Soil Quality Trends at the Edwin B.

Forsythe Wildlife Refuge: Cedar Bonnet Island

A0604
Abstract:
Cedar Bonnet Island is a sector of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge located
in New Jersey between Manahawkin and Long Beach Island. Formerly a dredge spoil disposal
location, a reconstruction project was recently enacted and completed on the island in order to
create a more suitable ecosystem for wildlife and reverse the damage of a nearby roadway.
However, the elevated salinity and acidity of the soils in the area needed to be reversed before any
re-vegetation could occur. To solve this conflict, clean soils were imported and piled on top of the
original contaminated soils in the area, allowing for the newly planted native vegetation to grow.
Multiple issues can potentially arise from this method of mitigation, including the contamination
of the new topsoil by the soil underneath. In this experiment, soil from various areas of Cedar
Bonnet Island was collected and tested for multiple chemical properties including soil conductivity
(μS), moisture potential (%), sand fractions (%), sulfate concentration (ppm), and iron
concentration (ppm). Then, values obtained were compared to data collected last year in order to
establish trends and to project the future of Cedar Bonnet Island if no actions are taken. Results
indicated a worsening or stableness of soil parameters between the two years suggesting that the
soil is not trending toward self-sufficiency and can potentially negatively impact the diverse flora
and fauna in the area.

Introduction:

Cedar Bonnet Island is a sector of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

located in New Jersey between Manahawkin and Long Beach Island (Miller 2018). In previous

years, portions of the island served as dredge spoil disposal areas, heavily degrading the wetland

habitat. Recently, extensive restoration projects have been enacted in order to alter Cedar Bonnet

Island into a more suitable ecosystem for wildlife. Beginning back in February 2015, this plan

involved the formation and mitigation of wetlands, creating nearly 20 acres of tidal salt marsh

(Miller 2018). Additionally, nature trails and overlook pavilions were constructed in order to

increase public access to the area for walks, wildlife observation, and photography (Perry 2017).

This plan appears beneficial superficially, however, some of the methods chosen to execute the

restoration may have led to more harm than good.

In order to successfully restore Cedar Bonnet Island, revegetating the area with native

plants became of utmost priority. However, one of the major concerns brought up during
reconstruction was soil remediation and whether the soils present were suitable for life

(“Restoration Making Progress” 2017). During the time that the island served as a dredge site,

the soils in the area gained a highly acidic content due to the contamination from the dredged

soils (“Restoration Making Progress” 2017). In order to construct new wetland space on Cedar

Bonnet Island, sediment was imported from a local landfill and was piled upland directly on top

of the original soils (Moore 2014). This method presents many issues that have been overlooked

considering the contaminated soils are still underneath the newly imported soils. Over time, the

elevated salt content and high acidity of the original soil spreads to the clean topsoil, causing

plant growth to halt since the plants are not able to obtain the nutrients necessary for growth.

Additionally, water retention can be affected in the contaminated soils, dehydrating the plants

present in the area. This not only impacts the native plant species but also other wildlife

inhabiting Cedar Bonnet Island.

Furthermore, taking into account sea level rise and the substantial rise in the water table

over the previous years, ions including sulfate and iron could be forced through the horizons of

the soil. This event could cause the contaminants in the dredged soils below to rapidly influence

the topsoils as the water table shifts further inland.

The experiment conducted involved testing the topsoil from Cedar Bonnet Island for

conductivity and multiple other contaminants in order to determine trends in the quality of the

soil. Data was collected and analyzed from multiple sites in order to conclude whether soil

contamination occurred from the high salinity bottom soil. These results could be utilized to

determine whether the soils are trending towards self-sufficiency, given the impending deadline

of the Cedar Bonnet Island restoration project.

Methodology:
Study Site:

On December 12, 2018, ten sites along three paths of Cedar Bonnet Island in

Manahawkin, New Jersey were visited to collect soil samples for laboratory testing. The sites

were visited at approximately 8:00 AM and the coordinates were as follows: 39°39'11.34"N

74°11'48.72"W (Site 1), 39°39'11.76"N 74°11'49.02"W (Site 2), 39°39'12.66"N 74°11'48.48"W

(Site 3), 39°39'13.26"N 74°11'48.12"W (Site 4), 39°39'13.32"N 74°11'48.48"W (Site 5),

39°39'17.40"N 74°11'46.32"W (Site 6), 39°39'17.10"N 74°11'42.78"W (Site 7), 39°39'14.88"N

74°11'37.44"W (Site 8), 39°39'11.76"N 74°11'36.66"W (Site 9), and 39°39'9.18"N

74°11'36.48"W (Site 10) (Figure 1). All laboratory testing of the samples was conducted at a

high school laboratory in Manahawkin New Jersey.

