Category: Percy Hebert

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

a) The source I have chosen to evaluate is Herbicide, fertilization, and planting density effects on intensively managed loblolly pine early stand development by authors Gabriel Ferreira, Benjamin Rau and Doug Aubrey.

b) This source is classified as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

c) As per the How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information Tutorial in module 1, in order to determine whether a paper is academic or not three criteria must be met. First that the text in question is written by an expert in the field, second that it includes in-text citations and finally that it contains a bibliography. The authors’ affiliations with the University of Georgia and the USGS New England Water Science Center (Ferreira et al. 2020) ensure that the first criteria has been met. Furthermore, in reading through the paper they make use of several in-text citations and include a full bibliography.

In regards to whether the paper is peer-reviewed or not, the authors acknowledge that there were two anonymous reviewers (Ferreira et al. 2020) at the end of the paper in the “Acknowledgements” section. This classifies it as a peer-reviewed paper.

Finally, again as per the How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information Tutorial, the inclusion of “Methods” and “Results” sections distinguishes this paper as a research paper.

References

Ferreira G, Rau B, Aubrey D. 2020. Herbicide, fertilization, and planting density effects on intensively managed loblolly pine early stand development [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 20]; 472:118206. Available from:https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/science/article/pii/S0378112720309750#s0100 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118206

Tutorial: How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information [Internet]. Kamloops, BC: Thompson Rivers University [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from: https://barabus.tru.ca/biol3021/evaluating_information.html#1

Blog Post 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The area that I have selected for my field research project is the Erlton/Roxboro Natural Area in Calgary, AB (Figure 1). Located in the heart of Calgary, it is designated as a natural park. This designation specifies the importance of maintaining its natural flora and fauna by the city. This area, covering approximately 13,300m², comprises a hill leading to an upper ridge with an elevation change of about 27m.

Figure 1.

Roxboro & Erlton off-leash dog park flanks the base of the hill on the west side and there are two main walking trails. One trail leads up the side and across the upper ridge while the other meanders horizontally across the slope about 50% of the way up. Other nearby features include a children’s playground, tennis courts, a cemetery, the Elbow River and residential communities. As an important side note, the city of Calgary has posted a sign regarding upcoming herbicide application against dandelions and other broad leaf weeds.

 

I visited the area on 10/07/2020 in summer at 11:15 until 13:00. The weather was 22°C and mostly sunny. On the day I visited, the top of the ridge was bathed in sunlight while the lower half was shaded, primarily due to the canopy of larger trees (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The forest floor at the bottom of the slope was marked by a labyrinth of fallen logs and grass (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Further up the hill, the underbrush of the forest was more dense with greater varieties of grass and wildflowers (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Just before the slope levels out at the top, the incline sharpens and reveals patches where the ground is more eroded (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

The top of the ridge is flat and riddled with wildflowers, grass, shrubs, and trees (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Another noteworthy feature is a small spring at the midpoint of the slope that trickles down at the southern end.

On this day, I noted a lot of noise emanating from the surrounding streets, playground, dog park and local construction.

Birds were seen primarily throughout the more forested areas both on the ground and in the trees, sometimes feeding on garbage. Bees were seen among the wildflowers, and I also identified what I believe to be bobcat scat. Among the flora and fauna, several species were identifiable including:

Black-billed magpies (Pica hudsonia)

Northern flickers (Colaptes auratus)

Black knot (Apiosporina morbosa) (Figure 7)

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense)

Siberian peashrub (Caragana arborescens) (Figure 8)

Canadian violet (Viola canadensis)

Figure 7.
Figure 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions:

  1. Does the amount of time birds spending foraging on the ground differ statistically across varying proximities to anthropogenic related noise?
  2. How significantly does the angle of the slope impact a tree’s seed dispersal radius?
  3. How significantly different is soil moisture retention between steeper vs. flatter sections, and/or sunnier vs. shadier areas? How might this impact biodiversity in those zones?

Sources of Scientific Information re: 16 Oaks Community Garden

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The jumping point for establishing a novel insect biodiversity case-study analysis of potential impacts from contaminated soils in an urban community garden ecosystem at 16 Oaks Community Garden comes from a research article published in the Journal of Soil Sciences and Plant Nutrition.

