You are on page 1of 14

Forest Community Ecology: Lab Report

ENVL 2205: Ecological Principles Lab


John Delaney
10/19/2016
Introduction:

The maintenance and preservation of forests can be carried out only with a thorough

understanding of tree populations and the habitats in which they live. Furthermore, determining

species diversity, the measure of overall species and their relative abundance to each other in a

community, will aid ecologists in judging the health of a habitat and how changes brought about

outside forces (e.g. human activities), might affect a habitat (Ricklefs, et al. p. 420). A simple

count of populations is inadequate in gaining an understanding of how a particular community

might be failing or flourishing. Therefore, it is helpful to identify tree species, their sizes and

densities which can be compared spatially and temporally to each other and to those in other

communities. Data analysis can then be employed to produce quantitative measurements of a

habitat for research and management planning.

The New Jersey Pine Barrens are home to numerous species of trees such as pitch pine,

various oaks and sassafras, that inhabit the sandy, acidic soil of this coastal terrain (Piney

Power). One aspect of forest life in this landscape is the occurrence of fire, which has the power

to both destroy and rejuvenate forest systems. However, the adoption of fire suppression is likely

to result in an increase of oak trees compared to pines, thus altering the forest composition of the

region. This in turn can affect other species that naturally interact with these trees (Pinelands

Alliance). Additionally, fires can act as a disturbance to a community of species populations and

their habitats, leading to the process of succession which involves the (often lengthy) process of

rebuilding, as habitats are established and lost, along with the species that live in them.

Eventually, a climate community will evolve which dominates the region (Ricklefs, et al. p.

445).
In this study, the class was instructed in the ways of observing the nature of the habitats

around them, measuring the tree life in the distinct sample areas assigned to them and, finally,

performing data analysis in Excel to provide results from the experiment. The experiment was

carried out on October 6th, 2016 and we were in the field for approximately 2 hours. The

northwestern side of the campus of Stockton University was chosen as the study site, where we

found both wet and dry habitats. Previous observations at the forest management site to the east

of the school will allow comparisons to be made with that area while the data from this study

will provide information about the relationships between the trees of the area and the species

diversity found there.

Methods:

The class was broken up into four groups of four to take measurements at individual plots

at two sites. Each plot was numbered one to four, while the sites were named Upland forest and

Bottomland forest. Before any measurements were taken, observations were taken of the nature

of the habitats with respect to biotic and abiotic characteristics. For each plot, a center spot was

established and a radius of 11.28m measured out by a 25m tape to a perimeter point and as trees

were inspected along this line, the tape was rotated in one direction for 360 degrees. Each tree

over 10cm in diameter was identified at a height of 1.4m, whether dead or alive. A DBH tape

was used to measure tree diameter. Care was taken to include each alternate tree that lay along

the perimeter of the sample area. Measurements were recorded by one group member.

In the classroom, these eight sets of measurements were entered into Excel and then

combined by Professor Tredick. Data analysis was performed that produced measurements of

relative density, dominance and frequency, along with basal area, importance value and values

for Shannon’s Diversity Index, a measure of species diversity (Ricklefs, et al. p. 422).
Study Area:

Figure 1

Figure 1: Study Area October 6th 2016 Stockton University

Results:

Visual observations between the Upland tract and the Bottomland tract produced a

number of well-defined comparisons. The drier Upland tract was more similar to the forest

management tract in that it was more open and less shade against sunlight. All areas have pine

and leaf detritus but there was more evidence of dead branches at the Upland tract. The damp,

mossy Bottomland tract had minimal understory while the Upland area showed clear indications

of fire. This was not determined to be recent (Tredick, personal communication).

Initial results from the lab (before data analysis) show a clear boundary by species

between the two tracts. There were no recordings of oak trees of any kind in the bottomland area

while maple, cedars and black gum trees were not present in the Upland forest. Pine trees,

however, were abundant in both areas.


Tree Totals

Table 1 Tree comparison between Upland and Bottomland tracts.

UPLAND BOTTOMLAND TOTAL


Pinus rigida 54 50 104

Acer rubrum 37 37
Chamaecyparis
thyoides 47 47

Nyssa sylvatica 55 55

Quercus alba 9 9

13
Quercus velutina 13
9
Quercus coccinea 9
4
Querous stellata 4
Quercus 1
marilandica 1

Sassafras albidum 7 2 9

Ilex opaca 1 1

Unknown 1 1
Graphs plotting relative density, relative dominance and relative frequency by forest tract and

plot designation.

