Stocktonia Volume 14

VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1, JUNE 2011
STOCKTONIA
A Journal of Comparative Environmental Studies
STOCKTONIA
STOCKTONIA
A Journal of Comparative Environmental Studies
VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1, JUNE 2011
CONTENTS
RSC Vernal Pond Amphibian Survey....................................................................................................................................... 3
ROBERT BUNIS, LISA BUYOFSKY, TYLER MARTZ
The Effects of Storm Water Runoff and the Future of Lake Fred: A Study of Diatoms ........................................................... 7 KATIE-ANNE CONWAY, ROBERT COOPER, MEGAN KELLY, SCOTT LINDSAY, MICHAEL SPILLE Roadside Rehabilitation.......................................................................................................................................................... 14 SAMANTHA ANDERSON, MAUREEN DUFFY, DAN PETELA, NIA MARCIANTE, CHELSEA SCHORR The Ants Go Marching In....................................................................................................................................................... 20
MICHELLE DAMICO, WILLIAM SMITH, DEREK MACAULAY
Stream Stick Sampling: A Study of Macroinvertebrates and Their Aquatic Homes .............................................................. 24
DANIEL HEMMERLIN, CHRIS MARTIN, MIKE POMYKACZ AND EMMANUEL JOHN
Macro-invertebrates................................................................................................................................................................ 33
RYAN KISKA, BRIAN TILTON, AND ALEX LIST
Invasive Plants on the Richard Stockton College Campus ..................................................................................................... 44 ALLEY MANALIO, THERESA QUELCH, JACKIE KONDRK, ERIN MAGUIRE Phenology of High Bush Blueberries ..................................................................................................................................... 50
BILLIE BROCKHUM AND DAVID MASON
RSC Vernal Pond Amphibian Survey

ROBERT BUNIS, LISA BUYOFSKY, TYLER MARTZ Our study was conducted during a dry, cold spring compared to other years of this amphibian study on the Richard Stockton campus. We collected data to compare to previous years of study to find whether or not the frogs returned to the same ponds and if there was a shift in any of the species populations. Results from 2007, 2009, and 2010 studies provided the background for our study, especially focusing on 2010. Frog activity and water samples were recorded from seven different vernal ponds on campus in April. We found that frog populations chose the deeper vernal pools this year, and there were fewer frogs found than in 2010.
Introduction
The question Since this spring of 2011 was significantly cooler and drier than last year, will the frogs change their most populated areas of spawning? Did any of the frog populations change in numbers due to the colder weather and lower water levels? Previous studies The previous years of study each had particularly different situations. In 2010, the study focused on the factor that it was a very flooded spring season, which brought unique results regarding frogs changing populated locations from the previous year. This study included counts of frog calls, frog collection, and water samples. The 2009 article studied a specific pond and focused on species diversity versus frog calls. Influencing factors on the amphibians, including physical conditions that were both natural and unnatural, were observed. The 2007 article was the first frog study, which included four different vernal pools. Their focus was on whether or not water conductivity and acidity affect the species of frogs found. The frogs were recorded based on their calls. Hypothesis We believe that the frogs will not return to the same areas as the 2010 season in the same quantities, since this spring is significantly drier. The frogs will most likely be concentrated in the deeper vernal pools (E and F). Some of the vernal pools may be dried up completely. Populations may decrease because of the dry weather and less places to spawn, and conductivity will affect the amount and type of frogs in the vernal pool. Experimental design We planned to visit each vernal pond and take counts of each frog population. The data was collected at sundown on warmer days. Variables included frog calls, depths of the vernal pools, and water samples including temperature, pH, and conductivity. The recordings that we took were specific to helping us figure out the overall population, reasons behind it, and why or why not the frogs moved.
Study Areas
Study areas included vernal ponds E, F, I, J, K, M, N, and P.
STOCKTONIA
Methods
Data collection methods When visiting the vernal ponds, we collected two separate water samples from the same pond. The measurement used in the data is an average of the two. The data recorded included pH, temperature, and conductivity. Numbers of frogs that were seen by the group members were recorded, but overall approximate population counts were taken by ear. Data analysis methods The data we collected included frog sighting counts, approximate frog numbers via call, water samples, and whether or not the vernal pool existed still or not. The frog population numbers were compared to previous years via spreadsheet and graphs.
Results
Vernal Pool E F I J K M N P Air Temp. 55 C 55 C 60 C 60 C 60 C 60 C 60 C Water Temp 16.2 C 14.7 C 23 C 17 C pH 3.3 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.8 SC 169.5 ms 100.3 ms 61.5 ms 41.2 ms Peepers 200 150 75 75 75 100 50 Leopard 75 50 0 0 0 25 0 Chorus 100 75 40 40 40 60 25
The above shows approximate frog population numbers via calls. The ratios of frogs that we saw complimented the calls. Only three species of frogs were found: Northern Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), NJ Chorus Frog (Pseudacris kaimi), and Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala). Vernal pool N was completely dry.
In 2010, the frogs heavily populated the smaller vernal pools; E and F are almost empty of frogs. This year, those ponds were the most populated areas.
Discussion and Conclusions

Areas of spawning changed slightly. The populations in vernal pools M, N, I, J, and K decreased, and vernal pool N was completely dry. The most populated vernal pools were E and F, likely because they were the largest and deepest. It seems that less frogs appeared overall due to the cool weather and dryness, with very few Southern Leopard Frogs, some NJ Chorus frogs, and a decent amount of Spring Peepers. No other frog species were heard or seen on our trips. Wood frogs 5
STOCKTONIA
are considered a healthy habitat species indicator, and not one was found. This frog species should have been present spawning at the same time as the three species that we did see. According to our water samples, conductivity did not have an affect on the specific species that appeared, but may have had an effect on the amount of all frogs present.
Questions for further Study

If a group were to continue this study next year, we would recommend figuring out whether or not high conductivity is more favorable to frogs or not. The reasons for the scarcity of wood frogs should also be researched.
Acknowledgements
Fred Akers: Came out for the first frog trip; helped us take water samples and brought a tank to temporarily hold the frogs we caught. Rob Bunis: Went on first, second, and third frog trips, made power point presentation. Lisa Buyofsky: Went on first and second frog trips, typed up project proposal and Stocktonia article, and helped make the power point. Tyler Martz: Went on first, second, and third frog trips, looked up frog species information, set up educational guide.
Literature Cited
Lull, Kimberly; Lynch, Eirin; Tully, Kayleigh; Sichel, Matt. 2007. A Survey of Richard Stocktons Vernal Ponds. Stocktonia 10: 8-9. Bartsch, Kyle; Patel, Krunalkumar; Patterson, Matt; Shinn Adrian. 2009. Vernal Ponds. Stocktonia 12: 3-6. Crystall, Meghan; Elder, Larissa; Leaness, Jill; Pozzi, Julian; Watson, Charles. 2010. Amphibeans on the Richard Stockton Campus. Stocktonia 13: 3-6.
The Effects of Storm Water Runoff and the Future of Lake Fred: A Study of Diatoms
KATIE-ANNE CONWAY, ROBERT COOPER, MEGAN KELLY, SCOTT LINDSAY, MICHAEL SPILLE This study was intended to show that with the increased development of the Richard Stockton campus and surrounding South Jersey region comes deleterious effects to its waterways, particularly Lake Fred. We concentrated on the storm water runoff into Lake Fred which carries soil particles and nutrients from the terrestrial environment and the red colored trail material that surrounds its perimeter. These additions to the Lake ecosystem affect its chemical and biological characteristics. We know from previous studies that the addition of nutrients found in everyday fertilizers increases the growth and species diversity of algae. This is of significant concern since the Pine Barrens of which Stockton is situated, has a specific set of chemical characteristics that support specific species of flora and fauna. Research was conducted by taking direct point-source samples of both storm water and lake water. Each water source was then placed into four separate beakers; two with just Miracle Grow and two with Miracle Grow and red colored trail material. Microscope slides were assembled and placed into each of the beakers to provide an anchor for the algae to grow and be easily analyzed with a microscope. Core samples were also retrieved however the scope of their analysis was outside of the time and skill set of this group to perform and include in this paper. Species diversity and population density of diatoms was the primary focus. Diatoms, both living and dead provide a window into the health of the overall ecosystem. The Pine Barrens are host to very specific species of diatom. Their analysis through direct inspection of lake water and core sampling of the lakes sediment provide us with the necessary evidence to determine the overall effect of storm water and the red colored trail material. The chemical characteristics, pH and specific conductivity, of both water sources were tested throughout the study as well. The most notable result was the stabilizing effect the red colored trail material had on the pH.
Introduction
The question With the increased development of the Stockton campus and surrounding areas, how will the storm water runoff affect Lake Fred?
Previous studies There were three previous studies conducted on Lake Fred. In 2000 the students determined how algae in Lake Fred responded to the addition of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, and how species diversity was affected. Also, in 2000 they focused on plankton cells and species of algae. In 2001, the students added hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, sodium phosphate, sodium nitrate, calcium carbonate, and orthosilicic acid. These students found six species of green algae, nine species of diatoms, three species of protozoa, along with other organisms. Also, these students looked at the effects of miracle grow which allowed more growth. In 2010, the students looked at the effects algae growth by adding nitrogen, phosphate, silicate, and also combined them. As a result, the combined nutrients had the most effective results, and adding nitrogen had the least effect on growth.
Hypothesis Due to the increase in development, lake eutrophication will increase with the input of red gravel found near the lake and storm run-off. Using the core sampling we expect to see sediment deposits depicting an overall increase of eutrophication throughout Stocktons history. The null hypothesis is that the storm water has no effect on the lake water.
STOCKTONIA
Experimental design To see how the red gravel substance will have an effect on diatom and algae growth, first, lake water and storm water from the run-off are collected. Then, lake water and storm water are exposed to the red gravel found on the pathways around Stocktons campus. There are two control groups, and two experimental groups for comparison. Slides were added to each flask to collect diatoms and algae. Seeing an increase in diatoms correlated an increase in nutrient levels of storm water run-off.
Study Areas
The study site of this experiment was at Lake Fred at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey at the water outlet near the N-wing building. Lake Fred was formerly a cranberry bog and is contained in a typical Pine Barrens ecosystem setting. On April 12, 2011 at 9:15 A.M., the site was wet, had a gentle slope and the sky was cloudy, with a temperature of about 55 degrees. The width of the study site as a whole was approximately 30 meters. The site was a delta that had an input of water and sediment from 3 different sources which were the nearby dam, runoff, and the water outlet. The area examined was a suitable site for our study because it is in a typical Pine Barrens ecosystem and the effect of the input of sediment and water from the three major sources on the shape of the delta and the soil horizons. The species that were present at the site during our study were Canadian geese (Branta canadensis), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), great egret (Ardea alba), and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus).
Methods
Data collection methods To collect storm water and lake water, previously cleaned buckets were used to first gather sufficient amounts of water. Then storm water was added to four clean flasks, along with lake water to another four clean flasks. We also conducted core sampling, which included using cylindrical tubes to extract soil. A rope and plug were used to create pressure to retain the soil in the tube. It was important to apply a lot of force to allow the tube to go deep within the surface and also twisting to better penetrate the soil. We took core samples from various parts of the delta. We added organic material and miracle grow to all flasks of storm water and lake water. Two flasks of storm water run-off and two flasks of lake water and storm water had added red trail material. The slides were sterilized and two were taped together, along with string attached at the end. There were two taped slides in each flask that were staggered in the water. The flasks sat in the greenroom by the window for a week before the first analysis, then more fertilizer was added and they sat for a few more days.
Data analysis methods To analyze the slides we used microscopes to observe the amount of specific diatoms and algae present. Observations were more subjective and rough estimations were made on the number of organisms present. We tested the pH and specific conductivity of all of the flasks before we added anything, and we also tested after nutrients were added.
Results
Specific Conductivity 0.314 0.307 0.307 0.280 0.392 0.404 0.415 0.399
Water Source Lake Fred Lake Fred Lake Fred Lake Fred Storm Water Outlet Storm Water Outlet Storm Water Outlet Storm Water Outlet
Code 1L 2L 3L 4L 1R 2R 3R 4R
Date 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11
pH 5.75 6.12 6.05 5.93 8.91 8.04 8.15 8.46
Treatment Miracle Grow(MG) Miracle Grow MG+Trail material MG+Trail material Miracle Grow Miracle Grow MG+Trail material MG+Trail material
pH 7.62 7.57 7.60 7.62 8.04 7.75 7.79 7.87
Date 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11
pH 8.19 8.06 8.20 8.17 8.29 8.48 8.32 8.26
The table above provides the chemical characteristics for the two sources of water collected for our study; lake water and storm water. An initial pH was taken fo reach sample to establish the natural, baseline conditions. The average initial lake water pH was 5.96 with an standard deviation of 0.162 indicating a minimul variation. The addition of just Miracle Grow compared to MG and red trail material to the lake water were considerably close. However after eight days the increase was 9
STOCKTONIA
slightly more significant in the beakers with the MG and red trail material. The average initial storm water pH was 8.39 which is quite high. With the addition of just Miracle Grow the pH lowered to an average of 7.90 compared to the addition of MG and red trail material which lowered the average even lower to a pH of 7.83. The final pH readings, after eight days of window exposure, for the lake water with just MG was 8.13 and for MG and red trail material was 8.19. The final pH readings of storm water, under the same window conditions, with just MG was 8.39 and with both MG and red trail material was 8.29. Specific conductivity, which unfortunately was only measured once after the addition of the treatments for lake water with just MG was 0.311 and with MG and red trail material was 0.294. For storm water, which was also only measured once, the average specific conductivity with just MG was 0.398 and with both MG and red trail material was 0.407.
The graphs below provide a visual description of the data table from above.
pH change in Lake Water

