Category: Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Sept. 27 2017. 20 C. 13:00.

The area I have chosen to study, is a rather large area, home to and frequented by many plants and animals. Unfortunately, Northern BC is not normally blessed with pleasant springs (or summers, falls, or winters for that matter) and the season has been hot, dry, and smoky due to forest fires; not conducive to a decent growth season for plants, which may reduce the number of animals feeding, foraging and preying in the forest and wetland spaces. Luckily, as summer faded into fall, the fires were subdued by the hard work of firefighters and a large amount of rain.

Another benefit of the rain is that it turns the trails to mud and makes footprints, or tracks, easier to spot and identify. Besides the obvious human and domestic canine, there are also black bear and most exciting to me, moose tracks. Moose (Alces alces) are a large ungulate species that are hunted as game, parts of which take up much of the space in my family’s freezers and decorate the doorways of the city’s sheds and shops. I have chosen to study these animals, specifically their traffic and forage activity in the Vanway trail system.

I have documented moose activity in the area with the help of a game camera and the discovery of various tracks. I have also observed evidence of foraging various plant species. Although moose have preferred forage species, they will start to eat more staple and bulk food options as the weather gets colder, herbage withers, shrubs lose their leaves and snow begins to settle. It is my hypothesis that, because the moose have access to such an extensive, open trail system, that the used proportion of available forage will be much higher on the edges of the trail and will decrease as distance from the trail increases. The used proportion of available forage will therefore be a response variable, and the distance from the trail will be an explanatory variable. Distance from the trail is a categorical, or qualitative variable. The forage data will initially be categorical, as it will be recorded as a specific species and either ‘browsed’ or ‘not-browsed’, but it will later be extrapolated to a continuous value of proportion or percentage.

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

October 2, 2017 15:45

Sunny, moderate winds, 20°C

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

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

October 15th, 2017 – 0900-1030

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.

Field Journal Notes (Illustrations of Site 1,2,3 & species observed): Field Log Page 1 Field Log Page 2

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.

 

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Study Date / Time :  Oct 1, 2017 from 3:00 to 5:00 pm
Weather: Overcast with warm temperatures (±19○C)

I plan on studying the spatial distribution of invasive species within the ecological reserve, particularly along well delineated and abrupt edges with residential development.  The environmental gradients I have chosen are distance from the reserves edges to residential development and soil development (thickness and moisture regime) relative to the Coastal Douglas fir and Garry oak ecosystems.

During this field assessment I focused on assessing the south boundary, where the topography ranges from wide, gentle benches separated by bedrock hummocky terrain. “True” Garry oak zones appear to only occur on the bedrock hummocks, where soil thicknesses are generally less than or equal to 0.2m and are rapidly to very well drained. Although, it should be noted that some areas within the Garry oak ecosystems are actively being succeeded by Douglas fir.  The Douglas fir stands are found mostly on wide, gentle benches at lower elevations. These benches are mostly covered in a veneer (≤1.0m) of rubble and silt colluvium underlying a variably thin(≤0.3m) layer of organics.  In the southwest area of the reserve pockets of loose, sand marine deposits were found to underlie the aforementioned colluvium , cumulatively up to 1.5m thick.  In appears that the Douglas fir stands favour sites with thicker soils that are mostly well drained. Some small local areas with moderately well to imperfect drainage are also found on these benches.

While I have observed numerous invasive species so far during my field observations and past excursions I plan on narrowing the number species down to a select few. These include the most prevalent species:  Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle), Daphne laureola (spurge laurel), Senecio jacobaea (tansy ragwort) and Ilex aquifium (English holly).  It is currently early fall and some of the herbaceous plants are beginning to die off. This may lead to errors in further assessments.  For this reason, I likely will exclude Canada thistle and tansy ragwort from my studies.

During this field assessment I made some rough estimates of densities and / or cover class by percent for English holly and spurge laurel. Based on these observations there are notable differences in the distribution and abundance of invasive species between the two ecosystems immediately along the south edge adjacent to residential development.  Invasive species appear to have more successfully colonized the Douglas fir ecosystems, specifically  on benches and depressions with thicker soils. As well, there is a correlation between increased light availability due to gaps in forest canopy and the higher frequencies of invasive species.  In contrast, the Garry oak ecosystems have an abundance of light availability but appear to have less invasive species. It is thought that this is due to these areas having thinner soils with drier moisture regimes in comparison to the Douglas fir stands.

