User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
I have frequently been observing my chosen field of study (my backyard in Parksville, BC) since the last time I wrote a blog post which was June 15th. Today, July 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, I have decided to once again return to the chosen site and this time journal my findings.
The temperature today is 22 degrees Celsius with a warm breeze and overcast sky. I first sat inside looking out the back window for 30 minutes prior to coming outside to see what forms of wildlife I would observe. I saw multiple birds fly by, and a couple of red squires scurry from tree to tree. I then went and sat outside on the patio closer to the forest and played music to cause a small and harmless disturbance; making my presence known.
I still saw the birds pass by but they no longer stopped on the grass, instead they would stop closer into the trees and forest. I no longer saw any more squirrels for the remained of the time.
I then decided to step into the forest and go through a path that looped around the property. The deeper into the forest I got the more activity or indication of animal activity I noticed. There were multiple robins and other unidentified birds resting in the trees. I came across a tree deep in the forest that indicates there is probably a pileated woodpecker in the area as well. A couple of meters further I found what appeared to be an eagle feather, and lastly I noticed an old birds nest that was abandoned in a taller cedar shrub. I didn’t see any rabbits on my walk around the property, however, I did come across some pellet feces, suggesting there was– at some point– rabbit in the area as well.
So, from the observations I’m making it seems to me that the further I venture into the forest the more wildlife there is. With all this being said I am leaning towards pursuing my initial question of: How does human activity close to the forest affect the activity of animals in the surrounding area? I have also made note that the wildlife activity is more frequent when the weather is warmer and either early in the day and later at night when human activity is minimal.
My hypothesis: Closer to human activity, the less animal activity will occur.
Prediction: The deeper I explore into the forest and the further away from the house I get, the more wildlife I will observe.
One potential response variable could be presence/absence of birds, squirrels, deer and rabbits present with each day. This would be considered a categorical variable.
A couple potential explanatory variable could be the human activity around the area, and/or the temperature of the day. This would be considered a continuous variable.
Your study topic appealed to me, as I am always interested in animal behaviour.
I am curious as to how the heat wave will influence your observations as your earlier observations indicated that wildlife activity is more frequent with warmer. From my observations this is true to an extent; however, there is a temperature limit for which wildlife activity tends to decline, From having dogs, I notice once a certain temperature is reached their activity level declines and they spend most of their time sleeping on the cold tile. Have you accounted for extreme temperatures within your study? I wonder if perhaps using a two-way ANOVA would assist in accounting for this as you would then be able to see the interaction between the two independent variables (i.e. temperature and human activity) on wildlife activity. I’m not exactly sure how you intend to measure you explanatory and response variables. Obviously for temperature, measurements can be completed quite easily but I curious as to your proposed method for measuring human and wildlife activity. While wildlife activity could be measured based on a count of species observed, human activity appears to be more cumbersome. You indicated human activity around the variable will be a continuous variable, does that mean you intend to base it off of population, as I think the type of human activity that occurs within a region will also influence the amount of wildlife activity within an area.
Considering your hypothesis and prediction, I feel as though the relationship between wildlife activity and human activity depends greatly on the species and the species exposure to humans. As communities encroach more and more into “wildlife territory” the habitats of wildlife are being further fragmented forcing them to become more active within areas of human activity. Overall, I do agree that wildlife wished to minimize its contact with humans as much as possible but humans are forcing a shift in their behaviour. The species such as deer and rabbits tend to be more timid than other species which could influence the results as birds tend to come and go more freely despite human activity (i.e. crows and pigeons). It should also be noted that wildlife activity for squirrels, birds, and rabbits may not decrease when within closer proximity to humans but rather is subtler.
I look forward to seeing the results of your study. Keep up the good work!
Very interesting topic. Living in the city, but close to forested space, I do see quite a bit of wildlife. It is important to note, I think, that in places like cities which have constant human activity, there are limited amounts of green space. So would there be a difference in the observed wildlife activity whether it’s in a green space within the city VS outside of the city where they have more choices as to where to go? Also, do animals get used to human activity?