Recent Posts

Blog post 1

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I am choosing to do my field study in Mount Douglas Park, located in Victoria, B.C. I visited the park on February 6th, 2018, at around 12:30 pm. It was overcast, lightly raining at times, with a temperature of 8C. Mount Douglas Park is quite a large park, with an area of 188 hectares, and the summit reaches an elevation of 225 m (District of Saanich, 2018). From what I observed, the lower areas of the park are lightly rolling hills, with flat areas, and are covered in forest. The forest is predominantly douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and there are a few big leaf maples (Acer macrophyllum). The understory is dominated by Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) which I identified when I got home. The top of Mount Douglas Park transitions into a more open, rocky ecosystem with garry oak (Quercus garryana) and arbutus (Arbutus menziesii) trees, with scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) becoming prominent. Lichens tended to favour one side of the tree, which usually faced more open areas, but could be a NSEW preference. The Oregon grape leaves seemed to be smaller at the summit, and had a reddish hue.

The park is disturbed with a high presence of invasive species such as English holly (Ilex aquifolium) and English ivy (Hedera helix).

There are an infinite amount of possibilities here, but three areas that seem most feasible to explore are:

  1. The size of the Oregon grape leaves/plant is smaller in the open areas at the top of Mount Douglas, compared to the lower, closed forest.
  2. The green dust/or crust lichen prefers certain sides of trees, however the sides that the lichen prefers seems to vary in the park, therefore, is it a NSEW preference, or a light availability preference?
  3. Do the areas surrounding the heavily used trails have less species diversity (or more invasive species) than the less frequently used trails?

 

District of Saanich. (2018). Mount Douglas Park. Retrieved February 6, 2018 from: http://www.saanich.ca/EN/main/parks-recreation-culture/parks/parks-trails-amenities/signature-parks/mount-douglas-park.html

Post 1 – Initial Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

The area that I have chosen to study is a field that runs along the Bow River in the South of Calgary, Alberta. The Pine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is located here. The green space next to it, and which runs a long ways along the Bow River, is used by dog walkers (of which I am one) and some owners as an offleash area for dogs to run in. It is not designated as an offleash area by the City of Calgary. The region of the pathway that I walk runs approximately 6 km total, and is on a ridge slightly above the Bow River. A more accurate distance measurement must be made. The Northern stretch of path is more heavily wooded, with many plants growing around the path and on the hills that border the West side of the path. There is a smaller, secondary path that wanders down towards the river and then back up to the meet the main pathway. Walking South from the parking lots, the path is at a higher elevation from the river, and a steep rocky embankment makes it harder to access the river. Northeast of the parking lots there is a main access point to the river.

 

I go to this area at least once a day during the week with my dogs, but it wasn’t until the end of January that I brought my journal along with me. There are still many natural elements in the park, and more possible subjects to explore than I initially thought, as I had previously only thought about the dogs I was walking. There are many different species of plants, and I have observed ducks, hawks, deer, and coyotes in the area.

 

I brought my field journal with me on January 30, 2018 at 1030 hours. The weather was excellent that day: sunny and 7℃ with only about 1 cm of snow still on the ground. This is quite warm for the end of January, but was thanks in part to a Chinook blowing in.

 

Three questions that came to mind were:

  • Are there species of plants that are found only along the river, and not in areas that are farther removed from the river?
  • There are many wolf-willows (Elaeagnus commutate) along the pathways. The ones that are nearest the path are under 3’ tall, while the ones that are along the secondary pathway are well over 6’. Is this due to the proximity, either distance or elevation, from the river?
  • Are the plants on the islands in the middle of the river the same as those along the pathway that I walk, or are they different? Is this due to lack of human activity, or increased presence of wildlife?

Fish Production and Primary Productivity

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I have selected a paper titled ‘Fish Production Correlated with Primary Productivity, not the Morphoedaphic Index’ (Downing et al.,1990). This paper is classified as academic, peer-reviewed material. It is academic material because the authors are experts in this field and the paper includes in-text citations as well as a reference list. The paper was published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences which would require a peer-review process. This paper includes methods and results sections; however, no field or laboratory experiments were performed. The authors analysed data gleaned from previous studies to discover new correlations. Given the distinguishing characteristics between ‘research material’ and ‘review material’ detailed in the tutorial, this paper would technically be classified as review material; however, I argue that the statistically analysis methods were able to generate novel information, suggesting that this paper makes a contribution to ‘research’ as opposed to simply offering a review of findings by others.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f90-217#.Wmi2hainGUk

