Soil Study - Cambridge, Ontario

8/12/2019 Soil Study - Cambridge, Ontario

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/soil-study-cambridge-ontario 1/18

1

Physical, Biological, and Chemical Indicators of Soil Health and Microorganism

Presence in a Fallow Field versus a Sod Field in Cambridge, Ontario

Maria Legault (ID #20266913)*November 30, 2009

ENVS 200; Sarah Ashpole

*Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, email:[email protected]

Abstract

Soil health is a critical issue for future environmental sustainability, but soil

degradation can occur on sod farms from excessive tillage and fertilizer applications

(Perez et al ., 1995). This degradation is often caused by the loss of important

microorganism populations, which are negatively affected by alterations to the physical,

biological, and chemical components of the soil. In this study, these alterations were

determined through qualitative and quantitative data gathering during two field studies

and one chemical analysis of collected soil samples. Physically, alterations to the soil

horizons and vegetation communities in the sod field could reduce microorganism

diversity and activity levels. Biologically, the sod field has sufficient earthworm

(Lumbricus terrestris) populations to contribute to healthy microorganism functioning,

but the number of rocks in this field suggests that microorganism populations are limited

by poor soil quality. Chemically, regular fertilizer applications in the sod field could limit

microorganism diversity and environmental safety. The results of this study suggest

that the high level of management on sod farms is causing soil degradation and that

less intensive management efforts are needed.

Key words: soil health, soil degradation, tillage, microorganisms, earthworms



2

Table of Contents1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 32. Objective and Methodology ..................................................................................... 4

2.1 Physical Soil Components ............................................................................. 4

2.2 Biological Soil Components ........................................................................... 42.3 Chemical Soil Components…………………………………………....................5

3. Location of Practical Work and Equipment Used…………………………………….64. Results and Discussion……………………………………………………………………7

4.1 Physical Soil Results…………………………………………………………….....7 4.2. Biological Soil Results………………………………………………………….....7 4.3 Chemical Soil Results……………………………………………………………...8 4.4 Discussion of Results…………………………..........................……….………..94.4.1 Discussion of Physical Soil Results..............................................................9

4.4.2 Discussion of Biological Soil Results..........................................................104.4.3 Discussion of Chemical Soil Results...........................................................115. Conclusions and Recommendations for Soil Health...………………………….....12 6. Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………. ...13 7. References……………………………………………………………………..................138. Appendices...............................................................................................................16

List of TablesTable 1: Rationale for and type of equipment used in studies..........................................6Table 2: Physical characteristics of the representative soil sites......................................7Table 3: Data collected from each soil site during the second field study........................8Table 4: Chemical soil results from the first set of soil samples collected........................9

List of FiguresFigure 1: Comparison of soil temperature and earthworm populations............................8

Figure 2: pH levels from each soil site..............................................................................9



3

1. Introduction

Soil health and degradation are two key issues for future environmental

sustainability and are greatly influenced by management regimes (Hill et al., 2000; Lal,

1993). Intensive management involving frequent tillage and fertilizer applications can

cause alterations to the physical, biological, and chemical components of the soil

(Doran et al., 1999). This, in turn, can impair microorganism population size, diversity,

and functioning, all of which are critical components of soil formation, nutrient cycling,

and the breakdown of toxic chemicals (Bardgett et al., 1999; Fierer, Schimel, & Holden,

2003; Hackl et al., 2005; Kirk et al., 2004; Zhou et al., 2008).

Bacteria, actinomycetes, and protozoa are microorganisms that experience

differential impacts from anthropogenic disturbance (Meriles et al., 2009). Alterations to

soil horizons and vegetation can harm bacteria and actinomycetes by limiting

rhizosphere functioning and organic matter content (Ashman & Puri, 2002). Earthworms

feed on and support bacteria and protozoa, making them important for the maintenance

of microorganism populations (Stott, Kennedy, & Cambardella, 1999). Each type of

microorganism also responds quickly to changes in the environment, suggesting that

their populations could fluctuate with disturbances such as fertilizer applications.

This study was interested in describing the qualitative and quantitative attributes

of a fallow field, sod field, and non-agricultural control area to estimate microorganism

presence as an indicator of soil health. It was expected that a comparison of each site

would reveal microorganism deficiencies in the sod field; this hypothesis is supported in

the results, suggesting that sod field management should become less intensive.



