In the virtual forest tutorial, the three sampling techniques used to sample tree species in the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area were random/systematic sampling, random sampling and haphazard/subjective sampling. I found the technique with the fastest sampling time was the second exercise- random sampling. As opposed to the first and third exercises, the second exercise only required 24 locations to be sampled randomly, without any other restrictions. After reviewing the percentage errors for both the most common and rare species, it was found that the third exercise, haphazard/subjective sampling, was the most accurate technique, with a 3.75% error for Eastern Hemlock, and a 28.6% error for Striped Maple. The second most accurate technique was random/systematic sampling, with a 10.6% error and 52.4% error for Eastern Hemlock and White Pine, respectively. The random sampling technique had percentage errors of 14.7% for Eastern Hemlock and 54.8% for White Pine. These varying percentage errors indicate that with changing species abundance, the accuracy of each technique changes as well.
For my second blog post, I chose an online source off of the ScienceDirect database. The article is titled, ‘Dung beetles and nutrient cycling in a dryland environment’, and it will be published to CATENA journal in August 2019.
This online article fits the category of ‘Academic, peer-reviewed research material’. The tutorial in Module 1 on ‘how to evaluate sources of scientific information’ outlined the key differences between the four categories of information sources. The first step taken in classifying this source as academic material was the author’s expertise. The primary author, M. Belén Maldonado, is part of an Argentinian research collaboration, IADIZA, and has had a few of his research articles published to various science journals. This article includes in-text citations- an example on page 67, “Dung beetles, as well as termites, perform an important ecological function incorporating livestock dung to the soil and promoting pasture regeneration (Schowalter, 2016).” Also, at the bottom of the report, there is a properly formatted bibliography. My next step in this discrimination process was to figure out if this article had been reviewed by at least one referee before publication, and I found an initial revision of the manuscript was carried out by Silvina Verez. This narrowed the article down to a peer-reviewed source. My next inquiry was whether or not it included a results and methods section. A methods section, outlining the general procedure and instruments used, was present in the article under the Methods subtitle.
The source of Scientific Information I have chosen for Blog Post 2 is a Journal titled Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss, written by Tim S. Doherty, Alistair S. Glen, Dale G. Nimmo, Euan G. Ritchie, and Chris R. Dickman.
Journal Article Reference:
Dickman, C.R., Doherty, T., Glen, A.S., Nimmo, D.G., & Ritchie, E.G. (2016). Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss. PNAS. 113(40). 11261-11265. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602480113
Based on Module 1 discussions of categorizing information sources into four distinctive groups, this Journal would be categorized as academic peer-reviewed research material. The reasoning for this Journal article to fall under the academic peer-reviewed research material category is based on the information source featuring the following criteria:
The information source was written by experts, features in text citations, and has a bibliography. Therefore, is not considered to be non-academic material.
The information states to have been edited by 1 individual, Daniel S. Simberloff from The University of Tennessee, in Knoxville, TN. Therefore, is not considered to be non-peer reviewed academic material.
The information source does feature Methods, Results, and Discussion sections that offer information collected by the authors of this study. Therefore, this is not considered to be academic peer-reviewed review material.
By meeting the above criteria the Invasive Predators and Global Biodiversity Loss Journal written by Tim, S. Doherty, Alistair S. Glen, Dale G. Nimmo, Euan G. Ritchie, and Chris R. Dickman is categorized as academic peer-reviewed research material.
The article is called, “Fearful effects of ecological competitors,” written by Oswald J. Schmitz a member of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. The source that I chose is non peer-reviewed academic material which is an article that was published in Nature on the 6th of June 2019. I was able to classify the source as academic material because it is written by an expert in the field, it includes in-text citations and contains a bibliography. The source however was not reviewed before publication, therefore, is non-peer reviewed.
Schmitz, O.J. (2019). “Predators Affect Competitors’ Coexistence through Fear Effects.” Nature, vol. 570, no. 7759. pp. 43–44., doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01712-7.
Location: McNeil Bay Beach. Victoria BC. (48.4116919,-123.3157538).
Weather: Partly sunny, 15ºC.
McNeil Bay Beach- Landscape View
McNeil Bay Beach- Aerial View from Google Maps
I am interested in marine ecosystems since I live a block away from the ocean in Victoria, BC. I am most interested in the intertidal zone at McNeil Bay. As a young child, I really enjoyed looking in the tide pools and seeing what sort of organisms lived in them. I am now able to notice that the pools fluctuate in size and abundance of life. The area that I chose to study is a rocky seashore stretching 200 meters along the West Coast of Victoria.
