Paul%Hunter,%Smeet%Panchal,%and%Nicole%Serrafero%%Comparing*Soil*Characteris2cs*at*Three*Different*Ecosystems*

Results*

Methods**

•  Soil%samples%were%collected%from%3%sites:%%%%%%%%%%(a)%an%upland%forest%%%%%%%%%%%(b)%a%grassland%%%%%%%%%%%(c)%a%wetland%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%•  A%20m%transect%was%set%up%and%three%samples%were%taken%at%each%5m%intervals%and%bagged%into%A%or%B%horizon.%

%

•  The%length%of%horizons%were%measured%and%GPS%locaIons%and%recorded%for%each%sample.%

%

•  The%soil%samples%were%taken%back%to%lab%and%dried%in%an%oven%(d)%to%determine%their%moisture*content*and%bulk*density.*

•  A%combusIon%chamber%(e)%was%used%to%determine%the%carbon*content%of%each%site%using%one%homogenous%samples%we%collected.%

*

Introduc2on*%

The%main%objecIve%of%this%study%was%to%establish%the%difference%in%the*soil*moisture,*bulk*density*and%carbon*content*for%three%different%ecosystems%in%the%vicinity%of%the%UTM%campus.%These%different%ecosystems%have%had%many%anthropogenic%stresses%over%Ime%such%as%deforestaIon%and%the%invasion%of%earthworms.%%

Our%hypotheses%are%outlined%in%the%table%below:%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Highest% Lowest%

Bulk%Density* Grassland% Wetland%

Moisture%Content* Wetland% Grassland%

Carbon%Content* Wetland% Forest%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Forest% Grassland% Wetland%

Moisture*Co

nten

t*(%)*

Ecosystem*

A%horizon%

B%Horizon%

0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1%

1.2%

Forest% Grassland% Wetland%

Bulk*Den

sity*(g/cm3)*

Ecosystem*

8.31%%

3.13%%

9.12%%

0%%1%%2%%3%%4%%5%%6%%7%%8%%9%%

10%%

Forest% Grassland% Wetland%

Organ

ic*Carbo

n*Co

nten

t*(%)*

Ecosystem*

Highest% Lowest%

Bulk%Density* Grassland% Forest*

Moisture%Content* Wetland% Grassland%

Carbon%Content* Wetland% Grassland*

0m%

5m%

10m%

15m%

20m%

Bulk*Density*•  Highest%in%the%grassland%as%predicted%due%to%the%greater%amount%of%void%spaces%in%the%sandy%soils.%

%

•  Lowest%in%the%forest%as%opposed%to%the%wetland%perhaps%due%to%large*presence*of*deadwood*in%this%site%resulIng%in%higher*bulk*density*of%the%forest%than%the%clay%soils%of%the%wetland.%

Moisture*Content*•  As%predicted%the%wetland%had%higher%water%content%in%contrast%the%grassland%had%the%lowest%moisture%content%due%to%high*evapora2on.%

Carbon*Content*•  Due%to%lower*decomposi2on*rates,%carbon%content%was%highest%in%the%wetland%as%predicted.%

%

•  The%presence%of%deadwood*in%the%forest%site%resulted%in%higher*organic*carbon*content%than%the%grassland.%

%

Conclusion*%

Overall%the%hypotheses%were%supported%by%the%results%except:%•  the%bulk*density*was%lowest%in%the%forest.%%•  the%carbon*content*was%lowest*in%the%grassland.%

In%order%to%greater%understand%the%soils%of%the%three%sites%in%future%studies%should%include:%•  texture%and%colour%analysis.%•  organic%ma^er%analysis.%•  Longer%and%mulIple%%%%%%transects.%

(a)% (b)% (c)%

(d)%

(e)%

Forest*Grassland*

Wetland*

Figure%1:%Average%moisture%content%with%standard%error%of%A%and%B%horizon%for%the%forest,%grassland%and%wetland%ecosystems.%

Figure%2:%Average%bulk%density%(g/cm3)%with%standard%error%for%forest,%grassland%and%wetland%ecosystem.%

Figure%3:%Average%organic%carbon%content%of%the%three%ecosystems.%

Table%1%–%Hypotheses%for%soil%characterisIcs%in%the%three%different%ecosystems.%

Table%2%–%Results%of%soil%characterisIcs%in%the%three%different%ecosystems.%%%