Introduction
During the last couple weeks of science 9 honours, we have been studying the 4 spheres, invertebrates, and water qualities. In correlation to the 4 spheres, we have gone into more in-depth research about the biosphere and hydrosphere. To do so, we visited the oxbow pond, which is right outside our school. As well as the Coquitlam River which is just a couple of minutes’ walk away from our school. The objective of this study was to test the water qualities by using a water quality index, and to go a more in-depth study of the invertebrates; that also helps with getting a better understanding of the 2 water qualities. Additionally, we studied the invertebrates that live in the watersheds which included identifying them. Using the results of the invertebrates we were able to identify whether the water qualities were good or bad.
The Coquitlam River Site
To start off the field studies we began with the Coquitlatlam River. In order to properly collect our data, we went to the River site twice. The first time consisted of collecting water samples to determine the ph, nitrates and temperature change. The second time consisted of finding invertebrates and classifying them.
Data
(Students at the river taking water temperatures, and samples)
We started off by taking the temperatures of the river, then we collected water samples which helped us determine the pH, nitrates. We combined those results with previous data from SFU collected by a professional field scientist a couple of years back. Here are our results:
| Coquitlam River | |||||
| Test | Results | Units | Q-Value | Weighting Factor | Weighted Q-Value |
| Dissolved Oxygen | 92 | % Saturation | 95 | 0.23 | 21.85 |
| pH | 6 | pH units | 53 | 0.15 | 7.95 |
| Temperature Change | 4.5o | oC | 78 | 0.14 | 10.92 |
| Nitrates | 10 | mg/L NO4 | 50 | 0.14 | 7 |
| Phosphates | 0.4 | mg/L PO4 | 74 | 0.14 | 10.36 |
| Turbidity | 2 | NTU | 93 | 0.11 | 10.23 |
| Total Dissolved Salts | 50 | mg/L | 87 | 0.10 | 8.7 |
| Approximate Water Quality Index: 77.01 | |||||
(water quality index)
After calculating these results we can say that the water quality is good using this chart since the water quality score is 77.01. This water condition tells us that the water quality has no harmful substances, and can support various types of life. The river is fit for all recreational activities like swimming and tubing with direct contact.
Invertebrates
In order to get a better understanding of the heath of the waters, we captured invertebrates in the waters and analyzed them. We found that all of the invertebrates were pollution sensitive which means that they are found in the good water qualities, except the dragonfly nymph which is found in somewhat pollution tolerant which means that they are found in good/fair water qualities. Using these results we can say that the water quality for the river was good. Using both the water sample and invertebrate results we can say that they line up; that the water quality is good.
(Students using suber technique to find invertebrates, a student getting ready to get in the water)
Diversity
- Stonefly (Pollution sensitive) – 4
- Stonefly larva (Pollution sensitive) -2
- Mayfly (Pollution sensitive)-8
- Riffle beetle (Pollution sensitive) -1
- Caddisfly Larva (Pollution sensitive) -1
- Dragonfly nymph (Somewhat pollution tolerant) -1
- (No other living things found)
(The invertebrates we found)
The Oxbow Pond Site
We next headed over to the oxbow pond. Using two different bodies of water can help us differentiate the qualities and invertebrates of moving waters (river) and still waters ( pond). We went to the pond 2 times. The first time consisted of finding the pH, nitrates, and temperature change. The second time consisted of finding the invertebrates and classifying them.
Data
(The water sample water bucket, students in the pond getting water samples)
We used the same techniques as the river to find results which were by starting off by taking the temperatures of the river, then we collected water samples which helped us determine the pH, nitrates. We combined those results with previous data from SFU collected by a professional field scientist a couple of years back. Here are our results:
| Oxbow Pond | |||||
| Test | Results | Units | Q-Value | Weighting Factor | Weighted Q-Value |
| Dissolved Oxygen | 90 | % Saturation | 93 | 0.23 | 21.39 |
| pH | 6.5 | pH units | 71 | 0.15 | 10.6 |
| Temperature Change | 1o | oC | 88 | 0.14 | 12.32 |
| Nitrates | 10ppm | mg/L NO4 | 50 | 0.14 | 7 |
| Phosphates | 5 | mg/L PO4 | 13 | 0.14 | 1.82 |
| Turbidity | 8 | NTU | 80 | 0.11 | 8.8 |
| Total Dissolved Salts | 100 | mg/L | 85 | 0.10 | 8.5 |
| Approximate Water Quality Index: 69.4 | |||||
After calculating the results we came to a conclusion that the water quality score was 69.4 which means that the water quality was average. This water condition tells us that the water is not of the best quality and is not admirable. So the invertebrates that live in these water conditions aren’t as diverse. In these water conditions, there can be algae growth.
Process
Here is the process of finding the nitrate level.
Since the colour changed to very pale peach colour, we can say that the water is neutral (around 0 ppm)
Here is the process of finding the pH level.
Looking at the colour of the water change we came to a conclusion that the pH level was about 6.5
Invertebrates
In order to get a better understanding of the heath of the waters, we captured invertebrates in the waters and analyzed them. We found that 4 species of invertebrates were pollution sensitive which means that they are found in good water qualities, 4 species were somewhat pollution sensitive, and 3 species were pollution tolerant. Using these results we can say that the water quality of the pond was good because there are some invertebrates that can only survive/ live in good quality waters like the riffle beetle. Using both the water sample and invertebrate results we can say that they somewhat line up because the water quality test was 69.4 which was right below a good score and the water quality using the invertebrates was good. So based on the 2 tests I can say that the water quality is good.
Diversity
- Gilled snail (Pollution sensitive) – 4
- Riffle beetle (Pollution sensitive) -1
- Mayfly (Pollution sensitive) – 2
- Caddisfly (Pollution sensitive) – 1
- Damselfly larva (Somewhat pollution tolerant) – 2
- Dragonfly larva (Somewhat pollution tolerant) -1
- Watersnipe larvae (Somewhat pollution tolerant) -1
- Scud (Somewhat pollution tolerant)- 1
- Water mite (Pollution tolerant) – 1
- Water boatman (Pollution tolerant) – 9
- Stick bug (Pollution tolerant) – 2
(some invertebrates that we found, water boatman, damselfly larvae, stick bug)
Other found organisms
- Fish – 7
- Tadpole -3
- Adult dragonfly – 1
- Ladybug -1
- Chipmunk -1
- Bugs on the surface – 3
- Snails – 3
(Other found things, tadpoles, dead bugs, fish)
Comparison of 2 sites
I think that both these sites had some similar features but also had their differences. Overall I think that the river was cleaner because it was a flowing body of water, which explained why we would have fewer invertebrates in the river although the water was cleaner; because the space was bigger. As for the river, I think that the water was less clean because it was a still body of water which meant there would be no circulation. I think that is also why we were able to find more invertebrates in the pond; because it is a more enclosed space. The similarities were the abiotic factors. They both had similar dissolved oxygen, pH, levels, and nitrates. The differences of the abiotic factors are the temperature change, phosphates, turbidity, and total dissolved salts.
Reflection
I thought that these hands-on activities were more interesting because you are there throughout the whole process as opposed to reading off a textbook. This study gave me a better understanding of the biotic and abiotic factors of the bio, and hydrosphere. It also has given me a better understanding of the different bodies of water and how different situations can affect them differently. I thought that going doing this unit in a way that a professional field scientist really gave me a different perspective on things. If the groups were to be a bit more organized I think that it would make the activities more meaningful because at the end there was some confusion on massing some materials on. Overall I think that this was a great experience of working with different people and a really fun activity.