Category: Nancy Elliot

Blog Post 7: Theoretical Perspectives

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Good Afternoon, Professor Elliot and Class

Now that I have finalized my data collection, I have been reflecting on the theoretical basis of my research project. The theoretical perspective of my final project will focus on answering the question as to what factors influence riparian vegetation abundance. The ecological processes that my hypothesis will look at includes studying predictors such as elevation and aspect and their impact on the amount (presence or absence) of large woody vegetation in a riparian area. An interesting factor came up during my on-going observations and field data collection, which is the presence of higher-elevation riparian meadows on both sides of the creek. The environmental gradient is not homogenous so I am interested to see how this influences (or does not influence) the outcome of my research.

I have found an abundant collection of literature related to my research topic, for example some topics / ideas that underpin my research include:

  • Riparian vegetation in upper mountain zones;
  • Links between lateral vegetation zones and river flows;
  • Longitudinal- and transverse-scale environmental influences on riparian vegetation across multiple levels of ecological organization;
  • High-elevation riparian meadows;
  • Elevation, competition control, and species;
  • Structure and composition of vegetation along an elevational gradient; and,
  • Exotic and native plant community distributions within complex riparian landscapes.

Three key words that could be used to describe my study are: riparian ecosystems, elevation gradient, and freshwater streams.

Blog Post 7: Theoretical Perspectives

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

 

The observance of the long-term impact of a former landfill on the surrounding environment will form the theoretical basis of my research project.

My research project will specifically focus upon the impact on a forested ecosystem following the anthropogenic effects of deforestation and pollution, focussing on the similarities and differences between two plant communities and soil composition of the former landfill area and a nearby historically forested area, which are connected by the Alfred Howe Greenway trail.

My hypothesis, that former landfills have a long-term negative impact on plant health, will include the study of the ecological processes of primary succession, soil degradation, and nutrient cycling.

Ideas that underpin the research being conducted for this project include: the impact of soil toxicity on different plant species, species richness and comparative biomass production in a community recovering from a disturbance, and the interrelationships between soil nutrient levels, bacteria, fungi, and diseased plant species.

Keywords: ecosystem recovery, biomass production, soil composition.

Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

For this assignment, I sampled tree species virtually be means of three sampling techniques: simple random, systematic and haphazard. I selected an area based method for Snyder-Middleswarth natural area. The technique that was the most efficient in terms of time spent was the systematic sampling method which took 12 hours, 35 minutes. The next fastest sampling technique was haphazard sampling at 12 hours, 39 minutes, while the slowest method was random sampling which took 12 hours, 49 minutes.

The following is the percentage error calculated using (E – T)/T*100, where E = estimated value and T = true value

Most common specie – Eastern Hemlock

systematic: 6.3% error

random: 26.7% error

haphazard: 2.0% error

Second most common specie – Sweet Birch

systematic: 1.3% error

random: 24.0% error

haphazard: 27.7% error

Most rare specie – White Pine

systematic: 233.3% error

random: 49.7% error

haphazard: 48.8% error

Second most rare specie – Striped Maple

systematic: 100.0% error

random: 76.0% error

haphazard: 28.6% error

From the results, the most accurate sampling strategy for common species was systematic, while the most accurate method for rare species was haphazard. The accuracy declined substantially for rare species, especially in the systematic sampling method. Accuracy increases with greater species abundance.

I was surprised to see that the systematic sampling method had the highest percentage error for rare species. This might be due to a low species density distribution along the two y coordinates used in the systematic method. Additionally, it would be interesting to observe a change in accuracy for species in the community from using more then 24 sample points.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information – A Flowery Website

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I have selected a resource that is very much not a peer-reviewed scientific document, but is nonetheless informative. It is the type of document that I regularly see my high school students consult, though its use is limited in higher academic programs.

The webpage is part of The Victoria Nikkei Cultural Society, an organization celebrating Japanese-Canadians in the Victoria area. As part of its guide the Japanese past time of “Hanami,” or cherry blossom viewing, the site offers information on some of the different species of cherry and plum trees that exist in the area. The information includes latin names of the plants and physical descriptions of the leaves and blossoms.

Although the authors are listed, their qualifications and affiliations are absent. They may happen to be very capable botanists but that is not possible to assess with the information provided. The article does not include citations or a bibliography. This document is unquestionably non-academic material.

http://www.vncs.ca/wordpress/activities/hanami-%E8%8A%B1%E8%A6%8B-cherry-blossom-viewing/

Post 1: Observations on an urban street

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The housing market in the city of Victoria is booming. Rental vacancy is at a minimum and as fast as companies can build new residences, eager buyers are snatching them up. This fast-paced turn-over has created a construction boom around the once relaxed, if not docile, town known for government workers and retirees.  Across the street from my own apartment, I have watched for the last 2 years as an old structure was razed to make room for a six-storey condo building. Not the least of the negative impacts of such a large project near our home have been noticeable increases in both noise and dust, carried in through the windows and settling on all surfaces.