9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1L 2L 3L 4L Initial pH (4/12/11) Post Treatment Final Reading(4/20/11)
Graph 1: The overall changes in pH for lake water.
10
pH Change in Storm Water

9 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 1R 2R 3R 4R
Initial pH (4/12/11) Post Treatment Final Reading(4/20/11)
Graph 2: The overall changes in pH for storm water.
pH Change in Both Sources of Water in Miracle Grow

10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1L 2L 1R 2R
Graph 3: An isolated comparison in pH changes in the two different sources of sample water treated with Miracle Grow. While the lake water has the obvious lowest initial pH it shows the greatest increase post treatment. The two storm water samples exhibit a decrease in pH post treatment however increase with the final reading which is the overall trend.
11
STOCKTONIA
pH Change in Both Sources of Water in Miracle Grow and Red Trail Material
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3L 4L 3R 4R
Graph 4: An isolated comparison in pH changes in the two sources of sample water treated with Miracle Grow and the red colored trail material. A similar trend occurs with the addition of the red trail material to the Miracle Grow as does in the treated water with just Miracle Grow (graph 3).
Graph 5: The specific conductivity of each of the eight samples was taken, post treatment, with those from the storm water having the highest values.
12

Our study of the effects of storm water runoff is of relative value with the current and future development rates of rural communities within the state of New Jersey. This is of special consideration since we will be the first state in the nation to reach build out. As open spaces are developed into impervious surfaces storm water will find more of a direct route into our water ways. Storm water carries along with it all that it washes over and all that is dumped into it including atmospheric inputs. Of greatest concern is that of manmade inputs; fertilizers and sediment from lawns, gardens, and agricultural sources. Salt from road surfaces should also be included. All of these inputs affect the chemistry of bodies of water especially the ph and specific conductivity. pH is a relative measure of how acidic or basic something is. It determines the solubility of nutrients and this is of greatest concern since storm water runoff carries along with it all the nutrients from that which it travels over. It also determines the types of flora and fauna that can survive within a specific environmental range. Specific conductivity relates how well water can conduct electricity and is determined by the amount of dissolved solids such as the nutrients found in fertilizers and salt. Both of these chemical qualities provide a path to determine the overall health of an ecosystem. Our study determined that the chemical qualities of Lake Fred are highly susceptible to the deleterious influence of storm water. pH and specific conductivity increased with its addition and with the typical inputs of fertilizer and topical trail materials. These increases alter the nature of the ecosystems and provide a suitable habitat for non native species of flora and fauna to flourish. This alteration also decreases the native species ability to thrive. The Pine Barrens have such specific and unique qualities that only species of flora and fauna that can survive the acidic soils and constantly cool water temperatures are threatened by the increased inputs of storm water. As such the management of storm water should be taken seriously if this unique ecosystem is to endure.

It would be of great interest to follow-up with the five undigested core samples of lake sediment. The historical analysis of population density and species diversity of diatoms would provide a quantitative foundation for predicting future trends for the lake overall health. Further study surrounding the unidentified, red colored trail material is a source of many questions. The first being how does this material affect the lake water without the addition of Miracle Grow? Another would be how does the location of the beakers affect the growth of the diatoms- does this need to be better controlled? And, as discussed in one particular class session, the clay portion of the trail material adsorbs phosphorous just like the clay fraction in soils does. How does this adsorption of an essential fertilizer ingredient affect diatom growth? How does it affect the NPK ratio?
Acknowledgements
On Thursday, March 31, Scott, Megan, and Katie-Anne sanitized buckets and beakers(noon-12:30). Monday, April 4; Scott, Megan, Mike, Katie-Anne wrote description/outline (2-5pm). Tuesday, April 5, all group members w/Jamie trekked over to our collection site: collected storm water , took 5 core samples, and measurements of the delta. **photos of the site and what we did for power point (9-11am). Wednesday, April 6, Scott and Mike prepared the slides for the flasks, Katie-Anne arrived late and took pictures to put into slide show. Tuesday April 12, Megan, Scott, Rob, and Mike took pH readings and added fertilizer and red gravel to the flasks, leaving four control flasks (9-10:30). On Tuesday April 19 Dorina Patrick came to explain how a delta formed and everyone in the group looked at slides under a microscope hoping to find diatoms. Wednesday, April 20, Mike, Rob and Katie-Anne worked on power point slide show (3-4:15pm).Friday, April 22, Scott and Katie-Anne worked more on the power point slide show (2:30-4:25pm).On April 25 Megan worked on the power point, Scott and Katie-Anne used the microscopes to identify diatoms. Also, Saturday, April 20, Megan, Rob and Katie-Anne worked on final paper. Megan focused on the body of the paper, Rob did the study area and map of lake fred, and KaiteAnne wrote the abstract and made the graphs and tables along with their descriptions, Megan and Katie-Anne both did the conclusions. Scott did the final power point show and helped to edit the final paper. Mike supplied pictures, and reviewed the report for any mistakes.
13
STOCKTONIA
Roadside Rehabilitation
SAMANTHA ANDERSON, MAUREEN DUFFY, DAN PETELA, NIA MARCIANTE, CHELSEA SCHORR ABSTRACT Our group continued the Roadside Rehabilitation study started in 2010. The purpose of this study is to find what methods would be best for preventing excessive mowing on New Jersey roadsides by allowing native plants to grow. We collected soil samples from different places on campus hoping that the seed banks of these soils would be good candidates for replacing roadside soils. We researched the Best Management Practices set up by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance. We also collaborated on good reasons why Stockton College should take up this cause.
Introduction
The question What soils on Stockton Colleges campus are good candidates for use as replacement roadside soils? Previous studies There was only one previous study done on Roadside rehabilitation, and it was conducted in Fall 2010. The groups main goal was to find ways to restore the Pine Barrens diversity by preventing excessive roadside mowing. They realized that roadsides need to be safe places for cars to pull off of the road, but at the same time we need to help preserve the diversity of the Pine Barrens instead of mowing it down. The group researched the best methods for restoring native vegetation along campus roads. They studied the pH of the soils, marked out experimental plots and created educational No Mow Zone signs. They came to the conclusion that the best management practice was to prevent mowing any further than the designated 8 feet from the roadside, and to find a way to keep Plant Management and the Stockton landscapers from going back to their old plant-mowing, diversitydestroying ways. Our project this year is to continue the research by finding soils on campus with native seed banks that we can replace these pH altered, packed down roadside soils with to help increase roadside biodiversity on Stocktons campus. If the native seed banks do not work as we hope they will, we will have to get seeds from the Pinelands Nursery and Supply Company as suggested by the original group. Hypothesis Our hypothesis is that we will be able to find soils on campus that meet our criteria for replacing the roadside soils. Experimental design We collected 8 total soil seed bank samples and put them in the greenhouse. The flats were then watered once a week to see what types of plants would grow.
14
Study Areas
Site 1: Our first site was an old farm successional site. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and Sassafras (Sassafrass albidum) were the dominant tree species; there was a lot of leaf litter mostly consisting of pine needles. There werent a lot of shrubs and bushes. We collected two flats of soil from two different areas at the site. The soil type was Aura sandy loam. We labeled these flats as Site 1A, and Site1B.
15
STOCKTONIA
Site 2: The second site was another farm successional site near the soccer fields. The dominant tree was Pitch pine(P. rigida) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The understory was very open and litter consisted mostly of pine needles. The soil was Hammonton sandy loam. The flats were labeled Site 2A and Site 2B.
Site 3: The third site we sampled was along a roadside. The ecosystem was an oak-pine forest. The soil type was Downer loamy sand with a 0-5% slope. To ensure some plant growth we put some seeds from a nearby Blazing star plant (Liatris spicata) in site 3B. The other was labeled 3A.
16
Site 4: The final site was the pixie moss site, a pine-dominate forest with plenty of bushes and undergrowth. The sample was taken in-between a set of tire tracks. The soil type was Downer loamy sand with a 0-5% slope similar to that of site 3.The flats were labeled 4A and 4B.
Methods
Data collection methods Using clean rakes and shovels we removed leaves and detritus away from the random sample areas. Once the site was clear we removed the seed bank layer and transferred the soil into clean plastic flats. From each of the four sites we collected two different samples and recorded the GPS coordinates. Once each flat was labeled they were placed into the green house, watered at least once a week. We then patiently waited for plant growth. Data analysis methods We did not have enough time to allow the plants to reach a large enough size in order to identify their species. Instead we counted how many plants grew in each flat before they died shortly thereafter.
17
STOCKTONIA
Results
This chart shows the number of plants which grew in each flat of soil from the different sites.