Hypothesis: The presence and abundance of invasive species in the ecological reserve is influenced by close proximity to the forest edges adjacent to residential development and the Douglar fir and Garry oak ecosystems.

My null hypothesis is that the distance from residential development and the two dominant ecosystems have no effect on the spatial distribution of the invasive species.

Response variable: Presence and abundance of English holly and spurge laurel.
Predictor variable: Distance from edges adjacent to residential development ; soil thickness  and moisture regimes.

          
Figure 1. Garry oak ecosystem with ~≤1.0% invasive species


Figure 2. Garry oak ecosystem adjacent to development


Figure 3. Daphne laureola seedling


Figure 4. Field Notes

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

During my initial field visit to Surrey Bend Regional Park I noticed that there appeared to be more bird activity (pattern) within the Wetland Complex area then in the Entrance Area. This was despite the fact that both of these locations appear superficially similar in that they are dominated primarily by grass species, and represent open landscapes. I am interested in examining how the composition of major habitat features influences bird species presence, therefore the organism I have chosen to study is the bird species present within these two habitats.

The site gradient begins at the parking lot and large mowed fields at the south end of the Entrance Area and runs approximately 400m to the north through the site. At this point it transitions into the Wetland Complex. I developed four observation locations along the gradient, two in the Entrance Area and two in the Wetland Complex. I used a systematic sampling strategy to randomly select the first observation point in each habitat along the trail that runs through them (acting as a transect). This was accomplished by using a random number generator to generate a point between 0m and 400m. The second observation point was placed 200m away from the first along the trail as this is the minimum distance required for independence between bird survey sites as outlined by the Resource Inventory Committee Standards. The sampling unit at each observation location is a point count survey where all birds seen and heard within a 50m radius of the observation point are recorded during a 5-minute period.

Entrance Area Point Count Survey Sites

 

Wetland Complex Point County Survey Sites

 After setting up these observation sites I completed my first round of official observations. The results of one observation in each habitat site can be seen in the data sheets below.

EA1 Point Count Survey Results
WC2 Point County Survey Results

During point county survey bird names are recorded in standardized acronyms to accommodate quick data recording, a list of acronyms can be found here:  https://www.birdpop.org/docs/misc/Alpha_codes_eng.pdf

Based on these more formal observations, my hypothesis is that grass species composition, and habitat features present within a site will influence bird species presence.

I predict that there will be a higher diversity of bird species present within the Wetland Complex where there are less anthropogenic influences. In addition, I predict that the bird species found within the Entrance Area will contain more generalist species whereas the bird species identified in the Wetland Complex will contain more specialist species.

The response variable in this observational study will be the presence/absence of bird species (categorical variable) present within each habitat.

The potential explanatory variables will include the percent cover (continuous variable) of the following coarse scale habitat features:

  • Agricultural Grass Mix
  • Wetland Grass Mix
  • Gravel/Mowed Grass (i.e.: cleared land)
  • Buildings
  • Open Water
  • Shrubs/Young Forest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Upon field observations, I have decided that the biological attribute that I plan on studying involves species distribution. I am eager to learn and understand how species distribution (specifically looking at percent coverage, abundances, and presence/absence) differs in diverse areas, such as near the pond, and forest compared to other areas.

Based on the surrounding, the environmental gradient will start from near the forest, the second point will be around the pond, and the third point will be on the other side of the pond. Underlying processes that may cause any patterns observed include, human disturbances and maintenance/landscaping (people walking on plants, kids running around, plants being mowed), species submerging into the pond, opened versus closed land areas, and of course, seasonality and climate change.

Upon observation, I noticed that there is a lack of growth of plants and grasses around the playground and along the paved pathways. In contrast there is a higher abundance of vegetation near the pond and outside as well as inside of the forest. There are also more insects found near the pond and forest.

