The source I found is “Reverse chemical ecology: Olfactory proteins from the giant panda and their interactions with putative pheramones and bamboo volatiles”, published in 2017 by Jiao Zhu, Simona Arena, Silvia Spinelli, Dingzhen Liu, Rongping Wei, Christian Cambillau, Andrea Scaloni, Guirong Wang, and Paolo Pelosi.
Link can be found : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01802949/document
This article is an academic, peer-reviewed, research article. It is an academic article because it is written by experts of that field, includes in-text citations throughout the article, as well as a bibliography at the end of the article. Stated near the top, the article was received for review before being approved, making this article peer-reviewed. And finally, since the article does have a detailed methods section to test their hypothesis, as well as a results section, this makes it a research article.
The area that I have selected to study is the oldest city park located in the heart of downtown Calgary, AB. I’ve chosen this area because it is easily accessible and I can visit when needed. It is often frequented by humans and animals (ie. dog, squirrels, and birds) alike.
The approximate size of the park is 100m x 170m (the average block size in Calgary), and is about 2 hectares (according to The City of Calgary). The park is flat with ornamental trees, shrubs, and seasonally planted flowers (all of which have been taken out now). It also has pathways, both concrete and rock, and houses a few monuments, two fountains and a library.
I visited the park Oct 9, 2019 at 4:00pm. The weather was sunny and cloudless with a slight breeze, and at a temperature of 3°C and humidity of 48%.
Throughout the spring and summer, the park had flourished more then other years. This summer, in particular, had much more rain compared to others and the humidity was, and still is, significantly higher as well. It has also begun a snow a couple time, earlier than when it usually snows in Calgary. Now during Autumn, after the second snow, the park is still green in some areas and quite decayed in others, in specific, the deciduous trees. There also seems to be the same amount of sunlight throughout the park, visible from the amount of snow that is left is similar in all areas. Lastly, I noticed that only two types of birds visit or stay in the park: Magpies and Crow. They would normally perch in particular tree, but will jump and walk along the grass and pathway below doing, what seems like looking for food. Squirrels are one of the only rodents in the park and behave in a similar fashion to the bird.
From my observations, these are the questions that came about:
As the park is well maintained by the city, how will the trees change along with the season? And how will that affect the birds and mammals that live there?
How does the humidity level, potentially due to increase rain and snow, affect the trees and greenery? It would also be interesting to see, due to snowfall and sunlight, how and if there will be changes in flora in the park?
Where the birds (Magpies and Crows) and squirrels particular to certain trees in the park because of habitats made in those trees, and/or if there is a food source nearby, and what that source is?
Davis, Neil, Rose Klinkenberg, and Richmond Nature Park Society (B.C.). Ecology Committee. A Biophysical Inventory and Evaluation of the Lulu Island Bog, Richmond, British Columbia. Richmond Nature Park Society, Richmond, B.C, 2008.
The PDF version of this study can also be found at: https://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Lulu_Island_Bog_Report48892.pdf
Comments:
This particular publication goes into great detail about the flora of Lulu Island Bog, as well as fauna, endangered species, hydrology, effects of fire, soils, etc. It was authored by multiple authors, many are experts in their fields, including a number of professors. It was edited by Brian Klinkenberg, O.L.S., M.Sc., Ph.D., and is an Associate Professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia, and Rose Klinkenberg, who graduated from the Ecology and Field Biology program at the University of Toronto. Each section and chapter of the report deals with different aspects of bog ecology, and provide introductions, methodologies, results, discussion and conclusions, along with extensive in-text citations and bibliographies.
Of particular interest is the fact that this report states that the effects of fire in the Lulu Island Bog have not been well documented and require further study (pg. 248). It also makes mention of Scotch heather as an invasive species that responds with increased vigor after bog fires have occurred (pg. 96). So it may look as though looking at the intersection of bog fire effects, and the invasiveness of Scotch heather may be a relevant and timely aspect of this bog’s ecology to focus on, especially seen as how it just experienced fire last year, and has had one years worth of regeneration since.
Wu Y, Luben R, Jones A. Dog ownership supports the maintenance of physical activity during poor weather in older English adults: cross-sectional results from the EPIC Norfolk cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;71:905-911.