In conclusion, flats 4a and 4b were most abundant in growth, with eight sprouts. Some variables which may have directly affected the plant growth include the flats being watered too infrequently and the soil not being sifted more thoroughly before laid into the flats to remove roots, debris, and large patches of unwanted moss. An abstract thought would be to add fertilizer to promote quicker growth. An idea for why site 1a did not grow at all could be contributed to the soil being under more trees versus site 1b being exposed to more sunlight.
Reasons why Stockton should take interest in this study

Native plant species are important everywhere, specifically the roadsides at Stockton. Mowing causes pollution, is financially consuming, and deters everything but grass from growing. Also, the Pinelands Preservation Alliance determined an 8 foot rule in their management practices, where we are only supposed to mow as far as 8 feet from the road. In some places, we recorded at least 40 feet of bare ground. A compromise can be made by mowing the 8 feet year round while mowing anything further than 8 feet should only be done November through March in order to prevent trees and shrubs from growing. Doing so will allow only tall grasses and wild flowers to grow which will create a barrier between the trees and the constantly mowed area. This will deter deer from getting close to the roadside thus causing fewer accidents.
Questions for further study

Are there any endangered, native species on Stocktons campus? o Could they benefit from growing on the unmowed roadside? Would the seed bank samples grow better outside than in the greenhouse? Would collecting seeds from local plants and putting them in the soil samples promote growth? When we successfully grow plants in all of the flats how can we implement this practice on a campus wide basis?
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor George Zimmermann for giving us space in the greenhouse. 18
Past study summary-Samantha Anderson Project proposal-Samantha Anderson, Maureen Duffy, Dan Petela, Nia Marciante Sample collection-Samantha Anderson, Maureen Duffy, Dan Petela, Nia Marciante, Chelsea Schorr Extra research- Chelsea Schorr, Samantha Anderson Photographs-Samantha Anderson Power Point-Samantha Anderson, Maureen Duffy, Dan Petela, Nia Marciante, Chelsea Schorr Stocktonia report-Samantha Anderson, Maureen Duffy, Dan Petela, Nia Marciante, Chelsea Schorr
Literature Cited
Glaser, C, Herflicker, M, Brooks, B, Barrett, P, & Brolis, K. (2010). Roadside Rehabilitators Group. Stocktonia, 13(2). Ecological impact of roads. (2011). Proceedings of the Pinelands science-policy forum Ming-han, Li, and Schutt James R. "SUCCESSIONAL ESTABLISHMENT, MOWING RESPONSE, AND EROSION CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADSIDE VEGETATION IN TEXAS." Texas Transportation Institute. Texas A&M University, 12/2008. Web. 21 Apr 2011. <http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/04949-1.pdf>. PPA. 2009. Protecting Roadside Vegetation. Retrieved on 16 November 2010 from the Pinelands Preservation Alliance. <http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/protection/work/currentissues/roadsidevegetation/>
19
STOCKTONIA
The Ants Go Marching In

MICHELLE DAMICO, WILLIAM SMITH, DEREK MACAULAY ABSTRACT: Although minute in size, ants show much about an ecosystems condition. This is because of the large range of habitats that they are found in around world. They are able to live in both disturbed and undisturbed areas in large underground colonies. Most ant species have a permanent location for their colony while others may move every few weeks. This provides time for sampling to indicate which species are found in that area. This further shows different soil types as well as biodiversity of plants and organisms in the habitat based on the ants species found and their adaptations. An ants diet also allows the insect to live in various locations because it feeds on seeds, plants, and animal matter. Because of this, it is easier to monitor ant species by using various food baits as the ants try and provide food for both the others in the colony and the queen. The goal of our project is to examine the differences among ant populations between the four different sites. These sites include Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest, Upland Tower Oak Pine Forest, Power-line (NE of Lake Pam), and Power-line (NE of Lake Pam) woods. We will be sampling populations by assessing the numbers of ants as well as the species diversity in each site using bait and pitfall traps (at two of the sites.) Variables associated with our collection were average temperature, soil, and amount and type of disturbance.
Introduction The question

Do weather/ temperature conditions impact species diversity and overall population? Do different areas of soil conditions and disturbance affect species diversity and overall population?
Previous studies
A study done in 2010 concluded that overall there was a greater amount of ants within the power line habitat, compared to the woods habitat. However, there was greater species diversity in the woods. The study in 2010 concludes this may suggest that ants develop their permanent habitat in the woods, but enter the power line habitat in search of food. A study done in 2008 examined how soil type affected the number and species of ants in an area. They concluded that soil and moisture did not affect the number or species. However, they also noted, there was a difference between the woods and power lines (Brolis et al 2010) (Abraham et al 2008).
Hypothesis
Based on previous studies we hypothesize that we will find a greater amount of ants within the power line habitat (disturbed) but greater species diversity in the three woods habitats (undisturbed). Previous studies have shown that soil type does not matter, so this would not play a part. However, as concluded in 2008 and 2010, it seems as if ants are wandering away from the woods to find food. Also, the average temperature this year seems to be colder than previous years, so there is also less food to be found within the woods. With this difference in temperature, we also conclude that we will find a significant less number of ants in both the woods and the power line habitat. We also believe that the soil type associated with each site will play a role in the species diversity and overall populations.
Experimental design
To begin our project we first picked out four sites to evaluate within the campus. We decided to use three factors to evaluate the amount of ants within our campus. The first factor is temperature, because we have noticed that it has been colder this year on average, then previous years. Our next factor includes soil types, and the last is disturbed or undisturbed environments. The four sites we had were in a close vicinity to Lake Pam so we know that this does not affect the results. The four sites we have are Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest where we collected pit falls and cookie baits, Upland Tower Oak Pine Forest where we collected pitfalls and cookie baits, Power-line (NE of Lake Pam) were we only used cookie baits, and Power-line (NE of Lake Pam) woods where we only used cookie baits. Later in our experiment we will examine all the ants we collected along with the number of each.
20
Study Areas Methods

Data collection methods
Site 1 Pitfalls The site is labeled Upland Tower Oak Pine. The GPS coordinates are N 39.493 W 74.524 Site 1 Index Cards The site is labeled Upland Tower Oak Pine. The GPS coordinates are N 39.493 W 74.524 Site 2 Pitfalls The site is labeled Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest. The GPS coordinates are N 39.493 W 74.520 Site 2 Index Cards The site is labeled Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest. The GPS coordinates are N 39.493 W 74.520 Site 3 Index Cards The site is labeled Power-line (NE of Lake Pam). The GPS coordinates are N 39.492 W 74.519 Site 4 Index Cards The site is labeled Power-line (NE of Lake Pam) Woods. The GPS coordinates are N 39.492 W 74.519 Data analysis methods We will evaluate our data using a spreadsheet. Within our spreadsheet we will draw conclusion based on all three factors, soil, temperature, and environment. We will be calculating the species total from this year and 2010. To draw our conclusion we will use species diversity, as used in the 2010 report, as we see this as a fit method. We define species diversity as the number of different species present, depending on the three different factors. We will then
analyze other factors, not included in our power-point to also draw conclusions such as temperature. The average temperature in April in 2010 was 55 F. The average temperature this year in April was 47 F. The difference has been an 8 difference, which could provide significant explanation later for the amount of ants found.
Data Table:
Apheno Pheidole Cremato Tetramor Tapinom Paratrech Prenolep Formica Lasius Monomor Myrmica Paramyr Temnotho total Year Date Site Area Bait# bait
2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011
11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr
pwl pwl pwl pwl woods woods
pwl pwl pwl pwl pwl pwl
1 2 3 4 1 2
cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie
2 1 4 1 8
2 1 5 8 0
21
STOCKTONIA
2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 7Apr 7Apr woods woods scrub oak scrub oak scrub oak scrub oak oak pine oak pine oak pine oak pine oak pine pine oak pwl pwl L Pam L Pam L Pam L Pam upl twr upl twr upl twr upl twr upl twr L Pam 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie pitfall pitfall 32 0 1 31 14 1 15 1 1 2 12 42 1 2 26 0 0 0 0 3 1 24 2 1 1 28 6 31 1 6 31 3 1 1 28 0 24 19 2 2 14 148
The data shown above was collected by all four sites: Upland Tower Oak Pine Forest, Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest, Power line-Power Lines northeast of Lake Pam, and Power lines-Woods northeast of Lake Pam. Every site contained cookie baits while only the Upland Tower Oak Pine Forest and Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest contained pitfall traps as well. The cookie baits showed a greater abundance of both species diversity and number of ants collected. The cookie baits was the better bait because of amount of time it took to sample the species. Because of these baits, we were able to collect our sample on a much better time table than that of the pitfalls. The pitfalls would have to be checked every few days. Although the cookie baits do attract the ants as a source of food, the smaller time table is also important based on the fact that the ants can come and go as they please. If the cookie baits were left out all day and then checked in the evening, the baits may not have any ants although it may have received much activity during the day. It is difficult to compare to previous years because of the areas used. In the 2010 year, they had two different power line sites (North Power lines and Lake Pam Power lines). This is a problem because our group had Power lines-Power lines and Power lines-Woods. The two sites are right next to each other and not 200+ yards away from each other. The study done in 2010 may show a much more species diversity because of this choice in study sites. Overall this years biodiversity accumulated 8 different species total among the 4 different sites. 2010, however, accumulated 9 different species. The species abundance has also changed. In 2010, the Apheno ant species was almost none existent among the other data with the accumulation of 3 ants in the sample. In 2011, there were 32. In 2010, the Tapinom was identified 27 times within the sample. In 2011, however, the same species was identified only 14 times within the sample. One of the main factors for these changes in data is because of the location selected. In 2010, they concentrated mostly near the power lines along Lake Pam while in 2011 we had two other sites that were in the oak pine and pine oak forest communities. Because of this, different species diversities and abundances are identified throughout different areas although some are more comparable than others.
22
Results
We hypothesized that we would find a greater amount of ants within the power line habitat (disturbed) but greater species diversity in the three woods habitats (undisturbed). The species diversity in the woods greatly outnumbered that of the power lines-power lines site so in this case our hypothesis was correct. The species diversity at the power lines site compared to the three woods sites was considerably less as well. We also found more ants in all three woods sites compared to the power-line so in this way our hypothesis was incorrect. Difference in temperature will cause a significant less number of ants in both the woods and the power line habitat. This hypothesis was upheld because of the very few ants found while sampling. Also, over all compared to past studies we did find less ants and the temperature this year was lower compared to previous years, overall. During many of the sampling days it was raining too much to go out and have a product sample for our data.

