Recent Posts

Post 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I have chosen to conduct my research in an area of Stanley Park in the City of Vancouver. I visited the site in late April as deciduous trees were unfurling their leaves on a sunny day when the temperature was about 15 degrees.

Stanley Park is a large urban park that is part of the downtown peninsula. It is just over 4 square kilometres in size and is bounded on 3 sides by water and joined to the rest of the City by an isthmus. Several small lakes dot the park, including lost lagoon, which was formerly an estuary. From its inception the park was intended to preserve the coastal rainforest found in this part of coastal BC and to this day it provides myself and many others with the opportunity to experience nature in the heart of the City. The park is mostly forested and is classified as Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) under the biogeoclimatic zones of BC. However, there is considerable development within the park to facilitate recreation and transportation, including pathways, roads, restaurants, a major highway, the Stanley Park seawall, and cultural institutions.

Overall the topography of the park is that of gentle rises with the northern portion rising high above Burrard inlet. Several beaches surround the parks edge and form marine transition zones. The forest is mostly comprised of evergreens typical of the CWH zone and others that have been planted including western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), and sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis); deciduous trees include bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), wild cherry (Prunus avium), choke cherry (Prunus virginiana), and red alder (Alnus rubra); shrubs, ferns, other herbaceous perennials, and moss are also present.

Even though the park has been considerably managed for over a decade, one can tell from moving through the wilder areas that species composition and concentration changes, especially if one walks off designated trails and into the forest. Direct human management in this park is definitely a factor affecting the composition and concentration of tree species; this can be seen by noticing numerous stumps. I also think that distance from developed areas of the park, whether they be boundaries between manicured park areas, paths, roads, and clearings to tracts of seemingly untouched forest away from these edges influence species composition and concentration.

Three questions that are of interest to me include:

  1. Does tree species composition and concentration in the park change as a function of distance from forest edges and forest interiors?
  2. Does tree species composition and concentration in the park change as a function of edge type (seaside, roadside, pathway, etc.)?
  3. Do forest edges allow for more growth of herbaceous plants and shrubs versus forest interiors?
Stanley Park Map
Cathedral Trail
Cathedral Trail Initial Notes

Post 1 – Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

 

Species List for Study Site

First 3 pages of B. Bruns field journal

22-04-2019 to 25-04-2019

The site I selected for my field research project is the acreage on which I live, in the Creston Valley, about half a kilometer west of the Kootenay River. It is a partly wooded, 3.15ha site, on an east-facing hillside at 49˚05’N; 116˚36’W. The elevation ranges from 540-576m above sea level. The site is part of a corridor between farm fields below through a narrow band of rural properties, backing up to the foot of a steep mountain slope covered with dense, undisturbed coniferous forest, above. I would like to better understand the role of wildlife connectivity corridors in the face of increasing human population pressures in rural British Columbia.

I am including in my site an approximately 200m2 pond adjacent to our lower southeast corner (please see my attached “map”); though it is on our neighbours’ lot, it is important to observed species richness. There is a dense aspen stand adjacent to the northeast corner of our property that may also contribute to animal biodiversity. Thus, my study area includes the pond and its wetland, about two acres of mixed conifer forest, two and a half acres of grassland, a quarter-acre hillside of moss-covered bedrock, and three acres of intensely cultivated farm with a small homestead, outbuildings, greenhouse, orchard, and market garden. The property has been a farm for at least 60 years.

Although I’ve lived on this land for ten years and know something of the diverse species here, I want to know them more precisely, and to understand their interactions (patterns and processes) more scientifically. I went out to ground-truth some of my ideas about the land, plants, and animals on April 22, 2019, 14:00-16:00, on a sunny, early-spring, afternoon. I’d like to make an approximate census of the plants, animals, and fungi present now, so that I can better monitor future change.

