seb114 biology report final
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
1/17
1
SEB114: BIOLOGY
POSTER SUBMISSION
Group Members:
Mikayla Brown, Nicole Hare, Amy Hrstich,
Kristen Thompson, Shani Wilton
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
2/17
2
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this investigation was to determine, through the collection and analysis of
field data as well as research into the literature, if the % canopy cover of rainforest and
dry sclerophyll forest has any effect on the % ground cover within these areas. It was
hypothesised that as the % canopy cover increases, the % ground cover decreases within
both the Dry Sclerophyll and Rainforest environments. The data for the Dry Sclerophyll and
Rainforest ecosystems used in this experiment was collected from the Moggill
Conservation Park in Brisbane, Australia. The data was then compiled and the variables of
Canopy Cover with relation to Ground Cover were identified as the variables of interest.
From here, the data was studied and manipulated in order to identify relationships
through the use of histograms, heat maps and tables. These methods of analysis were
done in the R and Excel computer programs. In terms of errors, considering the large
number of people collecting data, variations in data reading and recording can be
expected. After much analysis of the raw and manipulated data as well as the literature, it
was decided that the hypothesis was thoroughly supported.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
3/17
3
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OVERVIEW
The issue being investigated within this investigation is that of the relationship between
the % canopy cover and % ground cover in the Moggill Conversation Parks dry
sclerophyll and rainforest areas. This field of research is vitally important to humans
understanding of the rainforest ecosystem as with ever growing concerns regarding
climate change and the depletion of the ozone layer, it is becoming evermore apparent
that our understanding and ability to interact with the environment could make or break
the vital ecosystems within our forests. In saying this, through gathering an
understanding of how the exposure to light effects the undergrowth (ground cover) of
the various forests, we may be able to identify and predict future happenings within the
forest as ever increasing amounts of sunlight being to penetrate our earths atmosphericlayers.
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Research Question
Of the dry sclerophyll and rainforest areas studied on the field trip, does the % canopy
cover have any impact on the % ground cover within these areas, and if so, what is the
impact?
How Research Question is addressed
During the investigation, the research was based around five main questions: what are
main differences between Dry Sclerophyll forests and Rainforests, how are % canopy
cover and % ground cover measured, what impact does the % canopy cover have on a
forests % ground cover, why does the % canopy cover have an effect on a forests %
ground cover and why is this field of research important to Queenslands forest
ecosystems.
What are the main differences between Dry Sclerophyll forests and Rainforests?
The dry sclerophyll forest, typically seen on the Eastern cost of Australia, is an open forest
try typically characterised by varying eucalypt species making up the canopy layer with an
understory and ground cover made up of various grass types, hard-leafed shrubs and ferns
(Forest Education Foundation, 2010). The environment in which dry sclerophyll forests
flourish is usually dry, and located in high areas where surface run-off percentages are high.
It is for this reason that trees within the dry sclerophyll forest are usually slow growing and
hearty species (Forest Education Foundation, 2010)
By comparison, the rainforest is almost always a wet climate, hence why the rainforestswithin Queensland are called the Wet Tropics. Rainforests are usually located at the
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
4/17
4
bottom of mountain ranges or in valleys whereby water run-off is significant. Within the
rainforest there is typically less availability of sunlight on the forest floor as the canopy
cover is significantly denser than that of the dry sclerophyll forest. This occurrence can be
attributed to the large number of tall trees fighting for dominance of sunlight within this
area such as the Native Tamarind, Brush Box and Hairy Rosewood (Australian Rainforest
Foundation, 2013).
In this way, the obvious difference between the two forest types studied at the Moggill
Conservation Park was the availability of sunlight on the ground floor due to differences in
canopy cover %. The dry sclerophyll forest has typically a more open canopy whereas the
rainforest canopy is usually more dense (Australian Rainforest Foundation, 2013 & Forest
Education Foundation, 2013).
How are % canopy cover and % ground cover measured?
Throughout the data collection process, the % canopy cover and % ground cover results
were obtained with assistance from guideline models presented by the field trip leaders.
These guideline models were used to estimate these values.
What impact does % canopy cover have on a forests % ground cover?