4

2. Objective and Methodology

Information on the physical, chemical, and biological components of the soil from

each study site was collection during two separate field studies. The objective of these

studies was to determine the differences between each site as indicators of soil health.

2. 1 Physical Soil Components

The first field study on October 24, 2009, was conducted according to the

supporting literature to determine physical soil attributes (see Feng et al., 2003; Hackl et

al., 2005; Rajaniemi & Allison, 2009). Three representative soil sites were randomly

chosen within each area of interest. Soil plots were 30 cm deep, and four soil samples

were collected at varying depths (first 5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-20 cm, and 20-30 cm). These

samples were then bagged, marked, and transported to a refrigerator where they were

stored at a temperature of roughly 4° Celsius. Information on the slope, vegetation, and

soil of each area was qualitatively described using the B.C. Ministry of Environment,

Lands, and Parks (BCMCELP) Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems.

2.2 Biological Soil Components

As the majority of microbial biomass is located in the first several centimetres of

soil, soil samples from 0-10 cm were tested for microorganism content on October 26,

2009 (Fierer et al., 2003). One cup of soil, two cups lukewarm water, and one cup of

softener salt were regularly stirred together in a pan for one hour; however, this

experiment yielded no living microorganisms and the thesis of this paper had to be

expanded. More advanced scientific methods, such as phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA)



5

tests or fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiles, could have accurately determined the

presence of living microorganism communities (Hill et al., 2000; Meriles et al., 2009).

The second field study was conducted on November 1, 2009, to determine the

number of earthworms at each soil site. Three different 30 cm deep plots were dug, the

soil was removed, and soil temperature was taken at 10 cm. Rocks and earthworms

were counted and classified after sifting the soil. One litre of a mixture composed of

mustard (35 grams) and water (3 litres) was poured into each site; however, this failed

to bring aneic (deep-burrowing) earthworms to the surface (Edwards, 2009).

2.3 Chemical Soil Components

Chemical characteristics of the soil samples collected October 24 were

determined on November 5, 2009, using the LaMotte Company (2001) Soil Testing Kit.

Prior to testing, soil samples were mixed, placed on plastic sheets, and left to dry for 24

hours. The soil was prepared using 2.5 grams of soil mixed for one minute with 4mL of

Universal Extracting Solution, after which it was filtered. For the nitrate nitrogen tests,

1mL of soil filtrate was mixed with ten drops of Nitrate Reagent 1 and 0.5 grams of

Nitrate Reagent 2 on a spot plate and results were taken after five minutes.

Phosphorous results were taken immediately after 1mL soil filtrate was mixed with six

drops of Phosphorous Reagent 2 and one tablet of Phosphorous Reagent 3. Potassium

tests required one Potassium Reagent B Tablet to be dissolved in the soil extract along

with Potassium Reagent C; this mixture was slowly transferred to a reading stand using

a pipette. For pH tests, the Duplex and Bromthymol Blue Indicators were added to

unaltered soil on a clean spot plate to determine pH levels to one decimal place.



6

3. Location of Practical Work and Equipment Used

The geographical location for this study was 555 Riverbank Drive, Cambridge,

Ontario and at the adjoining sod field owned by Greenhorizons Group of Farms Limited

(latitude 43.430215°; longitude -80.402484°). Parent material of this area was

determined to be morainal because the soil appeared to be a heterogeneous mix of

sand, silt, and clay (BCMELP, 1998). The soils in this area were classified as gray-

brown podzols, which possess high humus content and are slightly acidic from leaching

(Davies et al., 1973). This type of soil is very fertile and provides highly productive

farmland throughout southern Ontario, making it ideal for sod production (Ashman &

Puri, 2002). Equipment used in all field and in-lab studies is outlined in Table 1, below.

