#&#0. Bigital image. E# F#.% ?$G.0& H !IG.0& >.0G.07&,.%. 0BELC0, 2u1u. Web.
11 Nai. 2u14. <http:ouelco.copiouuctspiouuctuetails_qSaeow==.html>.
4""(56#7

Table #2: The Effect of Tiee Numbei on Canopy Coveiage (%)

!"## %
!"&'( )
*+'",-#" ).
*/.
!"&'( 0
*+'",-#" ).
*/.
!"&'( 1
*+'",-#" 0.
*/.
!"&'( 2
*+'",-#" 0.
*/.
34#"'5# */.
6,'-7'"7
8#4&',&9- */.
!"##
%) !"#" !%#" &%#" !"#" !"#" '#(
"#
!"##
%& !"#" %"#" &"#" %"#" %'#( )'#&
!"##
%' *"#" *(#" +"#" &+#" ,"#( )%#)
!"##
%( '"#" ,"#" !"#" &(#" %,#, ',#%
!"##
%) !(#" %"#" &"#" !(#" %'#( ))#*
!"##
%* *"#" *(#" ,(#" *(#" *)#! %#,
!"##
%+ ,"#" +(#" %(#" &(#" &&#! )(#(
!"##
%, )(#" '(#" )(#" '"#" ),#, %#,
!"##
%- )"#" (#" )"#" '!#" )'#" +#+
!"##
%./ '"#" *(#" ,"#" !(#" (+#( !(#+
!"##
%.. &"#" %"#" +(#" !"#" ()#! '"#'
!"##
%.& *(#" ,"#" &"#" *(#" ,'#( )&#&
!"##
%.' !(#" ("#" !"#" %"#" !,#, ,#(
!"##
%.( ,(#" !"#" &"#" %"#" (!#, '%#!
!"##
%.) !(#" ("#" %"#" ,(#" ('#( ''#(
!"##
%.* *"#" ,(#" ,(#" %"#" +(#" '!#(
!"##
%.+ ,"#" )""#" %"#" *(#" +,#, '+#'
!"##
%., *(#" ,(#" +"#" *(#" ,&#! ))#,
!"##
%.- *(#" &"#" +(#" ,(#" +,#, )%#*
!"##
%&/ ,(#" +"#" +(#" ,"#" ++#( &#(
!"##
%&. %"#" *,#" *(#" &(#" +%#( '+#%
!"##
%&& ,"#" ,(#" ,"#" &"#" +&#! ))#)
!"## *(#" ,(#" ,(#" +"#" ,!#, )"#!
"#
!"#
%&''
!"( !"#$ !$#$ !"#$ &"#$ ''#' !#"
%&''
!") '$#$ !"#$ !$#$ !"#$ !$#$ &#(












Diving into Diversity

The effect of salinity on the diversity of macro
invertebrates
By Carly Newell 84-9 & Lily Denton 84-3









http://fullserviceaquatics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/crayfish3.jpg
2
TABLE OF CONTEXT


ABSTRACT 3



INTRODUCTION 3



MATERIALS AND METHODS 4



RESULTS 7



DISCUSSION 13



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 14



WORKS CITED 15

3
ABSTRACT
Antecedent to the second trip to Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts it was
discovered that there was a main road behind a pond. The experiment was conducted to see the
effect salinity has on the diversity of macro invertebrate organisms. It was assumed that the salt
used on the main road behind Poultry Pond partially drained into the pond. The hypothesis was
that the higher the salinity level, the less diversity there would be, because salts absorb the
dissolved oxygen, which many organisms rely on for survival (Schaffner, web.vims.edu). The
salinity was tested with a Vernier Salinity Sensor. The sensor was attached to a calculator and
then placed into a cup full of pond water. The reading from the calculator was recorded. The
organisms were collected with a net and put into a bucket to identify with a key. During the
experiment, the homemade net broke and was replaced with a net provided by the farm. The
salinity sensor was also not working for twenty to thirty minutes at the first pond, but the sensor
was replaced once a teacher was notified. All the data was inconclusive, except Ice Ponds data
had conclusively the lowest level of salinity.

INTRODUCTION
Water environments can be heavily impacted by salinity. Salinity is the measurement of
dissolved salts in water. It is measured in ppt. Salts are known to absorb dissolved oxygen, which
most water organisms need to survive. Certain organisms are more tolerant to different salt
levels. Chloride is a salt, which can be harmful to certain types of organisms. Due to the fact that
there is a low flow of water during the summer and fall, chloride levels can be dangerously high,
and negatively impact aquatic organisms (des.nh.gov). Once salt has entered a body of water, it
cannot be removed until it is flushed downstream (des.nh.gov). The natural level of salinity in
freshwater is .001 ppt (des.nh.gov). Road salts can be harmful to organisms if they enter
freshwaters. Drumlin Farm, which is located in Lincoln, Massachusetts, contains ponds that are
located near main roads.
At Drumlin farms there are five ponds. For this particular experiment, only three of the
ponds will be used. Poultry Pond has a large exposure to salinity, due to the fact that it is located
near a main road. This past winter there was a surplus of snow. To melt the ice and snow, road
salts were used. There is a possibility that those salts, as well as other salts, could have leaked
into the pond, increasing the salinity level. Another pond that will be tested is Ice Pond, which is
located near a parking lot. This parking lot may have also used salts to melt this winters ice.
Like Poultry Pond, the salt could have entered the water, affecting the salinity level. The last
pond that will be tested is Bathtub pond, which is isolated from streets and possible road salts. It
is next to Bathtub Field and Town Trail. The locations of the ponds could affect how much
salinity it has.
If salinity levels are too high, they can absorb a majority of the dissolved oxygen that
organisms need to survive. It has been found that road salts make some types of fish more
tolerant to salinity (des.nh.gov). In other types of fish it has been found that the longer exposure
the fish has to salt, the less tolerant it becomes. Some kinds of organisms are more tolerant to
higher levels of chloride while other kinds are more tolerant to lower levels (Eckenfelder,
www.env.gov.bc.ca). Invertebrates are more sensitive to salt than vertebrates (Siegel,
www.rebulidingi93.com). Road salts can make more species less tolerant to salt, which would
minimize the reproduction, and therefore be decreasing diversity (des.nh.gov). The most
dangerous salts are potassium chloride and magnesium chloride. These road salts are most
harmful to the organisms living in ponds. They cause organisms to have lower osmosis pressure.
4
Osmosis is the water transfer from the lower salinity of a pond to the tissue of fish. By lowering
the osmotic pressure it will decrease the efficiency of the fish to remove excess water. If the salts
get close to the internal tissue of the fish, the osmosis pressure will reverse and dehydrate the fish
(Nimbusponds.incorporated).
This experiment will examine the effect of salinity (ppt) on the diversity of macro
invertebrates in a pond. The objective of the experiment is to see if the different levels of salt
affect which types of macro invertebrates live in the pond. The independent variable for this
experiment is the salinity level (ppt), and the dependent variable is the diversity of macro
invertebrates. Some controlled variables are the same net speed, the same net, the same person
holding the net, and the testing will be done in the same day. To test the hypothesis the salinity
will be measured at each of the three ponds eight times. Then the macro invertebrates will be
placed into a bucket to observe. Using a key, the organisms will be identified and recorded. The
hypothesis is if the salinity is high, then the macro invertebrates diversity will be low because
salts absorb dissolved oxygen, which many of the macro invertebrates need to survive
(Schaffner, web.vims.edu). It was predicted that Poultry Pond would have the highest salinity
levels and least macro invertebrate diversity, because it is the closest pond to a road.
This experiment could help teach people about the impacts that road salts have on ponds
specifically in New England. It could encourage people to find other alternatives for road salts in
order to melt ice. This could lessen negative human impact on animals. Eventually, someone one
could create an effective way to flush salinity out of ponds more quickly.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. The three
habitats tested were: Poultry Pond, Ice Pond, and Bathtub Pond. These three ponds were chosen
to provide a variety of salinity levels based on their location and potential human and
environmental influences. Poultry Pond was situated on the north side of a major road. It was
possible that road salts, used this past winter to melt ice, could have leaked into the water. The
second location, Ice Pond, was located near a parking lot far from the street near Poultry Pond.
This parking lot, like the road by Poultry Pond, could have also contained road salts that leaked
into the water. The final pond, Bathtub Pond, was next to a field and trail. This location was not
near roads, which might cause its salinity level to differ from that of the other two bodies of
water. In order to have no bias regarding which area of the ponds to sample, a randomization
method was used. This method is called Selecting Individuals at Random. The ponds were
circular, so the areas around the perimeter of the pond were labeled from 1-12 similar to a clock.
Then a formula was plugged into the TI nspire cx calculator, which generated areas to collect the
data from. In order to test the salinity levels, a Vernier salinity sensor was used. After
randomizing the pond, a bucket and a plastic cup were filled up half way with pond water
(Gibbs, http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au). Once those steps were completed, the Vernier salinity
sensor was attached to the top outlet of the TI-nspire cx calculator. The tip of the salinity sensor
was rinsed with distilled water and dipped into the plastic cup for 30 seconds. As soon as the
time was up, a reading appeared on the calculator and the salinity level was recorded. After all
those steps were completed, they were repeated eight times for Poultry Pond, rinsing the probe in
between each trial. The different locations in the pond, where the salinity testing was done was
also where the organisms were collected. All the steps were repeated at the other two ponds,
except the randomizing technique. Randomizing was difficult with the other two ponds because
its surrounding bushes and trees made it hard to get to areas that were originally generated on the
calculator. Due to this problem, salinity samples as well as the macro invertebrate data were
5
collected from easy to access locations on the pond.
Once all the salinity testing was finished, the diversity data was collected. In order to
collect macro invertebrates, a net was placed in the water and turned so that it was on its side.
Then the net was moved back and forth so it was pushed to each side two times. Finally the net
was brought out of the pond and placed over the bucket with pond water. The macro
invertebrates were carefully dropped into the bucket. When all the organisms were in the bucket,
a key was used to group and identify the different types of macro invertebrates. Then the data
was recorded in a table. After that the organisms were dumped back into the pond. Next, a clean
yogurt tub was filled up with pond water and poured into the bucket that had the macro
invertebrates. This was done to wash out the organisms that were still in the bucket after the
bucket was dumped out the first time. Then the bucket was dumped out one more time. Once all
those steps were completed they were repeated eight times per pond using the same exact
materials, refilling the bucket before each new trail. After all the testing was finished, the tip of
the salinity sensor was rinsed off with distilled water and then dried with a paper towel.


