Fourth Lab Report : Cotton to Maize

Lecterur : Mdm. Diana Demiyah Mohd Hamdan

Fourth Lab Report :

1)   Sieve Analysis Test

2)   Soil Nutrient Analysis 

Members :

No.	Name	Matric Number
1	Shemaiah Marie Mojuntin	BS17110042
2	Puteri Nur Sabrina Binti Ruslan	BS17110407
3	Lee Yoong Zhan	BS17160650
4	Daphne Rachel Marius	BS17110612
5	Afifah Ghazali	BS17160697
6	Wangliying	BS17270767

1) Sieve Analysis Test

INTRODUCTION

The particle-size distribution (PSD) of a powder, or granular material, or particles dispersed in fluid, is a list of values or a mathematical function that defines the relative amount, typically by mass, of particles present according to size (Jillavenkatesa et al.,).  Particle- size distribution is also commonly called grain size distribution (GSD). The GSD is very important to get an insight to the chemical and physical characteristic of a material especially the soil.

The GSD are one of the basic and most important properties of soil. It is primarily used for soil classification and provided a first order estimate of other soil engineering properties such as permeability, shear strength, and compressibility (Arasan et al., 2011). GSD in the soil influence the strength of soil and its ability of load-bearing. Hence, it is very important to do find out the particle distribution in the soil.

 The sand grains in the soil is defined by the most easily understood method of determination which is sieve analysis, where powder is separated on sieves of different sizes. In the sieve method, the grains are sorted according to their diameters (Emmanuel, 1961).  Sieve analysis consists of using a single or set of screens (typically woven wire mesh), decreasing in opening size, to separate or classify a sample. Several mechanisms are used to disperse the sample and transport it through the screens. (Arasan et al., 2011).  The result will be depends on the the size and shape of the particles.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine of distribution of particle size of fine, coarse and all-in-aggregates by sieving. 

APPARATUS AND MATERIAL

Air Dried Soils

Stack of Sieves including Pan and Cover

Weighing balance

Mechanical Sieve Shaker

Brush

Pestle and Mortar

Tray

PROCEDURE

1.         Tree roots, pieces of bark and rocks were removed from the soil samples.

2.    The clumps of air-dried soils were separated and broken by hand before air-dried sample  were sieved.

3.         The total weight of the sample soil were measured before sieving.

4.         5 size of mesh sieve were selected (one of the sieve must be the 63µm mesh size).

5.        Sieves are made sure to be clean. If there were many soil particles that were stuck in the openings, they were poked out using a brush gently without injuring the mesh.

6.       A stack if sieves on the mechanical sieve shaker were prepared. Sieves having larger opening sizes are were made sure to be placed above the one having smaller opening size. The pan were set first in the stack, the cover on top of the biggest mesh size sieve.

7.         The soil was poured and the cover was placed.

8.         The clamps were fixed.

9.         The tray was placed below the opening of the pan to collect the finest particle.

10.      The time was adjusted for 15 minutes and the shaker was started for 40-50.

11.      After the shaker has stopped, the mass of each sieve and retained soil were measured.

12.      The finest particle on the pan were also collected.

13.   Particles that were stuck on the mesh were poked out using a brush and were collected.

14.      The soil were labelled and kept for further analysis.

RESULTS

Total mass of soil weighed = 100 g

A)           Sandy Loam Soil

Sieve No.	Sieve opening mesh size	Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)	Percent of mass retained on each sieve (Rn) Retained (%)	Cumulative percent retained (% cumulative passing = 100%  - % Cumulative Retained)	Percent finer (100- ΣRn)
18	1mm	0.02	0.02	0.02	99.98
35	500µm	0.76	0.76	0.78	99.22
60	250µm	7.46	7.46	8.24	91.76
70	212µm	6.09	6.09	14.33	85.67
120	125µm	68.85	68.85	83.13	16.82
230	63µm	14.75	14.75	97.93	2.07
Pan	Pan	0.28	0.28	98.21	1.79

 Table 1 : Sieve analysis test results for Sandy Loam soil

Graph 1 : Sieve analysis graph for Sandy Loam soil.