Post 9: Field Research Reflections

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

Designing and implementing a field research project for this class was a great way to provide practical experience in the work required, and difficulties encountered by a practising field biologist.While I had a concrete idea of what I wanted to study (impact of different habitats on bird species presence and abundance) it took quite a while to determine the correct location in which to implement this study to minimize confounding variables and ensure that the results between study sites would truly be comparable. I began my project at Stanley Park’s Lost Lagoon which would essentially be comparing species diversity and presence between 3 different sites within one habitat (Lost lagoon) with differing levels of anthropogenic influence.   The surrounding areas of the Lagoon were observed and evaluated for bird species presence and abundance along an urbanized gradient.

Once my study site was selected I had no real difficulty in implementing the project design (point count surveys within each of the three habitat types representing different levels of urbanization). However, despite all my sites being relatively close to one another it still took a considerable amount of time to visit two point count survey locations in each of the three sites on a number of different days. This really helped me understand the difficulty in ensuring that enough replicate samples are taken in a study to ensure that the data collected is truly representative of the conditions on the site.

This research project has given me an appreciation for the amount work and forethought that is required in developing and implementing successful research projects whose results can be robust enough to help develop and further the principles in ecological theory. Overall, it was an interesting hands-on experience that will give me insight as a future biologist.

Blog Post 8: Tables and Graphs

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

The results of my field data were easy to summarize and visually represent in tables and graphs. The bar graph I submitted summarizes bird abundance (number of individuals) observed at the three different sites along the urban gradient representing different levels of urbanization. I predicted that bird abundance would follow a gradient with the lowest number of individuals observed in the urbanized area (Site 3) and the highest number of individuals observed in the natural area (Site 1) . When I initially graphed this data I found that the highest abundance was in fact at the most urban site. However, further examination of the data indicated that this was due to the large portion of observations (roughly 2/3) in the urban area that consisted of seagulls and crows. As a result, the graph I created displays the overall abundance along the urbanization gradient but highlights the proportion of each bird species at each site so that the underlying trend becomes apparent, which confirms my prediction

.

Blog 7: Theoretical Perspectives

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

Blog Post 7: Theoretical Perspectives

The theoretical basis for my research project examines how varying levels of urbanization impacts bird species (especially seabirds) presence and abundance. To examine this, I’m collecting data on bird species presence and abundance (response variable) within three areas within Stanley Park that represent different levels of urbanization as determined by the percent cover of natural and anthropogenic habitat (explanatory variable).

Based on other research related to bird species presence and abundance along urban gradients (Tryjanowski et al, 2013) there theoretically should be a difference in the species richness and abundance between sites with the 3 levels of urbanization (West, South, East Lagoon). More particularly, the most urbanized sites should theoretically have the lowest species richness, and the most natural sites should theoretically have the highest species richness. It will be interesting to see where the results from my research align in this respect. While theoretically abundance should also be highest in more natural sites, previous studies (Tryjanowski et al, 2013) found that highly urbanized sites often have the highest overall abundance due to large flocks of a single species (Example, Large flocks of Seagulls and Crows near urbanized areas). Again, it will be interesting to see how my results compare to the other literature on the topic and if they align with the theoretical perspectives on bird species richness and abundance along urbanized gradients.

It is also important to think about how both species richness and natural habitat is examined and characterized. Theoretically, species richness includes all species, both native and non-native, but it might be beneficial to tease these categories apart. For example, if an intermediately urbanized site has the highest species richness but hosts exclusively non-native species then its value as bird habitat would likely not be comparable to natural areas where species richness might be lower but is dominated by native bird species. Additionally, when classifying habitat it is important to think about the impact native and non-native plant species play. While I won’t have the ability to examine these issues in my research project their theoretical impact on bird species presence and abundance, and the ways of evaluating overall richness and abundance do provide something to think about and will be mentioned in the final report.

Keywords: urbanization, Stanley park, bird species presence, bird species evenness, richness and abundance.

Citations

Tryjanowski, P., Sparks, T. H., Kuźniak, S., Czechowski, P., & Jerzak, L. (2013). Bird Migration Advances More Strongly in Urban Environments. PLOS ONE, 8(5), e63482. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063482

Post #4

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

Systematic, random and haphazard sampling techniques were compared in the virtual forest tutorial.

