Recent Posts

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

A)

Lindgren, P., Ransome, D., Sullivan, D., Sullivan, T., (2009). Stand structure and the abundance and diversity of plants and small mammals in natural and intensively managed forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, pp.S127-S141.  Retrieved From: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/science/article/pii/S0378112709003983

B)

Academic peer-reviewed research material.

C)

  1. The article was written by the Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry.
  2. The article included in-text citations.
  3. The article contains a bibliography (listing all sources used).

I assumed that because the article was published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management that it would have had to be peer-reviewed.

The article reports the results of a field study and contains “methods” and “results”

 

 

 

Blog Post 4: Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

In the Virtual Forest tutorial, of the three sampling strategies that I used, the haphazard or subjective sampling technique had the fastest estimated sampling time at 4 hours and 26 minutes, followed by random sampling at 4 hours and 54 minutes and then systematic sampling along a topographic gradient at 12 hours and 37 minutes.

Of the two most common species, Eastern Hemlock  (EH) and Sweet Birch (SB), the systematic sampling had a percentage error of -22% for EH and -14.9% for SB. With random sampling, the percentage error was 2.5% for EH and 21% for SB. With haphazard or subjective sampling, the percentage error was 32% for EH and 80% for SB. Therefore for these two common species, it would appear that random sampling had the lowest percentage error for EH and systematic sampling had the lowest percentage error for SB. If you average the percentage error of the two sample techniques, random sampling presented the least amount of percentage error for the common species of trees.

Of the two rarest species, Striped Maple (SM) and White Pine (WP), the percentage error for the systematic sampling technique was 128% and -100% respectively. Random sampling had a percentage error of 25% for SM and -100% for WP. For haphazard or subjective sampling, the percentage error for SM was 141% and -100%. All three sampling techniques failed to record any occurrences of White Pine trees. Random sampling had the smallest percentage error for SM making it the most effective sampling technique for this rare species.

Accuracy for all species was relatively consistent with the 3 sampling techniques except for the most rare species of White Pine which was undetected in all methods. The most abundant species were more accurate although percentage error was high amongst all recorded species.

Based on the results, all three sampling techniques showed fairly consistent results although random sampling appeared to be the most effective for the most abundant tree type. However, for the Red Maple, a more rare tree, the systematic sampling using a topographic gradient method was the most effective with only a 0.9% percentage error. However, this method took the longest so may not be the most feasible method to use in this case. For the Yellow Birch tree, a more common tree, the haphazard or subjective sampling method had the least percentage error at only 3.7%. This method was the fastest method but it could pose problems of bias amongst the researcher in the field.

Blog Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I have been observing backyard birds in my observation area including robins, blue jays and cardinals. I’ve noticed that the distribution of birds in the backyard is inconsistent on certain days. On some days there are many birds that can be heard singing in the trees, there is a lot of activity and they can be seen throughout the backyard grazing/foraging. There does appear to be more activity on days when the weather is warmer. On cool/rainy days bird activity is less.

I hypothesize that bird activity is busier on days when the temperatures are between 10-15 degrees celcius. Bird activity will be decreased when temperatures are above or below this temperature gradient.

The response variable in this study is bird activity/presence in the backyard. This variable is classified as categorical. One potential explanatory variable is temperature. Another potential explanatory variable is rain. Both of these variables are classified as continuous.

O’Connor, R. and Hicks, R. (1980). The Influence of Weather Conditions on the Detection of Birds During Common Birds Census Fieldwork. Bird Study. 27:3, pp. 137-151, doi: 10.1080/00063658009476672. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00063658009476672

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I have selected the western redcedar tree (Thuja plicata) as the organism that I plan to study. The three locations along the environmental gradient in my research area are divided by the kind of soil the plants are growing in, namely sandy, silty and loamy soil (see field notes attached)

If a large population of cedar trees are observed thriving in silty soil but are entirely absent from areas with only sand, then western redcedars must need the moisture and nutrients that silty soil contains to populate an area successfully when in competition with pines and firs.

My hypothesis is that western redcedar trees grow in low elevation areas that collect moisture in silty soil. Therefore, because the distribution of western redcedar trees changes along the length of the research area, I predict that the composition of the soil varies as well, in a way that is either detrimental or beneficial to the growth of the tree in relation to the amount of water it can retain.

The response variable is the number of western redcedar trees observed in an area (density), which is a continuous variable. Some predictor variables are the slope, elevation, and soil that the trees grow in, all of which are related to the amount of moisture and nutrients available to the plant. Slope and elevation are continuous variables, but soil can be separated into sandy, silty or loamy soil, and is therefore categorical.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

The source I chose was “Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness Model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada” and can be found at https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/3873131?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. It was published by International Association for Bear Research and Management in the journal URSUS in 1998. It is an academic, peer reviewed, research paper.

Mike Gibeau, the sole author, is an expert in his field with over three decades of experience in ecology and large carnivore research, namely wolves, black bears and grizzly bears. He is an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, where he earned his PhD in Conservation Biology. The paper features in-text citation throughout the sections and ends with a “literature cited” list. URSUS is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it is safe to assume that this particular article was peer-reviewed at least once before publication in 1998. Methods and Results sections are both present and are detailed enough for other scientists to be able to replicate the experiment and compare their results. The data are supported by appropriate tables and figures and clearly display the patterns focused on in the Discussion section.

