Study of Variation of Vegetation and Animals of the Chichester State Forest - Coursework Example

STUDY OF VARIATION OF VEGETATION AND ANIMALS OF THE CHICHESTER STATE FOREST by Student’s Name Course’s Name Professor’s Name University’s Name City, State Date of submission Study of variation of vegetation and animals of the Chichester State Forest Abstract Forests have existed for around 420 million now but have undergone various changes such as evolution as well as human interference. Chichester State Forest in Australia has gone undergone such changes most notably deforestation with the current trees being as a result of regrowth and plantations. A survey to find out whether there is any difference between small mammals, plants and habitat structure and older and younger plantation was conducted using observation, interview, and questionnaires. The results were analyzed using mean, median, standard deviation, Coefficient of deviation and Petersen Estimates methods to verify whether the null hypothesis that there is no difference between small animals, plants and habitat structure and older and younger plantation was tested. The findings indicated that there is a significant difference between small mammals (species richness and abundance), plants (species richness and abundance) and habitat structures. There was also a notable difference between the older and the younger generation. Keywords: small mammals, plants, structure, richness, and abundance Introduction During the Silurian period which was almost 420 million years ago, plants and arthropods started occupying the land. As the years went on, the plants and arthropods adapted to their new homes. The initial forests were occupied by mosses, horsetail, and ferns that were approximately 40 feet tall. As evaluation continued, gymnosperms appeared in the late Paleozoic period. The first flowering plants then appeared in the Cretaceous period. As the flowering plants started to dominate the earth, insects, birds and mammals also radiated rapidly. During the Pleistocene Ice Age, there was noted change- the tropical forests that had dominated the earth started disappearing as temperate forests spread in the Northern Tropics (Ucmp.berkeley.edu, 2016). As per today, forests occupy almost one-third of the earth’s surface. In these forests, there is a mixture of plants and animals of all kinds. The key structures of the forest ecology include plants, microbe, soils, atmosphere and animals. Topography, altitude, and geology play important role in determining the kind of structure a forest has (Kimmins, 2016). There is, however, a a threat of civilization as human population increases continue to interfere with the forests and the life within the forests. The forests ecosystem is changing every day due to external forces as well as an internal disturbance. Forests management plan by various organization assists in ensuring that forests are sustainable (Hain et al 2007 pp.759-770). Chichester State Forest is one that has seen changes in its structure as a result of variation of topography, geology, altitude and external forces such as deforestation. The Forest is located in East of Australia. The forest has been harvested many times over the decades. The current trees are as a result of regrowth after harvesting. This means that there has been a change in biodiversity of trees and animals in Chichester State Forest. Currently, forest management is responsible for the protection of soil, water, trees, and animals as well as cultural heritage sites while at the same time enabling timber production (Conservation Volunteers Australia, 2015). We went for a scientific survey to study the variation of animals and plants in Chichester State Forest. We sampled six experimental catchments that are under State Forest of NSW management. In this survey we examined habitat structure, surface soil, small mammals, plant composition and forests tree dominance in the six experimental areas. The report below indicates the variation of plants, mammals and habitat structure in the sample areas chosen. Aims The main aim of the report was to note the difference between older and younger forest in mammals (richness and abundance), plant (richness and abundance) and habitat structure in 6 sample sites in Chichester State Forest of NSW. Specific aims 1. To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in small mammals and if there is any difference, to show the difference observed and if they are brought by biotic factors, land use or due to physical factors. 