Table 1: Rationale for and type of equipment used in studies, along with the outcome of each

Type of Equipment Purpose Outcomes

Shovel and three 10.5 litrebuckets

To remove soil and containit for analysis

Soil samples were collected

30 cm ruler To measure soil depth Soil samples were removed

at varying depths12 plastic baggies and 1insulated lunch box

To contain and cool soilsamples

Soil samples were safelytransported to refrigerator

3 porcelain pans and 1 stirstick

To remove microorganismsfrom water and salt solution

No microorganisms werefound in soil samples

Metal sieve (10 mm holesize)

To sift out rocks andearthworms from the soil

Rocks and earthwormswere removed and counted

Thermometer To measure temperature ofsoil at 10 cm depth

Soil temperature taken ateach site

4 mL LaMotte UniversalExtraction Solution

To prepare soil for reagenttesting

Soil was mixed and filteredto produce soil filtrate

LaMotte soil testingreagents

To analyze soil nutrients Nitrate nitrogen, potassium,phosphorous levels taken

LaMotte pH testingchemicals

To determine acidity of thesoil

Soil pH was identified toone decimal place

Spot plate and test tubes To mix soil filtrate withLaMotte chemicals

Nutrient and pH levels ofsoil were determined

Pipette and 0.5 gram soilscoop

To transfer soil and liquidsolutions

Liquids and solids weresafely transferred



7

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Physical Soil Results

Level of use, vegetation present, slope, and soil characteristics were gathered

from the initial field study and are displayed in Table 2. The majority of this information

was derived from the author’s observations using BCMELP (1998) and consultation with

the owner of 555 Riverbank Drive. The results presented are comparable because the

samples were taken in similar locations of slope, which limits the potential for soil

degradation from water and wind erosion (Table 2) (Stocking & Murnaghan, 2001).

Table 2: Physical characteristics of the representative soil sites from the fallow field, sod field, and controlarea; vegetation was keyed using Dickinson & Royer (1999) as well as Petrides (1958)

Location Level of use Vegetation Present Slope Soil Characteristics

FallowField

40 years sincelast ploughing

event andfertilizer

application

Alfalfa (Medicagosativa L.); WhiteClover (Trifolium

repens L.); BarnyardGrass (Echinochloacrusgalli L. Beauv.)

Slight slope;samples taken

near top ofslope

Sandy loam;moderate amount ofroots; weak cast; O,H, A, and beginningof E layer (past 30

cm)

Sod Field 5-6 sod removalsduring season,

fertilizer andpesticide

application onceper month

Kentucky BlueGrass (Poa

pratensis L.)

Slight slope;samples taken

near top ofslope

Sandy loam; grassroots; weak cast; light

colour of soilsuggests only E layer

present

Control Area

None White Elm (Ulmusamericana), BlackWalnut (Juglans

nigra L.)

No slope(level)

Sandy clay loam; noroots; moderate cast;deep O and H layer

4.2 Biological Soil Results

The number of rocks and earthworms present in the soil, as well as soil

temperature, was determined in the second field study. There were many rocks of

varying sizes found in the sod field soil (Table 3). The earthworms found were all



8

classified as Lumbricus terrestris, and their populations fluctuated regardless of soil

temperature, which was similar at each site (Figure 1).

Table 3: Data collected from each soil site during the second field study, including the number ofearthworms and rocks counted along with rock size. ‘Small’ rocks are defined as less than 2 cm; ‘medium’rocks less than 6 cm; and ‘large’ rocks less than 10 cm in width

Number ofEarthworms

Number of Rocks Size of Rocks

Fallow Field 27 45 SmallSod Field 25 90 Small, medium,

and largeControl Area 13 33 Small

Figure 1: Comparison of soil temperature and earthworm populations in the fallow field, sod field, andcontrol area; © Maria Legault, 2009

4.3 Chemical Soil Results

Results from the LaMotte Company (2001) Soil Testing Kit are displayed in Table

4 and Figure 2. These results show that the control area had the highest levels of

potassium and nitrate nitrogen, while the sod field was deficient in all nutrients (Table

4). The pH tests indicate that acidity is within the acceptable range of 5-8.5 pH for

vegetation growth and microorganism functioning (Hackl et al., 2005). Additionally, the

alkaline soil of the sod field is likely a result of regular limestone applications meant to

foster vital grass growth (Perez et al., 1995).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fallow Field Sod Field Control Area

Influence of Temperature on Earthworm Populations

Number of

Earthworms

Soil Temperature

(°Celsius)



