My sampling strategy involved planting seeds of marigold and dandelion species. I did not face major difficulties in implementing my sampling strategy other than acquiring the materials I needed (such as dandelion seeds from the wild). These difficulties were mostly time consuming and did not inhibit my sampling strategy and therefore I do not plan to modify my approach.
A surprising result was when I noticed there was a higher germination rate for marigolds than for dandelions. I think this could be attributed to a source of error in planting the dandelions. The dandelion seeds may not have been placed correctly into the soil and therefore may have had difficulty germinating. Additionally, the dandelion seeds were picked from the wild whereas the marigold seeds were store bought. This difference in quality may have affected the germination rates as well.
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 Taraxacumofficinale (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*
Smith, L. S., Broyles, M. E. J., Larzleer, H. K., & Fellowes, M. D. E. (2015). Adding ecological value to the urban lawnscape. Insect abundance and diversity in grass-free lawns. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(1), 47-62. 10.1007/s10531-014-0788-1
The article is published by Springer Netherlands in the Biodiversity and Conservation journal, which is international. Springer is recognized as an established publisher in the academic field. The Biodiversity and Conservation journal has an impact factor of 2.265, which is an indication that it is a well respected journal.
This paper is non peer-reviewed academic material.
-It was written by experts in the field who are associated with the School of Biological Sciences from the University of Reading, in Reading, UK
-There are numerous in text citations and a full bibliography of 78 references.
-The paper includes results from a field study that they completed and has supplemental information to show the study area and how the study was carried out
-There is a section for their methods and their results
Had this work been peer-reviewed (or labelled as such if it was), it would be Academic, peer reviewed research material.
Notes on whether or not it is peer reviewed:
Using the University of Victoria’s online library, the article is listed as peer reviewed. However, when attempting to verify this through the information provided about the journal and the article from Springer, there is no mention of the peer review process or that one was done.
Springer does engage in the peer review process, and for this particular journal, they do have an “editorial manager” program for authors and reviewers ([http://www.editorialmanager.com/bioc/default.aspx]).
The journal has an editor (David Hawksworth), however, there is no available information from Springer that lists this journal -or the article- as being peer reviewed, nor is there any indication of any referee other than the editorial process.
The area chosen for study is located at 777 Oliver St. in Oak Bay, British Columbia. The area contains 3 closely linked micro ecosystems that are situated in an urban residential environment. Oak Bay is in the Coastal Douglas fir biogeoclimatic zone. This zone is the most at risk zone in BC and it has the highest concentration of rare and endangered species in Canada (District of Oak Bay, 2014).
The first site visit occurred on the first day of spring (March 20, 2018) at approximately 1:00 pm. It was mostly sunny with a temperature of 10 degrees and light wind.
Site Details:
Two study area ecosystems are located in the front of the property. The rear study area is separated by the two in the front by a residential home. The study areas at the front of the property are West facing and end at the city street, which has a low volume of traffic. The total area of both is approximately 7 metres long by 11 metres wide, with each being about equal in size. This area is roughly split in half by a pathway that separates a predominately native plant garden from a typical grass lawn. The garden contains approximately 38 native and 9 non native plants, trees, and shrubs. Additional plants are assumed to be present below ground in a dormant stage. Both sides are contained by asphalt driveways.
Front yard – Both sites March 20
Front yard native plants March 20
Front non-native grass March 20
The rear of the property is East facing and is approximately 14 metres wide by 24 metres long. It is primarily moss covered, with some remnant occurrences of non-native grass in the central location. One large Garry Oak tree is present, which dominates the area by crown cover. The moss/grass is contained by a small buffer on 3 sides consisting of spruce, birch, cedar, plum, ash (sapling to immature size) and low shrubs of wild rose, snowberry and others that appear to be non-native. The remaining side is contained by the rear of the house and a cement pad.
Back yard entire site March 20
Back yard North facing hedge March 20
Back yard South facing hedge March 20
The overall topography of the entire site is flat, with a gentle slope of < 1 metre from the front of the property to the back. Early signs of leaf development on some trees and shrubs was present, while the remainder of species appeared to be dormant.
Field notes March 20 (rough guide for location and tally of species)
Purpose:
I am interested to see if there is any advantage to wildlife in an urban garden setting that is dominated with native plants. Two possible controls exist, with one being adjacent to the primarily native garden, which is a typical lawn ecosystem that is typical in the neighbourhood. A further control exists in the back yard, which is also fairly typical for the neighbourhood except that it is bordered on 3 sides by a large number of native plants and trees.
One concern is that the ecosystem in the back yard (containing roughly 20% native plant/tree cover compared to roughly 85% native plant cover in the front yard) will be over-represented with visits from wildlife or insects because it is not influenced by the pedestrian or vehicle traffic that the front yard receives.
