Category: Uncategorized

Blog Post #2 — Cameron Purdy

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Academic Peer Reviewed Research Paper

Title:  Terminal Nerve GnRH3 Neurons Mediate Slow Avoidance of Carbon Dioxide in Larval Zebrafish

Source: Koide T, Yabuki Y, Yoshihara Y. Terminal nerve GnRH3 neurons mediate slow avoidance of carbon dioxide in larval zebrafish. Cell Reports, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.01.019

Link: http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdf/S2211-1247(18)30036-6.pdf

 

The following paper is an Academic Peer Reviewed Research Paper for the following reasons:

a) The paper is written by experts in the field. Koide, Yabuki, and Yoshihara are all associated with the Laboratory for Neurobiology of Synapse in Japan. It was published in the journal “Cell Reports” which publishes high quality peer-reviewed material.

b) The paper contains a bibliography citing additional sources used as information. These sources are cited in text throughout the article. (Ex.  “This fast escape response is mediated by reticulospinal neurons, including the large, morphologically conspicuous Mauthner cells” (Gahtan et al., 2002; Liu and Fetcho, 1999; O’Malley et al., 1996).)

c) Acknowledgements thank two editors for their critical reading of the manuscript indicating that the paper had gone through the peer review process. This is further supported by the journal the article is posted in.

d) The paper is formatted as a research paper as it contains an introduction, results and discussion. The experimental methods were included within the results section. We can see that there are multiple intervention levels further leading us to believe that the paper is experimental in nature. *(See below)

(To examine what chemosensory signals affect behaviors of larval zebrafish, we applied various chemicals to the head of fish at 5 days post-fertilization).

Blog Post 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Blog Post #1: Initial Observations of Study Area

Cameron Purdy – T00028679

January 31, 2018

Address:  33844 King Rd, Abbotsford, BC, V2S7M7

Coordinates: 49.0291° N, 122.2854° W. ~40m above sea level

Weather: Light rain showers, ~ 4ºC.

Seasonality: Winter

Time: 3:20PM

Description of Study Area:

The area(s) I have decided to observe are two separate ecological islands on the University of the Fraser Valley campus. Prior to UFV being built, the location was comprised of mainly farmland. Historically, the Fraser River had a much larger footprint and had floodplains that covered much of Abbotsford including areas surrounding UFV. 

Location A is a temperate deciduous forest with area (A=440m²). It is bordered to the north by the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports Center, and surrounded by parking lots to the east, west, and south. The general topography of the forest is flat, however there is a slight slope coming down from the parking lot on the east most side. The most prevalent vegetation found includes Convallaria majalis, Oemleria cerasiformis, Maianthemum racemosum, and Trientalis borealis. Additionally, tree canopy cover in this forest is quite dense and filters out much of the sunlight. Few species of birds could be seen flying amongst the trees. 

From left to right:

  1. Forest A looking north from the south. Parking lot can be seen to east with the slight slope leading down into the forest.
  2. Forest A looking north from south. Parking lot can be seen to west, Abbotsford Entertainment Center can be seen at the north end of forest.
  3. Forest A looking north from south. Proposed transect line through middle of forest.

 

Location B is also a temperate deciduous forest with area (A=540m²). It is bordered by buildings and a walkway to the west and south, and grass fields to the north and east. Centrally located in the forest is a small pond (A~200m²) that is surrounded by marshy wetlands. The general topography is relatively flat, with a slight slope on the east most side of the forest. The pond situated within the forest collects water that runs off the slope, and has a small stream that exits the forest to the south. The most prevalent vegetation found includes Rubus spectabilis, Rubus idaeus, Oemleria cerasiformis. The tree canopy cover in this forest is less dense than that of location A. While no wildlife was seen, frogs could be heard from the pond. 

From left to right:

  1. Forest B looking north from south. Open grass field can be seen to east, ground slopes downward towards the west.
  2. Forest B looking north-east from south-west. Pond and marshy surrounding areas seen.
  3. Forest B looking south-west from north-east. Proposed transect line through middle of forest.

Follow up Questions: 

1) What leads to the difference in vegetation among the two forests. How could they have a significantly different prevalence of plant species when they are located so close to each other?

2) While we know the vegetation differs between the two sample forests. How does the fauna differ between the two. Is there a higher prevalence of specific invertebrates in one forest over the other?

