Seneca Lake Research Plan

Research Question: How do water depth affect the plankton on Seneca lake?

Variables:

Controlled- Location, instruments, boat

Independent- Locations, and depths

Relevant- pH, DO, chloride ion, hardness, number of plankton, soil samples

Background Information:

In Seneca Lake there is an abundance of plankton. In the experiment, it will test if different depths (and possibly other variables) affect the plankton in that area. The plankton do no harm to the ability to drink the water. The plankton could vary in amounts, to types of plankton. 

Hypothesis:

Depth and water conditions will affect the number of plankton and the type of plankton. 

Method to Control Variables:

I will take down coordinates of all the locations. Then do the technique from the manual: "In order to establish a fix of one's position using radar one needs to know the ranges (distance) to at least two known targets. Place the pin leg of a drawing compass on the chart at the location of one of the targets and construct a circle or arc whose radius is equal to the range determined to that target. Similarly, scribe an arc which is centered on the second target and which has a radius equal to the range to that target. The observer's position lies on both arcs and the two arcs will intersect at, at most, two points. Inspection will probably make clear which of the two intersection points the observer’s position is, in fact,. It may, however, be necessary to determine the range to a third target in order to resolve any ambiguity." Then I will follow all of the procedures to get the pH levels, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and the number of plankton.

Procedure:

1. Find pH level

2. Find the temperature
3. Find dissolved oxygen

1. When you get to the lab bench, gather the dissolved oxygen kit. To the LaMotte sample bottle, add 8 drops of the manganese(II) sulfate solution (bottle 4167) followed by 8 drops of the alkaline potassium iodide azide solution (bottle 7166). Some water may drip off the sides, this is expected! Carefully cap the bottle, mix by gently inverting (do not generate bubbles inside the glass sample bottle), then allow the orange-brown precipitate that has formed to settle below the shoulder of the bottle (about 3-4 minutes).

2. Using the 1 gram spoon provided in the kit (0697), add one level spoonful of sulfamic acid (bottle 6286) to the solution in your LaMotte sample bottle. Cap the bottle and mix until both the reagent (white crystals) and precipitate (brown crystals) have completely dissolved and you obtain a clear brown-yellow solution. CAUTION: Sulfamic acid will burn if you get it on your skin. Be careful!!

3. Pour this clear brown-yellow solution from the LaMotte bottle into the titration tube and fill it up to the 20 ml line. Then, using the plastic eye-dropper provided in the kit, add 8 drops of the starch solution to the titration tube. At this point, the solution should change color to a bluish-green.

4. Fill the Direct Reading Titrator (0337) up to the 0 mark [looks like a syringe, marked 0-10 ppm] with the sodium thiosulfate solution (bottle 4169).

5. Insert the titrator you just filled through the small hole in the cap of the titration tube and titrate the solution slowly. Swirl the titration tube until the blue color of the solution disappears permanently with one drop of titrant (i.e., you are looking for a color progression from green-blue to blue to light blue to colorless). You may have to fill the titrator more than once. Be sure to record how much titrant you used before refilling. The direct reading titrator is calibrated in units of parts per million (ppm) dissolved oxygen, therefore, be sure to record all of these units.

4. Do plankton collection procedure

1. Twist the end of the rope around one hand 2-3 times and grasp with a fist. Don't let go! This grip is to ensure the net isn't tossed overboard when it is cast 

2. Make sure the clasp at the bottom of the net is closed! If it isn't, the sample will not be captured and the net will need to be recast.

3. Lower the net over the side of the boat until it floats freely in the water. Walk slowly from the stern to the bow of the boat and then back again, gently dragging the net behind you. Try to walk at a steady pace so that the net stays at a fairly constant depth and does not scrape the side of the boat. Since water clarity is an indication of the presence of phytoplankton, use your secchi disk reading as an indicator of productivity. If the secchi disk reading is less than 7 meters, traverse the length of the boat twice. If it is greater than 7 meters, make 3-4 trips to make sure you collect enough plankton in your net.

4. Back at the stern of the boat, gather the line up until the net is vertical, hangingfreely, and level with the railing. Using the provided wash bottle (filled with tap or lake surface water, not distilled water), wash down any plankton clinging to the sides of the net into the small grey cup attached to the lower end of the net.

5. Raise the net slightly, keeping it vertical. Grasp the grey sample cup and swing it on board, making sure not to spill the sample.

6. Hold the provided plastic beaker under the sample cup and attached rubber tubing and release the tubing clamp, allowing the sample to flow into the beaker. If it appears that some sample has clung to the inside of the grey sample cup, carefully use a small amount of water from the wash bottle to rinse it into the beaker. You don't want to dilute the sample.

7. The beaker can now be taken to the lab for analysis. Remember to rinse it out when the plankton sample is no longer needed (using either tap or distilled water) and replace it in the net box.

5. Do inventory and counting procedure

 For samples with slowing agent (DETAIN):

- Put 9 – 10 drops of sample on Sedgewick-Rafter cell.