2. In plants two null hypotheses will be tested: i. There is no difference in abundance between treatments ii. There is no difference in species richness between treatment 3. To quantify the forest density, the base area, the frequency and important value across the logging treatments 4. To use various methods to find the difference in plant species composition within the different logging treatments 5. To compare the habitat structure across the logging treatments Methods of data analysis Various methods of data analysis were used because we were dealing with multiple data. For the measure of central tendencies, we used to mean using the data of plants, small mammals, and habitat structure. The mean assisted in finding the abundance of different animal and plant species in various sites. Media was also used as a measure of central tendency but more specifically to find the central figures in plants and small figures. The standard deviation was used to measure the amount of variation or dispersion in the data. In sites that had high standard deviation indicted that the samples were distributed all over the site. The coefficient of deviation, also known as relative standard deviation (RSD), was used to find the extent of the relation of the data as compared to the mean. Lastly, Petersen Estimates was used to estimate the population of plants and small mammals by marking some and living others unmarked. Results Using the various methods mentioned above, the results of the scientific survey were as follows: Small mammal variation: The total number of bush rats was 3, 0, 2, 10, 7 and 8 in Burrata, Corkwood, Crabapple, P1, P2 and P3 respectively. The number of Antechinus in the various sites was 1, 2, 4, 0, 1, and 0 in the six sites accordingly. There were no melomys in any of the six sites. These results indicate that Burratta, Crabapple, and P2 were the richest regarding species since they had two different types of species, Rattus fuscipes and Antechinus stuartii. All these species are new. The diversity index for Burrratta, Corkwood, Crabapple, P1, P2 and P3 indicates that Crabapple had the high number of different types of animals as compared to others. Plant variation: In PRIMER UV Crabapple had 19 Acradenia euodiiformis, 14 Aphanopetalum resinosum, 24 Blechnum patersonii, 12 Cissus Antarctica, 32 Cryptocarya meissneriana, 2 Dioscorea transversa, 8 Doryphora sassafras, 1 Elatostema reticulatum, 1 Eupomatia laurina, 2 Geitonoplesium cymosum, 103 Lastreopsis microsora, 16 Lygodium reticulatum, 3 Marsdenia rostrata, 1 Orites excelsus, 11 Piptocalyx moorei, 3 Pittosporum multiflorum, 2 Psychotria loniceroides, 2 Rubus moorei, 4 Sarcopetalum harveyanum and 12 Tasmannia insipid. In Burratta site, the plant species that were present included Ackama paniculata, Anagallis arvensis, Blechnum patersonii, Cissus antarctica, Cissus hypoglauca, Cryptocarya meissneriana, Cyathea leichhardtiana, Daphnandra johnsonii, Doryphora sassafras, Eucalyptus laevopinea, Geitonoplesium cymosum, Histiopteris incise, Hymenosporum flavum, Jasminum volubile, Lastreopsis decomposita, Lomandra longifolia, Lygodium reticulatum, Marsdenia longiloba, Microsporum scandens, Orites excelsus, Pellaea paradoxa, Pittosporum multiflorum, Psychotria loniceroides, Quintinia sieberi, Syzygium smithii, Tasmannia insipid and Trochocarpa laurina. Plant species that were found in Corkwood site includes Acradenia euodiiformis, Arthropteris tenella, Blechnum ambiguum, Blechnum patersonii, Ceratopetalum apetalum, Cissus antarctica, Cissus hypoglauca, Cyathea leichhardtiana, Daphnandra johnsonii, Diploglottis australis, Doryphora sassafras, Lastreopsis decomposita, Lomandra longifolia, Orites excelsus, Palmeria scandens, Psychotria loniceroides, Rubus bellobatus, Rubus moorei, Sloanea australis and Tasmannia insipid. P1, which is a new plantation, had a total of 21 different plant species. P2 on the other hand had a total of 31 species while P3 had 16 species. The results indicate that there was variation in plants in Chichester State forest in terms of both richness and abundance. In terms if species richness: P2 had a total of 31 species followed by Barratta with 27 different types of species, P1 has 21 and then Crabapple and Corkwood both having 20 different species. The site with the least number of species was P3 with only sixteen different types of plant species. In terms of abundance P1 had the most number of plants, which were 475. Corkwood, P2, Crabapple, Barratta and P3 had a total of 331, 279, 278, 241 and 205 plants respectively. It is notable that no particular plant species was common across all the six sites. Comparing the older plantations (Crabapple, Barratta and Corkwood) with the younger plantation (P1, P2 and P3) the younger plantation had a total number of 959 plants while the older plantations plants add up to 850 plants. This indicates that the young plantations had higher abundance in plants than the older plantations, as indicated in the graph below Graph of plant diversity in different sites Habitat structure The table below illustrates the habitat structure in different sites Table 1: habitat structure Site Name Average Trunks Average cut stumps Average trees with hollows Average fallen trunks % canopy tree cover % Trees that can cover average tall person % area covered by shrubs % of covered ground % bare soil % leaf litter cover Crabapple 1.17 0 0.50 2.00 25.83333333 63.3 10.00 9.17 7.50 59.17 P3 0.333333333 0 0 0.5 0 10.83 51.67 45.83 21.67 41.67 P1 2.166666667 0 0 0.5 0 32.5 55.83333333 