When comparing our finding to the findings from 2010 it can be shown that our experiment yielded opposite results. In 2010 they concluded that there was a greater amount of ants within the power line habitat compared to the woods habitat. However this year we concluded that there were more ants in the woods sites compared to the power-line. We believe that we encountered different results because the immense amount of rain that occurred during our sampling days and also the colder weather (an 8 degree difference from last year). This may have caused ants to stay close to their stable habitat instead of wandering away to find food.
Questions for further Study Acknowledgements Time Table

March 31st -The whole group meets to begin lab report and start discussing our experimental design and data collection methods. We also started analyzing past collections from pit falls April 7th- The whole group meets to collect pit falls from two sites, Upland Tower Oak Pine and Lake Pam Pine Oak Forest, and then analyzes them. April 11th- William goes out to set out cookie baits at all four sites and they are later collected. April 14th- William and Derek begin analyzing all cookie baits while Michelle finishes the write up and works on the power-point.
Literature Cited
Abraham, Matthew, Matthew Bondar, Krystine Cooper, Erin Edwards, and Christina Stanley. "Ants of the Richard Stockton College." Stocktonia 11 (2008): 3-7. Brolis, Kyle, Aaron Elliott, Jennifer Gresham, Matt Herflicker, William Major, and Kristen Medit. "Attack of the Ants." Stocktonia 13 (2010): 43-47. "Monthly Planner: April." The Weather Channel. 17 Apr. 2011 <http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/08240>. "New Jersey Monthly Mean Temperatures." Rutgers University Climate Lab (RUCL). 26 Apr. 2011 <http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/njhisttemp.html>
23
STOCKTONIA
Stream Stick Sampling: A Study of Macroinvertebrates and Their Aquatic Homes

DANIEL HEMMERLIN, CHRIS MARTIN, MIKE POMYKACZ AND EMMANUEL JOHN
ABSTRACT Taking sticks out of the Moss Mill Creek and Clarks Mill Stream, research was done to see which types of macroinvertebrates were obtained in these samples. The data was compiled after a great deal of processing in the lab at Stockton College, and it was compared in a variety of ways. Compared to Aquatic Group IIs plate sampling at Zurich Avenue, the stick sampling method yielded higher densities for both caddisflies and midgeflies (Trichoptera and Chironomidae respectively). All of the samples were taken on or after March 24, 2011, as well as the data processed.
Introduction
The question What does a representative sample of macroinvertebrates show from freshwater streams using stick sampling? What will specimens from different samples show and how can they be compared? How will they compare to Aquatic Group II and past studies? What does this say about the quality of the streams? Previous studies Previous studies were conducted at different times of the year, for varying amounts of time. Most of the Stocktonia studies were done using stick or plate sampling. Not all of the studies occurred in the same areas we researched (The Moss Mill Creek and Clarks Mill Steam), but the majority of past Stocktonia studies were. Some of the studies pointed out dominant macro invertebrates in the studied streams. Also, the samples collected were carefully examined under a microscope, sorted and counted. For example, for the stream report in Stocktonia 2009, Chironomidae and Trichoptera were the only two types of macroinvertebrates found in all of the samples (2009). On the other hand, although their results showed a variety of macroinvertebrates in the stream, Stocktonia 2007 had no conclusion to make out of their results. Lastly and however, Stocktonia 2008 found that freshwater organisms do not like salt, leaving us not much to work with as far as obtaining information is concerned (2008). Besides Stocktonia 2008, most of the other reports proved to be helpful comparisons for what should be expected in new results. Hypothesis Using statistical analysis, we intend to demonstrate that using submerged sticks retrieved from freshwater streams as a method of surveying aquatic macroinvertebrate communities will yield specimens that are similar in species and relative abundance to those retrieved using traditional sampling techniques. Field results for pH and conductivity will be used as an indicator of aquatic conditions that could affect the relative yield from site-to-site. We will also consider the current and historical land use of properties adjacent to our sample sites to determine why yields may be less than expected. Will our results yield similar numbers of marcoinvertebrates to past studies and that of Aquatic Group II?
Experimental design To test the above stated hypothesis, the group processed the taken samples from the two streams to compare marcoinvertebrates from the other studies. With ten samples altogether, the group processed the debris that was cleaned off the sticks, as well as the bugs that fell of the sticks during drying. Although the samples were split up into these two sections, samples taken at the same time were counted together. For example, the Moss Mill Above Ditch sample contained two jars; one jar contained the bugs that were scrubbed off, while the other contained bugs that fell off the stick during drying (both preserved in ethanol). Also, the sample contained a bag of the dried out sticks for further evaluation. Our experimental controls will be the results and data of Aquatic Group II, and past studies. The variables we will measure will be the different samples we obtain from different sample sites along the two streams. The results we find will show how the quality of the stream has changed from past studies, or if our method of stick sampling was more efficient than Aquatic Group IIs plate and net sampling.
Study Areas
Our study areas were taken at the Moss Mill Stream at two different locations. Samples were taken at Zurich Avenue, and others were taken past Stockton Colleges Lake Fred dam (Ditch samples). Other samples were taken at Clarks Mill Stream
24
at the intersection of Liebig Street and Odessa Avenue. All of which were in the town of Pomona, New Jersey in Atlantic County. Moss Mill Ditch: Samples were taken on March 24, 2011 with overcast skies and about 45 degree temperatures (Fahrenheit). On the side where the samples were taken, the topography rose slightly and it was mainly a Pine-oak forest. On the opposite side of the stream was an Atlantic White Cedar forest with a peat moss forest floor. Around the stream on both sides was a saturated muddy ground. The stream itself was up to approximately four feet deep. Zurich Avenue (Moss Mill): Samples taken on April 7, 2011 with overcast skies and approximately 50 degree temperatures. Surrounding the Moss Mill Stream was a swampy lowland with peat moss covering the majority of the ground. Surrounding the stream were maples, holly, and oak trees with the underbrush consisting of mostly greenbrier. Clarks Mill: Samples were taken on April 7, 2011 with overcast skies and approximately 50 degree temperatures. The surrounding area consisted mostly of Atlantic White Cedars, with few gum and maple trees scattered around.
Methods
Data collection methods A. The stick assessment was used in order to assess the quality and health of a stream by the means of bio
indicators (in this case insects). We did one sampling collection from each of the five sites, consisting of two individual samples. We then compared these samples to the results from previous data.
B. Stick Method:
Field samples of old sticks that seemed to be in the water for a long period of time were collected at the sites. Each sample was about 1 foot long. The sticks were placed in labeled bags, and brought to the laboratory. After the sticks were collected, they were scrubbed under running water and put into a collection bucket. The stick samples were then put into the stick dryer to be dried. The pieces of debris are examined through a microscope to ensure all the bugs were collected from it. All of the collected bugs are then put in a jar with a label and preserved in a solution of 70% ethanol and 5% glycerin. The bugs are then identified and counted. This process is repeated for all samples.
Data analysis methods Taking the temperature, pH, and conductance along with the macroinvertebrates and their quantity found at a site can help to suggest the quality of the stream at different points. For example the pH and conductance of the stream may be higher near the road due to run off of road salt and other debris, and this may cause one species of macroinvertebrates to no longer exist in this particular sample area as another species may flourish. The goal of this was to create a table showing the dispersion of different species of macroinvertebrates in relation to temperature, pH, and conductance, and comparing this to data from group 1 and other previous studies.
Results
There are many aspects to our results: stick measurements, macroinvertebrate density on these sticks, pH, specific conductivity, temperature (C), macroinvertebrate totals, and comparative tables for selected sites with Aquatic Group II. Due to the complex and vast amount of data, many tables and graphs are going to be included to help illustrate support for our conclusion. 25
STOCKTONIA
First, here is a table of the macroinvertebrate totals out of all of the sites the group sampled using sticks.
Next, here are these counts turned into densities based off of the average size of all the sampled sticks. Also included is the pH, specific conductivity (measured in microsemens), and the temperature in degrees Celsius.
26
Our densities are based off the sizes of the sticks obtained, and this data is given here. Site Clarks Mill Sample #1 Clarks Mill Sample #2 Ditch #1 Ditch #2 Moss Mill Above Ditch #1 Moss Mill Above Ditch #2 Moss Mill Below Ditch #1 Moss Mill Below Ditch #2 Moss Mill Zurich Ave #1 Moss Mill Zurich Ave #2 Total Area Sampled Area Sampled M2 0.058 0.042 0.373 0.400 0.184 1.267 0.033 1.376 0.044 0.064 3.842 274.0mm 24.7mm
Average stick Length Average stick Diameter Avg. Surface Area of Plate Samplers
0.065 *Aquatic II used these plate samplers which are the basis for comparison against our stick samples (Densities in meters2). Here is a chart that shows Specific Conductivity of the sampled streams, and the Density of the macroinvertebrates found. 27
STOCKTONIA
*Note that Specific Conductivity is measured in microsemens, and Density is measured in meters2. Also, for samples in the Ditch #1 and #2, there is a possible correlation between the specific conductivity and the density of sampled macroinvertebrates. Here are the pH and temperature readings for the sampled areas.
Aquatic Group II sampled two of the same sites as us (Moss Mill Creek at Zurich Avenue, and Clarks Mill). Two samples were taken at each site, and here is how they were all compared. Macroinvertebrate Counts Macroinvertebrates Zurich 1 Zurich 2 Clarks 1 Clarks 2 Alderfly Group 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aquatic Worm Group 1 Aquatic Worm Group 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 Beetles Group 1 2 12 2 0 Black Fly Group 1 Black Fly Group 2 1014 410 0 54 0 3 1 0 Caddisfly Group 1 Caddisfly Group 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Crane Fly Group 1 0 0 0 0 Damsel/dragon Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 2 2 0 0 0 Fishfly Group 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leeches Group 1 28
Mayfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 2 Midgefly Group 1 Midgefly Group 2 Scud Group 1 Scud Group 2 Stone Fly Group 1 Stonefly Group 2 Surface Area of Plates M2 Surface Area of Sticks M2
0 2 26 2 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.044
0 8 24 3 0 1 0 0 0.065 0.064
0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.058
0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.042
Macroinvertebrate Densities (M2) Macroinvertebrates Zurich 1 Zurich 2 Clarks 1 Alderfly Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Aquatic Worm Group 1 Aquatic Worm Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.351 46.053 0.000 Beetles Group 1 30.702 184.213 30.702 Black Fly Group 1 Blackfly Group 2 23158.946 6381.451 0.000 0.000 46.053 15.351 Caddisfly Group 1 Caddisfly Group 2 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.351 Crane Fly Group 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 Damsel/dragon Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 2 45.678 0.000 0.000 Fishfly Group 2 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Leeches Group 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 Mayfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 2 45.678 124.516 34.271 399.128 368.426 15.351 Midgefly Group 1 Midgefly Group 2 45.678 46.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Scud Group 1 Scud Group 2 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Stone Fly Group 1 Stone Fly Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 pH 4.25 4.25 4.09 67 9.5 Specific Conductivity 82.5 82.5 Temperature (Celsius) 11 11 *Group 1 refers to Aquatic I, while group 2 refers to Aquatic II.
Clarks 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1277.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 47.325 107.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.09 67 9.5
29
STOCKTONIA
The data that could be compared the best were at the Zurich site for Caddisflies and Midgeflies. Here are the results:
*The densities are in meters2 and it should be known that these bar graphs relate to one sample site only.