 

References:

Gibeau, M. 1998. Grizzly Bear Habitat Effectiveness Model for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks, Canada. Ursus, 10:235–241. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/3873131

Post 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I have chosen to conduct my research in the forest area adjacent to my house, which consists of a heavily wooded area surrounding a rocky knoll in Creston, B.C. It is approximately 20 acres of privately-owned land (see Figure 1) with a walking trail that is used by people in the neighbourhood and their dogs.  

The research area borders a large cherry orchard immediately to the south as well as other sizable fruit and vegetable farms about 2 km to the west. Residential neighbourhoods enclose the direct west and north boundaries, while the forest continues to the east. Highway 3 runs parallel to the forest about 500 m to the east.

The forest is mostly comprised of deciduous pine and fir trees, but also has many cedars and larches. There are lots of small shrubs and bushes among the trees, varying in height from approximately 20 cm to a meter.

The composition of vegetation on the rocky outcrop in the centre of the area is mostly moss and lichen, with a few short, bare shrubs on the slope (see Figure 2).

  1. What causes the difference in abundance of the tree types throughout the research area? I observed that the north side of the forest is mainly bull pines, then cedars predominate in an area of lower elevation that was logged about three years ago, and finally a mix of bull pine and fir trees on the south end that is slightly higher elevation and closest to the cherry orchard (no cedars).
  2. Do the pesticides for the cherry trees affect the growth of other plants closest to the orchard (Figure 3)? Dormant sprays should have been applied in the fall and may have been carried by the wind to the plants at the edge of the forest especially.
  3. Lichen was observed growing largely on the north side of pine trees in the area. What kind of symbiotic relationships exist between the lichen and the tree? If the lichen has photosynthetic cyanobacteria in it, why does it grow on the shadier side of the tree? Is the lichen visible on the rocky outcrop the same species of lichen as on the trees, even though the rocky outcrop gets much more sun?

    Field Notes for April 07, 2019

Post 2 – Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I’ve attempted to classify two sources of information – the first one (journal article) I am confident that I’ve assessed correctly, and the second (book) I am not so sure. I also didn’t know which documentation style to use here, so I used CSE.

 

Journal article:

Arft AM, Walker MD, Gurevitch JM, Alatalo MS, Bret-Harte M, Dale M, Diemer M, Gugerli F, Henry GHR, Jones MH, et al. 1999. Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-analysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecological Monographs. 69(4):491-511. http://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.2307/2657227.

I have classified this as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

This article is academic, as the authors are all listed as being associated with various departments of well-known universities, making them likely to be experts in their fields; in-text citations are included; and there is a formal literature cited section with nearly a hundred references. The article is peer-reviewed because the website for the journal Ecological Monographs details a comprehensive peer-review process that is applied to all papers considered for publication. The paper also has “methods” and “results” sections, so it is research material.

 

Book:

Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, & Wheye, D. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York (NY): Simon and Schuster, Fireside.

I have classified this as Non-peer reviewed academic material.

The reasons I classified this book as academic are:

  • that Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich is an esteemed expert in his field receiving numerous science awards and honors. At the time the book was published he was Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biology at Stanford University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. David S. Dobkin was a Henry Rutgers Fellow and Assistant Professor of Zoology at Rutgers University, and a publishing scientist, and Darryl Wheye was a biologist and writer.
  • the book includes some in-text citations by noting the name of the author of a study in the text material, enabling the reader can look up the related article or book in the bibliography.
  • the book has an extensive 62-page bibliography of books and journal articles.

Although many scientists have informally reviewed this book, it has not undergone a formal peer-review process in the sense of having referees assigned, so I have classified it as non-peer reviewed. If I had to categorize it as research or review, I’d say it was review because it is a massive compilation of the knowledge gained by many studies.

Post 9: Field Research Reflections

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I didn’t really have difficulty implementing my design or have to make any changes once I knew what I wanted to do. Doing this study has been a roller-coaster of emotions. It was fun doing my own experiment, where I was in charge of choosing the organism, the variables, and study area. However, it was so difficult choosing what aspect of the organism to study, or how to measure/analyze it. I also underestimated how long each individual data point would take to sample. Going through this process of engaging with the practice of ecology, definitely increased my appreciation of how ecological theory is developed. It takes a great amount of dedication and time to practice ecology, and for this, I’m grateful for everyone in this field for their hard work.

Post 8: Tables and Graphs

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I had no difficulties organizing my data. However, I had difficulties in finding the best way to summarize and illustrate the data. It took a little playing around with the data to find the best outcome which summarizes and explains what the overall study was about. The outcome was what I expected, there is a significant difference between area with <50% canopy cover, compared to the other levels of canopy coverage. Each dot represents the sample means of each strata (canopy cover). each interval is a 95% confidence interval that the group mean is within the groups confident interval. The error bars represent the standard error of the means, in other words, how accurate the sample represents the population. My study focuses on the moss abundance on the ground, I wonder if this pattern would be the same if I looked at moss abundance on trees. If the pattern was the same, I wonder if the same elements play the same roles. On the other hand, if it was different, would it be due to the same mechanisms driving this pattern, or are other factors included.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415-444. http://www.leonidzhukov.net/hse/2017/networkscience/papers/McPherson_HomophilyInSocialNetworks.pdf.

The article is an academic, peer-reviewed review because the authors are subject matter experts, academics associated with several universities; the piece is printed in a peer reviewed journal based on information provided on the process for publication for authors in the Annual Review of Sociology’s website (https://www.annualreviews.org/page/authors/author-instructions/submitting/publication-timeline); and, it is a review as opposed to research because there is no methods or results section, the content of the piece does not seek to answer a research question.