Prudy Whalen

LAB Week 5
2.27.14
Stream Characteristics in the Letort and Mully Grub
Introduction:
In this lab, we went to Letort Park and samled !arious areas o" water to "ind
out the #ondu#ti!ity o" the water due to salt runo"". We wanted to see the e""e#t that
the salt runo"" had on the e#osystem, and we belie!ed that the #ondu#ti!ity o" the
water would be hi$her in the %ully &rub and the dissol!ed o'y$en would be hi$her in
lower temeratures.
Methods:
(o take out data, we $athered water and then used a La%otte (ra#er
Po#ke(ester in order to "ind out the #ondu#ti!ity and the temerature o" the water
and then used another de!i#e to "ind out the le!el o" dissol!ed o'y$en within the
water.
Results:
I. )ondu#ti!ity
*+,-L(, ./* %0 &*/-P
SITE TEMP COND DO TIME NOTES L!T LONG
I 11.2
3
) 521
4
, 11.5
m$5L
32624 P% L(, 7,,
*B
43.18592 :77.12
II. 11.5
3
) 588
4
, 11.15m$5
L
32612 P% L(, -,
III. 11.2
3
) 1214
4
, 11.35m$5
L
32642 P% %&
Brid$e
I;. 13.3
3
) 212
4
, 12.5m$5L 32648 P% L(, 7,, LB
;. 13.2
3
) 1279
4
, 2.9m$5L 31633 A% %& -,
*+,-L(, ./* ALL ,I(+,
SITE COND"CT#IT$
I. Mean: 518
Min: 513
Ma%: 527
II. Mean: 541
Min: 123
Ma%: 588
III. Mean: 1111
Min: 1398
Ma%: 1214
I;. Mean: 792
Min: 728
Ma%: 212
;. Mean: 1175
Min: 1384
Ma%: 1279
A!$ )ondu#ti!ity o" ea#h site
II 7issol!ed o'y$en
SITE DO TEMPER!T"RE
I. 11.5 m$5L 11.8
3
)
II. 11.15 m$5L 11.5
3
)
III. 11.35 m$5L 12.3
3
)
;I. 12.5 m$5L 11.3
3
)
;. 2.9 m$5L 12.4
3
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Avg. Conductivity
7/ !s. (emerature
Discussion:
I. Did our results support your hypothesis? Explain.
(he results somewhat suorted the hyothesis. (he 7/ was de"initely
hi$her in waters with lower temeratures, but there was no real
#orrelation.(he #ondu#ti!ity was hi$her in the %ully &rub as e'e#ted
be#ause the water is #loser to the road, resultin$ in more salt runo"".
II. Did you find any results particularly remarkable?
I thou$ht it was weird that at last three sites, the temerature and
dissol!ed o'y$en in the water did not #orrelate. (here seemed to be
some sort o" attern "or sites 1 and 2, and then at around site 1
somethin$ #han$ed and the temerature and the 7/ stoed "ollowin$ a
atter.
III. Describe any limitations of our study. How reliable were our
measurements?
I<d say our measurements were retty reliable #onsiderin$ the "a#t that
we had many di""erent test samles and data that more or less seemed
to be within a $ood ran$e o" ea#h other.
IV. What other factors might hae affected our results?
/ne "a#tor that #ould ha!e a""e#ted my ersonal $rou<s results was the
"a#t that our La%otte (ra#er Po#ke(ester that we used to #al#ulate the
#ondu#ti!ity and temerature o" our samles was ne!er =uite at the
#orre#t #alibration number. (his #ould ha!e a #aused a sli$ht error in our
"indin$s. I did noti#e that when $atherin$ the results o" the other
$rous, my $rou<s results were always sli$htly hi$her whi#h #ould ha!e
been due to our ma#hine ha!in$ a sli$htly hi$her #alibration number
than the other ma#hines.
V. What are the implications of our work? !an you make any
recommendations?
/ur work shows that salt water runo"" into lo#al streams and ri!ers is a
lar$er roblem than some reali>e. (here should be some sort o" "ilter
system or barrier system that re!ents the salt water "rom runnin$ into
these bodies o" water. A lot o" eole $et their drinkin$ water "rom su#h
sour#es, and the salt water runo"" #an<t be $ood "or eole to #onsume.