My detailed observations are recorded in my field journal. I noted an encroachment of noxious weeds. There is also presently a die-off of two key mature tree species (grand fir and western redcedar), which a local forester told me is widely occurring throughout the Kootenays, due to the extreme heat and extended droughts of the past few summers. I am interested in whether the natural germination and early success of seedlings of only certain species indicates a community change as a result of changing climate of the valley – for example, if a census of trees less than 2ft tall would show a statistically significant difference in richness and distribution compared to the mature trees fifty years of age or greater?

Questions that I might like to explore are:

  1. Does the encroachment of noxious weeds spread outward from our roads in a definite gradient?
  2. Can I demonstrate that the conifer die-off is related to drought?
  3. Can the observed richness and biodiversity of birds and mammals be associated with the variety of habitats available on our property? Or is it that we provide a connectivity corridor between farm fields/Kootenay River below and the upland mountain habitat?
  4. By comparing an old growth conifer census with seedling census, can I demonstrate that the composition of the conifer community is changing in response to a decade of hotter, drier summers? Can a future mature stand be predicted by seedling starts, or are there too many confounding factors relating to which plants will survive to maturity to make this correlation?

A couple of natural history observations included a beautiful display of the early wildflowers western spring beauty (Claytonia lanceolata) and glacier lily (Erythronium grandiflorum) on the mossy rocks. I observed a courtship display by four male hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus), in the presence of three females. Since I didn’t have a way to record the visual display and sound, I found a you-tube video of what I saw that had been recorded at the Reifel Bird Sanctuary. The link is www.youtube.com/watch?v=XanDih-x2TQ if you’d like to see and hear pretty much exactly what happened on the pond!

I listed in my field notes my sightings of a number of bird species and a reptile (Western painted turtle); I heard some frogs; and saw evidence of a number of mammals. I have listed the common and scientific names in my attached field notes.

Ground Truthing Site Map
Click to view full size

Post 7: Theoretical Perspectives

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

My hypothesis might touch on the balance of photosynthesis from sunlight exposure, and defense against water loss in the shade/canopy cover. Moss use photosynthesis to produce food. However, if moss is exposed to sunlight too greatly, it can be drying to the plant. A balance is needed between both sun and shade to provide an optimal habitat for the plant. This can relate to the growth and distribution of moss. Moss would be able to have a higher growth rate if the habitat was optimal for them. If optimal habitat is present, moss is more likely to distribute within that habitat. Keywords that could be used to describe my research project are sunlight exposure, canopy coverage, and moss abundance.

Post 6: Data Collections

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I sampled 30 replicates. At each stratum (0%, <50%, >50%), 10 replicates were collected. I haven’t really had any problems implementing my sampling design. The only issue is the data collection is time consuming. Each quadrat takes roughly 15-20 minutes. However, this is much faster compared to the initial data collection, where it took approximately 30 minutes each quadrat. I have noticed areas with more than 50% canopy cover, the ground is either covered in needles or in leaf debris. This covering of the ground can limit the amount of sunlight and maybe even rain, getting to the moss.

Blog Post 4 – Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

The results of the three sampling strategies which are used are systematic, haphazard, and random. In this tutorial systematic/random and haphazard sampling are compaired.

The haphazard sampling had the fastest estimated sampling time because there was less travel time between the samples points.

When looking at the percent error, the overall accuracy of the species which were more common was greater than the species which were less common.

The systematic/random sampling strategy was the most accurate because the areas being analysed do not overlap.

Post 5: Design Reflections

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

I had a few difficulties with my random stratified sampling strategy. I was using a random number generator to get coordinates on where my quadrats should be for sampling. It took a long time to find coordinates in each strata that worked. It was also difficult to find the coverage of moss in each quadrat because I was counting the individual squares. The average time for one quadrat was approximately 30 minutes.

I was surprised to find moss in areas in an open field (0% canopy cover). It was surprising because the area gets direct sunlight the whole day, and horses are present in the field. I was also surprised to find moss in areas with almost full canopy cover, considering the ground was either covered in leaf debris or conifer debris (needles).