3 questions that came up during my observation were:
What are the most common inhabitants of the tidal pools? The barnacles and anemones stay constant but do the fish stay in the same pool?
How many different species live in them? Are there more of one type of species in a pool and why is this? Does this change when looking at pools further from the ocean?
What factors contribute to the harsh environment in the tide pools? Such as, dry conditions or too much rainwater. Would this account for the unique species in each pool?
The idea behind my research is that density/crowding of trees has a significant effect on new tree growth (annual budding) in addition to the overall biomass accumulated over years of growth. Each individual tree was planted the same year and are the same age. Also, they are all planted within the same acre with the same soil conditions. The only difference in their growing conditions is the distance that they were planted from one another, creating the crowding gradient. Soil and weather conditions and species interactions are all constant. The different levels of crowding between locations will theoretically create some variations in the soil nutrients and water available to each individual. Although I will not be testing those factors directly, I will be observing the subsequent results of their effects in the form of overall growth and biomass. Resource competition influencing growing capacity is the main underlying idea in my research. It should be stronger in the most crowded site (Location 1) compared to the least crowded site (Location 3) since there are more individuals competing for the same amount of resources.
Keywords: resource competition, density dependence, individual tree growth
I have established 5 permanent sampling plots with 30 replicates (Western Red Cedar trees). To date, I have had no difficulties in the field implementing my sampling strategy, but I did have to change my predictor variable from continuous to categorical.
I am beginning to think that my hypothesis is false, but it should correspond with another hypothesis. My research has been monitoring the response of immature Western Red Cedar from the recent removal of the adjacent mature forest. I predicted that the trees with the most sun exposure, as a result of logging, would die. Further research into the silvics of Western Red Cedar is helping to clarify my understanding of this organism. The reddening of the foliage after abrupt exposure to the sun is different than red flagging from drought conditions.
Frequently at work (as a harvest monitor) I observe that the equipment operators will retain a few understory trees as a “best practice” for clear-cut silviculture systems; However, usually, the Cedar trees die within the first few years of being exposed to full sun.
My question was:
Why wouldn’t the understory Cedar trees begin to thrive? The trees have more available light, moisture, and nutrients after harvesting.
My other question which formed the focus for my research is:
What will happen to the immature trees when industry harvests next to an established plantation? Harvesting can occur next to plantations as early as 7 – 10 years after the plantation has been planted. Will the Cedar trees established along the boundary of mature forests be able to withstand the abrupt change?
Currently, it seems that I have underestimated the resistance of the immature Cedar. Western redcedar is considered a stress tolerator with the ability to grow over a wide range of conditions (Antos et al, 2016). It is the beginning of July and only a few trees are showing more than 1% of their foliage to be scalded from sun exposure.
Reference:
Joseph A. Antos, Cosmin N. Filipescu, Roderick W. Negrave (2016). Ecology of western redcedar (Thuja plicata): Implications for management of a high-value multiple-use resource. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 375, Pages 211-222.
Having wrapped up my data collection and started writing my paper, I can honestly say I’ve learned a lot about the design and implementation of ecological studies. My study design changed many, many times from my initial ideas to the one I finally settled on. I found my main problem in study design was aiming higher than my knowledge, skills, and available equipment would permit. Counting songbird species? “That sounds doable” I’d think to myself after reading a study on bird behavior during the initial brainstorming for my project. But then I’d go to my study site and realize I was in over my head. With limited experience identifying birds, I quickly realized that I’d need to narrow my focus to a couple easily identifiable species in order to maintain accurate, high-quality observations. (Even then, I suspect I’ve likely misidentified the odd duck or 2….females without males present are still tricky!)
Then came all the things I hadn’t considered in my initial design. What if a bird flys away in the middle of an observation period? What if they wander into the bushes and I can’t see them any more? What if there are no birds on the pond when I arrive? All these things I couldn’t plan for required little adjustments as I went along.
My replication targets proved overly enthusiastic as well and by the end of June I realized that I’d need to adjust my goals in order to complete my data collection in a timely manner. That said, I managed to collect 90 individual bird observations, for a total of about 3600 usable behavior observations. Its been fun playing with the data to see what patterns I can find, though without proper statistical analysis I have no idea if what I’m seeing is significant or not!