On November 19, 2019, five sites along four paths of Cedar Bonnet Island in

Manahawkin, New Jersey were visited to collect soil samples for laboratory testing. The sites

were visited at approximately 4:00 PM and the coordinates were as follows: 39°39'16.85"N

74°11'42.18"W (Site 1), 39°39'16.67"N 74°11'39.70"W (Site 2), 39°39'10.12"N 74°11'36.42"W

(Site 3), 39°39'13.36"N 74°11'44.20"W (Site 4), 39°39'13.21"N 74°11'48.41"W (Site 5) (Figure

2). All laboratory testing of the samples was conducted at a high school laboratory in

Manahawkin New Jersey.

Procedure:

Soil was collected from ten sites in 2018 along Cedar Bonnet Island at areas located at

varying distances from the water’s edge. Five sites were collected from this research season.

Four separate paths were utilized for sampling and soil was collected using sampling probes. A

Garmin GPS 72H coordinate device was utilized to record sample locations.
 Gravimetric analysis tests were run on all samples in order to determine the percent

composition of sand, silt, and clay of the soil collected at each sampling site. Using a suspension

method, 15 mL of volumetric soil sample was mixed with water and allowed to settle over

various periods of time. Sand settled out of the mixture in approximately 30 seconds, silt settled

in 30 minutes, and the remainder was assumed to be clay. Soils could then be categorized using

the Soil Texture Triangle.

Organic material percentage tests were completed to obtain the percentage of organics in

the soil. Crucibles were massed out and approximately 10g of soil was added to each. Over 24

hours, the organic material in the samples was allowed to burn off in a muffle furnace. Finally,

crucibles were re-massed and organic material percentages were determined.

Using the water mixture saved from the gravimetric tests, conductivity tests were

conducted using a YSI-30 multimeter. The soil mixtures were transferred into a graduated

cylinder and the meter’s probe was inserted into the sample. Three tests were conducted per

sample site.

Iron and sulfate concentrations were determined using a Smart 3 colorimeter and the

accompanying testing kits. The water mixture created for the conductivity tests was first run

through a vacuum filtrator to remove suspended soil particles. Tests procedures were then

followed using the remaining fluid sample to obtain chemical concentrations

Using a moisture-analyzing scale, water-retention of each soil sample was recorded by

measuring the samples’ moisture percentages. This test was done immediately preceding soil

collection to obtain accurate moisture readings. Using an OHAUS MB23 moisture analyzer, 10g

of soil was measured on the scale and the sample was left in the analyzer until a moisture
percentage was reached. The scale heated up to 120 °F until the soil’s moisture was completely

burned off.

Statistical Analysis:

For the 2018 data, an ANOVA single factor test was used to compare conductivity (μS),

soil composition percentages (%), and organic material percentages (%) among testing sites.

Regression tests were used to determine if a correlation was present between the organic material

percentages (%) and soil moisture percentages (%) values for the ten sites tested as well as the

sand composition (%) and organic content (%).

For the 2019 data, t-tests were used the compare conductivity (μS), soil sand fraction

(mL), and soil moisture potential between testing sessions. Regression tests were also utilized to

compare the aforementioned soil values to the distance from the water’s edge. Finally, sulfate

(ppm) and iron (ppm) concentrations were compared to conductivity (μS) using a regression test.

A 95% confidence interval was used for the regression tests. Descriptive statistics were

utilized to determine standard deviations amongst the average values obtained. An alpha of 0.05

or less was used to determine significance for all tests.

Results:

2018-2019 Study

Among the ten testing sites, soil conductivity results ranged from 89.5 μS to 1476 μS. At

Site 1, data ranged between 498 μS and 539 μS. At Site 2, data was between 177.8 μS and 185.3

μS. At Site 3, data ranged between 588 μS and 593 μS. At Site 4, data ranged between 89.5 μS

and 128.3 μS. At Site 5, data ranged between 109.9 μS and 122.3 μS. At Site 6, data ranged

between 167.3 μS and 206.3 μS. At Site 7, data ranged between 1356 μS and 1476 μS. At Site 8,

data ranged between 783 μS and 870 μS. At Site 9, data ranged between 142.7 μS and 195.3 μS.
At Site 10, data ranged between 108.4 μS and 123.1 μS (Table 1). An ANOVA single factor test

calculated p<0.001, indicating significance among the sampling sites (Figure 3).

Among the ten testing sites, soil composition results ranged from 60.00% to 100.00% for

sand fraction, 0.00% to 33.33% for silt fraction, and 0.00% to 28.33% for clay fraction. The

average for Site 1 designates the soil type as Sandy Loam, Site 2 as Sandy Clay Loam, Site 3 as

Sandy Loam, Site 4 as Sandy Clay Loam, Site 5 as Sandy Loam, Site 6 as Fine Sand, Site 7 as

Sandy Clay Loam, Site 8 as Sandy Loam, Site 9 as Sandy Loam, and Site 10 as Sandy Clay

Loam (Table 2). An ANOVA single factor test calculated p<0.001, indicating significance

among the sampling sites (Figure 4).

