Difference between revisions of "Soils"
From Living Building Science
Mkimpling3 (talk | contribs) |
Mkimpling3 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=== Methodology === | === Methodology === | ||
| − | ==== Materials ==== | + | ==== I. Materials ==== |
| − | ==== | + | ==== II. Sampling Preparation ==== |
One of the primary Piedmont regions in the Eco-Commons (Labelled as ____ in Fig. 1) 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 randomly selected point was selected. | One of the primary Piedmont regions in the Eco-Commons (Labelled as ____ in Fig. 1) 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 randomly selected point was selected. | ||
Fig. 1 – A map of the Eco-Commons prior to construction highlighting soil amendments within the area. | Fig. 1 – A map of the Eco-Commons prior to construction highlighting soil amendments within the area. | ||
Sentence here. | Sentence here. | ||
| − | ==== | + | ==== III. Field Sampling ==== |
Sample Label Site Number Coordinates | Sample Label Site Number Coordinates | ||
OG1 US3 (33.7786669 N, 84.4002488 W) | OG1 US3 (33.7786669 N, 84.4002488 W) | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| − | ==== | + | ==== IIII. Analysis ==== |
Samples were air dried in a controlled lab environment for 96 hours and then delivered to the UGA Extension East Point office. Once received, results of nutrient density were converted from units of pounds per acre to milligrams per kilogram. According to the University of Florida IFAS Extension, we can convert from pounds per acre to ppm by multiplying the pounds per acre value by a factor of 0.5. This conversion is based on two assumptions: that the root depth / sampling depth is 6 inches, and that the nutrients are in elemental form. Both these assumptions are satisfied based on our sampling procedure and the UGA extension soil test results. Additionally, according to Kansas State University, 1 ppm of a nutrient/contaminant in soil is equal to 1 mg/kg of the contaminant. | Samples were air dried in a controlled lab environment for 96 hours and then delivered to the UGA Extension East Point office. Once received, results of nutrient density were converted from units of pounds per acre to milligrams per kilogram. According to the University of Florida IFAS Extension, we can convert from pounds per acre to ppm by multiplying the pounds per acre value by a factor of 0.5. This conversion is based on two assumptions: that the root depth / sampling depth is 6 inches, and that the nutrients are in elemental form. Both these assumptions are satisfied based on our sampling procedure and the UGA extension soil test results. Additionally, according to Kansas State University, 1 ppm of a nutrient/contaminant in soil is equal to 1 mg/kg of the contaminant. | ||
This data was then analyzed using [what statistical test??] . | This data was then analyzed using [what statistical test??] . | ||
Revision as of 16:32, 30 April 2022
Contents
Purpose of Study
Background
Methodology
I. Materials
II. Sampling Preparation
One of the primary Piedmont regions in the Eco-Commons (Labelled as ____ in Fig. 1) 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 randomly selected point was selected.
Fig. 1 – A map of the Eco-Commons prior to construction highlighting soil amendments within the area. Sentence here.
III. Field Sampling
Sample Label Site Number Coordinates OG1 US3 (33.7786669 N, 84.4002488 W) OG2 US5 (33.7789256 N, 84.4003249 W) OG3 US6 (33.7788436 N, 84.4002357 W) SC1 S2 (33.7789030 N, 84.4006469 W) SC2 S6 (33.7790351 N, 84.4006232 W) SC3 S1 (33.7790714 N, 84.4005164 W)
IIII. Analysis
Samples were air dried in a controlled lab environment for 96 hours and then delivered to the UGA Extension East Point office. Once received, results of nutrient density were converted from units of pounds per acre to milligrams per kilogram. According to the University of Florida IFAS Extension, we can convert from pounds per acre to ppm by multiplying the pounds per acre value by a factor of 0.5. This conversion is based on two assumptions: that the root depth / sampling depth is 6 inches, and that the nutrients are in elemental form. Both these assumptions are satisfied based on our sampling procedure and the UGA extension soil test results. Additionally, according to Kansas State University, 1 ppm of a nutrient/contaminant in soil is equal to 1 mg/kg of the contaminant. This data was then analyzed using [what statistical test??] .