The article in question titled “Soil assessment for urban agriculture: a Vancouver case study” was written by G.A. Oka, a Masters of Science student at the University of British Columbia Soil Science program, coauthored by L. Thomas, and Dr. L.M. Lavkulich, faculty members of the same university in 2014.

Using the assessment matrix, “Tutorial: How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information” included in the course materials, the article is considered academic in nature due to field expertise of its main author. This process is further supported by the research articles successful submission for publication in an academic journal. Using in-text citations to establish sources of external information, the article supports its academic purview using a listed reference section at the end of the article publication. However, the article is not refereed and therefore is classified as academic non-peer reviewed article.

G.A. Oka, L. Thomas, L.M. Lavkulich. (2014). Soil assessment for urban agriculture: a Vancouver case study. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2014, 14 (3), 657-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162014005000052

Post 4: Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

 

  Systematic  Random  Haphazard 
Fastest estimated sampling time  12 hrs 38 mins  12 hrs 45 mins  12 hrs 30 mins 
Percentage error Eastern Hemlock   

((520-469.9)/469.9)) *100 

10.7% 

 

 ((479.2-469.9)/469.9)) *100 

1.98% 

 ((583.3-469.9)/469.9)) *100 

24.1% 
Percentage error Sweet Birch   

((124-117.5)/117.5)) *100 

5.5% 

 

 ((120.8-117.5)/117.5)) *100 

2.8% 

 ((166.7-117.5)/117.5)) *100 

41.9% 
Percentage error Striped Maple  ((0-17.5)/17.5)) *100 

100% 

  

((12.5-17.5)/17.5)) *100 

-28.6% 

 

 ((20.8-17.5)/17.5)) *100 

18.9% 
Percentage error White Pine   

((4-8.4)/8.4)) *100 

-52.4% 

 

 ((0.0-8.4)/8.4)) *100 

-100% 

 ((20.8-8.4)/8.4)) *100 

147.6% 
Accuracy  Moderate accuracy for common species 

Poor accuracy for least common species 

  

High accuracy for common species 

Poor to very poor accuracy for least common species 

 

 Poor accuracy for common species 

Moderate to very poor accuracy for least common species 

 

Of the three sampling types, haphazard had the fastest sampling time but only marginally. It was 8 minutes faster than systematic sampling and 15 minutes faster than random sampling. I would expect random sampling to have the longest estimated sampling time as this can be a difficult method to carry out under field conditions. None of these estimated sampling times would give me enough information to choose which sampling method would be appropriate for a given project to reduce time costs. Possibly with a larger sample size (>24) the estimated sampling times would show greater variance amongst the sampling methods, providing better information to make a decision for project cost. 

To calculate percentage error, I based this calculation on the information provided for density (not frequency or dominance). The percentage error for the two most common species (Eastern hemlock & sweet birch), haphazard had the highest percentage error for the sampling method. This is to be expected because the plant community is more heterogeneous which tends to offer more biased, unrepresentative estimates. Random sampling offers reliable estimates with the least amount of bias and as a result, had the smallest percentage error for the two most common species. 

The two least common species had large variations in accuracy of density. The percentage error for density may be showing such variations as White Pine and Striped Maple are typically small species in terms of basal area (or diameter at breast height). This would cause a disproportionate representation of density and it may have been a better idea to calculate percentage error on dominance and not density. Dominance provides the total basal area of a given species within the unit area of the community. 

Species abundance does not appear to heavily influence percentage error accuracy in my findings, it only affects the result from overestimates and underestimates. Possibly with a larger sample size, this error would be greatly reduced. Using a species-area graph would have helped with sample size, ensuring that species richness is represented but once the graph starts to level off (no more addition of new species) no more additional samples are needed. 

Random sampling had the greatest time estimate but it also had the highest accuracy for the density of common species. I also appreciate the lack of bias in this method and would tend toward this sampling method. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog 3: Ongoing Field Observations Lost Lake

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

PROCESS 

Each visit I had to my chosen site left me wondering what attribute to study. At a certain point, I thought that identifying mosses and their location based on limiting physical factors of water availability would be a great way to increase my abilities to identify mosses. However, I couldn’t define a pattern – just that moss grows everywhere around Lost Lake, including underwater. I also want to make sure that I stay on the trail system as much as possible to avoid damaging undergrowth or acting contrary to park rules. I am in a populated area and my actions may be copied by a park user unknowingly.  

