PROCTOR POND ASSESSMENT
Site 6 Squad
By: Riley Anderson
Partners: Cole Bickford and Eamonn Healey
General Purpose
The assessment of the Proctor Pond provides very important information because the pond contributes greatly to the overall health of the campus's ecosystem. The Proctor Pond is part of the greater Merrimack River Watershed and the assessment was to sample both chemical and biological data and determine the quality of water that is currently in the pond. The pond has been part of some drastic changes over that past years in the Proctor community, such as the addition of the turf fields directly next to the pond. The quality of water would be compared with the assessments of past years and used to determine the trending water quality that is currently occurring the Proctor Pond.
Materials Used
The materials used during the assessment of the Proctor Pond were essential to determine the biological diversity and the quality of water in the pond. Each group was given the same set of materials to use, unless there was not enough materials for each group to have an individual one.
- 2 Nets
- 1 Lab Quest
- 1 Large Bucket
- 1 Small Tray
- 1 Spoon with holes
- 1 Pipette
- 1 Magnifying Lens
- 1 pH Probe
- 1 Temperature Probe
- 1 Dissolved Oxygen Probe
- 1 Organism Sheet
- 1 Nitrate Kit (Did not collect Nitrate Data)
- 1 Phosphate Kit
- 1 Turbidity Kit
- Phones used to document the data collection
To collect biological data in the Proctor Pond each group was given two nets, a small bucket (1), a small lunch container (1) to place small organisms in for closer determination, an eye dropper (1), a magnifying glass (1), and a spoon with holes in it (1).
To collect abiotic data each group was given a set of technological and chemical tools in order to determine certain levels in the pond. A lab quest was given to each group (1) , a PH probe (1), a dissolved oxygen probe (1), an air probe(1), a test tube (1) and phosphate tablets (1 packet).
Procedure
ABIOTIC
The procedure of the assessment was one that needed to be followed very carefully in order to not disturb systems that would hinder the results of other data that was being collected. The data that was collected each day was as follows, Air Temperature, Water Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, PH, Phosphate levels, Beaufort scale (Weather), Turbidity, Biotic Organisms and Time of Day. The first step for this particular group was to make the trip to site 6, located behind Drew Donaldson's house at the outflow of the Proctor Pond.
Once at the location of Site 6, data collection was able to begin. In order to not compromise the results of future tests air temperature was taken prior to water temperature. This is due to if water temperature was taken first the water would remain on the probe and when testing air temperature it would greatly affect the credibility of the test.
In order to test air quality and water quality the lab quest was turned on and then the long silver probe was plugged into the correct port in the lab quest and an input value was observed digitally on the lab quest to determine the temperature.
After both water temperature and air temperature were collected the next step was determining pH and dissolved oxygen. To determine dissolved oxygen a different probe was taken out and plugged into the lab quest and placed in the water while stirring up the water. To determine pH a probe was given to the group and when attached to the lab quest and put in the water it would read the pH of the water. The next step would be determined by Figure 1.1 and 1.2.
 |
| Figure 1.1 |
 |
| Figure 1.2 |
Figure 1.1 and 1.2 were used to determine the phosphate of the water. The first step was to fill the test tube to the 5 mL line and and one of the phosphorus tablets into the water. The test tube was then mixed until the phosphate tab dissolved and after waiting five minutes the test tube was compared with Figure 1.2 to determine the phosphate level of the water. The scale of 1-4 is in ppm, or parts per million.
The next step would be determining the Turbidity of the water. Turbidity is the amount of suspended particles in the water, which affect the productivity of the pond. To collect Turbidity a test tube was filled and compared to a sheet to find the turbidity in JTU, which is Jacksons Turbidity Unit.
 |
| Figure 1.3 |
 |
| The group determining Turbidity. Photo Creds: Alan McIntyre |
BIOTIC
The next step was to collect biotic data in the pond, in order to do so a large container was filled with water and placed near the testing site. The net was then used to stir up the bottom of the pond to mix up the layer of mud and sand to be part of the sampling. Then a scoop was taken out of the pond and placed into the large container. Once the sample was in the bucket the process of actually gathering biotic samples started. Large pieces of matter, such as leaves, were taken out carefully for a clearer vision of the sample could be seen. Once an organism was found they were either scooped up with the spoon or with a pipette and placed into the smaller container to determine what specie that said organism was. This would be repeated as many times as possible in order to collect the most data possible in the short amount of time allotted each class.
 |
| Here is a frog that was collected with the net. |
 |
| Leech |
General Narrative
D Block APES collected data on four different dates, October 20th, 22nd, 23rd and the 26th. I was site six with Eamon and Cole. The location of site six was one that was on the outskirts of the main Proctor Campus, it was a large distance away from any other site during the assessment. The data that was collected contained a great amount of fluctuation.
 |
| Here is the locations of all the sites where testing was done. |
On the first day of testing, on the 20th, data was collected in the morning and the weather was sunny but there was rain in the morning. The location of the site caused a great fluctuation in data collection throughout the collection days, the water that outflowed through site five traveled under the Proctor Campus which resulted there being very few organisms that actually were in site six. On the second day, October 22nd, site six was very wet and the forecast was cloudy. Data collection remained consistent in the fact that very limited organisms were collected throughout the process. The third day the weather was Sunny but windy, the Beaufort scale remained a constant 2 but there were occasional gusts up to a 5 or 6. On the final day of testing it was very sunny but with the shade of the trees in site six the temperature was very cold.