Our data was able to tell a variety of things about the relationship between our methods and the methods of Aquatic Group II. The data also shows the types and amounts of macroinvertebrates that reside in the sampled streams. Based off the results for the compared studies at Zurich 2, the stick samples showed higher densities for both caddisflies and midgeflies (Trichoptera and Chironomidae respectively). Not only did both groups find these two types of flies in the streams, but they correlate with data from past studies. The Zurich 2 graphs, being the only sample site where both groups took samples and high macroinvertebrate yields were found, showed that the stick sampling method yielded higher densities. The plate samples, however, yielded way higher amounts of black flies (Simuliidae). The densities of black flies found by group II in their plate samples were magnitudes higher than most of the other densities found by both groups. The overall conclusions that can be reached about the given data are that different methods give different counts of various macroinvertebrates. Overall, the data shows that the Zurich Avenue site was cleaner than the Clarks Mill site since the yield for macroinvertebrates was generally higher in almost every comparable category at Zurich. The other sites, however, require more testing to check for stream cleanliness even though macroinvertebrate numbers were obtained, and some of which were high. 30

What if the tests were all done during the heat of summer or the dead of winter? How would the specific conductivity and pH vary? Do plate samples attract different species from that of stick samples? If so, why would this be the case? What is the best time of year to take these tests, or would it be better to keep testing year-round?
Acknowledgements
Water shed Fred came to help us on March 24th with the field sampling at the three ditch sites. He brought the equipment to read the pH, temperature, and specific conductivity at each site. Every group member helped in the sampling process at the stream. We also scrubbed the sticks and filtered the debris into sample jars together. Dan, Chris, and Manny collected all the samples at the off campus sites on April 7th with Jamie Cromartie. The entire group separated the detritus from the bugs that same day. On April 14th, Mike, Dan and Manny counted the bugs in each sample and Chris compiled the data into the Excel worksheet. After analyzing the data on April 21, we presented our PowerPoint document we all worked on. The group finished working on both the lab report and the final revision of the PowerPoint on May 2. Also, Aquatic Group II gave us much of their data for comparison
Literature Cited "Biological Indicators of Watershed Health | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/index.html>. Cromartie, Jamie.2002. Tutorial on Stick Sampling. http://www.stockton.edu/~cromartw/GEHR/GEHRhomepage.htm. Retrieved on April 28, 2011. Ackerman, Shannon. Carlo, Nick, Groettum, Justine. Michelotti, Patricia. & Savard, Peter. 2009. Stocktonia, Macroinvertebrate Analysis of Morses Mill Stream, 09: 18-22 Evans, Jamie. Gully, Jeremy. Liapis, Steve. Booty, Steve. 2008. Stocktonia, Aquatics, 08: 15-19 Schmidt, Joe. Dixon, Tiffany. Mason, Steven. Bergen, Adriene. 2007. Stocktonia, Aquatic Invertebrates, 07: 03-07
31
STOCKTONIA
32
Macro-invertebrates
RYAN KISKA, BRIAN TILTON, AND ALEX LIST In this study, we conducted a survey of the macro-invertebrates in the streams entering and leaving Lake Fred on Stocktons campus. We used two different sampling methods, plate samplers and live assessment, to gather specimens. We then counted and sorted the specimen in the lab using keys and stereoscopes. Then we put these numbers into a spreadsheet and created graphs and tables from them. From these numbers and graphs we are able to calculate the relative densities and health of the stream based on the diversity and number of insects found and counted. This study will prove to us the effect of the construction on Stocktons campus and whether these effects have increased or decreased the numbers of macro-invertebrates in the streams directly affected by the run-off from the construction. Then these numbers can be compared to other streams in the Lake Fred system and will tell us if the construction has an outstanding effect on the health of the stream.
Introduction
The question Do the effects of construction have an effect on the biodiversity and the numbers of macro-invertebrates in the streams within the Lake Fred system? Does the presence of certain macro-invertebrates inhibit the existence of others in a stream? How do the physical characteristics of an ecosystem such as rainfall and temperature affect the numbers of macroinvertebrates found? Previous studies The previous studies of macro-invertebrate populations at Stockton have been monitoring the distribution and densities of these aquatic insects and their responses to pH, conductivity, temperature, and rainfall. They also conducted studies on the amount of pollution in the streams based on the types of macro-invertebrates found in each stream. They generally found blackfly larvae to be the most common insect along with mayfly larvae depending on the site. The sites that found may fly larvae were determined to have low levels of pollution and high levels of nutrients and the streams with high levels of blackfly, a relatively pollution tolerant species, determined that there could be higher levels of pollution in these streams. However, many of these studies did not set out to find blackfly larvae. Each study tended to seek out the pollution sensitive insects as to prove whether the stream was a suitable habitat for these species and thus whether the stream has high or low levels of pollution. To sample the insects, previous studies used stick samples, plate samplers, and sometimes they used live assessment to sample the insects. One group used both plate samplers and stick samples and compared the results using the surface area and the amount of insects to calculate the relative density which gave them an easy way to compare the results. Hypothesis As a result of the increased building on Stocktons campus, the amount of open space has decreased where water can infiltrate into the soil. This has caused an increase in the amount of surface runoff entering the Lake Fred Watershed. This has caused an increase in the amount of pollution and sediment entering the watershed which would have a negative effect on the populations of macro invertebrates that inhabit this area. The increased rainfall amounts would normally positively affect the macro population but due to the runoff water pollution on campus it actually negatively impacts the macro invertebrates. The streams that are directly affected by the construction will have less macro-invertebrate species and diversity because of pollution in the runoff due to the debris from construction. The sites off campus or unaffected by runoff from the construction will have higher levels of macro-invertebrates because they are less polluted. Experimental design The experiment was set up so that we would conduct a visual assessment, a chemical assessment, and then a biological assessment of the stream. First, as we approach a stream we consider the land surrounding the stream, such as the types of trees and whether there are any man-made structures nearby or directly affecting the stream. Then we would look into the stream to see whether it was channelized, whether there was a large amount of algae or litter or whether it seemed to have large sediment deposits or rocks or gravel that was placed in the stream. Then we conduct a chemical assessment where we take readings of the pH, conductivity, and water temperature. On our own we took accounts of the air temperature and average rainfall in the past few days. Once we conducted these studies we were ready to start the biological assessment which used tools to gather a sample of the stream from which we would search for macro-invertebrates which we would sort into ice-cube trays. Another method we used was to drop plate samplers to leave in the stream for a week. This is where the
33
STOCKTONIA
weekly rainfall and temperature become important. Then once we obtained the samples from the plate samplers and the live biological assessment we would place them in alcohol and observe, sort, and identify them under a stereoscope.
Study Areas
We will have three additional sampling locations in the Lake Fred system (1 on campus, and two off campus). The sampling location on campus will be Cedick Run. The two off campus locations are the Moss Mill at Zurich Ave, and Clarks Mill at Liebig Street.
Methods
Data collection methods We used two different methods of collecting data in our experiment. First, we conducted live assessments of the stream. This study involved getting a D-net, a heavy duty, D-shaped net with very fine netting that we used to sample the substrate. First, we sampled the substrate with the D-net, walking upstream as not to disturb the substrate we were sampling before we sampled. Then we dumped the substrate into a bucket and split this up into small trays which we observed and sorted through to find the insects. To sort through the sample, we used white spoons and metal forceps. The white spoons were the most useful because it enabled us to find, and catch the insects without causing them too much harm. We placed the insects into ice-cube trays based on their characteristics. After we found a decent amount of insects, we picked out the macro-invertebrates and placed them in a jar of alcohol to be brought back to the lab to be sorted and identified. The second data collection method we used was the plate samplers. These consist of a threaded metal rod which had a washer about 2/3 the way up the rod and is filled will plates, four of which are separated by one washer and four that are separated by two washers. This is done as to ensure a variable place for the macro-invertebrates to latch onto the plates and wait for food. We dropped these samplers off at the site (two at each site) by pushing them into the ground so that the bottom plate was about even with the bottom of the stream. Then we leave the plate samplers in the water for a week to accumulate a mass of macro-invertebrates and after a week we collect the samplers and quickly put them into plastic bags to be brought back to the lab to be cleaned, run through a sieve, and placed in alcohol to be sorted and identified along with the specimen from the live assessment.
34
Data analysis methods The data was analyzed using stereoscopes and keys to identify and sort out the different species of insects within a sample. Once they are sorted out we will chart and graph the relative abundances of each group of insect found. From this we are able to calculate the relative densities of each of the species based on the data collection method. For these calculations we are only able to use the plate samplers and the stick samplers from the other group because these are the only two sampling methods from which density can be calculated. We will use the live sampling and the plate sampler data to compare the relative abundances and diversity of insects in the stream. Even though the live assessment technique is not entirely reliable, this allows us to find a wide array of organisms from which we can determine the relative health of the stream.
35
STOCKTONIA
Results
Figure 1: Number of each macro-invertebrate found at each site. This compares the number of insects and the different species found using the plate sampler method
Figure 2: This graph shows the first half of the macro-invertebrates graphed from each of the sites.
36
Figure 3: This graph shows the second half of the macro-invertebrates in the plate samplers from each site. However, the graph is highly skewed due to the overinflated blackfly counts
37
STOCKTONIA
Figure 4: This table shows the numbers of macro-invertebrates counted during each of the live assessments along with the physical assessment along with each site. The Zurich site does not have readings because the pH meter was not working when we sampled this site
Figure 5: This graph shows the first half of the macro-invertebrate counts from the samples of each of the four streams.
Figure 6: This graph shows the second half of the macro-invertebrate counts from the samples in each of the four streams. 38
3/24-3/27 3/28-4/3 4/4-4/10 4/11-4/17
Avg Weekly Rainfall Avg Weekly Temperature 0.6 45 0.47 50 0.83 58.4 2.44 65.6
February March April
2008 2.19 5.07 3.75
2009 0.67 2.07 4.73
2010 2011 5.59 2.92 9.52 5.75 2.49 3.74(est)
Figure 7: This top table shows the average weekly rainfall and temperature for the weeks we were studying aquatic-macroinvertebrates. The bottom table shows the monthly totals of rainfall from 2008-2011 supplied by Rutgers University ONJSC.
Macroinvertebrates Alderfly Group 2 Aquatic Worm Group 1 Aquatic Worm Group 2 Beetles Group 1 Black Fly Group 1 Black Fly Group 2 Caddisfly Group 1 Caddisfly Group 2 Crane Fly Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 2 Fishfly Group 2 Leeches Group 1 Mayfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 2 Midgefly Group 1 Midgefly Group 2 Scud Group 1 Scud Group 2 Stone Fly Group 1 Stonefly Group 2
Macroinvertebrate Counts Zurich 1 Zurich 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 12 1014 410 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8 26 24 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.044 0.065 0.064
2
Clarks 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.058
Clarks 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.042
Surface Area of Plates M2 Surface Area of Sticks M
39
STOCKTONIA
Figure 8: This graph shows the actual counts and the surface area of the material that it was found on. From the raw data in this table we were able to calculate the density of the each macro-invertebrate on the surface of either a stick or a plate. These numbers are only for the sites in common between Aquatics Group 1 &2
Macro-invertebrate Densities Macro-invertebrates Beetles Group 1 Beetles Group 2 Black Fly Group 1 Blackfly Group 2 Caddisfly Group 1 Caddisfly Group 2 Crane Fly Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 2 Fishfly Group 2 Fishfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 2 Midgefly Group 1 Midgefly Group 2 Scud Group 1 Scud Group 2 pH Specific Conductivity Temperature (Celsius) Zurich 1 15.351 0.000 30.702 23158.946 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.678 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.678 399.128 45.678 0.000 0.000 4.25 82.5 11 Zurich 2 46.053 0.000 184.213 6381.451 46.053 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 124.516 368.426 46.694 0.000 15.565 4.25 82.5 11 Clarks 1 0.000 0.000 30.702 0.000 15.351 0.000 15.351 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.271 15.351 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.09 67 9.5 Clarks 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 1277.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 47.325 107.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.09 67 9.5
Figure 9: This table shows the relative density of each of the macro-invertebrates on the surface from which they were found. The calculation is done for each individual macro-invertebrate and comes out as the density of that macroinvertebrate on that surface. The yellow highlighted fields represent the insects where both groups have insect densities of above zero. The green highlighted fields represent the insects where one group had a density of 0 and another group had a density of above zero. The yellow highlighted fields are where we can make a definite comparison, and the green highlighted fields are where we can make a general comparison, but there might be other factors that caused the density to be 0. These densities are only calculated for the sites Aquatics Group 1& 2 had in common.
40
Figure 10: This graph shows the comparison between the Caddisfly numbers from Zurich road plate sampler #2 and Zurich road stick sample #2
Figure 11: This graph shows the comparison between midgefly counts in samples 1&2 for both groups at the Zurich road stream
Figures 1-3: These figures show the results of our plate samplers. As is clearly apparent from figure 3 and the table in figure 1, the blackfly counts exceeded all other macro-invertebrates on the plate samplers by far. There were also fairly decent numbers for mayfly, midgefly, and caddisfly larvae. These four seem to be the most common overall. However, when comparing the sites, the Zurich road sites had astronomical levels of blackflies and the highest amount of mayflies. Clearly, the Zurich road site was teaming with insects. However, the mayfly numbers seemed to be pretty consistent throughout all of the streams that we sampled ranging from 1-2 in all sites except the Zurich Road sample. Also, the caddisfly counts seemed to be restricted solely to Cedick Run below the culvert. Figures 3-7: These figures showed the results from the live assessments of the streams. Figure 4 shows a table of the different macro-invertebrates found in each stream and the total number found in each stream along with its temperature, pH, and conductivity. The results show relatively steady values for all of the streams except for Cedick Run which had 41
STOCKTONIA
about half the total amount of insects which were primarily mayfly and scuds. This is also reflected in the graphs in figures 5&6 where Cedick Run has the highest number of scuds and was the only stream to have an alderfly found in it. This stream was largely different from the other three live samples which showed basically the sample numbers. Figure 7 shows the difference in rainfall over the weeks we conducted the study and the monthly totals from 2008 to present. The last week in the chart 4/11-4/17 we recorded almost 2.5 inches of rainfall. This greatly affected the plate samplers because they were picked up almost immediately following a large rainfall and could have had an effect on the amounts of macro-invertebrates we found during the live assessments. Figures 8-11: These figures show a comparison between the stick samples from group 1 and our plate samplers. The only two sites that we had in common with Aquatics Group 1 were the Moss Mill Zurich site and Clarks Mill Leibig & Odessa site. However, we sampled these sites on different days. They chose sticks from the streams after we had already had our plate samplers placed. The biggest difference was that we collected our plate samplers after a large rainfall whereas group 1 sampled sticks before the storm. There were only two macro-invertebrates that were available for comparison, the midgefly and caddisfly larvae. There is also a comparison that can be done between the densities of the blackflies, but the densities, like the numbers, for our group are astronomical. For the caddisflies and midgeflies the densities for them are higher on the sticks, but the density of blackflies for all four of the sites for the plate samplers is outrageously large. For the plate samplers, with the exception of plate sampler 1 in Clarks Mill which was placed in a high velocity section of the stream, the density values are very high (consistently higher than any other insect) for blackflies on the plate samplers. The graphs in figures 10&11 show the difference between caddisfly and midgefly for the sticks and plate samplers. However, if a graph for the black flies were to be made, it would be completely skewed by the large amount of blackflies in plate samplers compared to the sticks and would merely show the relative densities for plate samplers rather than the comparison between sticks and plates showing the densities of the insects.

