User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Last weekend I collected a second round of samples from a Beaver Lake trail. In total, I sampled 10 replicates on 15 March 2020. The only problems I have faced so far with implementing my sampling design is identifying to the lichen genus level in the field. I have resolved this by taking photos in the field for desktop confirmations as well as written presence/absence notes for each replicate. I have also started grouping lichen observations by structural categories reported in the literature (i.e., crustose, squamulose, fruticose etc.)
There are also several sampling problems I have resolved. At first I was having difficulties identifying individual trees species in the field. I am now identifying trees to the family level, which is much easier. There is also scientific rationale for identifying trees at the family level when studying lichen because trees within the same family possess very similar bark. Since tree bark is the substrate used by epiphytic lichen, grouping replicates at the tree family level is appropriate.
I have noticed an ancillary pattern that has made me reflect on my hypothesis. I have noticed replicates along the periphery of Beaver Lake that appear to have more fruticose lichen types, and those identified as Cladonia sp. appear to have developed podetia (i.e., the fruiting body of the lichen). By comparison, the replicates sampled from the surrounding area that are buffered forest on both sides of the trail appear to have less fruticose lichen types and less have visible podetia.