When deciding on a study area for this project, my mind immediately went to nearby parks and green spaces that fit my mental image of “ecological” spaces. However, such landscapes are in the minority around this city, whereas my construction-zone street is quite typical. It occurred to me that this site, although less likely to contain a menagerie of woodland creatures, could be fairly representative of an urban ecological habitat. Furthermore, not far down the same street where the construction is occurring, a homeowner has established an urban garden – complete with a mason bee house – on the boulevard between the sidewalk and the street.

I feel this environment may provide a rich learning opportunity with a gradient to contrast the area of urban agriculture with the area of urban development.

The area in question is the 1100 block of Meares St. in Victoria, BC. I made my initial observations on August 6 at 18h45. The weather at this time was sunny with clear skies. The construction is occurring at the west end of the street. As the street carries east, the road rises gradually and the urban garden is approximately 200 m away from the construction site. The boulevards along the street are covered in dry grass, and hold mature plum and cherry trees ((Prunus spp.).

The presence of the urban garden is very interesting to me because I expect that it has attracted some pollinators that would otherwise have no reason to spend much time on a grassy boulevard. I imagine there will also be some opportunist insects and larger animals that will benefit from the food being produced in this garden. Speaking with the owner made clear that deer in particular made it necessary to install protective netting over some of the flower boxes – especially the one containing his strawberry plants.

Some questions I have about this environment:

  • Has the construction activity and its associated disturbance altered the insect/bird composition of nearby trees?
  • Has the presence of the urban garden affected the species richness?
  • Do birds demonstrate any preference for perching/grazing along this street?
  • Is the street runoff from the construction affecting insects or plants?

See below for a sketch of the site and some preliminary observations of plants and animals:

Blog Post 3

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

I went to Creekside park, Vancouver, BC on August 8, 2018 from 15:00 – 16:00.  It was a warm day with a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius. From my observations of plants, I witnessed a pattern among flowers that bees are attracted to. The bees frequented the tall yellow, pink and purple flowers, while scarcely went to the short white and whitish-pink flowers. These observations are taken from 3 sections of flowers in the park (south side, north side and central), in which the differences among flowers bees frequented are uniform. I plan on studying the characteristics of flowers that bees are drawn to the most and which traits of flowers disinterest bees. There could be many underlying processes that explain the pattern I have observed, including physical attributes of the flower such a shape, size, colour and scent, or environmental qualities such as temperature, season and time of day.

Based on my observations, the initial hypothesis is that bees are attracted to flowers that are brighter in colour. I predict that relative quantities of bees will increase around the red, yellow and purple flowers, and decrease among the white and whitish-pink flowers. A potential response variable is the abundance of bees (continuous) and a potential explanatory variable is the flower colouration (categorical).

Blog Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

Data Collection Date: 07.08.18

Using the Alfred Howe Greenway trail as a marker, soil samples were collected from the east and west divisions of the forested land spanning away from the trail, with soil samples taken throughout the entire length of the trail, while allowing them to be subdivided into two general areas: (1) Historically Forested Area (South part of trail) and (2) Historically Landfill Area (North part of trail).

 Photo 1: L2S3 (Location 2, Sample 2) collected soil sample (left). Soil sample collection in progress, ruler measuring depth of dug hole (4.0 inches) and soil collected (3 shovel scoops) at hole depth (right).

The exact location of where the former landfill ends was unclear. However, buried tarp was found at the mid-point of the trail, buried in the direction of the former landfill area. Reading through government archives, there was mention of eliminating water pollution through having the area covered in a landfill cover, preventing rainfall from dislodging any buried landfill materials, limiting pollution entering nearby bodies of water in the form of runoff.

Photo 2: Observations made while sampling, would be interesting to follow the visible tarp to see if it encloses the landfill area.

A total of twenty soil samples were collected; ten for each designated area. A modified random sampling strategy was used from the one implemented in Blog Post 5. This was primarily done to ensure samples were taken in their desired transect, which was one of the problems faced when using the previous sampling strategy.

The new sampling design consists of generating: (1) a random number of paces along the trail (0 to location end), (2) generating a random East or West side of trail designation (0 to 1) and (3) generating a random number of paces 90º from the trail (0 to 50).

Once three random numbers were generated for each sample, samples were numbered in order of the number of paces taken along the trail, in order to allow samples to be taken while proceeding from the north point of the trail to the south point, avoiding going back to the start of the trail for each sample to count the number of required paces along the trail for that sample.

