Perono 1

Cedar Bonnet Island: Soil Quality Analysis

“Analysis of Soil Conductivity, Iron Content, and Sulfate Content at Edwin B. Forsythe
Wildlife Refuge: Cedar Bonnet Island”

Report prepared for the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge &
NJ Fish and Wildlife Services

Author: Adrian Perono

Supervisors: Dr. John Wnek and Dr. Amy Williams
Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science
195 Cedar Bridge Road, Manahawkin, NJ 08050

Submission: November 7, 2023

Correspondence:
adrian.perono@ocvts.org
 Perono 2

Introduction
Edwin B. Forsythe Wildlife Refuge - Cedar Bonnet Island (EBFWR-CBI) provides
habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. Dredged material has been used on EBFWR-CBI
in coastal restoration efforts. This has changed the soil quality in the area. Soil conductivity
measures the ability of soil to carry electrical current, and is an important indicator of soil health
(Soil Quality Indicators, 2011). Iron content is important in soil because it dictates the
distribution of plant species in natural ecosystems and limits yield and nutritional quality of
crops (Schmidt, 2020). Sulfate is important in the metabolism of salt marshes and subtidal,
coastal marine sediments because of its role as an electron acceptor, carrier, and donor (Howarth,
1984). Overall, it is crucial to monitor the biogeochemical properties of soil at EBFWR-CBI to
monitor the effects of dredge material. In this study, twelve sites at Cedar Bonnet Island were
sampled for soil conductivity, soil moisture, iron content, and sulfate content. These soil
properties were analyzed for correlation and by location to analyze and predict trends.

Summary
The focus of this study is to evaluate the soil composition of various sites within the
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Cedar Bonnet Island with a focus on the soil
conductivity (μS), sulfate content (ppm), and iron content (ppm). Overall, 12 sites were analyzed
by the Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science’s Advanced Oceanographic
Research Class. Using information from samples gathered on Cedar Bonnet Island in
2023, data were analyzed about the relative health of the soil within the refuge.

Study Sites
Soil analysis was conducted at twelve sites at the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge Cedar Bonnet Island on September 28, 2023 (Figure 1). At each location, GPS
coordinates were recorded using a Garmin GPS 73 Handheld Navigator. From each location, a
sample was collected using a 30 cm soil corer and placed into a plastic storage bag for further
analysis.
 Perono 3

Figure 1: Twelve testing sites analyzed on September 28, 2023 at the Edwin B. Forsythe
Wildlife Refuge – Cedar Bonnet Island along the east trail walkway. (map by Adrian Perono)

Soil Parameters, Results and Analysis:

Soil Conductivity:
For each of the twelve sites, soil conductivity (μS) was determined using a YSI
multimeter. The sites with the highest conductivity were Sites 5, 12, and 13, while the sites with
the lowest conductivity were Sites 3 and 9 (Table 1). Sites 3 and 9 are farther from the Barnegat
Bay than Sites 5, 12, and 13 (Figure 2). Overall, the sites that had the highest conductivity were
also the closest in proximity to the Barnegat Bay. The Barnegat Bay could be the reason for the
increased conductivity because as soil hydration increases, conductivity increases. Additionally,
it is possible that since those areas are closer to the Barnegat Bay, the brackish water could have
risen by capillarity and increased salt concentration. This would cause an increase in
conductivity in the soil surface layers. (Soil Quality Indicators, 2011).
 Perono 4

Table 2: Soil conductivity (μS), mean iron content (n = 3) (ppm), and mean sulfate content (n = 3) (ppm) for all
12 sites collected on September 28, 2023.

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Conductivity (μS) 51.2 21.0 18.6 29.7 270 65.3 29.4 43.1 19.0 37.5 73.4 196

Mean Iron (ppm) 3.433 0.343 1.905 4.990 2.150 0.287 1.120 0.193 0.610 4.170 5.945 3.060

Mean Sulfates 1.33 4.667 11.00 10.66 23.33 6.667 4.500 2.333 9.667 0.000 35.00 19.33
(ppm) 3 0 7 3 0 3

Figure 2: Sites with the highest conductivity and lowest conductivity and their approximate
distance from the Barnegat Bay at the Edwin B. Forsythe Wildlife Refuge – Cedar Bonnet
Island. (map by Adrian Perono)
 Perono 5

Sulfate Content:
Sulfate content (ppm) was determined using a LaMotte SMART® 3 Colorimeter -
Barium Chloride Method. Three trials were conducted for each site. To prepare the samples for
this process, two parts soil and one-part distilled water were measured into a 100 mL graduated
cylinder and were mixed until homogenous. Each mixture was then run through a vacuum
filtration system until there was no visible debris. Sulfate content ranged from 0 ppm to 35 ppm
(Table 1; Figure 3). A regression analysis was performed between the mean sulfate content and
soil conductivity. It calculated an R2 0.311 indicating a weak correlation between the data. There
is a weak correlation between the mean sulfate contents and soil conductivity. This is due to the
fact that the concentration of ions determines the conductivity of soils. Sulfate is only one of
many ions that affects soil conductivity, which explains the weak correlation (Soil Electrical
Conductivity, 2023).

Figure 3: Comparison of conductivity (μS) and mean sulfate content (n = 36) (ppm), obtained
from all 12 sites. A linear regression test with a 95% confidence interval yields an R2 value of
0.311, indicating a weak correlation (graph by Adrian Perono).
 Perono 6

Iron Content:
For each of the twelve sites, iron content (ppm) was determined using a LaMotte
SMART® 3 Colorimeter - Iron Bipyridyl Method. Three trials were conducted for each site. To
prepare the samples for this process, two parts soil and one-part distilled water were measured
into a 100 mL graduated cylinder and were mixed until homogenous. Each mixture was then run
through a vacuum filtration system until there was no visible debris. The mean iron content
ranged from 0.193 ppm to 5.945 ppm (Table 1; Figure 4). A linear regression test with a 95%
confidence interval yields an R2 value of 0.003, indicating a very weak correlation. Iron is one of
many contributing cations that affects soil conductivity. This can explain the very weak
correlation.

Figure 4: Comparison of conductivity (μS) and mean iron sulfate content (n = 3) (ppm),
obtained from all 12 sites. A linear regression test with a 95% confidence interval yields an R2
value of 0.003, indicating a very weak correlation (graph by Adrian Perono).
 Perono 7

Conclusion:
Overall, the parameters of compaction, iron, and moisture are all interconnected when it
comes to soil quality. These parameters are important factors in maintaining ecosystems such as
the EBFWR-CBI. Ultimately, habitat conservation and the continual monitoring of various soil
quality parameters will ensure soil is of quality for proper terrapin life and nesting.

1. Soil Maintenance: Adding organic matter, such as manure and compost helps to maintain soil
conductivity and iron levels.
2. Continued Data Collection: Continued research and data collection at EBFWR-CBI is
imperative. By tracking changes in soil and water quality parameters, decisions are able
to be made regarding soil quality.
 Perono 8

References

Howarth, R. W. (1984). The ecological significance of sulfur in the energy dynamics of salt
marsh and coastal marine sediments. Biogeochemistry, 1(1), 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02181118
Schmidt. (2020, January 10). Editorial: Iron Nutrition and Interactions in Plants.
Frontiersin.org. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01670/full
Soil Electrical Conductivity. (2023). South Dakota Soil Health Coalition.
https://www.sdsoilhealthcoalition.org/technical-resources/chemical-properties/soil-electri
cal-conductivity/
Soil Quality Indicators. (2011). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Soil%20Electrical%20Conductivity
.pdf