B)       Silty Clay Loam

Sieve No.	Sieve opening mesh size	Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)	Percent of mass retained on each sieve (Rn) Retained (%)	Cumulative percent retained (% cumulative passing = 100%  - % Cumulative Retained)	Percent finer (100- ΣRn)
18	1mm	25.53	25.53	25.53	74.47
35	500µm	12.41	12.41	37.94	62.06
60	250µm	13.08	13.08	51.02	48.98
70	212µm	5.94	5.94	56.96	43.04
120	125µm	15.53	15.53	72.49	27.51
230	63µm	13.21	13.21	85.7	14.30
Pan	Pan	9.97	9.97	95.67	4.33

 Table 2 : Sieve analysis results for Silty Clay Loam soil.

Graph 2 : Sieve analysis graph for Silty Clay Loam soil.

C)          Clay Soil

Sieve No.	Sieve opening mesh size	Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)	Percent of mass retained on each sieve (Rn) Retained (%)	Cumulative percent retained (% cumulative passing = 100%  - % Cumulative Retained)	Percent finer (100- ΣRn)
18	1mm	58.35	58.35	58.35	41.65
35	500µm	10.47	10.47	68.82	31.18
60	250µm	8.02	8.02	76.84	23.16
70	212µm	2.27	2.27	79.11	20.89
120	125µm	7.50	7.50	86.61	13.39
230	63µm	4.12	4.12	90.73	9.27
Pan	Pan	7.04	7.04	97.77	2.23

Table 3 : Sieve analysis results for Clay soil.

Graph 3 : Sieve analysis graph for Clay soil.

D)       Clay Loam Soil

Sieve No.	Sieve opening mesh size	Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)	Percent of mass retained on each sieve (Rn) Retained (%)	Cumulative percent retained (% cumulative passing = 100%  - % Cumulative Retained)	Percent finer (100- ΣRn)
18	1mm	23.62	23.62	23.62	76.38
35	500µm	17.27	17.27	40.89	59.11
60	250µm	20.41	20.41	61.30	38.70
70	212µm	6.13	6.13	67.43	32.57
120	125µm	19.60	19.60	87.03	12.97
230	63µm	4.89	4.89	91.92	8.08
Pan	Pan	5.85	5.85	97.77	2.23

Table 4 : Sieve analysis results for Clay Loam soil.

Graph 4 : Sieve analysis graph for Clay Loam soil.

E)        Loamy Sand soil

Sieve No.	Sieve opening mesh size	Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)	Percent of mass retained on each sieve (Rn) Retained (%)	Cumulative percent retained (% cumulative passing = 100%  - % Cumulative Retained)	Percent finer (100- ΣRn)
18	1mm	30.76	30.76	30.76	69.24
35	500µm	11.93	11.93	42.69	57.31
60	250µm	17.93	17.93	60.62	39.38
70	212µm	4.33	4.33	64.95	35.05
120	125µm	13.63	13.63	78.58	21.42
230	63µm	10.58	10.58	89.16	10.84
Pan	Pan	8.83	8.83	97.99	2.01

Table 5 : Sieve analysis results for Loamy Sand soil

Graph 5 : Sieve analysis graph for Loamy Sand soil

DISCUSSION

          Sieve analysis helps to determine the particle size distribution of the coarse and fine aggregates. Aggregates means the calculated by the combination of several separate elements of the rocks. A sieve analysis can be performed on any type of non-organic or organic granular materials including sands, crushed rock, clays, granite, feldspars, coal, soil, a wide range of manufactured powders, grain and seeds, down to a minimum size depending on the exact method. During any sieving process, there is a constant size comparison between particles and sieve apertures. A particle will pass the mesh if it is smaller than an aperture and when it does not pass the aperture it is thrown upwards with subsequent lifting of the sieve bottom. Each comparison presents an opportunity for the particle to pass the sieve mesh. Based on the experiment, sieve analysis test helps in finding out size of the grain particles as they are distributed among certain size ranges by the help of stacked sieves. This methods helps in the distribution of different grain sizes affects the properties of soil. The grain size analyse provides the information which required in classifying soil.