For soil organic material percentages, the overall data ranged from 0.99% to 5.39%

organic material in the soil. The percentages for Site 1 ranged from 2.89% to 3.54%. For Site 2,

the range was 3.98% to 4.47%. For Site 3, the range was from 3.74% to 4.03%. For Site 4, the

range was from 3.13% to 3.16%. For Site 5, the range was from 4.91% to 5.39%. For Site 6, the

range was from 0.99% to 1.22%. For Site 7, the range was from 2.84% to 3.14%. For Site 8, the

range was from 3.05% to 3.32%. For Site 9, the range was from 2.80% to 2.84%. From Site 10,

the range was from 2.50% to 2.63% (Table 3). An ANOVA single factor test calculated

p<0.001, indicating significance for sand composition among the sampling sites (Figure 5).

Finally, soil moisture potential data ranged from 0.2% to 0.7% overall. Site 1 moisture

potential was 0.6%, Site 2 was 0.6%, Site 3 was 0.7%, Site 4 was 0.5%, Site 6 was 0.2%, Site 7

was 0.4%, Site 8 was 0.4%, Site 9 was 0.4%, and Site 10 was 0.4% (Table 4).

Regarding the regression tests, a positive correlation was determined between soil

organic content (%) and soil moisture (%) and a negative correlation between soil organic
content (%) and sand composition (mL) (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The R values were 0.8214 and
2

0.4540 respectively. The significance F values obtained were equal to 0.0003 and 0.0327.

2019-2020 Study

For comparison means, Cedar Bonnet Island was divided into four separate paths

designated by distance from the Barnegat Bay (Figure 2). Sample sites from last season and this

season when then averaged together per sampling path to determine changed in parameters in

different areas over the past year.

Among the five testing sites, soil conductivity results ranged from 52.2 μS to 210.1 μS.

At Site 1, data ranged between 191.8 μS and 210.1 μS. At Site 2, data was between 71.2 μS and

83.5 μS. At Site 3, data ranged between 52.2 μS and 57.6 μS. At Site 4, data ranged between

71.0 μS and 139.1 μS. At Site 5, data ranged between 167.3 μS and 191.9 μS (Table 5). When

comparing the current data to last season, a t-test calculated p=0.0998, indicating no significance

among the sampling sites (Figure 8).

Among the five testing sites, soil composition results ranged from 80.00% to 93.33% for

sand fraction, 3.33% to 16.67% for silt fraction, and 0.00% to 13.33% for clay fraction. The

average for Site 1 designates the soil type as Sand, Site 2 as Sand, Site 3 as Loamy Sand, Site 4

as Sand, and Site 5 as Sand (Table 6). When comparing the current data to last season, a t-test

calculated p=0.0263, indicating significance among the sampling sites (Figure 9).

Soil moisture potential data ranged from 7.3% to 12.1% overall. Site 1 moisture potential

was 7.3%, Site 2 was 7.9%, Site 3 was 12.1%, Site 4 was 7.9%, and Site 5 was 9.3 (Table 7).

When comparing the current data to last season, a t-test calculated p=0.0096, indicating

significance among the sampling sites (Figure 10).

 Sulfate concentrations (ppm) ranged from <1 ppm to 21 ppm. For Site 1, values ranged

from 18 ppm to 21 ppm. At Site 2, data was between <1 ppm and 2 ppm. At Site 3, data ranged

between 4 ppm and 9 ppm. At Site 4, data ranged between 7 ppm and 9 ppm. At Site 5, data

ranged between 7 ppm and 9 ppm (Table 7).

Iron concentrations (ppm) ranged from <0.01 ppm to 0.15 ppm. For Site 1, values ranged

from 0.04 ppm to 0.14 ppm. At Site 2, data was between 0.05 ppm and 0.12 ppm. At Site 3, data

ranged between <0.01 ppm and 0.04 ppm. At Site 4, data ranged between <0.01 ppm and 0.02

ppm. At Site 5, data ranged between 0.05 ppm and 0.15 ppm (Table 8).

Regarding the regression tests, statistics were run comparing the data from 2018 and

2019 to the path’s distance from the water’s edge (Figures 11-13). The R values for the
2

conductivity (μS) data were 0.8449 and 0.9734 for each date respectively. The R values for the
2

sand fraction (mL) data were 0.2500 and 0.8807 for each date respectively. The R values for the
2

soil moisture (%) data were 0.1399 and 0.9552 for each date respectively. When comparing

sulfate (ppm) and iron (ppm) concentrations to conductivity (μS) from the November 19, 2019

testing date, slight correlations were observed with R values of 0.5739 and 0.3053 respectively
2

(Figure 14).

