In figure one, we see the first week of observation in this lab. In jar TO1 there is nothing but the water in it and there is no noticeable particles on the bottom. There is also no particles on the bottom of TO3 as well. However in jars TO2 and TO4 there are particles and this is due to the fact that there is fertilizer in these jars. As seen in figure 1 there is no growth of any microcosms.
Figure 2 and figure 3 tell a different story. Figure 2 is a picture from observation week 5 and it is easy to see a big difference. In jar one there is no change, there should never be a change in the control(at least in this lab). In jar 2 there is a good bit of green deposit of algae which is covering about 80% of the bottom of the jar. Jar 3 has some …show more content…
But one of the things that I learned more about was the problem with surface runoff of fertilizers and how it interacts with herbicides. The lab showed the participants on a small scale how eutrophication occurs and how it doesn't take a long time for algae to take over an area. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are usually found in fertilizers but not always at the same time. A study done said “ Concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen in surface waters are being regulated in the United States and European Union. Human activity has raised the concentrations of these nutrients, leading to eutrophication of inland waters, which causes nuisance growth of algae and other aquatic plants.” (Lewis, Wurtsbaugh, & Paerl, 2011). In this study it shows that when the combination of both Nitrogen and Phosphorus are together the eutrophication will occur. This was shown in jars 2 and 4. One could argue that herbicides are worse in water than fertilizer. As stated in another study when herbicides get into water it does not always cause algae blooms but the algae that does grow there is a new strand and is referred to as “super algae”, algae that has adapted and will be harder to kill. The study referred to them as mutants. The study says “Rare, pre-selective mutations may allow the survival of green microalgae in simazine- or diquat-polluted waters, via herbicide-resistant selection. Therefore, human-synthesized pollutants, such as the herbicides simazine and
Figure 2 and figure 3 tell a different story. Figure 2 is a picture from observation week 5 and it is easy to see a big difference. In jar one there is no change, there should never be a change in the control(at least in this lab). In jar 2 there is a good bit of green deposit of algae which is covering about 80% of the bottom of the jar. Jar 3 has some …show more content…
But one of the things that I learned more about was the problem with surface runoff of fertilizers and how it interacts with herbicides. The lab showed the participants on a small scale how eutrophication occurs and how it doesn't take a long time for algae to take over an area. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are usually found in fertilizers but not always at the same time. A study done said “ Concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen in surface waters are being regulated in the United States and European Union. Human activity has raised the concentrations of these nutrients, leading to eutrophication of inland waters, which causes nuisance growth of algae and other aquatic plants.” (Lewis, Wurtsbaugh, & Paerl, 2011). In this study it shows that when the combination of both Nitrogen and Phosphorus are together the eutrophication will occur. This was shown in jars 2 and 4. One could argue that herbicides are worse in water than fertilizer. As stated in another study when herbicides get into water it does not always cause algae blooms but the algae that does grow there is a new strand and is referred to as “super algae”, algae that has adapted and will be harder to kill. The study referred to them as mutants. The study says “Rare, pre-selective mutations may allow the survival of green microalgae in simazine- or diquat-polluted waters, via herbicide-resistant selection. Therefore, human-synthesized pollutants, such as the herbicides simazine and