Category: Robyn Reudink

Post 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

Date: 14/05/2021

 

Time:  4:30 PM

 

Weather: 26 °C, Sunny, Humidity: 34%, Wind: 14km/h

 

Location: King’s Park in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

 

Topography: beside the bank of the Red River Lake

 

Vegetation: Forest + grassland

 

Observations:

The site that I chose to conduct my research in is King’s Park Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is a park and residential subdivision located on the Western side of the Red River bank. The park includes walking trails, an off-leash dog park area and marshland and some ponds creating edge habitats.  The space is about 592 x 270 m.

 

As I entered the park, the first tree species that caught my eye was White Spruce trees. Following the trail, I noticed the most abundant tree species to be Jack Pine trees. As I walked around the park, I noticed some ponds some of which were dried up next to the off-leash dog area. There are many different species of shrubs that can be seen near the forested area by the lake. Some of the shrubs that I identified are the Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Common moonseed (Menispermum canadense), Poison Ivy, Garden Rhubarb, Common lilac, and Mercurialis perennis. Other species that can also be found at King’s Park are the Red-winged black bird, ground squirrels, and monarch butterflies. As I was walking through the forested area, I noticed a high abundance of different types of worms hanging from strings. Some of these worms were also seen on the ground since their strings might have been cut off due to human disturbances.

 

Questions:

 

  • Which shrub species dominate the area and what are the reasons behind it?
  • What are the anthropogenic effects on the lifecycle of worms?
  • Do the tree species composition change from the entryway of the park towards the forested area near the river?

 

blogpost1 

Post 9: Field Research Reflections

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

It has been a whirlwind of effort to design and implement a field experiment in a few weeks. One of the main issues that arose during implementation was that there were far more fern fronds per plant than I expected. To manage this issue, I limited the number of fronds I measured to ten per fern as that is what I could fit into my notebook, and that would hopefully have the power of statistical analysis. As I wanted to maintain consistency across all the treatments and samples, I decided that I would start with the frond closest to me at the top of the fern and move in a clockwise direction until I came back to the first fern at which point I would move to the next level down. I had also intended to look at whether the fern had fern neighbors as a way to look at density, but these results did not show any significant patterns. I think the better alternative would be to put down quadrats to determine the number of ferns in the area. Additionally, my lack of botanical knowledge was certainly a detriment to my experiment as I could not determine diversity or species richness around the ferns or even among the ferns. If I had the knowledge, I would have examined the other species around the ferns to get a better idea of the competition. Lastly, if I had the tools, I would also have measured the soil for moisture and Nitrogen content in each of the locations.

This field experiment has altered my appreciation for how ecological theory is developed. I appreciate how much effort and time goes into all the studies which help build ecological theory.

Post 8: Tables and Graphs

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The graph was relatively painless to create as I had set up the data with clear predictor and response variables and had produced a graph predicting the results when I was developing the methods and determining the hypothesis. The most difficult part of creating the graph was coming up with a descriptive title for the graph and labels for the variables.

The outcome of the graph was as predicted and supported my hypothesis. In general, the data did not reveal anything unexpected with the exception of an insignificant result from four data points where the fern frond was eaten by something. When I was averaging my data, I removed these data points as they added factors that were outside the experimental design. It is interesting, however, that the eaten fronds were only found in the partial shade and shaded conditions, which leads me to think that maybe the organism that ate them only lives in shaded forest areas. To investigate further I would need to look at more fern samples and see there were more ferns eaten as well as look for the organisms that eat ferns.

Post 7: Theoretical Perspectives

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Based on my research so far the theoretical basis of my research is competition, niches, and succession. The areas I am researching have at one point been logged and so I am observing different levels of succession where the forest on the west side of the ridge has recovered from the logging event whereas the east side of the ridge has not recovered and is currently impeded by urbanization. The ferns are dealing with various levels of competition and different communities and so fill different niches in each treatment condition and have evolved to thrive in each niche to compete with the other plants. In addition, there is likely a difference in diversity between the three treatments since old-growth forests may have more diversity than areas that have had a more recent disturbance. This means that high diversity would be expected on the west side of the ridge as opposed to the east side where the logging has been more recent. Furthermore, the ferns may have evolved so that ferns in the forest have bigger leaves in order to collect more sun versus the ferns in the sunlight condition, which have smaller leaves as they can easily collect sufficient sun for photosynthesis. 

Some keywords that summarize this project are as follows: ferns; Tracheophyta; vascular plants; competition; niche; community; succession; Pacific Northwest; ridge; Galbraith Mountain; sunlight; shade; logging; new growth forest; urbanization; diversity; disturbance. These words were chosen based on the research I have conducted so far for this study as well as descriptors of the subject and its locations.

Post 6: Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Field data was completed today. In total there are 30 replicates with 10 replicates of each condition. One of the issues that arose was that a few of the fronds sampled were eaten by insects or animals and so were shorter than expected. When processing data, these frond measurements will be excluded as they were shorter due to factors other than the amount of sunlight. Another problem I encountered was that it was exceedingly difficult to balance my lab notebook and measuring tape and so I acquired the help of a friend to record the measurements as I read them aloud. A third issue I encountered was trying to avoid stepping on other flora when walking towards and measuring the ferns. Otherwise, the data collection went relatively as indicated in my experimental design. The refinement made during the initial sampling was very helpful in making this process smooth.