Based on these observations, my hypothesis is that six plant species, Carex praegracilis, Andropogon gerardii, Gymnocarpium dryopteris, Elymus repens, Cyperus odoratus, and Sonchus arvensis differ in the location that they are found in Milliken District Park. A formal prediction based on his hypothesis is that the areas with less disturbances and more exposure to sunlight will host a greater number of these plant species, as compared to the areas with more disturbances and less exposure to sunlight. Thus, it is predicted that there will be species that are only found within the forest, species that are only found near the pond, and species that are found throughout both areas.

A potential response variable that I plan to use for my experiment is percentage coverage, measured at each of the three sampling sites. The response variable is considered continuous. In contrast, a potential experimental variable that I plan to use is the level of disturbance as a result of human activity/disturbance. With fewer disturbances, I believe that species will be distribution more throughout the park. The experimental variable is considered continuous. The predictor/independent variable would be the location of the vegetation present. This variable is also considered continuous.

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

After revisiting my site, I have decided to study Farlow’s seaweed (Farlowia mollis).

As I was revisiting the tide pools, I noticed that they all had different community compositions. Some species were present in almost all tide pools, whereas some were only found in tide pools that had a more consistent supply of “fresh” ocean water. Farlow’s seaweed was one of the species that was present in most of the tide pools. However, it seemed that its morphology varied between communities. Some of them grew very large, whereas others seemed unable to grow to any significant extent. I noticed that the smaller ones were found when Farlow’s seaweed was not a dominant member of the community.

These observations led me to think of competition between the different types of algae in the tide pools. It also led me to question Farlow’s seaweed’s ability to compete with other algae for nutrients. If other species were present that had the ability to out-compete Farlow’s seaweed for resources, then Farlow’s seaweed would not grow to a large size as nutrients would be limited.

My hypothesis is that the growth and morphology of Farlowia mollis is influenced community composition. I predict that Farlow’s seaweed will grow better in communities where it is higher in abundance vs more diverse communities.

A potential response variable would be the size of the algae (i.e. distance from base of algae to tip of longest branch). This variable is continuous, as a range of sizes can be measured.

A potential predictor variable would be presence of neighbours of different species. This variable is categorical.

Post #3 – Ongoing field observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

After revisiting my site, I have decided to focus my study on a pond in the area. The pond is not fed by the natural spring. The pond is mostly surrounded by paper birch (Betula papyrifera) with some white spruce (Picea glauca). The pond receives quite a bit of direct sunlight. I observed cattails (Typha latifolia), mare’s-tail (Hippuris vulgaris), northern watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum) common duckweed (Lemna minor), and bladderwort (Utricularia minor). I have drawn a picture of the location of the plants around the pond in my field journal. I estimate the pond is about 10m wide by 30m long.

I spent my time observing the aquatic insects in the pond. I am not practiced at identifying them (I’m more of a plant guy), but I did recognize a water strider, water boatman, and a snail. There were other small insects swimming in the pond that I could not identify. These aquatic insects are the organisms I am going to study. I took me awhile to figure out what I wanted to study about them. In looking for a pattern I noticed a lot of activity near the edges of the pond. When I disturbed the water with a stick they would swim towards the center of the pond. I wonder if they would be more numerous closer to the edge due to more light and plant growth. The limitation is that I am unable to comment much on what aquatic insects were present deeper in the pond, as the pond is dark towards the middle. But I researched aquatic food webs and since plants and algae provide shelter and a food base it stands to reason that most insects will be located near the edges of the pond. Another factor is that there may be insects burrowed into the soil which will need to be taken into consideration when sampling.

So, I hypothesize that the aquatic insect population will be mostly dispersed along the edges of the pond. The response variable is the dispersion of aquatic insects. The explanatory variable is distance from the edge/pond shore. I believe both variables are continuous.

Blog Post 3. Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 3 Comments

I visited the site continuously two days in a raw for continuous observations on July 25th and July 26th. As I mentioned in my first blog entry a specific interest was drawn to the local pollinator community. By the recommendation of local bee farmer, the time frame for observation was chosen to be between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. to observe adult individuals and then 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. to observe the training flights of the young.

