Category: Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

Ongoing Observations

TRU Open Learning 3 Comments

The organism that I would like to study is the Wolf Willow (Elaeagnus commutata). I chose three areas that are along the Bow River in the southwest of Calgary, Alberta that have a large population of E. commutata. The first area (1) was between two pathways, and a medium distance from the river; the second area (2) was at a much higher elevation than the river, close to the river; and the third area (3) was at a higher elevation than the river and far away from the river.

The plants that were closer to the river in area 1 appeared to be taller, and still had some berries present on the tallest branches. I didn’t bring a measuring tape but the plants here are taller than I am, so they are at least 6’ tall. The plants in area 2 were around 4’ tall, and much more abundant than either of the other areas. Only a few scattered berries were present, again on the tallest branches. In area 3, the furthest from the river, the plants were quite short – only around 2’ – and there were no berries present.

It’s unusual to see berries on plants during winter, but the wolf-willow’s berries seem to remain throughout the winter and into the spring. They are a pale silver colour.

From these observations I hypothesize that the growth of E. commutatais heavily reliant on a nearby water source. I predict that the tallest E. commutataplants will be in close proximity to the river. The responding variable would be the average height of the plants, which is a continuous variable. The explanatory variable would be the adequate water present in the form of the Bow River.

Ongoing Field Observations (#3)

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment
I have chosen Rosa acicularis (prickly rose) as the organism I will study. It is common throughout the southern Yukon and can be found easily in most areas that have not been heavily developed. Around pumphouse pond, the area I have chosen to conduct my observations, I have observed this rose in various densities and morphologies. It appears most frequently along the sides of walking trails, power-line clearings, cleared lots, and at the edges between undisturbed and developed sites. It appears infrequently in the midst of stands of tall coniferous trees, far from trails and other disturbances.
Almost everywhere I found Rosa Acicularis growing, I also found Rhododendron groenlandicum (Labrador tea), though the inverse was not true. In fact, in many of the darkest, wettest parts of the forest, where prickly rose was least abundant, Labrador tea had grown leaves and appeared to be further in its seasonal development than in areas where the prickly rose was more abundant, where Labrador tea was still bare.

One area in particular, on the top of a bank at a clearing to the east of pumphouse pond, had a thicker-than-usual stand of rose bushes, most of which were above average in height, interspersed with fire weed (Chamaenerion angustifolium), a known pioneer species.

My hypothesis is that Rosa acacia is also a pioneer species which tolerates and/or requires many of the conditions present early on during a secondary succession. I predict that a random sample of plots representing gradients which include regimes of light, moisture, and inter-species interactions, will reveal discrepancies in the size and abundance of rose bushes.

Potential predictor variables include: light exposure, moisture regime, and other species present (# and type). Response variables include rose plant abundance, average plant height, and average fruit density. I am curious to see if, with sufficient replicate plots, any of these predictor and response variables can be specifically related to each other. For the sake of simplicity, all three predictor variables will be categorical, and all response variables will be continuous.
I will continue to use pumphouse pond as a general study location, though I will apply a grid over a map of the area and divide it into blocks which contain disturbances (roads, trails, developments) and blocks which do not, and randomly select an equal number of each category to sample 10 or more randomly selected sub-plots with respect to the predictor and response variables listed above. 

Blog 3

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

The organism I have chosen to study is the Western Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum), a common fern found in the Pacific North West region.  The fern is commonly found in moist, mild and shady environments.

The reason I decided to study this organism is that it is commonly found throughout Pacific Spirit Regional Park, however there were some locations on within the gradient of study that I observed fewer sword ferns present. At the creek site (Site 2), on the west bank of the stream there were fewer ferns, however on the east bank of the stream there were many more. The ferns at the interior site (Site 1) appeared to be more vigorous and larger than the ferns at site 2. Site 1 is located amongst large coniferous trees and it appears that less light makes it through to the forest floor. This is an environment that would suit sword fern growth so I would predict that the ferns may grow more vigorously or have greater abundance at this site compared to the creek site (site 1). The banks of the creek are relatively open to the sun as the creek runs south and the trees at the edge of the forest have been thinned or cleared as the creek passes beneath the road. I would expect that this site, although moist, the sun exposure may affect the sword fern growth. I did notice that the ferns were more prevalent on the east side of the creek than the west side, and again this may be due to the sun exposure the different banks experience.

I hypothesize that the fern growth will be greater in the more shady areas of the forest as measured by crown count per unit area, and frond length. I am also interested in counting the density of spores to determine if that also varies by site. The explanatory variable will be the amount of light at each site classified as high and low. The response variable of crown number/ plot and frond length will also be continuous variables.

