JCM Labs

This beauty was taken by me

Introduction/Purpose

This AP environmental science class has been studying the Proctor pond for over a decade. Evaluating the living system theory and following the health for the pond for years. With the addition of turf fields near the pond, the APES class can follow the trends of the pond before and after the turf fields. More recently, the pond underwent drenching, to remove the potentially harmful deposits through a drainage system. Before the long weekend our class ventured out to study the daily landmark. Though that class was an introduction to blogs and the pond study, we will were able to take a closer look at the interworking of the complex pond. Our final question that requires an answer is as follows: Is the Proctor pond healthy?

Hypothesis

If the pond is healthy then it must showcase abundant biotic life and ideal abiotic systems. The pond boasts neutral pH levels, low phosphate and nitrate levels, low turbidity, and finally, high dissolved oxygen levels. All of these are factors of a healthy pond and ecosystem.

Photo credit to Jon Groth

Photo from Anna Krajewski

My photo and my hand

Materials

D-Ringed Net
Various containers to clean and separate samples/organisms
Digital Thermometer w/ probe
Spoon Strainer
Pipettes
Water Chemistry Test Kit
1. pH
2. Nitrates
3. Phosphate
iPhones for digital photos and notes
Dissolved oxygen testing device
Beaufort reference sheet

Biotic Procedures:

Photo of Benthic Zone study procedures provided by Alan McIntyre

Abiotic Procedure

Photos taken by me of abiotic procedures and references.

Photos taken by me

Narratives

Day 1.

At 11:40AM, on October 21st, Mark, Conrad, and I set out to site 3 to start our sampling on the pond. Without knowing what we were in for, we stepped onto that sand on the beach and stood there taking it all in before beginning. The temperature read 49° Fahrenheit, with a Beaufort scale of 2, in other words, a slight breeze with wind going from 4-7 mph. The water temperature read higher than the air at 53.06° Fahrenheit. We then gathered our sample from the pond and brought it in to evaluate what we saw that day. Unfortunately we were only able to sample one tadpole with our sample and no other living organisms. After conducting our Biotic testing, we then went back out to do Abiotic testing, including PH, Phosphate, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Nitrates. After completing all Abiotic tests and returning our sample back to site 3, it was wraps for our first day out on the pond. This day I remember us having to do our nitrates twice because of some failure with the procedure.(Narrative provided by my partner Jon Groth)

Day 2. October 22

On the second day of our pond study, we set out at precisely 9:19am on October 22nd to begin our routine collection of data. Air temperature was 42 degrees that morning, while water temperatures were slightly higher at 49.82 degrees (both measured in Fahrenheit). The beaufort scale yielded a 0. PH levels were a 7, turbidity was at 10 JTU, phosphate levels were a 2, and DO was at 8.7. Lastly, nitrate levels were measured at 0 PPM. (Narrative provided by my partner Mark Rodeo)

Day 3.

Before we knew it, Monday the 24th of October was our last day in Shirley researching the pond. On this day we experienced some light rain in the hours before class; but when we gathered our materials to begin our study, the rain increased to pouring at around 2:30 went we went out to survey. Thankfully with the beaufort scale clocking in at 1 we did not have to tolerate any sideways rain. After begrudgingly finishing our tests we drafted a hypothesis to discern whether or not the pond is healthy. I distinctly remember Molly Brenner failing at carrying her murky bucket of pond water and accidentally dumping it on my backpack.

October 21st

October 22nd

Data Spreadsheet

Abiotic results from three days of class. Data from all 5 sites provided.

October 24th

Not livefeed data

Analysis

Simpson Diversity Index

At first the Simpson Diversity Index looks complicated, but this method of calculating the biodiversity or health of an ecosystem is relatively simple. Biodiversity is crucial to the success and health of an ecosystem, we know this because diversity is one of the factors in the Living Systems Theory. Furthermore, the more biodiversity, the better an ecosystem as a whole can recover from a natural or human setback. Simply by taking the total number of organisms found in the ecosystem times that number minus one, then divided by the individual number of said organism times itself minus one again. The n-1 tripped me and most of my class up at first, but after it was explained it made all the sense in the world. If a species is only found one in an ecosystem then we are led to believe that is the only one of its kind. Since there is not other individual of its kind, reproduction is impossible. When we calculated the diversity index for this years assessment of the campus we found that the number is high, highest from the past six years. This leads me to believe that the pond and the organisms within, have recovered extremely well since its alteration. In conclusion, because the pond is boasting high biodiversity numbers since its dredging, I am ever more confident in the validity of my hypothesis.