A possible question to consider is the scale of the primarily native plant garden, which is quite small in comparison to the total property size. It is possible that it is too small and sub-optimally located for any measurable effect on wildlife or insects.
Aside from wildlife, including birds, it may be more suitable to focus the study on the activity of insects alone, which may be less affected by the location of the native plant garden. However, there have been previous wildlife observations that suggest it may be possible to observe wildlife visiting various parts of the property.
A possible complication is the seasonality. With the start of spring, it could be that more wildlife or insects appear throughout the study area and duration due to the changing season alone. It is my hope that the control of a non native grass lawn area adjacent to the primary interest of study -the native plant garden- will be sufficient to determine if the native plants are attracting more wildlife or insects.
I am also interested to see if the native plants self-reproduce and increase in abundance or if the non-native species reproduce and encroach on the native plant garden.
Reason for interest in the study / Possible outcome
When I bought my house, I dug up the front lawn and planted mostly native plants, except where a couple of existing ornamental plants/trees were established because it was my intention to increase habitat for local wildlife.
My current intention is to do the same to the remaining land on the property. The removal of non-native species is a future consideration.
I am interested to know if there is any measurable effect on having a native plant garden at this current size and condition, which is less than 2 years old. A previous study that is related showed that insect activity was not increased by small scale additions of native plants and that they in fact preferred non-native plants (Matteson, K. C., 2011).
Having a similar study area, I am curious to see if there is a similar effect in the region where I am located, which is different from the study area that Matteson looked at. If there are significant observations that wildlife or insects prefer the non-native species which are present, I would consider keeping them for that value and re-cosnider an all native plant garden for the rest of the property.
References:
District of Oak Bay, 2014. District of Oak Bay Official Community Plan. Retrieved from: [https://www.oakbay.ca/sites/default/files/ocp/2014/OakBay-OCP-Final-Website-dec0414.pdf]on March 21, 2018.
MATTESON, K. C., & LANGELLOTTO, G. A. (2011). Small scale additions of native plants fail to increase beneficial insect richness in urban gardens. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4(2), 89-98. 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00103.x
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.
I have decided to revise my original Observations Blog Post as my final project has changed. After much thought of the different ecological areas in Kamloops, I decided to observe three distinct areas on the Thompson Rivers University (TRU) campus. Each of these areas are slightly different with the first one being a small wooded area, the second being an open grassland with a few ornamental trees lining the area and the last being a garden with high densities of various flowers, trees, shrubs and wildlife. I visited each site on March 21, 2018 at 10:30am in which the weather was slightly overcast with a breeze. I spent thirty minutes at each site observing their various attributes. Each site visited on the TRU campus had different organisms that gravitated to that specific site. This had me wondering why are the specific organisms, especially birds, attracted to particular sites? I also noticed that the weather was slightly different at each site. It’s important to understand that the weather changes were rather minimal, however, one site was more windy than the other two or one site would receive more sunshine than the other two sites. This had me wondering if the minor weather changes played a role in determining which species preferred which site? Lastly, even though all of the sites were on the TRU campus I noticed how they significantly differed in their landscape. This had me wondering how does this occur? Each site I looked at were all within a 5 minute walk of each other so how does the landscape vary to such a degree within a confined space. Furthermore, due to each site having its own distinct features does that determine which organisms are able to thrive better in one area compared to another?
Below are visual representations of each sited observed within the TRU campus:
Mohn Mill, sampled 10 quadrants using haphaᴢard, Area method: total time was 5 hr.s 20 minutes. Red Maple was the highest frequency species, error rate with red maple frequency was 61.5%.
Mohn Mill, sampled 10 quadrants using random/systemic, Area method: total time was 5 hr.s 19 minutes. Red Maple was the highest frequency species, error rate with red maple frequency was 12.09%
*Random/systemic Area method was 1 minute faster and much more accurate of the two. ______________________________________________________________
Mohn Mill, 10 samples using haphaᴢad, Distance method: total times was 2 hr.s 0 minutes. Red Maple was the highest frequency species, error rate with red maple frequency was 23.1%
Mohn Mill, 10 samples using random/systemic, Distance method: total time was 2 hr.s 2 minutes. Red Maple was the highest frequency species, error rate with red maple frequency was -9.9%.
*Random/systemic Distance method still had a higher accuracy but was 2 minutes longer of the two.
At 30 quadrants, Mohn Mill, Area, Haphaᴢard method had an error rate of -6.50%, measuring Red Maple frequency.
At 30 quadrants, Mohn Mill, Area, Random/Systemic method had an error rate of -2.198%., measuring Red Maple frequency.
At 30 samples, Mohn Mill, Distance, Haphaᴢard method had an error rate of 1.2%, measuring Red Maple frequency.
At 30 samples, Mohn Mill, Distance, Random/Systemic method had an error rate of -2.6%, measuring Red Maple frequency.