One trend I noticed was that the eaten ferns tended to be in the shade treatment. While this does not change my hypothesis or alter it in any way, it is interesting and likely a result of the fact that the plants prefer the dense forest to sunlit urban backyards. Another factor I noticed is that the temperature is cooler in the woods than in the sunlight and I wondered if this was a factor in fern growth. Lastly, I noticed that in the shaded area there are a lot of plants and fungus including ferns, moss, trees, lichen, and other plants whereas in the semi-shaded area there was less variety of plant life as much of it lives on the edge of human activities. The sun area appeared to have a greater variety of grasses and other leafy green plants as opposed to the trees, moss, ferns, and lichen of the shaded forest. This does not change my hypothesis, but could potentially be a factor in accounting for the differences between the treatments.

 

Blog Post 5: Design Reflections

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The initial data collection in Module 3 was done on a sunny afternoon. The sampling strategy chosen was to randomly choose ferns using random compass directions and random footsteps between 1 to 15. This was done in each of the areas chosen for study: full sun, partial sun, and shade. The data recorded was the number of fronds on the fern and the length of each frond. The fronds were measured with a flexible tape measure, which allowed for me to measure the frond from the very bottom of the stem to the tip of the leaf. The difficulty in my method of data collection was that I realized just how many fronds that ferns have. I ran out of space in my notebook, having planned for only 10 fronds. I immediately changed my technique when I realized that there were a lot of fronds so I sampled the first ten fronds starting with the frond on top closets to me and then going around in a clockwise direction until I reached that first frond again at which point I went to the second level of fronds and I continued in such a manner until I reached 10 fronds. 

I was surprised that the shaded ferns seemed at a glance to have more numerous and longer fronds. I was similarly surprised that the partial sun fronds tended to have fern neighbors in contrast to the ferns in the sun condition. 

As stated above, I had difficulty with the number of ferns and so adjusted my strategy. While I think that there is some bias in this method, I think that using the same method for measuring fronds will limit the bias. I think that this will improve my research as it means that there is a consistent process for measuring fronds. The randomization of selecting ferns appears to have worked, although I needed to be careful on the steep slope on the west side of the ridge and at times would have to repeat the random selection so I did not walk over a cliff. Otherwise, the method appears to be working well.

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

The organism that I plan to study is the fern. I wonder what conditions ferns thrive, whether they grow better in sunny areas, semi-shaded areas, or shaded areas. The idea would be to look at the length of fern leaves and compare them across the different gradients.

I live on one side of a ridge and on my side where my house is, there is a large sunny yard, at the top it is semi-shaded, and on the other side it is completely shaded by old growth trees. The three locations along the gradient are the one area in my yard, which is near the top of the hill, and then following along the transect moving to a semi-shaded area at the top of the hill, and then moving along the transect down the other side of the ridge which is heavily treed. In the sunny area and in the shaded area there appear to be a lot of ferns, which are densely packed. Similarly, in the woods where there is no sunlight, there are similarly a lot of ferns. In the semi-sunlit areas there are also ferns, but not as densely packed. Having attempted to remove ferns from the yard, I observe that they are relatively tough. 

I hypothesize that the amount of sunlight positively impacts the growth of the ferns. I predict that the ferns will grow bigger in the sunlight areas because they thrive off more light. 

One potential response variable is the length of fern leaves and the explanatory variable is the amount of sunlight. The response variable is continuous and the explanatory variable is categorical meaning that it would be an ANOVA design. 

Post 4: Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Sampling Strategies

The sampling techniques used in the virtual forest tutorial were the systematic sampling, the random sampling, and haphazard sampling. The technique that had the fastest estimated sample time was the systematic sampling along a topographic gradient at 12 hours and 36 minutes. The random sampling took just a little bit longer at 21 hours and 43 minutes, and the haphazard sampling took the longest at 13 hours and 4 minutes. It is unsurprising that the systematic sampling took the least amount of time as the experimenter would be moving along as transect instead of wandering randomly around.

The percent error of the different strategies for the two most common species, Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch, and two least common species, the Striped Maple and White Pine, were as follows. The percent error for the Eastern Hemlock was 12.2% for the systematic sampling, 8.2% for the random sampling, and 10.7% for the haphazard sampling. The percent error for the Sweet Birch was 38.7% for the systematic sampling, 29.1% for the random sampling, and 32.8% for the haphazard sampling. The percent error for the Striped Maple was 8.6% for the systematic sampling, 4.6% for the random sampling, and 54.3% for the haphazard sampling. The percent error for the White Pine was 100% for the systematic sampling, 48.8% for the random sampling, and 100% for the haphazard sampling. 

Table 1. Sampling Error (%) for the two most common and two least common species.

