Category: Uncategorized

Throughout this process I struggled to come up with a concept that I could test in the green space by my house. While I was able to eventually turn my observation into an experiment, I began to appreciate the lengths ecologist go to in attempt to find information that will better our world. What I really did struggle with on this project is finding research to help me with my study. As I was reading more of the research articles I also struggled with how basic my study is in comparison to the study’s we have been reading. I felt more pressure and stress to try to make it more then what it was. I spent so much time trying to figure out so many factors to incorporate into my study but then realized they had nothing to do with it. I enjoyed finding out more about the biodiversity of the Potentilla fruticosa, and look forward to the next project.

The basis of my research is focused around the Potentilla fruticosa plant and what really impacts the amount of blooms they produce. Throughout my research I have found a few studies that show how the Potentilla fruticosa add to biodiversity, and help prevent erosion in landscaping. On study looked at the shrubs as carbon sinks which could possibly be beneficial to urban settings. I also discovered the potentilla fruticosa plays a major role in attracting pollinators and providing habitat to a variety of different species.

 

Key words that would describe my study would be: biodiverse shrub, optimal growth setting, and

The theoretical basis of my research project involves the examination of bottom-up and top-down regulation on the abundance of Orconectes propinquus (freshwater Northern Ontario Crayfish). Jochum et al (2012) examine the combined effects of nutrient availability and size structure of predatory crap populations (bottom-up and top-down forces) on the mean community body mass, abundance, species richness, and the biomass and abundance of individual taxa from the entire community regardless of trophic levels. This is a similar study in which I examine the top-down and bottom-up forces occurring in two different freshwater lakes in North Bay, Ontario. The longer the crayfish, the higher the biomass, therefore a possible result of top-down forcing of predators on a particular species of crayfish. In particular, the difference in length of the crayfish in one lake as opposed to the other may be a result of an underlying process such as bottom-up or top-down regulation. Another ecological process that may be touched on in my hypothesis is climate change. In freshwater ecosystems, increased frequency of extreme rain and flooding can affect freshwater systems by contamination of biocides and nutrients. This type of stressor may have an influence on abundance and/or productivity of the ecosystem. The many different stressors and their potential affect on abundance of crayfish species is important when trying to understand predator-prey relationships, in this case, between large/small mouth bass and crayfish.

3 keywords: bottom-up regulation, abundance, freshwater crayfish, multiple stressors

While my last post made reference to my dislike of spiders, I have to say that my most recent observations and data collection at my site were taken over by wasps. That being said I was able to get 16 samples in total between 4 shrubs and while I did not have much difficulty in implementing my design, I did realize that in some of the shrubs some parts just met the minimum for the sampling height. While the shrubs overall are of adequate size for my study (which is 4 feet) most were well over 4 feet, some parts were barely tall enough. While this would not have any significant impact on my field study, I realized that depending on the nature and source of study this should be a consideration in the future development of my field studies.

Overall, the process of this field project has been a learning experience to say the least. From choosing a project that was interesting yet hard to test (mayflies in Northern Ontario), to creating my own traps for my new project and them being taken away from pedestrians, I would say that I have learned more than I thought I would. The first change I had to make was changing the entire project itself, then I thought I would create my own minnow traps to save some money, realized those didn’t work (and were taken out of the water by pedestrians), and then finally getting the help I needed by meeting Joe the fisherman and getting tips and real minnow traps for the crayfish. Throughout this entire process, I have gone from being really excited to see what I caught to very upset and frustrated when realizing it wasn’t working. This process allowed me to really open my eyes to ecological studies and experiments as I have gained a true appreciation for the patience, concentration, and time that goes into a ecological field study. I have also realized that although there is evidence of a particular process occurring in an area, these processes can be influenced by the environmental conditions, time of the year, and so on.

Creating a graph for this particular experiment was challenging, as I was not able to collect as much data as I had thought. The average surface temperature of both Lake Nipissing and Trout Lake were compared with each other, as well as demonstrating the potential impact of the temperature on the number of crayfish caught. I had expected to catch at least 4-5 crayfish in total, however the results collected were much lower as I only caught 1 crayfish in the entire experiment. Although the organization of the graph was difficult to create, it is useful to see the effect of surface temperature at each trap location on the amount of crayfish and species caught. If I were to further explore this idea, I would use a more strategic sampling strategy, where all 5 traps are in prime locations to catch crayfish in both Trout Lake and Lake Nipissing.

Trout Lake

To collect my field data I returned the following day, on August 6, 2018 to collect the number of species and number of crayfish I found in each trap. I was discouraged again to find that I had caught no crayfish, although, there were some other species in the trap that I recorded for accuracy as well. The only pattern that seems to be evident is that the temperature of the water, somewhat warm, seems to mean as of right now that crayfish do not enjoy this environment, however, it is very possible that they just didn’t come out that night. In order to eliminate the unknown, it was important to sample this location on 2 different occasions. Unfortunately, the replicates resulted in relatively the same data.

