Research Question: How will the D.O, Turbidity, temperature, and Depth of three separate locations on Seneca lake affect the plankton population of those three locations.
Independent Variable: Depths of the three locations.
Controlled Variable: The testing of the other variables will always be done on Seneca lake.
Other Variables: The Dissolved oxygen levels, Turbidity levels, Temperature, and Plankton population.
Abstract: There are many things that influence the population of Plankton in any given marine environment. “Ecological Regulation” a scientific article written about the limiting factors of plankton suggests temperature, sunlight intensity, and nutrient availability as the chief limiting factors for any given plankton population. The Conclusion was supported by “Phytoplankton diversity in response to abiotic factors along Orissa coast, Bay of Bengal” by Swati S. Panda, Dhal N.K, Panda C.R who over the course of a few years collected data on plankton populations, and on the environments they lived in. This data supports “Ecological Regulations” conclusions about Limiting factors of Plankton populations, and has numerous pieces of field evidence that support this same information. Another important aspect to “Phytoplankton diversity in response to abiotic factors along Orissa coast, Bay of Bengal” was the data gained on the type of Plankton that were alive, and what they ate, by studying this they were able to conclude which nutrients were most abundant in the area, and which species of plankton were most resilient to change. The final limiting factor of Plankton is which season the area involved is currently in, although it is not the season that causes the change as much as it is the temperature. Throught data referenced in both the “Ecological Regulation”, and “As The Seasons Change, Will The Plankton” plankton populations will typically be highest in the summer months, begin to fall in the fall months, but will be higher than the populations seen in spring (this is data on a location that has 4 seasons instead of 2). Through this research the question of how temperature affects plankton is answered, however it isn’t as simple as saying plankton prefer high temperature. The information in the third article suggests that some plankton will respond negatively to the rising temperature of water (global warming wise), while a few may then thrive due to adaptability, and less competition. The Conclusion the final article made was while we can make short predictions about how temperature affects plankton in an individual area, we simply lack enough knowledge on plankton, and global warming implications to make appropriate predictions.
Hypothesis: I hypothesise that the areas with high Plankton populations will be the areas of the lake that are the warmest, have the highest Dissolved Oxygen, the clearest waters, and the areas of water that are closest to the surface. I believe this because the evidence i gathered in the abstract portion of this assignment stated that the limiting factors of Plankton population were Intensity of Sunlight, Temperature, and Nutrients. So it is reasonable to conclude that the area that receives the most intense sunlight (lowest Depth), has the highest temperature will have the higher levels of plankton. Finally the Dissolved oxygen affects the population because as all these organism use oxygen in their respiration process, so the more they have the more easier it will be for them to survive and reproduce.
Method: In all three seperate depth locations i will mimic the process by which i collect temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and turbidity (shown in the procedure stage shown below. By mimicking all these processes i will help to eliminate human error, and collect more reliable results. Along this same principle of thought i will collect the Plankton sample in the same manner at all three locations to once again help limit human error.
Procedure:
D.O Collection Steps
- When you get to the lab bench, gather the dissolved oxygen kit.
- To the LaMotte sample bottle, add 8 drops of the manganese(II) sulfate solution (bottle 4167) followed by 8 drops of the alkaline potassium iodide azide solution (bottle 7166).Some water may drip off the sides.
- Carefully cap the bottle, mix by gently inverting (, then allow the orange-brown precipitate that has formed to settle below the shoulder of the bottle (about 3-4 minutes).
- Using the 1 gram spoon provided in the kit (0697), add one level spoonful of sulfamic acid (bottle 6286) to the solution in your LaMotte sample bottle. Cap the bottle and mix until both the reagent (white crystals) and precipitate (brown crystals) have completely dissolved and you obtain a clear brown-yellow solution.
- Pour this clear brown-yellow solution from the LaMotte bottle into the titration tube and fill it up to the 20 ml line.
- Use the plastic eye-dropper provided in the kit, add 8 drops of the starch solution to the titration tube. At this point, the solution should change color to a bluish-green.
