hypothesis

this may seem a bit late, but now because i have completed so many tests, i am starting to hypothesize and draw conclusions about the Rowland reserve

for pH, i thought the soil would be neutral solely because the bay is not exposed to factors that could really alter the pH of the soil. It is not exposed to massive amounts of pollution or acids or detergents/fertilizers. it is sort of left alone for the dogs to play in so i wasn't really expecting the pH to be anything radical. this is much the same for the water pH.

for moisture content i did guess that the result was not going to be too drastic. i did observe that the soil had gotten dryer after being in the oven but i knew the soil was dry ever since i collected it. i wasn't expecting it to be a great loss to the already dry, drained soil.

for turbidity i never really thought that the water would be very murky. this was supported by my first lot of samples but i found out that it did have the potential, when busy to be quite polluted. the turbidity only reached between 20 - 30 so it wasnt what i had expected.

for the presence of salts test, i had hypothesized that the results would be what they were. Rowland reserve is a each or a bay with salt water, so it was self explanatory that the soil and water would both be very salty.

for the presence of phosphates i didn't really know if bayview would have many or not so i based my hypothesis on the results obtained from the excursion. i didn't think there would be many just as the bay is quite undisturbed. there is not abundant amounts of pollution and there is no storm water drain or anything like that so i wasnt expecting there to be a lot of phosphates present.