The goal of this study is to research whether the soil of root plants vs vine plants has different qualities. It is important to know these things to be able to understand what growing conditions are best for each species of plant. It has been found that different soil pH has a significant impact on the nutrients available in the soil, as well as how the nutrients are absorbed by the plant (Ferrarezi et al.). It has also been demonstrated that at a lower, more acidic pH certain elements of soil can become toxic to plants (Ferrarezi et. al.). Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is soil moisture. If moisture concentration is too high there is a lack of oxygen supply to the plants, causing them to be unable to absorb nutrients and moisture. Too little moisture can cause the leaves of the plant to shrivel and seed production to lower (Hsia and Jackson). Carrots have been shown to prefer a neutral to slightly acidic pH, as well as draining soil with a medium moisture content (Rohwer). Squash tends to prefer a slightly acidic soil pH, as well as a well-draining soil (Ezzo et al.). These plants prefer similar conditions; however, the squash was struggling to grow while the carrots were looking healthy and growing well. These experiments can be beneficial to urban gardening and regular gardening, as they will provide insight into how different conditions of soil affect carrots and squash. Urban gardening communities can use this information to monitor or change the growing conditions of their soil to best fit the conditions of each plant. 

The carrots are on the left side of the garden and the squash are on the right side of the garden. Samples collection. To collect the samples we used a soil core.

 Figure 1: pH Concentration of Squash VS Carrots. In the graph the average mean pH value of squash a vine plant and carrots a root plant. These results were obtained by adding water to the soil samples and then the samples were vortexed to create a solution. The samples were then incubated, and a pH meter was used to find the pH values of each sample.  The graph depicts the average mean of 8 soil samples pH values along with their pH values. There was also a T-test performed to determine if there was a significant difference between the squash and carrot soil samples. The p-value found was 0.031. This means there was a significant difference between the two samples because the p-value is less than 0.05.

The method used was adding water to the samples. After water was added the solution was vortexed and then a pH meter was inserted into the mixture and the pH was found.

Per the evidence the average pH value of squash is 7.726 with a standard deviation of 0.121. The average pH value of carrots is 7.848 with a standard deviation of 0.0718. These values do have a significant difference with a p-value of 0.031. This tells us that the pH of the squash and carrots could be affecting their health. The pH values have a ten percent difference between, with the pH of the carrots having a higher average. This means the carrots are more basic than the squash. Neither the squash nor carrots are in their optimum pH range. Carrots tend to thrive in a more acidic soil and squash in a more alkaline soil. This means that lime should be added to the carrot soil to lower the pH levels. Sulfur should be added to raise the pH of the squash. 

The carrot and the squash do have unique pH values. This is supported by the statistically significant difference between their pH values per the results of the T-test. I am certain of this analysis because the p-value that resulted was 0.031, confirming that there is a statistical difference between the pH of the carrot and squash soil samples. I am confident in this analysis because the data demonstrated a p-value lower than 0.05. The squash being in an acidic soil is contributing to their struggle to thrive. The carrots are also in an incorrect pH range; however, they are a root plant. This leads me to believe that the surrounding plants and soil are providing carrots with the nutrients they need to grow and prosper. Since the carrots are emersed in the soil they are protected from outside factors. Factors such as air pollutants in the air could be directly affecting the squash and raising their pH values. 

In conclusion, the pH of the squash is contributing to the lack of survival of the squash. Squash is in a category of cucurbits. Thus, the pH of squash should be more alkaline (Lerner and Dana, 1). The pH of the squash is too acidic. The squash needs lime added to the soil to the soil to raise the pH. On the other hand, carrots thrive in an acidic environment (Schuh and Mackenzie, 1). The carrots are surrounded by the soil and can be pulling other nutrients allowing them to prosper. There is a statistical difference between the pH of the squash and carrots with a p-value of 0.031 which is less than 0.05. This leads to the conclusion that pH is playing a role in the survival of the squash and carrots.

To find these results, we weighed our soil samples, dried them, and weighed them after to find the percent difference based on the weights. The graph demonstrates the average percent moisture content for carrots and squash, along with error bars for their standard deviations. We also ran an unpaired t-test assuming unequal variance and generated a p-value of 0.0159, indicating a significant statistical difference across results.

The method used to gather this data included weighing our soil samples, dehydrating them, and weighting them to calculate the percentage of weight lost in water.

The average percent moisture content of carrots and squash are significantly different based on the averages, as well as the T-Test performed on the data that was collected. The average moisture content of the carrot samples collected was 21.78, while the average moisture content of squash was about 20.7% higher, at 27.43. The generated p-value from our T-Test was 0.016, which is <0.05, indicating a significant statistical difference between the moisture content of the two conditions.