The impact of % canopy cover on the % ground cover in Australian Dry Sclerophyll forests
and Rainforests has not been highly documented within the literature. Moran (2007)
suggests that open forests, such as those of the dry sclerophyll studied in this experiment,
allow for more light to penetrate to the forest floor and therefore allow for more ground
cover growth. He also suggests that within more dense forests, such as the rainforest,
sunlight is more restricted due to a denser canopy, which does not allow for as much
growth. These finds were also presented by Mountford, Savill and Bebber (2006) who
carried out an experiment in Rumerhedge Wood in England testing the pattern of
regeneration and ground vegetation associated with canopy cover displayed similar
research objectives as our experiment within the Moggill Conservation Park. Mountford,
Savill and Bebbers results describe a pattern that was found between the vegetation
ground cover and canopy cover stating that the percentage of ground cover was quite high
where there were breaks in the canopy and also around the outside, however as soon as the
percentage of canopy increased, the amount of ground vegetation rapidly decreased. This is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Graph displaying the
relationship between canopy cover and
ground cover as per Mountford, Savill
and Bebbers(2006) findings.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
5/17
5
Why is this field of research important to Queenslands forest ecosystems?
As was stated in the background overview, with the Earths climate changing dramatically
and sunlight penetration through the Earths atmosphere becoming evermore intense,
having an understanding of how the % canopy cover (and therefore how much light is able
to pass through the canopy to the forest floor) effects the % ground cover may be vital in
predicting the health of our forest ecosystems in the future.
Aim
To determine, through the collection and analysis of field data as well as research into
the literature, if the % canopy cover of rainforest and dry sclerophyll forest effects the
% ground cover within these areas.
Hypothesis
That as the % canopy cover increases, the % ground cover decreases within both the
Dry Sclerophyll and Rainforest environments.
Justification of Hypothesis
As was in the research sub-questions, it has been suggested in the literature,
especially that presented by Moran (2007), that the less sunlight is allowed to
penetrate the canopy and therefore reach the forest floor, the less ground cover
species are able to grow and flourish. Given this, it is obvious that as the % canopy
cover increases; the % ground cover will decrease because as the sunlight becomes
less readily available, the less ground cover species will grow. This claim is also
supported by the experimental research conducted by Mountford, Savill and Bebbers
(2006) within the Rumerhedge Wood in England.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The data for the Dry Sclerophyll and Rainforest ecosystems used in this experiment
was collected from the Moggill Conservation Park in Brisbane, Australia. During the
data collection, the measuring equipment used (tape measure, 1x1m plot indicators,
rulers, etc) as well as the results recorder were kept constant in order to create and
fair and accurate test. In saying this, considering the number of groups collecting data,it is quite possible that some variance occurred within the data collection due to
communication and/or evaluation faults. The data was then compiled and the
variables of Canopy Cover with relation to Ground Cover were identified as the
variables of interest. From here, the data was studied and manipulated in order to
identify relationships through the use of histograms, heat maps and tables. These
methods of analysis were done in the R and Excel computer programs.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
6/17
6
METHOD
Materials
Camera
Canopy Cover Estimation Guide
Compass
Field Trip Data Collection Proforma
Ground Cover Estimation Guide
Ground cover estimation guides
Rope (at least 8m)
100m measuring tape
1m2plastic quadrat
Procedure
In order to collect a range of data from 3 different sites at Moggill Conservation Park,
the 3 sites were divided amongst 3 classes, with each surveying 2 sites. Our group
surveyed Site 1: Rainforest and Site 3: Dry Sclerophyll.
Firstly, a 11m quadrat at Site 3 was surveyed. The location was selected at least 3m
off the track and 10m from any other group to ensure an accurate, diverse range of
data was collected and avoid data duplication. The 1m2
plastic quadrat was lain downin a randomly chosen position. The ground cover and canopy cover percentages were
estimated using the guides provided, and photographed to provide a reference for
later. Then, the number different plant species within the quadrat were recorded and
classified as either grasses & sedges, herbs, ferns, shrubs, vines & lianas, small trees
(4m) or epiphytes. A 22m quadrat was laid out using the measuring
tape and rope. The process of recording different plant species was repeated for this
area.
Then, the point centred quarter method was used for basal tree area.From the centre of the 22m quadrat, the closet tall tree in each quadrant was located
and its width, as well as the distance it was away from the center was recorded. It was
also noted whether the tree was a eucalypt or not. This was repeated from an
additional point outside the initial range.
The surveying process was repeated at Site 1.
The data from all the classs groups was then collaborated, including data recorded for
a 1010m quadrat at each site. The relevant data was then selected in order to
investigate the hypothesis stated, and was manipulated for use in the analysis.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
7/17
7
RESULTSRaw Data
Table 1:
Table 2:
Rainforest SW (transitional ?)