We ultimately proved our hypothesis to be right, but on the wrong premise. From the beginning, we made our hypothesis to say that the construction would pollute the streams by adding pollutants and decreasing the number of macro-invertebrates in the stream. However, we found that the stream does get polluted, but probably with nutrients that make it more hospitable to many pollution sensitive macro-invertebrates or by raising the pH. A healthy Pinelands stream is very nutrient poor and acidic and thus would not be very hospitable to more sensitive insects like mayfly larvae. However, when increased runoff of fertilizers from the campus enters these streams, they become more nutrient rich and thus more hospitable to a wider variety of insects. Therefore, our hypothesis should have specified that we were looking to find macro-invertebrate species that would characteristically live in the Pinelands. From our samples, the most likely stream would be Cedick Run. This stream is not really affected by the campus because it comes from off-campus and flows into Lake Fred. It may have some pollution from the parking lot, but is virtually unaffected by the construction of the Campus Center. The macro-invertebrate totals that we sampled from the Cedick Run Bridge and culvert back this up because they did not show an overwhelming amount of diversity. The insects that were found in Cedick Run in any abundance were scuds, mayfly, caddisfly, and blackflies. Scuds are a pollution tolerant species and are definitely found in abundance in a healthy Pinelands stream. During our live assessment, scuds were the most common insect by far so we did not collect all of them we found. However, the stream also had pollution sensitive species such as mayfly in the live assessment and caddisfly in the plate samplers. These could be characteristic species of the Pinelands or they could be there because there is some fertilization from the campus or any man-made feature upstream. Overall, the Cedick Run had a lower diversity and lower total number of macro-invertebrates and that leads us to believe that this is a moderately healthy Pinelands stream whereas Moss Mill Zurich and Lower and Clarks Mill are polluted Pinelands streams. Aquatics I and our group collaborated our results so we could compile the results for the stick samples and the plate samplers. However, we did not study the same stream so the only sites that we had in common were Moss Mill Zurich and Clarks Mill. Even though we had these two sites in common, we did not find many macroinvertebrates in common. The only insects we both found at the same site were blackflies, midgeflies, and caddisflies. These were the only three insects we could compare because these were the only ones with densities greater than zero for both groups. When comparing the densities from all three macro-invertebratesthe midgeflies and caddisflies were denser on the sticks where the blackflies were denser on the plate samplers by far. The blackflies were far denser on the plate samplers because the plates were square and were easier for the plate samplers to grab onto. On the other hand the sticks are not as cleanly cut and the blackflies may not attach as well to the sticks compared to the plates. Also, the densities of the insects may be a result of the recent rainfall because the plate samplers were collected after a heavy rainfall and the stick samples were collected before. One way we could have improved the accuracy of the study and minimized the extraneous variables is to have sampled the 42
sticks and collected the plate samplers on the same day. This would make rainfall and other variables virtually the same for both samples and would not be another variable to consider when comparing the results. Overall, we were not able to reach conclusive evidence that the construction was polluting the river because our controls experienced similar results. However, we did reach alternative conclusions that rainfall probably has a great effect on certain macro-invertebrates and that Cedick Run is a relatively healthy and characteristic Pinelands stream because of its low diversity of insects and very low pH.

Since Stockton lies within the Pine Barrens, should there be a distinct set of aquatic macro-invertebrates that are associated with a healthy Pinelands stream? In the future should we pay more attention to the velocity and physical aspects of the stream when taking stick samples or placing plate samplers? Do certain macro-invertebrates prefer low velocity/high velocity streams? Are there any other sampling methods other than stick samples, plate samplers or live assessments? Could there possibly be another way to separate out the macro-invertebrates traveling downstream? Comments: One bit of advice for future studies is when conducting live samples in the field, bring white spoons and a sieve because they really help separate the insects from the substrate and it makes it much easier.
Acknowledgements
March 24 Lab Fred Akers introduced the group to live assessment April 1 Ryan attended Trishas workshop at Moss Mill above ditch (live assessment) April 6 Ryan and Jamie dropped samplers at Zurich and Clarks Mill April 6 Ryan and Brian dropped samplers at Cedick Run culvert and bridge April 7 (lab day) Ryan, Brian, and Alex live assessment Clarks Mill April 12 Ryan and Brian live assessment Cedick run April14 Ryan and Brian pick up samplers April 14 (lab) Ryan, Brian, Alex process and sort samples April 19 Ryan Zurich live assessment Special thanks to Aquatics Group 1, Fred Akers, and Trisha Pitcher. Aquatics 1 contributed relative densities and stick sample results Fred Akers and Trisha Pitcher provided initial knowledge of sampling techniques and also explained the purpose and procedure for conducting these studies.
Literature Cited
2011. Water Monitoring and Standards. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 4/1/11-5/3/11. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bfbm/amnet.html Robinson, David A. 2011. Monthly Precipitation in New Jersey. Office of New Jersey Climatologist. 4/21/11. http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/njhistprecip.html
43
STOCKTONIA
Invasive Plants on the Richard Stockton College Campus

