Soil Health Survey: ArcCollector Part 2

Nathan Sylte
4/25/2017

Soil Health Survey

Introduction:

The objective was to use the geographic inquiry process to conduct a study. The geographic inquiry process involves developing a geospatial question. Then, relevant data is collected and analyzed to answer the question. Our task was to generate and deploy a geodatabase with domains to ArcCollector. It should be added that the proper usage of geodatabases and domains is critical when collecting data. Data would then be collected in the field using ArcCollector to answer a geospatial question. 

Specifically, the geospatial question that came up was , "Are the soil homogeneous throughout the UW-Eau Claire campus?" 

To answer this question different soil measurements and observations had to be made. In this case, soil PH, moisture, and grass appearance were used to determine the consistency of the soil throughout campus. Grass appearance does not necessarily correlate with soil health. However, healthy grass has a certain aesthetic appeal to it so it was included in the data collection. 

As previously stated, the study area for this project will include the UW-Eau Claire campus. The campus of the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire is fairly diverse with the campus being divided into an upper and lower section. There is also a very heavily forested area and hill dividing upper campus from lower campus. This area is part of Putnam Park. Upper campus is primarily comprised of dormitories, while lower campus is mainly made up of academic halls. Lower campus also extends across the Chippewa River with a walk bridge connecting the two parts of lower campus. Throughout campus there are several large open areas. These large grass open areas are where the data will be collected. The smaller patches will not be touched. 

To view the study area check out the embedded map below.

Also, view Figure 1 to see the zones where the soil data were collected in. 

Figure 1. Different zones where the soil data were collected shown outlined in red. 

Methods:

Before any data collection took place a geodatabase for the project with domains was created so the project could then be deployed to ArcCollector. For this study three domains were created. Moisture, PH, and grass health comprised the three domains that were created. In the geodatabase for the soil health project a soils feature class was created. This feature class contained three fields. These fields included moisture, PH, and grass health. Moisture and PH were both set to float and grass health was set to text. Grass health included three different categories which included excellent, moderate, and poor. These three attributes were to be determined based off the appearance of the grass.   

After the geodatabase was set up, the project was deployed to ArcCollector by following the create and share a map tutorial on ArcGIS Online (ArcCollector Project). 

Once the project was deployed to ArcCollector, data could then be gathered. This involved going out to the different grass sites with a hand held meter that collected moisture and PH. The overall health of the grass was also observed. Points were taken at intervals so that a good portion of the zone would be covered. Following the collection of soil data, maps showing PH, moisture, and grass appearance were generated. 

Results/Discussion:

There were several interesting finds after analyzing the data. First, there were several locations that were more acidic than expected (Figure 2). The grounds crew regularly maintains the grass/grounds therefore a neutral PH was expected to be present in the soil throughout campus. One of these acidic locations included the large grass area just west of the Haas Fine Arts Center. Another location that proved to be more acidic than expected was the grass area just north of the Nursing Building. It should be added that soil that contains a PH of lower than 7 is considered acidic. However, a PH of 5 to 6 is not considered a strong acid. All together, a good majority of the soil had a fairly neutral PH. This is representative of the work that the grounds crew does to maintain the campus yards. 

There were many inconsistencies with regards to soil moisture levels throughout campus (Figure 3). Certain areas such as the yard to the north of the Nursing Building possessed a very high level of moisture. Meanwhile, areas such as the yard west of Towers Hall and the grass area north of Davies Center were very dry. These areas also received a poor to moderate grade as far as the grass health observation (Figure 4). The likely cause for the poor to moderate grass health grade and the low levels of soil moisture would be the fact that these areas receive a high amount of foot traffic. This foot traffic can destroy the grass and decrease the grasses ability to hold moisture. It should be added that there was an area with a high amount of moisture and very poor grass. One of the yards to the north of the Nursing Building had very poor grass and extremely high moisture. It is possible that the grass there is receiving too much moisture. 

Figure 2. Soil PH represented in shades of red. IDW interpolation method was used to map PH. 

Figure 3. Soil moisture shown in shades of red and blue. IDW interpolation method was used to map soil moisture. 

Figure 4. Grass health observation map. Healthy grass shown in green, while unhealthy grass shown in red. Grass health was assessed based on appearance of the grass where healthy grass was the most green and thick. 

Conclusion:

To answer the geospatial question of "Were the soil homogeneous throughout the UWEC campus?", the conclusion can be made that the soil is in fact somewhat heterogeneous throughout campus. Although there are many locations where the soil quality is very similar, several locations held different qualities. Though the differences in soil health were not extreme, the grounds crew may want to attend to several areas throughout campus. One of these areas includes the yard west of Towers Hall which needs to be watered and re-seeded. 

Once again ArcCollector proved to be very useful and applicable (view previous blog for more ArcCollector uses MicroClimate Survey). This soil health project and the micro climate survey from the previous week demonstrate ArcCollectors usefulness. The next step to the soil health project could be to create an web application that could be used by the grounds crew and people traveling about campus to monitor the campus grounds. This would be done by using web app-builder for ArcGIS. Overall, the lab proved to be very useful in further developing the ArcCollector skill. 

