Bio 115 Lab Section 1 05/03/2011 The impact on organism survivability due the introduction of pollutants 04/26/2011 Introduction

Pollutants make their way into our water table every day. The water quality of the area is based almost wholly on the land use around it. There are two kinds of pollutants: Point source pollution (which are directly attributable to one influence. In point, sources the nutrient waste travels directly from source to water. Point sources are relatively easy to regulate), and Nonpoint source pollution (also known as 'diffuse' or 'runoff' pollution. It comes from ill-defined and diffuse sources. Nonpoint sources are difficult to regulate and usually vary spatially and temporally) (P. Anand Raj). Some nonpoint sources that are around the target stream would be the runoff from transportation, and fertilization of campus areas. The result in Point and Nonpoint pollution in waterways is usually Eutrophication. Eutrophication is a saturation of nutrients into an environment causing uncontrolled algae growth (algae blooms). The input of sewage and agricultural run-off leads to an increased nutrient load in all stream zones. Thus, an increase in eutrophication, although also a positive agent for plant growth, will cause a loss of species that are characteristic for streams. Submerged species decrease in abundance and in presence, in favor of emergent species (Mesters). This is due to the lack of oxygen in the water, which is used up by the over population of the algae. Point and Nonpoint pollution can also change the pH levels of the streams. Organisms are susceptible to pH change, and will die out or leave an area due to a pH fluctuation as documented in this Swedish report. During the first pH-shock (pH 4.0) fish fled from the upper tributaries and some species have not been recorded since, eg roach (Rutilus rutilus) and minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) (Erik Olofsson). There are many different sources of pollutions around the WSU campus. This experiment was conducted to see the effects on the stream its self, and see how these pollution caused changes have affected the organisms that live in the stream. Research Question How do changes in the watershed due to pollutants affect the organics in the water? Hypothesis Through this experiment, I expect that the samples that have pH levels below or above the Normal levels recorded for the stream will cause the organisms to barely survive if at all. I expect the samples that have high concentrations of phosphates to have an increased amount of specimens compared to the Normal samples due to the added nutrients into the environment. In turn, I expect to see a decrease in the specimen numbers compared to the Normal samples when the phosphate concentrations are low. Variables Independent: The varying levels of pH and Phosphate concentration. Dependent: The amount of organisms. Constants: Normal and Neutral samples Materials

24 Glass slides 24 coverslips 10 Microscopes 10 wax pencils 24 pipettes Oxygen Optode pH Meter Conductivity Meter Thermometer Meter Stick Tape Measure Indicator Strips

Procedures

Water Assessment 1. Fallow the yellow flags into the WSU woods to the stream 2. Take the fallowing measurements of the area of the stream designated by your teacher. DO: Dissolved Oxygen, TDS: Total Dissolved Solids, Air temperature, Water temperature, Stream width, Stream depth, pH level, Nitrate level, Phosphorous level. 3. Look around and observe the plant and animal life near the stream, and the amount of canopy overhead. Acidity Test 1. Obtain three microscope slides and label them with a wax pencil: Normal (pH = 8.4), Endangered (pH = 5 6), Acidified (pH = 3 4). 2. Using a pipette, obtain a 0.1 ml (a drop) algal sample from the Normal lake water. 3. Place slide under a microscope and focus at a power of 100X for data collection. 4. Count the number of the algal species present on the slide by starting in the upper left corner of the coverslip and scanning across the slide (Left to Right). Report the number of species found on the appropriate line. 5. Repeat Steps 2 4 for Endangered and Acidified lake water.

Phosphates Test 1. Obtain three microscope slides and label them with a wax pencil: Normal, Low Concentration (LC), and High Concentration (HC). 2. Using a pipette, obtain a 0.1 ml (a drop) algal sample from the Normal lake water. 3. Place slide under a microscope and focus at a power of 100X for data collection.

4. Count the number of the algal species present on the slide by starting in the upper left corner of the coverslip and scanning across the slide (Left to Right). Report the number of species found on the appropriate line. 5. Repeat Steps 2 4 for Endangered and Acidified lake water.