Diagram 1: The areas where data was collected from at Poultry Pond


Diagram 2: The areas where data was collected from at Ice Pond



6

Diagram 3: The areas where data was collected from at Bathtub Pond



Diagram 4: Vernier Salinty Sensor


Diagram 5: Distilled water
7


Diagram 6: TI nspire calculator

RESULTS
Table 1: The effect of pond on salinity levels (ppt)

"#$%&%'( )*+*$, -..'/
01&2 3#4* 56%#$ 7 56%#$ 8 56%#$ 9 56%#$ : 56%#$ ; 56%#$ < 56%#$ = 56%#$ > ?+*6#@* "5ABC
D#'E'FG 01&2 HIH7J; HIH8<8 HIH7J; HIH8<8 HIH9=7 HIH7J; HIHH9= HIHH9= HIH7J: HIH779
01F$'6( 01&2 HIHH79 HIH7J; HIHH8< HIH7J; HIH8<8 HIH7J; HIH7J; HIH7J; HIH7<H HIHH>J
KL* 01&2 HIHH8H HIHH8< HIHH79 HIHH8< HIHH79 HIHH79 HIHH8H HIHH8H HIHH7J HIHHH<


Table 2: The effect of organism types on amount of organisms in Poultry Pond

?41F&' 1M N6@#&%,4, %& 01F$'6( 01&2
N6@#&%,4 5(.*, 56%#$ 7 56%#$ 8 56%#$ 9 56%#$ : 56%#$ ; 56%#$ < 56%#$ = 56%#$ > ?+*6#@* "5ABC
O#(M$( 7 H H H H H H H HI7 HI:
A#4,*$M$( 7 H H H H H H H HI7 HI:
A#$.E# H H 9 9 8 ; < H 8I: 8I9
06*2#L*1F, D**'$* H 7 H 7 H H H H HI9 HI;
P1.*.12 7H 8: 87 ; 7H 7; 79 = 79I7 <I<
5E6*#2Q164 H 7 H H 9 8 H H HI> 7I8
0E#&'14 O%2@* )#6+# H H 7 H H 8 H H HI: HI=
R#'*6 D1#'4#& H H H 7 H H H H HI7 HI:
51'#$ 78 8< 8; 7H 7; 8: 7J = 8I8 :IJ





8
Table 3: The effect of organism type on amount of organisms in Bathtub Pond

"#$%&' $( )*+,&-.#. -& /,'0'%1 2$&3
)*+,&-.# 4567. 4*-,8 9 4*-,8 : 4*-,8 ; 4*-,8 < 4*-,8 = 4*-,8 > 4*-,8 ? 4*-,8 @ "A7*,+7 B4CDE
20,&'$# F-3+7 G,*A, 9 9 H H H H H 9 HI< HI=
B$83-7* J85 G,*A, 9 H H H H H H H HI9 HI<
K$676$3 : H H H H H H H HI; HI?
4$',8 < 9 H H H H H 9 HI; HI=


Table 4: The effect of organism type on amount of organisms in Ice Pond

"#$%&' $( )*+,&-.#. -& LM7 2$&3
)*+,&-.# 4567. 4*-,8 9 4*-,8 : 4*-,8 ; 4*-,8 < 4*-,8 = 4*-,8 > 4*-,8 ? 4*-,8 @ "A7*,+7 B4CDE
20,&'$# F-3+7 G,*A, ? 9 H ; : H H H 9I> :I<
L.$6$3. : H 9 H : H 9 H HI@ HIN
K$676$3 H ; : H < H : 9 9I= 9I=
K*,5(-.0 H H H H H 9 : H HI< HI?
4$',8 N < ; ; @ 9 = 9 9I9 9I>

Graph 1: The effect of pond on salinity levels (ppt)
!"!!!!
!"!!$!
!"!%!!
!"!%$!
!"!&!!
!"!&$!
!"!'!!
!"!'$!
()*+*,- ./01 ./,2*34 ./01 567 ./01
!
"
#
$
%
$
&
'

)
*
+
*
#
,

-
.
.
&
/

01%2 3"4*
9
Graph 2: The effect of organism types on amount of organisms in Poultry Pond


Graph 3: The effect of organism type on amount of organisms in Bathtub Pond



!"!
$"!
%!"!
%$"!
&!"!
&$"!
!
"
#
$
%
&

#
(

)
*
+
,
%
-
.
"
.

-
%

/
#
$
0
&
*
1

/
#
%
2

)*+,%-." 3145.
!"!
!"&
!"'
!"(
!")
%"!
%"&
*+,-./- 01234 5,67, 8/92146 :9; 5,67, </=4=/2
!
"
#
$
%
&

#
(

)
*
+
,
%
-
.
"
.

-
%

6
,
&
7
&
$
8

/
#
%
2

)*+,%-." 3145.
10
Graph 4: The effect of organism type on amount of organisms in Ice Pond


Graph 5: The effect of pond on total number of organisms











!"!
!"$
%"!
%"$
&"!
&"$
'"!
'"$
("!
("$
)*+,-., /0123
4+56+
78.9.18 :.939.1 :5+;<08* !
"
#
$
%
&

#
(

)
*
+
,
%
-
.
"
.

-
%

/
0
1

2
#
%
3

)*+,%-." 4561.
!"!
%"!
&"!
'"!
("!
$"!
="!
>"!
?"!
@+-*-AB ).,1 ).AC-; ).,1 7D3 ).,1
4
#
&
,
7

8
$
"
9
1
*

)
(

)
*
+
,
%
-
.
"
.

2#%3 8,"1
11
Graph 6: The effect of salinity levels (ppt) on total number of organisms in each pond



Graph 1 shows the salinity levels of three ponds: Ice Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Poultry
Pond. Ice Pond has the lowest salinity average of 0.0019 ppt and the smallest error bar with a
standard deviation of 0.0006 ppt. Bathtub Pond has the highest salinity average of 0.0194 ppt.
Poultry Pond had an average of 0.0160 ppt; only 0.0034 ppt smaller than the average of Bathtub.
Graph 2 illustrates the number of each type of macro invertebrates in Poultry Pond. The
water in this pond was a murky green. There were trees that had fallen into the water (See figure
1 below). The most common type of organism in Poultry Pond was copepods (average of 13.1).
Copepods also have the largest error bars with a standard deviation of 6.6. Dalpha has the second
highest average of 2.4 organisms. Its standard deviation of 2.3 is also the second highest. Its error
bar overlaps with all the other organisms bars except Copepods. Mayfly, Damselfly, and Water
Boatman all have the lowest average (0.1 organisms).
Graph 3 displays the amount of each type of macro invertebrate in Bathtub Pond. This
pond had the most frozen water surface out of the three ponds that were visited (see figure 2
below). There were only three organisms found in the pond, and all of their averages were under
one. The highest average (0.4 organisms) was that of the Phantom Midge Larva. Next were the
Copepods with 0.3 organisms, then the Soldier Fly Larva with 0.1. Unlike Poultry Ponds data,
all of the error bars overlapped with one another. The greatest standard deviation belonged to the
Copepods. The Soldier Fly Larva had the smallest error bar with a standard deviation of 0.4. The
Phantom Midge Larva was in the middle with a standard deviation of 0.5.
Graph 4 exhibits the number of the types of organisms in Ice Pond. Ice Pond, like
Bathtub Pond, had ice covering about a third of the surface water. Unlike Bathtub Pond, most of
the ice was melting away (see figure 3 below). Four organisms were found at this pond. The
Phantom Midge Larva had the highest average (1.6 organisms) and also the largest standard
deviation of 2.4. The Copepods were second with a final average of 1.5 organisms, only a .1
!" $ %&%%'()
!" $ %&%(*%(
!" $ %&%%*+'
%
,
(%
(,
*%
*,
+%
%&%%%% %&%%,% %&%(%% %&%(,% %&%*%% %&%*,% %&%+%% %&%+,% %&%-%%
!
"
#
$
%

'
(
"
)
*
#

+
,

+
-
.
$
*
/
0
(
0

1$%/*/#2 3454%0 677#8
./01023 4567
452809: 4567
;<= 4567
12
difference from the Phantom Larva. The third lowest average (0.8 organisms) belonged to the
Isopods. The organism with the lowest average (0.4 organisms) and smallest standard deviation
of 0.7 belonged to the Crayfish. Ice Ponds data was similar to the data of Bathtub Pond as all the
error bars overlapped with one another.
Graph 5 demonstrates the correlation between the total number of organisms and pond.
Poultry Pond had the largest average (2.2 organisms), and the largest standard deviation of 4.9.
This ends up making it have the largest error bar, which overlaps with the error bars of the other
two ponds. The second largest average (1.1 organisms) belonged to Ice Pond. Bathtub Pond had
the smallest average of 0.3 organisms, but also ends up having the lowest standard deviation of
0.5.
Graph 6 represents the relationship between the total numbers of organisms found at each
pond on salinity levels. The r
2
values for the ponds were all below 0.01. Poultry Ponds points on
the graph were not consistent and did not seem to fit the trendline. Poultry Pond, however,
seemed to have highest number of organisms (highest point above 25). The lowest point for
Poultry Pond was just above 5. The r
2
value for Poultry Pond was 0.01201. Ice Pond, as stated
before, had the lowest amount of salinity, and therefore the ponds points are all below 0.005 ppt.
This also makes them have the smallest trendline and r
2
value (0.00236). Ice Pond and Poultry
Pond both have eight data points while Bathtub only has seven. Bathtub Pond has the largest
range of salinity levels. It has the second highest r
2
value of 0.00617. This pond has the lowest
total amount of organisms, the highest being just below five.


