Water And Water Pollution

So we can conclude that the creek is not polluted based on this evidence. The creek creature are mostly from group 1 and 2. Also, the creek water contains little to no nitrates and phosphates. The creek also contains a high amount of dissolved oxygen (9.8ppm to be exact) Lastly, the creek limestone neutralize acid rain. The pH of the water is also a healthy 7. After all this evidence we can conclude that the creek is not

At the first station I was at, we were looking for macroinvertebrates and crustaceans. When we found one of the insects we had to determine which group they belonged in. One way to determine if the water is polluted is to look at which group the critters are mostly from. My group and I tested this by taking turns going into the creek and finding a rock to bring out. When we brought the rock out of the water and back to our group we had to make sure to turn the rock over because the critters normally live on the bottoms of the rocks and most likely would fall off if you didn’t turn it over. After we all took turns a couple of times

Bioindicators of Strawberry Creek Edar Liu, Cindy Sandoval Espinoza, Ethan Schlatter, Weirui Xiao October 9, 2016 Biology 1B, Section 224, Group 1 Abstract: Through our research we aimed to determine if there were any differences in water quality of both the north and south forks of Strawberry Creek. As time progresses and the environment changes it is important to keep track of how certain species are being impacted by these features, and how they cope with change. We hypothesized that due to the lack of pollution, the south fork will promote a greater diversity of macroinvertebrates. This was due to the fact that there was less runoff and trash that could be introduced to the water in the south fork, than there was in the north fork. We gathered data by analyzing the different organisms living in both forks. We collected a total of fifty vials composed of five organisms from each fork, and inspected them under microscopic view. After gathering data and identifying the different kinds of organisms living in the different forks we assessed whether the organisms from the samples could live in high or low resolution water. We also took a t-test to assess the probability of these differences being due to relevant factors or by chance. Our major findings suggest that organisms in the south fork showed a higher demand to living in cleaner water indicating that our hypothesis was correct.

How Healthy is the Conodoguinet Creek? Conodoguinet Creek On October 8th, 2015 our 8-Orange team took a field trip to the Conodoguinet Creek to test the water quality. The Conodoguinet Creek was

As the data showed, the Conodoguinet creek is NOT polluted! There were many macroinvertebrates living in the creek that could only live in non polluted

The first piece of evidence supporting this statement is a water quality index of 48. The 7 pollution sensitive organisms in the creek are worth three points each on the water quality index, plus the 10 moderately tolerant organisms each 2 points and the 7 tolerant organisms each 1 point add up to get the 48 water quality index. The water quality level is considered excellent if it is 23 or above. The water quality in the U-High creek is more than twice that. There were many different types of organisms found in the creek including 7 pollution intolerant micro invertebrates. The total number of organisms including the 88 pollution intolerant Caddis fly larvae point to a low pollution level in the creek. The 10 moderately tolerant micro invertebrates also point to low polluted creek. There were also a high number of midges and aquatic worms. The water in the creek was also very clear and did not have a smell. There were many small fish and plants growing in and around it concluding a low pollution level in the

The first station we had was counting crustaceans and macroinvertebrates in the water. We found 113 critters that belonged in group 1 which means it is quality water. There were 2 organisms in group 2 which was somewhat quality water. Also, 16 critters in group 3 which means the water is very polluted. Overall, based on the critter

I’m reporting to the watershed area of the Conodoguinet Creek to discuss possible pollution in the creek. A type of pollution that can be a problem is Eutrophication. Eutrophication is the enrichment of an ecosystem with chemical nutrients. The Conodoguinet Creek runs through agricultural land, which means a lot of

Garners Creek is located in Outagamie County, North of Highway CE and East of Highway N. The stream tests were taken on October 18, 2017 at about 10:00 in the morning. There was mild weather and a warm temperature. A few recent rain events occurred before the stream was tested.

On October 7, 2015 the orange team from East pennsboro middle school conducted extensive testing regarding whether or not the Conodoguinet creek is polluted. The team tested for,

Conclusion The question presented in the lab experiment was the following, “What is the water quality of the U-High creek based on invertebrates found in the water.” The purpose of this experiment was to find out the water quality of the U-High creek. To find the answer, invertebrates were looked at

Abstract: Overall the objective of this lab exercise was to introduce students to watershed ecology and the ecological factors that affect water quality. Students used biotic (macroinvertebrates ) and abiotic indicators to asses the quality of water in a freshwater body. Specifically students collected water chemistry data (hardness, nitrate/phosphate concentrations, dissolved O2 and pH) to asses the quality of water. Additionally macroinvertebrates from the benthic environment of a respective field site were collected, analyzed as well as catalogued. Collectively the results indicated that a greater species diversity was indicative of greater water quality(Lenat). Likewise within a freshwater ecosystems a negative correlation was found to exist between fluctuating abiotic factors,species diversity and water quality. It can be concluded that amongst the three field sites the ranking of water quality from highest to lowest is as follows; Great Brook Farm, Russell Mill pond, Lawrence Street Stream.

Introduction ~ Throughout the course of about a week,the 9th grade class at CEEC took samples of the pond at UNCC for an experiment to determine whether or not if the pond is in a safe or in a harmful environment and if the pond is healthy or unclean. University of North Carolina-Charlotte and its health is an important factor to the survival of the animals around it. North Carolina is a southern US state with landscape ranging from the atlantic ocean to the appalachian mountains. Charlotte is the state largest city it is home to the NFL’s Carolina Panthers and the Nascar Hall of Fame UNCC’s campus has a early college program named the Charlotte Engineering Early College, with a pond located to the left of CEEC.This pond is the home to many animals such as fish, ducks, tadpoles, canadian geese, turtles, and cattail, and is a source of water for the university. In order to be able to use this water, the pond health must be healthy. However, what makes a pond really healthy?

WATER CONTAMINATION- Contamination of Ground Water is mainly due to intensive human activities. This has a negative impact on the human health and the environment (Jianhua Wu and Zhanchao Sun 2015). Some of the causes for water pollution are industries (the discharge of hot water from the cooling engines to the nearest lake or river), agriculture (use of pesticides and fertilizer), the toxic water from households, sewage leakages, Radioisotopes, Mining and coal production (Owa 2014). To control this damage, there should be some engineering solutions.

Benthic macroinvertebrates have been used to assess the health of aquatic environments. Quality analysis involves looking at benthic species composition and organization within the stream (Resh and Unzicke 1975). Different macroinvertebrates have differing sensitivities to pollutant, with some being more susceptible to environmental toxins than others (Metcalfe 1989). Such methods group macroinvertebrates in regards to their tolerance to pollution.