          Based on the results above, it can be shown that the soil with the highest percentage finer would be soil samples from silty clay loam(mangrove soil) as the percentage of finer soils that passed through the 63 microns sieve mesh was the highest with the percentage is 4.33%, followed by clay loam soil in FSSA and clay soil from KG E has the same percentage of finer soil which is 2.33%. The percentage soil samples from that passes through the 63 microns sieve mesh for clay loam soil (garden soil) was the second lowest at 2.01%. The percentage of soil samples from that passes through the 63 microns sieve mesh for sandy loam soil was the lowest at only 1.79%. This can be said that, as the sizes of the mesh sieves decreases, only finer particles such as clay and silt which the size ranges is smaller than sand would be able to pass through the sieves.

          Based on the graph plotted, the soil sample that has the highest finer particles which are silt and clay would be soil sample from silty clay loam (mangrove soil). This is because, the soil finer percentage was the highest. For sandy loam soil, based on the graph plotted it can be seen that the line of the graph drops drastically from the 212 microns sieve mesh size to 125 microns sieve mesh which is the percentage finer from 85.67% to 16.82%. This movement explains that soil particles due to the size range for the sand being retained in the 212 microns sieve mesh and the sandy soil has less content of silt and clay. This also explains why the graph of sandy loam soil is much more different than the other sample soil graphs that showed a consistent and gradual decrease in the percentage passes of the soil particles. We can deduce that soil sample of sandy loam soil are mostly content the largest soil particles.

 From the results, it can be shown that the weight of the soil sample is not equal to before. There are some errors that we are identified through this experiments. The sieves are not clean by using the right brush and many soil particles were left after the process was carried out which affected the results of the experiment. Next, the soil spilled out while transferring the soil for measuring the weight of the soil after the sieving process which affects to the results obtained. The precaution steps that should be taken are, to make sure the sieves are clean by using brush. The sieve with an opening size smaller than the 300 microns sieve mesh should be clean with a softer cloth hair brush whereas the sieve with opening size bigger than the 300 microns sieve mesh should be clean by using a wire brush.

APPENDIX

1) Sieve Analysis apparatus

The Sieve Analysis with different size of sieve mesh.

2) Sandy Loam soil

After sieving process for sandy loam soil(ODEC), from the left 1mm, 500µm, 250µm,212µm.

After sieving process for sandy loam soil(ODEC), from the left 150µm, 63µm, pan.

3) Silty Clay Loam soil

After sieving process for silty clay loam(mangrove), from the left 1mm, 500µm, 250µm, 212µm.

After sieving process for silty clay loam soil (mangrove), from the left 150µm, 63µm, pan. 

4) Loamy Sand soil

After sieving process for garden soil, from the left 1mm, 500µm, 250µm, 212µm.

After sieving process for mangrove soil, from the left 150µm, 63µm, pan.

5) Clay Loam soil

 

After sieving process for clay loam soil (FSSA), from the left 1mm, 500µm, 250µm, 212µm.

After sieving process for clay loam soil (FSSA), from the left 150µm, 63µm, pan.

6) Clay soil

After sieving process for clay soil (Kg.Excellent), from the left 1mm, 500µm, 250µm,212µm.

After sieving process for clay soil (Kg.Excellent), from the left 150µm, 63µm, pan.

REFERENCES

Arasan, S., Akbulut, S., Hasiloglu, A.S. 2011. Effect of particle size and shape on the grain size distribution using Image analysis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, 1(4), pp.968-985.

Dr. Mike Keeble & Venkat Nandivada. 2017. Different Sieving Methods for Varying Applications.

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=14339

Emmanuel, A. 1961. Field method for sieve analysis of sand. Jurnal of Sedimentary Research, 31 (4),  631-633.