Discussion:

2018-2019 Study

The overall results of the study indicate salt contamination from the underneath dredged

soils as well as altogether poor soil quality at Cedar Bonnet Island. These issues could lead to

consequences regarding plant growth and the survival of the other wildlife inhabiting the area.
 When tested conductivity levels were compared to past soil conductivity, a substantial

increase in salinity over time was revealed. This increase shows that the current measures being

taken to ensure soil and plant health are not adequate and soils are only worsening with time

despite the restoration procedures taking place. This could be due to the topsoil mixing with the

dredged soil underneath. Additionally, with the rising sea levels due to climate change, increased

amounts of sea spray could be coating the soils with sea salts, thus raising the conductivity

(Palmer 2015). Some sample locations, such as site 6 and site 7, were observed to have a crusty

film covering the soil’s surface, which could be a result of sea spray salts.

A regression test was run between soil organic material content and soil moisture. An R 2

value of 0.8214 was calculated (Figure 6). Additionally, a regression test was run between soil

sand composition and organic material content (R =0.4540) (Figure 7). These indicate a positive
2

and negative correlation between the parameters, most likely due to increased soil porosity and

water infiltration with lower organics levels (Bot, 2005). However, the moisture potential of the

soil was also observed to be low overall (Table 4). This can cause dehydration in vegetation,

causing an increase in organic material as the plants wilt. Soil composition was observed to be

predominantly in the sandy loam to sandy clay loam range, as demonstrated by the Soil Texture

Triangle and fractions measured (Table 2). This can lead to low moisture potential in the soil

since sand particles are larger than silts and clays, increasing porosity in the soil (Ball, 2001).

For Cedar Bonnet Island itself, the poor soil quality could not only affect vegetation

growth, but also the survival of various migratory birds and terrapins that inhabit the area.

Additionally, with sea-level rise, the necessity for similar restoration projects may occur. The

negative impact of the Cedar Bonnet Island restoration project stresses the importance of

evaluating all potential outcomes before implementing anything similar.

2019-2020 Study

A comparison of soil collected in December 2018 to soil collected in November 2019

offers a unique insight into the adaptive cycle of Cedar Bonnet Island throughout the previously

implemented restoration project. To analyze the data, Cedar Bonnet Island was first partitioned

into four separate paths, the fourth path only being utilized for one sample and thus not being

included in this study. Data collected pertaining to soil conductivity (μS), soil sand fractions

(mL), and soil moisture potential was then averaged for each path and compared between the two

years in order to determine the extended impact of the restoration project on the environment.

Additionally, sulfate concentrations (ppm) and iron concentrations (ppm) were also measured

and compared to conductivity (μS) for the current research season to compare these numbers to

the vitality of the soil as a whole.

Conductivity was measured to be significantly high last year, the values topping at 1476

ppm. When a t-test was run between last year’s values and this year’s values, a p-value of 0.0998

was obtained, indicating no significance amongst the data (Figure 8). This means that the

conductivity of the soil has remained relatively constant over the past year. At the same time, soil

fractions have shifted to a higher fraction sand over silt and clay, contrasting the high

conductivity seen. This could be due to increase compaction of the soil as the topsoil settles,

decreasing pore space to allow impurities to leach out (Dejong-Hughes, 2018). Additionally,

with sea levels rising substantially over the past decades, the water table has also risen and can

potentially be pushing impurities from lower soil horizons up to the surface where plant root

systems grow (Bradford, 2020). With sea level rise also comes the increased coating of soils with

sea salts by sea spray. As the water rises, sea spray can travel farther inland and impact the

conductivity at the surface of the soil (Palmer 2015).

 Pertaining to soil fractions, higher portions of sand were seen over silts and clays. New

Jersey soils are known to consistently display two traits: it is very acidic and sandy (“State Soils:

New Jersey”, 2017). However, when a t-test was run between the measurements obtained this

season and last season, a p-value of 0.0263 was returned, indicating a significant difference

between the measurements (Figure 9). A possible reason for this increased soil porosity could be

due to the topsoil settling over time. Since New Jersey soils are sandy, introducing a new topsoil

to the area could lead to natural consequences as the environment adapts. All the silt and clay

previously in the topsoil could have mixed and infiltrated down through the soil horizons through

rainfall events and human intervention throughout the restoration project (Nimmo, 2005). While

the rising water table have pushed some impurities to the surface, high porosity at the A horizon

of the soil has also allowed greater infiltration of surface nutrients and plant matter. Over the last

year, the setting topsoil leads to increased compaction but also high ratios of sand dominating the

soil (Nimmo, 2005).

Soil moisture potential also experienced a sharp increase when compared between the

two years. When a t-test was run, a p-value of 0.0096 was produced, indicating significance

between the testing years (Figure 10). The trend in moisture potential can potentially be due to

an increased amount of plant matter and compaction of the topsoil. When Cedar Bonnet Island

was visited for sample collection over the previous two years, a high density of dead or dying

plants were observed in the area. The leaf matter and residual roots of these plants could be

trapping moisture in the soil, increasing soil moisture potential (Nimmo, 2005). Additionally, as

aforementioned, the weight of the new topsoil may be causing increasing compaction of the soil,

decreasing pore space between the sand particles and allowing more moisture to be captured