2x2 quadrats 10x10 quadrats
grasses low veg trees grasses low veg trees
canopy
cover
(%)
ground
cover
(%)
site 1 0 7 4 2 17 22 70 20
site 2 0 7 3 2 14 19 80 25
site 3 1 9 5 3 16 17 75 45
site 4 1 8 4 1 12 21 65 70
site 5 0 6 2 1 18 18 70 20
site 6 0 9 2 0 11 18 75 30
site 7 0 4 4 0 17 20 95 20
site 8 0 8 3 2 14 23 80 30
site 9 0 9 5 2 13 16 70 35
site 10 0 4 5 1 13 12 90 15
site 11 0 8 5 2 15 21 85 35
site 12 0 3 2 1 12 18 75 90
average
(mean) 0.1666667
6.8333333
3
3.66666666
7 1.416667 14.33333 18.75 77.5 36.25
Rainforest NE
2*2 quadrats 10*10 quadrats
grasses low veg trees grasses low veg trees
canopy
cover (%)
ground
cover
(%)
0 6 2 1 13 16 75 30
1 7 3 2 14 20 70 15
0 8 2 2 15 17 80 25
0 3 3 1 12 18 75 20
1 6 3 1 12 14 90 35
0 5 4 2 14 19 85 40
1 4 5 3 12 17 70 25
0 7 3 1 14 14 75 30
0 6 4 1 15 16 80 45
0 8 5 0 12 20 85 20
0 4 4 2 12 14 80 25
0 6 3 1 13 12 75 35
0.25 5.833333 3.416666667 1.416667 13.16667 16.41667 78.33333 28.75
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
8/17
8
Table 3:
Dry sclerophyll SW
2*2 quadrats 10*10 quadrats
grasses low veg trees grasses low veg treescanopycover (%)
ground cover(%)
4 9 3 6 18 7 35 55
4 7 2 5 17 5 25 35
3 7 1 4 19 4 35 70
4 7 3 5 12 5 25 25
2 9 2 6 19 6 25 80
4 5 3 6 15 4 10 45
3 5 4 4 11 7 15 70
3 8 2 5 13 6 30 40
2 8 2 5 14 4 20 60
2 5 3 7 16 6 20 40
3 9 1 5 17 3 35 85
2 4 2 5 16 5 25 75
3 6.916667 2.333333 5.25 15.58333
5.16666
7 25 56.66667
Table 4:
Dry sclerophyll NE
2*2 quadrats 10*10 quadrats
grasses low veg trees grasses
low
veg trees
canopy
cover (%) ground cover (%)
3 7 2 9 17 6 20 70
4 6 1 8 15 5 25 50
4 3 1 7 15 4 25 450 3 0 6 13 5 25 80
4 8 1 8 17 4 30 70
2 5 1 7 12 3 30 60
2 6 1 6 15 6 35 65
1 3 2 8 15 4 30 20
3 5 1 7 13 4 20 50
3 7 2 9 16 6 25 40
4 6 1 8 14 5 20 55
3 4 2 7 12 4 20 55
2.75 5.25 1.25 7.5 14.5 4.666667 25.41667 55
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
9/17
9
Table 5:
Canopy Cover % Ground Cover %
Site # Rainforest Dry
Sclerophyll
Rainforest Dry Sclerophyll
Site 1 70 35 20 55
Site 2 80 25 25 35
Site 3 75 35 45 70
Site 4 65 25 70 25
Site 5 70 25 20 80
Site 6 75 10 30 45
Site 7 95 15 20 70
Site 8 80 30 30 40
Site 9 70 20 35 60
Site 10 90 20 15 40
Site 11 85 35 35 85Site 12 75 25 90 75
Site 13 75 20 30 70
Site 14 70 25 15 50
Site 15 80 25 25 45
Site 16 75 25 20 80
Site 17 90 30 35 70
Site 18 85 30 40 60
Site 19 70 35 25 65
Site 20 75 30 30 20Site 21 80 20 45 50
Site 22 85 25 20 40
Site 23 80 20 25 55
Site 24 75 20 35 55
Average 77.9 25.2 32.5 55.8
Table 6: Anova Results.
Canopy and Ground Cover (%) at Rainforest
and Dry Sclerophyll SitesRow 0.0073
Columns
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
10/17
10
ANALYSIS
Figure 2: Frequency of Canopy Cover (%) at Rainforest Sites.