Figure 1: Poultry Pond Figure 2: Bathtub Pond

13

Figure 3: Ice Pond

DISCUSSION
The goal of this experiment was to see if there was a correlation between the salinity
levels and the diversity of organisms in Drumlin Farm ponds. The hypothesis for this experiment
was: if the salinity is high, then the macro invertebrates diversity will be low because salts
absorb the dissolved oxygen in water which many of the macro invertebrates need to survive
(Schaffner, web.vims.edu). It was assumed that Poultry Pond would have the highest salinity
levels. This hypothesis was not supported fully by the collected data.
Salinity depletes the amount of dissolved oxygen, which has a direct affect on the
diversity of organisms in fresh water. Most organisms need dissolved oxygen to live (Gross,
Oceanography: A View of Earth). A study done in 2012, by the Institute of Maine Research,
testing the effect temperature and salinity have on macro invertebrate diversity discovered that
salinity does affect the macro invertebrate species (Brucet, plosone.org). The study stated that
too much salinity resulted in a lower macro invertebrate diversity (Brucet, plosone.org). The data
gathered in this experiment did not support the research conclusions. Ice Pond had conclusively
the lowest salinity, and the second lowest average of number of organisms. The low salinity Ice
Pond exhibited may be due to the cold temperatures of the season, and the remote location of the
pond as there could be a reduced amount of salt run off absorption (Arnold, eesc.columbia.edu).
Located near a busy road, Poultry Pond had the second highest average salinity, in contrast with
the highest number of organisms. Since road salts run off congested streets, it was expected that
Poultry Pond would have the highest salinity levels (des.nh.gov). A partially frozen Bathtub
Pond had the highest average of salinity, while also having the lowest number of organisms.
Only Bathtub Ponds levels matched the hypothesis, but not conclusively.
In graph 6, the effect of salinity levels on total number of organisms in each pond, there
was little correlation between the two variables. Poultry Ponds plots were the most scattered of
the three. The r
2
value for this pond was 0.012, which is too low for any conclusions to be made.
The data points for Ice Pond were all on the low end of the graph, which means this pond had the
lowest amount of salinity. Bathtub Ponds data points were consistently low, reflecting the
ponds low organism count. The salinity points, however, showed a variation of values ranging
from 0.0371 ppt to 0.0037 ppt. Both the r
2
values for Ice and Bathtub pond were lower than
0.007 ppt, which reflects a weak correlation.
The results of the data collection were heavily compromised by investigator errors and
geographic challenges. Almost all of the graphs were inconclusive since the error bars
14
overlapped. For example, in graph 4, the effect of organism type on amount of organisms in ice
pond, all the bars error bars overlapped with each over, which means that no strong conclusions
can be made. The validity of the results should be viewed with caution. Many scientists would
not be confident in drawing conclusion from the data.
If this experiment were to be replicated, several modifications would need to be made. To
begin, the investigator should make sure that the salinity sensor is working correctly. In the
original experiment during our data collection, the salinity sensor was faulty and needed to be
replaced. This caused the sensor to give incorrect readings for some of the data collections. An
accurate instrument would have guaranteed more reliable data. Season of data collection should
also be taken into consideration. Cold temperatures and residual ice on the ponds will affect the
number of living organisms found (Brucet, plosone.org). Perhaps the experiment could be
conducted in late spring when the ice on the ponds has fully melted. Colder water temperatures
can limit the number of macro invertebrates found in a body of water (Brucet, plosone.org). The
terrain affected the investigators access to all data collection spots. Specifically, thorns bushes
and fallen trees had to be navigated. If these challenges had been addressed earlier, the
investigators could have collected data from a broader range of locations. There are several
lingering questions to address such as: If the procedure were followed correctly, would the
experimenters have gotten more conclusive data? Also, if the experimenters had been able to
reach all the data collection spots, would the experimenters find different macro invertebrate
species?
Despite collection challenges, sufficient data (24 data points) was collected for analysis.
It is not clear that additional data points would have lead to different conclusions in this case.
Environmentalists need accurate data about salinity and the effect salinity has on the organisms
living in ponds. This could lead to road salt regulations in areas where bodies of fresh water are
surrounded by roads. Lincoln, Massachusetts, the town where Drumlin Farm is located, does use
road salts (lincolntown.org). If the data from this experiment could be compared with data
collected from another towns pond that does not use salts, then scientists could see if the amount
of road salt used does actually affect the diversity of macro invertebrates. Researchers may be
interested in using this type of study as a springboard for more research about low impact road
salt practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Author 1
I would like to thank all of the people who helped me with my project, Mr. Rossiter, Ms.
Schultheis, Lily Denton, Mr. Dwyer, and Ms. Svatek. Whether it was calling another teacher for
me, or bringing me a new salinity probe, or something else. They each helped me in one way or
another and I would not have been able to do the project without them. Thanks again to all those
who helped.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Author 2
I would like to thank my partner Carly for her contributions to this project. She wrote half
the final report and took all the salinity samples for our data. Also, I would like to thank the
environmentalist at Poultry Pond, Catherine. Without her, I would have not been able to identify
half of the macro invertebrates I ended up catching. At last, I want to thank my science teacher
Ms. Schultheis. She got our group prepared for our data collection day at Drumlin Farm. When
our salinity sensor broke, she came to our data collection spot and helped us fix it. Without these
three people, this experiment / final paper could not have been possible.
15


WORKS CITED: Author 1
Eckenfelder, Margaret. "Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Chloride."
Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Chloride. Province of British Columbia, 2013.
Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/chloride/chloride.html>.

"The Free Automatic Bibliography and Citation Generator." EasyBib. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar.
2014. <http://www.easybib.com/>.

Gibbs, Simon. How Do I Test Water Salinity? Condobolin: NSW Agriculture, 4 Oct. 2000. PDF.

Gross, Grant, and Elizabeth Gross. A View Of Earth;. Saddle River: Simon & Schuster A
Viacom, 1972. Print.

"Rebuilding I93: Salem to Manchester (NHDOT) Home." Rebuilding I93: Salem to
Manchester (NHDOT) Home. NHDOT Home, 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.rebuildingi93.com/>.

"Salinity." Salinity. Department of Biological Sciences, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
<http://web.vims.edu/bio/shallowwater/physical_characteristics/salinity.html>.

"Water Quality Impacts - Environmental, Health and Economic Impacts of Road Salt - New
Hampshire Road Salt Reduction Initiative - Watershed Assistance Section - NH
Department of Environmental Services." Water Quality Impacts - Environmental, Health
and Economic Impacts of Road Salt - New Hampshire Road Salt Reduction Initiative -
Watershed Assistance Section - NH Department of Environmental Services. Imagine Easy
Solutions, LLC, 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
<http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/was/salt-reduction-
initiative/impacts.htm>.

"Water Testing Pond Water Chemistry Salinity in Ponds." Salinity in Ponds. Nimbus Pond
Inc, 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nimbusponds.com/Pond-Water-
Chemistry/Salinity-in-Ponds-p-48.html>.

WORKS CITED: Author 2
Brucet, Sandra. "Effects of Temperature, Salinity and Fish in Structuring the Macroinvertebrate
Community in Shallow Lakes: Implications for Effects of
Climate Change." PLOS ONE:. PLOS, 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.p
one.0030877>.

Gordon, Arnold L. "The Climate System." Ocean Stratification. Columbia University, 2004.
Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_strat.html>.
16

Gross, Grant, and Elizabeth Gross. Oceanography: A View of Earth. Upper Saddle River: Simon
& Schuster, 1972. Print.

Schaffner, Linda. "Salinity." Salinity. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 2013. Web. 15 Apr.
2014. <http://web.vims.edu/bio/shallowwater/physical_characteristics/salinity.html>.

"Welcome | NH Department of Environmental Services." Welcome | NH Department
of Environmental Services. New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services,
2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://des.nh.gov/>.

"Welcome to an Engaged Community." Lincoln, MA. Town Of Lincoln, 2014. Web.
16 Apr. 2014. <http://www.lincolntown.org/index.aspx?nid=403>.

Percol-H


The effect of soil percolation
on soil pH

Elisa Tabor and Shayan Olumi


"
TABLE OF CONTENTS


SECTION AUTHOR PAGE
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
======================================================================================================================

Abstract Olumi 3
Introduction Olumi 3
Materials & Methods Olumi 4
Results Tabor 7
Discussion Tabor 10
Acknowledgements Olumi & Tabor 11
Works Cited Olumi 12
Works Cited Tabor 13


"
ABSTRACT
Soil pH can greatly affect how a plant grows. Some plants will lose crucial elements from the
soil being too acidic. The experiment tested whether soil percolation can affect the soil pH,
which could also potentially affect plant growth. Soil samples were taken and tested for their pH
levels along with their percolation times. This data was then analyzed to see if there is a
connection between soil percolation and soil pH in Hemlock Forest and the Farmyard, which are
within Drumlin Farms, Lincoln, MA. It was thought that if the percolation times were lower then
the soil would be more acidic in the locations that were tested. The results displayed that there is
no significant correlation between the two variables. Hemlock Forest and the Farmyard had a
very close average pH level; Hemlock had an average pH level of 6.8, and the Farmyard had an
average pH of 7. Both of the habitats had r
2
values of less than 0.1 in the graph that shows the
effect of percolation on pH.

INTRODUCTION
For a number of years soil acidity has been an issue within the Northeast Region in the
United States and Eastern Canada. The Northeast Region tends to have soil that has a pH level of
six, which is acidic. If need be there are ways to adjust the pH, however these ways can have
drawbacks. If soil is too acidic then elements, such as aluminum, can dissolve more easily, which
blocks the water intake from the roots to the plant or tree, due to the blocked nutrients that
cannot get out of the roots. Soil pH is the measure of how acidic or alkaline soil is (Rengel,
Handbook of Soil Acidity; Bruulsema, Northeast Soil Fertility). Soil percolation is a soils ability
to let water drain through. If a cup of water is poured into soil and it drains rather quickly than
the percolation is very high. If the time is very high than the percolation is low. One factor that
affects percolation is the amount of pore space in the soil.
Soil pH levels can greatly affect the trees that grow in a habitat. If the pH levels are too
low then the trees will not be able to take in the necessary nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium. If the levels are too high then other elements wont be able to be absorbed such
as, iron, manganese, and phosphorus. The appropriate levels for pH are 6.0 - 7.5 (Unknown,
http://www.agriinfo.in). There are many other factors that affect the soil pH such as rainfall,
climate temperature, and vegetation. When there is heavy rainfall, the soil tends to be more
acidic due to the more alkaline nutrients the rain takes out, which are replaced by more acidic
nutrients. (Unknown, http://www.agriinfo.in). The more vegetation there tends to be, the lower
the percolation (Unknown, http://www.visualrealization.com).
The experiment will be conducted at Drumlin Farm, which is located in Lincoln, MA.
Drumlin Farms is a wildlife sanctuary that is devoted to protecting the nature of Massachusetts.
There are multiple different locations at Drumlin Farms such as forests, ponds, and open fields.
These locations contain various types of soil that have large ranges in textures and colors. The
experiment will be done at these locations: Hemlock Forest and the Farmyard. Based on the
inhabitants of these locations, the infiltration of the water is affected. When animals, humans, or
cars go over the top layer of the soil, it becomes more compact which makes it harder for the
water to infiltrate the beginning levels of the soil (Unknown, www.organicgardening.com).
The plan of this experiment is to test the effect of soil percolation on soil pH. The
objective is to learn whether soil percolation will affect the levels of pH within the soil. When
more water passes through the soil, more acidic elements be dropped in the soil. More acidic
material from passing water means a lower pH count. Soil samples will be collected from
Hemlock Forest and the Farmyard. The independent variable is the soil percolation, while the
"
dependent variable is the soil pH. Some controlled variables are the depth at which the auger
collects soil from the ground (cm), and the pH test pills used (RapiTest). Other control variables
are the procedures for measuring the pH and the percolation, along with the materials used
during the data collection. The hypothesis for this experiment is if the soil percolation is higher,
then the pH will be lower, because when more water percolates through the soil it becomes more
acidic due to the basic nutrients dissolved in the water that are taken out of the soil (Unknown,
www.organicgardening.com). When more rain passes through the soil, acidic nutrients are
dissolved in the soil while the rainwater absorbs the basic nutrients (Unknown,
http://hubcap.clemson.edu).
This experiment demonstrates how soil percolation can affect the soil pH. There are many farms
across the country that could greatly benefit from this research. When the soil pH isnt within the
levels of 6.0-7.5 then the trees will not be able to gain the necessary nutrients to thrive. There are
many methods to make the soil more acidic, such as liming the soil, or the farmers could spread
wood ashes, which contain calcium carbonate, potassium, and phosphorus to make the soil more
basic. Understanding the percolation effect on soil pH could help farmers decide where to plant
their crops without doing numerous tests. Tests could be conducted, then the correlation between
the pH and percolation would be discovered which would potentially benefit several farmers.