(Dejong-Hughes, 2018).
 When comparing the previous three parameters to the distance each Cedar Bonnet Island

path is from the Barnegat Bay, some correlations were observed for the 2018 and 2019 collection

dates. For conductivity, the R2 values obtained when comparing the values to the distance were

0.8449 and 0.9734 for each date respectively (Figure 11). However, the values were increasing

with distance for the 2018 date and decreasing for the 2019 date. This could be due to underlying

factors such as sea spray influences or ions leaching out of the soil at higher moisture areas. For

soil sand fractions the R values were 0.2500 and 0.8807 for each date respectively, each date
2

seeing a slight increase in sand fraction with distance from the water’s edge (Figure 12). This

could be due to higher erosion occurring by the increased tidal action and the more prevalent

impact of rising sea levels closer to the water (USDA, 2001). Finally, for soil moisture potential

the R values were 0.1399 and 0.9552 for each date respectively, both displaying a negative
2

correlation (Figure 13). The reason for this is paths 1 and 2 are situated closer to the water, and

thus experience a greater influence during tidal changes and water table fluctuations, inundating

the soil with more water.

Sulfates and iron are both chemical components in soil that can impact the overall

conductivity measurements in a particular area. Naturally occurring sulfur and sulfides in

wetland sediment are oxidized into sulfate by oxygen in the air. The sulfate on the surface of soil

is reduced by sulfate reducing bacteria to dimethylsulfoniopropionate, which is then converted to

volatile dimethyl sulfide (Zavarzin, 2008). Iron is also an important component of soil but is

mostly found in forms that cannot be taken up by plants. However, in small amount it is a

micronutrient that is essential for healthy plant growth. When both chemical components were

compared to conductivity from the November 2019 testing day, correlations were observed with

R2 values of 0.5739 and 0.3053 respectively (Figure 14). Conductivity is the measure of ion
concentration in a solution, so increased amounts of sulfates and iron in a soil sample can

contribute to these increased conductivity measurements.

The overall results of this study indicated either a consistency or decrease in some soil

quality parameters over the past year. The continuous monitoring of these soil parameters is

essential to not only the vegetative life in the area, but also to the survival of various migratory

birds and terrapins that inhabit the area. When sampling areas were compared to Northern

Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) nesting sites documented in 2018 and

2019 at Cedar Bonnet Island, the aforementioned trends in soil parameters were seen in their

primary nesting areas. Diamondback terrapins tend to nest in sandier areas, but high conductivity

and lower overall moisture in the soil can affect the development of a hatchling terrapin

(“Northern Diamondback Terrapin,” 2020). Additionally, alterations in soil composition can

affect the heat retention of the soil. Terrapin sex is dependent on the temperature of the soil

around it, so any fluctuation in soil temperature can be detrimental to the survival or terrapin in

the habitat. All in all, more needs to be done to revitalize the soil at Cedar Bonnet Island given

the beauty of the wildlife area and its importance to a plethora of diverse species.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the soil quality at Cedar Bonnet Island is assessed to be trending in an

undesirable direction as conductivity remains consistent to high values in the past. Additionally,

the soil’s sand composition has only become sandier as silts and clays infiltrated through the soil

horizons. Soil compaction is also observed to be increased compared to last season, as seen by

the increased soil moisture potential. If the soil at Cedar Bonnet Island is left to be self-sufficient

after the conclusion of the project, the island will digress into the degraded state it was

previously in. Given the area’s importance to species such as the Northern Diamondback
Terrapin, it is overwhelmingly important that actions are taken to ensure the health or the soil at

Cedar Bonnet Island.

Acknowledgments:

I would like to thank my advisor for his unwavering patience and guidance as I

completed this research project. Over the four years that I have studied soil properties, my

advisor has been instrumental in helping me gain an understanding of environmental science and

absorb the impact of the projects I have undertaken. I would also like to thank my school for

supplying the scientific tools necessary to complete this project.

Table 1: The soil conductivity (μS) values obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on December 12,
2018. The data obtained ranged from 89.5 μS to 1476.0 μS overall among the ten
sampling locations.
Site Trial 1 (μS) Trial 2 Trial 3 (μS) Average
(μS)
1 498.0 539.0 538.0 525.0±23.4
2 185.3 177.8 182.2 181.8±3.8
3 588.0 592.0 593.0 591.0±2.7
4 89.5 128.3 127.8 115.2±22.3
5 109.9 115.3 122.3 115.8±6.2
6 167.3 205.6 206.3 193.1±22.3
7 1476.0 1388.0 1356.0 1406.7±62.1
8 870.0 815.0 783.0 822.7±44.0
9 165.5 142.7 195.3 167.8±26.4
10 108.4 122.2 123.1 117.9±8.2
Table 2: The soil composition (%) values obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on December 12,
2018. The data obtained categorized the samples as Sandy Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, and Fine
Sand on average among the ten sampling locations.