Abiotic Averages

Analysis of Abiotic Averages

This year the pond is quite impressive with its results from this years APES pond study. Let's examine the averages of the abiotic systems with and against the past years of data collection. First off, as expected the pH levels remained between 6 and 7. Outside of this range, fish and other aquatic life will be affected via their immune systems and overall health. Nitrate levels after two years of unsatisfactory totals in 2019 and 2020 has regressed and returned back to the ideal average of zero. Dissolved oxygen is one of, or the most, important abiotic factor is an aquatic ecosystem. Dissolved oxygen averages for this year is tied for the highest average with 8.3ppm since the beginning of the pond study in 2007! Despite its appearance, the campus pond's turbidity level have been the lowest of the years since the dredging 6 years ago. Finally, the phosphate levels. Unfortunately the phosphate averages from this year are the highest since 2018, however, it was not a dramatic increase. When analyzing data and trends, one must be conscious of areas where data sampling could have gone wrong. Possibly groups incorrectly followed directions for collecting biotic systems in their bucket, or failure to study and collect abiotic results. However, these are my classmates and friends, so I will give the benefit of the doubt. Overall the pond, according to its astounding averages, seems to be healthy and functioning well as an ecosystem.

Indicator Species

Yet another aspect of evaluating the health of an ecosystem is focusing on indicator species. Indicator species are species that have low tolerance for adverse environment conditions. For example, low dissolved oxygen and changes in pH and other fluctuations in abiotic factors. Indicator species that exist in the pond are the Mayfly and Stonefly Nymphs, as well as the Caddisfly. This year, very few Stoneflies and even no Caddisflies were surveyed in this years experiments. This could be a result of slow recovery from the dredging or errors in biotic collection. Though Mayflies were found in adequate numbers, it was not up to totals of even the year of the dredging and the year after. We know that the low amount of indicator species does not correlate to unhealthy averages or alteration in abiotic systems because we see in our data tables that is not the case.

The New Hampshire Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (NHRSAT) Streamside Macroinvertebrate Survey

A crucial method in determining if the pond is healthy is plugging in our biotic findings into the New Hampshire Rapid Stream Assessment Technique. This helps us figure out the water quality based on the macroinvertebrate count in the pond. This year, based on this test, our water quality is 32.4 which is good in their given number range. This is a good result, however, last years score in 2021 was 46.7. Our result this year is still slightly better than 2020 with that score being 31.8.

Conclusion

This years pond study has been a blast! I have throughly enjoyed the process of gathering data and putting it into writing form. I am glad I got to work with my two good friends, Mark Rodeo and Jon Groth; even though at times they got a bit lost in the process as did I. I found it extremely interesting to study and learn about this landmark I see in my daily life.

Finally, I am confident in my answer to the complicated question of whether or not the Proctor pond is healthy or not. The answer is yes based on both it's abiotic and biotic components. As Alan explained to us in class, good biodiversity equals a healthy ecosystem. With the ideal biodiversity in the pond, shown by the Simpson Diversity Index, the ecosystem was able to recover from the dredging in 2018. Despite not showing perfect results in terms of indicator species such as the Mayfly and Stonefly Nymphs, as well as the Caddisfly; the pond seems to be in great shape. Still, this could be in part due to errors in biotic samples, as I know my group was not the best at. However, without getting too much into potential errors I want to appreciate the impressive facts. The abiotic systems are fabulous with ideal averages in every single category which help serve to support the biodiversity and organisms within. In summary, Proctor should be proud of the little, and often disregarded, thriving ecosystem they have built in the middle of our campus.

Timer selfie taken by Jon Groth

Page updated

Report abuse