MATERIALS & METHODS
The locations that were visited were Hemlock Forest and the Farmyard which are located
at Drumlin Farms in Lincoln, MA. Twenty-four locations were numbered in the forest at random
within an area of fifteen by fifteen meters at both Hemlock Forest and the Farmyard. The
horizontal and vertical lengths of the enclosed area were taken then put into the randomizer
function on the TI-nspire calculator to formulate a grid. The points were then used as a graph to
find out which specific spots would be visited.
After the specific spots were chosen, 7.57 liters of water was gathered. Two three
hundred eighteen mL tin cans that had the top and bottom removed were collected. Next, marks
were put on the tin can that were three centimeters above the bottom. The tin can was then put in
the ground until the soil reached the three centimeter mark. Two hundred seventy-six mL of
water was poured into the can, and the timer was started. Once all the water was drained, the
timer was stopped, and the time was recorded in the data table. If the water did not percolate into
the soil within twenty minutes, the time was stopped in the interests of time. These steps were
repeated twelve times at each forest location for a total of twenty-four data points.
Next, soil was collected from about seven centimeters deep in the ground with an auger.
Soil was filled in the testing comparator up until the fill soil line on both sides. The capsule
was then broken over the pH testing container, pouring the powder into the smaller side. Next
distilled water was added until the fill water line on both sides, and the container was shaken
for a minute. After the color developed, it was compared with the chart on the comparator. These
steps were repeated twelve times at each of the locations.
"

Figure one contains all the materials needed for this experiment:
-Ruler
-Timer
-Auger
-Liter bottles
-Tin can with top and bottom removed
-Soil pH testing kit
-Green pH testing capsules


Figure 2 shows the first testing area, Hemlock Forest, which is located at Drumlin Farms,
Lincoln, MA
"


Figure 3 shows the percolation test being conducted at Hemlock Forest


Figure 4 shows the soil pH test being conducted at Hemlock Forest



"
RESULTS

Table 1: The effect of location on soil percolation time (seconds) and soil pH.

Table 2: The effect of soil pH on soil percolation time (seconds).

Soil Percolation Time
(seconds)
Soil pH Average
Standard
deviation
6.5 684 443
7 643 496
7.5 750 508









Location Variables
Trial
1
Trial
2
Trial
3
Trial
4
Trial
5
Trial
6
Trial
7
Trial
8
Trial
9
Trial
10
Trial
11
Trial
12
Average
Standard
Deviation
Hemlock
Forest
Soil
Percolation
Time
(seconds)
420 3 22 270 337 160 450 1200 28 90 1177 826 415 431
Soil pH 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.8 0.3
Farmyard
Soil
Percolation
Time
(seconds)
1200 1210 510 800 1200 971 380 921 1200 448 1200 1200 937 326
Soil pH 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 7.0 7.0 0.4
"
Graph 1: The effect of soil percolation time (seconds) on soil pH based on location.


Graph 2: The effect of soil pH on soil percolation time (seconds).








R! = 0.08216
R! = 0.03592
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
S
o
i
l

p
H

Soil Percolation time (seconds)
Hemlock
Farmyard
#
$##
%##
&##
"##
'###
'$##
'%##
&() * *() !
"
#
$

&
'
(
)
"
$
*
+
#
"
,

+
#
-
'

.
/
'
)
"
,
0
/
1

!"#$ &2
"

Graph 3: The effect of habitat on soil pH.


Graph 4: The effect of habitat on soil percolation time (seconds).


Graph 1 shows the relationship between soil percolation and soil pH in each habitat. At
the Hemlock Forest, the soil pH was more acidic when the percolation time increased, while at
the Farmyard the soil pH was more basic with increasing percolation time. The r
2
values were
less than 0.1 for both habitats. The percolation test results ranged from 3 to 1200 seconds, and
the soil pH values were between 6.5 and 7.5. At the Farmyard the soil was very compact,
resulting in multiple percolation times of 1200 seconds.
Graph 2 shows the change in soil percolation times based on the pH. The three error bars
are large and overlapping, which indicates that the data are imprecise. The soil with a pH of 7
had the shortest average percolation time of 643 seconds, while the soil with a pH of 7.5 had the
longest average percolation time of 750 seconds. The data for the soil with a pH of 6.5 had the
smallest error bar, and therefore the most precise data.
#$%
#$&
#$'
#$#
#$(
)$%
)$&
)$'
)$#
*+,-./0 1.2+34 152,6527
!
"
#
$

&
'

'()#*(*
8&%%
%
&%%
'%%
#%%
(%%
9%%%
9&%%
9'%%
*+,-./0 1.2+34 152,6527
!
"
#
$

&
+
,
-
"
$
(
*
#
"
.

*
#
/
+

0
1
+
-
"
.
2
1
3

'()#*(*
"#
Graphs 3 and 4 display the effect of habitat on the two variables, soil pH and percolation,
independently. In both graphs the error bars are large and overlapping, which indicates the data
were imprecise. In graph 3, the pH average for Hemlock Forest was 6.8, while for the Farmyard
it was 7.0; this shows the Hemlock soil had a more acidic average pH. Graph 4 shows that the
soil percolation average time was 415 seconds in the Hemlock Forest, and 937 seconds in the
Farmyard. The average soil percolation time at the Farmyard was more than twice that at
Hemlock Forest. The error bar for the Hemlock Forest was larger; in fact, it extends below 0
because it is larger than the average percolation time.

DISCUSSION
In this experiment, the objective was to discover whether the percolation of soil affected
its acidity. The hypothesis was that if the soil percolation is higher then its pH will be lower,
because when more water percolates through the soil it becomes more acidic due to the basic
nutrients dissolved in the water that are taken out of the soil (Unknown,
www.organicgardening.com). This hypothesis was not supported due to the imprecision of the
data collected, shown the overlap of all error bars and the low r
2
values.
The results shown in graph 1 were inconclusive, since the trend-lines have opposite
slopes. The Hemlock Forest trend-line supported the hypothesis whereas the Farmyard trend-line
did not. The soil pH was higher at the Farmyard, while it was lower in the Hemlock Forest
(graph 3). This could be because the Hemlock trees, being conifers, emit chemicals that lower
the pH of the soil (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu). A new hypothesis can therefore be formed: if the
Hemlock Forest soil is tested, then the soil pH will be lower because it consists of conifer trees,
which emit chemicals to increase the acidity of the surrounding soil (Bickelhaupt, www.esf.edu).
Percolation is affected by the texture of the soil, e.g. whether it is mostly clay, which is
less percolating, or sand, which is more percolating, or silt, which has intermediate percolation
(Prowebs, www.agriinfo.in). Another factor affecting the percolation time is when silt and clay
particles are mixed to form soil grains, micro-organisms decompose the organic material, which
increases percolation rates (Reeves, www.walterreeves.com). The soil in the Farmyard consisted
of a higher amount of clay (graph 4). It was also less percolating because animals such as
chicken and sheep graze over the field, walking repeatedly over the soil and compacting it. This
leads to a new hypothesis: if the Farmyard soil is tested, then the soil will have a higher
percolation time because the Farmyard soil is compact from the repeated grazing of animals
(Hmann, www.sciencedirect.com).
None of the results have high precision, as indicated by the fact that all the error bars are
large and overlap, and the r
2
values are less than 0.1. This impacts the confidence in the data, and
shows that there arent sufficient data to have a high degree of confidence in the results. The low
precision is due to the variety of the soil within each habitat; e.g., measurements observed just a
few meters apart varied from percolating entirely in 28 seconds to taking over 1200 seconds.
This was probably due to the dry leaves and twigs covering the area, which can change the
moisture in the soil and its exposure to the elements.
In retrospect, the location of the measurements should have been one of the independent
variables, and the pH should have been the independent variable rather than the percolation. A
greater amount of data should have been collected to increase the accuracy of the results.
Additional scientists and increased time and resources would be helpful in order to have obtained
additional data. The methods used for this experiment were laborious and inherently imprecise,
which resulted in many errors. In the method used to measure percolation, if a larger can were
""
used along with a greater amount of water this would increase the accuracy of the experiment
because it would cover a larger testing area. Also, during this experiment, an error occurred
when the water poured into the can overflowed and some dripped out of the can. This would not
happen with a larger vessel. However, this modification would have increased the time required
for each measurement. For the pH testing, using a probe to measure the pH digitally would have
been much more precise, rather than relying on the judgment of the scientists to match the color
of the pH solution with the labels on the container.
Several questions remained unanswered, such as why the soil percolation time varied so
much within one meter (from 28 to 1200 seconds), how different would the results be if the
experiment had been conducted in the fall, and what else affects the percolation and the pH?
This experiment could be repeated in different locations, with different types of soil, such
as near a pond or in a different forest, where the soil might have a greater variation in pH. Other
variables could also be tested relative to soil percolation or pH, such as soil conductivity or the
amount of soil nutrients to discover what effect those variables have on the environment and the
nutrients available to plants.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This whole project would not have been possible if it wasnt for the amazing people who
helped us along the way. Kelley Schultheis provided many materials such as the soil pH test kits
along with vital knowledge that helped us conduct the experiment. Aria Olumi and Sareh Parangi
helped with collecting materials such as the water and tin cans. Ms. Bomfim watched over us and
helped when it came to fixing some materials. The biggest thank you goes out to Drumlin Farms
for allowing us to use their facilities and providing such a nice learning environment.
This project would not have been possible without the help of individuals who supported
us in our preparation for Drumlin Farm and during our time there. Kelley Schultheis, our science
teacher, helped us throughout the experiment with brainstorming, writing of the initial drafts, and
with providing us with all necessary materials. At Drumlin Farm, the BB&N teachers and the on-
site naturalists provided indispensable help with any questions we had concerning the experiment
or the habitats. Finally, I would like to thank my partner, Shayan, for contributing greatly to the
entire experiment.


