Category: Uncategorized

I designed an experiment to determine the nitrate and phosphate levels in water invaded by Parrotfeather. Furthermore, I wanted to determine a treatment for the invasive plant. This research was very insightful for me and helped me understand ecological processes at a higher level. I did encounter some problems in terms of carrying out the treatment in the field, which I understand I could not do due to legal reasons. However, with the help of scholarly articles and the results from the water tests performed, I was able to conclude the research with a suggestion on the treatment of Parrotfeather. Engaging in this research has increased my interest in environmental research especially for invasive species. I enjoyed the research and will be looking for a career in research. The unpredictability of biological research in the field is exhilarating. I enjoyed going to the field and collecting samples and performing tests, it felt very personal and I was invested in the research. I am proud of all that I have learned through this course and the research, I will continue to gain knowledge and keep updating my current research as well. I look forward to conducting more researched moving forward!!!

 

Table 1. Results from the nitrate and phosphate test done on water obtained from growth and no growth areas.

(-) indicates that the levels were too low to record, whereas (+) indicates levels signifying absolute presence.

Water sample	Growth	No growth
Nitrate test	–	+
Phosphate test	–	+

 

There was no trouble obtaining the data because the samples all followed a similar pattern, the no growth samples had more nitrates and phosphates and showed a reading in the photometer, whereas the growth areas had minimal amounts that were so minuscule that the photometer could not read the levels.

The results were as expected, where there was growth the levels of phosphates and nitrates were low because the plant uptakes the nutrients. Whereas, no growth samples had more nitrates and phosphates because the samples were collected far from the plant.

 

From the two visits, I got different samples of water from growth and no growth areas. 8 samples were collected each day, 3 no-growth and 5 growth samples.

I had no problems collecting the data, it was quite simple to collect the water samples in sterilized bags.

I have noticed that the water near Parrotfeather growth is a lot cloudier than the samples obtained where there was no growth.

The areas I chose for my research are two ditches located by the road outside 4791 Tolmie Rd in Abbotsford, British Columbia

The site was originally visted on July 4^th 2018

Time: 12:30pm

Weather: Sunny with minimal clouds

Temperature: 32°C

The ditches had water in them but they were covered with Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum). 

Parrotfeather is an invasive aquatic plant that forms a complex subsurface canopy.

The three hypothesis are:

1-Parrotfeather grows rapidly in stagnant water.

2-Wherever Parrotfeather grows, the nitrate and phosphate levels are lower compared to where it does not grow.

3-As the population of Parrotfeather increases, the population of the surrounding plants decreases.

The prediction is that as the population of Parrotfeather increases, the levels of nitrate and phosphate decrease in the water. Low levels of nitrate and phosphate levels in the water lead to the population of the other plants to decrease. Wherever there is Parrotfeather growth, the growth of other plants will be negatively affected therefore there will be lesser population of any other plant.

 

For this assignment, I used a distance-based method to compare three sample placement techniques (systematic, simple random, haphazard) within the Snyder-Middleswarth natural area. The systematic technique was the most time-efficient strategy at 4 hours 7 minutes, followed by the haphazard technique at 4 hours 24 minutes, and the simple random technique at 4 hours 39 minutes.

The two most common tree species were Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch, while the two most rare tree species were Striped Maple and White Pine. The percentage of error for each species is shown in the table below:

Species	Systematic % error	Simple Random % error	Haphazard % error
Eastern Hemlock	-9.6	53.4	-14.4
Sweet Birch	-47.2	35.2	9.6
Striped Maple	-49.1	-100.0	-54.3
White Pine	321.4	337.0	-100.0

Systematic sampling was the most accurate technique for Eastern Hemlock at -9.6%, while haphazard sampling was the most accurate technique for Sweet Birch at 9.6%.  Accuracy substantially decreased as species abundance decreased. Some sampling techniques failed to capture the presence of the rarest species: the simple random technique failed to detect Striped Maple, while the haphazard technique failed to detect White Pine. Detection failure, combined with the remaining data for the rarest species, made systematic sampling the most accurate technique for those species.

For most species, systematic sampling was the most accurate technique. However, when looking at accuracy for individual species, frequency and distribution would also have to be considered when trying to identify the most accurate sampling technique for each.