ALLEY MANALIO, THERESA QUELCH, JACKIE KONDRK, ERIN MAGUIRE ABSTRACT Through nature walks and GPS signaling, we investigated and researched the invasive plant species located throughout the Richard Stockton College campus. Invasive plants are plants that are not native to the area and compete with native plants for habitat and resources. They are a huge threat to our native ecosystems. With the help of extensive mapping and research, our group attempted to provide significant data about the locations of various individual invasive plants to help future researchers locate and control their populations. We hope our report will help educate and inspire campus leaders to make positive ecological decisions by willingly planting and encouraging native species growth.
Introduction
The question What species of plants are invading campus? Where? Why? How? What can be done? Previous studies During the Fall 2010 semester, another group discovered that there is a significant amount of invasive species located throughout the campus at random. Invasive species can easily outsource the native flora and fauna in South Jersey. These species are slowly intensifying and conquering campus grounds. Specifically, this group found phragmites (Phragmites australis) to be the most common species, found almost exclusively by a water source such as Lake Fred, Lake Pam and the Light Path. They hypothesized that phragmites may have been introduced to the dam by the Light Path during its construction years ago, when they used fill from a different source. This fill may have contained seeds of phragmities, which eventually grew and took over the area that we know today. The group also discovered Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) along the arboretum near Jimmie Leeds Road, and believe it was intentionally planted for aesthetic purposes only. They found multiple invasive species along an old farm site along Jimmie Leeds Road, which included Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and even some autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate). The four plants (B. thunbergii, E. umbellate, L. japonica and R. multiflora) were all located on the edge of the farm site, and were the most plentiful. This is probably due to animals (such as birds) consuming the fruits of the plants and dispersing the seeds through their feces, allowing the plants to spread in such a well-lighted area. Nepalese browntop (M. vimineum) was also found on the farm site in a small section, which made this particular area difficult to walk across. This particular plant has a very high seed production rate, which explains the rapid growth. The final investigated area was located by the observatory. Autumn olive (E. umbellate), Japanese barberry (B. thunbergii) and Japanese honeysuckle (L. japonica) were all found there. The observatory was built on old farm land, and these plants may have been planted for aesthetic purposes and simply survived (Stocktonia 2010). Hypothesis We will find that some invasive species are not a significant threat and can be easily managed; however, we also expect others need to be immediately addressed. With further research, we believe that altering the soil compositionwhich includes the pH, moisture level, organic matter, and chemical makeupor pairing it with a native species to block further spread will help to control the populations. Some species may need to be removed altogether, depending on the plant. We also expect to find clear evidence that invasive plants are competing and outsourcing native plant species. Experimental design The group traveled up and down trails and old field sites scattered around Stocktons campus, in search of any native species that may be infesting the grounds. Using GPS signaling, we were able to pinpoint exactly where any invasive plants were present along these trails; this research will help future researchers locate the exact positions of the plants we uncovered. We were able to combine our newly found data with last semesters on a map of the school, for broad, easy-tosee viewing.
Study Areas
Dark Path and all around Lake Fred 44
Old farm site across from the Zinckgraf farm Arboretum Old pig farm off Pomona Road & the Waszen farm Areas around main campus and the main campus buildings Light Path Area beside the Observatory
Methods
Data collection methods To locate and track invasive plant species, we skimmed the previous study in Stocktonia and mimicked their methods: wandering the campus and taking a direct count of how many invasive plants were found (Stocktonia 2010). We then used a GPS signaling system and recorded the exact location, basic height and spread measurements of each plant. Data analysis methods After gathering the precise GPS location, we were able to pinpoint on a map where the species were. We compiled our data together and compared it to McCormicks invasive plant census and to the previous study done last semester.
45
STOCKTONIA
Results
Figure 1: Map of Lake Fred and neighboring sites.
46
Figure 2: Map of College Drive and Jimmie Leeds Road. Note the Arboretum and field sites.
47
STOCKTONIA
Site: Farm Waszen Zinckgraf across Pig Light Dark Lake A&S Lakeside Dorm Species Name Scentific name farm Farm street Arboretum Farm Path Path Fred Build Build F/G Lilac Multiflora rose Fox grape Wisteria Syringa vulgaris
Rosa multiflora Vitis labrusca Wisteria sinensis Ligustrum japonicum Hydrangea arborescens Berberis thunbergii Lonicera japonica Hedera helix
Privet
Hydrangea Japanese barberry Japanese honeysuckle Ivy Autum olive/Japanese silverberry
X X X
Elaeagnus umbellata Phragmites australis
Phragmites Undetermined
X X
Table 1: Invasive plants relative to location.

There are many invasive plant species on Richard Stockton Colleges campus. Without question the multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) was the most invasive and remains the biggest threat to campus natives; with its long, arching branches, is able to easily climb over other plants (including large trees) to travel to a more resource-appealing site. Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and the autumn olive (Elagnus umbellate) are other great, plentiful offenders to the campus. The Japanese plants are particularly harmful. Besides being invasive, the Japanese barberry (B. thunbergii) is aesthetically pleasing when in bloomthey can have purple or yellow leaves and red berriesand are often planted ornamentally. The Japanese honeysuckle (L. japonica) is also ornamentally sold as a ground cover plant, and for its sweet-smelling, yellowish-white flowers. The barberry seems to spread much more 48
slowly than the honeysuckle, which spreads by vines and appears to actually benefit from climbing a tree host. Autumn olive (E. umbellate) thrives in poor soils, and is planted along roads and in landscaping. They are able to sprout again after cutting or burning. They suppress natives due to their effortless, rapid growth and prolific fruiting; consequently, they also supply the soil with nitrogen, which is potentially bad for native plants that rely on nitrogen-poor soils (Autumn 2011). Minor species also include the common reed (Phragmites australis). The fate of invasive species depends upon the individual plant. We conclude that non-aggressive plants should be left alone; with special maintenance (such as scheduled cut-backs, careful monitoring, etc) they should not be too much of a threat on the native species at the school. However, for those specific plants that do grow significantly each year, removal is the best option, although it may be costly. The school may be able to do this, but, as McCormick suggests, a supervised landscape contractor would be the best plan for the school. The company will remove the invasive plants without destroying the habitat and ecosystem around it, and will not remove anything extra (McCormick 1970).

Most invasive species thrive in areas with direct sunlight. What methods may we use to control these invasive populations? Is there a way to alter the soil to make it more appealing to native species and less appealing to invasive species? Are there any fool-proof ways to eradicate the uncontrollable plants?
Acknowledgements
Every member of our group participated in nature walks. We all walked back and forth around the campus, searching through the vegetation for any invasive plant species that may be present. Theresa built the powerpoint presentation and provided all of the photography, Jackie built Table 1, and Alley developed this issue of Stocktonia. She also attempted the Invasive Species website.
Literature Cited
"Autumn Olive." Invasive Plant Species Fact Sheet. IPSAWG. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/AutumnOlive.pdf>. McCormick, Jack. 1970. Vegetation of the Richard Stockton State College Campus. Ogunsuyi, C., K. Carlson, M. Clark, R. Hazard, and J. Dybus. "Invasive Species on the Richard Stockton College Campus." Stocktonia 13.2 (2010): 2-4. Print.
49
STOCKTONIA
Phenology of High Bush Blueberries