Sample of field journal entry including observations of different sites.

Blog Post 3

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

Blog Post 3

My hypothesis is that when considered in a small scale residential garden setting; insects, isopods, and arthropods increase in diversity and abundance when there is a diversity of plants and ground cover (large woody debris/rocks).

I predict that I will find a diverse range of insects, isopods, and arthropods in the diverse garden setting that are not present or are greatly reduced in the relatively uniform grass lawn setting, despite that the grass lawn setting contains more cover overall.  I expect to find this diversity in and immediately around the plants and ground cover, but not on the bare earth in-between the plants and ground cover.

A potential response variable will be an increased abundance and diversity of insects, isopods, and arthropods in the diverse cover setting.  I think that this will happen because the range of habitat and food source options are greater in the diverse setting and that this can support greater abundance and diversity in insect, isopod, and arthropod populations.

I have chosen to sample the plants, and ground cover (large woody debris/rocks) in the more diverse setting as one collective group (diversity).  I will also sample the bare earth in-between plants and ground cover in this setting (lack of diversity) to determine if any recorded diversity is isolated to the plants and ground cover within this setting.  The final sample will be the grass lawn (lack of diversity).

The response variable is continuous because it is a count.  The predictor variable is categorical, which is the type of cover.

There has been a long history in ecological literature which suggests that things which provide habitat or food (plant and ground cover diversity) correlates with diversity of the things that need or consume them (insect, isopod, and arthropod populations) (Hutchinson, G. 1959).

It is possible that plant diversity alone is not sufficient to determine a link between increased plant habitat or resources and increased insect diversity.  A bottom-up approach or an examination of various trophic levels in the environment suggest that things like nutrient availability, or plant pathogens, among others, could have cascading effects that influence things like population density and diversity in insect populations (Hunter, M., & Price, P. 1992).  It is also possible that the size of the area is too small to provide a meaningful effect.

For the purposes of this study, I will focus on using a generalized definition of plant diversity and ground cover which does not include nutrient availability, the presence of pathogens, water availability, etc., but rather focuses on the quantity, characteristics, size, and distribution of the plants and structures.

Observations:

April 24, 2018

1:30 pm

Weather: Sunny, 19 degrees

I have observed two funnel web structures on two separate pieces of wood that simulate a fallen tree branch and rotting stump and one caterpillar on a sword fern plant (diversity).  I have not observed anything in the lawn setting, despite there being more overall cover (lack of diversity).  I have also not observed anything in the bare earth patches between the diverse plants/ground cover.

 

Uniform grass cover

 

Funnel webs

 

Uniform setting vs. diverse setting

 

Caterpillar on sword fern

 

Field note tally

 

References:

Hunter, M., & Price, P. (1992). Playing Chutes and Ladders: Heterogeneity and the Relative Roles of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Forces in Natural Communities. Ecology, 73(3), 724-732.

Hutchinson, G. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals? The American Naturalist, 93(870), 145-159.

Blog Post 3

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The organisms which I plan on studying are Canadian Geese, B. Canadensis, and Ryegrass, L. perenne. I will be observing effects that the Canadian Gooses grazing habits have on the growth and success of the Ryegrass. I have chosen to study this at the location near McMaster University, as it is nearby my home and is easily accessible. I believe that the feeding habits of Canada Geese in the park area greatly damages the growth and success of the Ryegrass, as they feed specifically on the roots. I predict that the areas in which the geese feed will have much higher percentages of bare spots and damaged grass due to the grazing behaviour. The potential response variable in this study is the Ryegrass and the explanatory variable is the geese feeding behaviours. The response variable is continuous in nature as it will be measured in m2 and then converted to a percentage of the area of the different test sectors. The predictor/explanatory variable is categorical in nature as it depends on the presence or absence of the geese feeding in the control areas. Given this information the experiment will use a ANOVA design with a one-way layout that compares the health of the grass in grazing and non-grazing areas.

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

I had gone to Gambles pond again on March 25 to observe the behaviour of the animals around.

I have decided to focus on 3 species:

The Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)

The Redhead Duck (Aythya americana) 

The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)

While I may focus more on the Mallard duck – I think that collecting data from the other two species would provide good data for consideration. I am interested in a couple of factors about the ducks in particular. Why do they seem to avoid one section of the pond and do they change how they behave during different times of the day or at different temperatures. As I saw in my previous blog posts, I noticed a small animal that looked like a muskrat swimming around in the shallow section. Perhaps the main reason the ducks are more prevalent in the centre of the pond is to avoid potential predators. However, there is a walking path, and ducks seem to migrate there when people are present. This may be to get food from people. So to investigate I will have to stay away from the edge of the water.

