Site #6 Round 2

My group and I went to visit site 6 once again. After witnessing limited organisms during our last encounter, we were determined to find more life. We set out to our site, just a leisurely walk away from Mac House. The stings of poison ivy were futile. We were utterly determined to persevere and acquire data despite having one less data collection day due to horrific weather.

Objective:

Our objective as a group was to determine whether this pond is healthy or not by comparing data to that of previous testings of the pond.


Materials used for data collection:

- Labquest temperature reader: used to measure temperature of air and water
- Labquest pH visual reader: used to measure pH levels in water
- Lamotte pH WW test sheet
- Lamotte turbidity test kit: used to measure turbidity levels in water
- Nitrogen color comparison chart: used to measure nitrogen levels in water
- Lamotte phosphate visual testing kit: used to determine phosphate levels in water
- Dissolved oxygen testing: used to measure dissolved oxygen levels in water
- Plastic net
- Plastic tub
- Camera
- Identification packet for macro-invertebrates
- Plastic pipets
- Plastic spoon


Method:

1. Test pH - put pH indicator tablet in a vial of extracted stream water. Determine pH of water by comparing results to Labquest pH visual reader
2. Test phosphate levels - put phosphate indicator tablet in a vial of extracted stream water. Determine phosphate levels of water by comparing results to Lamotte phosphate visual testing kit
3. Test turbidity - observe extracted stream water by following instructions from the Lamotte turbidity kit
5. Deposit all contaminated water in a nearby pile of dead leaves away from the stream.
4. Find organisms - use kick-netting method and place net further downstream. Carry organisms over to your filled plastic tub and place wildlife there for study.

Results:

pH:     6 - 7
Phosphate levels:     0 - 1
Turbidity:     0 - 20 JTU
Organisms found over entire duration of all observations:     Rat tailed maggot, tadpoles
Abiotic data:     Sand, silt, rocks, rotting logs, a single softball, dead leaves


Site #6, Round 2

It was cold as usual, the air temperature at 9.9 º celsius. The air was completely still. Though the area was not nearly as wet as our last visit, it was still slightly damp and the humidity could be clearly felt. Though we did not test the water's turbidity, to the naked eye, it did appear to be slightly clearer. In class, Alan stated: that the suspension of particles in a liquid "can affect the temperature of the stream because sunlight heats the particles which heats the water." The presence of less particles were probably a factor in the lower water temperature.

Max fills a tub whilst Ian kicks up some sediments.
Photo credit to Ben Saef

Our tub of water with a lack of life.
Photo credit to Ben Saef

We then set out to find any hidden life in this stream. After acquiring a plastic tub and a net, we began searching for organisms. We applied a technique where we would fill the tub with water and proceed to physically kick up the sediments in the stream. Any sediments or life that would be disturbed by the kicking could be caught by our let a little further downstream. We applied this technique to a few parts around the small stream with limited success. At first, we were rather confused. Why was it that we could not find any animals? We continued our experiment but still with no success. For some time we thought that perhaps this area may be unsuitable for life. However, we recalled Alan stating that the presence of phosphates "correlates to the acidity levels in the water", and remembered that our phosphate readings from our last visit were between the values of 0 - 1, and our pH levels were between 6 - 7. If this stream was suitable for life, then there must be some in it.

However, we were determined to find something. After repeated attempts, our technique of kicking up sediments did not appear to be working. Thus, we resorted to simply peering around the stream in search of life.

A hard to spot tadpole. How adorable.
Photo credit to Ben Saef

Though it can barely be seen in the photo to the right due to it's quick darting movements, a tadpole was found underneath some shade. Upon closer look we found two more tadpoles accompanying the first one with its rather erratic journey. I was filled with delight. Though we did not find nearly as much life as we hoped to, the fact we found three tadpoles turned this initially dismal and depressing search into something much happier.

I believe that our lack of organisms can probably be attributed to a failure on out part of proper technique. It is assumed that we did not probably execute 'kick-netting'. When we attempted to perform kick-netting, I believe we did not kick the sediments enough to the extent that others did, and did not collect potential data far enough from the site where we would kick-net. This lack of proper kick-netting is perhaps due to our overt fears of damaging the local ecosystem, and simple ignorance. Regardless, I found this to be an incredibly fun experience and quite useful. Though my resilience to cold weather is nothing to a native New Englander, I found the air to be quite refreshing, despite numerous prolific nosebleeds. It doesn't get this cold in Aus, mate.

I eventually found my way back to my room after a long day of school, and began reluctantly completing my homework as every teen does. As I began to skim through data about our pond, I came across some data that I found extremely interesting.

The oh so interesting data

The data collected in years 2007 and 2008 show little life in site 6. However, the total amount of organisms found in 2013 and 2014 dwarf that of the first two years. For instance, not one leech was found in 2007 and 2008, only to suddenly have 12 leeches found in 2013. When glancing below at the blue colored section, one would notice the changes of the pond as a whole from 2007 - present. Two aspects that I find the most interesting is the turbidity and the diversity index. The turbidity of the pond as a whole increased from 0 in 2007, 2008, and 2013, to 8.8 JTU in 2014. Also, the diversity index has seen gradual decline from 19.3, 15.4, 10.9, and finally 7.14, almost a third of its original value. This clear decline in diversity almost suggests that the pond is slowly dying. This is in sharp contrast to site 6 however, that has seen an increase in life since 2007. Because of the decline in diversity in sites 1 - 5, but the increase in amount of organisms in site 6, it can be assumed that whatever is affecting the pond, isn't effecting site 6. Perhaps wildlife is seeking site 6 as a refuge from whatever is destroying diversity in the other 5 sites.

"There are many possible factors that could cause these (diversity) calculations to be wrong." - Alan McIntyre.

I acknowledge that there may be small errors in not only our experiment, but of the observations of every other group. This is common with most experiments. The number #1 problem? Humans. A lack of communication between partners may have resulted in miscalculations of data such as the actual turbidity level of a site. However, I know that the students of Proctor are intelligent and diligent, and kept any errors to a minimum.

There have been claims that the new synthetic turf field is the cause of this lack of diversity in Proctor's pond. The idea that the runoff of synthetic materials after rain pollutes the pond is plausible, due to the rather close proximity and higher elevation of the field. However, there are so many variables and factors that could ruin this pond, that I believe it is currently unfair to point the blame at the field. Factors such as a change in climate, environment, or something else entirely could be at fault. In an area as large as the Proctor campus with hundreds of students, in the middle of a town, there could be so many possibilities as to why this pond is supposedly dying. I am not suggesting that the field isn't at fault - only that one should acknowledge that there may be other compounding or independent factors that have been disrupting the ecosystem.

Max is too foreign to understand what Ian is holding
Photo credit to Ben Saef