Lab Report: Water !

Marissa DICarlo | 04/27/16 | ENVL 2015 Spring 2016

Contents

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................1

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................2
Methods .........................................................................................................................................................2
Results ...........................................................................................................................................................4
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................9
References .....................................................................................................................................................7

List of Figures
Figure 1: Graph depicting the cross section of the riffle at 11 locations in the stream at
Stockton University, New Jersey ........................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Graph depicting the cross section of the pool at 13 locations in the stream at
Stockton University, New Jersey ........................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Calculations of discharge from the three different methods and cross-sectional areas
of the riffle and pool in the stream at Stockton University, New Jersey ........................... 3

List of Tables
Table 1: Table displaying data collected from five locations of the stream at Stockton
University, New Jersey ...................................................................................... 3
Introduction
The hydrologic cycle is where this journey begins and since this is a cycle, there is no
starting or ending point, but a good place to start is with the oceans. The water from the
surface of the ocean transitions into the atmosphere via evaporation, changing the liquid water
into water vapor (Spooner). When heat from the Sun hits the water, the water molecules
become excited which causes them to spread out and lose density, which usually occurs
when the water reaches its boiling point of 100 degrees Celsius. In areas where air pressure
and humidity are low, the water needs less heat energy to become evaporated because there is
less pressure holding the water molecules (ConserveEnergyFuture). Ice and snow can also
become water vapor through a process called sublimation. Sublimation is when solids skip over
the liquid state and turn into vapor. This occurs in areas that have dry winds and low humidity
levels, such as the tops of mountains. The lower the air pressure is, the lower the amount of
energy that is needed to sublime ice into water vapor (ConserveEnergyFuture). In addition,
water can be evaporated from leaves of a plant, which is called evapotranspiration. After the
water vapor has risen, it cools down and becomes a cloud once it encounters all the moving
wind and air currents. If this water vapor reaches a temperature close to 0 degrees Celsius,
then it will condense as water and eventually form droplets. The droplets fall once they
become heavy enough due to gravity, which then leads to precipitation
(ConserveEnergyFuture). When the precipitation hits the ground, three different outcomes can
occur. The first is that it can evaporate and rise back into the atmosphere in the form of water
vapor. Secondly, the precipitation can penetrate the soil and the spaces in the rock layers and
be labeled as groundwater or an aquifer (Strahler, 2013). When the aquifer becomes filled to
capacity, it begins to leak out to the surface and creates a spring (ConserveEnergyFuture). The
last outcome is that the precipitation runs off the land into streams or rivers, then into an
ocean or lake (Strahler, 2013). These processes are continued over and over again, transferring
heat and redistributing fresh water across the globe (Fan, 2016).
The topic that requires some background knowledge for this experiment is the water
budget equation. The water budget takes into account all of the water that flows in and out of
an area, such as a lake or wetland (Land and Water Management, 2010). The actual equation
can be broken down into three components; inputs, outputs, and change in storage. Inputs can
consist of; rain, snow, streamflow (Q in) or groundwater (G in), the outputs are;
evapotranspiration (Q out) and groundwater (G out), and change in storage (is where the water
is stored); vegetation, soil, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands. To perform the calculations, the
input is subtracted from the output and the result is the change in storage (Witt, 2016).

Methods
The first part of the lab for our group was to gather stream quality values. The YSI probe
is what we used and it is able to measure multiple different aspects of the stream; the
temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, conductivity, and pH. The probe needed to be
stabilized, which meant that the probe had to rest motionless for one minute before writing
down the data for each of the five locations in the stream. Next, we calculated the stream
velocity using the floating object method. To carry out this method, we used a measuring
tape that stretched along the stream bank and had one of our group members stand at this
point. Next, from the bridge, we dropped three ping pong balls and we set timers to record
how long it took for them to reach the 50-foot mark where our group member was standing.
This procedure was done two more times and then averaged out the three ping pong ball
averages and the average velocity.
We then calculated the stream velocity using the flowmeter. Using a top-setting wading
rod, the rod was put into the water to help accurately measure depth. If the water depth
exceeded 0.5 meters, the velocity was measured at 20% and 80% of the depth. If the depth fell
below 0.5 meters, then we measured the velocity at 60% of the depth. Out of the four
locations across the stream, three of them fell below 0.5 meters and the other measured above
0.5 meters. To calculate the velocity using the 20%, the rod was positioned that the marking on
the circular rod lines up to the marking on the top part. For the 80% measurement, the rod was
positioned so that the 0 on the circular rod lines up with the 9 on the large metal bit. To
calculate velocity using 60% of the depth, we needed to align the number of feet on the round
rod with the number of tenths of feet on the metal bit at the top of the wading rod. One of the
depths we measured was at 1.5 feet, so to adjust the alignment, the round rod with the 1
marking needed to be lined up with the 5 mark on the wading rod. Afterward, we computed
the velocity for each of the four midway locations in the stream.
In the next section of this lab, we focused on the stream morphology, specifically of a
riffle. We first had to record the height of the surveying rod and position the surveying level
and tripod to where it was actually level. Then, we used a tape measure and stretched it across
one bank to the other. The surveying rod was then moved to the 0 m mark on the tape. One
person from our group would then read the value from the surveying rod at the different
intervals across the channel. For the morphology of the riffle, we had 11 locations with survey
rod readings. Our measurements were in centimeters and once all the readings were recorded,
the values were subtracted from the height of the surveying rod. Similarly, we performed all of
the above procedures for the pool area in the middle of the stream and there were 13 readings
for this area.
 Results