"#
WORKS CITED

AUTHOR 1
Bruulsema, T.W. Ipni. N.p.: n.p., n.d. PDF.
Group 1D. Soil Properties. N.p.: n.p., n.d. PDF.
Mitchell, Charles C. "Soil Acidity and Liming (Overview)." Soil Acidity and Liming (Overview).
Hubcap, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
<http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/acidity2_review.html>.
"My Agriculture Information Bank - Absorption and Movement of Water in Soil - Water
Intake." My Agriculture Information Bank - Absorption and Movement of Water in Soil -
Water Intake. My Agricultural Information Bank, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.agriinfo.in/?page=topic&superid=1&topicid=5>.
Rengel, Zdenko. Handbook of Soil Acidity. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003. Print.
"Soil Percolation Rates." Home Page. Tree People, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.treepeople.org/soil-percolation-rates>.
Soils and Percolation. Washington: Washington University, n.d. PDF.
"Soils Part 2." Plant & Soil Sciences ELibrary. Plant & Soil Sciences ELibrary, n.d. Web. 7 Mar.
2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fpassel.unl.edu%2Fpages%2Finformationmodule.php%3Fidinformati
onmodule%3D1130447039%26topicorder%3D10%26maxto%3D10>.
Taylor, Carrie. Investigating Soil. Montana: Montana State University, n.d. PDF.
"Understanding PH." What Is Soil PH and What Does It Mean?: Organic Gardening. Organic
Gardening, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. <http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-
grow/understanding-ph>.
"#
What Are Soils. University of St. Thomas, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.stthomas.edu/geography/faculty/kelley/physgeog/soils/soil%20intro/physica
lproperties.html#waterholdingcapacity>.

AUTHOR 2
Bickelhaupt, Donald. "Soil PH: What It Means." ESF. State University of New York College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/soilph/soilph.htm>.
Hmann, Marco. "Identification of Runoff Processes The Impact of Different Forest Types and
Soil Properties on Runoff Formation and Floods." ScienceDirect. Elsevier B. V., 2011.
Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411006329>.
Leung, Anthony K. "Effects of Soil Density on Grass-induced Suction Distributions in
Compacted Soil Subjected to Rainfall." Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 17 Dec. 2013.
Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cgj-2013-
0221#.U02nq15aacc>.
Londo, Andrew J., John D. Kushla, and Robert C. Carter. N.p.: Southern Regional Extension
Forestry, Jan. 2006. PDF. <http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/3E784F3F-0B26-
44E9-958D-3C31CB911EFD/69963/SoilpH.pdf>. PDF File.
Prowebs. "Absorption and Movement of Water in Soil." My Agriculture Information Bank.
AgriInfo, 2011. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.agriinfo.in/?page=topic&superid=1&topicid=5>.
"#
Reeves, Walter. "Soil Percolation Rate." Walter Reeves: The Georgia Gardener. The Simple
Gardener, Inc., 2011. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.walterreeves.com/landscaping/soil-percolation-rate/>.
"Understanding PH." Organic Gardening. Rodale Inc., 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/understanding-ph?page=0,0>.
korrupLlng k
1he effecL of human lnfluence on poLasslum levels (mg/L) ln
soll.

Mlchelle 1ang & 8en 8oss
(S86-18) (S86-12)
!

T ABL E OF CONT ENTS

Section Author(s) Page #
Abstract Michelle Tang 2
Introduction Ben Ross 2-3
Materials & Methods Michelle Tang 3-6
Results: Tables, Graphs, Summary Ben Ross 7-8
Discussion Michelle Tang 8-9
Acknowledgements Ben Ross 9-10
Acknowledgements Michelle Tang 10
Works Cited Ben Ross 11
Works Cited Michelle Tang 12-13
























!

ABSTRACT
This experiment was conducted in order to discover how human influence affects the
potassium level of soil, and therefore have an impact on the environment. The procedure for this
experiment, conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, MA, was to take samples of soil from
habitats maintained by humans in different ways, and test its potassium levels. The points
examined at each habitat were randomly generated using a TI-Nspire CX graphing calculator. It
was expected that the soil from Boyce Field would have the least amount of potassium, because
when plants are harvested, the nutrients are not returned to the soil to replenish the potassium.
This prediction wasn`t supported, and the only conclusion that could be drawn Irom the results
was that the Farmyard had conclusively more potassium than the Hemlock Forest. This may be
due to the fact that chicken and sheep manure are a good fertilizer and add organic matter into
the soil that boosts the potassium levels. The Farmyard and Boyce Field`s error bars were
relatively long because each soil sample was collected in different sections with varying human
influence, whereas the error bars for the Hemlock Forest were short because the habitat was
mostly uniform.

I NTRODUCTI ON
Humans alter soil to be more fit for plant growth, grazing, or just to keep the land healthy
with different nutrient supplements. Potassium is a soft silver metal and a macronutrient in soil,
meaning a greater volume of it is needed to sustain healthy plant life (yale.edu). When potassium
levels in soil get too low plants cannot grow at a healthy rate and at a point plant life is not
possible (home.howstuffworks.com). Potassium can be affected by composts, chemical
fertilizers, manure, wood ashes, and granite and organic matter in soil (scifun.org; Penhallegon,
extension.oregonstate.edu). Farmers and gardeners can add these substances to get a potassium
level fit for how the land is being used. In nature, potassium levels are most likely to be lower in
areas with high plant density because it is being used up, and higher in a rockier soil (Dye,
Britannica.com). On farms, humans add fertilizers and irrigation systems that effect the
potassium level. Potassium is a nutrient essential to plant life that can be altered and controlled in
soil by people.
Drumlin Farm, in Lincoln, Massachusetts, uses land for farming, raising livestock,
natural forests. At Drumlin Farm different areas that are influenced to different degrees were
tested. Boyce field, Farmyard area, and Hemlock forest will all be examined. Boyce field is used
for gardening and is constantly managed. Only green fertilizers and cover crops are used to add
nutrients to the soil at drumlin farm (www.massaudubon.org). Farmyard field is mowed for
sheep to graze. Hemlock forest is a dense forest with lots of shrubs and minimal human
influence. How these areas are treated will affect the potassium levels in the soil.
If potassium levels get to be too low, the plant life in that area will not be healthy. For
this reason farmers try to control potassium levels in soil, so their crops will grow and their
livestock can graze. This is difficult for farmers because when crops are harvested no nutrients
are returned to the soil as they would be in the wild (Shakhashiri, scifun.chem.wisc.edu). When
farmers are adding fertilizers to soil, they are replenishing the nutrients that in nature would be
returned through dead plants, so the potassium is similar or lower than the potassium level would
be in nature. Grass fields, similar the farmyard area, usually have consistently higher potassium
because when the fields are mowed the nutrients from the grass clippings help keep the
potassium level steady when they decompose and are absorbed into the soil (MacKintosh,
www.snh.org.uk). The sheep manure also gives back some of the potassium retracted from the
!

soil. Forest habitats that have been left to grow need lots of potassium to survive because 0.5-2%
of a plant`s mass is potassium (Dye, britannica.com). If the plants are bigger than they will use
more potassium. The rocks in the soil will add potassium, as well as dead shrubbery, but this
potassium is quickly used up.
The objective of the experiment is to explore to find out how humans affect potassium
the potassium levels in soil. The independent variable is the degree of human influence. The
dependent variable is the potassium level in the soil. To conduct the experiment soil samples will
be taken from randomly selected points at each site. The soil samples will then be brought back
to the lab and the potassium levels will be tested. While conducting the experiment the day of
collection, the depth the soil is collected at, the storage temperature of the samples, the time
samples sit, and amount of distilled water added to soil samples must be controlled to get more
accurate results. The hypothesis is if the soil from Boyce Field is tested, then it will have the
least amount of potassium, because plants are harvested and the nutrients in the plants are not
returned to the soil to replenish the potassium (Morgan and Connolly, www.nature.com).
The workers and volunteers at Drumlin farm need to know how they are effecting the soil
and if the soil is unhealthy. All farmers need to know if they are creating a healthy soil
ecosystem. By finding trends in different levels of influences, farmers can know if their soil is
healthy without having to do as many soil tests. This experiment could also determine in humans
need to care for the soil in forests because the soil lacks proper nutrients, causing unhealthy plant
growth. If people know what types of land have higher or lower potassium levels and people can
choose different fertilizers to fertilize the soil accordingly. This experiment will allow for a
healthier soil ecosystem and healthier plants in farms.

MAT ERI ALS & ME T HODS
The three habitats (Boyce Field, Farmyard, Hemlock Forest) that were tested at Drumlin
Farm in Lincoln, MA are affected and managed by human actions in different ways. The
farmyard (figure 1) is mowed and maintained for sheep and chickens` living conditions, whereas
Boyce field (figure 2) is reserved for vegetables and fruits to grow and prosper naturally, and
lastly, Hemlock Forest (figure 3) isn`t managed by humans at all. Ten points were selected in
each habitat using a TI-Nspire CX graphing calculator`s random location generator (Iigure
4).The numbers randomly generated were the amount of strides taken from the starting point.
The pairs of randomly generated numbers were the xy coordinates used to determine the soil
sample locations (Wilson, http://oregonstate.edu). This randomizing technique was used to
ensure that the habitats chosen weren`t biased (Moore and McCabe, www.ma.utexas.edu). For
every one of the ten random points, a 30 cm by 8 cm hand shovel, inserted 5 cm beneath the
ground, was used to collect the soil samples. The soil from the shovel was then put into a 118
mL plastic Glad container until it reached the 40 mL mark. Afterward, 80 mL of distilled water
was poured into a container and applied into the container of soil. Subsequently, the Vernier
Potassium Ion-Selective Electrode (figure 5) was submerged into the mixture past the white dot,
and was stirred in the soil sample for 15 seconds (www.vernier.cz). When the numbers on the
Vernier Labquest 2 (figure 6) leveled out, the results were recorded in a data table
(www2.vernier.com). In each habitat, ten trials were conducted. All these steps were repeated
with all thirty of the soil samples from Boyce Field, Hemlock Forest, and Farmyard.
!


Figure 1: The Farmyard with chickens and sheep.

Figure 2: Boyce Field. It is split into many strips of land reserved for different crops.
!


Figure 3: Hemlock Forest. The forest is mostly uniform.


Figure 4: TI-Nspire CX graphing calculator`s random location generator.
!




