Category: Nancy Elliot

Post 1.

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Blog Post 1: Observations.

The area I have chosen is a piece of municipal-owned land in Sooke, British Columbia. It is a roughly rectangular piece of forested property approximately 150 meters by 300 meters surrounded on all sides by residential areas. There is a gated road from one street through the forest to the other end for use by maintenance vehicles to access a drinking water storage and pumping station. The lot is sloped with an elevation of 60 meters above sea level at the east end and 85 meters at the west. There is swampy terrain at the east which dries out just before the land slopes up. Red alders are the dominant tree at both ends with large western red cedar, western hemlock and Douglas fir in the middle section. Many animals inhabit this area part of the time. They include birds such as hummingbirds, robins, woodpeckers and owls. Herons had a colony here a few years ago but they have since moved on. Mammals that live here include squirrel, raccoon, black tailed deer and black bear. All of these animals are not permanent residents. They tend to pass through and use the area as a sort of shelter, but for the most part they not afraid of humans and roam the nearby streets, yards and other fragmented forest properties. The area does not see a lot of human activity. Maintenance crews drive in a couple of times a week and since their access lane is gated they are the only vehicle traffic. Occasionally neighbourhood kids play in here or cut across as a shortcut between blocks. Homeowners whose backyards border the property have encroached a few meters in with sheds and compost piles. This region sees only a few days of snow a year. The micro climate is so extreme that sometimes the higher elevation gets some snow and the lower end of the property does not. The past few years has seen fire bans from about May to October; it is so dry here that a few sparks would ignite the forest.

I visit this area all the time. My backyard borders it and I am often watching the deer and birds in here. In the spring a hummingbird built her tiny nest on a branch a meter from my childrens’ treehouse. We spent many mornings sitting on the little balcony watching the progress of her babies.

Some areas of personal interest that I may study:

  1. Many animals live in both the forest and the surrounding urban area. To what extent do they rely on the forest?

  2. There is a group of red alders growing in swampy ground. In the past few years they have begun slowly tilting but remaining seemingly healthy until they completely fall over. Why are they doing this now?

  3. There are a few specimens of “nurse logs”, dead wood that new plants grow on. Why do some stumps and logs host new trees and some don’t?

 

Blog Post 5

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

Initial data collection for my backyard observations of Acer glabrum stand density was done using two types of sampling methods: random and systematic. I did not have any problem with the sampling, but I have decided to tweak my methods somewhat in order to best address my hypothesis.

The gist of my project is to quantify the density of maple trees relative to the large cedar tree in my yard. Hypothesis being that stand density increases the further the plot is from the cedar. For the random sample, I used a random number generator app on my phone to establish 10 plots within the site. For the systematic method, I measured stand density along 3 transects at 5, 10, and 15 meters from the base of the tree at designated bearings of 20°, 40°. And 60° for a total of 9 plots.

These methods both affirmed my hypotheses but for final data collection I think I will use the systematic method, but more comprehensively. The study site is located between 0°-100° from the base of the cedar tree. Using the systematic method, and to satisfy the rule of tens, I will establish transects at 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80°, 90° and 100°with one meter plots located at 5, 10, 15, and 20m along each transect. Each plot will be assessed for the number of maple trees within it. So, my field notes will look like this:

This will give me a total of 50 replicate sites with enough distance between plots to be independent of each other. This would seem to be a method that will provide a robust quantification of the density of maple trees at the site, relative to the cedar tree.

Blog Post 3 Ongoing field research

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Blog Post 3

I visited Cates Park on November 25, 2017 and the temperature that day was 11 degrees Celsius with light rain and wind coming from the northeast at 6km/hr. I plan to study the density of crows among three gradients including an open grass area with a playground (OGA), wooded area (WA) and second open grass area (OGA2). As you move from area to area the elevation increases. The OGA contained many picnic tables, garbage cans, a playground and leaf piles. The area is very flat with grass covering the entire area. The WA contained many trails within the forest. The wooded area had all the leaves gone offering not much coverage for animals. OGA2 is much smaller than the OGA but also contained two very large tennis courts at the top of the hill. The number of crows within the OGA2 only had 7 crows compared to the OGA that had 13. OGA2 contained only two garbage cans and a picnic bench. Walking between the areas the only observable vertebrates were crows, seagulls, and grey squirrels. These animals were visible in the open area, but none were observed in the forested area. The crows were seen foraging on the ground with the greatest group of them located near garbage cans, leaf piles, and picnic tables. I spent 30 mins walking around each of the areas to observe and count the number of animals in the area. Throughout the walk, there were no visible species in the wooded area. A large reason behind this may be the lack of the cover in the trees due to the colder weather. The response variable for my project will be the density of crows in each of the areas. The predictor variable will be the available food sources from humans and from trees. My hypothesis will be that crows are able to have a higher density with anthropogenic sources available to them compared to natural forested areas.

 

Virtual Forest Exercise

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The results of the three area based sampling strategies used in the virtual forest tutorial are summarized below.