Sampling type Eastern Hemlock Sweet Birch Striped Maple White Pine
Systematic Sampling 12.2% 38.7% 8.6% 100%
Random Sampling 8.2% 29.1% 4.6% 48.8%
Haphazard sampling 10.7% 32.8% 54.3% 100%

The accuracy decreased drastically in situations where there were limited species, such as with the White Pine where systematic and haphazard samples had errors of 100%. This was not the case, however, for the Striped Maple where the percent error was very low for the systematic and random sampling, although it was high for the haphazard sampling. The accuracy likely increases with greater abundance as there are more samples and so a greater difference between estimated and actual is needed in contrast to limited samples where the existence or absence of a few samples can change the sampling error.

Overall the four species in Table 1, it appears that random sampling was more accurate than systematic sampling and haphazard sampling. Haphazard sampling was more accurate than systematic sampling where there was a greater population, but had a greater percent error for the Striped Maple and the sample percent error for the White Pine. 

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Evaluating the source of scientific information

I will be examining the source Levin, M., Jasperse, L., Desforges, J.-P., O’Hara, T., Rea, L., Castellini, J.M., Maniscalco, J.M., Fadely, B., and M. Keogh. 2020. Methyl mercury (MeHg) in vitro exposure alters mitogen-induced lymphocyte proliferation and cytokine expression in Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) pups. Science of The Total Environment 725: 138308. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138308.  Based on the “How to evaluate sources of scientific information tutorial”, this source is categorized as academic, peer-reviewed research material. This decision was determined based on the following qualifiers. First, the article is written by experts in their field who are affiliated with institutions and are paid to research or have published in the field previously. As shown in Figure 1, all the authors are affiliated with an institution.

The article includes in-text citations and a bibliography with approximately 51 sources, which indicates that it is academic material. The source has been peer reviewed, which has been implied by the fact that the article was received by the publisher, revised and resubmitted, and then published (shown in Figure 2). Moreover, as per the journal’s policy, Science of The Total Environment has a peer review process, which is laid out for their authors here (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/science-of-the-total-environment/0048-9697/guide-for-authors). In short, the journal requires a single blind review process—where the authors do not know who the reviewers are—in which after being checked for suitability by an editor, two independent expert reviewers are called upon to review the paper. 

Next, the source reports the results of a lab study completed by the author and contains both Methods and Results sections, which indicates that it is a research study (as opposed to review material). Therefore, this source can be categorized as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

Post 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Galbraith Mountain is located in Washington State approximately 33 km south from the US-Canada border and approximately 5 km east of the Pacific Ocean (Bellingham Bay). It is a mountainous area of approximately 12 km^2 (3000 acres). The mountain is partially a public park and partially owned by Galbraith Tree Farm LLC (a logging company) and is used for both recreation and logging. The mountain is more of a foothill with 544 m (1785 ft) of elevation gain. There are many peaks and valleys throughout the mountain, which makes it a good place for mountain biking. 

As there is logging there are some areas that are covered in older trees, some areas that have been clear cut and mostly contain shrub-type plants and rocks, and then there are areas where new growth is apparent with straight rows of trees. Many slugs, squirrels, chipmunks, deer, and birds live on the mountain. A mountain lion considers the mountain as his territory, although he is rarely seen and sadly will not likely be part of this study.

Since the mountain is so large, I will focus only on a small subsection focused on the north side, which starts at the end of Birch Street and, for the purposes of my study, ends where the trail Mama Bear starts. The reason for this limit is because it is what I can reasonably cover on a walk and it covers a wide range of habitats depending on what I wish to focus on. 

I visited my chosen area on June 7, 2020 at 15:00. The weather was warm and dry despite the rain last night at 18°C (63°F). It was cool in the shade and there was no faunal activity on the Ridge Trail with the exception of one of the squirrels who enjoys playing on our trees and fence. The ferns were growing like crazy in the open and shady areas, but they were less dense in the sun. There were no slugs on the Ridge Trail, but there were a few trying to cross the sunny trails–some were unfortunate and had expired from human activity. It was strange to see slugs crossing the trails in the sun and heat–I usually only see them during the evening and in the early morning. 

When I reached the top of the SST Road I saw many bees helping themselves to the abundant clover. You could hear the bees buzzing throughout this clear cut area/meadow. The clover varied in size from approximately a few centimetres to approximately 10 cm. It was abundant near the trail, but as one looked further from the trail, the clover gave way to larger plants including foxglove, which is in full bloom both white and pink, and what I think are mountain geraniums–little pink flowers on red stems–as well as bushes that I could not identify. There were a few small brown birds that hung out on the trail, but would fly into the bushes as soon as they saw us. There were also a few dragonflies (blue) hanging out on the trail in a sheltered, but open area. 

Based on all my observations three questions that could form the basis of my research project are:

  1. Where do ferns thrive? 
  2. What plants do these slugs love enough to be outside in the sun? What plants do these slugs avoid? Why are they thriving in my backyard?
  3. What sorts of plants thrive in the clear cut areas? What invasive species have taken over and pushed out the native species?