Category: Post 6: Data Collection

Blog Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I have started collecting data for my research project on the effects of temperature on bird activity. So far I have collected 4 replicates. I am using a point count method to count the number of birds in my sampling location while noting the temperature during each observation. I am using a bird feeder to count the number of birds at the feeder during each 10 minute observation. Some initial difficulties I had were the competition the birds had with the bird feeder with other species, specifically with squirrels. Within 24 hours of hanging the bird feeder, the squirrels had eaten nearly the entire feeder so I had to start again and buy a squirrel proof bird feeder. Another issue I have had is that it is tricky getting temperatures within my range. (I hypothesized that bird activity is highest between 10-15 celcius). Of all the replicates I have done, they have all been above my temperature range. I’m worried I won’t have enough ranges of temperature to fully test my hypothesis and perhaps I should have hypothesized a higher temperature range. In New Jersey, where I live the average low in May is 12 celcius and 17 celcius in June. Therefore, it is unlikely that I will get temperature ranges below my hypothesis of 10-15 degrees and it may even be tricky to get temperature ranges within my hypothesis.

I have a feeling that other variables are going to affect the results of the study too. In particular, wind and cloud cover seem to also affect the abundance of birds in my observation area. At this point I don’t know what variable seems to have the most effect on bird abundance: temperature, wind, cloud cover or precipitation. My hypothesis deals specifically with temperature but I have a feeling that cloud cover plays a significant role. While I am not testing these other variables, I have been taking note of them as I believe they may have an effect on the overall results.

Post 6: Data Collection: Cates Park

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The first collection of viable field data was collected on Sunday May 19 at Cates Park in North Vancouver. Separating the park between east and west, north (inland) and south (next to shore), I have four areas to collect data to ensure independence and to account for variables (see Image 1). I sampled 20 replicates of 80 that I plan to sample, and noted the presence of absence of common species. Ten replicates were west and close to shore, ten were west and inland. These were nurse logs, and I will repeat this in the two eastern sections of the park as my data collection continues, and with forest plots of the same size as the circumference of the nurse logs in all four defined regions.

I have revised my experimental design and sampling strategies from previously posted attempts, as initial data collected was solely distance-based counts of conifers from the centre of nurse logs, and this seemed an inadequate representation of the species that grow within nurse logs. The difficulties I now face include sampling randomly selected forest plots, as they may contain dense growth and be more inaccessible.

Patterns observed include differences in mosses, lichens and berry species between the regions close to shore and further inland. However, Western Hemlock, or Tsuga heterophylla, has been the most frequent conifer studied within nurse log units, regardless of the distance from shore. These patterns continue to support my hypothesis, however studying forest plots that are not nurse logs will aid in determining how common Tsuga heterophylla are versus other conifers in the region, and will aid to prove or falsify my hypothesis.

Blog Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I sampled 5 replicates during my initial round of field sampling.  I didn’t have much trouble implementing my sampling procedure.  I did lots of prep in the office before going out to site which made the field work efficient.  The only difficult thing was travel in between sites.  There was still snow on the ground so I used skis for most of the travel.  Some sites did not have enough snow for ski travel (the more south facing slopes) so I was taking off and putting on skis during sampling.  The partial snow cover added an additional slipping/falling hazard while sampling on some of the steeper sites.

While sampling I noticed that the different tree species seem to be growing in clusters.  For instance, if my sampling site is in predominately birch stand, that may not reflect the stand characteristics 200m away.  Additional sampling will help to get a more accurate measurement of the composition of the forest.  I plan on sampling another 5 replicates soon and the snow is gone now so sampling should be easier.

Post 6: Data Collections

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I sampled 30 replicates. At each stratum (0%, <50%, >50%), 10 replicates were collected. I haven’t really had any problems implementing my sampling design. The only issue is the data collection is time consuming. Each quadrat takes roughly 15-20 minutes. However, this is much faster compared to the initial data collection, where it took approximately 30 minutes each quadrat. I have noticed areas with more than 50% canopy cover, the ground is either covered in needles or in leaf debris. This covering of the ground can limit the amount of sunlight and maybe even rain, getting to the moss.

Blog Post 6 – Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

For the data collected near the House of Learning, 10 replicates were taken. For the data collected near the science building and house 9, 6 replicates were taken. I also made observations for the number of people around the three buildings. For this data collection, 3 replicated were taken. This was collected to confirm the theory that there will be more human traffic around the larger buildings.

Another pattern that I have noticed through my observations is that different vegetation is around the different observation points. This may influence the different species of birds which are more abundant in said locations.

Blog Post 6 – Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

So far, I’ve collected five replicates. The most significant issue that I’ve faced in collecting the data is human influence. I’m collecting the data on a fairly busy trail which sometimes hosts groups of children as such when I’m collecting data and there is a group of children, birds will typically stay away from my sampling location.

One pattern I’ve noticed thus far is that bird activity seems to increase when temperatures are lower. One hypothesis could be that they require more energy (i.e., food) and thus are more active to find food to stay warm.

Blog Post 6

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

For my second set of data collection I used the same 5 replicates of samples from each site, but used slightly different techniques to more thoroughly assess the soil pH. I used a 1:1 ratio of dirt to water and tap water rather than distilled water for the samples I was testing under the pH meter. It seemed to improve the accuracy of the meter, as it could actually detect the pH with more ions present. The readings took much less time to stabilize at a steady pH reading with much less drift. With the use of pH strips, I was able to double check the results. The two methods gave the same results which seemed to be a uniform data distributed around 6.2 pH throughout both sites. This data plus the lack of any ancillary patterns makes me think that perhaps there is a different underlying cause for the pattern of underbrush presence in the Gibson park. I will report this data and continue with this topic for my paper but in my discussion, I will focus on what other underlying causes could be creating this pattern if not soil pH.

Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

My study area within Colliery Dam Park is composed of five blocks (A, B, C, D, and E) fragmented by paths. Within each block I sampled five replicates for a total of 25. Each replicate was a point radius of 5 m in which I determined how many trees did or did not have English ivy growing on them.

Since the blocks are different sizes, I was unsure if larger blocks should have had more replicates to accurately scale the replicates to block area. Additionally, the varying block size made it so that I had to generate new random numbers to determine replicate locations. For small blocks I would walk too far out of the study area.

Blocks C and D had the most similar distribution while Blocks A and B had the most dissimilar distribution of trees with vs without ivy. This is interesting because both sets of blocks are located next to one another.

 

Field observations and data.

 

Blog Post 6 – Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

To date I have completed my first round of point count surveys within Terwillegar Park to determine overwintering bird abundance/presence based on forest cover within the park (open area with scattered tree cover and forested cover). In my first round of point count surveys I completed 4 replicates in each of the areas mentioned above. I will complete at least one more day of data collection this week, bringing total replicates to 8 in each area.

To date the only problem that arose with implementing my sampling was by the time I reached the last point count locations, the number of people and their pets increased resulting in disturbance during my 10 minutes of recording bird observations.

Ancillary information that I have observed, such as the number of people and there pets that make me reflect on my hypothesis could lead to additional questions and studies to be completed however they will not be studied in my paper. The one question I have thought about on numerous occasions is does the increased presence of dogs impact the abundance of birds present in the park.