23.33333333 26.33333333 73.66666667 P2 0 0.666666667 0 1.666666667 0 38.33333333 45 41.66666667 35 65 Barratta 3.166666667 0 0 1.5 31.66666667 41.66666667 28.33333333 35 23.33333333 25 Corkwood 1.333333333 0.333333333 0 0.666666667 70 34.16666667 22.5 19.16666667 17.5 67.5 Expounding on the table above, the average percentage of tree canopy cover in the young plantation was zero as compared to the older plantations which were having an average canopy cover of above 30%. The younger plantations were also having a higher percentage of ground covered by shrubs than the older plantations. On the individual sites, Crabapple site was the only site with trees that had hollows. Corkwood site had the highest percentage of canopy coverage. Regarding species and amount of plantation present the species covering the surface of Crabapple site were Acradenia euodiiformis, Syzygium paniculatum and Doryphora sassafras while those covering the ground were Acradenia euodiiformis, Tasmannia insipid, Marsdenia rostrata, Synoum glandulosum and Doodia caudate. The species on P3 site were Olearia 2, Gahnia aspera, Cassinia trinerva, Olearia 1 and Cassinia trinerva on the surface and Gahnia aspera and Histoptevis incise covering the ground. P1 site had only one species on the surface, which is Gahnia aspera and two types of species covering the ground, which is Viola hederacea and Unknown G1-G6. On the surface of P2 only Callicoma serratifolia species was available while on the ground Lomandra longifolia, Gahnia aspera, Histiopteris incisa and Lasteopsis microsora were found. Barratta and Corkwood sites had Elatostema reticulatum and Davallia pyxidata species on the ground. The younger plantations had fewer species on the site as compared to the older plantations. Gahnia aspera species was the most dominant species on the younger plantations while, the older plantations had more than one species occupying the site. Discussion Forests have undergone through transitions due to external forces such as deforestation as well as internal factors. Due to these factors there, changes in the structure of the forest and habitats of plants and animals also changes. Plants and animals are also affected due to the changes. In the survey that we did in Chichester forest, we took six sites 3 of which were younger plantations while the rest were older plantations. The purpose of the survey was to find out whether there was any variation in plants, animals, and structure between the sites and between the younger and the older plantations. The null hypothesis that there is no variation in the plant, small mammals, and forest structure was rejected, and the discussion that follows illustrates the variations that were noted in the sites. Variation in small mammals Regarding species richness, three sites were rich in animal species than the rest. Burratta, Crabapple, and P2 were the richest regarding species since they had two different types of species Rattus fuscipes and Antechinus stuartii. There are two main reasons that would support a variety of species in a particular section of the forest than the others. These factors are climate and canopy (Biology Discussion. 2015). In Chichester State Forests, canopy availability could be the reason why some parts were having more species than the others. For instance, Crabapple had an average canopy cover of 25.83333333% while Burratta has 31.66666667%. The amount of canopy present was due to the age of the plantation. Trees in the older plantations had been given time to grow thus having a higher canopy. Trees in the younger plantations were yet to grow tall thus the canopy is lower. Since animals do well-canopied forest, this was the reason Burratta and Crabapple (older plantations) had some species. Bush rats were more abundant in younger plantations than the older ones. P1, P2, and P3 had a total of 25 bush rats while Burratta, Crabapple, and Corkwood had a total of 5 bush rats. Bush rats prefer areas with dense undergrowth with a lot of grass and other vegetation (Mongabay.com. 2016). From the survey the younger plantation had the highest percentage of covered land that is, P3 had 45.83%, P1 had 23.33% and P2 41.67%. This explains why there were more bush rats in younger plantations that the older ones. Variation in plants It was evident that there was variation regarding richness and abundance of plants in older and younger plantations. The younger plantations had more plants than, the older plantations; 959 for younger and 850 for younger. The bodies concerned in management and conservation of forests such as Forest Corporation of NSW are at the forefront of ensuring that forest and trees are conserved for sustainability. This is the reason why we found more plants on the younger plantations than, the older ones since the government and other non-governmental organization in Australia are committed to ensuring sustainability of forests and everything in the forests. Every site had particular species that dominated it. For instance, Crabapple had 103 Lastreopsis microsora