In light of my first blog post, I have chosen a scientific source which discusses the characteristics of black-billed magpies nesting areas in urban regions. The source is an non-peer reviewed academic research paper. The article’s title is: ʺYear-round used large communal roosts of Black-billed Magpie Pica pica in an urban habitat. ˝
I classified this source as such because it is written by ornithology specialist Renzo Ientile from the Department of Biological science of the university of Catania in Italy. While the author has cited sufficient scientific sources in his work, it is not peer-reviewed. It is clearly a research paper as the methods, results and discussion sections are identified and well organized. To obtain the results described, the author and his associates have conducted 34 censuses in 5 different roosts located in urban areas over a period of one year. It enabled them to take into consideration factors such as climate/season changes and human interaction.
Ientile, Renzo. Year-round Used Large Communal Roosts of Black-billed Magpie Pica Pica in an Urban Habitat. Catania: CISO – Centro Italiano Studi Ornitologici, 2014.
The area of study selected for this field project is part of Hermitage park in Edmonton, AB. The first observations were conducted on October 7th at 16:00h under mostly sunny weather conditions with a feel-like temperature of 7° Celsius and winds at 26km/h. The surface area studied has a pond on one side facing a hiking trail. It’s exact coordinates according to Google maps are 53.5853937, -113.3729873.
Surrounding the pond are Broad leaf cattails (Typha latifolia), and further around the pond are coniferous trees, mostly Jack pine trees (Pinus Banksiana).
Around the pond, and on both sides of the hiking trail, birch trees (Betula papyrifera) are also a dominant species within the area’s vegetation. So are wild rose (Rosa Woodsii) bushes, which in this fall season, carry ripe red berries as displayed in the picture below. Near the pond, compared to the area surrounding the hiking trail, although similar species are observed, the main difference is that the trees are more widespread and exposed to sunlight as opposed to clustered (by the hiking trail).
During the field trip, two bird breeds were observed; the black-billed magpie, and the black-billed gull. They seemed to be accustomed to human presence as one could approach them easily to take a picture, and they would not budge. Also, during the trip, many hikers were observed, few of which were walking dogs. In this light, both on the trail area and the grass area, few dog feces were observed.
Other traces of human activity are rather obvious in this area, as trash can be found in the grass and along the hiking trail. Items can vary from used tissue paper, empty beer cans, plastic bags and more. In addition to that, on a grass area, one very clear trail left by a motorized vehicle can be seen. The weeds in the tire trails appear dry and damaged.
Following these first observations alone, few questions arise;
What is it about the vegetation in this area that draws the presence of the black-billed magpie and how does human activity impact it?
How does the sunlight and cluster pattern impact the growth of birch trees and jack pines?
How does the presence of human litter and dog feces impact this ecosystem?
The paper written by Michael Notaro discusses how different ecosystems change in different locations and in changing temperatures. This paper can be used to support any of the questions I provided in blog 1 which makes this a good paper to reference for the question I will choose to conduct an experiment for. I found this paper on the Academic Search Complete database from the TRU library databases page. Within the acknowledgments on page 854 it states two anonymous reviewers looked over the paper making it peer-reviewed. This paper is an academic source because the author provides in-text citations and a reference list, also the author, Michael Notaro, holds a position at the centre for Climatic Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison when writing this paper. Lastly this is a review paper because even though there is a model and methods section the data used is collected from other experiments that are used as references to provide support for the paper. Therefore, there was no experiment conducted during the writing of this paper making it a review paper. When combining these all together this makes the paper an academic, peer-reviewed, review paper.
Michael N. 2008. Response of the mean global vegetation distribution to interannual climate variability. Climate Dynamics [accessed 2017 Nov. 4]; 30(7/8); 845-854. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.tru.ca/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=1cfcd4de-ce32-4493-8b4b-3ba8a14fa96%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGI2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=31694974&db=a9h DIO: 10.1007/s00382-007-0329-7
This field experiment will be conducted at an island park called Zuckerberg Island Park, approximately 8 hectares large, found in the city of Castlegar, BC. Neighbourhood house are found from the north, south and west and the Kootenay river is found to the east. The river water also surround the island park. A large population of trees (majority of evergreen trees), shrubs, and small plants are found though-out the park. Centre of the park has a more dense population of trees. There are rocky beaches surrounded the edges of the park. Visited the park at 14:00 on November 4, 2017 and the the temperature was -1 C with cloudy weather and snow which had fallen a couple days prior to visit. Some questions that arose during the examination of the park where:
What is the relationship of the proximity of the evergreen trees to the river water to the amount of evergreen trees found at those locations?
What is the difference of survival and growth of green stems growing for evergreen trees found in the centre of the park (where population is dense) verse on evergreen trees found on the outskirts close to the river water (where population is sparse) when the temperature continues to drop during winter season?
What is the relation of the amount of small plants growing for soil that is shelter from snow fall to the decrease of temperature, will the amount of small plants present decrease or stay constant?
