User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
On January 23rd from 2pm to 3pm (MST), I did my first field data collection. I chose to use the haphazard sampling method. It made it easy to select five distinct point counts across the area of study using Google maps. Point counts was an effective way of sampling bird population and human traces. However, because the haphazard method does not provide a true randomization, I am aware that the data collection might have been more effective and accurate if I had selected more than five point counts. In the future, I would either use a true random sampling method, or I would use the haphazard method while doubling the number of watch points. I think that will generate more accurate results.
Prior to collecting the data with four other observers, I pre-defined “human traces” as being any of the following: debris, food waste, a pair of footsteps, a passerby, pet or pet feces, a motorized vehicle, or any human-installed unit such as a garbage bin, picnic table, and what not. Bird feeders was one human-installed unit which was a category on its own since we assume it has a direct impact on bird population. After collecting the data, I reflected with the other observers, and we all agreed that the footsteps category was not useful, hard to count, and confusing since with the snow, there were many confounded footsteps. Counting hikers would have been sufficient. Moreover, we concluded that if this data collection had to be done again, we should count the number of nests observable at eyesight as well, and possibly the number of bird caches. I had not included those, because the species observed was the black-billed magpie exclusively, and I was worried that we would confuse other species’ nests or caches with the ones that actually belonged to the black-billed magpies. I would like to try including them next time around.
All in all, the results were not surprising as the point count which featured the most traces of human presence and also a bird feeder was the one with the highest black-billed magpie population, as expected. Still, for a second data collection, I would double the number of watch points, or use a true random sampling method, for more accurate results. Also, I would revise the pre-defined categories of human traces and keep track of nests and observed caches as well.
