Recent Posts

Post 5: Design Reflections

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

After collecting this initial field data, I realize that I might have to expand my site to include beaches along the same coast. Farlow’s seaweed seems to grow very well when it is on its own in a tidepool. However, Farlow’s seaweed doesn’t seem to grow in many tide pools with higher diversity. To collect a large enough sample size, I might need to continue down the coast to visit more tidepools. A larger sample size will give me a more “solid” conclusion.

In addition to this, when collecting samples, the seaweed could not be completely taken off the rock. A small portion of its base remained strongly attached. The seaweed that was collected also contained other organisms. I separated the larger ones that would make a significant difference in the weighing but the smaller ones remain attached.

The major problem I encountered was that my scale only works in whole numbers so my precision is limited. I ended up having to weigh multiple samples at once in order to make the samples weighable. The samples less than one gram in weight were not detected by my scale.

The data that I’ve collected so far is not surprising. It does follow my initial hypothesis.

 

Blog Post 4: Sampling Strategies

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The technique with the fastest sampling time was systemic (sampling along a gradient).

Systemic: 12hr 7m

Random: 12hr 40m

Haphazard: 13hr 1m

% Error respectively

Eastern Hemlock, Sweet Birch, Striped Maple, White Pine.

Systemic: 17.9%, 46.8%, 28.6%, 197.6%

Random: 14.0%, 68.1%, 100%, 98.8%

Haphazard: 2.15%, 2.13%, 54.3%, 42.9%

Accuracy decreases with decreasing species abundance. As seen above, the first two numbers represent common species accuracy whereas the second two numbers represent rare species accuracy.

Based on the data I collected, haphazard seems to be the most accurate. This was likely due to my selection of quadrants to sample. I chose quadrants that were spread out and sampled all regions of the area. Haphazard could have decreased in accuracy if I chose to select quadrants that did not represent the whole area.

Blog 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source I chose was: An integrated analysis of the effects of past land use on forest herb colonization at the landscape scale by Kris Verheyen. This source is academic peer reviewed research material. This is because of the following:

 

  • The source is written by an expert in the field – Dr. Kris Verheyen, from the University of Leuven, He is the head of the Forest and Nature Lab. It includes in text citations, and it contains a bibliography. Therefore, it is academic material.

 

  • The source has been reviewed by at least 1 referee before publication. Therefore it is peer-reviewed academic material.

 

  • The source does report results of a field study completed by the authors. Therefore, it is academic peer-reviewed research material.

 

References

 

Verheyen K, Guntenspergen GR, Biesbrouck B, Hermy M (2003) An integrated analysis of the effects of past land use on forest herb colonization at the landscape scale. J Ecol 91:731–742. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00807.x/full

Blog Post 6 – Data Collection

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Collecting my field data went relatively well. Counting the smaller insects was sometimes difficult. I let the samples sit before I counted so there was less movement. Setting up the full length of the transect line without disturbing the pond too much was a bit difficult as well. The shoreline was quite even which helped. After I finished setting it up I waited for 30 mins before I started sampling. Counting the plants was straightforward. I was able to collect 12 samples.

When I first looked at my data I didn’t see any pattern. If I look at each transect individually it does not appear to support my prediction that samples with more plants will have more insects. What I did notice is that more individual insect species were found in the samples with more plants. I also noticed that transects 1-5 had more uniform plant cover than 6-12. Transects 1-5 had a higher number of insects comparatively, and also had more individual insect species. I also noticed that certain insects were more prominent in my samples with less plants. For example, transect #10 only had one plant, but the highest insect count at thirty-two. But the sample only had two insect species, one of which I mostly saw in the samples with few plants. I did not identify insect species as I felt it was outside of my scope and expertise, but the experiment could benefit from it as it would allow for comparison of what species was present where. I did not take into account that some insects may prefer open areas of the pond and be more numerous there, increasing count numbers in those areas. The experiment would also benefit from larger spaces between samples, as I originally tried, by dividing the pond into sections of plant density and then randomly sampling those areas.