Site Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Classification

1 66.67 33.33 0 Sandy Loam
63.33 33.33 3.33 Sandy Loam
66.67 33.33 0 Sandy Loam
2 66.67 10.00 23.33 Sandy Clay Loam
66.67 13.33 20.00 Sandy Clay Loam
80.00 10.00 16.67 Sandy Loam
3 63.33 33.33 3.33 Sandy Loam
66.67 33.33 0 Sandy Loam
66.67 26.67 6.67 Sandy Loam
4 66.67 13.33 20.00 Sandy Clay Loam
66.67 6.67 26.67 Sandy Clay Loam
60.00 10.00 30.00 Sandy Clay Loam
5 66.67 33.33 0 Sandy Loam
60.00 33.33 6.67 Sandy Loam
66.67 26.67 6.67 Sandy Loam
6 93.33 5.00 1.67 Fine Sand
86.67 10.00 3.33 Fine Sand
100.00 0 0 Fine Sand
7 66.67 8.33 25.00 Sandy Clay Loam
63.33 8.33 28.33 Sandy Clay Loam
63.33 8.33 28.33 Sandy Clay Loam
8 70.00 10.00 13.33 Sandy Loam
73.33 10.00 10.00 Sandy Loam
70.00 10.00 13.33 Sandy Loam
9 73.33 25.00 1.67 Loamy Fine Sand
66.67 20.00 13.33 Sandy Loam
66.67 16.67 16.67 Sandy Loam
10 66.67 13.33 20.00 Sandy Clay Loam
66.67 20.00 13.33 Sandy Loam
63.33 13.33 23.33 Sandy Clay Loam
Table 3: The soil organic material contents (%) obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on
December 12, 2018. The data obtained ranged from 0.99% to 5.39% organic material among
the ten sites overall.

Site Crucible Mass of Mass After % Average

Mass (g) Soil (g) Test (g) Organics
1 11.741 10.000 9.681 3.19 3.21±0.33
12.506 10.000 9.711 2.89
12.421 10.000 9.646 3.54
2 12.73 9.999 9.552 4.47 4.18±0.26
11.631 10.000 9.602 3.98
12.163 9.999 9.591 4.08
3 13.604 9.999 9.596 4.03 3.90±0.15
11.544 10.000 9.626 3.74
11.988 10.000 9.607 3.93
4 14.592 10.000 9.687 3.13 3.15±0.02
13.673 10.001 9.685 3.16
11.927 10.000 9.685 3.15
5 11.869 10.000 9.482 5.18 5.16±0.24
11.198 10.000 9.509 4.91
12.786 9.999 9.460 5.39
6 11.628 10.000 9.901 0.99 1.10±0.12
12.418 10.000 9.892 1.08
12.510 9.999 9.877 1.22
7 14.769 10.000 9.716 2.84 2.98±0.15
13.464 10.001 9.687 3.14
10.987 10.001 9.704 2.97
8 12.726 10.000 9.695 3.05 3.14±0.15
12.475 10.000 9.694 3.06
15.655 10.001 9.669 3.32
9 14.776 10.000 9.719 2.81 2.82±0.02
13.467 10.000 9.716 2.84
12.740 10.000 9.720 2.80
10 12.731 9.999 9.749 2.50 2.55±0.07
12.475 10.000 9.748 2.52
15.661 10.000 9.737 2.63
 Table 4: The soil moisture potential (%) obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on December 12,
2018. The data obtained ranged from 0.2% to 0.7% among the ten sampling locations.

Site Soil Moisture (%)

1 0.6
2 0.6
3 0.7
4 0.5
5 0.7
6 0.2
7 0.4
8 0.4
9 0.4
10 0.4

Table 5: The soil conductivity (μS) values obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on November
19, 2019. The data obtained ranged from 52.2 μS to 230.6 μS overall among the five
sampling locations.

Trial 1 Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial

Site Average
(μS) 2 (μS) 3 (μS) 4 (μS) 5 (μS) 6 (μS)
1 210.1 219.1 230.6 192.7 191.8 192.5 206.1±16.5

2 72.8 71.2 75.8 82.5 83.5 77.1 77.2±5.0

3 57.6 54.8 56.7 52.2 55.5 56.2 55.5±1.9

4 133.3 138.2 139.1 71.8 71.4 71.0 104.1±35.9

5 191.9 202.5 208.6 168.5 171.6 167.3 185.1±18.3

Table 6: The soil composition (%) values obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on November 19,
2019. The data obtained categorized the samples as Sandy Loam, Loamy Sand, and Sand on
average among the five sampling locations.

Site Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Classification

1 93.33 6.67 0 Sand
93.33 6.67 0 Sand
80.00 13.33 6.67 Loamy Sand
2 80.00 6.67 13.33 Sandy Loam
86.67 10.00 3.33 Sand
86.67 10.00 3.33 Sand
3 80.00 16.67 3.33 Loamy Sand
80.00 16.67 3.33 Loamy Sand
93.33 6.67 0 Sand
4 93.33 3.33 3.33 Sand
93.33 6.67 0 Sand
93.33 6.67 0 Sand
5 86.67 13.33 0 Sand
83.33 16.67 0 Loamy Sand
86.67 13.33 0 Sand

Table 7: The soil moisture potential (%) obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on November 19,
2019. The data obtained ranged from 7.3% to 12.1% among the five sampling locations.