Figure 5: The Vernier Potassium Ion-Selective Electrode. The probe was submerged into the soil
samples past the white dot.

Figure 6: The Vernier Labquest 2.
!

RESUL TS
Table I: The effect of human influence on potassium (mg/L) in soil
#$%&''()* +*,-./
0)*&1
2134)5165
78(&4 9 78(&4 : 78(&4 ; 78(&4 < 78(&4 = 78(&4 > 78(&4 ! 78(&4 ? 78(&4 @
78(&4
9A
BC58&,5
D%&1E&8E
F5C(&%($1
0(,G
+H$I65 J(54E/
:KA >KA ;KA 9KA :KA 9KA 9KA 9KA :KA =KA :K< 9K!
L5E()*
+J&8* M&8E/
=KA :KA ;KA :KA >KA 9AKA <KA !KA <KA <KA <K! :K;
.$N
+05*4$6O/
:KA 9KA 9KA 9KA :KA :KA 9KA 9KA :KA 9KA 9K< AK=

Graph I: The effect of human influence on potassium (mg/L) in soil

Graph I shows the effect of human influence on the potassium level in the soil. the average
potassium level for high human influence (Boyce Field) was 2.4 mg/L, the average potassium level for
medium human influence (Farmyard) was 4.7 mg/L, and the average potassium level for low human
influence (Hemlock) was 1.4 mg/L. Hemlock (low) was the most precise with a standard deviation of
0.5 and its error bars only overlapped with Boyce Iield`s (high) error bars. Farmyard (medium) was the
least precise with a standard deviation of 2.3 and had error bar overlap with Boyce field (high). Boyce
!

field was more precise than farmyard, but still not very precise with a standard deviation of 1.7. Boyce
Iield`s error bars overlapped with all oI the other error bars on the graph.
During the experiment unique aspects of each site were observed. At Boyce field the area was
split up into sections with different crops and soil types. At the farm yard the area varied. One part had
chickens in it, on part was along a fence with a variety of animals on the other side, and one part was
covered with dead leaves and had to trees. Hemlock forest was much more uniform, the soil was
covered with a layer of dead leaves and there were dense trees. Hemlock was also on a slope that lead
to Ice pond.
DISCUSSI ON
Nowadays, in order to Iit people`s living conditions and traditional society, humans have
interacted, and in the process, have altered the environment. Human life revolves around
agriculture and natural resources, and growing populations and higher standards of living has put
increasing pressure on the environment. Human activity can result in consequences that are hard
to reverse. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how to protect and sustain the environment. In
order to further understand the effects of human actions on the land, an experiment was
conducted focusing on the level of potassium, an essential element for soil and plant life. The
proposed hypothesis was: if the soil from Boyce Field is tested, then it will have the least amount
of potassium, because plants are harvested and the nutrients in the plants are not returned to the
soil to replenish the potassium (Morgan and Connolly, www.nature.com).This hypothesis was
not supported because the results were inconclusive and Boyce Field didn`t have the lowest
average.
As shown in graph 1, the error bars for Farmyard were the longest, and the results were
the least precise possibly because each sample was taken from a different section of the field,
and each part of the field was a different distance from the sheep and chickens. A pattern that
consistently occurred was that the samples taken near the animals had higher potassium, whereas
the soil that was collected farther away had clearly less potassium. When chickens eat pests,
weeds and other scraps that damage the richness of the soil, these scraps are digested and
converted into manure (Duncan, http://seattletilth.org). The manure adds organic matter and
supplies energy to organisms (like earthworms) that further decompose components in the soil
and improve soil quality (Duncan, http://seattletilth.org). In addition, the manure is a fertilizer
and overall, boosts the levels of essential elements like potassium and nitrogen (Duncan,
http://seattletilth.org). Other organic materials added to the Farmyard like straw bedding, wood
shavings, and spilled feed may also be consumed by the chickens, and this produces a high
concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the manure and urine (Lovejoy,
http://homeguides.sfgate.com). Animal fertilizers also loosen clay soils that are tightly bounded
together, making more room for air, moisture, and nutrients to enter. Additionally, it improves
drainage, and helps nutrients in the soil be retained for longer amounts of time
(http://web.extension.illinois.edu). Hence, the soil near the chickens and sheep had more
potassium.
Similarly to the Farmyard, the error bars for Boyce Field were relatively long, and the
results weren`t precise. This could be due to the Iact that each sample was taken from a different
strip of land that made up the field, and each portion is maintained for different crops. Many
sources and experiments conducted show that different crops have different levels of potassium
because the potassium absorbance time differs with each plant, vegetable, and fruit
(http://www.cropnutrition.com/).Therefore, the error bars overlapped because both the Farmyard
and Boyce Field`s environments varied throughout. Trial two, the highest level of potassium
!

recorded at Boyce Field (6.0 mg/L), was conducted near bright, tall green grass, which usually
has high potassium content because when the fields are mowed, the nutrients from the grass
clippings left to sit increases the amount of potassium (MacKintosh, www.snh.org.uk). Trial
four, the lowest level of potassium recorded at Boyce Field (1.0 mg/L), was conducted near a
strip of land with sandy loam soil. This soil texture doesn`t hold water and nutrients well, thus
resulting in the low potassium level (Thompson, http://homeguides.sfgate.com). Moreover,
potassium deficiencies are most likely found in sandier soils (Koenig, http://extension.usu.edu).
The results for Hemlock forest were the most precise because the whole forest was
mostly uniform. The only conclusion that could be drawn from the results overall was that the
Farmyard had conclusively more potassium than the Hemlock Forest. Based on these supporting
facts, a new hypothesis can be formed: If the soil from Hemlock Forest is tested, then it will have
less potassium than Farmyard, because there are many ways forests can suffer from nutrient
deficiencies; like frost damage, lack of weed control, drainage, and vermin damage
(http://www.teagasc.ie/). These factors are not fixed or prevented by human actions and there is
no additional fertilizer added because humans do not sustain this specific forest. The testing day
was conducted after the long winter season, so the Hemlock Forest was shielded in a layer of
dead leaves that prevented oxygen and sunlight from reaching the soil (Reynolds,
http://homeguides.sfgate.com). Since earthworms wither in sunlight, the forest floor was largely
inhabited by these organisms (www.learner.org). Earthworms are fairly detrimental to forests
because the leaf litter and duff layer is consumed by these creatures (http://www.magma.ca).
LeaI litter improves the soil`s ability to hold moisture, and adds nutrients, such as essential
elements like potassium to the soil (Bose, http://sundayfarmer.wordpress.com).
Some questions still unanswered are: if the samples were collected on the Boyce Field
itself, would the results have been any different? If the procedure was tested in a different
season, how would the results change? If humans tried to sustain the Hemlock Forest, how
would humans beneIit and harm the environment? There wasn`t enough data collected,
especially at Boyce Field and Farmyard, because for each section of the area, only one sample
was collected. Therefore, the confidence in the results is fairly low. If this experiment were
repeated, each patch of land should have multiple trials to eliminate any errors and outliers, and
as a result, make the outcome more credible and accurate. A few errors occurred while carrying
out the procedure. While gathering the soil at Boyce Field, it was originally planned that the soil
samples were going to be taken Irom the Iield itselI, but it couldn`t be accessed, so instead, it
was collected from around the field. ThereIore, the results didn`t entirely reIlect the soil at Boyce
Field. The first soil sample that got tested at Boyce Field sat in the distilled water for a longer
amount of time than the others because the procedure was still getting figured out.
There are many things that could be modified for this experiment to be improved. The
Iirst would be that the containers should have been taller, so it wouldn`t have to be tilted in order
for the white dots on the Vernier Potassium Probe to be below the surface. For future research of
this study, other nutrients in the soil could be tested and compared to human influence because
potassium is not the only element that plays a vital role in soil and plant life. Also, based on
these results, the biodiversity of the plants in each habitat could be tested to see the negative and
positive effects of humans on plant life.
AC KNOWL E GE MENTS (BEN ROSS)
Completing this project and paper was not something that I could have done by myself.
Throughout the whole process I received advice, information and ideas from many people. First I
want to thank my mom for helping me and encouraging me throughout the project. I would like
!"

to thank Martha, the naturalist who helped us in the farmyard area, answered our questions, gave
us background information, and allowed us to access the area. Mr. Rossiter, Mrs. Canaday, and
Mr. Sarzana for chaperoning us at Drumlin farm. I would like to thank Mrs. Schultheis who
helped edit the paper, helped with our equipment, organization of the trip to Drumlin farm, and
about anything else that you could think of. And lastly I would like to thank Michelle for being a
great partner throughout this whole project.

AC KNOWL EDGE MENTS (MI CHE L L E T ANG)
I would first like to thank my Knights of Science partner, Ben Ross for working
cooperatively with me, peer editing my work, and helping me through the process of it all. I also
want to thank Ms. Canaday, Mr. Sarzana, and Ms. Brenner, the naturalist at Farmyard, for
supervising and providing assistance during the Drumlin Farm collecting day. In addition, I
would like to say a special thanks to Ms. LaRocca for calibrating the Vernier Potassium Probe.
Lastly, I would like to say a huge thank you to my science teacher, Ms. Schultheis for guiding
me through the project, offering me help whenever I needed it, and giving me constructive
feedback on my work.





























!!

WORKS CI T ED (BEN ROSS)

AGRICULTURAL F ERTILIZERS: NITROGEN, POTASSIUM, AND PHOSPHORUS. N.p.:
Scifun.org, n.d. PDF.
Dye, James L. "Potassium (K)." Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition.
Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/472373/potassium-K/>.
"Growing Practices." Growing Practices. Mass Audubon Society, 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.massaudubon.org/get-outdoors/wildlife-sanctuaries/drumlin-
farm/farming/growing-practices>.
"HowStuffWorks "What Is Fertilizer and Why Do Plants Need It?"" HowStuffWorks. Discovery,
1 Apr. 2000. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
MacKintosh, Jane. "The Management of Unimproved Lowland Grassland for Nature
Conservation." The Management of Unimproved Lowland Grassland for Nature
Conservation. Snh.org, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. <http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-
line/advisorynotes/11/11.htm>.
Miller, Ron. The Elements: What You Really Need to Know. Minneapolis: Twenty First Century,
2006. Print.
Morgan, Jennifer B., and Erin L. Collony. "Plant-Soil Interactions: Nutrient Uptake."
Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/plant-soil-interactions-nutrient-
uptake-105289112>.
"Movement of Metals in the Soil of a Pitch Pine Forest." Elements. Yale, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.yale.edu/fes519b/pitchpine/elements.html#K>.
Penhallegon, Ross. NITROGEN--PHOSPHORUS--POTASSIUM VALUES OF
ORGANIC F ERTILIZERS . Eugene, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service,
May 2003. PDF.











