Panama City, Panama
Biological
Analysis of Soil
Table
1: Texture and Consistency of Soil
| The Texture and Consistency of Soil | |||
| Sample | Source | Texture | Consistency Dry / Wet |
| 1 | Riverbed | Loamy Sand | Crumbly, dry, hard, med. Particles / grainy, rough, crumbly |
| 2 | Field (25 m from river) | Silky Clay Loam | Soft, small- med particles, crumbly, thin / squishy, holds together, soft, particles are barely visible |
| 3 | Forest (50 m from river | Silky Clay Loam | Soft, small particles, crumbly, very powdery / mushy, soft, malleable, particles not visible. |
Water
Content of Soil
Table
2: Water Content of Soil
| Water Content in Soil Samples | |||
| Object Weighed | Weight (in grams) | ||
| Riverbed | Field (25m) | Forest (50m) | |
| Empty Beaker | 51.78 | 179.09 | 169.09 |
| Cup plus Fresh Soils | 134.1 | 233.92 | 215.32 |
| Cup plus Dry Soils |
111.8
|
192.86
|
207.1
|
| Water Lost |
22.3
|
41.66
|
8.22
|
| Percent H20 |
27.1
|
76
|
17.8
|
Organic/Ash
Content in Soil
Table
3: Organic/Ash Content in Soil
|
Weighed Organic/Ash Content |
|
| Sample | Weight (g) |
| Riverbed |
60.06
|
| Field (25m) |
13.17
|
| Forest (50m) |
38.01
|
Bulk
Density
Table
4: Bulk Density of Soil
| Field (25m) | Forest (50m) | ||
| Volume of 70g | 52 mL | 69.8 mL | 77.7 mL |
| Bulk Density | 1.35 g/mL | 1.002 g/mL | 0.90 g/mL |
Water-holding
Capacity and Capillary Action
Table
5: Water-holding Capacity and Capillary Action
| Field (25m) | Forest (50m) | ||
| Weight of Empty Column | 3.68 g | 3.59 g | 3.59 g |
| Weight of Dry Soil and Column | 20.53 g | 15.24 g | 14.44 g |
| Weight of Dry Soil | 16.85 g | 11.65 g | 10.85 g |
| Weight of Saturated Soil and Column | 28.24 g | 23.66 g | 22.03 g |
| Weight of Water | 11.39 g | 2.01 g | 11.18 g |
| Water-holding Capacity | 0.889 g/mL | 0.938 g/mL | 0.873 g/mL |
| Distance Traveled | 70.2 mm | 69.3 mm | 67.4 mm |
| Time | 1.57 min/ 117 sec | 22.22 min/ 1342 sec | 13.25 min/ 805 sec |
| Rate | 44.71mm/min
0.745 mm/sec |
3.12
mm/ min
.052 mm/sec |
5.08
mm/min
.084 mm/sec |
Permeability
Table
6: Soil Permeability
| Permeability in Different Sample Soils | ||||
|
|
Wet | |||
| Sample | Time for 1st Drop (s) | Time for Entire Sample (s) | Time for 1st drop (s) | Time for Entire Sample (s) |
| Riverbed | 43.27 | 139.36 | 57.53 | 707.43 |
| Field (25m) | 1548 | 2165 | 961 | 8109 |
| Forest (50m) | 849 | 1480.5 | 128 | 13203.36 |
Slope
Table
7: Slope
| Y1 and Y2 for % Slope of the Areas | |||
| Sample Area | Y-Component | Measurement (cm) | Measurement (ft) |
| Riverbed Area | Y1 | 148.3 | 4.94 |
| Y2 | 230 | 7.67 | |
| Field Area (25m) | Y1 | 52.7 | 1.76 |
| Y2 | 83 | 2.77 | |
| Forest Area (50m) | Y1 | 47.4 | 1.58 |
| Y2 | 81 | 2.7 | |
pH of Fresh Water
| Type of water | PH # given by pH paper | pH # given by the pH kit |
| Fresh water #1 (top layer) | 6.5 | 7.4 |
| #1 (middle layer) | 6.3 | 7.3 |
| Fresh water #2 (top layer) | 6.4 | 7.3 |
| #2 (middle layer) | 6.2 | 7.2 |
| Rain Water | 6 | 5.6 |
Total Solids of Fresh Water
| Type of water | Mass of beaker | Mass of beaker with solids | Total solids |
| Fresh water #1 (top layer) | 68.30g | 68.33g | 300 mg/L |
| #1 (middle layer) | 67.89g | 67.92g | 300 mg/L |
| Fresh water #2 (top layer) | 67.41g | 67.43g | 200 mg/L |
| #2 (middle layer) | 69.30g | 69.33g | 300 mg/L |
Fecal Coliform of Fresh Water
| Type of water | Fecal coliform |
| Fresh water #1 (top layer) | Not present |
| #1 (middle layer) | Not present |
| Fresh water #2 (top layer) | Not present |
| # 2 (middle layer) | Not present |
Water Content
|
Testing for Nitrates |
|
| The measure of human and animal waste, decomposing organic matter, and fertilizer runoff. | |
| Downstream | 0 |
| Upstream | 0 |
| Testing for Phosphates | |
| The measure of plant and animal wastes, and industrial detergent waste water | |
| Downstream | 0.2 ppm |
| Upstream | 0.3ppm |
| Testing for Turbidity | |||
| The measure of the relative cloudiness in water | |||
| number of additions | amount in mL | final measure in JTU's | |
| Downstream | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| Upstream | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| Testing for Hardness | |||
| The amount of calcium and magnesium in the water. | |||
| total in ppm | calcium in ppm | magnesium in ppm | |
| Downstream | 60 | 40 | 20 |
|
Testing for Dissolved Oxygen |
|
| the measure of the amount of oxygen that has been absorbed into the water | |
| total amount in ppm | |
| Downstream | 7.4 |
| Upstream | 6 |
| Current Velocity | |
| Velocity Upstream | 0.425 +- 0.0841 m/s |
| Velocity Downstream | 0.627 +- 0.075 m/s |
| Refractometer | |
| total in ppm | |
| Downstream | 0 |
| Upstream | 0 |
Aquatic Productivity
�Primary Productivity in an ecosystem may be calculated by measuring the rates of oxygen production and consumption in order to estimate the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation.
�This can be done by using the �light and dark bottle� method
�The difference Between the initial oxygen measurements and the dark bottle oxygen measurement indicates amount of oxygen consumed by respiration of the organisms in the bottle.
�Therefore, the respiration rate is calculated by:
�R= (Initial O2 - O2 in dark bottle) / time (d)
�The difference between the initial oxygen measurement and the light bottle oxygen measurement indicates the net primary production.
�Gross productivity of O2 ( does not take account losses) is:
�(O2 in light bottle - O2 in dark bottle)/ time (d)
�Therefore, net primary productivity is :
�Gross productivity � respiration rate
�Results ( using Winkler Method):
�Initial O2 = 7.2 ppm
�Dark Bottle O2= 6 ppm
�Light Bottle O2= 8 ppm
�Accepted value of Dissolved Oxygen in 23�C= 8.2 ppm
�This means that river tested is a healthy and stable ecosystem capable of supporting different kinds of organisms.
�Productivity Results:
�Respiration Rate of O2 = 1.52 ppm/d
�Gross Productivity of O2 = 2.53 ppm/d
�Net Primary Productivity of O2 = 1.01 ppm/d
�The experiment was successful and this ecosystem works efficiently as it has a productivity as 1.01ppm per day.
