YorkU.Grassland.Oct19-2016.csv - Comparing grasslands with varying levels of disturbance to understand the effects human activity

To identify anthropocentric impacts in the city of Toronto, the abundance and diversity of herbaceous plants, woody plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates were measured in an undisturbed grassland and a disturbed grassland.Observations were collected by 4 ecology students on Wednesday October 19, 2016, between 2:45 PM and 4:30 PM EST. The metadata is separated into four sections.The location was Keele campus of York University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The undisturbed area was the Saywell grassland and the disturbed area was Library Lane. Respectively, longitudes and latitudes were (-79.505996, 43.77) and (-79.504702, 43.772). It was sunny day with temperatures around 20°C.census: week number of the campus ecology experimentscalendar.date: Gregorian calendar date of the field work, stating month and daycampus: the university location of experimentsgroup_ID: the unique name assigned to this group for York University’s campus ecologyhabitat: the general environment of the survey arealat: the latitude of the area, determined by GPSlong: the longitude of the area, determined by GPSelevation: the elevation of the area, provided by the lab instructorrep: the repetition number of a particular experiment from the series of experimentsHerbaceous PlantsHypothesis: There will be a greater number of native plants, greater number of exotic plants and total number of flowers in the undisturbed area compared to the disturbed area.Predictions: There will be a greater number of native plants, greater number of exotic plants and total number of flowers in the undisturbed area compared to the disturbed area due to the fact that the change in environmental conditions (disturbance) would not allow for plant life to thrive. Outcome: The hypothesis was supported by our results.There was a greater number of native plants,greater number of exotic plants and total number of flowers in the undisturbed area compared to the disturbed area, explained by changes in the environmental conditions of the disturbed grassland that transformed the biotic and abiotic interactions causing a decrease in the abundance of plant life. Survey Method: 25 quadrats measuring 1m by 1m were randomly placed. First in the undisturbed grassland habitat for 52.5 minutes. Two randomly-generated integers between 1 and 4 were used to determine the location of each consecutive quadrat. One determined the side of the previous quadrat to which the new quadrat was placed. The other determined the number of steps taken from the previous quadrat to the new quadrat. The observations were then made. Exotic grass were mostly counted through systematic estimation. If a great number a plant species were to be seen, one would use the length of their hand to measure the plant area. If the plant species was scarce then taking an individual count was used. This process was then repeated on an disturbed grassland for 52.5 minutes. Plant origin was determined using a search engine.abundance.native.plants: The total number of native herbaceous plants counted within each quadrat. Native plants occur naturally in a particular ecosystem or habitat. Discrete data: positive integers. Unit: individuals.abundance.exotic.plants: The total number of exotic herbaceous plants counted within each quadrat. Exotic plants are not native to the area they are found in.Discrete data: positive integers. Unit: individuals.total.number.flowers (quadrat): The total number of flowers counted within each quadrat. Discrete data: positive integers. Unit: individuals.Woody PlantsHypothesis: There would be a difference between the total amount of flowers and the ground coverage in grassland and disturbed area.Predictions: There will be higher amount of flowers and higher ground coverage in the grassland compared to the disturbed area. Human activities will interfere with abiotic and biotic interactions in the disturbed area. Outcome: There were fewer flowers and lower ground coverage in the disturbed area may be due to greater disturbance in the disturbed area,Library lane. For instance, grass could die if stepped on everyday. Trampled grass and flowers need more rainfall and nutrients to recover. Furthermore, soil compaction may be affected, which can affect the water flow and soil aeration and can lead to decreased root growth.Survey Method: Two 25m transects were placed in the undisturbed area. Every 2m, the total number of trees, canopy coverage, ground coverage and total number of flowers within 0.5m were recorded. Trees taller than 1.5m were counted. To measure canopy coverage, a square was made with pointers and thumbs and held up to estimate percentage of coverage. This was also done with