Reading studies that are similar in design to my own, but seeing how many more birds the authors observed for their data collection, gives me a new appreciation for the work that goes into these types of projects!
I really enjoyed visiting my study site. This artificial wetland is located about 5 minutes from my house but I’d never been before now! I’m used to walking through natural areas in a rush, usually while walking my dogs. I was amazed by the number of different bird species I saw when I finally sat down quietly and just observed. While adamantly not a morning person, my favorite observation period ended up being my morning hours. The pond was always so still and quiet, undisturbed by human presence. The songbirds were so loud!
Conducting this experiment has given me a different view of the natural areas I frequent for recreation purposes. I look forward to returning to my site in the future and being able to recognize the different species I’ve identified during my research observations!
The field journal location I have chosen is a medium sized wetland, located on the south side of Champlain Lake, Papineau-Cameron, Ontario Canada. I have decided on this location because I have an interest in wetland conservation. Wetlands are generally high in biodiversity and offer unique habitat to numerous species which, has always seemed to peak my interest.
Field Journal Pg.1 Krysta Warkentin
Field Journal Pg. 2 Krysta Warkentin
View of small channel from my observation location
View of open area and stagnant water from my observation location
The Champlain Lake south Wetland features a high spread of a thriving cattail species, shorter shrubs along the perimeter, and backs onto a larger forested area that predominantly features coniferous tree species. A small channel allows the water from Champlain Lake to gently feed into the wetland, however, the water is very stagnant and is sheltered from the breeze by the surrounding trees.
Questions I have noted from my first documented field observation on 26-06-2019:
Q1: A large beaver dam is located in a more open area of the wetland and is not restricting or blocking the natural flow of the wetland water. This particular beaver dam does not appear to be a contributor the wetland’s stagnant water. I wonder if the presence of beaver species establishing permanent residency within a wetland, positively contributes to the overall health of a wetland and it’s degree of biodiversity?
Q2: There appeared to be a common species of bird swooping back and forth over the thicker cattail areas throughout this observation sitting. The bird is known as a Red-Winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and a vibrant orange patch located across the top of their wings can identify the males. I couldn’t seem to understand what these males were doing? Do male Agelaius phoeniceus prefer to feed in more stagnant wetlands? Or is this specific location an ideal nesting ground where the females are more dominant? Why are there so many Agelaius phoeniceus here?
Q3: I noticed one Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus) fluttering around the small section of shrubs on the other side of the small wetland channel. Certain butterflies are considered pollinators and there was a high amount of pollen collecting on the surface of the stagnant water. Is this particular wetland considered pristine habitat for pollinating species? Was this sighting of the Papilio glaucus a sign of a healthy wetland? Is this species of butterfly attracted to the area because of the ample amount of pollen being produced?
I am really looking forward to digging in deeper and find the answers to some of my wonders.
– Krysta Warkentin
Create a blog post discussing your table or graph. Did you have any difficulties organizing, aggregating or summarizing your data? Was the outcome as you expected? Did your data reveal anything unexpected or give you any ideas for further exploration?
Finally finished my data collection and got it all organized into an excel spreadsheet! I had to re-evaluate my target of 150 bird observations. Between working full time, balancing other commitment, and good ol’ Alberta weather systems, finding opportunities to get to my observation site within the time criteria I had pre-defined proved more challenging than anticipated! I did manage to get 90 birds though, (30 for each time of day) so I feel like I still have a good set of data to work with.
I started playing with my data this weekend, sorting it by species, gender, time of day, occurrence along my gradient (land, shallow water, deep water). I tried to emulate graphs that I saw in some of the studies I’ve been reading as part of my literature review, as well as playing with various functions available on the excel graphing software. Luckily I’m pretty comfortable working with excel, so aggregating data wasn’t much of an issue. I think my main challenge will be focusing on exactly WHAT aspect of the data I will use in my paper.
Is there such thing as too much data?
I do find myself going off on tangents…lets see what happens when I add up this data, or graph these groups together. I come from a medical background (Clinical Pharmacist) and was always taught that bad statistics can be used and abused to say whatever you want (many a large pharmaceutical company has published questionable trial results that are in their favor!) and I can see how this could occur as I think up different things to graph, and look for patterns that pop out.
My plan is still to stick to comparing my birds’ behavior patterns to that of dabbling ducks published in existing literature. So far nothing has really jumped out at me as “unexpected” but I’m still compiling my literature so we’ll see what happens!
` 
