For week 3, we're required to water the plants twice in a week. The plants are watered with 500ml of water on Monday and Thursday.
Sieve Analysis Report
In order to determine the distribution of particles of various sizes present in the soil, sieve analysis was done. In this test, 5 sieves with varying sieve opening mesh sizes were used. The largest mesh size is 2mm while the smallest mesh size is 63µm. The soil was first loaded into the sieve with the largest mesh and shaken in a mechanical shaker for 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the soils left on each sieve were taken to measure its weight. The weight of soil left on each sieve shows the proportion of size of particle present in the soil. The results for sieve analysis is posted below.
Sieve Number
|
Sieve opening mesh size
|
Mass of soil retained
on each sieve(g)
|
Percent of mass
retained on each sieve(Rn)
|
Cumulative percent
retained(% Cumulative passing = 100% - % Cumulative retained)
|
Percent finer (100 - ∑
Rn)
|
10
|
2mm
|
5.7144
|
5.0510
|
5.0510
|
94.9490
|
18
|
1mm
|
6.0939
|
5.3863
|
10.4373
|
89.5627
|
70
|
212µm
|
78.7790
|
69.6321
|
80.0694
|
19.9306
|
120
|
125 µm
|
8.3077
|
7.3431
|
87.4125
|
12.5875
|
230
|
63 µm
|
8.0489
|
7.1144
|
94.5269
|
5.4731
|
Pan
|
--------
|
6.1921
|
5.4731
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
Soil B:
Parking Lot Kg. E
Sieve Number
|
Sieve opening mesh size
|
Mass of soil retained
on each sieve(g)
|
Percent of mass
retained on each sieve(Rn)
|
Cumulative percent
retained(% Cumulative passing = 100% - % Cumulative retained)
|
Percent finer (100 - ∑
Rn)
|
10
|
2mm
|
7.2652
|
6.0206
|
6.0206
|
93.9794
|
18
|
1mm
|
12.1332
|
10.0547
|
16.0753
|
83.9247
|
70
|
212µm
|
35.3546
|
29.2981
|
45.3735
|
54.6265
|
120
|
125 µm
|
22.5092
|
18.6532
|
64.0267
|
35.9733
|
230
|
63 µm
|
18.1452
|
15.0368
|
79.0635
|
20.9365
|
Pan
|
--------
|
25.2644
|
20.9365
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
Soil C: ODEC
Sieve Number
|
Sieve opening mesh size
|
Mass of soil retained
on each sieve(g)
|
Percent of mass
retained on each sieve(Rn)
|
Cumulative percent
retained(% Cumulative passing = 100% - % Cumulative retained)
|
Percent finer (100 - ∑
Rn)
|
10
|
2mm
|
6.4606
|
4.1879
|
4.1879
|
95.8121
|
18
|
1mm
|
13.3743
|
8.6695
|
12.8574
|
87.1426
|
70
|
212µm
|
71.0273
|
46.0389
|
58.8963
|
41.1037
|
120
|
125 µm
|
37.5077
|
24.3132
|
83.2095
|
16.7905
|
230
|
63 µm
|
14.4921
|
9.3941
|
92.6036
|
7.3964
|
Pan
|
--------
|
11.4105
|
7.3965
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
Soil D: FSSA
Sieve Number
|
Sieve opening mesh size
|
Mass of soil retained
on each sieve(g)
|
Percent of mass
retained on each sieve(Rn)
|
Cumulative percent
retained(% Cumulative passing = 100% - % Cumulative retained)
|
Percent finer (100 - ∑
Rn)
|
10
|
2mm
|
6.1529
|
6.3760
|
6.3760
|
93.6240
|
18
|
1mm
|
8.2677
|
8.5674
|
14.9434
|
85.0566
|
70
|
212µm
|
20.8740
|
21.6308
|
36.5742
|
63.4258
|
120
|
125 µm
|
15.6149
|
16.1810
|
52.7552
|
47.2448
|
230
|
63 µm
|
22.6688
|
23.4907
|
76.2459
|
23.7541
|
Pan
|
--------
|
22.9230
|
23.7541
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
Soil E: 1B
Sieve Number
|
Sieve opening mesh size
|
Mass of soil retained
on each sieve(g)
|
Percent of mass
retained on each sieve(Rn)
|
Cumulative percent
retained(% Cumulative passing = 100% - % Cumulative retained)
|
Percent finer (100 - ∑
Rn)
|
10
|
2mm
|
5.8273
|
3.0371
|
3.0371
|
96.9629
|
18
|
1mm
|
5.8416
|
3.0446
|
6.0817
|
93.9183
|
70
|
212µm
|
45.1393
|
23.5261
|
29.6078
|
70.3922
|
120
|
125 µm
|
92.5238
|
48.2225
|
77.8303
|
22.1697
|
230
|
63 µm
|
29.8522
|
15.5587
|
93.3890
|
6.611
|
Pan
|
--------
|
12.6843
|
6.6109
|
100.0
|
0.0
|
Water Holding Capacity
Water is essential to the growth and survival of plants. So a soil's ability to contain water, otherwise known as water holding capacity is important when determining which soil is the best for growing plants. A test has been carried out to determine the water holding capacity of the 5 soils used in this study. The results are shown below.
