SEB114 Biology Report Final

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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


8/17

8

Table 3:

Dry sclerophyll SW


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


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


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


10/17

10

ANALYSIS

Figure 2: Frequency of Canopy Cover (%) at Rainforest Sites.

Figure 3: Frequency of Canopy Cover (%) at Dry Sclerophyll Sites


11/17

11

Figure 4: Frequency of Ground Cover (%) at rainforest Sites

Figure 5: Frequency of Ground Cover at the Dry Sclerophyll Sites


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nkhare95
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

SEB114 Biology Report Final

Documents