9

Table 4: Chemical soil results from the first set of soil samples collected, including potassium, nitratenitrogen, and phosphorous levels

Location Potassium Levels(Lbs. per acre

Potassium)

Nitrate NitrogenLevels (Lbs. per acre

Nitrate Nitrogen)

Phosphorous Levels(Lbs. per acre

AvailablePhosphorous)

Control Area 120 10 Less than 10

Sod Field Less than 100 Less than 10 Less than 10

Farm Field 100 Less than 10 Less than 10

Figure 2: pH levels from each soil site, which suggests that pH is not limiting to vegetation growth ormicroorganism populations © Maria Legault, 2009

4.4 Discussion of Results

4.4.1 Discussion of Physical Soil Results

Tillage negatively affects microorganism respiration and activity levels by altering

soil horizons through reduced organic matter content (Feng et al., 2003; Lal, 1993;

Meriles et al., 2009). While the fallow field has not been ploughed for 40 years, the sod

field experiences regular topsoil removal events and appears to be composed entirely of

the E horizon. This is shown through the sod field’s light brown colour, high sand

content, and grainy feeling (Aswathanarayana, 1999). In contrast, the thick leaf litter

layer in the control area and the plentiful roots in the fallow field contribute to more

organic matter; a rich O, H, and A layer; and high levels of rhizosphere activity

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

Control Area Sod Field Farm Field

pH Levels



10

(Aswathanarayana, 1999). This, in turn, creates more soil organic carbon and

increases the activity levels of microorganism communities (Stott et al., 1999).

Vegetation at the three soil sites also affects microorganism communities.

Herbaceous vegetation in the fallow field, such as alfalfa, decreases erosion and adds

more carbon to the soil, thereby increasing microbial biomass (Faniran & Areola, 1978;

Rajaniemi & Allison, 2009). This vegetation can also create the abiotic conditions

needed for diverse microorganism communities to survive by maintaining soil pH (Hackl

et al., 2005). In contrast, the single grass species present in the sod field will support

less diverse and active microorganisms (Fierer et al., 2003).

4.4.2 Discussion of Biological Soil Results

A similar number of earthworms were found in the sod and fallow fields,

indicating that microorganism populations are being maintained. Earthworms are

closely tied to microorganisms because they help to break down organic matter, transfer

soil nutrients, and rely on bacteria as a source of nutrition (Ashman & Puri, 2002). The

low number of earthworms in the control area could be a result of the thick moss layer

limiting their ability to burrow into the soil (Davies et al., 1973). In contrast, the well-

turned, porous soil in the sod field is easier to penetrate; this suggests that the

relationship between earthworms and microorganisms in this case does not indicate soil

health, but a high level of management.

Additionally, the number of rocks in the sod field suggests that the soil organic

matter needed to support large microorganism populations has been lost (Lal, 1993). At

the end of the growing season, sod farms remove surface vegetation so that the area



11

can be re-seeded in the spring (Perez et al., 1995). This practise, along with regular

topsoil removal throughout the year, results in more rocks appearing at the surface as

the upper levels of soil are stripped away (Stocking & Murnaghan, 2001).

Subsequently, soil becomes vulnerable to compaction, erosion, and nutrient imbalances

which reduce the ability of microorganisms to survive (Doran et al., 1999). In contrast,

smaller and fewer rocks were found at the fallow field and control sites, indicating the

health of the soil in these areas.

4.4.3 Discussion of Chemical Soil Results

The chemical soil results suggest that regular fertilizer applications are needed in

the sod field, which could negatively affect environmental safety (Bardgett et al., 1999;

Zhengfei et al., 2005). Nitrogen is critical for encouraging the fast growth of grasses,

but was found to be available in low amounts in the sod field (Maryland Department of

Agriculture [MDA], 2009). Regular applications of nitrate nitrogen to the soil to combat

this deficiency could cause leaching into adjacent water sources, posing an

environmental threat (Aswathanarayana, 1999).

