Category: Post 6: Data Collection

Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

November 25th, 2017

Scattered clouds, 8 degrees celsius, greenhouse temperature 26 °C

Each treatment was composed of 32 separate pots that were placed in a plastic potting tray. To create the samples, 29g of soil was weighed out for each pot to fill it about 1cm from the top. 6 seeds of each species were planted into each pot and topped with a layer of vermiculite. The surface of the soil was gently watered and the trays filled with a light fertilizer solution to about a 2cm depth. This watering process was kept constant throughout the experimental process. The trays were then placed on a plant rack in a greenhouse that offered natural daylight.

The plants were watered 5 times a week until germination, which took approximately two weeks. Once germinated, the plants from each species were removed from the pots to have 3 marigolds and 3 dandelions per pot. The plants removed from the pot were selected randomly by flipping a coin, and selected plants were removed by pinching the base of the stem, so the root systems of the remaining plants were not disturbed. The mesh cloth was then placed over the light treatment tray to limit the amount of light the plants received. The mesh was held over the tray by skewers tall enough that it did not physically interfere with plant growth. The marigolds and dandelions were then watered three times a week.

The experiment ended after 7 weeks and the data was collected. Each plant was gently removed from the soil and gently rinsed off in a sink to clean off any excess dirt. The leaves were counted and the root length measured to the longest root branch with a ruler. Once these measurements were recorded, the plants were left to dry for 5 days. The biomass was then measured by weighing each individual dried plant on a cooking scale.

As mentioned when reflecting on my sampling strategy, the only issue with my sampling design was the realization that marigold seeds were germinating faster than dandelion seeds. I attributed it to the fact that the marigold seeds may have been of a higher quality because they were store bought whereas the dandelion seeds were picked from the wild. It could also be due to the seeds being misprinted.

Ancillary patterns I’ve noticed include the increased growth of dandelions under restricted light conditions, greater than marigold growth. These observations  support my hypothesis, as well as several of the scientific papers I referenced that claim that the weedy characteristics of dandelions give them an advantage in competitive settings.

Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I have recorded 30 replicates on each beach for a total of 60 replicates. I measured the length and aperture of the dog whelks and calculated a ratio to help me compare the results for both beaches. I took each measurement with a Vernier caliper and measured the height of the shore above chart datum using a clinometer and a meter ruler. I took each measurement at random along a 20 m transect and recorded the results.

I had to finish taking my measurements before the tide rose up too high. I didn’t have a hard time implementing the sample design. Plus I gave myself plenty of time to record my results from Jetty beach to Castle beach.

I noticed an ancillary pattern that the length to aperture ratio of the dog whelks at Castle beach is generally smaller compared to Jetty beach. The pattern supports my hypothesis and prediction which stated that the exposure to wave action influences the length to aperture ratio of dog whelks thus the length to aperture ratio will be smaller in the exposed beach.

 

Blog 6 – Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

My field data collection went well overall. I sampled 10 deciduous and 10 coniferous trees on each of my two transects for a total of 40 trees sampled. I sampled the first transect on February 26th and the second on February 28th, they each took roughly 2 hours. I did them separately because I have a knee injury so I’m trying not to over exert myself. I had originally planned to do my first transect on the Glendenning trail in the southern part of Mount Douglas Park, and the second transect on the Whittaker trail in the northern part. The first transect went smoothly, but when I went to do the second transect on February 27th, I realized that the northern part of the park was quite different than the southern part in that it was much more hilly and rocky, the understory shrub layer was dense which made it really difficult to move around in, and the deciduous trees were mostly arbutus which tend to have bent trunks not suitable for my sampling design. I checked some of the other trails on the north side of the park but they were all similar so I decided I would do my second transect in the southern part, as a continuation of my first transect on the Glendenning trail. I should have done site reconnaissance beforehand, I assumed that because the north and south were both in the “lower forest” designation that they would have been similar sites, but nope! It would have been interesting to sample the northern part because just from a quick observation I could tell there was higher lichen diversity and a different community composition.

Things I noticed/experienced:

The frequency of deciduous trees was much lower than coniferous trees, so when I would arrive at my random point and sample the closest tree to me, sometimes there wasn’t a deciduous tree close by so I would just sample the two closest at the next possible point. Not a big inconvenience and didn’t effect the randomization.

I noticed that further up the trunks of the trees I sampled, or sometimes at the base of trees, there appeared to be higher lichen richness and abundance especially of the foliose and fruticose type. My study design focused solely on the 1 metre area that is 1.5 metres off the ground, excluding higher on the trunk and the canopy of trees. On the ground surrounding the trees there was often litter from the canopy which can give an idea of what lichens are growing up there, but I didn’t look at that for my study because it would have been too complicated.

On the larger trees sometimes the bark was so deeply and widely furrowed and lichens tended not to grow in the furrow, but on the ridges of the furrow. Due to the fact my transect was quite narrow, 10x100cm, sometimes the bare furrow would be right at the cardinal direction of the tree and I would have to put 0% coverage or a low% coverage which didn’t seem appropriate because there was high lichen coverage right beside. Perhaps having a wider quadrat and standardizing the tree size would be a way around this.

All in all, I deepened my appreciation for how much preparation and fine-tuning it takes to develop appropriate sampling designs and actually carry them out in the field.

 

Blog Post #6

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I have collected data from three locations along Dallas Road, Victoria at varying distances from the ocean. At each location, I took 10 replicates using a 0.3m x 0.3m quadrat and a 3m transect in order to count the number of red rose hips and black rose hips. I employed a systematic sampling method.  It has been a few weeks since my initial observations and the winter has been hard on the rose bush. In particular, the bush closed to the ocean, which I defined as 0m from the ocean, was completely dead.  However, the dead rose hips were still present on the bush and hadn’t fallen off yet, so this bush actually provided a great “control” bush that I can compare further bushes to.

 

At first, I was set on having 3 locations and taking all my samples from these bushes; however, I will need to find more locations along Dallas Road as the 3 locations will not provide enough replicates solely from themselves.

 

I did notice how much the survival of the rose hips varied on a temporal scale, even within just 2 weeks. This observation will not directly affect my hypothesis, but makes me wonder how the survival of the rose hips varies based on the season.

6 – Bush counting!

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

I completed my data collection over 2 days, and got 22 replicate counts of the bushes coming up the hill from the creek. It was fairly treacherous in the deep snow, and I found that there were a lot of short plants that could not easily be counted. In addition, the snow also limited the sampling area, so I was only able to collect from two sites around the creek. Ultimately, I was able to sample approximately a quarter of the creek hillside. I recruited my partner to help me count, and it was really helpful because we could compare our numbers and discuss any discrepancies.

I was surprised to find that the number of brush bushes increased almost to the top of the hillside, and then dropped off quickly at the top. I’m not sure if this is caused by a previous disturbance on the hillside (it borders two roads and has possibly been sprayed or mowed to ease road maintenance). I haven’t analyzed any data yet, so I will have to wait and see what I see, but there definitely appears to be a relationship between the distance from the creek and the number of brush plants.

Getting exact distance measurements from the creek proved to be very challenging, and took some practice. Ultimately, I’m very happy with the sampling strategy I chose for this. Using the line count method was a lot faster than trying to set up area counts, especially since the bushes are quite large. I used 0.5m on either side of the measuring rope, which still allowed me to measure the number of bushes per square meter for each of the quadrats.

Untitled

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

For my field study, I’ve narrowed down my sampling unit down to 7 locations. These 7 locations were determined by observing the number of people and anthropogenic sources in Cates Park. I’ve categorized my anthropogenic sources from no disturbance which is the forested area in Cates Park all the way to a high disturbance which is a kids playground. My point counts of foraging crows have been conducted before 10 am and the survey plot is 50 meters. These points were selected from the 22-hectare park and each point was greater than 100 meters away from the previous point. So far I have visited the park four times and I plan on visiting it one more time.

So far I have implemented many changes to my study such as: categorizing the anthropogenic effect, focused more on foraging birds, and narrowed my sampling point down to 7 locations. I also made a change to my hypothesis which was too specific so with these changes my experiment has become a lot more manageable. With the gradient moving from no disturbances to disturbed areas there has been a trend emerging that supports my hypothesis.

Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I am one third of the way through my data collection, and my biggest issue with sampling has been the tedium of it (I need to dig through the mud and snow to be able to see the gaps between bunches). I have collected ten replicates so far.

I have noticed that although the three large troughs have very abrupt and distinct borders and different vegetation, smaller troughs between hills spread throughout the field tend to have the same grass as the rest of the field. I have only sampled from one so far, and it was slightly less dense than the hills, but it remains to be seen if that pattern holds elsewhere.

Blog 6

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

November 20, 2017

In an effort to measure bird species presence and abundance along an urbanized gradient, surveys were completed within the Stanley park around the Lost Lagoon.

Site 1 – West side of Lost Lagoon, Site 2- South Side of Lost Lagoon, Site 3 – East Side of Lost Lagoon

4 replicate point count surveys in each of three areas listed above (2 replicate locations per area, on 2 different dates). I will complete at least one more day of data collection, with 2 more replicate point count surveys in each of the three areas over the next week. In addition, limiting the number of point count surveys to two per habitat has also made the surveys manageable as it still takes about 1 hour to complete all 6-point count surveys across the three areas on any given sampling day.

I calculated my explanatory variables for each area (approximately 300m x 300m area) as a whole using aerial photography to determine the percent cover of natural habitat (forest, wetland, etc…) and urbanized areas (buildings, roads, trails, etc…). I used a systematic sampling strategy to place my point count survey sites within each survey area randomly along the road or trail that runs through them. A random number generator provided the first survey point location in each site, while the second survey point was systematically placed 200m away to maintain the minimum distance required for independence between sites. At each point count survey, all birds seen and heard within a 50m radius of the observation point were recorded during a 5-minute period.

Bird abundance has been quite highest in site 2, site 1, and then site 3; in that order. Site 1 does have large flocks of Canadian geese swimming through it which will definitely elevate the overall abundance numbers for that site, whereas the other two sites have smaller abundances by individual species but more species overall.

Blog Post 6

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

My data collection is proceeding smoothly. I have settled on a strategic sampling design that involves 15 replicates located along 5 bearings. I have not had any problems implementing my sampling design as it is a fairly simple method of standing at the base of a tree, taking 3 separate bearings, and establishing plots along each of the bearings. More specifically, each bearing consists of a transect that is 15 m long and has a plot located at 5m, 10m, and 15m. Each plot is a 1m2 square with the middle located at the predetermined point on the transect.

I had to look up the word ancillary and now that I know that it means providing support or serving as an aid, I have noticed some additional variables within my site that may be contributing to the stand density that my hypothesis is based on. For instance, the plots that have the most saplings present are also located close to large rocks (warmer microclimates for germination?) and all are leaning in a similar direction, towards the area that has the most solar impact.

Blog Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Location:

Data collection took place at two locations within the same municipal park, Macaulay Park in Esquimalt, BC. I visit this site daily, as I walk my dogs here on a regular basis. I have observed some interesting nature repetitions here on my daily walks, so it seemed like the best place to do my field research study.

Replicates:

Using a systematic sampling strategy, I will compare & identify individual plant species of grasses, forbs & shrubs in two separate habitats within the same regional park. The study areas are in two separate locations, with each location sampled comprising of ten 1 meter squared quadrats along a straight transect, with each quadrat placed in an alternating pattern (left to right) along the transect line. Each quadrat was placed 5 meters apart.

In habitat 1 (exposed bluff), my transect line was placed along a well used walking path, following a straight line & using a compass to identify a start from north to south. Following the rule of ten, I sampled 10 replicate sets.

In habitat 2 (moist meadow), my transect line began at the centre of what seemed to be the most lush & plant dense area of the meadow, following a straight transect & using a compass to direct from north to south. Following the rule of ten, I sampled 10 replicate sets.

Pattern Issues:

Although I have had to change my original field project focus, & with that, have had to take a whole new set of samples for my project, I have not had any problems implementing my sample design thus far.

Hypothesis reflection:

I clearly needed to reflect on the focus of my hypothesis, which is why (after consultation from the pro, Nancy Elliot) I have simplified my project to a more palatable approach. With my newly reflected upon data results, it is clear that simplifying my research project focus has made it much easier for me to obtain clarity on my hypothesis, & my field research project as a whole. So far, some ancillary patterns reveal individual plant diversity & abundance is richest in habitat 2 (moist meadow), & plant cover is lowest in habitat 1, where plant species are much more exposed to anthropogenic activities, more extreme elements & decreased solar & moisture abundance.