Photos taken from cell phone when examining the park.
For the purpose of my field study, I will be focusing on a small man-made park in the city of Airdrie, AB. There is a canal full of runoff water that is to the east of the park. Surrounding the edges of the pond are a variety of shrubs, bushes, and trees. There are large boulders that line the edge of the pond. The density of the vegetation surrounding the pond varies from minimal vegetation to ten feet in depth. Up from the pond are varying degrees of slop to large fields of grass. A small cluster of trees and bushes are on a flat field surrounded by a walking path and picnic benches.
Surround this pond and park are walking paths and houses that back onto the pond, or onto the walking path. Some subjects I am looking into is whether there any species of fish in the pond? Does the vegetation on one side of the pond appear to grow differently from the other? Is there a difference in the vegetation near the pond compared to similar species that are not along the edge?
Visited October 29, 2017
Elevation 1080m
Weather – 4C partly cloudy with wind gusts of 40km/h from the west.
My initial study design includes the collection of percent covers of moss species along an environmental gradient, i.e. the slope position on a bedrock outcrop. I found that deciding on which sampling strategy to use for this exercise to be somewhat challenging. I chose a strategic sampling strategy in which samples were collected at regular intervals along a gradient. A transect was established along the environmental gradient, starting at the base of the western slope of the rock outcrop, over the crest, and down the eastern slope to the depression. Samples consisted of 18 cm by 18 cm square quadrats because this is the size that my foldable ruler, which was readily available, could produce and it seemed like a reasonable size (i.e. not too big or too small). Quadrats were located along this transect and were spaced every 40 cm.
An example of one of the quadrats located on the moss covered rock outcrop
A challenge that I had when it came to implementing this sampling method was that due to the variation in the micro-topography, there was no single transect line that would include the representative areas in each of the slope positions. I therefore had to deviate from the transect line so that the quadrats located on the western slope were all along the same transect, those along the crest and eastern slope along another, and those in the depression along yet another.
At a glance, the results of this sampling did not show a strong relationship or pattern in the percent covers of the various species. The most notable pattern was that RACCAN occurred only on the crest of the rock outcrop and PYLSPL occurred only in the depression, while DICSCO and PLESCH were present in all of the samples (with the exception of one, which lacked DICSCO). Note that 10 samples were collected instead of just 5 in order to obtain adequate representation of all of the slope positions on this particular rock outcrop while maintaining consistency in sample spacing.
I think the sampling strategy should be modified to include a broader study area, i.e. additional rock outcrops. This will broaden my scope and allow for the collection of more samples, and will also decrease the impact of any localized patterns that may not be representative of other outcrops in the area. I will try out a couple of different strategies; one option being to collect one random sample from each slope position on several different rock outcrops, and another being to simply repeat the same strategic transect methodology (but perhaps using a spacing of 20 cm instead of 40 cm in order to increase the sample number) on multiple rock outcrops. The sampling method used worked well and I will continue to use this method.
The results of the sampling strategies for the virtual forest tutorial are summarized in Table 1 at the bottom of this post.
The sampling strategies did not vary greatly in terms of time spent sampling, however, the most efficient was the systematic sampling method. This method took 12 hours, 38 minutes as opposed to 12 hours, 43 minutes and 12 hours, 55 minutes for the other two sampling methods.
The accuracy of sampling varied for the most and least common species, depending on the sampling strategy used. The most accurate sampling strategy for the most common species (i.e. eastern hemlock) was the systematic method. The most accurate sampling strategy for the rarest species (i.e. white pine and striped maple) was the haphazard sampling method. The accuracy was lower for the rare species across all sampling strategies. The range of percent error across sampling strategies for eastern hemlock was 10.66-22.37 %, while for white pine this jumped to 42.86-52.38 %.
Overall, the haphazard sampling strategy was the most accurate as this had the smallest percent error averaged across the species (4.03), while the percent errors for the systematic and random sampling strategies were 17.92 and 29.87, respectively.
Table 1: Results of the virtual forest sampling strategies
The organisms that I plan to study are the mosses on the ground in my study plot. These include step moss (Hylocomium splendens), big red stem (Pleurozium shreberi), broom moss (Dicranium scoparium), spear moss (Callienganella cuspidata), and roadside rock moss (Racomitrium lanuginosum).
Photo 1: Side view of the rock outcrop with the west aspect to the left and the east aspect and depression to the right.
The environmental gradient that I have chosen to look at is related to the position of the ground on which the mosses grow. As the ground is made up of undulations of bedrock, I have chosen to look at the different aspects on these undulations, including the west face of a rock outcrop, the crest of the outcrop, the east face of the outcrop, and the depression between the rock outcrop and the next one (Photo 1). I sampled an approximately 1 m by 1 m square plot in each of these locations and estimated percentage cover of each species (Photo 2). As there are multiple rock outcrops within my study area, I will be able to analyse multiple replicates.
