Our Pond's Health

1. General purpose:

Our pond, which is located in middle of our campus, is an important part of the overall health of our local ecosystem and the river watershed. The General Purpose of the Campus Pond Water Quality Assessment is to understand its current water quality.  By comparing the Diversity Index and data collected this year to those from previous year, both chemical and biological data, we can inspect the trend of our water’s health and  find evidences for changes in the pond, therefore, we can conclude answers and have solution for negative transformations of our pond and the outflow of it, the swamp.

- Check if the pond is clean and clear by

+ chemical test

+ observation

+ biotic ( animal lives in the system )  

- Hypothesis: If the abiotic and biotic factors change in a negative fashion, then the changing landscape surrounding the pond has caused the changes.

2. Material used:

• Camera (from iPhone and iPad)
• Net
• Bucket and Tray
• Sampling Tubes
• Spoons
• Magnifying Lens
• Pipette
• Physical Test:

• Temperature ( “ name ” )
• Turbidity

• Chemical Test:

• pH
• Phosphate
• Nitrogen
• Dissolved oxygen

3. Method ( picture )

First, we did observation of the sites for a few minutes and did our chemical test right away before stirring the site. We followed the procedure of chemical test from the LaMotte water test

which is included on the pictures we had.

We poured some pond water into the bucket. Next, we used the net and tried to dig and stir the dirt at the bottom of the pond. Then, we reused the net to get the water, which was already mixed with dirt. Then, took the dirt we had into the bucket of water. Leave it until everything in the bucket settle down, then observe closely to animals inside there. Use pipette to take small animals such as fishfly, caddisfly to sampling tube for more details. Then record number of individuals of each animals had found. repeat the procedure again in the next classes.

4. Clips + Photos

We tested the water at Site 1, which was an inflow. The water that was coming into our area was from the parking lot and much of the drainage throughout campus. The area was surrounded by trees and there was grass growing in the water. It was muddy and there were many rocks, varying in size and were of a sandy color. The water itself was very clear and we could see many organisms living there. Each day, the temperature of the air varied but the water stayed at a consistent temperature. It was only windy and cold on Saturday and the other days were relatively warm.

5. Chemical data:

1. Saturday
1. Temperature:
1. Air: 9.5 C
2. Water: 12 C
2. pH: 7
3. Phosphates: 1
4. Nitrates: 0, 0
5. Organisms found: none
2. Monday
1. Temperature:
1. Air: 17 C
2. Water: 12C
2. Nitrates: 0,0
3. Turbidity: 10
4. Dissolved Oxygen: 0
5. Organisms found:
1. Frog (x3)
2. Hellgrammite (x1)
3. Fishfly (x1)
4. Mayfly Nymph (x1)
3. Tuesday
1. Temperature
2. Nitrates: 0,0
3. Turbidity: close to 0
4. Dissolved Oxygen: 0
5. Organisms:
1. Dragonfly nymph (x2)
2. Caddisfly (x1)
3. Mosquito Larva (x1)
4. Aquatic Worm (x1)

               Map of the pond from google maps with Adam’s hand writing :D

	Diversity Index	Total number of species
2007	19.309	168
2008	15.4	122
2010	11.76	193
2012	7.26	134
2013	10.184	279

Table 1: The campus pond’s Diversity Index and Total Number of Species from 2007 to 2013.

Calculation about the Pollution Tolerance Index: Our Water Quality Score is 52.2 which is higher than 40 which prove that the diversity of animals in our pond is high and the pond is a good environment for different animals to live in, especially to those which sensitive to polluted water.

	2007	2008	2010	2012	2013
Aquatic worms	6	5	12	3	14
Leeches	0	0	0	0	17
Midge Larvae	10	10	5	4	7
Snails	0	0	0	0	10

Table 2: Number of some tolerant species from 2007 to 2013

6. While looking at the data we collected, we had to scrutinize and discuss our results and compare our data the years before to find trends, figure out any errors we made and possible variables that affected the trends. The diversity index of this year, 2013, was 10.184. To figure this out, we calculated the total number of individuals, divided the number of each organism we found by the total number, square that number and then add up all of our results to find the diversity index. Looking at past numbers, we can see that our year was not in accordance to the declining trend in the diversity index from 2007 to 2012. The results of our data collection may have been affected by the fact that we had 6 sites whereas there had been fewer in the past.