Microclimate Survey: ArcCollector Part 1

Nathan Sylte
4/11/2017

Microclimate Survey 

Introduction: 

The objective of this lab was to become familiar with ArcCollector by conducting a microclimate survey of the campus at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire. A microclimate survey simply analyzes the different environmental conditions around lower campus. In this instance temperature, wind chill, dew point, wind speed, wind direction, and humidity were measured as climate variables. The survey involved the entire class collecting climate data at once with the use of ArcCollector on the individuals smart phone. 

The campus of the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire is fairly diverse with the campus being divided into an upper and lower section (Figure 1). There is also a very heavily forested area and hill dividing upper campus from lower campus. However, the two sections of the campus are fairly homogeneous when compared with themselves. Upper campus is primarily comprised of dormitories, while lower campus is mainly made up of academic halls. Lower campus also extends across the Chippewa River with a walk bridge connecting the two parts of lower campus. This walk bridge is often described as the "coldest place in the lower 48 states", and should present different data than the other parts of campus.The primary goal of the microclimate survey was to investigate and compare the different climatic conditions between the upper and lower campus sections. 

There are several advantages of using ArcCollector to gather field data, as well as some disadvantages. One of the primary advantages of using ArcCollector is that it can be installed on anyone's smart phone. The application is also very cheap which adds additional flexibility to ArcCollector. Another advantage of ArcCollector is that multiple people can use the application at once. If an organization needed to collect quantities of broad data all at one time then ArcCollector should be considered as an option. One disadvantage of ArcCollector on a smart phone is that the cell phones built in GPS is not as accurate as a survey grade GPS unit. This adds limitations to the type of projects one may use ArcCollector to perform. If a high grade of GPS accuracy is required for the project then an additional method other than ArcCollector should be utilized. 

Figure 1. The campus of the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire. The red lines represent different survey zones. The different regions of the campus are labeled in black. 

Methods:

Before the survey took place the project was first deployed to ArcGIS Online and then to ArcCollector. Also, a pre-created geodatabase was entered into ArcCollector. This geodatabase contained the necessary domains and feature classes required for the survey. These steps were performed in ArcGIS Online by logging into the UWEC enterprise account. The project/basemap had to also be shared with other UWEC members to allow for collaboration.Another step the class had to perform before completing the survey involved downloading the ArcCollector application on their smartphones. This would allow the individual to collect and share data with other members of the class.  After the survey took place the geodatabase could then be brought into ArcMap, and the data could be analyzed and mapped. Another option was to map the data in ArcGIS Online and then publicly share the maps. This option was not used in this particular project but will be used in the next lab.

The survey methods are below. 

First, the campus was divided into different zones to insure the class was evenly distributed throughout campus (Figure 1). Each individual that participated in the survey was assigned a zone and hand held device that could measure temperature, wind chill, dew point, wind speed, and relative humidity. Wind direction was measured with the use of a hand held compass. The individual was to collect data from 20 different locations within their assigned zone (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. The location of each survey point collected with the use of ArcCollector. Look to figure 1 for additional reference and comparison. 

 Results/Discussion: 

Maps of temperature and wind speed/direction were generated in ArcMap to represent the different micro climates throughout campus. Temperature was fairly homogeneous throughout campus (Figure 3). However, there were several hot spots located throughout campus. The average temperature on March 29 (survey date) was between 49 and 51 degrees F. This was around ten degrees cooler than the temperature at some of the hot spots. The largest hot spot was located on upper campus near Towers Hall which is a dormitory. These hot spots are created from the warm air leaving certain buildings via exhaust. The exhausted increases the temperature several meters away from the hot spot and dissipates over a relatively small distance. 

Wind speed/direction varied throughout campus. There are many factors that could have altered wind speed and direction. One of these factors is the time at which the reading was taken. The wind speed/direction could have easily changed depending on the time. Another factor that can influence wind speed and direction in this case includes the layout of the buildings. The buildings can block and vector the wind. Overall, the greatest wind speeds recorded were on the walk bridge (Figure 4). March 29 was not a particularly windy day with an average wind speed of less than 5 mph. However, on the walk bridge a wind gust of 33 mph was recorded. Other gusts between 5-7 mph were also recorded on the bridge. This is indicative of the un-sheltered nature of the walk bridge. This high amount of wind also contributes to the cold temperatures often felt on the walk bridge. 

Wind direction was very heterogeneous throughout campus (Figure 4). This has to do with the layout of the buildings that hinder and vector wind in certain areas. The wind direction on the walk bridge which is in a very high/open area had the wind coming from the South/SouthEast. This is likely indicative of the true wind direction on March 29. 

Figure 3. Interpolation map of temperature throughout the UWEC Campus. 

Figure 4. Map of wind speed and direction. Wind speed is represented by colored dots with the highest speed shown with the darkest dots. The arrows are pointing in the direction the wind is blowing. 

Conclusion:

ArcCollector proved to be a very interesting, flexible, and useful application. For surveys like the microclimate survey ArcCollector should be considered as method and application for collecting data. ArcCollector also demonstrated that a large quantity of participants can all work on collecting data at once, henceforth collecting a large volume of data. The next lab which also involves using ArcCollector should prove to be very interesting and applicable.