BILLIE BROCKHUM AND DAVID MASON The National Phenology Network has been collecting records from researchers and citizens in an effort to understand the climatic influences on environmental cycles. These biological events include butterfly migrations, honeybee development rhythms, and the timing of egg-laying birds. A phenological effort in England, gathered 400,000 spring bloom observations dating back to 1973. Researchers at Cambridge University found a correlation between temperature and flowering date. On average, plants bloomed five days earlier for every rise in degree of temperature (Gray). Scientists have cited this as evidence of global climate change. We wanted to investigate this phenomenon on the Stockton Campus and chose the Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) as our subject. Our study on V. corymbosum sought to find a correlation between bud development stage and temperature using the Growth Degree Day (GDD) concept, a method used by agriculturalists to predict crop maturity. The number of GDDs was calculated by averaging the daily maximum and minimum temperatures and subtracting by a baseline of 50F, the temperature needed for growth. Using weather records for Atlantic City, we determined the accumulated GDDs monthly for the study years. Then we compared this data with the average measured bud length and development phase on four field surveys in March and April. Our data showed a direct correlation between growth degree days and average bud length and development phase. Although our data shows bud development in V. corymbosum has come earlier, more years of data are needed to confirm global climate change.
Introduction
The question Phenology is the study of life cycles. By comparing the timing of biological events and environmental conditions, scientists can determine the causes of these cycles (University of California: Agricultural and Natural Resources). How does the amount of sunlight relate to the migration of Canada goose? How does the amount rainfall relate to the emergence of a fungal blight? These are the questions Phenology seeks to answer. Phenology is a tool used in pest management and crop planting, but in our study of the Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) we can use it as a monitor of global climate change (UC IPM Online, 2003). Yearly changes in environmental conditions make it impractical to assume that V.corymbosum would bloom on calendar basis. Instead, by monitoring temperature the plant synchs its growth cycles to the amount of heat it experiences (National Phenology Network). The developmental threshold for V. corymbosum, the lowest temperature needed for growth, is. For every 24 hours of weather above this temperature, a degree-day is accumulated and the developmental stages of each have a degree-day requirement (UC IPM Online, 2003). By charting the data from both current and previous studies, we will determine if our phonological study of V.corymbosum correlates with the changes we could expect to see if global climate change is happening. The goal of this project is to continue collecting data on the phenology of the high bush blueberry plant (Vaccinium corymbosum) in order to see if there truly is a climatic trend occurring at Stockton. Data collected will then be plotted against the previous years to see if there is a correlation occurring that makes the high bush blueberries start to bloom earlier each year and how each zone effects the phenology of these plants. Previous studies Data has been collected over 12 years on the phenology of the high bush blueberry plant. Some studies included the huckleberry plant, or the maple tree. Not all studies include these plants so in order to alleviate errors in future studies we will not be looking at these plants instead we will be looking at specifically the high bush blueberry plant within all three zones of the Stockton campus, with include, the uplands, the transitional zone, and the lowlands. As with previous studies we will be looking at the five stages of the buds. Theses stages include the bud scales tight, bud scales open, primary flower buds open, secondary flower buds visible and secondary flower buds open. 1998: Both high bush blueberry and dangleberry were recorded in this study. They looked at the upland, and lowland areas of Stockton and recorded weather conditions from the weather stations present in each area. The weather conditions they recorded were; temperature, rainfall, soil texture, and sunlight. These weather 50
conditions were used to help and figure out what the habitats these plants were growing in and if they had an effect on their growth rate. This experiment showed the upland plants were more successful in growing compared to the lowlands which have less sunlight, and more moisture within the soils. (Goodwin, Johnson, and Weiss, 1998). 1999: This group decided to add the transitional zone into their study area and studied the same plants; both high bush blueberry and the dangleberry as the previous year. They used 4 stages to determine the stage at which the plants they were studying were at. Which included, the bud scale opening, primary flower bud opening, appearance of secondary flower bud, and opening of the secondary flower bud. They noticed the dangleberry growth was about the same in each zone where the high bush blueberry plant preferred the transitional zone (DePalma, and Menzel, 1999). 2000: This group also looked at both the high bush blueberry plant, and the dangleberry plant. They were the first to use the five stages of phenology for measurements. Which was the bud scales tight, bud scales open, primary flower buds open, secondary flower buds visible and secondary flower buds open. All years after 2000 use this exact way of measuring the high bush blueberry (Jones, Ramdeen, and Walsh, 2000). 2001: This group did not include the dangleberry plant in their study. They did collect data from all three areas though. The weather was collected from the weather stations and an average was taken for the transitional area. The five stages of phenology was used and compiled (Bates, and Lightfoot, 2001). 2002: The five stages of phenology were used to look at the high bush blueberry plant within the uplands, lowlands, and transitional areas of Stockton. The weather was collected from the weather stations and an average was taken for the transitional area. Five plants from each area were looked at and data was collected to find out that the growth of these plants were more rapid than other years which was due to warmer temperatures in January and February (Buyofsky, and King, Dan, 2002). 2003: Data collected from this year and the methods used will be the same from this year to present. All groups used the five stages of phenology to collect data. The only thing this group added to their study which will be omitted is looking at the maple to see if there was a correlation between its budding and the high bush blueberry; no correlation was found. They used 12 different plants where 2009 uses fifteen plants, however, the amount of stems used on each plant are the same (Breuer, Keltos, Meads, 2003). 2008: This study was the same as 2003 but, they added a tagging system in so each year after that could look at the same plants and get a more accurate reading of what is going on with these plants (Segarra, Marrhews, Rivello, Roy, 2008). 2009: Once again followed the procedures in 2003 study to look at the different areas and record the five stages of phenology to see if data collected compares with previous years data (Lewis, Yankowski, Ventura, and Yaros, 2009). 2010: Followed procedures from 2003 and used the tree tagging system to find and collect data from these high bush blueberry plants. There was some difficulty getting the exact information from previous trees tagged because some were dead, and others numbers did not match up with previous studies. The weather stations no longer work as well so they collected weather data and GDD (growing degree days) from Wunderground website (Mattson M, Hogan N, Lynch C, Veselka W, 2010).
51
STOCKTONIA
Hypothesis The high bush blueberry plant (Vaccinium corymbosum), has been blooming earlier and earlier each year due to climatic changes. There are different rates of growth within each zone (upland, lowland, transitional), and the transitional zone has the most growth.
Experimental design
Study Areas
Uplands: Which consist of Oak-Pine forest. Transitional Zone: Which consist of Pine-Oak forest. Lowlands: Which consist of cedar swamps and hardwood swamps.
Methods
Data collection methods The methods in the 2003 study will be used in order to have more reliable data for future studies. Data collected was recorded on log sheets and transferred to excel spreadsheets. Ten buds were selected from each of the 10 plants used. We recorded the length of the buds (in millimeters), and what phase each was in, according to chart below. Bud/Leaf Phase Values: 1 = bud/leaf scales tight 2 = bud/leaf scales open 3 = primary flower bud/leaf open 4 = secondary flower buds/leaves visible 5 = secondary flower buds/leaves open Weather Underground (wunderground.com) will be used to find the maximum and minimum temperature for the days data is collected. Also, Weather Underground will be used to confirm accuracy of our GDD (growing degree days). Data collected will compare how the high bush blueberry plants are growing compared to each other this year and compared with previous studies.
Data analysis methods The number of bushes studied in previous years is variable. To enable comparison with previous studies, we calculated the average bud length and bud phase of all bushes for each site (Upland, Transitional, Lowland) on the date of the visit. Our last data collections occurred on April 17th so it was necessary to get the accumulated Growth Degree Days (GDD) up to this date in previous studies for correlation. Adding this new data to previous years weather data, we created a chart that incorporated the average bud length/phase of a particular site and the date it was collected to the amount of GDDs accumulated in that month. The difference between the years used for the charts reflects the data available.
52
Average Bud Length
2003
2009
2011
20-Mar 25-Mar 27-Mar 3-Apr 25-Mar 29-Mar 1-Apr 8-Apr 8-Apr 12-Apr 15-Apr 19-Apr
Upland Lowland Transition 3.39 2.06 4.4 3.84 2.42 5.03 4.09 2.44 5.42 5.13 3.13 6.31 3.39 3.16 5.34 3.84 4.39 5.15 4.09 4.49 5.5 5.13 4.36 6.68 4.62 5.38 4.8 6.5 6.6 6.15 8.33 9.1 7.3 11.6 11.43 9.21
GDD 2003
1-Feb 1-Mar 31-Mar 0 0 38 76.5 0 12 36 97 0 28 23 119.5
18-Apr 2009
1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr
18-Apr 2011
1-Feb 1-Mar 22-Mar 18-Apr
The 2010 study lacked the date of bud length measurment.
2009
2010
2011
25-Mar 1-Apr 8-Apr 18-Apr 24-Mar 2-Apr 7-Apr 14-Apr 8-Apr 12-Apr 15-Apr 19-Apr
Bud Stage 1.58 2.42 2.92 3.75 1.8 2.9 3.4 4.6 1.69 2.13 2.26 2.68
GDD 2009
1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 0 12 36 97 2 0 38 176 0 28 23 119.5
18-Apr 2010
1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 18-Apr 1-Feb 1-Mar 22-Mar 18-Apr
2011
53
STOCKTONIA
14
140
12
120
10
100
80
Upland Lowland Transition GDD
60
40
20
0 19-Mar 24-Mar 26-Mar 2-Apr 24-Mar 28-Mar 31-Mar 7-Apr 7-Apr 11-Apr 14-Apr 18-Apr 2003 2009 2011
200
180
4 .5
160
140
3 .5
120
Bud Stage 100 2 .5 GDD
80
60
1 .5
40
20
0 .5
0 3 1 - J an 2 8 - Feb 3 1 - M ar 1 7 - A pr 3 1 - J an 2 8 - Feb 3 1 - M ar 1 7 - A pr 3 1 - J an 2 8 - Feb 2 1 - M ar 1 7 - A pr
2009
2010
2011
54
4.5
3.5
3 2009 2.5 2010 2011 2
1.5
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 Data Collection
Bud Stage and GDD

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2009 2010
Year
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2011
Bud Stage
GDD Bud Stage
55
STOCKTONIA
Bud Length
14
12
10
Upland Lowland Transition
0 19Mar 24Mar 26Mar 2-Apr 24Mar 28Mar 31Mar 7-Apr 7-Apr 11-Apr 14-Apr 18-Apr 2011
2003
2009 Sample Date

The data shows a clear correlation between growth degree days and average bud stage/length. The phenology of the highbush blueberry makes this plant an accurate recording of the heat an environment has experienced in growing season. This study must been continued in order to corroborate the highbush blueberry bud length and phase with global climate change. As the data shows, 2010 had experienced a substantially greater amount of heat then 2011. This does not mean there is no global climate change, just as a steady rise in GDD accumulated by April over the course of 10 years does not prove that global climate change exists. If the phenology of the highbush blueberry shows an overall growth in accumulated GDDs over a course of time longer then any other climatic cycle can account for, this study will become a success.

Future studies should consider the importance of using the same sample bushes or the same number of sample bushes. Also does the timeliness of Growth Degree Days effect bud length growth and stage development? If the bulk of GGDs were seen in February will a plant grow more, less, or equally to a year with GGDs coming mostly in April?
56
Acknowledgements
Written report: Billie Brockhum (Previous Years, Hypothesis, Study Area, Methods) David Mason (Abstract, Introduction, Data Analysis, Discussion and Conclusions, Questions for Further Study, Acknowledgements) Calculate numerical data: David Mason Gather data: Billie Brockhum Power point: Billie Brockhum and David Mason (contributions correlate to written report duties) Poster: Billie Brockhum and David Mason (contributions correlate to written report duties)
Literature Cited
"What Is Phenology?" Avacado Information. University of California: Agricultural and Natural Resources, n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. http://ucavo.ucr.edu/Phenology/Definition.html. "Phenology." Project Budburst. National Phenology Network, Windows to the Universe, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of Arizona, University of California Santa Barbara, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Plant Conservation Alliance, 19 Mar. 2010. Web. http://neoninc.org/budburst/collaborators.php. "What Is a Phenology Model?" Statewide Intergrated Pest Management Program. UC IPM Online, 2003. Web. 30 http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WEATHER/ddphenology.html Mar. 2011. Goodwin, Johnson, and Weiss. 1998. The Phenology of the Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia 1. Pomona, New Jersey. Depalma and Menzel. 1999. The Phenology of the Highbush Blueberry and Blue Huckleberry. Stocktonia 2. Pomona, New Jersey. Jones, Ramdeen, and Walsh. 2000. Phenology of the Highbush Blueberry and Blue Huckleberry. Stocktonia 3. Pomona, New Jersey. Bates and Lightfoot. 2001. Phenology of Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia 4. Pomona, New Jersey. Buyofsky and King, Dan. 2002. Phenology of the Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia 5. Pomona, New Jersey. Breuer, Keltos, Meads. 2003. The Phenology of Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia 6. Pomona, New Jersey. Segarra, Marrhews, Rivello, Roy. 2008. Phenolgy of Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia11 . Pomona, New Jersey. Lewis, Yankowski, Ventura, and Yaros. 2009. The Phenology of the Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia 12. Pomona, New Jersey. Mattson M, Hogan N, Lynch C, Veselka W. 2010. Phenology of Highbush Blueberry. Stocktonia 13. Pomona, New Jersey.
57

Stocktonia Volume 14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stocktonia Volume 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1, JUNE 2011

RSC Vernal Pond Amphibian Survey

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions for further Study

Date 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11 4.12.11

pH 5.75 6.12 6.05 5.93 8.91 8.04 8.15 8.46

pH 7.62 7.57 7.60 7.62 8.04 7.75 7.79 7.87

Date 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11 4.20.11

pH 8.19 8.06 8.20 8.17 8.29 8.48 8.32 8.26

pH change in Lake Water

Graph 1: The overall changes in pH for lake water.

pH Change in Storm Water

Initial pH (4/12/11) Post Treatment Final Reading(4/20/11)

Graph 2: The overall changes in pH for storm water.

pH Change in Both Sources of Water in Miracle Grow

Initial pH (4/12/11) Post Treatment Final Reading(4/20/11)

Initial pH (4/12/11) Post Treatment Final Reading(4/20/11)

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions for further Study

Discussion and Conclusions

Reasons why Stockton should take interest in this study

Questions for further study

The Ants Go Marching In

Introduction The question

Study Areas Methods

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr 11Apr

pwl pwl pwl pwl woods woods

pwl pwl pwl pwl pwl pwl

cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions for further Study Acknowledgements Time Table

Stream Stick Sampling: A Study of Macroinvertebrates and Their Aquatic Homes

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions for further Study

3/24-3/27 3/28-4/3 4/4-4/10 4/11-4/17

February March April

2008 2.19 5.07 3.75

2009 0.67 2.07 4.73

2010 2011 5.59 2.92 9.52 5.75 2.49 3.74(est)

Clarks 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.058

Clarks 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.042

Surface Area of Plates M2 Surface Area of Sticks M

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions for further Study

Invasive Plants on the Richard Stockton College Campus

Figure 1: Map of Lake Fred and neighboring sites.

Hydrangea Japanese barberry Japanese honeysuckle Ivy Autum olive/Japanese silverberry

Elaeagnus umbellata Phragmites australis

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions for further Study

Phenology of High Bush Blueberries

Average Bud Length

The 2010 study lacked the date of bud length measurment.

Upland Lowland Transition GDD

Bud Stage 100 2 .5 GDD

0 3 1 - J an 2 8 - Feb 3 1 - M ar 1 7 - A pr 3 1 - J an 2 8 - Feb 3 1 - M ar 1 7 - A pr 3 1 - J an 2 8 - Feb 2 1 - M ar 1 7 - A pr

3 2009 2.5 2010 2011 2

Bud Stage and GDD

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2011

GDD Bud Stage

Upland Lowland Transition

2009 Sample Date

Discussion and Conclusions