!"

WORKS CI T ED (MI CHE L L E T ANG)

"Benefits and Uses." Composting for the Homeowner. University of Illinois Extension, n.d.
Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://web.extension.illinois.edu/homecompost/benefits.cfm>.

Bose, Hiren. "Importance of Leaf Litter." Sundayfarmer. N.p., 5 June 2012. Web. 02 May 2014.
<http://sundayfarmer.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/importance-of-leaf-litter/>.

Duncan, Judy. "Composting Chicken Manure." Seattle Tilth. WSU Cooperative Extension, Fall
2005. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://seattletilth.org/learn/resources-1/city-
chickens/compostingchickenmanure>.

"Forests Build Soil. Ours Is Losing It! What's Going On?" Earthworms Damage Forests.
Malcoun Field Club, Aug.-Sept. 2008. Web. 02 May 2014.
<http://www.magma.ca/~bambie/mfc/msa/worms.html>.

"Frequently Asked Questions About Earthworms." Earthworms. Journey North, n.d. Web. 02
May 2014. <http://www.learner.org/jnorth/search/WormNotes3.html>.

Ion Selective Electrodes Manual. Oregon: Vernier, 19 Oct. 2006. PDF.

Koenig, Rich, Mark Nelson, James Barnhill, and Dean Miner. FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT
FOR GRASS AND GRASS-LEGUME MIXTURES. Utah: Utah State University
Cooperative Extension, Aug. 2002. PDF.

LabQuest 2 User Manual. Oregon: Vernier, 8 Nov. 2013. PDF.

Lovejoy, Rachel. "What Does Manure Do to Soil?" SFGate. Home Guidesby Demand Media,
n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://homeguides.sfgate.com/manure-soil-70424.html>.

MacKintosh, Jane. "The Management of Unimproved Lowland Grassland for Nature
Conservation." The Management of Unimproved Lowland Grassland for Nature
Conservation. Snh.org, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. <http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-
line/advisorynotes/11/11.htm>.

Moore and McCabe (2006), Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Third edition, p. 219.


Nutrient Deficiencies in Forest Crops. Carlow, Ireland: Teagasc Agriculture and Food
Development Authority, July 2007. PDF.
!"


"Potassium." Crop Nutrition. Mosaic, n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
<http://www.cropnutrition.com/efu-potassium#in-plants>.

Reynolds, Laura. "What Happens If You Don't Rake Leaves?" Home Guides by Demand Media.
SFGate, n.d. Web. 02 May 2014. <http://homeguides.sfgate.com/happens-dont-rake-
leaves-75096.html>.

Siskin, Daisy. "Chickens and Gardens: A Perfect Match?" Horticulture- The Art & Science of
Smart Gardening. Smart Gardening ENewsletter, 26 June 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.hortmag.com/blogs/editors-blog/chickens-and-gardens>.

Thompson, Daniel. "Characteristics of Sandy Loam Soil." Home Guides by Demand Media.
SFGate, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://homeguides.sfgate.com/characteristics-sandy-
loam-soil-50765.html>.

Wilson, Mark V. "Simple Random Sampling in the Field." Field Methods in Vegetation Science.
Oregon State University, 2005. Web. 02 May 2014.
<http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/bot440/wilsomar/Content/SRS.htm>.













The Effect of
Distance on
Soil Acidity







Jay Symonds
Cooper Wolff
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section Author Page

Abstract Jay Symonds 2

Introduction Jay Symonds 2

Materials & Methods Jay Symonds 3

Results Cooper Wolff 6

Discussion Cooper Wolff 11

Acknowledgements Wolff & Symonds 12

Works Cited Cooper Wolff 13

Works Cited Jay Symonds 13


























"
ABSTRACT

Acidity can have a very big impact on an ecosystem. The objective of the experiment at
Drumlin Farm was to find out if the acidity of water can have an affect on the acidity of
the soil in or around it as the samples become farther and farther away. The procedure for
this experiment was; to first test the acidity of the water itself, and then test the acidity of
the soil as samples were taken from increasing distances. The information that was taken
down was then used to see if the soil acidity either increased or decreased due to the
acidity of the water. The results show that the soil samples had approximately the same
acidity and were primarily basic (alkaline).

INTRODUCTION

Acidity (pH) is represented in form of the hydrogen ion (H+). It is measured on the pH
scale, ranging from 0 to 14. A pH under 7 is acidic, while anything above 7 is alkaline
(basic). Many different factors can affect the pH of soil, for example: rain and pollutants
such as mine spoilings (http://en.wikipedia.org). The same factors apply to the pH of
water. In soil, crops usually do best when the acidity (pH) is or is about 7.0, which is
neutral (http://www.morningsun.net).

The experiment will take place at Drumlin Farm, a wildlife sanctuary in Lincoln,
Massachusetts. Within the overall farm, there are three different ponds that will be
visited: Poultry Pond, Bathtub Pond, and Ice Pond. Each pond has around the same
general surroundings, for example the soil around each is very muddy and wet. They also
consist of various types of plant life. Poultry Pond, however, has a layer of algae-like or
plant-like substances covering the pond itself, while Ice pond is surrounded by various
types of trees that are located all around the pond, with some that have fallen into it. Ice
Pond also has a covering of ice on its surface. Also, Bathtub Pond is more of a swamp
than a pond. It has a large amount of vegetation that grows in and around the pond, and
is covered with a thin layer of ice on half of its surface, similar to Ice Pond. One type of
plant that grows is Duckweed, which is a small, bud-like plant that does not have a stem
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnoideae). It is hard to maneuver due to the thick briars
around the pond and there is a small hill on the opposite side of where you enter.

The acidity of the water and soil has a great impact on animal and plant life in and around
the pond. For aquatic animals, if the water of the pond is too acidic, it can affect various
things. For example, if the acidity of the water reaches below 5, the unhealthy water can
cause fish to die (http://aqua-culture.blogspot.com). Also, vital nutrients that plants need
such as calcium and potassium are alkaline elements and they can be depleted and lost
with high acidity because the low pH transforms the elements into solid substances,
making it harder for the plant to absorb them (http://www.gardeningsingapore.org/).
There are also many factors that can play a role in the acidity (pH) of the water, with
some being natural and some being unnatural (man-made). For example, Poultry Pond is
located just a few feet away from a busy road. The excess runoff can impact the acidity
greatly of not only the water but the soil as well because the runoff could contain oil or
gas from passing cars and trucks. The runoff could then lead straight to the pond or seep
into the soil. In Ice Pond, one factor is the abundance of trees surrounding the pond. Each
"
tree has its own level of acidity, if some are right on the ponds edge, the trees roots will
grow in the water and affect the acidity of the water. For example, the Silver Maple
thrives in a wide range of mainly acidic soil (4-7.5 pH), which can indicate the type of
soil around the tree and it can have a slight effect on the soil p by making it more acidic.

The proposed experiment is the effect of distance from the ponds edge on the acidity of
the soil. The independent variable for this experiment is the distance from the pond and
the dependent variable is the acidity of the soil samples collected. The objective of this
experiment is to determine if acidity in soil increases or decreases as the distance from
the pond increases, which then can affect plant and animal life in and around the soil and
pond. The proposed hypothesis is: If soil pH samples are collected farther away from the
pond then they will have higher pH levels because of the average pH level of a natural
pond being generally more acidic due to runoff from the rain (acidic) and the runoff from
the water cycle (Skinner, The Blue Planet) as well the general pH levels of soil
surrounding a pond being more basic (7-9 pH) (depts.alverno.edu). At each pond, a
certain number of points will be randomized. Once the points are determined, samples of
the soil will be collected from those points. The acidity of the samples will be tested. All
of the testing will be within the increments (m) that are laid out.

This experiment shows how acidity can greatly affect an ecosystem, especially at
Drumlin Farm. The volunteers at the farm need to know how it affects different crops and
wildlife. They must know the dangers of acidity so that they can protect the various
species of plants and animals that live in the sanctuary. Once they gain a better
understanding of the topic, they can inform people who visit the farm about the
importance of keeping care of pollution, which affects acidity. As more people know
about the dangers of high pH levels, they can start to protect and save many different
crops and aquatic life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This experiment was conducted at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. The ponds
that were tested were Ice Pond, Bathtub Pond and Poultry Pond (see Figure 1: locations
#11, #12, #13). At each pond a distance of 3 meters was measured from the ponds edge
outward, using a meter stick and small flags were put into the ground to mark each meter.
Once this was done, a TI- Nspire CX calculator was used to randomize 10 different
points within each increment. After the points were found, samples of pond water were
tested with litmus paper (see Figure 3) and soil samples were taken from the set points
using a soil auger, filling approximately 2 inches of the auger. After all of the soil
samples were collected, they were put into the RapiTest Soil Test Kit to test and
determine the acidity of the soil.





"
How to use the RapiTest Soil Test Kit:

Once all of the samples were collected, take out the soil test kit. When the kit is out, take
off the green cap of the comparator (see Figure 2) and remove the package of capsules.
The soil samples were filled to the fill line. Get a capsule and hold it horizontally then
separate the two halves and pour powder into the test chamber. Using a dropper, add
distilled water to the waters fill line. Then once the comparator was filled, the green cap
was put back onto the top securely and the comparator was shaken. Shake for one minute
and let soil settle and color to develop. Then compare the color of sample to the color
indicator in the front of the comparator to determine the acidity of sample.