Systematic had the fastest estimated sampling time (12 hours and 7 minutes). Haphazard sampling was second fastest (12 hours 34 minutes) and random was the slowest (12 hours and 42 minutes).

The percent error is summarized in table 1. Systematic and haphazard produced similar percent error values for the two most common species (eastern hemlock and red maple).  Systematic sampling produced errors of 7.3% for eastern hemlock 15.6% for red maple. Random sampling yielded percent error of 1.57% for eastern hemlock and 51% for red maple.

White pine and striped maple were the least common. However, no method sampled either of these trees. The next least common were yellow birch and chestnut oak. Haphazard yielded the smallest percent error (4.3% for yellow birch and 5.13% for chestnut oak). Systematic was second best (14.8% for yellow birch and 15% for chestnut oak). Random had the highest percent error (33.9% for yellow birch and 61.5.0% for chestnut oak).

It appeared that systematic sampling became more slightly more inaccurate as species abundance decreases. Haphazard sampling was more stable, however it randomly had a very high error for sweet birch. Random produced the smallest error in entire tutorial for the most common species (eastern hemlock 1.57%), but produced more inaccurate results for all other less abundant species.

 

Table 1. Percent error produced by systematic, random and haphazard sampling in a virtual forest tutorial

System Random Haphazard
Species Actual Density Data Density Error (%) Data Error

(%)

 Data Error (%)
Eastern Hemlock 469.9 504.2 7.3 462.5 1.57 550 17.0
Sweet Birch 117.5 112.5 4.3 141.7 20.6 183.3 56.0
Yellow Birch 108.9 104.2 4.3 145.8 33.9 125 14.8
Chestnut Oak 87.5 66.7 23.8 33.3 61.5 75 14.3
Red Maple 118.9 137.5 15.6 58.3 51 125 5.1
Striped Maple 17.5 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
White Pine 8.4 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

 

 

 

Post 4 ; Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

In the online forest sampling tutorial given, I have chosen to do 1. Random sampling using area, 2. Systematic sampling along a topographic gradient using distance, and 3. Haphazard sampling using area. The Haphazard method had the fastest estimated time to sample at 2h38min, compared to 12h47min for the random sampling method, and 4h7min for the systematic sampling.

According to actual data, the two most common species in the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area were Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch. Let us use tables to compare the % error of the different sampling strategies for both.

Species Measures Actual

Data

 Data for

The Random

Sampling Method

 Data for

The Systematic

method

 Data for

The

Haphazard

method

 % Error

Random

Sampling

 % Error

Systematic

Sampling

 % Error

Haphazard

Method
Eastern

Hemlock

 Density 469.9 354.2 479.0 380 24.6% 1.94% 19.13%
Frequency 73% 71% 70.8% 80% 2.7% 3.01% 9.6%
Dominance 33.3 19.8 35.5 39.6 40.5% 6.61% 18.92%
Relative Density 50.6 44.0 54.2 43.2 13% 7.11% 14.62%
Relative Frequency 33.8 32.1 37.0 33.3 5.1% 9.47% 1.48%
Relative

Dominance

 44.4 45.6 53.6 54.7 2.7% 20.72% 23.2%
Importance

Value

 42.9 40.6 48.2 43.7 5.4% 10% 1.86%
Morisita Index 1.89 2.33 1.05 1.35 23.3% 44.44% 28.57%
Sweet Birch Density 117.5 41.7 64.5 60.6 64.51% 45.11% 48.43%
Frequency 43.0% 25% 29.2% 20.0% 41.86% 32.09% 53.49%
Dominance 20.2 5.1 11.3 8.4 74.75% 44.06% 58.42%
Relative Density 12.7 5.2 7.3 6.8 59.05% 42.52% 46.46%
Relative Frequency 19.9 11.3 15.2 8.3 43.21% 23.62% 58.29%
Relative

Dominance

 26.9 11.8 17.1 11.6  56.36% 36.43% 56.88%
Importance

Value

 19.8 9.4 13.2 8.9 52.53% 33.33% 55.05%
Morisita Index 2.27 3.20 0.00 5.00 40.97% 100% 120.26%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then, let us do the same thing for the two most rare species; Striped Maple and White Pine.