Jillavenkatesa, A, Dakpunas, S. J, Lin-Sien Lum .2001.  Particle Size Characterization. NIST Special Publication, 960-1.

Tatiana Ivanova, Veronika Chaloupková & Bohumil Havrland. 2016. Sieve analysis of Biomass: Accurate Method for Determination of Particle Size Distribution.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312087193_Sieve_analysis_of_biomass_aCcurate_method_for_determination_of_particle_size_distribution

2) Soil Nutrient Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The nutrients in the soil are provided directly to the plants, therefore indirectly provided to the animals. Although plants cannot fully absorb nutrients, nutrients have a great effect on the growth of plants. Soil nutrient analysis can make us understand the content of various nutrients in the soil, and then analyze whether the nutrients are sufficient for crop growth and monitor the nutrient changes in real time. And we can improve the methods of agricultural management and improve land use efficiency. This experiment is very important for the production. When the nutrient content in the soil is determined, the corresponding treatment can be performed for the missing or excessive nutrients. At the same time, the type and amount of fertilization are determined.

Soil macronutrients mainly refer to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, it is also the main component of soil fertilizer. Globally, the ranking of vertical distributions among nutrients was shallowest to deepest in the following order: P > K > Ca > Mg > Na = Cl = SO4. Nutrients strongly cycled by plants, such as P and K, were more concentrated in the topsoil (upper 20 cm) than were nutrients usually less limiting for plants such as Na and Cl. The topsoil concentrations of all nutrients except Na were higher in the soil profiles where the elements were more. Nitrogen can promote plant growth and is part of the constituent proteins. Nitrogen participation is almost always required in every process of plant growth. At the same time, because nitrogen is a component of chlorophyll, nitrogen can provide green plants and participate in photosynthesis of plants. Phosphorus participates in the process of energy metabolism of plants and promotes the development and flowering of plant roots. Potassium is a good regulator of plant metabolism and plays an important role in plant resistance. Sulfur helps form the enzymes and proteins necessary for plant growth. It can be used as a soil conditioner. Although the sulfur content is not high, if the plant lacks sulfur, the plant will have health problems.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the concentration of nutrients found in the soil.

APPARATUS AND MATERIAL

5 samples of 20 grams dried soil samples

Distilled water

200ml beaker

0.45 µm membrane filter paper

Sampling bottles

Stopwatch

Parafilm M moisture proof sealing

Scissors

NitraVer^® 5 Nitrate Reagent Powder Pillow, SulfaVer^® 4 Reagent Powder Pillow and PhosVer^® 3 Phosphate Reagent Powder Pillow

Spectrophotometer

10ml square glass

PROCEDURE

1.   Handling the soils with bare hand was avoided, gloves were worn while handling.

2.   The soil that has been air-dried outside the lab was weighed. The soil must be ensured that completely air dried.

3.   40 g of dried soil samples was put in the beaker separately for each type of soil.

4.   100ml of distilled water was added together with the soil sample.

5.   The solution was stirred for 20 minutes.

6.   The solution was filtered using filter paper and was stored in a bottle for macronutrient analysis using the HACH kit.

A)  490 P React. PV- Phosphorus

1.   The stored programs was pressed.

2.   Code 490 P React. PV- Phosphorus was selected for the test.

3.   A square sample cell was filled with 10 ml of sample.

4.   One PhosVer 3 phosphate Powder Pillow was added to the cell. The sample was closed with parafilm and was shook vigorously for 30 seconds.

5.   A timer for 2 minutes was set. A two-minute reaction period will begin. If the sample was digested using the Acid Persulfate digestion, a ten-minute reaction period is required.

6.   A blank preparation was prepared with a second square sample cell was filled with 10 mL of sample.

 7.    When the timer expires, the blank sample was wiped and it was inserted into the cell holder with the fill line facing right. ZERO was pressed and the display will show 0.00 mg/L PO₄^3-.