ground coverage. These steps were also done in the disturbed area.abundance.woody.plants:The total number of trees, taller than 1.5 meters, counted within 0.5 meters at each 2m interval along the 50m transect. Discrete data. Unit:individuals.canopy.cover:This was measured and estimated by creating a square using the researcher’s fingers, holding it up and estimating the amount of the tree leaves covering the square created.Continuous data.Units:percentage.ground.cover: This was measured and estimated by creating a square using the researcher’s fingers, looking down and estimating the percentage of ground covered by plants, grass and shrubs.Continuous data.Units:percentage.total.flower.numbers (transect): The total number of flowers found within 0.5 meters at each 2 meters interval along the 50 meters transect.Discrete data.Unit:number of individuals.Vertebrates & InvertebratesHypothesis: Undisturbed grasslands have more non-human vertebrates and invertebrates than disturbed grasslands. Predictions: Human activity was predicted to negatively affect vertebrate and invertebrate populations. Areas with greater traffic and nearby infrastructures interfere with natural ecosystems because of lessening space, resources, and safety. Relative to the disturbed space, undisturbed areas were expected to have higher abundances of animals.Outcome: The majority of animals were humans. As a percentage of the total vertebrates observed, non-human animal sightings were greater in undisturbed than disturbed grasslands. Most non-human vertebrates were birds in flight; notably, there were flocks of migrating Canadian geese. Sea gulls and songbirds were occasionally seen. Dogs and squirrels were the only non-human, terrestrial species. Observed invertebrates included butterflies, dragonflies, grasshoppers, and bees.Survey Method: As a guideline, 50m of transect tape was placed on the ground (two 25m transect tapes were used). Using 0m as the centre, the number of animals and humans were counted within the 50 metre radius formed by the transect. The survey lasted 15 minutes. Subsequently, invertebrate abundances were measured. Using 5m of transect tape, 0m was used as the centre. For 15 minutes, the number of invertebrates were counted within the 5m radius. The two surveys were replicated in the disturbed and undisturbed grasslands.abundance.vertebrates: The total number of animals observed within a 50m radius for 15 minutes.Discrete data.Unit: individuals.vertebrate.species: The total amount of species observed within a 50m radius for 15 minutes.Discrete data.Unit: numbers of species.abundance.human: The total number of humans observed within a 50m radius for 15 minutes.Discrete data.Unit: individuals.abundance.invertebrates.observed: The total number of invertebrates observed within a 5m radius for 15 minutes.Discrete data.Unit:individuals. InvertebratesHypothesis: There would be a difference between the abundance of invertebrates collected in the undisturbed grassland area and disturbed grassland area using both the pan trap and sweep net sampling methods. Predictions: There would be an increase in invertebrates collected by pan traps and sweep netting in the undisturbed area than the disturbed area. This is due to human impact on the habitat of invertebrates that exist in the soil and vegetation. For example pollution (i.e littering) by humans can create unfavourable living conditions for invertebrates affecting soil composition. Outcome: Our hypothesis was supported. The results gave evidence that more insects were collected in the undisturbed area than disturbed area (library lane) using both the pan trap and sweep net sampling techniques. This is probably due to a greater amount of disturbance caused by humans who constantly pass through the area. This shows that invertebrates are sensitive to changes surrounding them which could impact their habitats and food source.Survey Method: In the pan trap method, 6 pan traps were filled with soapy water. These traps were each distributed 3m apart along the length of a 50m transect. After 70 minutes, the number of invertebrates in the pan traps were counted. A sweep net was used and replicated 10 times. Next to the 50m transect, sweeps were performed and the number of invertebrates in the net were counted. This was repeated for the disturbed grassland. However, 35 minutes were done instead of 70.abundance.invertebrates.pantraps: The total number of invertebrates collected and counted using the pan trap sampling method in the undisturbed and disturbed grassland area.Discrete data.Unit:individuals.abundance.invertebrates.sweepnet: The total number of invertebrates collected and counted using the sweep net sampling method in the undisturbed and disturbed grassland area.Discrete data.Unit:individuals.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.