User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
I plan to study Peterson Creek as a viable spawning area for salmon and the effects of the aesthetic grooming of the creek could be having on that population.
The three locations I chose as my sample areas were at the base of the waterfalls where I noted the finest sediment and largest girth in the stream bed. I observed the gradient of the falls and levels to it, ensuring it was possible for fish to travel from the feeding lake above.
I then traveled 0.5 kilometers downstream where I had first observed red algae along the edges of the stream indicating a food source and nutrients to sustain fry growth before entering the Thompson River. The rocks were much larger in this part of the creek and the water was much shallower while the walls of the stream were narrow and steep compared to the gradual gradient and deep pools found at the base of the falls.
The final location I chose was the beginning of the park another 0.5 kilometers downstream to see the most heavily traveled portion of the creek. This area has evidence of heavy travel in and around the water by dogs. There was absolutely no visible plant life in the water and around the creek bed was only grass, no shrubs which indicates heavy travel in the area. There were bits of garbage littered around the tree bases.
The frequent creek bed disturbance by human intervention through methods of removing debris has resulted in the area being uninhabitable for local fish.
The areas of the creek with adequate substrate and width for fish to lay eggs shows evidence of removal of debris. This area will have depleted biodiversity and few if any fish inhabitants.
Based on my hypothesis, the response variable is the salmon population, it is considered categorical. I aim to measure their presence in the creek. The explanatory variable I have identified based on my hypothesis is the people who visit the park. It is considered categorical as I will be measuring their influence on the creek’s biodiversity.
