Initially, I had a lot of issues with carrying out my project. I entered this course with a fairly basic knowledge of ecological theory. However, having made it through the course material and reviewing the literature necessary for my final project, I now feel like I (finally) understand the data that I was collecting. As time went on: the course equipped me with the knowledge to relate my observations to an increasing amount of theory. This did not result in me changing my sample design (aside from my initial changes from haphazard to randomly placed quadrats to transects – more information is available on this switch in Blog Post 6); however, it did result in me changing how I viewed my data.
Having noticed that forb species tended to change drastically over a small area, I originally set out to just characterize the forb species that reside along a riparian slope (and was completely ignorant of the patterns or processes that I should have expected to see). Following this, reflection on the underlying mechanisms led me to think that soil moisture would be the single largest factor contributing to forb distribution. I was (partially) correct in that assessment, but had an incomplete picture. As I began to dive deeper into the literature and the course work, the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis kept coming up. I then related what I had learned concerning this to my study area. It allowed me postulate that I would likely see a “hump-shaped” relationship of richness and diversity along the elevational gradient of my study. The reason for this was because I expected that the inundation of the river caused disturbance; therefore, the region of maximum disturbance would be at the lowest elevations of my study area, the areas of least disturbance would be at the highest elevations of my study area and the highest richness and diversity would occur somewhere in the middle. However, yet again, I was (partially) correct. Examination of my data revealed a biphasic pattern of richness and diversity (in which there were two peaks). I now understand that this is because disturbance was being exerted on both ends of my study area: river inundation at the lowest reaches, and anthropogenic at the highest reaches. Therefore, the area of lowest disturbance resided in the center of my study area, and areas of maximal disturbance resided at both margins.
As the result of journeying through the development, implementation and analysis of my project: I now have a great appreciation for ecological theory and just how complicated it can be to develop and study. At first glance, my project seemed simple: just go out and count the forbs. However, the amount of variables that were responsible for the patterns that I was seeing are overwhelming. I feel that I have managed to capture a few of the most important ones related to forb distribution along an elevational gradient in a riparian zone; however, I now know that I have only scratched the surface.