 |
| Crayfish collected at Site Six |
Data Tables
Below are the individual data tables from site six during the collection days.
 |
| Site 6 Day 1 *Degrees are in Celsius, to convert to Fahrenheit double the temp and add 30 |
 |
| Site 6 Day 2 |
 |
| Site 6 Day 3 |
 |
| Site 6 Day 4 |
Below is a link for the Diversity Index of the Campus Pond Assessment for this year
Table for All the Groups
 |
| Here is the Diversity Index that was done in Class |
 |
| Here is the Diversity Index Score for the past years at the Proctor Pond |
Analysis
The data collected was very interesting, the diversity index score seems to be on a downward curve from 2013. Perhaps a possible conclusion for the year of 2013 being a higher score of 10.6 because that year the pond may of bounced back from all of the runoff of the installation of the turf. A number that stands out greatly is the 0.74 in the year of 2009. This is a result of data that was collected in 2009, there was only twelve species and that is not a representation of a trend because for the other years at least thirty different species were looked at, therefore the year of 2009 does not represent an accurate trend.
The overall health of the pond is determined by looking at all abiotic and biotic factors. The abiotic factors. An ideal pH for the Proctor Pond would be in the range of 6.5-8, the average for site six was 6.27 which is close but not ideal. The ideal level of phosphate in the pond is 1 ppm and the average was 0.89 for site six which is just below ideal. However a confounding variable could have been interpreted here and a misreading could have occurred where a 1 ppm test result occurred but was read as a 0.5 ppm test. Which would result in an overall phosphate level of 1 ppm which is healthy for the pond. The turbidity of site six was much different than those of sites 1-5, where the turbidity remained a constant 0-10 JTU, at site six the Turbidity levels were varied. Averaging a 20 JTU out of all four days, an ideal turbidity level would be around zero, and for site six it was not a suitable level of turbidity. Turbidity is the amount of suspend particles in the water, which results in the productiveness of the water that is being tested. The less turbid an area is, sunlight can pass through to a deeper depth and therefore increase the productiveness of the pond. The final abiotic factor that was tested was dissolved oxygen and at site six the average was 5.53 which was a less than ideal number, an ideal number would range anywhere from 6.5-8.5. The overall health of site six is not ideal, the numbers point to those that would suggest that the water is slightly polluted. This could have been a result of the water flowing under the Proctor Community through pipes and all acidic water and other pollutants would find its way into site six and not the other sites. Another hint that the water of the site six is not ideal is the organisms that were found were ones that withstand a harsher environment such as crayfish and leeches.
The Diversity Index is showing a downward trend from the year of 2013. In the year 2007, the diversity was 19 but throughout the years it has steadily dropped and in 2012 it fell to 6.77. However the year 2013 brought the diversity back up to a 10.6 but since then the diversity has continued to decline. 2014 showed the diversity at 7.l4 and as expected the diversity dropped in the year 2015 to 6.42. Indicator Species tell whether or not the pond is healthy and in the year 2014 there were 75 Mayflies and 6 Stoneflies, compared to this year where only 7 Mayflies were collected and 2 Stoneflies. This is a huge indicator that the ponds 'healthiness' is decreasing. However, not all is dim, the abiotic levels of the pond are not in a sate of panic.
Conclusion
The abiotic and biotic results of site six show that the pond is decreasing in healthiness. However, the site six is expected to be less healthy than the other sites because of the process the water takes to get there. A main source of food is energy and when water is traveling underground no sunlight can reach the water which would eliminate all organisms from surviving the trek from site 5 to site 6. The results of site 6 cannot be used to individually determine the quality of the Proctor Pond. Phosphate and Turbidity levels remained consistently at a decent state, which would make the pond not unhealthy but it could be healthier. The Phosphate remained consistent at 1 ppm and the Turbidity was between 0-15 JTU throughout the course of the experiment for sites 1-5. The pH of the pond is becoming more acidic however, this could be a result of runoff from the turf field and other pollutants that are able to make their way through the soil and into the pond. The pond is looking to be headed towards a state of unhealthiness if the trend continues. However, as of now it is safe to say that our pond is in a decently healthy state.
The Diversity Index has proven that the diversity in the pond has decreased steadily despite the year of 2013, where is was 10.6. This can be shown through Indicator Species such as Stoneflies and Mayflies, there has been a huge drop since last year indicating that the pond is becoming a more toxic environment. However this testing period was full of variables, the weekend before testing the first frost occurred and sporadically throughout testing rainfall was accounted which could greatly affect all results, such as turbidity.
The Proctor Pond Assessment has given insight on how complex a small ecosystem can be, and what it requires to maintain a healthy environment for all the organisms in the ecosystem. It was an exciting experience to collect data, especially biotic, for site six very little biotic data was collected so when an organism was found it was very exciting. The factors that are implemented in an ecosystem are at an immense amount and all of them affect the ecosystem differently. This lab assessment was a very effective way to implement class readings and learn from experience rather than all classroom work.
 |
| It's been real Site Six. PEACE |