Data and Observations

Water Assessment Data Air Temp 19C Water Temp 16C

Location 1

Location 2 0 18.6 8.4 0 300 4.5 m 7 cm Algae light to none

Location 3 .7 19.4 8.3 0 300 .8 m 11.8 cm Moss light to none

Class Average .53 18.2 8.4 3.3 283.3 3.95 m 11.27 cm

Turbidity (ppt) DO (mg/L) pH Nitrates Phosphorous Width Depth Organisms Vegetation & Canopy

9 16.7 8.45 10 250 6.56 m 15 cm Algae light to none

Acidity Table Normal (pH = 8.4) 1 Endangered (pH = 5 6) 37 Acidified (pH = 3 4) 14

Euglena (Euglenoid)

Merismopedia (Blue-Green) Micrasterias (Green) Microspora (Green)

13 1 1

0 0 1

5 1 0

Phosphate Table Neutral Euglena (Euglenoid) Merismopedia (Blue-Green) Micrasterias (Green) Microspora (Green) 1 13 0 3 Low Concentrate 1 3 16 1 High Concentrate 14 12 1 5

Acidity & Phosphate Densities ALGAE Euglena - Normal Euglena Endangered Euglena Acidified Euglena Neutral Euglena Low Concentration Euglena High Concentration Merismopedia - Normal Merismopedia Endangered Merismopedia Acidified Merismopedia Neutral Merismopedia Low Concentration Merismopedia High Concentration Micrasterias - Normal Micrasterias Endangered Micrasterias Acidified Micrasterias Neutral Micrasterias Low Concentration Micrasterias High Concentration DENSITY (mL) 36.67 1356.67 513.33 36.37 36.37 513.33 476.67 0 183.33 476.67 110 440 36.67 0 36.67 0 586.67 36.67

Microspora - Normal Microspora Endangered Microspora Acidified Microspora Neutral Microspora Low Concentration Microspora High Concentration

36.67 36.67 0 110 36.67 183.33

Acidity & Phosphate Concentrations ALGAE Euglena - Normal Euglena Endangered Euglena Acidified Euglena Neutral Euglena Low Concentration Euglena High Concentration Merismopedia - Normal Merismopedia Endangered Merismopedia Acidified Merismopedia Neutral Merismopedia Low Concentration Merismopedia High Concentration Micrasterias - Normal Micrasterias Endangered Micrasterias Acidified Micrasterias Neutral Micrasterias Low Concentration Micrasterias High Concentration Microspora - Normal Microspora Endangered Microspora Acidified Microspora Neutral Microspora Low Concentration Microspora High Concentration DENSITY (mL) .3667 13.5667 5.1333 .3667 .3667 5.1333 4.7667 0 1.8333 4.7667 1.1 4.4 .3667 0 .3667 0 5.8667 .3667 .3667 .3667 0 1.1 .3667 1.8333

Discussion The pH recorded from each of the three sights averaged out at 8.4pH. Some organisms had the same amount of counts from the Normal or Neutral samples to the experimental samples. Either this could be attributed to counting errors, or that the organisms metabolic respiration and

reproduction were not affected by the environmental changes. This however is not likely due to the known sensitivity all organisms have to changes in pH and the availability of food in the environment. Some of the organisms would go down in counted numbers when more phosphorous (food) was introduced, or go up when there was less phosphorous (food). This may be attributed to some kind of change in the speed of which the organism reproduces based on the amount of food, or also may be due to a counting error. When it came to changes in acidity, the count of most of the organisms stayed the same or went down. However, one of the organisms (Euglena) counts when up drastically when the pH was put into the Endangered levels. This could be due to counting errors by the group, or a change in the organisms effectiveness at reproduction. Conclusion The amounts of the observed organisms did not change as expected in exact relationship with the different changes in the environmental pollutants. Sources of Error This experiment experienced a few errors. They are as follows: The data for the three stream locations and the water for the experimental samples were not gathered at the same time. This could have caused errors in what the control samples should show Different groups counted different samples. The numbers could be skewed due to different groups understandings of what the organisms look like, and what they should count. Some of the slides had bubbles in the water, which made counting the particulates more difficult. Some of the microscopes did not have a 100X lens which could have made differentiating between organics and nonorganic more difficult Improvements This experiment could be improved if it incorporated more locations to compare to each other. The locations would have to be more widespread and include more data. I think than it would provide better results and make a better argument for the conclusion that pollutants directly effects the survivability of organisms in water. It also could have been improved by having the same groups do all the counting so that all samples were judged in the same way.

Works Cited Erik Olofsson, Elisabeth Melin & Erik Degerman. THE DECLINE OF FAUNA IN SMALL STREAMS IN THE SWEDISH. Municipality of H~irjedalen: National Board of Fisheries, 1995. Mesters, Carleen M. L. "Shifts in macrophyte species composition as a result of eutrophication and." Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health (1995): 295-305. P. Anand Raj, and M.Chandra Sekhar. "Landuse- Water Quality Modelling: A Case Study." Wat .Sci. Tech 31.8 (1995): 383 - 386.