Sunday, Nov 1, 2015
The Spirit of the Pond
by Will Cox
With help from Eric Bonewald and James Neylon
General Basis of the Lab:
 |
| Will Cox and James Neylon Go fishing for critters. Photo credits: Eric Bonewald |
Materials:
LaMotte Dissolved Oxygen Testing Kit
Phosphate test tabs
PH wide range test tabs
LaMotte turbidity test kit
For the tests above, the examiner would simply follow the instructions on the boxes or kits that the tests came in.
Temperature gauge
-For Air temperature: Hold the thermometer in the air and wait for the number to even out into a constant, which should then be recorded as the air temperature.
-For Water temperature: Hold the shaft of the thermometer fully underwater, then wait for the the number to even out to a constant. This number should then be recorded as the water temperature.
Tools for observing biotic factors:
- Small tray
- Spoon
- Pipet
- ID sheets for Macro-vertebrates
- White Plastic Tub
- Net
Procedure:
The procedure for our test days was as follows:
1. Observe and record general abiotic factors of the site, including weather, wind speed, and time of day.
2. Test the water and air for abiotic factors, including air temperature, water temperature, pH, Phosphate, Dissolved oxygen, Turbidity.
3. Scour the bottom of the pond for leaves and organisms with a net, and dump all of the collected matter into a tray small tub with water.
4. Comb the debris, leaf by leaf for any sign of organisms or other notable materials by picking up each individual leaf (or other type of debris) and looking for any organisms that might be clinging on.
5. Use the pipet or the spork to single out the individuals found in the tub of water and debris, then place them into a tray for identification.
6. Once all of the individual organisms have ben identified and recorded, the sample matter should be returned into the pond along with all of its organisms.
General Report:
My group, including Eric Bonewald, James Neylon, and myself, were assigned to test at sight 2. This site is located on the opposite side of the pond of both the inflow and outflow of water. It was near 4 large rocks imbedded in the pond's floor, creating little islands that we worked on top of. This site was also right next to the turf field, meaning that the small rubber turf pellets might have a subtle effect on the biotic factors of our pond site. Fortunately, the only rubber human debris we found in the pond was nothing more than a mouthguard and a tennis ball (both of which were extracted from the pond, to reduce pollution). Our first day on the site, October 20th, was a cold and wet day. Our observers, including myself, were very hesitant to get their hands wet with the near freezing water. It was a sunny day, after it had rained in the morning, with medium speed winds, up to 3 on the Beaufort Scale. Our second day, October 22nd, was similar to the first, in that it was very cold and uncomfortable for tests involving water, and the submergence of extremities. The weather was overcast and rainy, and it was a glum day on the site. The wind was nearly nonexistent this day, coming through at a whopping 0 on the Beaufort scale. Our third and fourth days, October 23rd, and October 26th, were similar to each other in that they were both sunny, and the temperature had risen from the days before. There was gusts on the 23rd up to 5 on the Beaufort scale, which was the highest we recorded over the entire lab. They wind reached 2 on the 26th.
 |
| The Proctor Pond, Birds Eye View Site 2 is located in the Red Circle |
Pictures
 |
| Specimen Photo Credits: Eric Bonewald |
 |
| Turbidity Results Photo Credits: Eric Bonewald |
Data Collected:
This data was collaboratively collected by our entire D-Block APES Class, including data from all four days on all 6 sites.
Link To Data table
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s3747H9VJSsDFrS-jWsZ8yYxHAkv-S30raUPGdp4gYs/edit?usp=sharing
This data table includes all of our results from the abiotic and biotic tests and observations throughout the entire lab.
To coincide with this data we also used the tallies of all the collected indivi
duals from specific species to calculate the amount of diversity in the pond for the current year.
As shown below, all of the species are tallied up to a total, then they are multiplied by themselves minus one, to find a total that can be put through Simpson's Diversity equation to find the Diversity number.
In this case, it is 6.42.
Analysis:
Overall, the data we collected is not much different from previous years, which is good. This means that the pond's ecosystem is barely degrading, if at all. The chemical tests lead to no stunning observations, everything was fairly standard for our site. The difference in weather condition between the days had a notable affect on the air temperature and water temperature, meaning that these were impactful factors as far as the biotic data collected goes. With the data recorded we were able to calculate a diversity index for our pond, which is incredibly helpful towards the basic purpose and motivation for the lab, which was to determine its health as an ecosystem, and compare and contrast with years previous. This kind of comparison helps us have some insight to the pond's future health. While the pond's diversity has lowered slightly from the year before, it has been doing better than some years ago, in 2012, when the diversity level was 4.64. It rose back up to 6.799 in 2013, and has dropped steadily, but slowly, through 2014, into the present, 2015, where we have a 6.42. These Diversity numbers come from a calculation through Simpson's diversity index, in which one adds up the total amount of organisms, then divides it by the total number of a certain species to get "Pl" for that species. You do this for each species, then you square all of the Pl numbers, to get "PI2". Add up all of the PI2 numbers to get the total. You then divide 1 by PI2 to get you D, or Diversity. (In this case, 6.42) The large drop of diversity in the year 2012 is evident that the construction of the turf fields had a significant impact on the ponds health. Alan hinted to that, calling the little turf pellets "Nasty little devils" or something of the likes. He told us to see if they had any impact, no impact was clear cut until I looked at the diversity levels for the year of the construction of the turf fields. But thankfully our pond rose back up to at least it's old pattern of steady decline. All this goes to show that anything going on, whether it is an abiotic or a biotic factor, will have an impact on the diversity and health of the pond as a whole.