Figure 3: Frequency of Canopy Cover (%) at Dry Sclerophyll Sites
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
11/17
11
Figure 4: Frequency of Ground Cover (%) at rainforest Sites
Figure 5: Frequency of Ground Cover at the Dry Sclerophyll Sites
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
12/17
12
Figure 6: Heat map showing correlations between Canopy Cover and Ground
Cover at Rainforest Sites
Figure 7: Heat map showing the correlation between Canopy Cover and Dry
Sclerophyll Sites.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
13/17
13
Table 8: Table showing the correlations of canopy cover and ground cover at
Rainforest and Dry Sclerophyll sites.
Rainforest
Canopy
Dry
Sclerophyll
Canopy
Rainforest
Ground
Dry
Sclerophyll
Ground
RainforestCanopy
100.00 -14.65 -23.67 10.49
Dry
Sclerophyll
Canopy
-14.65 100.00 7.31 15.12
Rainforest
Ground
-23.67 7.31 100 4.35
Dry
Sclerophyll
Ground
10.49 15.12 4.35 100
Figure 9: Heatment of Correlations of canopy cover and ground cover at Rainforest
and Dry Sclerophyll sites.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
14/17
14
DISCUSSION
Through the results many conclusions can be interpreted. The hypothesis suggests
that higher the % of canopy cover, the lower % ground vegetation cover can be
expected. The Anova results show the p value calculated at 0.0073 for canopy and
ground cover percentage over the different sites. This indicates that the difference in
the amount of percentage cover at each site is quite significant. The p value for the
columns, looking at the two different sites, rainforest and dry sclerophyll is
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
15/17
15
In terms of looking at the correlations there is a very high correlation between the
ground cover percentages and the canopy cover percentages on the rainforest site.
The first two heat maps were made to check again the validity of our hypothesis and
results, and they both confirm that there is a correlation between both the sites and
the canopy cover and ground vegetation cover. The data then again supports ourhypothesis through the value table and Figure 7.
All the results collated and analysed strongly support that the hypothesis is correct
and there has been no bias in the result collations. It has been all corroborated with
the graphs, p values and raw data, along with the heat maps showing the correlations.
As discussed previously, our hypothesis stated that in either the rainforest or the dry
sclerophyll forest, the higher the percentage of canopy cover, the lower the
percentage of ground vegetation cover. After analysing the results, we found this
hypothesis to be in fact true, showing that there was a high correlation between the
two rainforests and the percentage of canopy cover and therefore the overall
percentage of ground cover as well. This was demonstrated particularly well using the
heat maps and again supporting the data in the histograms. The data and graph from
the experiment in the literature, especially that presented by Moran (2007) and
Mountford, Savill and Bebber (2006) further supported our hypothesis.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
16/17
16
CONCLUSION
The raw results gathered in this experiment and subsequent data manipulations, as
well as research from the literature, have thoroughly supported the key argument
that as the % canopy cover increases, the % ground cover decreases within both theDry Sclerophyll and Rainforest environments. Considering this, the hypothesis was
satisfied and is therefore thoroughly supported. Applying the findings of this
experiment to the future, it is obvious that research into and subsequent knowledge
on the area is very lacking, and therefore further, more broad-scale (possibly cross-
continent) research should be carried out. The specific effects within different types of
forests could also be investigated.
-
8/12/2019 SEB114 Biology Report Final
17/17
17
RESOURCES
Australian Rainforest Foundation. (2013). Australias Rainforests. Retrieved on23 May 2013 fromhttp://www.arf.net.au/content.php?pageid=1265241063.
Forest Education Foundation. (2010). Dry Sclerophyll Forests. Retrieved on 23
May 2013 fromhttp://www.forest-education.com/index.php/tasmania/C222/
Moran, M. (2007). Forest. Study of Northern Virginian Ecology. Retrieved 23 May,
2013 fromhttp://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/forest.htm.
Mountford, E., Savill, P., Bebber, D. (2006). Patterns of regeneration and ground
vegetation associated with canopy gaps in a managed beechwood in southern
England. Retrieved from
http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/4/389.full.pdf+html
http://www.arf.net.au/content.php?pageid=1265241063http://www.arf.net.au/content.php?pageid=1265241063http://www.arf.net.au/content.php?pageid=1265241063http://www.forest-education.com/index.php/tasmania/C222/http://www.forest-education.com/index.php/tasmania/C222/http://www.forest-education.com/index.php/tasmania/C222/http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/forest.htmhttp://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/forest.htmhttp://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/forest.htmhttp://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/4/389.full.pdf+htmlhttp://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/4/389.full.pdf+htmlhttp://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/4/389.full.pdf+htmlhttp://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/forest.htmhttp://www.forest-education.com/index.php/tasmania/C222/http://www.arf.net.au/content.php?pageid=1265241063