Fresh Water Fieldwork Related to Different Aspects on Eco-system - Research Paper Example

Fresh Water Fieldwork Related to different aspects on Eco-system The main aim ofthe current study was to collect data on biota and a biota parameters of two riverine sites known as Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. The results was analyzed and presented through comparing and contrasting the two sites. Before these, transect across the pond was taken whereby the plant species abundance was recorded at 1m intervals across the pond. Also water depth was recorded at 1m interval. Later, a pond profile had to be generated using the data produced from the above process. This was to determine who the different plant species are distributed at different water depth Introduction Basing on the pond profile generated as below, it is indicated that different plant species had different abundance at different water depth of the pond. The study was carried out on the basis of the following hypotheses Null hypotheses There is no statistically significant difference between the biota and biota data parameters between Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. Water depth was no statistically influence on the abundance of different plants that include Juncuseffusus, Bare ground, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and Iris pseudacorus and Lemna minor. Methodology The data was collected on biota and a biota parameters of two riverine sites known as Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. The results was analyzed and presented through comparing and contrasting the two sites. Before these, transect across the pond was taken whereby the plant species abundance was recorded at 1m intervals across the pond. Also water depth was recorded at 1m interval. Later, a pond profile had to be generated using the data produced from the above process. The analysis of the data was done though SPSS whereby t test and multivariate analysis were utilized. Results Pond profile Basing on the pond profile generated as below, it is indicated that different plant species had different abundance at different water depth of the pond (Everard and McInnes, 2013). Juncuseffusus is seen to have less abundance at a high water depth; this is similarly to bare ground, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and Iris pseudacorus. On the other hand, Lemna minor is seen to be evenly distributed across different water depth level. On the other hand Hydrocharismorsus-ranae species is observed to in large in numbers at deep water levels (Everard and Moggridge, 2012). Hypothesis 1 There is no statistically significant difference between the biota and biota data parameters between Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. In regard to the first hypothesis, the 2 samples have been used; the sample came from different plant species that are not matched. In this case the samples are independent from each other. Therefore, the appropriate test for testing this hypothesis is independent sample t-test, which is used to find out if there is any statistically significant difference between the biota and biota data parameters between Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. The null hypothesis: H0: µ Dean Brook = µ Ravedon Brook Alternative hypothesis: µ Dean Brook ≠ µ Ravedon Brook In this case, µ is the mean number of plant species that have not been matched 2) This hypothesis is two tailed because it involves the phrase difference. 3) The α level: α = .05 4) Because the standard deviation is not known, we opt for t-test instead of z-score test. The t value is calculated using SPSS as in the next section: Table 1.Descriptive statistics of each group Group Statistics VAR2 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean VAR1 1.00 5 .3206 .30397 .13594 2.00 5 .0820 .06261 .02800 Table 1 provides a descriptive statistics for each of the two given groups .we have 5 for Dean Brook in the 0(VAR2) (N) and on average, they have 0.3206 VAR1 with standard deviation of 0.30397. We also have 5 Ravedon Brook in the 1(VAR1) (N) and on average, they have 0.082 with standard deviation of 0.06261.The last column shows the two groups Std error mean. Table 2.Independent sample t test Independent Samples Test Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper VAR00001 Equal variances assumed 4.741 .061 1.719 8 .124 .23860 .13879 -.08146 .55866 Equal variances not assumed 1.719 4.339 .155 .23860 .13879 -.13517 .61237 Basing on table 2, the p value of Levenes test is 0.061.In this case, this p value is