Survey Rod Reading (meter)

0.38
Survey Rod Reading (meters)

0.30

0.23

0.15

0.08

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Tape Reading (meters)

Figure 1: Graph depicting the cross section of the riffle at 11 locations in the stream at Stockton
University, New Jersey.

Survey Rod Reading (meter)

0.25
Survey Rod Reading (meters)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Tape Reading (meters)

Figure 2: Graph depicting the cross section of the pool at 13 locations in the stream at Stockton
University, New Jersey.
Table 1: Table displaying data collected from five locations of the stream at Stockton University,
New Jersey.

Site ID Description Temperatur Dissolved Dissolved Conductivit pH

e (C) Oxygen Oxygen (%) y ( S/cm)
(mg/L)

Pool 1 Pool near 13.1 8.72 80.1 95 7.33

the bridge,
right after
the ripple.

Riffle 1 Next to the 13.3 9 85.8 95.4 7.13

bank on the
right side of
the stream.

Pool 2 Middle of the 15.4 9.43 90.5 95.6 6.98

stream near
the grasses.

Tributary Further up 9.9 2.56 21.8 142.3 6.42

on the right
side of the
stream in the
brush.

Riffle 2 Further 13.3 9.82 93.1 95.6 6.37

down the
stream, in
the middle
near the
rocks.
Figure 3: Calculations of discharge from the three different methods and cross-sectional areas of
the riffle and pool in the stream at Stockton University, New Jersey.

Discussion
There were three methods we used for this lab to measure discharge of the stream; a
ping pong ball, flow meter, and Mannings Equation. Out of the three, I think that Mannings
Equation was the most accurate because of how well set up it is. The equation takes into
account a roughness ratio and seemed to be more precise in regards with the calculations.
However, the problem with the equation would be that if there was a wrong value substituted
in, then the equation would not be as superior when compared to the other methods. The
ping-pong ball method definitely was the least accurate because of all the variability
surrounding the procedures. The ping pong balls would constantly become stuck in the grasses
of the stream or go off in a different direction, which hindered the velocity calculations. The
discharge that was found using the flow meter, I think worked pretty well, because it took into
account the different depths across the stream and tailored the readings to how deep the
stream was (using 20%, 80% and 60% of the depths). Some possible problems that we could
have run into are that the survey measurements could have been read incorrectly or the
wading rod was not set to the right depth.
Conclusion
For this lab section, a background of the hydrologic cycle and the water budget was
necessary before beginning the actual field work. Since water and heat are redistributed all
around the globe via a cycle, there is not really a true beginning point. Some of the main
components of the hydrologic cycle are; evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration,
condensation, precipitation, and runoff (ConserveEnergyFuture). It was interesting to learn
about the water budget and what types of variables go into the calculations. The three main
components of the equation were; inputs, outputs, and change in storage. The input or
streamflow (Q in) can consist of rain, snow or even groundwater (G in). The outputs are
evapotranspiration (Q out) and groundwater (G out). Finally, the change in storage is where
the water is stored, such as; the vegetation, soil, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands (Witt, 2016).
There were three ways we calculated discharge for the stream; using a ping-pong ball, flow
meter, and Mannings Equation. In my opinion, I thought that Mannings equation produced a
more accurate discharge because of the different components the calculations are based on.
The ping-pong ball method was not a very accurate method, because of the fact that the balls
would go off course, increasing the time it took the ball to get to the designated endpoint. The
flow meter is more reliable in comparison to the ping-pong ball because the flow meter could
take into account the difference in stream depths and calibrate to measure accordingly. It was
interesting to use these different approaches to find discharge of the stream and I feel more
knowledgeable about experiments that involve the water cycle.

References
"General Guidelines for Calculating a Water Budget." Land and Water Management
Division. N.p., Mar. 2010. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/lwm-waterbudget_202791_7.pdf>.

Spooner, Alecia M. "What Is the Hydrologic Cycle?" Environmental Science For

Dummies. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2016. <http://www.dummies.com/
how-to/content/what-is-the-hydrologic-cycle.html>.

Strahler, A. 2013. Introducing Physical Geography, 6th Ed., New York, NY: Wiley.

"The Water Cycle." Conserve Energy Future. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/water-cycle.php>.