The next organism that I noticed, are conks! I am only seeing the conks growing in one stand of trees on the west side of the lake in a square area of about 25 m2. This is now the organism I have decided to study as I noted its presence heavily on the west side of Lost Lake but nowhere else around the Lake.  

HYPOTHESIS 

The distribution of conks growing on trees at Lost Lake is limited to tree species and is determined by tree health.  

PREDICTIONS 

I predict I will find conks growing on only one tree species in all sections of the tree (lower third, mid-third and top-third) and that I will find conks on trees that have obvious signs of health decline (diminishing canopy, excavation by wildlife, browning needles, severe lean). 

POTENTIAL RESPONSE AND EXPLANATORY VARIABLES 

My predictor variable is tree species (type). My response variables are the conks (presence or absence) and tree health (good or declining). Both the predictor and response variables are categorical as they are classified into one or more unique categories. 

 

 

Blog Post #2

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

My source of ecological information is on Beaver Assisted River Valley Formation. The link to this scientific source is: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1359

This information source is academic peer-reviewed research material. I know that it is an academic source because it is written by experts in the field (writers are affiliated with a university), it includes in-text citations, and has a bibliography. I know that this source is peer-reviewed as the acknowledgements thank Kevin Devito, Jill Johnstone and two other anonymous reviewers for their comments on their early draft. Finally, I know that this is a resource source because it reports the results of a field study (has methods, results, discussion; etc).

Blog Post #1

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The area I have chosen to study is in Dawson Creek, BC. I am studying the forest and creek alongside the Dawson Creek walking trail. The creek winds through the walking trail and goes through the city park. My area of study starts near the Dawson Creek Public Library and continues through Kin Park. The Dawson Creek trail follows the creek for about 4.5 kilometres.

 

My first trip out was on 14/07/2020 at 9:50. It was about 20°C out and sunny. There was a little bit of wind. 

The main area of the creek I focused on was behind the public library. This area is in walking distance of my home, making it a convenient place for me to study.

The creek was low, despite the extreme flooding there was last week. The steeper areas of the creek bank are free of vegetation. All of the plant life on top of the slope is in full bloom.

Observations:

I observed a couple of beaver dams, which led me to wonder what time of the day I was most likely to spot a beaver. I also wondered if they were more likely to chew down certain trees rather than others.  I saw a few tree stumps that had chew marks in them. I also saw a bunch of mud by the creek that had been walked over, but I couldn’t make out any obvious footprints.

 

 

Next, I observed some flowers with bumble bees on them, which lead to me wondering whether or not they were more likely to pollinate certain flowers rather than others. I also noticed that the blooming flowers were pointing toward the creek and  I wondered whether or not there was a reason for this. Some flowers/planst I observed were:

  • Prickly Wild Rose (Rose acicularis)
  • Western Aster (Symphyotrichum ascendens)
  • Wild Lupin (Lupinus Perennis)
  • Cows Parsnip (Heracleum maculatum)

I observed some Cows Parsnip by the creek. They became more abundant as I got closer to the creek. I have heard that the sap inside of these can cause burns. The plants I saw and measured were around 58 inches tall.

I could hear lots of birds, but saw very few. Three birds that I saw were the:

  •  Black-billed magpie (Pica hudsonia)
  • Small Brown Bird (Unsure of species)
  • Crow (C. caurinus)

Due to my study area being near the public waking trail and park, there were many signs of human activity. There were plenty of human-made trails that went down to the creek.

Some potential study subjects for my project are:

  • Beavers (Caster canadensis)
  • Bumble bees (Bombus spp.)
  • Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum)
  • Black-billed magpie (Pica hudsonia)

Three questions that could possibly help to form the subject of my research project are:

1. Do beavers have a preferred tree species? How is tree selection changed by availability and human activity? What effect do beavers have on the surrounding environment due to their activity? How does flooding effect them?

2. Which wildflowers are bees most likely to pollinate? Is there a specific species or colour that they are more attracted to?