8.   The prepared sample was wiped and it was inserted into the cell holder with the fill line facing right. READ was pressed. Results are in mg/L PO₄^3-.

B) 680 Sulfate

1.   Stored programs was pressed.

2.   Code 680 Sulfate was selected for the test.

3.   A square sample cell was filled with 10 mL of sample.

4.   For prepared sample, the contents of one SulfaVer 4 Reagent Powder Pillow was added to the sample cell. The sample was swirl vigorously to dissolve powder. White turbidity will form if sulfate is present.

5.   A timer for 5 minutes was pressed. A five-minute reaction was begin. The cell cannot be disturbed during the time.

6.   A second square sample cell was filled with 10 mL of sample for blank preparation.

7.   When the timer expires, the blank sample was inserted into the cell holder with the fill line facing right.

8.   Within five minutes after the timer expires, the prepared sample was insert into the cell holder with the fill line facing right. READ was pressed. Results are in mg/L SO₄^2-.

C) 355 N. Nitrate HR PP

1.   Stored programs was pressed.

2.   The test was selected for code 355 N. Nitrate HR PP.

3.   A square sample cell was filled with 10 mL of sample.

4. For prepared sample, the contents of one NitraVer 5 Nitrate Reagent Powder Pillow was added. Stopper.

5.   Timer was pressed. A one-minute reaction period will begin.

6.   The cell was shake vigorously until the timer expires.

7.   When the timer expires, the TIMER was pressed again. A five-minute reaction period will begin. An amber color will develop if nitrate is present.

8.   When the timer expires, a second square sample cell was filled with 10 mL of sample.

9.   The blank sample was wiped and it was insert into the cell holder with the fill line facing right.

10. ZERO was pressed. The display will show: 0.0 mg/L NO₃^--N.

11. Within one minute after the timer expires, the prepared sample was wiped and was insert into the cell holder with the fill line facing right.

12. READ was pressed. Results are in mg/L NO₃^—N.

RESULTS

Type of soil	Type of test	First Reading	Second Reading	Third Reading	Average
1)ODEC	490 Phosphate	0.08	0.09	0.08	0.08
	680 Sulphate	9.0	9.0	8.9	8.9
	355 Nitrate	3.3	3.1	3.2	3.2
2) Mangrove	490 Phosphate	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.14
	680 Sulphate	124.0 (over nutrient)	124.0 (over nutrient)	122.0 (over nutrient)	123.3
	355 Nitrate	3.0	3.0	3.1	3.0
3) FSSA	490 Phosphate	0.34	0.33	0.33	0.33
	680 Sulphate	15.0	15.0	15.0	15.0
	355 Nitrate	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.8
4) KH	490 Phosphate	0.09	0.08	0.09	0.09
	680 Sulphate	3.0	3.0	4.0	3.3
	355 Nitrate	1.5	1.5	1.6	1.5
5) KG. E	490 Phosphate	3.95 (over nutrient)	3.87 (over nutrient)	3.87 (over nutrient)	3.89
	680 Sulphate	8.0	8.0	8.0	8.0
	355 Nitrate	2.1	2.1	2.1	2.1

Table 1 : Soil nutrient analysis results for different types of soil

DISCUSSION

Healthy growing plants require sufficient amounts of 14 essential nutrient elements and an addition to carbon, hydrogen and oxygen which can be found in the basis of all organic compounds. All of these are required to ensure the growth of the plant and the ability for the fruits of the plant to ripen and of course preventing the plants form dying from insufficient of nutrients. These essential elements are divided into macronutrients (required in larger quantities because of their structural roles in the plant) and micronutrients (required in smaller quantities because they tend to be involved in regulatory roles in the plant). Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are the primary macronutrients, and the ones most often in short supply in soils. The elements N, P and K are therefore the most likely to require replenishment in the form of applied fertilizer. Deficiencies of the secondary macronutrients—calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S)—are less commonly encountered. The micronutrients required are iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), boron (B), chlorine (Cl) and nickel (Ni); but in practice the main micronutrient deficiencies that concern us with crops are iron and manganese. Any of the above essential elements may also be present in excessive amounts, which can result in toxic effects, for example, B and Mn. Other elements or groups of elements like sodium, bicarbonate may also contribute to the toxic effects seen, for example, in saline or sodic soils. Sodium (Na) has been demonstrated to be an essential element for some plants with a special photosynthetic pathway, but in practice problems result from excessive amounts of Na, not deficiency.

