Soils - Revision history

Tesslinger3: /* Discussion */

2022-05-01T15:56:18Z

Discussion

Tesslinger3: /* III. Field Sampling */

2022-05-01T15:52:52Z

III. Field Sampling

Tesslinger3: /* Purpose of Study */

2022-05-01T15:47:05Z

Purpose of Study

Tesslinger3: /* I. Materials */

2022-05-01T15:45:59Z

I. Materials

Tesslinger3: /* The Team! */

2022-05-01T15:44:45Z

The Team!

Tesslinger3: /* References */

2022-05-01T15:42:54Z

References

Tesslinger3: /* III. Field Sampling */

2022-05-01T15:28:32Z

III. Field Sampling

Mkimpling3: /* II. Sampling Preparation */

2022-04-30T23:10:48Z

II. Sampling Preparation

Mkimpling3: /* Results */

2022-04-30T23:10:12Z

Results

Mkimpling3: /* IV. Sample Drying */

2022-04-30T23:10:01Z

IV. Sample Drying

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 === Discussion ===
-We found a significant difference in the mean LBC values between the scraped and unscraped groups (using a t-test), but for no other variables. However, this could be a result of our small sample size, in addition to low concentrations of specific elements, such as Molybdenum and Nickel which were too low to determine confidently. When looking at the results, it's clear that OG2 is an outlier within the unscraped samples and within the samples as a whole. Even upon visual inspection, OG2 was slightly darker and had a different texture. The most marked differences were comparatively lower Iron (Fe) and Copper (Cu) concentrations, and higher Phosphorous (P), Magnesium (Mg), and Calcium (Ca) concentrations. Except for iron, each of these indicators seems to point toward a higher organic matter content; however, we still need to complete an organic matter analysis to know for certain. The incongruity of OG2 may be explained by taking a closer look at the historical landscape of the Eco-Commons area as shown in Figure 5. When the area was still a parking lot, we intended for OG sites 1-3 to lie in the minimally disturbed green area; however, OG1 was originally in the asphalt area and OG3 was along the border between the asphalt and green area. Therefore, it is possible that only OG2 was a true "unscraped" site or was subject to a different remediation protocol. The comparative iron deficiency at OG2 is somewhat more difficult to explain but may be caused by the elevated phosphorus and zinc.
+We found a significant difference in the mean LBC values between the scraped and unscraped groups (using a t-test), but for none other testable variables. However, this could be a result of our small sample size, in addition to low concentrations of specific elements, such as Molybdenum and Nickel which were too low to determine confidently. When looking at the results, it's clear that OG2 is an outlier within the unscraped samples and within the samples as a whole. Even upon visual inspection, OG2 was slightly darker and had a different texture. The most marked differences were comparatively lower iron (Fe) and copper (Cu) concentrations, and higher phosphorous (P), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) concentrations. Except for iron, each of these indicators seems to point toward a higher organic matter content; however, we still need to complete an organic matter analysis to know for certain. The incongruity of OG2 may be explained by taking a closer look at the historical landscape of the Eco-Commons area as shown in Figure 5. When the area was still a parking lot, we intended for OG sites 1-3 to lie in the minimally disturbed green area; however, OG1 was originally in the asphalt area and OG3 was along the border between the asphalt and green area. Therefore, it is possible that only OG2 was a true "unscraped" site or was subject to a different remediation protocol. The comparative iron deficiency at OG2 is somewhat more difficult to explain but may be caused by the elevated phosphorus and zinc.
 <br>Below are a few sources of error that we identified through testing our procedures:

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ]]
-Using a GPS unit, we located the randomly selected points in the Eco-Commons and placed a thin metal stake at the GPS point. Using a 3.5” soil corer, we collected four cores within one meter of the GPS point in each of the cardinal directions using a pre-measure string to mark the appropriate distance. Smaller samples were collected from each layer of the larger core with a prepared PVC pipe punch out (Fig. 3), and placing approximately three fl. Oz of well mixed soil from each core into plastic bags (total 12 fl oz for each composite). Water was used to rinse the corer between each sample and ethanol was used to rinse the corer between sampling sites; all core cleaning was completed with gloves. Bags were then labelled and put on ice until they could be stored at –20 C in the Kendeda Building freezer. When randomly selected sample sites proved inaccessible for some reason (i.e. the presence of a physical structure, a rock, sidewalk, etc), then another site was randomly selected from the pool of additional points using a random number generator.
+Using a GPS unit, we located the randomly selected points in the Eco-Commons and placed a thin metal stake at the GPS point. Using a 3.5” soil corer, we collected four cores within one meter of the GPS point in each of the cardinal directions using a pre-measure string to mark the appropriate distance. Smaller samples were collected from each layer of the larger core with a prepared PVC pipe punch out (Fig. 3), and placing approximately three fl. oz of well mixed soil from each core into plastic bags (total 12 fl. oz for each composite). Water was used to rinse the corer between each sample and ethanol was used to rinse the corer between sampling sites; all core cleaning was completed with gloves. Bags were then labelled and put on ice until they could be stored at –20 C in the Kendeda Building freezer. When randomly selected sample sites proved inaccessible for some reason (i.e. the presence of a physical structure, a rock, sidewalk, etc), then another site was randomly selected from the pool of additional points using a random number generator.
 [[File:scrapedwpoints.jpg|frame|center|''Fig. 4 - Map of sampling sites projected onto construction plans. Unscraped sites are noted with a green marker (OG) and scraped sites are noted with a red marker (SC)''
 ]]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 === Purpose of Study ===
 In this study, we will examine how soil chemical and microbial composition in Eco-Commons today compares to historic Piedmont soils and traditionally “healthy” soils, and how we can restore soil health and promote soil carbon sequestration in this region. Our goals for the semester included:
-* Examining the difference in chemical composition between unscraped and scraped soil regions in the Eco-Commons.
+* Examining the difference in chemical composition between unscraped and scraped soil regions in the Eco-Commons to understand the current state of soil health in disturbed and undisturbed soil regions.
 <br>Our long-term goals include:
 * Analyzing the current state of soil health in the Eco-Commons.

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 * Paper bags – for collecting soil samples initially
 * Ziploc bags – for storing soil samples in freezer (make sure they are well labelled)
 * Soil corer
-* PVC pipe
+* Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe
 * GNSS device
 * Nitrile gloves
-* Ethanol (80%)
+* Ethanol (70%, 80%)
 * Paper towels
 * Bucket

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 |-
 | Ally Kimpling || Biology || Spring 2022
 |-
 | Ethan Losasso || Earth & Atmospheric Sciences || Spring 2022
@@ Line 156: / Line 158: @@
 | Alex Kovensky || Biology || Spring 2022
 |-
-| Thiago Esslinger || Biochemistry / Earth & Atmospheric Sciences || Spring 2022
+| Dormecia Allen || Chemical Engineering || Spring 2022
 |-
 | Amy Siddiqui || Environmental Engineering || Spring 2022
 |-
 |}

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 === References ===
-Woltz, N.B.. (2019, May 22). DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL [blueprint]. Barge Design Solutions
+     Woltz, N.B.. (2019, May 22). DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL [blueprint]. Barge Design Solutions (3809900). Eco-Commons Living Building Sector - BR-30-1803, Atlanta, Georgia. (Fig. 1)
 <br>
-Plank, O. (2014, November 1). Soil Testing for Home Lawns, Gardens and Wildlife Food Plots. University of Georgia Extension. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from
+     Plank, O. (2014, November 1). Soil Testing for Home Lawns, Gardens and Wildlife Food Plots. University of Georgia Extension. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https:/extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C896&title=Soil+Testing+for+Home+Lawns%2C+Gardens+and+Wildlife+Food+Plots
-         https:/extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=C896&title=Soil+Testing+for+Home+Lawns%2C+Gardens+and+Wildlife+Food+Plots
+<br>
 <br>