- Fill the Direct Reading Titrator (0337) up to the 0 mark [looks like a syringe, marked 0-10 ppm] with the sodium thiosulfate solution (bottle 4169).
- Insert the titrator you just filled through the small hole in the cap of the titration tube and titrate the solution slowly. Swirl the titration tube until the blue color of the solution disappears permanently with one drop of titrant (i.e., you are looking for a color progression from green-blue to blue to light blue to colorless). You may have to fill the titrator more than once. Be sure to record how much titrant you used before refilling. The direct reading titrator is calibrated in units of parts per million (ppm) dissolved oxygen, therefore, be sure to record all of these units.
Position and Depth
- When Ship has made complete stop mark the exact position of the ship, by either using the ship's radar or by using the G.P.S.
- When Ship has made complete stop mark the exact depth of the ship using the depth finder on board the ship.
Temperature
- Use the Ship's onboard "CTD" to gather temperature measurements.
Turbidity
- Take Cup that has Secchi Disk on it and slowly lower it into the lake until it disappears. Record the height at which it disappeared.
- Pull the Secchi Disk back up until it can be seen again record that.
- Repeat steps 1 and 2 3 times, and collect average overall.
Plankton Collection
- Twist the end of the rope around one hand 2-3 times and grasp with a fist. Don't let go! This grip is to ensure the net isn't tossed overboard when it is cast.
- Make sure the clasp at the bottom of the net is closed! If it isn't, the sample will not be captured and the net will need to be recast.
- Lower the net over the side of the boat until it floats freely in the water. Walk slowly
from the stern to the bow of the boat and then back again, gently dragging the
net behind you. Try to walk at a steady pace so that the net stays at a fairly
constant depth and does not scrape the side of the boat. Since water clarity is an
indication of the presence of phytoplankton, use your secchi disk reading as an
indicator of productivity. If the secchi disk reading is less than 7 meters, traverse the
length of the boat twice. If it is greater than 7 meters, make 3-4 trips to make sure
you collect enough plankton in your net.
- Back at the stern of the boat, gather the line up until the net is vertical, hanging freely, and level with the railing. Using the provided wash bottle (filled with tap or lake surface water, not distilled water), wash down any plankton clinging to the sides of the net into the small grey cup attached to the lower end of the net.
- Raise the net slightly, keeping it vertical. Grasp the grey sample cup and swing it on board, making sure not to spill the sample
- .Hold the provided plastic beaker under the sample cup and attached rubber tubing and release the tubing clamp, allowing the sample to flow into the beaker. If it appears that some sample has clung to the inside of the grey sample cup, carefully use a small amount of water from the wash bottle to rinse it into the beaker. You don't want to dilute the sample.
- The beaker can now be taken to the lab for analysis. Remember to rinse it out
when the plankton sample is no longer needed (using either tap or distilled water)
and replace it in the net box.
Final Question: What is the average overall productivity of Lake Seneca, and has this productivity on average trended up, down, or remained constant.
Data: At the seneca lake field trip we sampled 6 locations spread out over two groups (3 locations per group). Both of the groups sampled the lake on November 5 2015, but the sampling done of the two groups was separated by time. Due to the size of the boat not all the sampling could be done at a single instance so one group sampled in the morning (8:00-11:00), while the other groups sampled in the afternoon (12:00-3:00). The name of each group's marks which station they started at (either 2 dredge, 1 Chemical test, or 3 Plankton Population), and what time of day the took the sample (either A for morning, or P for afternoon). The group's location are as follows:
1A: N 42 Degrees.940’ W 57 Degrees.972’
2A: N42 Degrees 51’ W 76 Degrees 57.52’
3A: N42 Degrees 51.497’ W 76 Degrees 57.9’
1P: N 42 Degrees 49.971’ W 76 Degrees 57,94’
2P:N 42 Degrees 50.840’ W 76 Degrees 57.94’
3P: N 43 Degrees 51.554’ W 76 Degrees 57.567’
The Weather Conditions on the lake during the morning sampling was mostly clear skies (at 30% cloud coverage), with an average temperature of 13 Degrees celsius, and a light breeze. The conditions in the Afternoon however were mostly clouded skies (about 70% Cloud coverage), an average temperature of 14 Degrees celsius, and a consistent breeze with the aforementioned time.