Other nutrients in the sod field were also found to be limiting to microorganism

communities. Phosphorous contributes to root growth and therefore soil carbon; low

levels of this nutrient in the sod field indicate depressed microbial biomass (Bardgett et

al ., 1999; Murdock, n.d.; Zhou et al., 2008). The development of a substantial

rhizosphere is important for microorganism survival and is strongly influenced by

potassium levels (Ashman & Puri, 2002; MDA, 2009). This suggests that the low levels

of potassium in the sod field may decrease the diversity of microorganisms present.



12

5. Conclusions and Recommendations for Soil Health

This study compared the physical, biological, and chemical components of the

soil to determine the differences between a fallow and sod field. Results supported the

belief that intensive management on sod farms is damaging to soil health. Tillage

causes the loss of the upper soil horizons, which can subsequently increase the

proportion of rocks near the surface and decrease microorganism activity levels.

Fertilizer applications can also damage soil health by causing fluctuations to sensitive

microorganism populations. These negative impacts are significant because

microorganisms are critical to the soil resources which provide the basis for human

nourishment and economic activities. Accordingly, it is recommended that sod

companies reduce their management efforts and try to find more sustainable methods

for extracting their product. Their failure to do so could result in the degradation of large

tracts of soil which could otherwise have benefitted agriculture or ecosystems.

This study was limited by a lack of data, but this was overcome with literature

research. Limited quantitative data was gathered because of the lack of

microorganisms found in the initial field study, perhaps due to the reduction in soil

biomass which occurs during the fall (Bardgett et al., 1999). To overcome this

limitation, literature research was used to understand how qualitative factors affect soil

health and microorganism populations. This study was also unable to discuss how

herbicides (e.g. phenoxyacetic acids) and pesticides affect microorganisms (Garcia-

Rivero, Saucedo-Castaneda, & Gutierrex-Rojas, 2007; Landscape Management, 2005;

Thompson et al., 1998). More studies should be done on this topic to better understand

the interactions between microorganisms and chemicals.



13

6. Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by the generous help and support of staff in the

University of Waterloo Ecology Lab, Doug Mader from Compact Sod, and Rieta Fietsch.

7. References

Ashman, M.R. & Puri, G. (2002). Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise

Introduction to Soil Science. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Aswathanarayana, U. (1999). Soil Resources and the Environment . Enfield, New

Hampshire: Science Publishers, Inc.

Bardgett, R.D., Lovell, R.D., Hobbs, P.J., & Jarvis, S.C. (1999). Seasonal changes insoil microbial communities along a fertility gradient of temperate grasslands. Soil

Biology and Biochemistry 31 (7), 1021-1030.

Davies, N.D., Stoker, D.G., Windsor, D.E., Ashcroft, M.T., Coburn, M.C., & Andrews,

W.A. (1973). A Guide to the Study of Soil Ecology . Scarborough, Ontario:

Prentice-Hall of Canada, Ltd.

Dickinson, R., & Royer, F. (1999). Weeds of Canada. Vancouver, BC: Lone Pine

Publishing.

Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J., Arshad, M.A., & Gilley, J.E. (1999). Determinants of soilquality and health. In R. Lal, Soil Quality and Soil Erosion (pp. 17-36). London:

Soil and Water Conservation Society.

Edwards, C.A. (2009). Earthworms. Chapter 8 in The Soil Biology Primer . Retrieved on

October 29, 2009, from

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/earthworms.html

Faniran, A. & Areola, O. (1978). Essentials of Soil Study: With Special Reference to

Tropical Areas. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Feng, Y, Motta, A.C., Reeves, D.W., Burmester, C.H., Santen, E.V., & Osborne, J.A.

(2003). Soil microbial communities under conventional-till and no-till continuous

cotton systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35 (12), 1693-1703.

Fierer, N., Schimel, J.P., & Holden, P.A. (2003). Variations in microbial community

composition through two soil depth profiles. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35 (1),

167-176.



14

Garcia-Rivero, M., Saucedo-Castaneda, G., Gutierrex-Rojas, M. (2007). Organic

solvents improve hydrocarbon desorption and biodegradation in highly

contaminated weather soils. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 6

(4), 389-395.

Hackl, E., Pfeffer, M., Donat, C., Bachmann, G., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2005).Composition of the microbial communities in the mineral soil under different types

of natural forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37 (4), 661-671.