The concentration of nutrients found in the soil can be determined through the soil pH, soil texture, soil permeability, soil moisture, the amount of organic matter found in the soil, soil electrical conductivity, soil salinity, soil sodicity, the use of fertilizer, the presence of manure, the depth of the soil sample obtained, temporal variation, crop removal, exchange of cations and more.  Nutrient analysis can be conducted to obtain the concentration of P, N, and S found in the soil by using 490 P React. PV, Nitrate HR PP, and 680 Sulphate.

The role of phosphorus is very essential in plants. Phosphorus helps in the conversion of numerous key biochemical reactions, capturing and converting the sun’s energy into useful plant compounds, a vital component of DNA and RNA that reads the DNA genetic code to build proteins and other essential compounds for the plant structure, seed yield and genetic transfer. The structure of both DNA and RNA are linked together by phosphorus bonds too! Phosphorus is also part of the ATP unit forming energy during photosynthesis and helps in the beginning of seedlings growth. First of all, Phosphorus found in the soil for Odec soil are 0.008, 0.009, and 0.008. The average is 0.008 which is the lowest because soil texture for Odec is sandy soil, the soil permeability is very high making the nutrients to leach away easily naturally the phosphorus level will be lowest. Next we got KH soil coming up the second in ascending order with average reading of phosphorus 0.09 only, KH soil is garden soil which is loamy sand, the permeability is also high making it easily leached as well other than the soil texture that makes the soil permeability fairly high, the garden soil was actually for crops plantation hence before we obtained the soil for sampling, the crops might have absorbed most of the nutrients away making the soil low in phosphorous since phosphorus is an essential macronutrient for the growth of the crops.  Mangrove has the third accelerated reading with the mean of 0.14 of phosphorus found in the soil it might due to the soil texture of the mangrove is silty clay loam making it good in trapping nutrients preventing them from leaching hence the phosphorus level is higher than Odec and KH soil. Coming up next it, is FSSA soil with the mean reading of 0.33, FSSA soil can hold nutrients pretty well due to the soil texture- clay loam, the soil permeability of a clay loam is very low hence making it very easy in capturing the nutrients in the soil. Last but not least, KG.E soil had the highest reading of phosphorus with the mean of 3.89 (over nutrient), the FSSA soil texture is Clay, Clay is a finely-grained natural soil with the particle diameter <0.002mm making it the smallest between silt and clay. Clay particles have a vastly greater tendency to stick together than sand, this it is a common farmer knowledge that soils that are high in clay are difficult to til. (Sheard, 2005) Hence, the permeability of the clay soil is very slow, capturing the nutrients very well making it over nutrient in the soil. Other than that it might be due to the lake around it, the rain and weathered rocks cause the release of phosphate ions, these are then distributed in soils and water. Besides that, Kg E soil had a slightly acidic pH reading for the previous experiments we did, we can conclude that the lower the pH the lower the availability of P in soil. Hence maintaining the soil pH between 6 and & will generally result in the most efficient use and availability of P. (Paul Hargreaves, 2015)