species, Burratta had 78 Lastreopsis decomposita species, Corkwood had 219 Lastreopsis decomposita species, P1 had 133 Viola sieberiana species, P2 had 76 Callicoma serratifolia species, and P3 had 53 Oleria Species 3 species. This meant that the different sites had different factors that contributed to the growth of the different kind of species. These factors could be a different climatic condition, the different kind of soil structure and fertility as well as human factors such as aforestation and deforestation (Naidoo, 2004 pp. 93-105). Lastreopsis decomposita species were common in the older plantations than, the younger ones. Conditions necessary for the growth of these species in older plantations is the presence of canopies that provide wet conditions necessary for the growth of Lastreopsis decomposita species (Plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au. 2016). Callicoma serratifolia species were found in younger plantations only and not in the older plantations. Callicoma serratifolia is a plant of historic interest since it was used for wattle and daub huts (Callicoma serratifolia2016). In Australia, it is only found in protected area or planted as an attractive ornament. The need to the conservation of plants that has grown significantly in Australia advocates for conservation of such historical plants. This is the reason the species is found in younger (recent) plantations. Diversity of habitat structure There was much variation in habitat structures in the various sites and older and younger plantations. For instance, it is only on the Crabapple site that we found trees with hollows. A survey that was conducted in savannah woodland Australia found that trees of different species had 66-89% hollows, and the core had extended to 50% of the diameter of the tree. H. Janzen explains this phenomenon as naturally occurring in poor soils as a way to increase nutrient level of the soil (Ruxton, G. 2014). This is probably the reason for the hollow trees in Crabapple only due to the poor soils. Another explanation could be that this area is attraction site of various animals that make holes in trunks to build homes. Corkwood, on the other hand, had the highest percentage of area with canopy, 70%. The reason for this is the conservation programs that have been active in the recent days. Also, the average mean of trees that have been cut down in this site is very small, 0.33; an indication that trees in this have been conserved significantly. P1 is the only site that we did not find a single trunk. The explanation for this is that this is the youngest plantation among the three younger plantations. Because its trees have not grown tall to form trunks, the site was the leading site with the average percentage of shrubs, 55.83333333. P2 had a significant number of fallen trunks (average percentage of 1.666666667). The same site is leading in trees that have cut down (average of 0.666666667), likely indicating that the fallen trees are as a result of cutting down. Comparing the younger and the older habitat structure, there was also a notable difference. The younger plantations had the highest percentage of shrubs as compared to the older plantations. The reason for this is because the trees have been planted recently thus they are not tall enough like in the older sites (Buchanan et al 2016). Also, because of the wide areas covered by shrubs, younger sites (P1, P2, and P3) have a wide area of land covered with plant leafs. Furthermore, these sites have more that is covered with plants than the older plantations that have a bigger area of bare soil. Another reason that could be used to explain bare grounds on the older plantation is the presence of steep slopes and loose soil which is prone to erosion (Erskine 2012 pp.933-942.). The older plantations have most trees that can cover someone as compared to younger sites. For instance, Crabapple has average trees of 63.3 that could cover a person. The management has done commendable work to ensure that trees are not cut down. Hence they can grow tall to maturity (Conservation Volunteers Australia. 2015). Conclusion At around 420 million years ago, plants and arthropods started occupying the ground. As years went by, they adapted to their environment and evolved to various plants and animals. As for today, about 30 percent of the earth is covered by forests. The key structures of the forest ecology include plants, microbe, soils, atmosphere and animals. Topography, altitude, and geology play important role in determining the kind of structure a forest has. Human factors such as deforestation also contribute to the changes in the structure of the plants. A survey that we conducted on Chichester State Forest indicated that this forest had undergone a various process of human interference to be what it is today. Most of the trees are as a result of regrowth while others are as a process of human cultivation. Using various methods of data collection such as observation we collected data from six sites. Among these six sites, three