Effects of Leaf coverage and Neighboring adult tree or sapling on insect abundance in Danby woodlot

<p>This lab was done on Wednesday 14th and 21st October 2015 at Danby woodlot located at York University. The class was divided into groups of 4 or 5. My group members are Jordan Deosamy, Mandy Huynh and Dylan Stoll. 50 adult trees and saplings were chosen at random and the insect abundance and leaf litter coverage were determined. The group split into groups of two to make the sampling faster. Each group sampled 50 different areas in the woodlot. Each group had a 1m by 1m quadrat and an orange flagging tape. When a random adult tree or sapling was chosen to be sampled, it was first tied with an orange flagging tape to prevent repetition and to differentiate from other groups that were doing their own experiments. Determining the life stage of the tree was done by visual observation. Adult trees were considered to be 2m or taller. The 1m by 1m quadrat was then placed right beside the adult tree or sapling facing the north because there was more shade meaning the ground would have more moisture and there would be more insect abundance. After that, the insect abundance was determined by visual observation for 3 minutes and counting the amount of insects that could be seen within the quadrat. Finally, pushing the leaf litter in the quadrat to one corner and spreading it out to see how much of the quadrat space it covered estimated the leaf litter coverage. The result was recorded in percentage. This was done for all the trials. The purpose of this experiment was to find if leaf coverage and proximity of adult tree has any effect on insect abundance. The environmental condition on the first day that the first 50 data was collected was partly cloudy, the temperature was 12 °C, slight breeze and the ground was mainly dry. On the second day the temperature was 9 °C, it was windy enough to move small branches, there was more leaf litter on the ground and more moisture due to rain the previous day. On the 14th the lab lasted from 2:55pm to 4:45pm while on the 21st the lab lasted from 3:05pm to 4:45pm.</p

Relationship between adult tree and sapling in Danby woodlot

<p>This lab was done at Danby woodlot located at York University. The class was divided into groups of 4 or 5. My group members are Jordan Deosamy, Mandy Huynh and Dylan Stoll. Before the lab began a particular specie of tree had to be chosen. Maple was picked because it was the most common one. 10 adult maple trees with saplings beside them were selected at random. The distance between the adult maple tree and the sapling was measured for the 10 trees using a transect. The transect was laid out from the adult tree to the sapling. This was measured in feet. After that the DBH (Diameter at breast height) was measured for both the adult tree and sapling also using a transect. The transect was put at chest level of the adult tree trunks and sapling (depending on the height). This was done for all 10 adult trees and saplings. It was measured in inches. Finally the canopy coverage was measured by using fingers to make a square and holding it up to make an estimate depending on how much sky could be seen from between the leaves of the adult tree. This was estimated in percentage. The purpose of finding the distance between the adult tree and sapling is to see if there is a relationship between the sapling and adult tree. The canopy coverage was taken to see how much effect tree coverage has on the environment. The environmental condition during the lab was cool.</p

Group 5

<p>Data was collected, with permission, from fellow lab members within BIOL 2050 lab 3 in regards to their hair colour, gender and shirt colour. Data was collected through visual observation. The observational experiment was conducted in the Lumbers building room 118 on a sunny Wednesday afternoon at around 3 pm with most of the curtains drawn closed. Data was collected by Dylan Stoll, Mandy Huynh, Mariam Nnanna, and Jordan Deosamy. </p

Abundance and Diversity of Insects in Coastal Grasslands (Fiscalini Ranch Preserve and Rancho Marino Reserve)

<div><p>Site description</p><p>The study was carried out over three days between August 30th, 2016 and September 1st 2016, in two sites in Cambria, San Luis Obispo County, California. </p><p>Site one: Kenneth Norris Rancho Marino Reserve, located on the southern edge of Cambria. The reserve contains remnant coastal grasslands, consisting of areas that were cultivated and planted with Harding Grass (Phalaris aquatica), as well as those that have never been cultivated. The entire reserve has been grazed by livestock. Transect one is located in a previously cultivated planted area, transect two is located in an uncultivated area. </p><p>Site two: Fiscalini Ranch Preserve is a coastal grassland located within the edges of Cambria town. The preserve has been grazed in the past by livestock but not cultivated. The reserve is no longer grazed and now functions as a nature reserve</p><br><p>Methods</p><p>Two 100m transects were laid out at site one and two. A total of 18 locations from each transect were sampled, six per day. The sampling locations were chosen by generating 25 random numbers between 1 and 100. The daily sites were chosen by generating six random numbers between 1 and 25 to correspond with the position on the original random number list. These final numbers were used to indicate the distance from the start of the transect.  </p><p>At Rancho Marino, transect 1 was located at 35.53966, -121.09032 to 35.53896, -121.08968. Transect 2 was located at 35.52933, -121.07793 to 35.52862 , -121.07728. At Fiscalini transect 1 35.54944, -121.10043 to 35.55009, -121.10102. Transect 2 is from 35.55046, -121.10166 to 35.55117, -121.10227.</p><p>Polaroid Cube cameras were used to capture visits by both flying and crawling insects. The cameras were placed six steps away from the transect northwards at each of six sampling distances. The cameras faced north to minimize interference from solar glare. The first hour of video was reviewed and each instance of an insect entering the field of view was recorded.  Insects that left the field of view and returned were counted as two separate observations because it was not possible to confirm the identity of an individual. </p><br><p>Pan traps were used to sample the insect communities. The pan traps were made from white Solo bowls painted red, blue, yellow or left unpainted. The bowls were filled with an unscented dish detergent solution. The pan traps were placed at each of the six camera locations on each transect in the following order: red, white, yellow, blue with respect to the camera’s field of view. Pan traps were left out for three hours (on average 12:30 - 15:30). After collection, the insects were stored in 95% ethanol. Bees were identified to family at a minimum and genus where possible. The remaining insects were identified to order. </p><p>To assess vegetation cover, 0.25 m2 quadrat was used to visually estimate the proportion of Harding grass, other exotics, native plants and bare ground at each sampling location and the presence/absence of scat was recorded. Any insects observed during the vegetation survey were recorded.</p><br><br></div><div><br></div><div>Group Names: Jenna Braun, Simmy Kang, Aisa Kuper-Psenicnik, Yating Li, Mariam Nnanna, Yue Yin</div