I hypothesize that: Anas platyrhynchos prefer to be in the open of a body of water.

I predict that: The number of Anas platyrhynchos in the middle of the pond will be higher than at the edges.

The predictor variables: land, shallow water with foliage and deep water (categorical).

The response variables: Number of Anas platyrhynchos present (continuous).

Attached are my field book notes: Ongoing Field Observations_Drayden Kopp

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

October 20th, 2017

Sunny with clouds, 8 degrees Celsius (greenhouse temperature is between 24-29 °C)

The organisms I intend to study are Tagetes patula (marigolds) are used to represent a non-weed plant species, and Taraxacum officinale (dandelions) are used to represent a weed species. I am testing the effect that restricting light exposure has on the competition between weed and non-weed species.

I do not have a gradient from which to observe and record changes in my study as I am performing my experiment in a laboratory setting and growing plants in pots. I am testing two conditions: exposure to light (the sun) versus limited exposure to light. Light exposure is my explanatory variable.

I hypothesized that restricting light, with all other variables as equal as possible, will negatively impact the growth of marigolds greater than dandelions. I believe this will occur due to the face that the weedy characteristics of dandelions such as fast growth rates and early maturity will allow the species to outperform the marigolds in adverse conditions.

I predict that restricting the amount of available light (my explanatory variable) will negatively affect both the marigolds and dandelions, however the marigolds more drastically. The weedy characteristics of dandelions will result in beneficial features such as longer roots, more leaves and greater total biomass than the marigolds. A potential response variable in this experiment could be the root length of dandelions. I believe it will be greater in dandelions than in marigolds due to the quick root development of weeds . The number of leaves on marigolds and the total biomass will be greater than that of dandelions, because of the rapid growth rate of weeds.

In this study, the growth of the plant species (root length, number of leaves etc) will be the response variable and exposure to light will be the explanatory variable. This data is therefore considered continuous as there can be a spectrum of growth observed.

*I apologize I do not have access to my field book and therefore cannot post pictures*

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

I have decided to observe the three sites described in blog post 1 on Thompson Rivers University (TRU) campus. I plan to study how bird species differ across the different sites on TRU campus depending on the topography and vegetation of each site. I will be observing the three different sites and recording the bird species that are present. It can then be determined how the bird species distribute and their approximate abundance throughout the TRU campus.

Here is a copy of the sample data retrieved on March 21. It outlines the various bird species observed at each site

I predict that bird species will distribute differently throughout the TRU campus. Based on this prediction I then hypothesize that each site of study on TRU campus will have a different dominant bird species that is associated with that area. The species abundance at each site can then be utilized to determine the dominant species.

In this study, the bird species will be the response variable and the site of study will then be the explanatory variable. The response variable (particular bird species) will then be a result of the area of observation (explanatory variable). This data is considered to be categorical or discrete.

 

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The organism that I plan to study for this research project is Nucella lapillus or commonly known as dog whelk. As per observation dog whelks are small and their shell colour is creamy brown. Upon walking around the beaches, I observed that the dog whelk shells are less pointy at Castle beach compared to Jetty beach and the shell size is also smaller at Castle beach than Jetty beach; the aperture of the shell is broader at Castle beach than Jetty beach.

The three locations that I selected are the upper shore, the middle shore, and the splash zone at both shores. I noticed that the dog whelks on the upper shore of both beaches were fairly distributed and not very abundant compared to the middle shore of both beaches. The middle shore had a high distribution and abundance of dog whelks at both Castle beach and Jetty beach. The splash zone had the lowest distribution and abundance of dog whelks at both beaches. The reason dog whelks are mainly found in the middle shore may be due to the balance in emersion and immersion and the decrease in harshness of the environment. The upper shore and splash zone may have harsher environments, so the dog whelks may move to the part of the shore that is the middle ground for survival. I hypothesize that the exposure to wave action influences the length to aperture ratio of dog whelks. Thus I predict that the length to aperture ratio will be smaller in the exposed beach. Based on my hypothesis and prediction a potential response variable is the length to aperture ratio of the dog whelks. A potential explanatory variable is the exposure to wave action on the shores of Castle beach (exposed) and Jetty beach (sheltered). The response variable is continuous and the predictor variable is categorical.

Ongoing Field Observation

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

Hypothesis: How does living moss population growing the the trunks of trees differ among trees that are sheltered, partially sheltered, or exposed to the weather?

Prediction: There will be a high population of moss on trees that are sheltered.

Response variable: moss population

(categorical)

Explanatory variable: trees snow/ rain fall exposer

(categorical)