a.) The ecological information source I selected for this exercise is the following journal article:
Hamann, A. & Wang, T. (2006). Potential effect of climate change on ecosystem and tree species distribution in British Columbia. Ecology87(11), pp. 2773-2786. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/20069297
b.) This article is classified as academic peer-reviewed research
c.) It was written by experts in the field, employed by the University of British Columbia, at the Centre for Forest Gene Conservation within the Department of Forest Sciences. It has in text citations (ie. p. 2773) and contains a bibliography (p. 2784). It has been peer-reviewed by at least one referee based on the description in the acknowledgements (p. 2784) and the description of manuscript revisions and acceptance (p. 2773). It reports laboratory results, and contains a methods and results section indicating it is research based. Additionally, the methods and results report their own data collection, processing, and findings, affirming the article is research-based. For these reasons, this article would be considered an academic peer-reviewed research article.
The location I have chosen to study is Stanley Park, in Vancouver. Stanley Park is an urban public park that covers 404.9 hectares, located in the lower mainland region of British Columbia. The park is situated between downtown Vancouver (south), and the ocean water of Burrard Inlet and English Bay (north, east, and west; Photo 1).
Photo 1. Aerial image of Stanley Park (Image retrieved from Google Earth Pro)
The elevation ranges from sea level to 76 m throughout the park (Photo 2). Prospect point located in the northern part of the park, is the topographic peak of the park. The vegetation within Stanley Park consists primarily of forest (conifers and deciduous). The Vancouver city park is located on Federal land that is leased to the City of Vancouver, and was established in 1888 by Lord Stanley.
Photo 2. Topographical base mapping of Stanley Park (Image retrieved from from iMap BC).
On 24 September 2019 I observed a small area of the forest (100m line of trees North to South; Photo 3 – 5) in the southeastern corner of the Park (Photo 6). I visited from 18:23 to 19:00, before sunset (19:05). The weather and general site conditions consisted of low light, light wind, and 14°C.
Photo 3. Base of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with visible dust lichen (Lepraria species) and moss (unidentified)
Photo 4. Base of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) showing multiple types of unidentified moss and lichen on exposed root bark.
Photo 5. Field notes 24 September 2019 describing general forest observations
Photo 6. Approximate location of observation for Module 1 Observations (Image retrieved from Google Maps)
Potential subjects of study:
Trees (ie. coniferous and/or deciduous)
Mosses
Lichens
Potential research questions:
What physical conditions in Stanley Park favour the growth of lichen and/or moss on trees?
Is there a pattern of distribution of lichen and/or moss species across Stanley Park?
Does lichen and/or moss grow on all tree species in the Stanley Park?
Sources:
B.C. Conservation Data Centre: CDC iMap [web application]. 2019. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Available: http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/sv/cdc/ (24 September 2019).
Google. (n.d.). Stanley Park. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stanley+Park/@49.3064903,-123.1521274,14.38z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5486718cad26e4a3:0x364a639db409e216!8m2!3d49.3042584!4d-123.1442522
I didn’t have too much trouble implementing my design, however it was maybe too simple. The data ended up being quite difficult to analyse and if I had larger sample sizes, there may have been a more apparent trend. This is the first research project I’ve carried out on my own, so that was much harder than I expected since I had no one to bounce ideas off of as I saw how things played out. The more I learn, the more complicated ecological theory becomes. I am eager to keep working in this field and to continue learning how to design effective and efficient experiments.
In the online sampling simulation, I chose to sample the Mohn Mill site using distance sampling. I found that systematic distance sampling had the fastest estimated sampling time with 4 hours and 7 minutes.
The percent error for species density of the two most common and two rarest species at the Mohn Mill site using distance systematic sampling is as follows:
red maple = |(392.4-403.7)/403.7|x100 = 2.799%
white oak = |(49.9-74.5)/74.5|x100 = 33.0%
yellow birch = |(0.0-0.8)/0.8|x100 = 100%
white ash = |(0.0-0.8)/0.8|x100 = 100%
The percent error for species density for the same species as above using distance random sampling is as follows:
red maple = |(380.8-403.7)/403.7|x100 = 5.673%
white oak = |(53.3-74.5)/74.5|x100 = 28.5%
yellow birch = |(7.6-0.8)/0.8|x100 = 850%
white ash = |(0.0-0.8)/0.8|x100 = 100%
The percent error for species density for the same species as above using distance haphazard sampling is as follows:
red maple = |(735.5-403.7)/403.7|x100 = 82.19%
white oak = |(157.6-74.5)/74.5|x100 = 112%
yellow birch = |(0.0-0.8)/0.8|x100 = 100%
white ash = |(0.0-0.8)/0.8|x100 = 100%
The more abundant the species, the more accurate the sampling. Conversely, the less abundant the species, the less accurate the sampling.