Photo 3: Scanned field journal entry of randomly generated location of each sample. L2S1 – L2S10 correspond to samples taken off the north end of the trail (former landfill), L1S1 – L1S10 correspond to samples taken off the south end of the trail (historically forested).

There were less problems encountered in implementing this experimental design. If a randomly generated location was unaccessible (ex. extremely dense in vegetation or a very steep slope), the nearest accessible location was used to collect the soil sample.

Photo 4: Collected soil samples from both locations.

When collecting the soil samples, there was a very noticeable difference in soil colour and texture between samples collected from the former landfill area and samples collected from the historically forested area, as well as between samples collected from the East and West side of the trail.

It is interesting to be able to visually observe the soil differences in each area, making it appear that former landfill activities could have a long lasting impact on the surrounding area. However, these samples must undergo soil testing to formally analyse any soil discrepancies.

Photo 5: Visual difference in soil colour and texture between soil sample collected at the historically forested area of the trail (left), and soil sample collected at the former landfill area (right).

Enough soil (three shovel scoops) was collected for each sample in order to ensure there was enough soil to undergo pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash testing using the Rapitest 1601 Soil Test Kit.

Please note: A portion of the collected soil sample testing results (including recorded topsoil nitrogen levels and soil type classification) are presented in Blog Post 8: Tables and Graphs.

 

Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Wang, C., Wan, J., Mu, X., & Zhang, Z. (2015). Management planning for endangered plant species in priority protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(10), 2383-2397. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0928-2

The article by Wang et al. is an academic peer-reviewed research paper about conservation management of 84 endangered plants in China. This paper was discovered through the University of Ottawa library search engine. This source is academic material because it has three characteristics: it was written by experts in the field that are associated with Beijing Forestry University, the article includes in-text citations and it also contains a bibliography. This source is peer-reviewed because it was published in the International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation and has the referees listed. Lastly, the article by Wang et al. is categorized under research material because it contains a methods and results section.

Observations 1

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The area I have selected for my field project is a city park located in north east false creek, Vancouver, British Columbia. It is a new park that measures roughly three acres. It is a flat area with vegetation that includes flower beds, weeds and trees in the periphery. The centre of the park includes a children’s playground. I visited the park at 6pm on a Saturday on a hot summer day with a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius. My observations at the park left me with many questions. I wondered why bees preferred to be around some flowers rather then other. I questioned why certain types of weeds in a particular area were dying while other weeds in a different area thrived. I also wondered why I did not witness any birds at the park, whereas I see many birds (particularly crows) circulating around the trees in downtown Vancouver.

Blog post 5: Design Reflection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

While collecting my initial data I realized my hypothesis was not as specific as I wanted it to be. I had too many variables that would not be easy to measure within my question. I decided I was going to alter the wording of my hypothesis to make it more straight forward; ultimately so I could make my variables easily measurable. Instead of considering all the animal activity, I decided to focus specifically on the bird activity, and instead of how human activity affect the animals, which I found was a hard variable to measure, I chose to use how sheltered areas effected the bird’s activity. Since both of these new variables are measurable and more consistent, it will be a better way for me to get more reliable data.

Once I changed up my hypothesis and my response and predictor variables it was a lot easier for me to then set up how I would be going about this experiment. I decided since I was going to be working with mobile organisms that the point count station was the best sampling strategy to use. However, I did have a slight difficulty when it came to deciding if I should visit the same point count station at different times throughout 5 different days or if I should go to 5 different point count stations all within the same day. After a little trial and error, I decided it would be best if I combined the two options. I went through out 5 days and I had chosen 5 different point count stations. This way I could keep it consistent. I did go at approximately the same time every day so that the temperature would be roughly the same and I did go only in the morning, since bird activity is usually higher early on in the day.

Since I was so focused on consistency, I thought it would be a good idea to have my point stations spread out and this way I could incorporate some variety that would ultimately give me extra notes and potential observations.

After I had the strategy all figured out, I thought more about what I would be expecting. I predicted that with the more shelter and trees/shrubs around the more area for nests, perching and protection for the birds, therefore, more bird activity. Once I reviewed my data I found that this surprisingly wasn’t necessarily true. From what I had recorded, birds did in fact like the shelter but I found them most active at areas where there was shelter and open space (lawn area). I’m wondering if this has anything to do with the bird feeders nearby…  Only more time and conducted studies will tell.

I think this was an efficient way to collect data. The point count stations worked very well and I do think I had enough variety within my station, since they were spread out but still were ultimately random. One thing I’m still unsure of is if I want to continue taking into account the bird calls. I like the idea of recording bird calls because I know there may be more birds in the area than are in sight, but I also don’t want to be over counting or even double counting the same bird call.