The role of sulfur is necessary for all living cells. In plants, sulfur is essential for nitrogen fixing nodules on legumes and necessary in the formation of chlorophyll. Plant use sulfur in the processes of producing proteins, amino acids, enzymes and vitamins. Sulfur also helps the plant’s resistance to disease, aids in growth and in seed formation. (Darius, 2009).  Firstly, starting from acceleration the lowest level of sulfur in soil can be found in KH soil, KG.E soil, ODEC soil, FSSA soil and Mangrove soil with the mean of 3.3, 8.0, 9.0,15.0, 123.3 (over nutrient) respectively. KH had the lowest sulfur reading like phosphorus it might really be due to the plantation that had planted earlier before we obtained the soil, all of the nutrients might had already been absorbed thoroughly leaving not much nutrients left in the soil content or it might also be due to the depth of the soil obtained wasn’t deep enough, as most of the nutrients leaching will be flowing to subsoil and be collected over there, but we didn’t dig until the level of subsoils that might be the reason why the nutrients level are low as well when it was supposedly to be high in nutrients due to the organic matters found in KH soil. Next reading is KG E, ODEC to FSSA, the mean reading of sulfur didn’t differ much for these 3 types of soil. Most of the sulfur in soils is found soil in organic matter. However, it is not available to plants in this form. In order to become available to plants, the sulfur must be first released from the organic matter and go through mineralization process. KG. E soil had the second lowest sulfur level might be due to the lack of organic matter in soil, as we can see in the jar test that we have done earlier, it’s clear that KG.E soil didn’t have any organic matter at all, this shows why the sulfur level is low in KG.E soil compared to other soil. ODEC soil on the other hand has sandy loam as soil texture, nutrients can be leached very easily and the soil permeability is high leaching is even easier with high permeability soil but according to the jar test we have done, ODEC soil contains organic matter in it with 2.7cm in length pretty high for soil so even with strong leaching soil, the sulfur concentration of ODEC soil still remain the third highest. FSSA soil came in as second place in sulfur concentration, with the mean reading of 15.0. FSSA soil is clay loam hence making it easier to hold nutrients, leaching will be lessen and the soil permeability isn’t high so remaining the sulfur in soil isn’t a big problem with the soil texture. Other than that, FSSA soil does contain 0.30cm of organic matter in the jar test making it second place in sulfur concentration not a surprise at all. Mangrove soil had the highest reading of sulfur reading among the 5 soils because organic and humus-rich soils are enriched with sulfur from its release during decomposition of organic matter. Sulfur leaches out of soil very easily; the top layer of soil can be deficient while deeper layers of soil have sufficient amounts of this nutrient. Plants with deep roots can benefit from nutrients in lower reaches of the soil. There’s a lot of organic matter deposition can be found in mangrove making so making the mangrove soil fertile in sulfur. Other than that, the mangrove area has a lot of organisms living there, the organisms there produce manures and organic matter at a constant rate which makes the sulfur reading level the highest among the 5 soils.

Nitrogen is one of the most essential nutrients for plants and is involved in the building of the fundamental bricks of life: nucleotides, amino acids, and proteins. Only some plant species are able to use atmospheric nitrogen due to their capacity of a symbiotic relationship with specific microorganisms (Gordan et al, 2001). It is also the most mobile and easily leached nutrient and its concentration in the soil can vary considerably over time and from place to place. Unlike the other macronutrients, N recommendations are better based on regional fertilizer trials conducted over a number of years rather than on soil test levels. The other species find their resources in the soil where nitrogen is present in different forms. For example, the soil solution may contain different organic N forms such as soluble proteins or amino acids derived from proteolysis processes. Nitrogen is among the vital elements needed for the survival of living things, promoting grass growth, it is also the most mobile and easily leached nutrient and its concentration in the soil can vary considerably over time and from place to place. Unlike the other macronutrients, N recommendations are better based on regional fertilizer trials conducted over a number of years rather than on soil test levels. Since plants cannot use or take nitrogen directly from the atmosphere, uptake of nitrogen has to be gone through nitrogen forms that include ammonium and nitrate. Nitrate is an element for plants since it’s a core component of much plant structure for both their internal and external metabolic processes. Plants required to manufacture the complex molecules through metabolism activities to survive by the use of minerals from the soil that contain nitrogen such as nitrate ions  Plants too, like animals, need some important macro and micro nutrient elements including nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon to keep them healthy. The wellness of plant parts like leaves, roots, trunks and more depends on the availability of essential nutrients like nitrogen to enhance the plant's biological processes including growth, absorption, transportation, and excretion. Since nitrogen is present in different fertilizers, the plants through the roots can enhance uptake. (Amir Tajer, 2016). Firstly, the accelerated mean reading for the amount of nitrate in the sample soils is KH soil, KG.E soil, FSSA soil, and Mangrove soil, Mangrove soil with the mean reading of 1.5, 2.1, 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 respectively. KH  had the lowest nitrate level might be due to lack of the availability of amino acid and ammonium in soil so nitrate couldn’t be formed or due to the plantation or crops there had absorbed all the nutrients before the harvest hence making it the lowest in KH soil Next is KG.E soil which is not a lot higher than KH soil, KG.E soil should be high in nitrate and ODEC soil should be the lowest because nitrate levels are highest in soils that have finer texture such as clay and silt, rather than those with rough textures such as sand because nitrates are moved through soil by water, sandy soil often loses nitrates form leaching and heavy, coarsely texture soil loses nitrates through denitrification- a process where anaerobic bacteria in the soil converts nitrates to gaseous form of nitrogen.  Whereas for FSSA soil the mean reading for nitrate is normal due to its soil texture- clay loam and soil permeability- low. 