The area around the pond has also changed with the addition of two turf fields. This addition may cause a spike the levels of nitrates and phosphates which may cause the diversity in the pond to drop. This can mean that indicator species populations, like mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, etc., could drop as a result, allowing the more pollution tolerant species to thrive.

7.  Although there have been findings that would suggest a decline in the diversity of the pond, this years results paint a picture that the pond is in good health. The chemical tests all came back within the healthy levels that are expected in any water system, the pH was 7, the Nitrates were 0,0 and the Phosphates were under 3 every time. The water seemed clean and there was an abundance of life in the pond, ranging from lilypads to Hellgrammites. Seeing that there were a large amount of indicator species in the water, this further helps the belief that the water is healthy.

I believe that the pond is healthy, not only because of its chemical wellbeing but because it has a lot of life. Our class saw a large amount of indicator species, and even though frogs are not the greatest indicator, the fact that they are there means that they have tadpoles in the pond which are pretty good indicators of water health. I do believe that we made some mistakes in our testing of the dissolved oxygen in the water as it always came up negative but seeing as there was life inside of the area that we were testing.

DAT WATERSHED SHTUFF

The morning of September 30th, our AP Environmental Science class went on a field trip to investigate the watersheds surrounding our campus. We went to several locations, first observing the area around each site and then we tested the pH levels, turbidity, phosphates, nitrates and temperature of both the air and the water. After performing these tests, we would wade into the water and look for organisms that were living in each site.

Materials:

-Net

-Camera

-Phone

-Thermometer

-Chemical tests

SITE 1

Getting off the bus by the covered bridge and the rail trail, we gathered our gear and walked to site one, which is part of the Blackwater River. As we walked, Alan, our teacher, was telling us about the observations we should be making (following the ABCDEEs). While we walked, we looked for things that should not be there and hypothesized about what their effect on the water would be. When we got to the site, Alan told us, "you can only tell upstream health from the area you are at, not the down stream" We took air temperature (19 C) and then water temperature (15 C). The pH was neutral at 7 and turbidity, nitrates and phosphates were all at 0. In conclusion, the water at Site 1 is healthy.

SITE 2

Once we were done with our tests at Site 1, it was back to the bus for us to head to Site 2. As we drove, we noticed that there were many houses and a construction site near Site 2. They all could possibly affect the health of the water because there could be waste and debris from the houses and the construction that could get into the water. After disembarking from the bus, we headed to a little beach area with many stones to collect our next set of data. The air temp. was 20.2 C and the water was 15.8 C, and since water does not change temperatures quickly, this .8 of a degree was a big change. Grabbing the chemical tests, we proceeded to test the pH(7), Nitrates(0), Turbidity(0) and finally Phosphates(0). Like the water at Site 1, this was healthy. After running these tests, we looked around the area for wildlife. Some walked into the water while others took to picking up rocks and flipping them over. Alan, who had been showing us the life that was under the rocks, picked up a rock and underneath found one of the biggest Stoneflies he had ever seen. By the end of our venture at site 2, we had found some angry, but cute, crawfish and we found these green orbs that we could not identify. This place was healthy.

SITE 3

Site 3 was situated at a dam at the edge of a lake. The water was coming out from a large pipe in the middle of the dam and the area that it flowed into was very rocky. The air temperature here was 21.9 C, and the water was 18.4 C. The temperature of the water, which was 3.4 degrees higher than our first site, was most likely due to the fact that water changes temperature very slowly and the water on the top of the lake was warmer due to being exposed to the sun more fully. The pH at this site was 6.5, slightly acidic but is the most ideal pH. The Turbidity was a 0, the Phosphates were at a 1(which is within the healthy limit) and the Nitrates were 0. We found frogs, stoneflies in this area. 

SITE 4

Site 4 was the lake itself. The air temperature was 22.6 C and the water was 18.8 C. The pH, Turbidity, Phosphates and Nitrates were all the same as Site 3. After we conducted all of our tests, it was swim time!!!!

Conclusion: The watershed that we observed today is healthy and seems to be thriving. Our expert group was very adept and there was very little if any error made while we tested each site.

Videos!!!!!