3) What are the differences in soil composition? If there are differences, could these in fact be linked to the the prevalence of specific flora and fauna in their respective forests.

Post #4

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Systematic, random and haphazard sampling techniques were compared in the virtual forest tutorial.

Systematic had the fastest estimated sampling time (12 hours and 7 minutes). Haphazard sampling was second fastest (12 hours 34 minutes) and random was the slowest (12 hours and 42 minutes).

The percent error is summarized in table 1. Systematic and haphazard produced similar percent error values for the two most common species (eastern hemlock and red maple).  Systematic sampling produced errors of 7.3% for eastern hemlock 15.6% for red maple. Random sampling yielded percent error of 1.57% for eastern hemlock and 51% for red maple.

White pine and striped maple were the least common. However, no method sampled either of these trees. The next least common were yellow birch and chestnut oak. Haphazard yielded the smallest percent error (4.3% for yellow birch and 5.13% for chestnut oak). Systematic was second best (14.8% for yellow birch and 15% for chestnut oak). Random had the highest percent error (33.9% for yellow birch and 61.5.0% for chestnut oak).

It appeared that systematic sampling became more slightly more inaccurate as species abundance decreases. Haphazard sampling was more stable, however it randomly had a very high error for sweet birch. Random produced the smallest error in entire tutorial for the most common species (eastern hemlock 1.57%), but produced more inaccurate results for all other less abundant species.

 

Table 1. Percent error produced by systematic, random and haphazard sampling in a virtual forest tutorial

System Random Haphazard
Species Actual Density Data Density Error (%) Data Error

(%)

 Data Error (%)
Eastern Hemlock 469.9 504.2 7.3 462.5 1.57 550 17.0
Sweet Birch 117.5 112.5 4.3 141.7 20.6 183.3 56.0
Yellow Birch 108.9 104.2 4.3 145.8 33.9 125 14.8
Chestnut Oak 87.5 66.7 23.8 33.3 61.5 75 14.3
Red Maple 118.9 137.5 15.6 58.3 51 125 5.1
Striped Maple 17.5 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
White Pine 8.4 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

 

 

 

post 9

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

My field research project has made me appreciate the traditional ecological knowledge I have received from my community, grandparents, culture and previous job experience in cultural heritage resources. It also made me appreciate the education journey I am on learning and studying new western science and ecology. It is truly inspiring and reassuring of the journey I am on to raise awareness and make a different in the Forestry Practices/ Land Management regimes of this generation. It is only the very beginning for me and I have tons to learn still but this project was fun and awakening!

I believe that all Land Managers/Forest Professionals can work better together with First Nation Communities and exchange these traditional teachings and traditional ecological knowledge for the benefit of our beautiful land. Its no secret that our land is experiencing change from invasive non-native species, over-grazing and over-logging. This is the time we can conduct these studies and incorporate traditional land management strategies with current and bring back climax community in all of our ecosystems, watersheds and backyards.

Thank you for this opportunity in my early studies of school! only my second year of college, good luck to everyone else!

post 7

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The Theoretical Perspective of my study is current state and relationship of this study area and many areas in different ecosystems. the affects of non-native species and disturbances have on ecosystems and traditional plants and medicine. I am hoping its an eye opener to land managers how we can address these problems. The data I have collected only confirms what is being stated by community that yes there is still traditional plant use and they are current.

Post 6 – Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The completion of my data collection went great and as expected! its definitely eye opening on the affect of non-native species and cattle grazing have on ecosystems. However using both traditional ecological knowledge and western science will benefit and revitalize this ecosystem but no less sustain what is left. The data collected is consistent with the value and importance information the community and elders provide.

Post 5 – Design Reflections

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The time frame for my surveying and collection of data was completed by late summer with surveying done in four different stages with four different areas of interest. Each stage and area was ensured and timed with the seasonal plants and plant communities so they can be observed and recorded for my project!

For the collection of data I used a Compass, GPS, Ipad, PlantBook, Elson Tape

With the knowledge I’ve received from my community and elders tied to western science, I wasn’t surprised with my results. The disturbance of cattle grazing and non-native species was definitely noticeable and a problem. Which comes into question the management strategies we can use to get DPC (desired plant community) back or natural disturbances to bring the ecosystem back to succession then to climax community.