Hill, G.T., Mitkowski, N.A., Aldrich-Wolfe, L., Emele, L.R., Jurkonie, D.D., Ficke, A.,

Maldonado-Ramirez, S., Lynch, S.T., & Nelson, E.B. (2000). Methods for

assessing the composition and diversity of soil microbial communities. Applied

Soil Ecology 15 (1), 25-36.

Kirk, J.L., Beaudette, L.A., Hart, M., Moutoglis, P., Klironomos, J.N., Lee, H., & Trevors,

J.T. (2004). Methods of studying soil microbial diversity. Journal ofMicrobiological Methods 58 (1), 169-188.

Lal, R. (1993). Tillage effects on soil degradation, soil resilience, soil quality, and

sustainability. Soil and Tillage Research 27 (1-4), 1-8.

LaMotte Company. (2001). Soil testing booklet (Model Sth Series). Code 36070.

Chestertown, Maryland, USA.

Landscape Management. (2005, Feb 23). Canada will not restrict 2,4-D. Landscape

Management: The Preferred Source for Large Contractors. Retrieved October

28, 2009, fromhttp://www.landscapemanagement.net/landscape/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=1484

04

Maryland Department of Agriculture. (2009). Nutrient Recommendations for Sod

Production. Retrieved on October 28, 2009, from

http://www.mda.state.md.us/resource_conservation/nutrient_management/nutria

nt_recommendations_for_sod_production.php

Meriles, J.M, Vargas Gil, S., Conforto, C., Figoni, G., Lovera, E., March, G.J., Guzman,

C.A. (2009). Soil microbial communities under different soybean cropping

systems: Characterization of microbial population dynamics, soil microbial

activity, microbial biomass, and fatty acid profiles. Soil & Tillage Research 103

(2), 271-281.

Murdock, L. (n.d.). Fertility status of long-term sods. In Factors to Consider when

Bringing Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Land or Idle Land Back into

Production. Cooperative Education Service, University of Kentucky College of



15

Agriculture. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id124/id124.htm

Perez, A., Harwood, J., Johnson, D., Somwaru, A., & Zepp, G. (1995). Turfgrass sod:

An economic assessment of the feasibility of providing multiple-peril crop

insurance. Economic Research Service, USDA. Retrieved October 28, 2009,from http://www.rma.usda.gov/pilots/feasible/PDF/turfsod.pdf

Petrides, G.A. (1958). A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs. Boston: The Riverside Press.

Rajaniemi, T.K., & Allison, V.J. (2009). Abiotic conditions and plant cover differentially

affect microbial biomass and community composition on dune gradients. Soil

Biology and Biochemistry 41(1), 102-109.

Stocking, M.A., & Murnaghan, N. (2001). Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land

Degradation. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Stott, D.E., Kennedy, A.C., & Cambardella, C.A. (1999). Impact of soil organisms and

organic matter on soil structure. In R. Lal, Soil Quality and Soil Erosion (pp. 57-

73). London: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

Thompson, I.P, Bailey, M.J., Ellis, R.J., Maguire, N., & Meharg, A.A. (1998). Response

of soil microbial communities to single and multiple doses of an organic pollutant.

Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31 (1), 95-105.

Zhengfei, G., Lansink, A.O., Wossink, A., & Hurine, R. (2005). Damage control inputs: A

comparison of conventional and organic farming systems. European Review of

Agricultural Economics 32 (2), 167-189.

Zhou, Y., Yao, Z., Choi, M.M.F., Chen, Y., Chen, H., Mohammad, R., Zhuang, R., Chen,

H., Wang, F., Maskow, T., & Zaray, G. (2008). A combination method to study

microbial communities and activities in zinc contaminated soil. Journal of

Hazardous Materials 169 (1-3), 875-881.



16

8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Map of Study Location

Appendix 2: Map of Land Uses at Study Location



17

Appendix 3: Vegetation in a) the fallow field, b) sod field, and c) control area

a)

© Maria Legault, 2009

b)


c)


Appendix 4: Example of soil sample depth in the fallow field




18

Appendix 5: Experiment conducted to remove microorganisms from soil samples


Appendix 6: Images of rocks found in sod field within first 10 cm of sample


Documents

Soil Study - Cambridge, Ontario