Systematic sampling appears to be the most accurate sampling method, followed by random sampling, and finally haphazard sampling.
The correlation between the number of pollinators and the temperature
The relationship between the number of pollinators and the amount of precipitation (mm)
I think both of these graphs are perfect for showing my data that I have collected. I think my data is all normal, obviously it would be better had I recorded data for a longer period of time.
The article “Himalayan wolf foraging ecology and the importance of wild prey” is from Science Direct, and was published in 2019 by Elsevier B.V. on Global Ecology and Conservation.
This article is academic peer reviewed research material containing in-text citations and a bibliography on the page 12. It is written by eight experts who work in various organizations as stated on the top of the first page. On the home page the Elsevier Journal it states that all articles hosted on Science Direct are peer reviewed (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/global-ecology-and-conservation), and on the first page of the article in the “Article Info” section also states that the article has been revised. This article is a field study and contain a “Methods” and “Results” section on pages 2-4.
The location I have chosen to study is along Coquitlam River Trail on the Port Coquitlam side. It is a large area spanning many kilometres, but I have chosen a plot of about 75m X 75m. Weather was cloudy, 19 degrees with no visible wind. Area was visited on September 7th 2019 at 15:00-16:30. It features a large river, flowing moderately with clear greenish brown water. In the river is a small rock dam, most likely built by humans. In this area there is less water flow and about 15 bugs are present on the waters surface.Lining the river are large elm trees and shorter plants with large and flat green leaves. These shorter plants host many spiders in their webs. Western sword fern are approximately 4-5 metres from the rivers edge on a higher bank. Pine and maple trees are in the same area, and are more present further back into the forest. Trees with flat branches and soft needles are present as well – possibly hemlock. One log on the rivers edge is covered in Oyster mushrooms, including one large one about 20cm long. No other logs nearby have these mushrooms present. There are a few small paths going into the forest with trampled vegetation, possibly from humans, dogs, bear, coyote or deer. Birds can be heard but not seen.
Questions arising from this observation:
Why are the Oyster mushrooms only on this one log?
Why are most of the Elm trees leaning towards the river?
I noticed that the larger trees are beginning to change colour, but the shorter shrubs and younger elm are not. Is there a reason for this?
The river bed contains sand and large rocks, but nothing in between. Why are there no smaller stones present? And why do only the rocks on shore have moss, not ones that are partially in the river?
Why are there no maple trees near the rivers edge?
Do only certain plants survive near the rivers edge?
My main focus has been if there is a correlation between the number of pollinators and the weather. I have done this at a garden that has plant species that are to attract bees, therefore in theory there should be a fair number of bees in this general area. This can also tie in with the temperature of the day, the humidity, the wind, there are honestly all kinds of other factors that can affect the results. I am taking the temperature of the day and the type of weather into consideration when I am counting the number of pollinators in/ near the garden.
Three keywords for my research could be pollinators, botanical gardens, weather.
I plan to study the Douglas Fir trees found at the junction of Johnny’s trail and Douglas Fir trail in Canmore, AB.
Notable locations along the environmental gradient of my location include: a flat, open forested area; a more densely forested area on a slope; and a rocky, sparsely vegetated spring run-off gully.
The first location has a variety of shrubbery, clover, and rose bushes; along with randomly dispersed Douglas fir trees in low abundance. The trees appear to grow as individuals. On average, there appears to be more Douglas fir saplings in comparison to older trees. All Douglas fir trees present appear to have branches evenly dispersed around the tree’s radius.
The second location has less of a variety of shrubbery, clover, and rose bushes. There are more densely dispersed Douglas fir trees in great abundance. The trees appear to grow in clumps. There appear to be more older trees than saplings.
The third location has very few plants. There are a few immature Douglas fir trees growing around the edges of the gully, along with a few shrubs. The Douglas fir trees grow alone and are nearly all older trees. The trees are widely dispersed and in low abundance.
My hypothesis I wish to test is as follows: do Douglas fir trees better resist cooling temperatures of changing seasons in groups or as individuals? I predict that the trees will fair better against the temperature change in groups.
A possible responding variable is the abundance, distribution, and size of the Douglas fir trees in each location. This variable is continuous. A possible predictor variable is the ambient air temperature and weather. This variable is also continuous.
I did eight replicates in total, all at the Bee Garden outside of the Ken Lepin building. I have had some issues with the spread-out area, with there being a fair amount of plants to keep my eye on and trying to ensure I do not miss any bees. I have noticed some slight patterns, such as there being a fair amount of bees the higher the temperature and with a lower temperature and rain there seems to be fewer bees.