 

Systematic Sampling (12 hours, 7 minutes):

 

Most Common Species Data Densities

Actual Densities

 % Error
Eastern Hemlock 504.2

469.9

 7.3
Sweet Birch 112.5

117.5

 -4.3
Rarest Species
Chestnut Oak 66.7

87.5

 -23.8
Red Maple 137.5

118.9

 15.6

 

Random Sampling (12 hours, 42 minutes):

Most Common Species Data Densities

Actual Densities

 % Error
Eastern Hemlock 504.2

469.9

 7.3
Sweet Birch 137.5

117.5

 17
Rarest Species
Striped Maple 41.7

17.5

 138.3
White Pine 20.8

8.4

 147.6

 

Haphazard (12 hours, 59 minutes):

Most Common Species Data Densities

Actual Densities

 % Error
Eastern Hemlock 540

469.9

 14.9
Sweet Birch 108

117.5

 -8.1
Rarest Species
Red Maple 41.7

118.9

 -64.9
Striped Maple 8

17.5

 -54.3

Systematic sampling was the most accurate for both common and rare species. % error was quite higher for the rarer species for all three methods.

The most efficient technique timewise was systematic, followed by random, followed by haphazard. The time differences weren’t’ too dramatic, with a spread of only 52 minutes between the most and least efficient.

Considering how close to the actual data the sample was in the systematic method, it would seem to be a sufficient sample size to have a solid understanding of the species numbers and abundance of the common species. However, the rarer species would seem to require further sampling to get more representative data.

Untitled

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

A) Genetics, behavior and ecology of a paper wasp invasion: Polistes dominulus in North America. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/stable/pdf/23736765.pdf

B) The paper is academic peer-reviewed research material.

C) The paper is academic peer-reviewed research material since there is a method section in which they collected 127 wasps. Also, the paper contains a results section discussing what they found in the field.

Untitled

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

For my field research project, I will be observing Cates Park in North Vancouver, B.C. This park is a district ran park and covers over 22 hectares of land along the Burrard Inlet. The park is mainly flat along the ocean and contains a large forest area with many trails running through the park. The park also contains large grassy areas and a large beach running along the ocean. The vegetation in the park contains mostly Douglas fir and maple trees along with ferns and other forms of vegetation. I visited the park on November 6, 2017 and the temperature outside was six degrees Celsius with very little wind and sunny. I noticed that animals in the area were far more scarce compared to mid summer. This is most likely due to the cold weather we have been experiencing in the area. For my project I may focus on how the vegetation adapts to the colder weather. Also, I will focus on the animals that are still present in the park and what they feed on. My project will mainly focus on the adaptions and constraints for animals and plants that are associated with Cates park.

Blog Post 5- Design Reflections

TRU Open Learning 4 Comments

Post 5: Design Reflections

My initial data collection for Module 3 involved taking systematic quadrant samples of native & invasive alien plant communities within two separate locations. Using the multiple transect sampling technique, ten quadrants were laid out along each transect, roughly 5 meters apart. Each quadrant sampled was 1m/square in size, using a homemade PCV pipe observation quadrat device. The first sample location site (Site A) was taken along an of leash dog area; A coastal bluff which was comprised of mostly degraded bare soil & rocky outcrop, also greatly worn due to human & canine traffic. The second sample location site (Site B) was an area that is *supposed to be* off limits to canine & human traffic. I found that this was clearly not the case, as human & canine activity is often observed in these no access areas & unfortunately, I suspect my results were skewed due to this. This location was in the same park as my first site, although the samples were taken approximately 100 feet away from the first site throughout a sloping wetland, lush marsh / meadow. The park contains pubic info boards which describe that it contains SARA plant populations (Federal Species at Risk Act) & to obey the signage which clearly indicates out of bound locations.

I did have some difficulties when implementing sampling strategies for my second sampling site (Site B), in the marshland / meadow transect sample areas. I did not want to tread on a location that was “out of bounds” to the public, so I leaned over the fence (which is only about 3 ft high) & floated my sample device over top of the sample area, recording my observations as I went along the transect. The first sample site was much easier (Site A), as I could actually place my sample device on the ground, making it much easier to observe, write down my observations, & even take pictures when necessary.

The data collected at Site B was quite surprising to me. I expected to find a greater diversity and density of plant species observed, due to the fact that this area was restricted. Unfortunately I found that most people (including a few mountain bikers!) did not observe the areas that contained SARA species & were clearly marked as out of bounds. My low plant counts in Site B reflected this. Site A is a well used, high foot traffic area, so I did expect the plant species & density to be a bit lower than Site B. I was not expecting that my results would show the density & diversity to be as similar in numbers as it turned out to be.

With regard to collecting data, & for the sake of my field research project, I will modify my approach slightly. I will still use the sampling device I made & method used, but I will observe my samples in different areas that what was chosen for Module 3. I will expand my transect line & quadrats out by a few more meters between each sample. I am hopeful that these modifications will improve my research. My explanatory variable – I will observe plant composition communities along a drier & more exposed coastal bluff in one site, vs. plant composition communities observed in a higher elevation site with a different overstory (meadow). I will be looking to observe plant composition community differences between site A (bluff) and site B (meadow).