Based on the collected evidence, it can be concluded that the soil that the squash was being grown in had a significantly higher moisture content than the soil that the carrots were being grown in. Based on the values and data obtained, we can say with confidence that this conclusion is accurate. Across all of the samples, squash had a higher moisture content than carrots.

These results can be caused by a multitude of things; however, it could explain certain things that were observed about the actual plants that were growing from the soil samples that we obtained. The carrots were thriving, while the squash was struggling. This could have been caused by the squash soil’s higher moisture content.

Moisture content of soil can be affected by many different things, including soil temperature, organic matter present, and soil texture. (Rasheed et. al.) Compaction of soil can also affect permeability, which can change the moisture content as well (Kuzucu et al.). Compaction and soil texture is something that can be used to explain the higher moisture content observed in the squash plants. We observed that the squash soil was much more dense than the carrot soil. The compaction of the soil can explain why the squash soil did not drain as quickly as the carrot soil, making it have a higher moisture content.

Figure 3.2, group data of relative utilization efficiency graphs

Figure Legend 2:

Figure 3.2 indicates the Relative Utilization Sum which can be get by summing of all the carbon sources of our group that meet the threshold of 0.25. The Carbon Relative Utilization Efficiency which is the ratio of growth over carbon uptake (Manzoni et al., 2012) also be shown on the figure.

Method:

Relative Utilization Sum is the sume of all our group carbon sources that meet the threshold 0.25. The Carbon Relative Utilization Efficientcy is the ratio of grwoth over carbon uptake.

Data Analysis:

Based on our group relative utilization sum, the utilization of carbon in squash is one larger than carrot in overall. However, carrot has slightly more relative utilization efficiency in carboxylic 27.6%, amino acids 20.7%, polymers 13.8% and Amine 6.90%, which means bacteria in carrot soil is more efficient in utilization these carbon sources than squash. Squash bacteria is more expert in consuming carbohydrates with 33.3% efficiency than 31.0% in carrot. However, the total efficiency two conditions utilized is the same, both up to one hundred percent.

Conclusion:

More Carbon Utilization Efficiency indicates more carbon sources are converted to biomass and biological products relative to the amount consumed (Allison et al., 2010; Manzoni et al., 2012; Hessen et al., 2004; Jiao et al., 2014; Sterner and Elser, 2002).  As result, we can conlude that both carrot and squash soil have a high biomass and biological products based on their same Carbon Utilization Efficiency.

The results of our Shannon (H), richness (S), and evenness (E) tests were obtained through DNA extraction from bacteria. The extracted DNA samples were sent to a lab to be sequenced and Nephele was used to analyze the data collected from the sequencing and analysis of the extracted DNA. The graphs in figure 4.3 demonstrate the average Shannon, richness, and evenness values of the two conditions with standard deviation shown.  

There was an unpaired t-test assuming unequal variance ran for the H, S, and E values. The Shannon and richness values generated a p-value of >0.05 (Shannon Value: 0.432)(Richness Value 0.856), indicating no significant statistical differences between the two conditions analyzed. However, the evenness values generated a p-value of  <0.05 (0.00649, indicating a significant statistical difference. This indicates that the biodiversity of the bacteria (H) and number of organisms (S) are statistically similar between the two conditions. The number of different bacteria and their concentration (E) can be seen as statistically different.  

The values obtained demonstrates that each factor plays a different role in the soil samples. The large biodiversity could be contributing to the death of the squash. Too many factors could be in play causing the squash to struggle because excess factors could be present. The squash could also be intaking too many carbon sources, causing them to die. In all, there are many factors that play into the death of the squash, these are just a small possibility that are intermixed in the bigger picture.  

In conclusion, based on evidence above, squash has more evenly distributed bacteria in a sample than carrot. This statement can be confidently proved by the P value (0.00649) less than 0.05, which means there is a significant difference between the evenness of these two conditions. Also, there is a high certainty that they have some differences in evenness based on P value 0.00649 less than 0.05, which indicates that there is a huge difference between the evenness of squash and carrot. Therefore, we can be confident and certain to conclude that squash has more even bacteria distribution than carrot. On the contrary, we cannot confidently conclude that there is any obvious difference between Shannon diversity index and richness of these two conditions due to 0.432 and 0.856 P values that are more than 0.05, which means that there is no significant difference of Shannon diversity index and richness between these two conditions. In addition, the certainty cannot be considered based on p values (0.432 and 0.856), which represents there is no significant difference between the Shannon diversity index and richness. As result, with the consideration of Shannon diversity index, richness and evenness, it is only possible for us to conclude that squash has more evenly distributed bacteria in a sample than carrot due to different evenness between two conditions with P value 0.00649.