Figure 1: Numbered Map of Drumlin Farm used for finding each habitat within the Farm





"
Figure 2: pH RapiTest Soil Test Kit with comparator used for finding acidity of the
samples




Figure 3: Litmus Paper used to measure/test the acidity (pH) of water samples


"
RESULTS: TABLES AND GRAPHS
Table 1: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on acidity (pH) at Bathtub Pond

!"#$%&'(
*+,-
.,&/
0-1
2'"/"$3 0.41
5+"%6
7
5+"%6
8
5+"%6
9
5+"%6
:
5+"%6
;
5+"%6
<
5+"%6
=
5+"%6
>
5+"%6
?
5+"%6
7@
2A(+%B(
C$%&/%+/
!(A"%$",&
D%$(+ :E@@ :E@@ :E@@ :E;@ ;E@@ :E;@ :E@@ :E@@ :E;@ ;E@@ :E9; @E9?
C,"6
07-1
<E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ ;E;@ <E@@ ;E;@ <E7@ @E9=
C,"6
08-1
<E@@ <E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E8@ @E8:
C,"6
09-1
=E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ =E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E:@ @E9=

Table 2: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on acidity (pH) at Ice Pond

!"#$%&'(
*+,-
.,&/
0-1
2'"/"$3 0.41
5+"%6
7
5+"%6
8
5+"%6
9
5+"%6
:
5+"%6
;
5+"%6
<
5+"%6
=
5+"%6
>
5+"%6
?
5+"%6
7@
2A(+%B(
C$%&/%+/
!(A"%$",&
D%$(+ ;E@@ <E@@ ;E;@ ;E@@ <E@@ <E@@ ;E@@ ;E@@ ;E;@ ;E;@ ;E:; @E:8
C,"6
07-1
<E;@ <E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E9@ @E8<
C,"6
08-1
<E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E8@ @E8<
C,"6
09-1
<E;@ <E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ <E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ <E9@ @E8<

Table 3: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on acidity (pH) at Poultry Pond

!"#$%&'(
*+,-
.,&/
0-1
2'"/"$3 0.41
5+"%6
7
5+"%6
8
5+"%6
9
5+"%6
:
5+"%6
;
5+"%6
<
5+"%6
=
5+"%6
>
5+"%6
?
5+"%6
7@
2A(+%B(
C$%&/%+/
!(A"%$",&
D%$(+ ;E@@ :E@@ :E;@ <E@@ ;E@@ :E;@ :E;@ :E@@ ;E@@ :E@@ :E<; @E;?
C,"6
07-1
;E;@ <E;@ <E@@ <E;@ ;E;@ :E@@ :E;@ ;E@@ <E@@ <E;@ ;E<@ @E>9
C,"6
08-1
<E;@ ;E;@ :E@@ :E;@ ;E@@ <E@@ ;E;@ <E;@ <E@@ ;E@@ ;E:; @E=?
C,"6
09-1
<E@@ <E@@ <E;@ <E@@ ;E@@ <E@@ <E;@ ;E@@ <E@@ <E@@ ;E?@ @E:?

"
Table 4: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on average acidity (pH) at All
Ponds

!"#$%&'( *%$+$,- .'( /0,1$23 411 5 60&7#
8 9:5; ;:9; 9:<; 9:=>
? <:?8 <:58 ;:<8 <:88
> <:>8 <:>8 ;:9; ;:@;
5 <:98 <:58 ;:@8 <:>8




Graph 1: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on average acidity (pH)
Bathtub Pond












#$%&
'$&&
'$%&
%$&&
%$%&
($&&
($%&
"$&&
)*+,- ./01 2345 ./01 2645 ./01 2#45
!
"
#
$
#
%
&

(
)
*
+

,#-%./"0 1234 53/$ (4+
6.%7%89 53/$
"
Graph 2: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on average acidity (pH) at Ice
Pond




























#$%&
'$&&
'$%&
%$&&
%$%&
($&&
($%&
)$&&
*+,-. /012 3456 /012 3756 /012 3#56
!
"
#
!
$
!
%
&

(
)
*
+

,!-%./#0 1234 53/$ (4+
6#0 53/$
"
Graph 3: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on average acidity (pH) at
Poultry Pond

























#$%&
'$&&
'$%&
%$&&
%$%&
($&&
($%&
)$&&
*+,-. /012 3456 /012 3756 /012 3#56
!
"
#
$
#
%
&

(
)
*
+

,#-%./"0 1234 53/$ (4+
5367%2& 53/$
"#
Graph 4: The effect of distance away from pond (m) on average acidity (pH) at All
Ponds Combined



RESULTS: WRITTEN PARAGRAPHS
Graph 1 shows that the errors bars for the water didnt overlap with any of the soil
levels of the independent variable; however, all of the soil error bars did overlap. It
should be noted, that two of the trials caused the error bars to be slightly larger for soil
(3m) those trials having a pH of 7; these were the highest results overall. The lowest
results were found in the water and had a pH level of 4. This data set had medium degree
of precision. Bathtub pond had a lot of shrubbery and trees surrounding the pond with
minimal openings surrounding the pond.

Graph 2 represents the data that was collected at was Ice pond. Ice pond had the
smallest error bars, making it the most precise of the three ponds tested at. The only
unusual thing about this data set was the range in the water. The water pH ranged heavily,
but still had the smallest average by a large margin. The water pH was more acidic than
the other three levels of the independent variables. Unlike Bathtub pond, the soil
collected at (2m) had a smaller average then both (1m) and the soil at (3m) which both
averaged the same (6.3 pH). This pond had a thin layer of ice stretching throughout the
pond and the water was cold and brisk to touch.

$% & #'()"*+
$% & #'*,)""
$% & #'(*(-,
$% & #'("*#(
.'##
.'*#
+'##
+'*#
*'##
*'*#
/'##
/'*#
('##
# #'* " "'* ) )'* .
!
"
#
$
#
%
&

(
)
*
+

,#-%./"0 .1.& 2345 )4/$ (5+
!66 74/$- !803.90-
0123240
567
894:2;<
1:: . 89=>?
@5=71;
A0123240B
@5=71; A567B
@5=71;
A894:2;<B
""
The third and final pond that was tested was Poultry pond (Graph 3). Poultry pond
had the largest range of data and thus the largest errors bars by a noticeable amount (.49-
.83). This data set was the least precise and all of the error bars overlapped with the only
exception being water and soil (3m). The highest value of the averages was 5.90 for the
soil collected at (3m) while the lowest average was the average for water (4.65). This
pond was murky and the dirtiest of the three ponds.

Graph 4 represented the three ponds combined and their r
2
values. When
combined, the r
2
values of bathtub pond (.72) and poultry pond (.76) were higher then ice
pond (.59) making them more accurate representations of the data. The r
2
values of
poultry and bathtub ponds showed higher correlations between the independent variables
and the dependent variables.

DISCUSSION:

The objective of this experiment was to find out whether or not acidity increases
or decreases distance from edge of water. The hypothesis of this experiment was: If soil
pH samples are collected farther away from the pond then they will have higher pH
levels because of the average pH level of a natural pond being generally more acidic
due to runoff from the rain (acidic) and the runoff from the water cycle (Skinner,
#10) as well the general pH levels of soil surrounding a pond being more basic (7-
9pH) (depts.alverno.edu). This hypothesis was supported due to the strong correlation
of several ponds. However when all the data was added together, the error bars for water
pH did not overlap with any of the soil pH and was smaller than the rest of the
independent variables.

The r2 value of Bathtub pond was .71254; showing strong correlation and
accuracy in the variables. The r2 value of Poultry pond was .75789; also showing a
strong correlation and accuracy in the independent variables. The data that was collected
was generally precise due the shortness of error bars at each pond and the aggregate data
(strong trends) when all of the data was combined. The r2 value when all of the
independent variables were combined was .71507 showing a clear correlation between
the distance away from the pond and the acidity (pH). The data that was collected was
generally precise due to the shortness of error bars at each pond. The r2 value when all of
the independent variables were combined was: .71507, showing a clear correlation
between the independent variable and the dependent variable. Ice pond however was the
only pond that was consistently not precise. Ice pond had a standard deviation of (.59-
.83) which was much higher than the other two ponds and its data may have skewed the
rest of the averages. The r2 value of Ice pond was: .59211, which was much lower than
the other two ponds.

The hypothesis was supported because of the runoff from the water cycle making
pond water more acidic than the soil; dirt is generally more basic and how more acidic
runoff ends up getting into water causing it to be more acidic than the soil around it;
which is a mixture of soil and pond water mixed together (Skinner, The Blue Planet).
Another reason the hypothesis wasnt supported was because the soil pH levels
"#
overlapped causing the data to be inconclusive. This was because soil tends to be more
basic while the pond water tends to be more acidic causing the soil-water mixture that we
get near ponds to be more basic than the actual pond water itself
(http://www.gardeningsingapore.org/). That information couldve caused all of the soil
distances error bars to overlap, while the water variable didnt overlap with any of them
when combining all the data.

With 120 total trials collected, sufficient data was collected to perform this
experiment and make solid conclusions as to whether or not there was correlation with
distance of soil from a pond. This experiment could have been improved if the full pH
capsule was used at every location while collecting data; only half of the capsule was
used while collecting data at Bathtub pond, which was a major error in this experiment.
In order to avoid this error, it would have been important to read the instruction manual
thoroughly for the pH testing kit. Another way this experiment could have been
improved was to make a specific depth in which soil was collected at so it stayed
consistent throughout the experiment. This impacted the results because the soil pH could
have been varied deeper into the soil affecting the overall pH level of the soil. A way this
couldve been prevented wouldve been to read the instruction manual thoroughly for the
pH testing kit. Another idea for further research of this topic would be to test the pH
levels of different ponds in different habitats and see how each different habitat compares
to one another showing the environmental impact on acidity (pH).


Acknowledgments

We would like to thank many people for helping us with our experiment. We would like
to thank Ms. Jamison, Mr. Rossiter, Mr. Sarzana, Mr. Ewins, and Ms. Schultheis for
helping manage our habitats on the day of the experiment without you, this couldnt be
possible. We would also like to thank Carol and Catherine (our Drumlin farm naturalists)
on giving us the needed information. A huge thanks goes to the entire science department
for helping us every step along the way and organizing everything in the fantastic way
that they did, especially Ms. Svatek who helped Jay and I a ton along the way, without
you the experiment would not be where it is today. I would also like to thank my partner
Jay Symonds for putting in hard work on his parts of the KoS experiment and helping me
edit everything along the way as well as being a great partner Cooper

I would like to thank my partner Cooper for working extremely hard on our journal
article as well as being a great partner. Jay









"#
WORKS CITED

Jay Symonds

Encyclopedian Dictionary (Aquaculture). Mammuth, n.d. Web. <http://aqua-
culture.blogspot.com/2007/01/effects-of-high-and-low-ph-levels-in.html>.

"Singapore Gardening Society." Singapore Gardening Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar.
2014. <http://www.gardeningsingapore.org/>.

"Soil PH." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_pH>.

Skinner, Brian J. The Blue Planet (2nd Edition). Page 10-12 New York: Wiley, 1999.
Print.



Cooper Wolff

Encyclopedian Dictionary (Aquaculture). Mammuth, n.d. Web.
<http://aqua-culture.blogspot.com/2007/01/effects-of-high-and-low-ph-levels-in.html>.

"Singapore Gardening Society." Singapore Gardening Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar.
2014. <http://www.gardeningsingapore.org/>.

"Soil PH." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_pH>.

Skinner, Brian J. The Blue Planet (2nd Edition). Page 10-12 New York: Wiley, 1999.
Print.

Stites, Dean. "The Effect of Soil PH on Crop Yield." Morning Sun. Morning Sun, 30 Jan.
2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.morningsun.net/x286173897/The-effect-of-soil-
pH-on-crop-yield>.