Upland Forest:

Upland Plot 1
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Ilex opaca Pinus rigida Quercus alba Quercus velutina

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 2 Upland plot 1

Upland Plot 2
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Pinus rigida Quercus alba Quercus coccinea Sassafras albidum

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 3 Upland plot 2


Upland Plot 3
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Pinus rigida Querous stellata Querous velutina Sassafras albidum

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 4 Upland Plot 3

Upland Plot 4
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Pinus rigida Quercus Quercus Quercus Quercus Sassafras UNKNOWN
alba coccinea marilandica velutina albidum

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 5 Upland plot 4


Bottomland Plot 1
50

40

30

20

10

0
Acer rubrum Chamaecyparis Nyssa sylvatica Pinus rigida Sassafras albidum
thyoides

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 6 Bottomland plot 1

Bottomland Plot 2
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Acer rubrum Chamaecyparis Nyssa sylvatica Pinus rigida
thyoides

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 7 Bottomland plot 2


Bottomland Plot 3
50

40

30

20

10

0
Acer rubrum Chamaecyparis Nyssa sylvatica Pinus rigida
thyoides

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 8 Bottomland plot 3

Bottomland Plot 4
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Acer rubrum Nyssa sylvatica Pinus rigida

Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency

Figure 9 Bottomland plot 4


Graphs illustrating importance value at each tract. The importance value is the sum of

relative density, relative dominance and relative frequency.

Importance Value - Upland Forest


250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00

Figure 10 Upland Tract Importance Value

Importance Value - Bottomland Forest


160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 11 Bottomland Tract Importance Value


Table illustrating Shannon’s Diversity Index by forest tract and plot designation. This is

the measure of species diversity.

Table 2 Shannon Diversity Index

SHANNON DIVERSITY INDEX

Plot Bottomland Forest Upland Forest

1 1.454667 1.091303

2 1.303385 0.857174

3 1.357978 1.19798

4 0.983961 1.589144

AVG 1.274998 1.1839

Discussion:

To the untrained eye a forest might appear to be a random mix of different trees but the

research we have carried out indicates that inferences can be drawn from the data collected that

explains some of the specific characteristics of the tracts we studied and what factors cause them.

These factors can play a role in both species richness (the number of a certain species in a

community), and species evenness (the comparison of abundance between species to each other
in a community). Some of the factors that might explain variations in species are not relevant in

this area. Temperature and precipitation are evenly spread across this small sample area but there

exist elevation differences between the two locations that account for the accumulation of water

to a greater degree in the Bottomland forest site.

At this location, the pine trees have the greatest importance value, however

Chamaecyparis thyoides, or white cedar is quite prevalent. The Upland tract data presents a

different picture. Here, the mix of trees does not resemble the Bottomland tract except for the

pines which score very high in the importance value classification. However, it is important to

note that at the Upland site, oak trees were not treated as one species. Taking the data at face

value might lead to the assessment that this is a pine forest only but this designation may be

inaccurate and lead to misconceptions as to the actual composition of the forest. Indeed, it is

important to note that the pines trees can flourish in the presence of taller oak trees that block

sunlight and weaken the pines, encouraging rejuvenation when fire occurs (Piney Power).

According to Shannon’s Index, species diversity is somewhat higher at the Bottomland

forest area. Although the difference between the two tracts is not great in this case, this result is

again skewed by the separation of oak trees in individual species. The role that trees play in a

community is wide ranging. Different trees provide a variety of foods to insects and small

mammals, along with the nesting places that many birds occupy (National Arbor Day

Foundation). They also provide materials that man uses, such as lumber for building supplies.

Therefore, the information we gain about the diversity of the forest is crucial to the systems we

might incorporate that might encourage the growth of one species over another. This study was

extremely useful in gaining firsthand knowledge about the process of assessing the composition

of our forest here at Stockton. The process of identifying and measuring the trees and to the
commutation of the results, gave the class an idea of the work that is down by forest ecologists to

maintain the health and beauty of these great resources.


References

http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1371/ANR-1371.pdf Alabama CES

https://www.arborday.org/kids/treediversityactv.pdf National Arbor day foundation

http://www.pineypower.com/geninfopbpg10.html

http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/ecology/fire/

Ricklefs, R., Relyea, R. (2014) Ecology: the economy of nature. New York, NY:
Freeman

http://www.wikihow.com/Identify-Oak-Leaves

You might also like