3. Why is there fewer signs of vegetation near the water? It gets slightly less green as you go further down the slope. The giant hogweed, however, becomes more abundant as we near the creak. What is it that makes this species better suited to survive than every other species in the area?

Scan of my field journal:

Scan

 

Blog Post 4-Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Blog Post 4: Sampling Strategies

Using three sampling strategies in the virtual forest tutorial for the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area, the “simple random” sampling technique yielded the fastest sampling time. I would consider more than 24 plots, as I feel more data might yield more accurate results. I feel that the accuracy of the abundance is not enough to form any conclusions-I would increase the number of sample points for both.

(E-T)/E*100=percentage error

Rarest Species:

Eastern Hemlock Distance: Simple random Distance: Systemic Distance: Haphazard
PERCENTAGE ERROR 53% 3% 25%
Sweet Birch Distance: Simple random Distance: Systemic Distance: Haphazard
PERCENTAGE ERROR 84% 82% 11%

 

Most Common Species:

Striped Maple

 

 Distance: Simple random Distance: Systemic Distance: Haphazard
PERCENTAGE ERROR 105% 100%

 

 8%
White Pine Distance: Simple random Distance: Systemic Distance: Haphazard
PERCENTAGE ERROR 327% 100%

 

 100%

 

The most accurate sampling method was haphazard for both the rarest and the most abundant.  Accuracy appears to decrease with species abundance.

The haphazard method appears to yield more accurate results. While the times vary considerably:

Random: 1 hour, 24 minutes

Systemic: 4 hours, 59 minutes

Haphazard: 4 hours, 31 minutes

I might consider the random technique if I had a small team and a large distance to cover.

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations
I have decided to do a presence/absence study of frogs, in 5 locations in a 251.54 km² area of Prince Edward Island.
Prince Edward Island has been farmed for over 200 years, removing over 90% of its natural Acadian forest throughout the 20th century. Since the 1990s, there has been more of an emphasis on restoring native, Acadian species to the land, increasing buffer zones to protect waterways, and increased monitoring of the native species on the island. Many areas have undergone restoration to increase native species and restore fish passages that had been previously cut off from poor management practice like hanging culverts and filling in ponds. The field of study are five locations within the south shore of Prince Edward Island. All these areas are under some kind of management, and some have had considerable restoration work. Others have been left alone; however, they are all near active farming sites, as farming makes up a third of the industry on Prince Edward Island, covering 42% of the island. Based on location to farming sites, I expect to see/hear more frogs the farther they are from active farming sites. Heavy nitrogen and phosphorous levels may impact the number of breeding individuals at a site. I fully expect to see/hear frogs throughout the breeding season, however, I predict they will be more abundant in sites with less effluent from farming. I plan on returning after sunset for 5 locations every two weeks to collect audio and other data from the sites.

assignment 1-data set
Response Variable: Presence of frogs
Explanatory Variable: Categorical next to farms; Continuous-time and date of study
Reference:
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/agriculture-and-land/agriculture-on-pei

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The biological attribute that I want to study is soil, specifically soil texture along a slope gradient.

During my site visit to the grassland area I noticed that the site was distinctively broken into two zones: a steep slope section and a gentle slope section. The steep slopes are ≥ 25% while the gentler slopes are ≤ 18%. I decided to capture this transitional gradient by selecting 2 plots on the gentle slopes and two plots on the steep slopes to observe the soil textures in these two different slopes.

In texturing the four soil samples along the gradient I found that the two plots on the lower slope were both Silty Loam textures while the steep slope plots were both Sandy Loam textures. The higher percentage of sand in soil, the courser the soil.

Initial Hypothesis and Prediction: My hypothesis is that Slope % impacts soil texture results. My prediction is that the steeper the slope percent, the courser the soil texture results will be. Specifically, I predict that slopes ≥ 25% will have higher percent sand compared to slopes ≤ 18%.

Note: Vegetation type and vegetation cover can also impact soil texture, therefore I will be collecting data on both of these variables at each plot in subsequent data gathering.

Blog Post 3

 

Response Variable: Soil texture (Continuous)

Explanatory Variable: Slope % (Continuous), Vegetation type (Categorical), Vegetation Cover (Continuous).

 

References: Soil Triangle – https://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=bfebc043b5a546deb9d381e36742407d