Type of soil
|
Weight of Wet Soil(g)
|
Mass of Dry Soil(g)
|
C - Loss in weight(g) = B – A
|
D - Water Holding Capacity(%) = C/B
|
||
With plastic container
|
A - Without plastic container
|
With plastic container
|
B - Without plastic container
|
|||
A(Mengkabong)
|
137.9383
|
131.7452
|
108.7375
|
102.5444
|
29.1998
|
28.48
|
B(Parking Lot Kg. E)
|
111.1598
|
104.9825
|
109.2542
|
103.0769
|
1.9056
|
1.85
|
C(ODEC)
|
170.9843
|
164.8161
|
167.5597
|
161.3915
|
3.4246
|
2.12
|
D(FSSA Garden)
|
105.9082
|
99.7771
|
94.7432
|
88.6121
|
11.165
|
12.60
|
E(1B)
|
201.0363
|
194.8706
|
194.7723
|
188.6076
|
6.263
|
3.32
|
Plant Mass
Besides measuring plant length, another way to track a plant's rate of growth is to measure its dry mass. The initial weight and final weight of plants were measured and recorded below.
Type of soil
|
Initial Weight(g)
|
Final Weight(g)
|
Change in weight(g)
|
A(Mengkabong)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
B(Parking Lot Kg E)
|
0.0827
|
0.0455
|
0.0372
|
C(ODEC)
|
0.0795
|
0.0432
|
0.0363
|
D(FSSA Garden)
|
0.0819
|
0.0455
|
0.0364
|
E(1B)
|
0.0648
|
0.0349
|
0.0299
|
Weekly Measurement of Plant Height
For week 3, mistakes were committed as no photos were taken as physical proof for the recording of the plants growth.
A(Mengkabong):
Average Plant Height:-
Signs of Nutrient Deficiencies: -
B(Parking Lot Kg. E):
Average Plant Height: 25.2cm
Signs of Nutrient Deficiencies: Slight yellowing in the leaves.
C(ODEC):
Average Plant Height: 23.8cm
Signs of Nutrient Deficiencies: -
D(FSSA Garden):
Average Plant Height: 26.5cm
Signs of Nutrient Deficiencies: -
E(1Borneo):
Average Plant Height: 21.4cm
Signs of Nutrient Deficiencies: -
Question from Week 2:
What conclusion can be made by this group on the seedlings and root growth of the early stages by analysing the soil pH, soil texture, soil moisture, etc.
From the results, report the group discussion.
Answer: Based on the soil pH, texture, moisture content, and nutrient levels, it can be concluded that the most important factor in the growth of paddy is the soil texture. Of the 5 soils used in this study, the plants grown in Soil B(Kg E Parking Lot) has the greatest gain in height after 2 weeks compared to the other soils. Soil B along with Soil A(Mengkabong) are both clay loam soils, therefore they both have a clay content of about 40% which is suitable for paddy as it needs soil that has high water holding capacity. However, Soil A has more sand than silt while it is the opposite for Soil B. As a matter of fact, all soils used in the study other than Soil B have high percentage of sand in the composition of the soil. Besides water holding capacity, soils with high clay content have another property which is the ability to balance out the soil pH to near neutral after being submerged in water for a while. This is helped by the fact that paddy rice plants can grow in a wide range of pH, which is from 4 to 8. To summarize this entire paragraph, soil texture is probably the most important factor in the initial stages of paddy plant growth.
References: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_criteria_of_an_ideal_rice_soil
Did the group confirm the result of soil texture type from jar test, textural triangulation with the sieve analysis test?
ReplyDeleteDid the results for soil texture from jar test and sieve analysis test correspond with each other?
Suggestion for easier data interpretation especially with the 2 weeks old plant and after month old data comparison of data recorded is by graphical presentation and table.
How does nutrient and heavy metal content have relationship with the soil pH?
For the overall summary report, look back at all the research questions:
http://hs112017environmentalsoilscience.blogspot.my/p/padi-sawah-mini-project.html