Blog 1: Observations

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The area I have selected for my observations is Mount Nkwala. Mount Nkwala is a mountain that is located west of the city of Penticton in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. Mount Nkwala has many surrounding hiking and mountain biking trails. The trails begin at the top of West Bench, Penticton, and they lead to the top of Mount Nkwala. Many of the trails have views of Penticton and the south end of Okanagan Lake. The elevation of Mount Nkwala is 1019m, and the area is roughly 300 hectares. Its topography is mainly mountain slopes with very few flat areas. Its vegetation is very diverse, being mainly forested with areas of shrubs and rock.

Coordinates: 49.5286° N, 119.6411° W

Visited July 20, 2017 at 1pm.

Weather

28° C

Wind: 11 km/h

Questions

1) What animals inhabit the space? And, what effect do they have on the surrounding vegetation?

2) How is the vegetation effected by the people that hike and bike on the trails?

3) How does plant diversity change depending on the different slopes within the area?

Post 3: Ongoing Field Observations

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

After revisiting my site, I have decided to study Farlow’s seaweed (Farlowia mollis).

As I was revisiting the tide pools, I noticed that they all had different community compositions. Some species were present in almost all tide pools, whereas some were only found in tide pools that had a more consistent supply of “fresh” ocean water. Farlow’s seaweed was one of the species that was present in most of the tide pools. However, it seemed that its morphology varied between communities. Some of them grew very large, whereas others seemed unable to grow to any significant extent. I noticed that the smaller ones were found when Farlow’s seaweed was not a dominant member of the community.

These observations led me to think of competition between the different types of algae in the tide pools. It also led me to question Farlow’s seaweed’s ability to compete with other algae for nutrients. If other species were present that had the ability to out-compete Farlow’s seaweed for resources, then Farlow’s seaweed would not grow to a large size as nutrients would be limited.

My hypothesis is that the growth and morphology of Farlowia mollis is influenced community composition. I predict that Farlow’s seaweed will grow better in communities where it is higher in abundance vs more diverse communities.

A potential response variable would be the size of the algae (i.e. distance from base of algae to tip of longest branch). This variable is continuous, as a range of sizes can be measured.

A potential predictor variable would be presence of neighbours of different species. This variable is categorical.

Blog Post 5 – Design Reflections

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

My first visit to get my five samples did not go well. I knew going in that it was going to be tricky, and it was. Sampling in the deeper water was difficult, even with a long aquatic net. The samples were dirty and difficult to count. Even with the extended reach, I knew I was disturbing the water too much and mostly likely scaring insects away. It was a lot of fun though, haha!

A new plan came to mind, and my second visit went much better. I decided to run a transect line 3’ from the shore, marked every 4’. Along the shore the plant density varies from no plants to very dense, and not in a predictable pattern. I cut the bottom off a five-gallon bucket and placed that down at the transect marker. Because I wasn’t too far from shore I was able to do it without disturbing the water too much, and it kept the insects contained. The bucket is white and water quite clear, but it was still too difficult to count without taking a water sample. I lightly disturbed the water with the net so the insects would swim up out of the plants. I tried to do it in a circular pattern for a three second count (so each is roughly uniform), and then removed the sample with a canvas net. I then placed it into a white bucket so it’s easy to see the insects. I realize I am not getting all the insects in that sample space, but hoping for a representative sample. I found the best way to count the insects was to focus on each insect species separately. The plants were easy to count after the insect sample was out. This plan came about with a lot of trial and error that day. I feel like this is the best I can do with the resources I have. The one thing I will do differently is rather than taking the samples in a line, I will do transect #10 then #5, #9 then #4 etc., to reduce scaring neighbouring insects away from the next sample area. Also, I can’t return any insects to the pond until I am finished so I don’t double count!