I observed that spear moss was the most abundant species on the sides of the rock outcrops (60% cover on the west aspect and 40% cover on the east aspect), while broom moss was the most abundant species in the crest position (75% cover), and big red stem was the most abundant species in the depression (60% cover). Total moss cover also varied with position, changing from 100% on the west face, 92% on the crest, 61% on the east aspect, and 88% in the depression. On the rock outcrop itself, the remaining area was made up of exposed bedrock and lichens, while in the depression, this also included shrub cover from salal (Gaultheria shallon).
Photo 2: Example of one of the cover plots, on the crest of the rock outcrop.
I expect that multiple factors contribute to the variation in distribution of the different species, including aspect and sun exposure, substrate (rock versus soil), and moisture and nutrient availability. My hypothesis is that the variation in species cover is correlated to the slope position and substrate.
The predictor variable that I will use is the slope position (i.e. west face, crest, east face, depression), which is a categorical variable. The response variable will be the percent cover of each species of moss, which are continuous variables. As such, the experimental design will be an ANOVA test.
Photo 3: Page 1 of field notes.Photo 4: Page 2 of field notes
Three different sampling techniques were used for today’s blog assignment in the virtual forest tutorial. These three sampling techniques were; Systematic, Random & Haphazard. 24 samples were collected in each.
The sample results are as follows, with Systematic taking the lead as the fastest estimated sampling time, by over one hour.
Systematic: 4 hrs, 3 min
Random: 5 hrs, 18 min
Haphazard: 12 hrs, 25 min
Comparision of % error between 2 common & 2 rare tree species:
Eastern Hemlock (Common), Sweet Birch (Common), Striped Maple (Rare), White Pine (Rare);
Systematic: 1.2%, 11%, 26%, 10%
Random: 17%, 6%, 10%, 10%
Haphazard: 13.9%, 3.8%, 52.6%, 48.8%
The accuracy did change with species abundance. The sampling strategy that I found to be the most accurate was the systematic strategy, as the comparison % errors are low across the different samples, & the samples were spread out over a large area, allowing for more accurate comparisons.
Weather: 13 degrees, Partly cloudy, sprinkling of rain with 33km/hr wind gusts
Pieces: My observation site is an ocean side dog park called Macaulay Point, noted as Site 1,2 & 3 in my field notes. It is a wonderful place made up of rolling hills, abandoned military barracks, an abundance of wildlife (field log illustrations below) and of course, a lovely path along the shore to walk the dogs without leaving a paw/footprint on the local ecosystem(s). Since I visit my attribution sites daily to walk the dogs, I have decided to take a multi-faceted approach of observation which will blanket the aquatic, sea bird & shore life that are in the direct site. More specifically, I will observe the Seagulls, Crows, a pair of Swans, a Bald Eagle, family of Sea Otters & Harbor seals in my observation zone.
Patterns: I am curious to know what the impact of humans & dogs in the area has been on the wildlife in the area, and more specifically, what impact the local fishermen has made on the wildlife when they clean their daily catch in an open dockside gutting station for the multiple species to ingest. This area specifically will be the location for my patterns of observation. It does bring up a few questions for me -Does this impact the animals daily habits (AKA-will they become lazy if they no longer feel the need to hunt)? Do they become dependent on the humans for their daily meals (Will they become conditioned & no longer fearful of the hand that feeds)? Will they “nest up” in the area since it provides an abundance of food? How does this affect competition? Most importantly, what would happen if all of the sudden the fishermen stopped feeding them!?
Process: Based on my daily observations at Site 1, 2 & 3, I believe that the higher number of wildlife species & frequency of observation of these species at Site 1 fish gutting station is located (plus the limited fear of multiple dogs in the area) can only be assumed to be due to these species primal desire to feed, in conjunction with their new dependence on being fed daily (hand fed in some cases). It has been noted than many sea birds are now nesting in the area, and the otters appear to have created their land burrows close to the shore of site 1. Lots of scat observed here.
Hypothesis: The increased variety & sheer number of species drawn into Site 1 is due to the abundance of food provided daily from the humans using the dockside gutting station.
Prediction: 1st-In site 1 specifically, multiple species are now dependent on the easy food source & supply provided by humans. More species may start to gather in the area, causing problems with domestic animals (dogs) & humans. A perfect example of how this has become a problem is at Fisherman’s Wharf, here in Victoria -last year a small child was mistaken for food while sitting on the dock, & she pulled into the water by a Sea Lion! Yikes. Never the less, she was ok & humans are no longer allowed to feed fish to the seals & sea lions at Fisherman’s wharf.
2nd-The ingrained fear that multiple wild species naturally inhabit will decrease in the presence of humans & dogs, leading to future occurrence of interaction & “conditioning” of wild animals, leading to more run ins with wildlife & potential issues for these wild species.
Response Variable: This appears to be a human made manipulative experiment
Explanatory Variable: This appears to be a Regression variable. It is continuous, as long as the humans continue to supply the food to the wildlife.