Site Soil Moisture (%)

1 7.3
2 7.9
3 12.1
4 7.9
5 9.3
Table 8: The sulfate concentrations (ppm) obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on November 19,
2019. The data obtained ranged from <1 ppm to 21 ppm among the five sampling
locations.
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Site Average
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1 21 19 18 19±2
2 2 2 <1 1±1
3 8 4 9 7±3
4 7 8 9 8±1
5 9 8 7 8±1

Table 9: The iron concentrations (ppm) obtained at Cedar Bonnet Island on November 19,
2019. The data obtained ranged from <0.01 ppm to 0.15 ppm among the five sampling
locations.
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Site Average
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.08±0.06
2 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.08±0.04
3 0.04 0.02 <0.01 0.02±0.02
4 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01±0.01
5 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.08±0.06
Figure 1: On December 12, 2018, Cedar Bonnet Island in Manahawkin, New Jersey was
visited to collect soil samples. Ten sampling sites were utilized to collect soil samples at and
most testing was completed at the school’s laboratory.

Figure 2: On November 19, 2019, Cedar Bonnet Island in Manahawkin, New Jersey was
visited to collect soil samples. Five sampling sites were utilized to collect soil samples at and
most testing was completed at the school’s laboratory.
 Mean Soil Conductivity (μS) at Cedar
Bonnet Island p<0.001
1600
1400
Conductivity (μS)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CBI Site

Figure 3: Mean soil conductivity (μS) readings (n=30) obtained from Cedar Bonnet
Island soil on December 12, 2018. An ANOVA test showed p<0.001, indicating
significance between the mean soil conductivity (μS) value at each site (=0.05).
Five-percent error bars were utilized to display significance.

Mean Sand Composition (mL) at Cedar Bonnet

Island p<0.001
16
14
Sand Composition (mL)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CBI Site

Figure 4: Mean soil sand composition (%) (n=30) obtained from Cedar Bonnet
Island soil on December 12, 2018. An ANOVA test showed p<0.001, indicating
significance between the mean soil sand composition (%) value at each site
(=0.05). Five-percent error bars were utilized to display significance.
 Mean Soil Organic Material Contents (%)
at Cedar Bonnet Island p<0.001
Percentage Organic Material (%) 6

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CBI Site

Figure 5: Mean soil organic material content (%) (n=30) obtained from Cedar
Bonnet Island soil on December 12, 2018. An ANOVA test showed p<0.001,
indicating significance between the mean soil organic material content (%) at each
site (=0.05). Five-percent error bars were utilized to display significance.

Organic Material Content (%) vs. Soil

Moisture (%) at Cedar Bonnet Island
0.8
Mean Soil Moisture Percentage

0.7
0.6
0.5 y = 0.1349x + 0.0558
R² = 0.8214
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean Organic Material Percentage

Figure 6: Comparison of organic material percentage (%) and soil moisture (%) on
December 12, 2018 at ten sites at Cedar Bonnet Island. When a regression test was
run with 95% confidence interval, an R2 value of 0.8214 was obtained. This
indicates a positive correlation is present between the parameters. A significance f
value of less than 0.0003 was also calculated.
 Mean Sand Composition (mL) vs. Mean
Organic Content (%) at Cedar Bonnet
y = -0.5469x + 8.9147
Island R² = 0.454
6
Organic Content (%)

5
4
3
2
1
0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Soil Composition (mL)

Figure 7: Comparison of soil composition (mL) and organic material percentage

(%) on December 12, 2018 at ten sites at Cedar Bonnet Island. When a regression
test was run with 95% confidence interval, an R2 value of 0.4540 was obtained. This
indicates a negative correlation is present between the parameters. A significance f
value of less than 0.0327 was also calculated.

p=0.0998

Figure 8: Mean soil conductivity (μS) readings (n=6) obtained from Cedar Bonnet
Island soil. A t-test showed p=0.0998, indicating no significance between the mean
soil conductivity (μS) value for each testing day (=0.05). Five-percent error bars
were utilized to display significance.
 p=0.0263

Figure 9: Mean soil sand fraction (mL) readings (n=6) obtained from Cedar Bonnet
Island soil. A t-test showed p=0.0263, indicating significance between the mean soil
conductivity (μS) value for each testing day (=0.05). Five-percent error bars were
utilized to display significance.

p=0.0096

Figure 10: Mean soil moisture potential (%) readings (n=6) obtained from Cedar
Bonnet Island soil. A t-test showed p=0.0096, indicating significance between the
mean soil conductivity (μS) value for each testing day (=0.05). Five-percent error
bars were utilized to display significance.
Figure 11: Comparison of soil conductivity (μS) readings and path number at Cedar
Bonnet Island. Each increasing path number is father from the water’s edge. When
a regression test was run with 95% confidence interval, an R2 values of 0.8449 and
0.9734 was obtained. This indicates a positive correlation is present for the first day
and a negative correlation is present for the second day.