My groups dredge sample was taken at 62.6 meters, was soft, had a temperature of 40 fahrenheit, did not react to acid, or have a pungent smell. Most of the mussels found were quagga mussels, which were located on the top of the dredge sample. Another important thing to note was that there were very few mussels located within this sample around 15 in total, which is consistent with the fact that most quaggas don’t go deeper than 60 meters. The Sample collected feature almost no living (decaying or otherwise) plant biomass, contained no non living materials, and was separated in two layers. The Top layer was about a inch thick consisting of mostly (brown, and soupy) mud, followed by a second layer about 6 inches thick of fine (grayish) silt.
Chemical Results
Sample Site
|
Temperature (degrees Celsius)
|
Depth temperature
|
ph
|
Chloride
|
Dissolved Oxygen
|
Depth to Bottom (meters)
|
1A: N 42 Degrees.940’ W 57 Degrees.972’
|
13
|
38.9
|
7.3
|
200ppm
|
30ppm
|
46.6
|
2A: N42 Degrees 51’ W 76 Degrees 57.52’
|
13
|
10
|
7.4
|
300ppm
|
6ppm
|
22.7
|
3A: N42 Degrees 51.497’ W 76 Degrees 57.9’
|
13
|
0
|
7.5
|
200ppm
|
10ppm
|
8
|
1P: N 42 Degrees 49.971’ W 76 Degrees 57,94’
|
7
|
54
|
7.9
|
180ppm
|
10.4ppm
|
62.6
|
2P:N 42 Degrees 50.840’ W 76 Degrees 57.94’
|
14
|
10
|
7.4
|
143ppm
|
10ppm
|
22.3
|
3P: N 43 Degrees 51.554’ W 76 Degrees 57.567’
|
13
|
0
|
7.3
|
200ppm
|
10ppm
|
7.5
|
Plankton Population
Species
|
Sample A:1
|
Sample A2
|
Sample 3A
|
Sample 1P
|
Sample 2P
|
Sample 3P
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
1
|
16
|
2
|
5
|
5
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
8
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Total
|
9
|
15
|
9
|
21
|
17
|
19
|
Below Is the Results of the Chemical tests.Figure 1 Shows the Chloride and D.O measurements in Parts Per Million. Figure 2 Shows the Depth to bottom, and Sample Depth of the water in the six locations. Figure 3 Shows the temperature of the 6 location. Finally figure 4 shows the Ph values of the six loactions.
Figure 1 Above
Figure 2 above
Figure 3 Above
Figure 4 above
As shown above each location has a population of Plankton, using the equation for Simpson's biodiversity index, the diversity of each sample location can be calculated.
Discussion: One trend shown in the data (figure 3) that is fairly consistent is temperature, as each location had around 13-14 degrees Celsius. However sample location 1p breaks this trend with a temperature of 7 degrees celsius, which is probably because the sample location used in this one had an overall depth of 62.6 meters and a sample depth of 54 meters (See figure 2). Using the graph shown below it shows that Sample location 1p is the only one that broke through the consistent temperatures shown to a depth of 40 meters. Essentially because this was the only sample location that sampled this deep it is the only one that broke through the thermocline to reach the cold waters the other samples didn’t reach (which both validates this chart, and the measurement. 
This graph also explains the trend of Dissolved oxygen in the lake, as each location remained fairly consistent to around 10 ppm, which is on line with the graph (figure 1). However then why isn't location 1p wrong? Well because of the depth of the sample, you would expect it to be inconsistent with the data it is paired with however that is quite the opposite. The D.O of that sample is only .4 ppm higher than the other ones, why?. Well the D.O does go through fall’s/rises when trending down, but by the time it reached the depth of 54 meters it was almost back to the earlier sample location, which accounts for why they are similar, and once again validates both the graph and the measurements.