greater than 0.05 the alpha. Therefore, we will have to use the middle row of the output (‘labeled Equal variances assumed.’).So we will have to assume that the variances are equal and we need to use the middle row of the output. The labeled column ‘‘t’’, provides a calculated t value. In this case the t value is 0.124 assuming equal variance. The labeled column df provides the degree of freedom related with the test. In this case we have 8 degrees of freedom. The labeled column sig (2 –tailed) provides p value related to the t test. In this case, the p value 0.124. If p ≤ α, then reject H0.Therefore, 0.124 is not equal or less than 0.05.So we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This means that there is no enough evidence to prove that there is statistically significant difference between the biota and biota data parameters between Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. Hypothesis 2 Water depth was no statistically influence on the abundance of different plants that include Juncuseffusus, Bare ground, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and Iris pseudacorus and Lemna minor. Table 3.Tests of Between-Subject Effects Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model Juncuseffusus 7158.333a 13 550.641 16.519 .058 Lemna minor 3828.438b 13 294.495 .240 .960 Iris pseudacorus 43.083c 13 3.314 .398 .881 Hottoniapalustris 2013.750d 13 154.904 .129 .994 Hydrocharismorsus-ranae 4437.333e 13 341.333 .418 .870 Rorippa nasturtium-aqauticum 93.750f 13 7.212 304 .000 Bare ground 14698.438f 13 1130.649 77 .000 Intercept Juncuseffusus 2253.333 1 2253.333 67.600 .014 Lemna minor 5187.675 1 5187.675 4.235 .176 Iris pseudacorus 16.133 1 16.133 1.936 .299 Hottoniapalustris 456.300 1 456.300 .380 .600 Hydrocharismorsus-ranae 1414.533 1 1414.533 1.733 .319 Rorippa nasturtium-aqauticum 7.500 1 7.500 316 .000 Bare ground 6091.875 1 6091.875 41 .000 Depthcm Juncuseffusus 7158.333 13 550.641 16.519 .058 Lemna minor 3828.437 13 294.495 .240 .960 Iris pseudacorus 43.083 13 3.314 .398 .881 Hottoniapalustris 2013.750 13 154.904 .129 .994 Hydrocharismorsus-ranae 4437.333 13 341.333 .418 .870 Rorippa nasturtium-aqauticum 93.750 13 7.212 304 .000 Bare ground 14698.438 13 1130.649 770 .000 Error Juncuseffusus 66.667 2 33.333 Lemna minor 2450.000 2 1225.000 Iris pseudacorus 16.667 2 8.333 Hottoniapalustris 2400.000 2 1200.000 Hydrocharismorsus-ranae 1632.667 2 816.333 Rorippa nasturtium-aqauticum 4.733E-030 2 2.367E-030 Bare ground 2.935E-028 2 1.467E-028 Total Juncuseffusus 9250.000 16 Lemna minor 13209.000 16 Iris pseudacorus 80.000 16 Hottoniapalustris 5284.000 16 Hydrocharismorsus-ranae 8374.000 16 Rorippa nasturtium-aqauticum 100.000 16 Bare ground 19775.000 16 Corrected Total Juncuseffusus 7225.000 15 Lemna minor 6278.438 15 Iris pseudacorus 59.750 15 Hottoniapalustris 4413.750 15 Hydrocharismorsus-ranae 6070.000 15 Rorippa nasturtium-aqauticum 93.750 15 Bare ground 14698.438 15 a. R Squared = .991 (Adjusted R Squared = .931) b. R Squared = .610 (Adjusted R Squared = -1.927) c. R Squared = .721 (Adjusted R Squared = -1.092) d. R Squared = .456 (Adjusted R Squared = -3.078) e. R Squared = .731 (Adjusted R Squared = -1.017) f. R Squared = 1.000 (Adjusted R Squared = 1.000) In regards to multiple comparison (table 3), the results output indicate that Rorrippa nasturtium-aquaticum and bare ground were statistically significantly. This is between either Rorrippa nasturtium-aquaticum and water depth or Bare ground and water depth (p value less than 0.005), but it was not statistically significant (p value greater than 0.005) between water depth and Juncuseffusus, Iris pseudacorus and Lemna minor. Discussion According to the findings we found out that Juncuseffusus is seen to have less abundance at a high water depth, basing on the literature, this plant species is known to be a soft rush, a member of the genus Juncus, it is as well known to be native to most continents and is found growing in moist wet areas that include standing water that is up to about 4 inch deep, in places that have enough sun light. It is able to tolerate light shade. This plant could be grown at the pond edge or water garden and could help in the control of soil erosion. In regard to the mentioned facts, the findings of this study confirm these. Bare ground results to rain runoff swiftly (Natural Resource Desk Record. 1996.).In this case, it carries with it soil nutrients and sediments (Everard, 2012).This may result to fewer plants growing in the area. This study finding supports this whereby in shallow areas prone to rain runoff had abundant bare ground with no plants. Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum prefers wet soils and can grow in water as well. It is not able to grow in wet areas (Hedrick, 1998). The information on this plant species is well supported by the current study. In this case, it is more abundant in shallow water areas. Iris pseudacorus is known to grow in average medium to wet soils in full to part shade. In can grow optimally in acidic, saturated and moisture –retentive soils (Missouri Botanical Garden,2012).This implies that it cannot grow well in deep water levels, hence, this fact is supported by the current study which found out that it is more abundant in shallow waters but less abundant in deep waters. Lemna minor plant species is known to grow in still water in full sun light and shade, it can as well grow well is on wet mud. This is clearly evident that the plant can grow well in deep water levels as well as in shallow water levels. According to the current study findings, this fact has been supported to a large extend whereby it was observed that it its number was almost same at almost all the water levels (Missouri Botanical Garden, 2012). Hydrocharismorsus-ranae can either be submerged of floating aquatic perennials with round, glossy leaves. This implies that it can grow optimally in relatively deep water places. This is well supported by the current study which found out that it is more abundant in deep water levels. In relation to inferential statistics, the above facts have been supported whereby it can be concluded that water depth has influence on the abundance of the given plant species (Everard, 2009).The limitation of the results was that the P value was greater than 0.05 in some statistics and this can lead to wrong interpretation. For instance, it was not statistically significant (p value greater than 0.005) between water depth and Juncuseffusus, Iris pseudacorus and Lemna minor. The reason for the high p value could be due to small sample size as well as confounding factors were not taken care of. The results also indicated that there is no enough evidence to prove that there is statistically significant difference between the biota and biota data parameters between Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. In relation to this further studies should be done to really confirm the findings my including more samples as well as taking care of confounding factors that can lead to wrong interpretation and conclusion Conclusion Basing on the pond profile generated, it is indicated that different plant species have different abundance at different water depth of the pond. The results also indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between the biota and biota data parameters between Dean Brook Walker Fold Wood and Ravedon Brook on the Smithill estate. It is recommended that further studies should be done to confirm this by working on big number of samples as well as considering the confounding factors Bibliography Natural Resource Desk Record. (1996). National Cattlemen’s Association, Integrated Resource Management Committee, Denver, Colorado. Missouri Botanical Garden(2012).retrieved from http:// www.missouribotanicalgarden .org/PlantFinder/ PlantFinder Details.aspx?kempercode=c797 Hedrick. U. P(1998). Sturtevants Edible Plants of the World. Everard M (2009). Ecosystem services case studies. Environment Agency Science report SCHO0409BPVM-E-E. Bristol: Environment Agency;. [Available from: http:// publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0409BPVM-E-E.pdf]. EverardM (2012).Why does ‘good ecological status’matter? Water Environ J;26(2):165–74. Everard M, McInnes RJ. Systemic solutions for multi-benefit water and environmental management. Sci Total Environ 2013;461–62:170–9. Everard M, Moggridge HL(2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosyst ;15:293–314. Appendix 1 Summary statistics on between subject effects Between-Subjects Factors N Depth (cm) 10 1 20 1 21 1 23 1 33 1 43 1 44 3 45 1 46 1 47 1 50 1 64 1 65 1 67 1 Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillais Trace . .b 4.000 . . Wilks Lambda . .b 4.000 . . Hotellings Trace . .b 4.000 . . Roys Largest Root . .b 4.000 . . Depthcm Pillais Trace 2.000 .154 52.000 8.000 1.000 Wilks Lambda . . 52.000 . . Hotellings Trace . . 52.000 . . Roys Largest Root 200874366636248970000000000000000.000 30903748713269073000000000000000.000c 13.000 2.000 .000 a. Design: Intercept + Depthcm b. Exact statistic c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level. Read More