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 |-
 | SC3 || S1 || 33.7790714 N, 84.4005164 W
 |}
 <br>

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 [[File:scraped.jpg|frame|center|''Fig. 1 - Construction plans for the Eco-Commons. Locations marked in yellow are "scraped" areas, while locations in gray are "original".''
 ]]
-One of the primary Piedmont regions in the Eco-Commons was selected for analysis this semester. To accurately account for differences in soil composition as a a result of construction practices, the sampling points were selected from two different areas within the region, with areas retaining the original soil labelled as “original” (OG; areas marked in grey on Fig. 1) and those where the top 10” of soil were scraped away labelled as “scraped” (SC; areas marked yellow on Fig. 1). Within each area of either OG or US soils, ten sample sites were randomly selected by approximating photographed construction patterns in Google Earth (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), with sites only being selected if they were approximately 10 meters away from another. If a site was within 10 meters of another site, it was excluded and a new random point was selected.
+One of the primary Piedmont regions in the Eco-Commons was selected for analysis this semester. To accurately account for differences in soil composition as a a result of construction practices, the sampling points were selected from two different areas within the region, with areas retaining the original soil labelled as “original” (OG; areas marked in grey on Fig. 1) and those where the top 10” of soil were scraped away labelled as “scraped” (SC; areas marked yellow on Fig. 1). Within each area of either OG or US soils, ten sample sites were randomly selected by approximating photographed construction patterns in Google Earth (Fig. 2), with sites only being selected if they were approximately 10 meters away from another. If a site was within 10 meters of another site, it was excluded and a new random point was selected.
 [[File:scraped.png|frame|center|''Fig. 2 - Location of randomized points on Google Earth.''
 ]]

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 === Results ===
 [[File:boop.png|frame|center]]
-[[File:boop2.png|frame|center|''Fig. 7 - Plots of Ca (mg/kg), Fe (mg/kg), LBC (ppm CaCO₃/pH), Mg (mg/kg), P (mg/kg), Ca (mg/kg), P (mg/kg), pH, Zn (mg/kg), Pb (mg/kg), Ni (mg/kg), Na (mg/kg), Mo (mg/kg), Mn (mg/kg), K (mg/kg), Cu (mg/kg), Cr (mg/kg), CEC (meq/100g), Cd (mg/kg), and Base Saturation (%) for "original" sites (blue) and "scraped" sites (red). Mean values ± 2 standard error are plotted as dotted lines.''
+[[File:boop2.png|frame|center|''Fig. 6 - Plots of Ca (mg/kg), Fe (mg/kg), LBC (ppm CaCO₃/pH), Mg (mg/kg), P (mg/kg), Ca (mg/kg), P (mg/kg), pH, Zn (mg/kg), Pb (mg/kg), Ni (mg/kg), Na (mg/kg), Mo (mg/kg), Mn (mg/kg), K (mg/kg), Cu (mg/kg), Cr (mg/kg), CEC (meq/100g), Cd (mg/kg), and Base Saturation (%) for "original" sites (blue) and "scraped" sites (red). Mean values ± 2 standard error are plotted as dotted lines.''
 ]]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ==== IV. Sample Drying ====
-[[File:soilsdrying.png|frame|center|''Fig. 6 - Soil samples air drying in the Boggs building before the geochemical analysis. Samples were labelled according to their location (OG for original/unscraped or SC for scraped).''
+[[File:soilsdrying.png|frame|center|''Fig. 5 - Soil samples air drying in the Boggs building before the geochemical analysis. Samples were labelled according to their location (OG for original/unscraped or SC for scraped).''
 ]]
 Samples were air dried on 18 March 2022 in Room 2-66 at the Gilbert Hillhouse Boggs Building. Counter tops were first cleaned with 70% ethanol. Container lids were subsequently cleaned using the cleaning procedure below: