I have been observing backyard birds in my observation area including robins, blue jays and cardinals. I’ve noticed that the distribution of birds in the backyard is inconsistent on certain days. On some days there are many birds that can be heard singing in the trees, there is a lot of activity and they can be seen throughout the backyard grazing/foraging. There does appear to be more activity on days when the weather is warmer. On cool/rainy days bird activity is less.
I hypothesize that bird activity is busier on days when the temperatures are between 10-15 degrees celcius. Bird activity will be decreased when temperatures are above or below this temperature gradient.
The response variable in this study is bird activity/presence in the backyard. This variable is classified as categorical. One potential explanatory variable is temperature. Another potential explanatory variable is rain. Both of these variables are classified as continuous.
O’Connor, R. and Hicks, R. (1980). The Influence of Weather Conditions on the Detection of Birds During Common Birds Census Fieldwork. Bird Study. 27:3, pp. 137-151, doi: 10.1080/00063658009476672. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00063658009476672
I have selected the western redcedar tree (Thuja plicata) as the organism that I plan to study. The three locations along the environmental gradient in my research area are divided by the kind of soil the plants are growing in, namely sandy, silty and loamy soil (see field notes attached)
If a large population of cedar trees are observed thriving in silty soil but are entirely absent from areas with only sand, then western redcedars must need the moisture and nutrients that silty soil contains to populate an area successfully when in competition with pines and firs.
My hypothesis is that western redcedar trees grow in low elevation areas that collect moisture in silty soil. Therefore, because the distribution of western redcedar trees changes along the length of the research area, I predict that the composition of the soil varies as well, in a way that is either detrimental or beneficial to the growth of the tree in relation to the amount of water it can retain.
The response variable is the number of western redcedar trees observed in an area (density), which is a continuous variable. Some predictor variables are the slope, elevation, and soil that the trees grow in, all of which are related to the amount of moisture and nutrients available to the plant. Slope and elevation are continuous variables, but soil can be separated into sandy, silty or loamy soil, and is therefore categorical.
The source I chose was “Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness Model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada” and can be found at https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/3873131?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. It was published by International Association for Bear Research and Management in the journal URSUS in 1998. It is an academic, peer reviewed, research paper.
Mike Gibeau, the sole author, is an expert in his field with over three decades of experience in ecology and large carnivore research, namely wolves, black bears and grizzly bears. He is an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, where he earned his PhD in Conservation Biology. The paper features in-text citation throughout the sections and ends with a “literature cited” list. URSUS is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it is safe to assume that this particular article was peer-reviewed at least once before publication in 1998. Methods and Results sections are both present and are detailed enough for other scientists to be able to replicate the experiment and compare their results. The data are supported by appropriate tables and figures and clearly display the patterns focused on in the Discussion section.
References:
Gibeau, M. 1998. Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness Model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada. Ursus, 10:235–241. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/3873131
I have chosen to conduct my research in the forest area adjacent to my house, which consists of a heavily wooded area surrounding a rocky knoll in Creston, B.C. It is approximately 20 acres of privately-owned land (see Figure 1) with a walking trail that is used by people in the neighbourhood and their dogs.
The research area borders a large cherry orchard immediately to the south as well as other sizable fruit and vegetable farms about 2 km to the west. Residential neighbourhoods enclose the direct west and north boundaries, while the forest continues to the east. Highway 3 runs parallel to the forest about 500 m to the east.
The forest is mostly comprised of deciduous pine and fir trees, but also has many cedars and larches. There are lots of small shrubs and bushes among the trees, varying in height from approximately 20 cm to a meter.
The composition of vegetation on the rocky outcrop in the centre of the area is mostly moss and lichen, with a few short, bare shrubs on the slope (see Figure 2).
What causes the difference in abundance of the tree types throughout the research area? I observed that the north side of the forest is mainly bull pines, then cedars predominate in an area of lower elevation that was logged about three years ago, and finally a mix of bull pine and fir trees on the south end that is slightly higher elevation and closest to the cherry orchard (no cedars).
Do the pesticides for the cherry trees affect the growth of other plants closest to the orchard (Figure 3)? Dormant sprays should have been applied in the fall and may have been carried by the wind to the plants at the edge of the forest especially.
Lichen was observed growing largely on the north side of pine trees in the area. What kind of symbiotic relationships exist between the lichen and the tree? If the lichen has photosynthetic cyanobacteria in it, why does it grow on the shadier side of the tree? Is the lichen visible on the rocky outcrop the same species of lichen as on the trees, even though the rocky outcrop gets much more sun? Field Notes for April 07, 2019
I’ve attempted to classify two sources of information – the first one (journal article) I am confident that I’ve assessed correctly, and the second (book) I am not so sure. I also didn’t know which documentation style to use here, so I used CSE.
Journal article:
Arft AM, Walker MD, Gurevitch JM, Alatalo MS, Bret-Harte M, Dale M, Diemer M, Gugerli F, Henry GHR, Jones MH, et al. 1999. Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-analysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecological Monographs. 69(4):491-511. http://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.2307/2657227.
I have classified this as academic, peer-reviewed research material.
This article is academic, as the authors are all listed as being associated with various departments of well-known universities, making them likely to be experts in their fields; in-text citations are included; and there is a formal literature cited section with nearly a hundred references. The article is peer-reviewed because the website for the journal Ecological Monographs details a comprehensive peer-review process that is applied to all papers considered for publication. The paper also has “methods” and “results” sections, so it is research material.
Book:
Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, & Wheye, D. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York (NY): Simon and Schuster, Fireside.
I have classified this as Non-peer reviewed academic material.
The reasons I classified this book as academic are:
that Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich is an esteemed expert in his field receiving numerous science awards and honors. At the time the book was published he was Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biology at Stanford University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. David S. Dobkin was a Henry Rutgers Fellow and Assistant Professor of Zoology at Rutgers University, and a publishing scientist, and Darryl Wheye was a biologist and writer.
the book includes some in-text citations by noting the name of the author of a study in the text material, enabling the reader can look up the related article or book in the bibliography.
the book has an extensive 62-page bibliography of books and journal articles.
Although many scientists have informally reviewed this book, it has not undergone a formal peer-review process in the sense of having referees assigned, so I have classified it as non-peer reviewed. If I had to categorize it as research or review, I’d say it was review because it is a massive compilation of the knowledge gained by many studies.
I didn’t really have difficulty implementing my design or have to make any changes once I knew what I wanted to do. Doing this study has been a roller-coaster of emotions. It was fun doing my own experiment, where I was in charge of choosing the organism, the variables, and study area. However, it was so difficult choosing what aspect of the organism to study, or how to measure/analyze it. I also underestimated how long each individual data point would take to sample. Going through this process of engaging with the practice of ecology, definitely increased my appreciation of how ecological theory is developed. It takes a great amount of dedication and time to practice ecology, and for this, I’m grateful for everyone in this field for their hard work.
I had no difficulties organizing my data. However, I had difficulties in finding the best way to summarize and illustrate the data. It took a little playing around with the data to find the best outcome which summarizes and explains what the overall study was about. The outcome was what I expected, there is a significant difference between area with <50% canopy cover, compared to the other levels of canopy coverage. Each dot represents the sample means of each strata (canopy cover). each interval is a 95% confidence interval that the group mean is within the groups confident interval. The error bars represent the standard error of the means, in other words, how accurate the sample represents the population. My study focuses on the moss abundance on the ground, I wonder if this pattern would be the same if I looked at moss abundance on trees. If the pattern was the same, I wonder if the same elements play the same roles. On the other hand, if it was different, would it be due to the same mechanisms driving this pattern, or are other factors included.
The site I selected for my field research project is the acreage on which I live, in the Creston Valley, about half a kilometer west of the Kootenay River. It is a partly wooded, 3.15ha site, on an east-facing hillside at 49˚05’N; 116˚36’W. The elevation ranges from 540-576m above sea level. The site is part of a corridor between farm fields below through a narrow band of rural properties, backing up to the foot of a steep mountain slope covered with dense, undisturbed coniferous forest, above. I would like to better understand the role of wildlife connectivity corridors in the face of increasing human population pressures in rural British Columbia.
I am including in my site an approximately 200m2 pond adjacent to our lower southeast corner (please see my attached “map”); though it is on our neighbours’ lot, it is important to observed species richness. There is a dense aspen stand adjacent to the northeast corner of our property that may also contribute to animal biodiversity. Thus, my study area includes the pond and its wetland, about two acres of mixed conifer forest, two and a half acres of grassland, a quarter-acre hillside of moss-covered bedrock, and three acres of intensely cultivated farm with a small homestead, outbuildings, greenhouse, orchard, and market garden. The property has been a farm for at least 60 years.
Although I’ve lived on this land for ten years and know something of the diverse species here, I want to know them more precisely, and to understand their interactions (patterns and processes) more scientifically. I went out to ground-truth some of my ideas about the land, plants, and animals on April 22, 2019, 14:00-16:00, on a sunny, early-spring, afternoon. I’d like to make an approximate census of the plants, animals, and fungi present now, so that I can better monitor future change.
My detailed observations are recorded in my field journal. I noted an encroachment of noxious weeds. There is also presently a die-off of two key mature tree species (grand fir and western redcedar), which a local forester told me is widely occurring throughout the Kootenays, due to the extreme heat and extended droughts of the past few summers. I am interested in whether the natural germination and early success of seedlings of only certain species indicates a community change as a result of changing climate of the valley – for example, if a census of trees less than 2ft tall would show a statistically significant difference in richness and distribution compared to the mature trees fifty years of age or greater?
Questions that I might like to explore are:
Does the encroachment of noxious weeds spread outward from our roads in a definite gradient?
Can I demonstrate that the conifer die-off is related to drought?
Can the observed richness and biodiversity of birds and mammals be associated with the variety of habitats available on our property? Or is it that we provide a connectivity corridor between farm fields/Kootenay River below and the upland mountain habitat?
By comparing an old growth conifer census with seedling census, can I demonstrate that the composition of the conifer community is changing in response to a decade of hotter, drier summers? Can a future mature stand be predicted by seedling starts, or are there too many confounding factors relating to which plants will survive to maturity to make this correlation?
A couple of natural history observations included a beautiful display of the early wildflowers western spring beauty(Claytonia lanceolata) and glacier lily(Erythronium grandiflorum) on the mossy rocks. I observed a courtship display by four male hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus), in the presence of three females. Since I didn’t have a way to record the visual display and sound, I found a you-tube video of what I saw that had been recorded at the Reifel Bird Sanctuary. The link is www.youtube.com/watch?v=XanDih-x2TQ if you’d like to see and hear pretty much exactly what happened on the pond!
I listed in my field notes my sightings of a number of bird species and a reptile (Western painted turtle); I heard some frogs; and saw evidence of a number of mammals. I have listed the common and scientific names in my attached field notes.
My hypothesis might touch on the balance of photosynthesis from sunlight exposure, and defense against water loss in the shade/canopy cover. Moss use photosynthesis to produce food. However, if moss is exposed to sunlight too greatly, it can be drying to the plant. A balance is needed between both sun and shade to provide an optimal habitat for the plant. This can relate to the growth and distribution of moss. Moss would be able to have a higher growth rate if the habitat was optimal for them. If optimal habitat is present, moss is more likely to distribute within that habitat. Keywords that could be used to describe my research project are sunlight exposure, canopy coverage, and moss abundance.
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.