*Haphaᴢard Distance Method had the lowest error rate with Red Maple frequency at 1.2%, using 30 samples which seems unusual seeing that the Random/Systemic Area and Distance error rates were -2.198 and -2.6, quite similar and quite low. You would have expected the Random/Systemic methods to have superior accuracy even with the larger sample areas. But this was just one species and one variable, Red Maple frequency; more species, more variables, more quadrat, and more samples would be needed to draw more definite conclusions.
Upon reading the academic journal on territory, dispersal, and density of red squirrels, I discovered that the area they use in the forest is much smaller than what I have observed with my own squirrel Depending on habitat quality (food sources, aerial walkways, low predation rates, nesting sites), forest squirrels have a mean average siᴢe of <1 ha, but much larger 1.6-4.8 ha in times of food scarcity. As you will see in the photos, the red squirrel has an abundance of food sources, from spruce cones, douglas fir cones, pine cones, gardens, fruit trees, chicken coops (grain), maple trees (seeds), walnut tree, not to mention fungi, bird’s eggs, invertebrate, and juvenile mice. The sex of the squirrel is unknown but males and females are similar with the males being slightly larger. This squirrel has been here 2 years but I have not seen any young, yet. There is an abundance of trees for aerial walkways and and these trees also aid in protection from…
predation. Squirrels create “middens” throughout their territory and have one central “midden” where they store an abundance of food cache for winter. Predation is by weasel, martin, coyote, cat, dog, and all aerial predators (hawks, owls). I believe my woodpile is the central “midden” in this area.
I have broken up the territory into 4 environmental quadrants all ranging in siᴢe of approximately 1.5 ha. Taking into account where I have seen the squirrel travel, I would say his/her territory encompasses about 5 ha.
I have decided to focus on why the squirrel has chosen my woodpile in quadrant B, to make as his central ‘midden’. I will show it is the density of the conifer trees in this quadrant that brought this squirrel to be in my woodpile and not in woodpiles in the other quadrants.
The response variable for my project will be my woodpile. The predictor variable will be the conifer trees in the squirrel’s 5 ha territory. My hypothesis will be that the red squirrel chose my woodpile as his central “midden” because of the number of cone bearing trees in quadrant B.
I will be using these two academic peer-reviewed articles in my study of the red squirrel population density in an urban environment. I will be focusing on the food sources available and what in particular attracted this red squirrel to my wood pile.
“Does Density Reflect Habitat Quality for North American Red Squirrels during a Spruce Cone failure” by Mathew Wheatley, Karl W. Larsen, Stan Boutin. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 83, Issue 3, August 1, 2002. Pages 716-727.
“Species Habitat model for Red Squirrel’ Original model and ratings table prepared by Nicola Tribal Association, Edited by Les Gyug, Okanagan Wildlife Consulting, January, 2008.
I had originally planned to do my study on Haida Gwaii and I was a little too ambitious thinking I could identify lichens to genus level. I could successfully ID some to genus level but not enough to be consistent so, once I arrived in Victoria and decided to do my study at Mount Douglas Park, I broadened my study to just look at the three dominant lichen growth forms of crustose, foliose, and fruticose which I could easily identify in the field. I had to make two changes to my design, the first of which was eliminating the transect on the northern side of the park and instead doing two transects in the southern portion along the same trail. The northern side of the park had dense under story vegetation which would have been difficult to get through and sample trees and the tree community was different, having mostly red cedars whereas the southern portion was Douglas fir dominated. Site reconnaissance is important! The second change was that I had hypothesized too many things that would have made my sample design too complicated. I decided to keep my first two hypotheses that were that lichen distribution differed between tree aspect, and the second that lichen abundance differed between tree type (deciduous and coniferous). I ditched the third hypothesis that lichen distribution differed between the upper and lower forest.
Developing an appropriate experimental and sampling design was a challenge but what an incredible learning experience this has been. I now feel like I have a much more solid base of understanding when approaching scientific articles and understanding the varying methodologies and approaches to various problems. Clarity is incredibly important when defining research questions and study variables. Dealing with statistics is a mentally painful experience for me but it is such an integral part of ecology that I am really trying to understand, and this course helped me understand why certain statistical methods are used in certain situations regarding categorical and continuous variables. My appreciation for the work that goes into ecological studies has deepened, and I now have a much better understanding of how much planning has to happen before the actual field data collection.
I also thoroughly enjoyed learning more about lichens which are gaining more presence in the literature as important members of the ecological community. They fix nitrogen, cycle minerals, provide food and nest materials for wildlife, and can be used as indicators of air quality. They are fascinating and so beautiful to observe in the forest, and just like anything, when I learn the names of more species out there, my connection to that place and to nature as a whole deepens which I am always grateful for.
Thanks for your guidance throughout the course, Nancy!
