User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Initial data collection was successful. Point count locations were selected based on visibility within the drainage channels. Point count locations were also selected based on varying densities of emergent vegetation within the drainage channels in order to provide a representative sample. Point count duration at each point was 5 minutes. Emergent vegetation cover was visually estimated within the visible channel sections. Visibility was greater than 100 metres (m), however, I capped channel section observations to between 60 and 80 metres to increase both the accuracy of waterfowl identification and the overall precision of vegetation estimates.
Prior to my data collection visit on August 17th, I had decided to use a systematic sampling strategy where I overlaid the sitemap with a grid and used a random number generator to select sampling locations. This strategy was unsuccessful due to limited visibility at the randomly selected points. Randomly selected point count locations also did not take into account disturbance of birds within the channels. As the site is diked and exposure to human activity is common, it quickly became important to not only select vantage points that provided adequate visibility but also to select points where waterfowl would be less likely to be disrupted. This modification will improve the accuracy and reliability of my data.
The data collected was generally consistent with my hypothesis in that the total number of waterfowl observed increases with increasing emergent vegetation cover. I did notice that the total number of waterfowl observed at all point count stations was fairly low. As a result, I will need to ensure that I incorporate additional point count stations and implement enough replicates in order to identify any relevant trends. Initial field data was collected during the hours just before sunset. I intend to collect data just after sunrise in order to determine when waterfowl activity is greatest.
Although the systematic sampling strategy did not pose any major difficulties, I need to consider modifying the strategy slightly to ensure that my replicates are independent of one another. To ensure independence, I will select channel sections that are at least 100 m apart. This will also reduce the likelihood of counting waterfowl twice. Based on the layout of the survey area, any incoming individuals from nearby point count locations will be highly visible and will not be recorded.
I would also like to be more specific as to what constitutes “emergent vegetation”. Emergent vegetation, for the purposes of this study, will be restricted to yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea), as it is the most dominant emergent aquatic species within the drainage channels and occurs at varying densities. This modification will help me to generate a clear and specific research hypothesis and experimental design.
Im not quite sure what youre predictor and response variables are but i do think that your prediction is clear and can be falsifiable with further research. I like that you decided to be more specific with emergent vegetation because I wasnt quite sure exactly what you meant when stating that at first.