Overall, the data we collected is not much different from previous years, which is good. This means that the pond's ecosystem is barely degrading, if at all. The chemical tests lead to no stunning observations, everything was fairly standard for our site. The difference in weather condition between the days had a notable affect on the air temperature and water temperature, meaning that these were impactful factors as far as the biotic data collected goes. With the data recorded we were able to calculate a diversity index for our pond, which is incredibly helpful towards the basic purpose and motivation for the lab, which was to determine its health as an ecosystem, and compare and contrast with years previous. This kind of comparison helps us have some insight to the pond's future health. While the pond's diversity has lowered slightly from the year before, it has been doing better than some years ago, in 2012, when the diversity level was 4.64. It rose back up to 6.799 in 2013, and has dropped steadily, but slowly, through 2014, into the present, 2015, where we have a 6.42. These Diversity numbers come from a calculation through Simpson's diversity index, in which one adds up the total amount of organisms, then divides it by the total number of a certain species to get "Pl" for that species. You do this for each species, then you square all of the Pl numbers, to get "PI2". Add up all of the PI2 numbers to get the total. You then divide 1 by PI2 to get you D, or Diversity. (In this case, 6.42) The large drop of diversity in the year 2012 is evident that the construction of the turf fields had a significant impact on the ponds health. Alan hinted to that, calling the little turf pellets "Nasty little devils" or something of the likes. He told us to see if they had any impact, no impact was clear cut until I looked at the diversity levels for the year of the construction of the turf fields. But thankfully our pond rose back up to at least it's old pattern of steady decline. All this goes to show that anything going on, whether it is an abiotic or a biotic factor, will have an impact on the diversity and health of the pond as a whole.
Conclusion:
As I stated before, the pond has a solid pattern of gradual decline over the past years. Except for, of course, the special occasions that have had a significant impact on the pond. Such as the turf field construction, which nearly destroyed the ponds biotic diversity in 2012. While the diversity initially rose up again after the construction, it has gone back to its old pattern of slow decline. However, we can confirm and conclude the theory that the turf has had an effect on the pond, as I'm sure years past have come to the same conclusion. I'm glad to say that the pond has risen back up to health for the most part. Another factor that could have impacted our data or the data of years past is human error, or error in calculation or chemical and electrical tests. Calculation errors made some of the data from previous years unusable, leaving somewhat of a hole in our understanding of the ponds diversity health as a whole. Another factor that could have come into play in the outcome of our data would be the conditions of the days we decided to collect data. Because of the cold blooded nature of most of the vertebrates in the pond, weather and temperature have a big impact on the activity of these animals. Due to the two cold days we had in the beginning of our lab, we might not have gotten an accurate number of vertebrates from our data collection. In the end the lab was mostly successful. We determined that the pond has suffered from certain downfalls in diversity, but tends to recover, and go back to a steady but gradual decrease in diversity, year by year.
As I stated before, the pond has a solid pattern of gradual decline over the past years. Except for, of course, the special occasions that have had a significant impact on the pond. Such as the turf field construction, which nearly destroyed the ponds biotic diversity in 2012. While the diversity initially rose up again after the construction, it has gone back to its old pattern of slow decline. However, we can confirm and conclude the theory that the turf has had an effect on the pond, as I'm sure years past have come to the same conclusion. I'm glad to say that the pond has risen back up to health for the most part. Another factor that could have impacted our data or the data of years past is human error, or error in calculation or chemical and electrical tests. Calculation errors made some of the data from previous years unusable, leaving somewhat of a hole in our understanding of the ponds diversity health as a whole. Another factor that could have come into play in the outcome of our data would be the conditions of the days we decided to collect data. Because of the cold blooded nature of most of the vertebrates in the pond, weather and temperature have a big impact on the activity of these animals. Due to the two cold days we had in the beginning of our lab, we might not have gotten an accurate number of vertebrates from our data collection. In the end the lab was mostly successful. We determined that the pond has suffered from certain downfalls in diversity, but tends to recover, and go back to a steady but gradual decrease in diversity, year by year.