Another trend remained constant in the morning, and afternoon sampling was chloride (at least morning was constant with morning, and afternoon with afternoon). This is to be expected as the chloride present in the lake should disperse even between the various water zones of equal density. This concept is represented well in the graph as the conductivity (which increases in water due to chloride, and other things) remain constant up to the thermoclines then begins to shift, as the chloride levels change due to poor mixing in different densities. Finally one thing that seemingly followed no trend with either the graph, or the collected data is plankton populations of the six sample locations. having both ranging populations, and diversity index that seems to follow no particular pattern or trend. The chart offers no explanation as each sample would have been taken at the same depth. The only answer for this is human error in both the counting, and collection of the various plankton populations. The lack of accurate ways of measuring the plankton, and the lack of consistency in atmospheric conditions lead to far to ranging of plankton results to possibly be of any use.
Evaluation: This lab was not without it’s weaknesses, and limitations the main one being inconsistency. The three sampling locations were not done at common depths (between morning/afternoon) which leads to the information being gathered to have considerably less value (when you consider the limitation of time in sampling). The second limitation was time as we were only capable of spending 6 hours in total on the boat between two groups. This lack of time means few samples, rushed collection of sampling, and overall less data. The lack of Data/more Samples was another problem with this lab, and given more time the first thing of value that should be done is collecting more data to improve the overall validity of our data. One final problem with the data was a lack of standardization in methods used to catalogue, and sample the plankton population. This lack of a standardized method lead to far to ranging of data between the various plankton populations to be of any consequential value. In order to best fix these limitations for future experimentation would be too sample locations at the same depth (between certain intervals) that way any variations in data could be more easily noticed, and the variable between locations to be more closely monitored. Another way to improve the lab would be to book more time for data collection, which would lead to more samples, and overall better/more abundant data (which is invaluable in the scientific process). Another vital way to making this lab better would be creating a method to more accurately represent, count, and collect plankton populations that would lead to the collection of data that could be beneficial in the long run. One sure fire way to ensure accurate proportional representation would be to take 10 randomly selected areas, within a slide, count the number of plankton present in those areas, and uses that to proportionally represent the whole population.One final limitation of this lab was the none consistent atomspheric conditions that occured between morinign, and afternoon sampeling. If the lab could be done again a good way to ensure more useful/reliable data would be to ensure that the conditions remain fairly constant throughout the data (to lead to as few variables as possible). The human error present in the lab is quite considerable. The examination of dredge samples which was difficult by it nature do to the tools available led to a degree of estimation, which could easily led to a lot of error. Another area that human error could have been present was in the chemical results section. Through improper measuring, leaving the sample exposed to air (hurting D.O analysis), or leaving the sample unattended for too long (affecting temperature) is why this section is particularly full of potential sources of human error, and is at a high threat to weaken the overall results. Finally the last potential source for human error was through the collecting, and counting of the plankton population. This is full of potential human error because as I mentioned earlier the lack of a standardized process easily led to far ranging results that are almost useless. In order to best prevent these potential sources of human error it would be essential to have exact measurements in the chemical tests section, keep samples for specific time, and ensure the sample is kept in the proper conditions. It is also necessary for a standardized process of collecting plankton population, and analyzing dredge sample. By doing these few things the potential for human error drops substantially, and will lead to increased data reliability. In order to answer my particular research question I would require both more accurate chloride samples, and far more accurate plankton populations. The plankton populations are by far the most important part of my research question in general being the pinnacle portion of my research.Essentially without accurate plankton populations I am unable to answer my research question or develop my hypothesis (into a fact) even slightly.
Conclusion: In this lab I was able to find out the general Dissolved Oxygen present in Seneca lake above the thermocline, uncovered information regarding how water density works, how invasive mussels spread into the great lakes. I was able to first hand see how the plankton exist within their environment, and the most likely locations of any given plankton population. One Final thing this lab taught me is a general understanding of how the various zones of water operate, and interact with one another. This lab offered first hand visualization of data that specifically states how the zones interact, and how the various aspects of those zones change due to different densities, or presences of animals, or any number of variables. However I was not able to learn accurate plankton populations of various locations on seneca lake, how the various depths effect the aforementioned research question, or really anything porting to my research question (in a direct sense).