 

Lake Nipissing

To collect my field data I returned the following day, August 7, 2018 to collect the number of species and number of crayfish I found in each trap. In traps 1-4, there were no other species in the trap, nor were there any crayfish. However, in Trap 5, one that I placed a little closer to the rocks and vegetation, I caught my first crayfish! I was very excited as it looked like the species I was aiming to catch, Orconectes propinquus, as it is supposed to be very common in Northern Ontario freshwater lakes. I measured this crayfish to compare its length to the crayfish found in Trout Lake,. In regards to replicates, I also sampled this location on two different occasions. Unfortunately, no crayfish or any other species were caught. This information made me reflect on my hypothesis, as I was so sure I would catch at least 3 or 4 crayfish in Lake Nipissing as it is known for its shallow, warmer waters where crayfish thrive. Perhaps it was the way I sampled and the locations that I chose that determined the results? Although these thoughts were going through my mind, fisherman Joe confirmed he has used those traps before in this specific area and have caught many crayfish over the past few months, therefore it really could have been the temperature of the water, time of day, temperature of the air, or any other environmental factor that influenced the results.

The collection of the initial data was difficult to say the least. In the beginning, I had created my own traps after watching a few YouTube tutorials. To implement this sampling technique, I needed 5 minnow traps, each costing around $20-$25 each, which was not in my budget so I made them myself. After putting the traps in their locations, I returned the following day and found them sitting in the bush outside of the water. Trying to find a location where pedestrians would not have easy access to was probably the most difficult part of setting up the experiment, as it took 3 days and 2 tries of putting my homemade traps out to realize that they weren’t the best way to catch crayfish. After having them out the second time and returning to only 3 traps, I decided I had to modify my approach by speaking to a real fisherman and buying the minnow traps. Thankfully, Joe the fisherman was kind enough to lend me 5 traps and give me some pointers on where to put them. This time, instead of bread, I used dead minnows as bait for the crayfish and kept the traps in areas of the lake that were rich in vegetation, rocks, and mud. I strongly believed this would have a significant impact on my research.

DAY 1: August 5, 2018

Trout Lake

To identify the specific locations of interest it was important for me to research to understand where it is likely for me to catch Orconectes propinquus in North Bay, Ontario. After trying to research online for answers, I thought it would be more useful to speak to someone who catches crayfish and other species on a daily basis. Joe is a fisherman who owns a bait shop in North Bay, just along Lake Nipissing. At this point, I had already created my own crayfish traps using plastic bottles, fishing line, rope, and a piece of bread. The previous day, I had put these traps out in 5 different locations along the shoreline of Trout Lake, recorded the temperature of the water, air, time of day, etc., and returned to check out what I had caught. Unfortunately, my homemade traps were taken out of the water by pedestrians and left in the bush. I emptied those traps, put a new piece of bread in, and tossed them back into the water for another night while I tried to figure out how I was going to catch the crayfish without spending too much money on minnow traps.

While those traps stayed in the water over night, Joe the fisherman was kind enough to lend me 5 minnow traps, some rope, and dead minnows for the crayfish to eat. He informed me that he usually catches them closer to the dock, where there is more vegetation and the crayfish can hide. Around 11:15am, 21 degrees Celcius outside, and an average surface temperature of water of 18.12 degrees Celcius, I put out the traps in the 5 random locations along the gradient (some vegetation, some rocks, sand/mud, etc.).

Below is a photo of all 5 traps in 5 randomly selected locations:

DAY 2: August 6, 2018

Today I went to collect my traps to count the number of crayfish, if any, and number of other species, if any, in the trap. If there were crayfish, I planned on measuring the length of the crayfish to examine if there was a difference in size between Trout Lake and Lake Nipissing, and use that as evidence to the type of feeding of crayfish in that particular environment.

 

**Note: 3 of 5 homemade traps floated away in the water, 2 of them collected no species. This information was disregarded in the analysis of my study.

 

Lake Nipissing

After collecting the data for Trout Lake, it was time to move the traps to the other lake in North Bay, Lake Nipissing. In efforts to keep the traps safe, I chose a location where a family member of mine could look after the traps. It was also important that I kept the traps in a relatively similar environment, for example, an area of vegetation, rocks, and mud/sand, as crayfish are more likely to be caught in those areas.

Below are photos of all 5 traps in 5 randomly selected locations:

Hypothesis:

I hypothesize that there will be a greater abundance of Orconectes propinquus crayfish in Lake Nipissing as opposed to Trout Lake. I believe that the surface temperature of the water has a direct affect in the abundance of crayfish in both lakes.

• Response variable: number of Orconectes propinquus crayfish present
• Explanatory variable: average surface area temperature of Lake Nipissing and Trout Lake
• These variables would be considered continuous variables as they can take on any value between its minimum and maximum value
• Sampling technique: Simple Random
  • Constructed imaginary baselines on the two maps of Lake Nipissing and Trout Lake
  • Blindly pointed at 10 locations, and then blindly chose 5 of those 10 spots to determine 5 sample locations in each lake

• Some underlying processes that may cause the patterns I have observed may be that the average temperature of the spots in Lake Nipissing are generally warmer than the surface area temperature of Trout Lake. This may have an effect on the number of species, especially if the particular species prefers warmer temperatures.