- Put 5 – 6 drops of DETAIN from marked dropper bottle onto sample. It is a very viscous

liquid, avoid getting the Detain anywhere other than the sample cell.

- Carefully mix with dissecting needle along entire length of the slide without scratching

the Sedgewick-Rafter cell.

- Carefully cover Sedgewick-Rafter cell with cover slip. Try to minimize air bubbles.

For samples without slowing agent (DETAIN):

- Put approximately 14 drops of plankton sample on Sedgewick-Rafter cell.

- Carefully cover Sedgewick-Rafter cell with cover slip. Try to minimize air bubbles.

6. Count the plankton

Question:

Do the plankton help our drinking water?

Kaplan, Jeremy A. "What's in Your Water? Probably Tiny Invisible Shrimp | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, 02 Sept. 2010. Web. Oct. 2015.

My Pure Water. "New York Tap Water, Water Distillers by Pure Water." My Pure Water. N.p., 13 Sept. 2010. Web. Oct. 2015.

"Science on Seneca Manual.pdf." Google Docs. Woodrow, Ahrnsbrak and Carle, n.d. Web. Oct. 2015.

(Procedures taken directly from the "Science On Seneca" manual)

How I Impact the Carbon Cycle

• I breath
• I drive in cars
• I eat food
• I exercise
• I use electricity
• I use paper which contributes to deforestation

The Arctic Waters of the Narwhal

        Narwhal's live in the Arctic Ocean. The main areas they live are the norther shores of Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Narwhals are usually found not far from loose ice packs. In the winter they prefer deep water, but in the summer they migrate to shallower waters. As you can probably guess, their habitat is quite wet (Oh the jokes...). It is also cold year round in the Arctic waters. If you were to go to the Arctic waters, you may want to go on a boat, because being in the water could cause you to die of hypothermia, but that's just a suggestion.

        The flora and fauna of the Arctic waters are quite unique. Some animals, animals that the narwhal actually eats, are squid and krill. Some flora of the arctic (not necessarily in the water) are polar poppies and willow shrubs. The squid and krill provide food for the narwhal, where the polar poppies and willow shrubs don't do much for them.

        One problem in the Arctic, is it's use for oil. When there are companies digging for oil, it can cause oil spills, which majorly disrupts the animal's habitats. One solution to this issue would to just not drill for oil in those areas. Another environmental problem is global warming. The Arctic experiences the effects of climate change worse than anywhere else in the world, with temperatures warming nearly twice as fast. A solution for this would be to emit less carbon dioxide into the air. The carbon dioxide damages the ozone layer, which keeps the temperatures down.

        A narwhal's niche is to eat squid and krill, and to be hunted by orca whales. The ecosystem supports the narwhal by making an abundance of krill and squid for them to eat, which keeps them growing. Then they feed the orca whales and help maximize their population.

Food Chain

Phytoplankton (Producer)

Krill (Primary Consumer)

Narwhal (Secondary Consumer)

Orca Whales (Tertiary Consumer)

        One animal that could compete with the narwhal, is the killer whale. The narwhal and the killer whale could fight over the same foods. The chance of a narwhal going to areas where killer whales are is slim, but possible. They would compete in the same niche of eating the squid and krill.

References:

Ocean Conservancy Team. "The Arctic." Ocean Conservancy: Arctic: Protecting the Pristine Arctic. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2015.

Drury, Chad. "Monodon Monoceros (Narwhal)." Animal Diversity Web. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2015.

Furnace Brook Lab

Furnace Brook Water Study

Introduction: Rivers house many organisms, and are necessary for the survival of an ecosystem. Rivers provide a home for aquatic animals, and water for land animals. Depending on what kind of organisms you find, you can figure out how polluted water is, and other variables as well. In this project we will test a few variables of water condition, what lives in the water, and the flow rate, to asses if they affect one another.

Research Question: Will there be differences in two different sites on the same river in temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH value, turbidity, number of macroinvertebrates, and flow rate.

Hypothesis: I predict that many of the variables will fluctuate, and some of the variables will cause the other variables to change.

Variable Identification:

Controlled Variable	Method to control the variable
Stream	Used the same stream for both locations
Location on the stream	Used 2 separate locations
Practice golf ball	Used the same golf ball in all trials

Experimental Setup : Two separate areas were found on the same stream, to see if certain characteristics changes. On the first day a net was used to catch any macroinvertebrates that were in the stream at the two separate locations. At both locations the temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity were measured. On the second time in the stream the same two locations were used to measure stream flow with a practice golf ball. Again the same measurements were made, that had been made on the first day. On the second day for measuring the water flow the average depth of the stream was also taken.