 

Untitled

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The organism I would like to study is Douglas Maple (Acer glabrum). More specifically, variation in its abundance along a spatial gradient from a mature Western Cedar (Thuja plicata).

For initial observations compass bearings of 20°, 40°, and 60° were taken from the base of the T. plicata. Along each of these bearings, plot centers were established at 5, 10, and 15 m. Each plot was 1m2 and the number of A. glabum within each was recorded, as shown in the table below.

 

Distance from T. Plicata in m # of A. glabrum along 20° bearing # of A. glabrum along 40° bearing # of A. glabrum along 60° bearing
5 0 0 0
10 3 8 4
15 5 2 6

 

During the time observations were taken, the entire plot site that was <5m from T. Plicata was in the shade and the 5-10m part of the site was in full sun.

The entire site is located on west facing hill that is has a 12% slope.

I did the above observations before watching the study design videos and I now know that what I did is a systematic sampling method. Upon further reflection, and after watching all the vids, I’m thinking it makes more sense to do a random sample method as explained by Lyn Baldwin. So, I did a second sample methodology using an app to generate random compass bearings and paces to locate 1×1 m plots in 10 different locations within the site. The following was observed using this method:

 

Paces from base of T. Plicata Compass bearing (°) Number of A. Glabrum in plot
2 35 0
5 34 0
3 22 0
6 92 0
15 19 5
11 88 2
3 42 0
5 84 0
0 57 0
6 79 0

 

Some processes that may be causing the variation in species abundance is the shade from the large conifer, differences in soil moisture content, differences in mineral composition, or distance from the conifer. However, my main hypothesis is that the shade created by the T. plicata reduces the stand density of A. glabrum by reducing the availability of incoming solar radiation. To help test this hypothesis, observations will be made as to how much sunlight and shade the site is in throughout the day.

The response variable is A. glabrum and all of the processes listed above are predictor variables. The response variable is continuous as it is being quantified by counting and the predictor variables are all continuous. Therefore, I infer that this is a regression experimental design and inductive methods will be utilized to test my hypothesis since initial observations of reduction in stand density as distance from the conifer increases will try to be explained.

 

 

 

 

Initial Site Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The site where I will carry out my research project is located at 1823 Creek Street in Nelson, BC, in the NE corner of the property. This property is on what was originally a large forested slope. UTM: 11U479004mE 5480823mN. ASL: 153.

Site was visited on 14-11-2017 at 1245 PST. Weather was overcast and 5 degrees celsius.

The size of the site is approximately 10m x 6m. It is on a west facing slope with a 12% gradient.

The species composition are dominated by the following:

A layer:

  • mature Thuja Plicata approximately 1.5 m diameter
  • dead standing Prunus Virginia
  • Acer glabrum

B layer:

  • Acer glabrum
  • Salix spp.
  • Sorbus sitchensis
  • Sambucus spp.

C layer:

  • Symphoricarpus albus
  • Mahonia aquifolium
  • Unidentified invasive groundcover (dominates)

There is also some moss present on the large boulders that are found in the site. The ground is blanketed in dead maple leaves and cedar debris. Two fresh piles of deer scat were observed. This semi-rural backyard greenbelt has some signs of anthropogenic activity including a small shed, trimmed tree branches, and invasive species.

Since there is good spatial variation within the site, it seems to provide a good opportunity to make some comparisons between the different types of areas, focusing on potential variations in ecosystem properties between areas dominated by coniferous, and those dominated by deciduous. 3 potential research questions:

Snow accumulation in various locations throughout the site.

Differences in LFH layers throughout the site.

Differences in mineral properties throughout the site.

Module 1 Blog post 2

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of this blog post is the book Forest Ecology by J.P. Kimmins (2004). While I’m mulling over the possibilities of the field project for this course, which I am going to do in the green belt in my backyard, this book will be a valuable resource.

The author is certainly an expert in his field, having been a professor in forest ecology related positions since the late 60’s. He has also helped develop a number of forestry based ecosystem management models.

There is a reference section that is over 50 pages long, serving as a testament to extensive citation and exhaustive research. There is no Methods or Results section in the book which would seem to make it a review of existing data, knowledge, and theories. However, the subtitle of the book is “A Foundation for Sustainable Forest Management and Environmental Ethics in Forestry” so it is certainly meant to provide guidance for sustainable management practices.

I’m not certain if this is considered to be peer reviewed material. There are six different editors listed and Kimmins gives a shout out to a number of reviewers, mostly professors at other institutions. Whether or not they served in an official capacity or were just helping out a friend is unclear but it seems that this bounty of ecological wisdom is academic material that is not peer-reviewed.

Alanna

 

Reference

Kimmins, J. P. (2004). Forest ecology: a foundation for sustainable forest management and environmental ethics in forestry (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.