CONCLUSION

In a nut shell, the identification of macronutrients was completed and the data collected were made in the table above. Nutrients are very essential in keeping the plant alive and as well as assisting the plant growth. Healthy growing plants require sufficient amounts of 14 essential nutrient elements and an addition to carbon, hydrogen and oxygen which can be found in the basis of all organic compounds. All of these are required to ensure the growth of the plant and the ability for the fruits of the plant to ripen and of course preventing the plants form dying from insufficient of nutrients. Right amount of nutrients is very important in plant growth because too much of nutrients can be lethal to the plant.

APPENDIX 

Figure 1: Second reading for ODEC sample for 490 Phosphate test.

Figure 2: 355 Nitrate test for Kg. E sample

Figure 3: Reading of KH sample for 355 Nitrate test.

REFERENCES

Amir Tajer (2016), Whats the function of Nitrogen (N) in plants ? Greenway Biotech form https://www.greenwaybiotech.com/blogs/news/whats-the-function-of-nitrogen-n-in-plants

Baker, Dale E., and Amacher, M.C. (1981). The development and interpretation of a diagnostic soil-testing program. Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 826. State College, PA.

Crouse, D.A. 2017. Soils and Plant Nutrients, Chpt 1. In: K.A. Moore, and. L.K. Bradley (eds). North Carolina Extension Gardener Handbook. NC State Extension, Raleigh, NC.  <https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/extension-gardener-handbook/1-soils-and-plant-nutrients> 

Darius Van d’Rhys, (2009), Why do plants need sulfur?? Dave’s Garden. From https://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/2026

Gordan T, Lea PJ. Rosenberg C, Trinchnat JC. Lea P, Morot-Gaudry JF. (2001) Nodule formation and function, plant nitrogen, 2011 Berlin Springer-Verlag (ph101-146)

Jobbágy, E.G., &Jackson, R.B. (2001). The distribution of soil nutrients with depth: global patterns and the imprint of plants. Biogeochemistry, 53 (1),51-77.

Paul Hargreaves, SRUC, Crichton, Dumfries (2015),Soil Texture and pH effects on Potash and Phosphorus Availability. From https://www.pda.org.uk/soil-texture-and-ph-effects-on-potash-and-phosphorus-availability/

Peverill, K.I., Sparrow, L.A., and Reuter, D.J. (Eds.) (1999). Soil Analysis: An Interpretation Manual, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria

Piper, C.S. (1942). Soil and Plant Analysis. University of Adelaide, South Australia

Sheard, R.W. Sports Turf Association (Guelph, Ont.). 2005. Understanding Turf Management. Sports Turf Association, pp. 4 – 6.