Procedure:

1. Found first location
2. Took the temperature of the water
3. Measured the dissolved oxygen of the water
4. Measured the pH of the water
5. Measured the turbidity of the water
6. Placed the net into the water
7. Placed a rock at the bottom of the net to hold it down
8. Kicked up dirt and rocks from the stream to reveal the macroinvertebrates
9. Took the net out and emptied the macroinvertebrates into a pan for counting
10. Counted the number of each organism
11. Repeated steps 6-10
12. Found a second location
13. Repeated steps 2-11 at the new location
14. Found the original location again
15. Measured out 40 feet
16. Measured the depth at the start of the 40 feet 6 times and then averaged
17. Dropped the practice golf ball at the start line as the timer began timing
18. Let the ball flow down stream to the finish line
19. Caught the ball at the end and stopped timer
20. Repeated steps 17-19 5 times
21. Found the second location again
22. Repeated steps 15-20

Data:

	Latitude	Longitude
Location 1	N 43°00'59.4”	W 76°10'17”
Location 2	-----------------------------------------------------	------------------------------------------------------

(Day 1)	Temperature	Dissolved Oxygen	pH	Turbidity
Location 1	18	0	7	0
Location 2	18	0	7	0

(Day 2)	Temperature	Dissolved Oxygen	pH	Turbidity
Location 1	10	0	7	0
Location 2	10	0	7	0

	Location 1 (feet)	Location 2 (feet)
Depth 1	0.17	0.17
Depth 2	0.25	0.21
Depth 3	0.33	0.42
Depth 4	0.42	0.25
Depth 5	0.21	0.5
Depth 6	0.33	0.5
Average	0.29	0.34

	Location 1 (seconds)	Location 2 (seconds)
Trial 1	22.28	20.7
Trial 2	17.78	26.35
Trial 3	23.43	24.38
Trial 4	24.38	29.16
Trial 5	24.32	25.83
Average	22.44	25.28

Results :

	Velocity (feet/second)
Location 1	0.56
Location 2	0.63

Discussion: Inside the stream, very little macroinvertebrates were found. I expected there to be so many more little creatures in there. The water flow may have affected this outcome. The dissolved oxygen, pH values, and turbidity were the same in both locations on both days. The temperature is the only thing that changed over the two days, but was the same in both locations on both days. The flow rate did not change as greatly as I expected between our two sites. The amount of more macro-invertebrates we found at the second site surprised me, because I expected the higher stream flow to have less, not more.

Evaluation: In this lab there were a few issues. One of the issues being the time constraints caused us to have to do this lab across two days on a Monday and then the following Friday. This may have altered the results a lot, because it rained very much over that week. The temperature of the stream may have also effected the flow and macroinvertebrates. There is also some human error that could have occurred a few times. We could have counted wrong or missed an organism, we could have measured the distance wrong, there could be a mess up in the timing, and there could also be a change in where the ball was dropped from.

Conclusion: The data recorded shows the exact opposite of what my hypothesis says. I expect for the different locations to change all of the variables, but they did not change very much. The dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity were the exact same in both locations on both days. The temperature was the same in both locations on the certain day, but across the two days the temperatures were different. My hypothesis was incorrect and the results surprised me.

References:

"Chapter 4 Macroinvertebrates and Habitat." Chapter 4 Macroinvertebrates and Habitat. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2015.

"Ecosystem Processes and Energy Flow." Grassland Conservation Council of British Columbia. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2015.  

Biomagnification Case Study

        Bio-magnification is when a chemical, such as Mercury, is put into an ecosystem and grows. It starts out in just the very small animals, but then as slightly larger animals eat more of the smaller animals it spreads to them and they have more in them. Then when a even larger animal eats some of the smaller animals, it spreads to that and they have even more than the previous. This goes on and can even eventually get to humans.

        Mercury is useful for making thermometers, barometers, diffusion pumps, and other instruments. Mercury is a toxic heavy metal that occurs naturally. Human activity is what causes it to end up in the environment. Some major sources of mercury pollution are: coal-fired power plants, boilers, steel production, incinerators, and cement plants.

        Only mercury gets released into the air, it then falls to earth and builds up in the water and soil. Then the mercury accumulates in the animals, in this case fish. Then as the larger fish eat some of the smaller fish there levels rise, and so on up the food chain. The large predator fish have very high mercury levels up to one million times that of the surrounding water.

        The National Wildlife Federation, starting in 1999, began efforts to lessen mercury pollution. They wanted new, stricter limits on mercury air pollution. They had hundreds of thousand of supports who attended public hearing, signed post cards, and made phone calls. Their efforts finally paid off in 2011, when the Environmental Protection Agency released new air pollution standards to help reduce mercury pollution. The new standards cut the mercury emissions by 91% and helped cut other harmful emissions as well. This solution had been in front of them for so long, yet they waited 12 years to finally act on it. This was an issue that was killing many wildlife and should not have been put off for as long as it did.


"Mercury Pollution." National Wildlife Federation. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.

"NRDC: Mercury Contamination in Fish." NRDC: Mercury Contamination in Fish - Know Where It's Coming From. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.