Furnace Brook Lab Report

Furnace Brook Lab Report

Introduction:  Macro-invertebrates are an important indicator of water quality and the health of an ecosystem. Different groups of macro-invertebrates vary with pollution tolerances, which cause them to be present or absent in the body of water, referenced in The Enviroscience Benthic Macroinvertebrates Surveys. The aim of this lab was to observe the species of macro-invertebrates and deduct from the pollution tolerances of the species identified, the water quality of Furnace Brook. Also by analyzing the pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity of the water, we will be able deduce the water quality of the creek. Since macroinvertebrates need a high level of dissolved oxygen to live, as mentioned in EPA’s chapter 4 macroinvertebrates and habitat, a presence of high dissolved oxygen can indicate life and stability in the environment along with the water quality. In this lab, the experiment will be conducted in two parts, calculating the flow rate of the creek and sampling the macro-invertebrate population. A golf ball will be dropped downstream 40 feet and timed several trials, to calculate the average velocity of the creek. To sample the macro-invertebrate population, one person from the group will move around and cause debris in the water, while another person holds the screen downstream to collect macro-invertebrates.

Research Question: How can the water quality impact the chemical compounds and the macro-invertebrate population of Furnace Brook?  

Hypothesis:  The pH of the creek will be around 6 and there will be intolerant pollution macro-invertebrates present in the creek. By observing the creek, there is life all around it and in it, however there is also litter, inferring that the water quality will be in between poor and good. Macro-invertebrates that are intolerant to pollution found in the creek will indicate that the water quality isn’t poor, however there will be a mixture of macro-invertebrates from varying pollutant groups present in Furnace Brook.

Variable Identification:  

Controlled Variable	Method to control the variable
Creek flow rate	Did not alter the flow rate
Distance	Standing 40ft from drop place of the golf ball and stop place.

Experimental Setup :  This lab was conducted at the creek, Furnace Brook, located behind Corcoran High School and continues through Elmwood Park. Materials that were used were a kick-net, plastic paint tray, meter stick, tape measure, stop watch, golf ball, dissolved oxygen tablets, pH tablets, two vials varying in size, a water thermometer, and a calculator.  

The stream flow moves towards the right.

Back of Corcoran High School school School.

The stars indicate the location of where the data for the sample sites was collected along the blue line.

http://www.mytopo.com/locations/index.cfm?fid=949602

Procedure:

1.  Picked two sites to sample from, located the longitude and latitude of those sites. Recorded the longitude and latitude coordinates.

2. Observed the environment around the site that was picked. Looking closely at the water appearance, stream bed composition, algae cover along with the texture and amount, and what the environment is like around the stream bank. Recorded these observations. This helps develop a hypothesis.

3.  The pH was tested by taking the smaller vial and filling it up with the creek water. Once the water was collected, two pH tablets were put into the vial. The vial was then turned up and down for four minutes until the creek water turned a color. Once the water was a different color, the reference sheet was used to determine the pH level of the creek water. Recorded the pH level.

4.  The dissolved oxygen was tested by taking the larger vial and filling it up to 10mL. Afterward, putting one dissolved oxygen tablet into the vial. Then turned it back and forth until the water changed color. Referenced back to the same sheet for pH to determine the dissolved oxygen level. Recorded the dissolved oxygen level.

5.     Filled the cup, which held the materials for pH and dissolved oxygen, with water and waited until the turbidity symbol at the bottom changed. Referenced back to the sheet with the pH and dissolved oxygen to determine the turbidity level. Recorded the turbidity level.

6.    Took the water thermometer and placed it in the water to get the temperature of the creek water. Recorded the temperature. (Repeated steps 1-5 for both sites on both days the experiment was being done.)

7.    Measured the width of the creek using the measuring tape in feet. Recorded the width.

8.   Took six equidistant depth measurements along the width with the meter stick in inches. Recorded each of the six equidistant depth measurements.

9.    Made a conversion of the six equidistant depths from inches to feet by dividing each measurement by 12.

10. Added all of the six depths in feet and divided that number by 6 to find the average depth.

11. Calculated the area by multiplying the average depth by the width.

12.  Person 1 stood at a location within in the site being sampled, while person 2 stood 40ft downstream from person 1. The 40ft distance between the people was measured with the tape measure in feet.

13.  Another group member dropped the golf ball from where person 1 was standing.

14. The time it took from the golf ball to get from person 1 to person 2 was timed using the stopwatch. Recorded the time.

15.   Person 2 picked up the golf ball and gave it to the golf ball dropper to do another trial. (Repeated steps 6-11 for five trials at both sites 1 and 2, to calculate the average float time of the golf ball.)116.   Calculated the average float time of the gold ball by adding up all the times from the five trials and dividing by 5.

17.   Calculated the stream velocity by dividing 40ft by the average float time.

18.  Calculated the stream discharge by multiplying the area by the velocity.

19.   Person 1 kicked up debris and moved some rocks.
20. Person 2 stood at a spot not too far away from person 1 downstream, holding the kick-net, to collect any macro-invertebrates that were moved out of hiding.

21.  Person 2 stood there for approximately a minute and took the kick-net out of the water.

22. Gently removed the macro-invertebrates on the kick-net with water, into the plastic paint tray.

23.  Counted the number of each macro-invertebrate species along with the type of macro-invertebrate seen and recorded it.

