User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
For my second set of data collection I used the same 5 replicates of samples from each site, but used slightly different techniques to more thoroughly assess the soil pH. I used a 1:1 ratio of dirt to water and tap water rather than distilled water for the samples I was testing under the pH meter. It seemed to improve the accuracy of the meter, as it could actually detect the pH with more ions present. The readings took much less time to stabilize at a steady pH reading with much less drift. With the use of pH strips, I was able to double check the results. The two methods gave the same results which seemed to be a uniform data distributed around 6.2 pH throughout both sites. This data plus the lack of any ancillary patterns makes me think that perhaps there is a different underlying cause for the pattern of underbrush presence in the Gibson park. I will report this data and continue with this topic for my paper but in my discussion, I will focus on what other underlying causes could be creating this pattern if not soil pH.