The second flower garden was also observed on the territory of the island, as well as two other parks belonging to Kamloops were observed in order to formulate an adequate hypothesis. Two additional sites were the city parks. McDonald park is located in a suburb area without any corridors separating it from suburbs. Riverside park is located beside the business district and is a highly disturbed area with the busy railway tracks adjacent to the park. Species richness and abundance varied among the sites, but points within the site seem to correlate with each other in richness. It seems like there could be an interesting correlation between pollinators abundance and richness, and the surrounding area of the park where data is collected. Therefore, hypothesis to be tested is that Pollinators abundance and richness will vary among the sites that represent different levels of urbanization. With the higher level of development (concrete to green cover ratio, amount of human disturbance) pollinators communities are going to have decreased abundance and richness. One point to be noted is that there are many studies present about bees being attracted to the suburb areas because of high density of flowering plants in gardens. Therefore, it will be specifically interesting to see the pollinators response to the fact that one of the parks is separated from the suburbs by 4-meter stream and therefore is an island. The response variable will be the number of species observed at a site and number of individuals within each species. This variable is continuous.

The explanatory variable in this case will be the amount of development adjacent to the site, it will be a categorical variable consisting of two parameters concrete to green cover ratio, amount of human disturbance and will be represented on the scale from high and low.

  

 

Post #3 – Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

April 28, 2017 – Friday 12:00-13:30

Weather: 5.5 degrees C.  35 Km/hr wind.  No recent precipitation.  Snow still present on the North and East slopes.  Ice cover on Eskers Lakes, but Pond 1 is ice-free.  5 diving ducks on Pond 1 and ducks are present on the open shoreline of the lakes where snow and ice is melting.

Photo 1: Sparse Labrador Tea growing in the open.
Photo 2: Higher density and abundance under the spruce trees.
Photo 3: Labrador Tea growing at the toe of the hill under the spruce trees, and not growing on the hillside.

20170428_Field Notes

The organism that I plan to study is Labrador Tea (Ledum groenlandicum).  Walking along the bottom of the slope of Pond 1, the North slope has a lot of Labrador Tea, particularly under the canopy of spruce trees.  There is not a lot of pooling water on the North side as there is a constructed drainage ditch that reports to the wetlands proximal to Eskers Lake West.  Photo 1 illustrates the sparse occurrence of Labrador Tea in open areas with no canopy.  Photo 2 illustrates the difference in density and abundance when there is spruce tree canopy cover.

Walking along the 300 m stretch of wetland below the east-facing slope of Pond 1, there is a very obvious pattern of Labrador Tea growing in dense patches directly below the smaller spruce trees.  There is no drainage ditch along the East slope but there is also no pooling water.  Further towards Eskers Lakes, the distribution and abundance of Labrador Tea greatly decreases as the ground becomes more flooded.  Within the forested area Labrador Tea is beginning to grown green leaves.

Along the South-facing slope there are larger Englemen Spruce trees.  The abundance of Labrador Tea is low under the larger trees.  There appears to be a preference for the smaller Black Spruce.  Again, the spatial distribution of Labrador Tea is greatest in moderately well-drained soil directly under the canopy of smaller spruce trees.

Underlying processes explaining why Labrador Tea is greater in density and abundance directly below smaller spruce trees:

  • soil moisture – Labrador Tea does not appear to thrive in flooded or saturated soil conditions
  • Slopes – Labrador Tea does not appear to grow on steeper slopes, though aspect does not appear to be a factor

Hypothesis (Inductive): The abundance and density of Labrador Tea is determined by substrate moisture.

Prediction: Areas proximal to wetlands will have greater abundance and density of Labrador Tea than either the flooded areas of the wetlands or the well-drained slopes.

Null Hypothesis: Soil moisture has no effect on the abundance and density of Labrador Tea.

Response Variable: Labrador Tea

Predictor Variable: Soil moisture.

The response variable, Labrador Tea, is categorical (may measure as presence/absence) and the predictor variable, soil moisture, is continuous.  This appears to be a a Logistic Regression study design.