Using the guidelines given in our course readings, I have classified this as academic, peer reviewed research material. The authors are all employed by the Cambridge Institute of Public Health and have published numerous studies in the health, chemistry, and behavioral ecology. The study notes that it was externally peer-reviewed though provides no further details as to who reviewed the study. The study also notes their methodology and results, leading me to believe it is a research paper, not a review.
The location I have chosen to observe is a small segment of Mill Lake Park in Abbotsford, BC. I chose to situate myself on the North side of the lake, at the fourth bench from the parking lot. The co-ordinates were N49°2’44.36117″; W122°18’51.40163″. The altitude of my area is approximately 33.4m.
The area is approximately 80 ft by 50 ft. It is comprised of a paved walking path, a grassy field area, a picnic table and bench area, a 2 ft retaining wall, and opens on to the man-made lake front.
Mill Lake, Abbotsford, BC
My first visit to the park occurred on Tuesday September 10, 2019 from 17:30-17:45. The weather was partially cloudy. Sunset was anticipated at 19:33 that evening. No rain was measured. The temperature was 20.1°C; humidity was 48.1%; pressure was 756.99 mmHg; and light was 3173 lux. During the 15 minute period that I was recording, I observed 53 people, 2 domesticated dogs, 3 bees, 32 ducks, and 33 Canadian geese. The ducks and geese were located in the water or on the shoreline before the 2 ft retaining wall. The people and dogs stayed predominantly on the paved walking path. The bees kept trying to land on my shirt but otherwise stayed air bound while I could observe them. The geese were the most vocal of all the animals observed. One would begin honking and then a group of 10 or more would take to the air, all honking and fly toward another group of geese who would respond in kind by taking to the air, honking, and then both groups would settle in new positions on the lake. The interaction appeared neither aggressive nor friendly.
I also observed several plant species though have been so far unable to identify any definitively. I believe that they include poplar trees, British Columbia fir trees, waterlily, and a bush that I was informed was called “Butterfly bush” – though a quick google search indicated that this could be any number of species.
I left the lake with several questions. 1) Why are the geese honking at each other? Is this play, territoriality, general communication of a threat, or aggression? 2) What are all of the plants in this area? 3) Will the populations of different species observed vary in correlation with the temperature or weather conditions?
This final question is where I believe I will focus my energies in this field study.
The location I have chosen to observe over the period of this course is very close to home (literally). I live in rural Ontario on my family farm. The 100 acre farm is situated in the town of Kincardine. Historically, home to dairy, poultry and beef cattle, but now primarily functions for cash crops. The property is partially forested with tributary creeks from the Penetangore River in the northerly portion of the property (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Shelton Family Farm Property (Lot 20, Concession 5)
The primary focus of this project will be the pond in the south easterly portion of the property (Figure 2). This pond was man made approximately 30 years ago. It has an approximate perimeter of 94.32 meters and surface area of 527.82 m2 (Figure 3). The depth of the pond is about 6 meters. Although a smaller study area then what has been chosen by other students in this course it is thriving with biodiversity. The pond goes through many changes from season to season, and evidently has become increasingly vegetated and overgrown in the last 5 years. (To be discussed in a later post with comparative air photos and hypothesis).
Figure 2: 2015 Air Photo of the Shelton Pond
Figure 3: Approximate Pond Measurements
In my childhood, as well as my mom and her siblings’ kids have spent numerous hours catching frogs, tadpoles, toads, salamanders, fish, and observing various birds and snakes thrive in this ecosystem. A variety of animal tracks indicate that it is frequently visited by deer, coyotes and racoons as well. I am keen to take the time to identify these species. My initial questions for this research project are as follows,
1. How many varying species of plants can I identify? Are there any invasive species? Which species are more rare than others?
2. How will the upcoming weather changes (fall to winter) effect the vegetation and functionality of the pond ecosystem?
3. How have reduced water levels (compared to Spring and Summer) effected vegetation and species? (Figure 6).
4. Do any endangered or species at risk live in or utilize this ecosystem?
These observations and photos were taken October 6, 2019 at noon. The temperature was approximately 15 degrees celsius, partially cloudy and windy.
Figure 4: Side Profile of the Pond
Figure 5: Close Up View of Pond
Figure 6: Reduced Water Levels in Pond
Figure 7: Mammals den or did my dog dig this hole?
