@Hinterlands @PlanetMillie not sure if you'd be better doing that testing alone or doing something like boiling-off samples too?

@evilstevie @Hinterlands what is it that you want to find in it? If it’s brown it’s probably farm run off (soil and fertilisers) 😂 so you’ll want a test that picks up nitrates and phosphates.

@evilstevie @Hinterlands pH is fun though so you should deffo include that, you only need litmus paper for that, buy a pack and have fun testing everything.

@PlanetMillie @evilstevie yeah, I’m interested in more than just the Ph but also want minerals and trace elements.

@Hinterlands @evilstevie is this for your neck of the woods? Minerals would be fun for Devon because your geology is super messed up and mineral content should vary across the county.

@Hinterlands @evilstevie that’s a technical term by the way, I can hear my lecturers wincing at “super messed up”. “Diverse and interesting”, shall we say instead.

@evilstevie @PlanetMillie For different rivers across the country, when I process the photos different colours are coming out when I play around and I want to be able to title the images with their chemical compositions and Ph’s

@Hinterlands @evilstevie I had a look in the store I use but I couldn’t see any cheap or comprehensive water kits: https://www.nhbs.com/1/water-testing. They do a cheap-ish soil kit though and I would assume much of your colour is coming from soil run off so that might be a start? The kit has enough for 10 tests: https://www.nhbs.com/1/soil-chemistry-testing

@Hinterlands @evilstevie I would get a roll/pack of pH paper separately as well as whatever kit you choose. It’s cheap and the pH will tell you a lot about the river/stream for a cheap and simple test. Personally I’d do the pH of everything and then decide which ones you want to do more tests on.

@Hinterlands @PlanetMillie @evilstevie Another factor that affects water color is presence of tannins from plants. In my work, we only measure turbidity, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity; however, we also note aquatic and riparian plant species and often note color of water, especially when different colored streams meet at a confluence. Just offering this tannins idea for your consideration in whatever water quality study you’re doing.

@PlanetMillie @ncgleason @evilstevie thank you for this, Nancy. I suspect that most of the rivers/waters I photograph are going to be moorland based and thus very peaty with those lovely orange/golden hues within them

@ncgleason @Hinterlands @evilstevie That’s really interesting, thanks Nancy :) Fellow ecologist over here 👋 I work on terrestrial habitats not species though. Our salmonid conservation work here is far behind what you’ve got going in the Pacific northwest, in fact I was recently marvelling at how much better at it you are! Some of my work intersects indirectly with trout and salmon (also eel and sturgeon) so I’m trying to get beyond the “they taste nice” level of fish knowledge I currently have.

@PlanetMillie @ncgleason @evilstevie Kon ecologist photographer here 👋 I’m betting eel does NOT taste nice

@Hinterlands @ncgleason @evilstevie lol tbh I’ve not eaten eel, that comment was more aimed at smoked salmon (only a Xmas treat now - woe is me). In the UK we’ve so heavily exploited our rivers (as well as generally just ruining the land) that we don’t realise how much is missing ☹️ & river conservation can be very frustrating in England because a catchment covers so many landowners. I’m not really involved in rivers, I’m more interested in what happens before the water gets to the river.

@evilstevie @PlanetMillie @ncgleason ok, I’ll bite as you are both ecologists and I’m not.
I have questions
There is an area of Dartmoor, about 10km sq, where there are the heads of 5 major rivers. The land is not farmed but sporadically grazed by sheep. The soil is several feet of peat. It’s mainly bogs and mires.
Two questions; one of which is nonsense

@ncgleason @evilstevie @PlanetMillie 1st Question
How long does peat hold water and delay its movement into the river/stream? Presumably a lot longer than chalk or limestone?
Question 2
Is this the point, being held in peat, where the largest change to the “nature” of the water will take place? Eg become more acidic, get iron into it etc etc

@Hinterlands @ncgleason @evilstevie Gosh, that’s a great question but also a heck of a question 😂 You would need to specify if you’re talking about storm-flow or just general regular water movement. General water movement in healthy restored peat is slow, at most a few cms a day, so it would take weeks for water to go from rain to river. (But bear in mind most peatland in the UK is degraded, and water moves more quickly through degraded peat.)

@Hinterlands @evilstevie @PlanetMillie I agree - great questions (!) and worthy of effort, but peat is mostly outside my realm of experience or study. In my area, peat is rare, but we have vast areas of other types of wetlands. As you are implying, they serve as water filters, so depending on whether they are top, middle, or bottom of a drainage would determine their influence on final water quality at an outlet or any given reach of river.

@Hinterlands @ncgleason @evilstevie Storm-flow moves far more quickly, because it’s surface or very shallow water movement. In damaged peatland that could be at most about 20 mins (i.e. after heavy rain starts it takes 20 mins for streams to surge). In restored peatland that tends to at least double. That isn’t much time, but as you’ve astutely noted with your waterscapes comment, peat should have a high water table even before it rains.

@Hinterlands @ncgleason @evilstevie Chalk would be quicker for general water movement I think, as it cannot hold water for as long (there’s a reason we say peat is a sponge), though I don’t actually know. But storm-flow should be better in chalk, because the water table is generally lower and it has a good infiltration rate (the water should soak in instead of running off the surface) so it can absorb a greater quantity of rain before it becomes a problem.

@Hinterlands @ncgleason @evilstevie I’m not sure I’ve answered your question very well, but peat should have slower water movement than chalk generally, and we’re talking weeks not hours/days, but may be faster at the sites you’re looking at depending on what state they’re in (sheep are not a great indicator I’m afraid, the land will have at least a little drainage to make it more suitable for sheep grazing and is probably not as wet as it would naturally be).

@evilstevie @PlanetMillie @ncgleason kon = non…..obvs

@Hinterlands @evilstevie @ncgleason I guessed what you meant. And dude, you’re asking about water testing kits, you can be an ecologist if you want to be. You probably know more about your local river systems than some of your local ecologists! Heck you probably know more about my local river than I do (I’m on the Witham. It’s probably one of the most boring rivers in England.)

@evilstevie @ncgleason @PlanetMillie And thank you for your kind words. I do tend to obsess about the meaning and purpose of water coz I think most moorlands, where I do most of my photography, are NOT landscapes but waterscapes.

@Hinterlands You mean, because they're peat bogs? I think I agree. I love the stat that over 50% of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area is peat bog. It makes me feel good about the planet, that an area most folk would think of as industrial is in fact wetland.

@PearmainCottage Very much this. It seems to me that High Dartmoor is mainly a thin layer of vegetation floating on a vast lake