24. Put the macro-invertebrates back into the creek, intact the same way they were when taken out.

  

      Data:  The data is collected twice from two different sites. For site 1, the width of the stream at the first site is 15.0 ft. The second site has a stream width of 9.2ft. The depth of six equidistant locations from both sites is listed in the charts. The conversions of the depths in inches to feet are listed. Each measurement in inches is divided by 12 to convert to feet. The average stream depth for site one is 0.4217ft and for site two it is 0.49ft. The area of the stream at site one is 6.326 sq ft and for site two it is 4.508 sq ft. To calculate the area the average depth is multiplied by the width. The average float time for site one is 134.6s, while the average float time for the second site is 44s. The stream velocity for site one is 0.29718 feet/second. The average stream velocity for site two is 0.90909feet/second. The stream velocity is calculated by dividing 40 by the average float time. The stream discharge for site one is 1.88 cubic feet/second. The stream discharge for site two is 4.098 cubic feet/second. The stream discharge is calculated by multiplying the area by the velocity.

Site 1:

Trial	1	2	3	4	5	6
Depth (in)	2.7	2.7	2.5	2.0	4.5	16.0

Trial	1	2	3	4	5	6
Depth (ft)	0.225	0.225	0.2083	0.1670	0.325	1.333

Trial	1	2	3	4	5
Float time (s)	129	141	138	135	130

Site 2:

Trial	1	2	3	4	5	6
Depth (in)	5.5	3.8	4.5	1.5	9.0	11.0

Trial	1	2	3	4	5	6
Depth (ft)	0.458	0.317	0.375	0.125	0.750	0.917

Trial	1	2	3	4	5
Float time (s)	65	55	28	34	38

 

Site 1:

	Day 1	Day 2
pH	7	7
Dissolved oxygen	4-6ppm	4ppm
Turbidity	0JTU	0JTU
Temperature	11°	10°

Site 2:

	Day 1	Day 2
pH	7	7
Dissolved oxygen	4ppm	5ppm
Turbidity	0JTU	0JTU
Temperature	11°	8°

  Results:

Discussion:  The types of macro-invertebrates found in stream A (site 1) has less species present, compared to stream B’s (site 2) present species. Species such as Caddisfly larva and Scuds are present in stream B but not present in stream A.  However there is a higher population of Midge larva in stream A than there is in stream B. This may because stream A’s location was near a bridge, where many high school students cross and pollute the area near the bridge. Whereas stream B’s location is more reserved and hard to get to without going in the water. The presence of more Midge larva in stream A reflects the pollution in the water in that area, since Midge larva is fairly tolerant of pollution. However there still was a presence of Stonefly nymphs in stream A, which are very intolerant of pollution. This can indicate that stream A is more polluted than stream B, but the pollution collectively is not high enough to where macro-invertebrates intolerant of pollution are absent in the water. This reflects that the water quality of Furnace Brook is good. Other species present in stream B, but not A such as; Caddisfly larva and Scuds are very and moderately tolerant of pollution. This also supports the conclusion that stream B is less polluted than stream A. However, the EPA website in chapter 4 macroinvertebrates and habitat states, “The disadvantage of the biosurvey, on the other hand, is that it cannot definitively tell us why certain types of creatures are present or absent.”  Even though Scuds and Caddisfly larva was not found in stream A, there could be another reason as to why those species weren’t present in the sample, other than more pollution. There could’ve just not have been any of those species in that one sample, but if there was more samples taken, maybe those species would’ve been present.

Evaluation: A weakness in this lab is that you can’t identify the exact reason why a certain species of macro-invertebrate is present or absent. A way to improve this weakness is by taking more surveys of the macro-invertebrate population throughout the creek.  A limitation in the lab was that it was very difficult to have precise measurements because of working in the water. Another limitation was more trials could’ve been done to make more accurate averages. A source of error was in making judgement on six equidistant depth measurements from the width of the creek. To improve this lab and to infer a more accurate reason as to why certain macro-invertebrates are absent or present, is by executing more tests based on the chemicals in the water. A source of human error, is when making calculations, the numbers are rounded. Not being able to take exact measurements of the width or depth of the creek because of water. Making judgement on which color the pH test and dissolved oxygen, can be a source of human error because people in the group may see the color differently. A mistake my group may have made during the experiment is being off in our measurements, since it was hard to be precise in the water. For the first day the water temperature was colder than the thermometer, but we knew the water was colder than fourteen degrees, and estimated.   

Conclusion:  The data collected supports my hypothesis of macro-invertebrates that are intolerant of pollution, being present in the creek. Macro-invertebrates which are very intolerant of pollution are Stonefly Nymphs and Caddisfly Larva.  Scuds are in the group of moderately intolerant of pollution, while Midge Larva is in the fairly tolerant of pollution group. All of the species of macro-invertebrates listed were present in Furnace Brook. Along with the hypothesis that the pH was 7, the actual pH level was 6. With a pH level of 7 and a dissolved oxygen level of around 4-6ppm, I can conclude Furnace Brook has good water quality. From both the pH results, dissolved oxygen results and the presence of intolerant pollutant macro-invertebrates, the water of Furnace Brook is not highly polluted. The dissolved oxygen level of 4-6ppm, allows organisms to live and makes Furnace Brook a stable environment. I can infer from this data, Furnace Brook is a healthy environment with small quantities of pollution, which reflects on the good water quality.  

References – "Elmwood Park, Onondaga County, New York, Park [Syracuse West USGS Topographic Map] by MyTopo." Elmwood Park, Onondaga County, New York, Park [Syracuse West USGS Topographic Map] by MyTopo. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2015.

"Chapter 4 Macroinvertebrates and Habitat." Chapter 4 Macroinvertebrates and Habitat. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

"Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Biological Monitoring." Enviroscience. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

"Search Hoosier Riverwatch Database." Hoosier Riverwatch. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

"Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Water Quality (Water Quality)." Water Quality (Penn State Extension). N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.