I plan to modify my approach in data collection. I’m going to use a piece of paper which is 10 cm x 10 cm. This will make the paper be 100 square cm and will be handy in counting moss abundance in the quadrat. The paper could be folded in half to represent 50 squares, in a quarter to represent 25 squares. This technique will make collecting data much easier. If the moss doesn’t completely cover the paper, I can subtract the squares moss isn’t present. This modification will improve the accuracy of data as well as shorten the sampling time for each quadrat.

Post 4: Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

Systematic, random, and haphazard sampling strategies were used in a virtual forest tutorial. The systematic sampling had the fastest sampling time (4 hours and 5 minutes), with haphazard being second (4 hours and 30 minutes), and random being the slowest (4 hours and 39 minutes). For the two most common species, Eastern Hemlock and Red Maple, the percentage errors varied. For Eastern Hemlock, the random sampling technique had the lowest percentage error (32.4%), haphazard (32.9%) with the second lowest, and systematic with the highest percentage error (37.5%). For Red Maple, haphazard sampling had the lowest percentage error (19.9%), random sampling had the second lowest (21.9%), and systematic with the highest percentage error (38.3%). The two most rare tree species, Striped Maple (40.0%) and White Pine (94.0%), percentage error was the highest for the systematic sampling strategy. Haphazard sampling had the lowest percentage error for Striped Maple (14.3%), and random sampling had the lowest for White Pine (8.3%). Random sampling for Striped Maple had the second lowest percentage error for Striped Maple (56.0%), and haphazard sampling for White Pine (78.6%). Accuracy decreased as species abundance decreased. the percentage error for the rare species ranged from 8.3-94.0% for White Pine, and 14.3-56.0% for  Striped Maple. For the common species, the percentage error ranged from 32.4-37.5% for Eastern Hemlock, and 5.4-36.2% for Red Maple. Systematic sampling was the least accurate sampling strategy. Both random and haphazard sampling were approximately the same amount of accuracy. If all the seven species sampled were included, random was more accurate 43% of the time as well as haphazard, with systematic being accurate 14% of the time.

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

The organism I’m interested in studying is moss and its abundance in different levels of canopy cover. On April 12, 2019, I noticed that a majority of the moss in the area was in areas of shade or less canopy cover. In areas where canopy cover was more than 50%, there was moss on the trees, but little to none on the ground. In areas with less canopy cover, but still shade present, moss covered the ground. In open field, where there was 0% canopy cover, moss was present but slight.

high level of canopy cover, moss on trees, leaf debris on ground

high level canopy cover, no moss evident

treeline edge (less canopy cover), moss more abundant

I want to examine the abundance of moss covering the ground in three different areas where there are gradients of tree cover. Areas are divided into three different levels of canopy: greater than 50% canopy cover, less than 50% canopy cover (edge of treeline, open canopy), and areas with 0% canopy cover (open field). These ares provide a gradient of sun exposure to the moss. The underlying processes would be the balance between shade/canopy cover, and sunlight exposure. Moss need sun to photosynthesize, however, they prefer being out of direct sunlight. Too much sunlight can be drying to moss.

Nelson Bar Ranch

Hypothesis: The area with equal amounts of canopy cover/sunlight exposure, will support a higher abundance of moss. .

I predict moss will be the most abundant in areas with less than 50% canopy cover, compared to areas with more than 50% canopy cover, or 0% canopy cover.

A potential response variable would be the abundance of moss (% coverage/m^2) in each area, which would be a continuous variable. A potential predictor variable is the amount of canopy cover present which would be a continuous variable, however, I’ll be using it as a categorical variable.

Blog Post 9 – Field Research Reflections

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 

Overall the field research project was relatively straight forward. However, there will be many sources of error and factors which may affect the data that can be discussed in the final report. For example, if more bird species were studied this might have changed the trends. Or if the observations were made at a different time of year.

As a chemistry student, designing a non-lab based experiment was daunting at first however, it went along with only minor hiccups after the first few observations. It also took longer than I would like to come up with an idea for a project.