were older plantations (Burratta, Crabapple, and Corkwood) while the rest were younger plantations (P1, P2 and P3). We collected data for small mammals, plants and habitat structure with the aim of testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between small mammals, plants and habitat structure in the six sites and between older and younger plantations. Using various methods of data collection such as observation, interviews and questionnaires, results for the six sites were collected. We used mean, media, standard deviation, Coefficient of deviation and Petersen Estimates the null hypothesis was rejected. Results indicated that there is a significant difference between the different sites and the older and younger sites. There was the difference in plant and animal species richness as well as abundance. In small mammals, the older plantations were richer in species than, the younger plantation, but, the younger plantations were abundant especially in bush rats than, the older farms. The younger plantations had more plants than, the older ones but regarding species, the older plantations were richer. From the results, we, therefore, concluded that there was a significant difference between the six sites and there was also notable variation between the older and younger plantations. The difference can as a result of climatic differences, topography, soil type as well as human factors such as deforestation and management policies that enhanced sustainability and conservation. Acknowledgement I would like to give my deepest appreciation to all those who supported me to complete this report. Special thanks go to our project manager who encouraged me throughout the project especially in the write-up. Besides I would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the staff of Chichester State Forest who gave us the permission to explore the forest and study all the animals and plants available. Special thanks go to my team members Shawna Wang, Chandhini Pandy Mimi Uchida, Stephanie Xian Madison East, Peter Banks Harry Moffitt, Aimee Gardener, Hong Amy Bowyer & Perrin Tasker Madison East, Xiaoxou Wang, Chan Pandy and Clare McArthur who helped me in gathering all the required data. Lastly, much gratitude does to all supervisors and the head of the project who invested their efforts in me to achieve my goals. References References Anon, (2016). Callicoma serratifolia. [online] Available at: https://www.anbg.gov.au/gnp/gnp14/callicoma-serratifolia.html [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Biology Discussion. (2015). Ecological Factors that Affect the Growth of Plants (With Diagrams). [online] Available at: http://www.biologydiscussion.com/plants/growth-of-plants/ecological-factors-that-affect-the-growth-of-plants-with-diagrams/15288 [Accessed 29 Aug. 2016]. Buchanan, Joseph B., C. (2016). Characteristics of young forests used by spotted owls on the western Olympic Peninsula, Washington Date 1999. [online] Available at: https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/handle/2376/1146 [Accessed 29 Aug. 2016]. Conservation Volunteers Australia. (2015). Forestry Corporation of NSW continues their support of the Communities in Forests Program - Conservation Volunteers Australia. [online] Available at: http://conservationvolunteers.com.au/news/2015/06/forestry-corporation-of-nsw-continues-their-support-of-the-communities-in-forests-program/ [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Erskine, W. (2012). Soil colour as a tracer of sediment dispersion from erosion of forest roads in Chichester State Forest, NSW, Australia. Hydrol. Process., 27(6), pp.933-942. Hain, H. and Ahas, R. (2007). Can forest certification improve forest management? Case study of the FSC certified Estonian State Forest Management Centre. int. forest. rev., 9(3), pp.759-770. Kimmins, J. (2016). FOREST ECOLOGY. [online] Eolss.net. Available at: http://www.eolss.net/EolssSampleChapters/C10/E5-03-01-06/E5-03-01-06-TXT.aspx [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Mongabay.com. (2016). Why do rainforests have so many kinds of plants and animals?. [online] Available at: http://kids.mongabay.com/elementary/201.html [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Naidoo, R. (2004). Species richness and community composition of songbirds in a tropical forest-agricultural landscape. Animal Conservation, 7(1), pp.93-105. Plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au. (2016). PlantNET - FloraOnline. [online] Available at: http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Lastreopsis~decomposita [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Ruxton, G. (2014). Why are so many trees hollow?. Biology Letters, [online] 10(11), p.20140555. Available at: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/11/20140555 [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Ucmp.berkeley.edu. (2016). The forest biome. [online] Available at: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/forests.php [Accessed 27 Aug. 2016]. Read More