I plan to study lichen growth on tree bark in Stanley Park. In the field, I chose to observe a line of 10 trees (approx. 75 m in length, North to South) in an immature stand (30 – 99 years) that ran from north to south. The environmental gradient spanned multiple locations that varied by canopy coverage and sunlight penetration. I recorded observations for each tree, which included my best in-field description of the tree genus (spruce, fir, cedar, beech). What was classified as spruce in the field, was determined to be hemlock. I recorded the approximate percent coverage of lichen, from eye-level to the base of the tree trunk. I recorded the side of the tree (ie. north, south, east, or west) with the predominant lichen coverage. I scored each tree trunk for light penetration based on canopy coverage and forest density, which I estimated in the field. The following described how each tree was scored for approximate sunlight penetration in the forested area:
0 – Full canopy coverage, dense forest; no light penetration to tree base/trunk
1 – Some openings in canopy, dense forest; minimal light penetration to tree base/trunk
2 – Medium openings in canopy coverage; forested area; visible light penetration to tree base/trunk
3 – No canopy coverage, wide open area; full visible light penetration to tree base/trunk for most of the day
Moss and or lichen coverage was visually estimated from eye level to the base of the tree. Moss/lichen percent (%) coverage was approximated using the following score system:
0 – Little to no visible lichen coverage (i.e. 0 – 10% coverage from eye level to base of tree)
1 – Minimal, patchy lichen coverage (i.e. 10 – 30% coverage from eye level to base of tree)
2 – Medium lichen coverage (i.e. 30 – 70% coverage from eye level to base of tree)
3 – High lichen coverage (i.e. 70 – 100%).
Photo 1. Field Observations for lichen/moss coverage and tree species
Photo 2. Rough ideas on how to score light penetration/canopy coverage and lichen/moss growth
Photo 3. 10th tree sampled and concluding field notes
Photo 4. One of six fir or hemlock trees examined for lichen growth
Summary of Observations:
Estimating sunlight penetration based on canopy coverage was difficult to quantify, and would present a challenge to accurately measure in the field without proper instrumentation. Overall, 6 of 6 fir/hemlock trees had some degree of lichen coverage. When compared to beech, only 1 of 3 had observable lichen growth. No lichen growth was observed on the 1 cedar observed. One notable difference between these three tree types is the visible rugosity, texture, and thickness of their bark. The fir and hemlock trees had thick, textured bark. In contrast, the beech and cedar bark was noticeably more sooth, with less cracks and crevasses. In summary, I have chosen a hypothesis that applies to one point on the gradient, specifically an area of trees that experience the same exposure to sunlight.
Hypothesis:
Fir and hemlock tree bark provides more suitable growth substrate for lichen in Stanley park.
Prediction:
Lichen growth is more common on bark of fir and hemlock trees, compared to beech and cedar bark in Stanley Park.
The presence or absence of lichen is a response variable, that could be treated as a categorical variable (i.e. yes or no) or a continuous variable (i.e. if yes = 1, and no = 0). A predictor variable could be the tree genus (categorical).
Clarke, D., and D. Robert. 2018. Predictive modelling of honey bee foraging activity using local weather conditions. Apidologie 49:386-396.
They looked at the connection between foraging activity of honey bees and weather conditions. The rate at which the bees would leave was measured along with the temperature, solar radiation, atmospheric pressure, humidity, rainfall, wind direction and speed. There was a positive correlation between temperature and bee activity. The correlations were also mostly linear. Two foraging seasons were studied, July-September 2013 and June-September 2014, each year was a different bee hive.
My research project is concerned with both biotic and abiotic ecological factors that are indicators of aspen tree health. The rates of leaf colour change and leaf loss are important factors underpinning my research, as these rates are partly based on soil moisture and thus will serve as a proxy for tree health. Another point of knowledge important in my study is the pH requirements of a particular species of tree. Finally, the predictor variable in my research (location of the trees on a hill, thus an elevation gradient) is the primary abiotic factor my hypothesis is based on. I am choosing to focus on the ecological processes affecting soil moisture content along this environmental gradient.
Thus, my study utilizes theories on tree health as it relates to soil moisture content variability, pH, and elevation topography. Additionally, my research touches on the biotic processes of water uptake by tree roots, leaf colour change, and leaf loss.
Three key terms I would use to describe my research project are: soil moisture content, elevation gradient, and tree health.