Figure 12: Comparison of soil sand fraction (mL) measurements and path number
at Cedar Bonnet Island. Each increasing path number is father from the water’s
edge. When a regression test was run with 95% confidence interval, an R2 values of
0.2500 and 0.8807 was obtained. This indicates a positive correlation is present for
each day soil samples were collected.
Figure 13: Comparison of soil moisture potential (%) and path number at Cedar
Bonnet Island. Each increasing path number is father from the water’s edge. When
a regression test was run with 95% confidence interval, an R2 values of 0.1399 and
0.9552 was obtained. This indicates a negative correlation is present for each day
soil samples were collected.

Conductivity (μS) Compared to Chemical

Concentrations (ppm) at Cedar Bonnet Island,
Manahawkin on November 19, 2019
20

15 R² = 0.5613

10

5
R² = 0.3682
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Conductivity (μS)

Sulfates (ppm) Iron (ppm)

Figure 14: Comparison of conductivity (μS), sulfates concentration (ppm) and iron
concentration (ppm) on November 19,2019 at five sites at Cedar Bonnet Island.
When a regression test was run with 95% confidence interval, R2 values of 0.5613
and 0.3682 were obtained. This indicates a positive correlation is present between
the parameters.
References:

About Poplar Island. (2017). Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

http://www.poplarislandrestoration.com/Home/About

Ball, J. (2001, September 1). Soil and Water Relationships. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

https://www.noble.org/news/publications/ag-news-and-views/2001/september/soil-and-

water-relationships/

Bot, A., & Benites, J. (2005). The importance of soil organic matter. Retrieved May 14, 2019,

from http://www.fao.org/3/a0100e/a0100e08.htm

Bradford, N. (2020). Groundwater and the Rising Seas. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from

https://www.neefusa.org/nature/water/groundwater-and-rising-seas

Draft Environmental Assessment Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. (2014, June).

Retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5

/NWRS/North_Zone/Edwin_B_Forsythe/CBIDraftEnvironmentalAssessment_%20

060614_Package.pdf

DeJong-Hughes, J. (2018). Soil compaction. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from

https://extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil-compaction

Miller, P. A. (2018, June 28). Forsythe Refuge Trail On Cedar Bonnet Island Is Now Open.

Retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://patch.com/new-jersey/barnegat-

manahawkin/forsythe-refuge-trail-cedar-bonnet-island-now-open

Moore, K. (2014, June 21). Island restoration to make ecotourism destination. Retrieved

May 14, 2019, from https://www.app.com/story/news/local/southern-ocean-

county/2014/06/20/barnegat-bay-cedar-bonnet-island-stafford/11197957/

Nimmo, J. (2005). Porosity And Pore-Size Distribution. Encyclopedia of Soils in the

 Environment, 295–303. doi: 10.1016/b0-12-348530-4/00404-5

Northern Diamondback Terrapin. (2020). Retrieved March 18, 2020, from

http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/Malaclemys terrapin terrapin/

Palmer, B. (2015, May 21). The Science of Sea Spray. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/science-sea-spray

Perry, R. (2017, April 19). Cedar Bonnet Island plans to be discussed. Retrieved May 14,

2019, from https://www.app.com/story/news/local/southern-ocean-

county/2017/04/19/cedar-bonnet-island-plans-discussed/100644980/

Restoration Making Progress on Cedar Bonnet Island. (2017). Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

https://barnegatlighttaxpayer.org/restoration-making-progress-on-cedar-bonnet-island/

Soil Electrical Conductivity [PDF]. (2018). United States Department of Agriculture.

State Soils: New Jersey. (2017, January 10). Retrieved March 17, 2020, from

https://soilsmatter.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/state-soils-new-jersey/
Appendix of Data

Figure 15: The location of Cedar Bonnet Island relative to the surrounding area.

Figure 16: The location of Cedar Bonnet Island within the state of New Jersey.
a b

Figure 17: Northern Diamondback Terrapin nesting locations (red) in comparison to soil collection
sites (blue) on (a) December 12, 2018 and (b) November 19, 2019

Figure 18: A Soil Texture Triangle demonstrating the fraction composition of sand,
silt, and clay in the Cedar Bonnet Island sample collected on December 12, 2018.
Results measured showed that soils at all ten sites were predominately composed of
sand, ranging in the Fine Sand, Loamy Sand, Sandy Loam, and Sandy Clay Loam
triangle designations.
Figure 19: A Soil Texture Triangle demonstrating the fraction composition of sand,
silt, and clay in the Cedar Bonnet Island sample collected on November 19, 2019.
Results measured showed that soils at all five sites were predominately composed
of sand, ranging in the Sand, Loamy Sand, and Sandy Loam triangle designations.