Species Measures Actual

Data

 Data for

The Random

Sampling Method

 Data for

The Systematic

method

 Data for

The

Haphazard

method

 % Error

Random

Sampling

 % Error

Systematic

Sampling

 % Error

Haphazard

Method
Striped Maple Density 17.5 0.0 18.4 60.0 NA 5.14% 242.86%
Frequency 6.0% 0.0% 4.2% 20.0% NA 30% 233.33%
Dominance 0.7 0.0 0.6 3.6 NA 14.29% 414.29%
Relative Density 1.9 0.0 2.1 6.8 NA 10.53% 257.89%
Relative Frequency 2.8 0.0 2.2 8.3 NA 21.43% 196.43%
Relative

Dominance

 0.9 0.0 1.0 5.0 NA 11.11% 455.55%
Importance

Value

 1.8 0.0 1.7 6.7 NA 5.56% 272.22%
Morisita Index 17.00 NA 24.00 5.00 NA 41.18% 70.59%
White

Pine

 Density 8.4 8.3 0.0 20.0 1.19% NA 138.09%
Frequency 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0% NA 400%
Dominance 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.4 22.22% NA 55.55%
Relative Density 0.9 1.0 0.0 2.3 11.11% NA 155.55%
Relative Frequency 1.9 1.8 0.0 8.3 5.26% NA 336.84%
Relative

Dominance

 1.2 2.5 0.0 0.6 108.33% NA 50%
Importance

Value

 1.3 1.8 0.0 3.7 184.62% NA 184.62%
Morisita Index 16.13 24.00 NA NA 48.79% NA NA

 

For the Shannon-Weiner diversity index (not shown in above tables), the most accurate measure was the one given by the random sampling method using area which was giving the exact same figure as actual data: 1.5. However, looking at the % error for the two most common and two rarest species, accuracy greatly varies within the three sampling strategies depending on the measure and the species concerned. For the Sweet birch, the % error was extremely high for all three methods, and in all measures. As for the striped maple, the systematic method was the most accurate, given that the random sampling method did not account for any tree of that species, while the % error of the haphazard method was considerably higher than for the systematic sampling. Finally, the random sampling method was the most accurate for the white pine species. Its percentage error was noticeably lower than in the systematic sampling, and the haphazard method did not provide any data for the white pine. Before doing this tutorial, I was expecting that accuracy would increase in the same direction as species abundance, so I was quite surprised to see how far off were the results for the sweet birch species measures. After doing this tutorial, I realized that for an area as wide as the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area, it would have been preferable to use more than 24 samples for better accuracy.

H. Zulfiqar

Post #3: Ongoing observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

Date of observations: January 18 2018

Time: 11:00am

Location: Dallas Road pathway and Beacon Hill Park

Weather: Partly cloudy with light rain.  Medium wind coming from the SE (11km/h)

Temperature: 7C

 

I continued to make observations at Beacon Hill Park. Today, I opted to observe the environmental gradient between the exposed coastal bluff across from Beacon Hill, across Dallas Road and a sheltered Garry Oak ecosystem on the front face of Beacon Hill.  The gradient changes slightly in elevation as the distance from the ocean increases.

 

Today, I noted the change in appearance of the Nootka rose bush.  There were noticeably more dead, brown rose hips on the bushes closer to the ocean, then in a more protected area of Beacon Hill. This pattern prompted me to consider the Nootka rose bush for my research project.

 

Along the gradient, I choose 3 locations to observe the Nootka rose bush.  At the first location, Coastal Bluff (CB), the rose bush contained almost all dead, brown rose hips.  There were no other trees. It was the most exposed to wind. Some low-lying grasses were present.

 

The second location, Deciduous forest (DF), was between the Coastal bluff and Dallas Road.  There were substantially more red rose hips, in comparison to CB.  The rose bushes were more protected by large, deciduous trees and less wind was felt.

 

The third location, halfway up the front face of Beacon Hill (BH), was the most protected from the wind.  The elevation increased, and then plateaued. I found another patch of Nootka rose bush growing alongside Garry Oaks within a small depression. Almost all the rose hip berries were red.

 

I am curious about the relationship between the distance from the ocean and the Nootka rose bush.

 

Hypothesis: The number of red, living rose hips on the Nootka rose bush is determined by the distance it is from the ocean.

 

Prediction: Rose bushes further from the ocean should increase in the number of red rose hips on the Nootka rose bush, in comparison to brown, dead rose hips.

 

Response variable: The ratio of living, red rose hips to dead, brown rose hips

 

Explanatory variable: distance from the ocean

 

Figure 1. Page 1 from field journal

Figure 2. Page 2 of field journal

Figure 3. Topographical profile of environmental gradient