My predictor variable is plant density, and my response variable is number of aquatic insects. My initial data does show more insects in the denser plant areas. I noticed one type of insect only appeared in the samples with plants. It isn’t the best representative sample as the majority of them had no plants, and one landed on top of a big rock. But the rock sample had more insects than the two samples with no plants! I also recorded the number of different insect species within each sample:

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Multi-decadal establishment for single-cohort Douglas-fir forests.

Available from Canadian Journal of Forest Research, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0533

This paper is an academic, peer-reviewed research article.

The Canadian Journal of Forest Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

“This manuscript was improved with the help of two peer reviewers. Linda Winter, Keala Hagmann, Derek Churchill, and Lauren Urgenson provided helpful reviews of this manuscript.” showed that it was indeed peer-reviewed.

The in-text citations + reference list that connected this work to other scientific work/sources also provided validity.

The paper was a research article as it contained primary research, utilizing scientific method. It contained an introduction, methods, results, and discussion section.

Blog Post 1: Observations.

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

For my project I selected Uplands Park as my research site, specifically the beach. Uplands Park is a 76-acre property located in a suburban neighbourhood in Victoria BC. The park is full of woodland trails and undeveloped natural reserve land. Terrain is relatively flat throughout the park and drops off a little closer to the beach. The ground is mainly soil, with a transition to a rockier terrain closer to the beach. Vegetation varies throughout the park. Taller trees are localized in the interior whereas bushes and grasses line the outskirts and roads that pass through the park. The rocky beach on the eastern side is home to many different types of seaweed and sea life. Barnacles are dispersed along the rocks close to the water. There are many tide pools along the beach with small communities living in them.

August 17 2017.

11:00AM, 19ᵒC, mainly sunny, wind 4km/h, humidity 64%

 

Questions:

  1. Could barnacle characteristics such as size and density per unit area squared be correlated with different water exposure levels?
  2. Tide pools situated at different elevations, thus flooding frequency, seemed to contain quite different compositions of plants and animals. Could there be a correlation between species present in a tide pool community and the frequency in which the tide pool is flooded?
  3. Could the characteristics of the seaweed in the tide pools be influenced by frequency of flooding?

 

Sources of Scientific Information: The Bog People

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

 

Being privileged enough to have grown up with parents that are not only successful academically but saved many of their textbooks and literature, I had the opportunity to be exposed to such publications as The Origin of Species, The Anatomy Colouring Book, and Lucy at a young age. Our house is full of bookshelves containing everything from Nancy Drew to countless volumes of Anthropology journals. One book that has always been one of my favorites, although I never looked at it from an ecological standpoint until now, is The Bog People: Iron Age Man Preserved, by P.V. Glob. Originally published in 1965 in Denmark, The Bog People was later translated and published in the US in 1969 by the Cornell University Press. Although dated, it still provides an interesting account of how the peat bogs in Denmark preserved the bodies of unlucky victims of hangings, decapitations and most sensationally, ritualistic sacrifices.

 

The author, the late P.V. (Peter Vilhelm) Glob, was a Danish archaeologist, and worked as the Director General of Museums and Antiquities in Demark following a long career teaching, excavating and expediting (Glob, 1965). His long list of credentials and publications clearly mark him as an expert in his field, and the extensive bibliography located at the back of The Bog People indicate that the publication is Academic, but not peer-reviewed. I have chosen to classify it this way taking into account the publication date (1969) and the advancements in research that have been made on the subject in recent years. When The Bog People was first released, it was likely regarded as ‘Popular Science’ or ‘Public Science’, but is now valuable reference material for other archaeologists and biologists researching the fascinating subject of the Danish peat bogs. It is referenced in peer-reviewed material such as Maritime Archaeology (1978) by Keith Muckelroy, as well as A Focus on Peatlands and Peat Mosses (1992) by Howard Crum and Sandra Planesik.