Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4
-
Upload
zachary-bird -
Category
Documents
-
view
31 -
download
0
Transcript of Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4
![Page 1: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparison of Riparian Vegetation among
Impacted and Minimally-Impacted Sites on
Lower St. Regis Lake and Reference
Conditions on Black Pond
Zachary Bird, Alexander Cummings, Robert Nuber and Alexander Roache
![Page 2: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ecological Restoration
“..the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem
that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed…”
www.ser.org
![Page 3: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PSC Mission
“Paul Smith’s College actively educates students to become productive citizens by combining experiential and traditional instruction through our
commitment to discovery, discipline and creativity. Our Paul Smith's College community, residing within the Adirondack Park, promotes economic, social
and environmental sustainability…”
![Page 4: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Our Goals
• Use this project as part of the problem identification stage.
• Identify differences between impacted, minimally impacted and reference sites.
• Use collected data to implement future restoration efforts.
![Page 5: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Objectives (Trees)
• Compare the mean DBH among Levels of Impact.
• Compare Canopy Cover among Levels of Impact.
• Compare Density of Living and Dead trees among Levels of Impact
• Compare Seedling/Sapling Densities among Levels of Impact
• Determine Wetland Indicator Status for Trees among Level of Impact.
![Page 6: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Objectives (Species Richness)
• Compare Species Richness for all vegetation among Level of Impact.
• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact.
• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Level of
Impact.
![Page 7: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Study Sites (Reference Sites)
Reference Sites on Black Pond
![Page 8: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Study Sites (Impacted and Minimally
Impacted Sites)
![Page 9: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Criteria for Impacted Conditions
• Define impacted conditions
• Obvious signs of human alteration.
![Page 10: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Criteria for Minimally Impacted Conditions
• Define Minimally Impacted conditions for comparison.
• Conditions display little human alteration.
![Page 11: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Criteria Reference Conditions• Define the reference conditions
for comparison.
• Conditions display minimal or no human alteration.
• Reference conditions serve as model for planning a restoration project.
![Page 12: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Layout of Study Sites
• Three Levels of Impacts
– Four Sites per level
– Six Plots per site
• Total of 72 plots
![Page 13: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Sampling Design Layout
Land
Water
60 m
![Page 14: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Data Collection Process
![Page 15: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Data Analysis
• Our species richness analyses were divided into three
comparisons.
– Total Vegetation
– Vegetation Class
– Wetland Indicator Status
• We used the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis comparison
![Page 16: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Major Findings from Objectives
• Tree (species composition and densities): According to the total tree counts, we
were able to determine that there were significant differences among levels of
impact.
• Canopy cover and the effect on species richness: We found that canopy cover
had a significant effect on total species richness among levels of impact.
• Lawn effect on Species Richness: After several analyses we noticed that the
abundance of lawn species had a significant effect on overall species richness.
We found that most of the species richness appeared in the form of herbaceous
understory.
• Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status showed significant difference
among levels of impact.
![Page 17: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Major Findings
• Tree species composition and density among levels of impact.
Tree Species N Mean (in) SD N Mean (in) SD N Mean (in) SD
Acer rubrum 2 8 1.06 17 2.45 2.39 7 6.67857143 1.80
Alnus incana 6 1 20 4.6 4.84
Larix larcina 1 1
Amelanchier canadensis 1 4
Abies balsamea 8 10.84 8.23 75 3.5 1.90
Fagus grandifolia 1 1.5
Betula papyrifera 15 6.93 5.71 6 6.91666667 2.15
Picea mariana 12 8.875 4.23
Picea rubens 49 3.35 3.79 12 2.9375 3.34
Pinus resinosa 26 5.77 3.58
Pinus strobus 49 6.96 5.32 3 16.5833333 0.38
Tsuga canadensis 12 7.7 4.35 42 9.95238095 7.17
Thuja occidentalis 2 3.25 1.77
Total Trees 9 200 157
Impacted Minimally Impacted Reference
Level Of Impact
![Page 18: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Major Findings
Comparison of Canopy Cover and its Effect on Species Richness Among Levels of Impact
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Impacted Minimally Impacted Reference
Pe
rce
nt
(%)
Level of Impact
Percent Canopy Cover Among Levels of Impact
P-Value: < .0001
Highly Significant
P-Value: .036
Significantly Different
![Page 19: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Major Findings
The Effect of Lawn Species on Total Herbaceous Species Richness
![Page 20: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact: Shrubs
P-Value: .081
Not Significant
![Page 21: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact:
Herbaceous
P-Value: .081
Not Significant
![Page 22: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact: Mosses
P-Value: .016
Significantly Different
![Page 23: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Criteria for Obligate Wetland Indicator Status
Leather Leaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata)
• Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability
>99%) in wetlands under natural conditions,
Sphagnum Moss (Sphagnum flexuosum)
![Page 24: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Criteria for Facultative Wetland Wetland Indicator Status
• Plants that occur usually (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in wetlands.
Pincushion Moss (Leucobryum glaucum) Bulblet Fern (Cystopteric bulbifera)
![Page 25: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Criteria for Facultative Wetland Indicator Status
• Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in
both wetlands and non-wetlands.
Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea) Meadow Sweet (Spiraea ulmaria)
![Page 26: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Criteria for Facultative Upland Wetland Indicator Status
• Plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability 1% to < 33%)
Low Bush Blue Berry (Vaccinium angustifolium)
![Page 27: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of
Impact: Obligate
P-Value: .020
Significantly Different
![Page 28: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of
Impact: Facultative Wetland
P-Value: .111
Not Significant
![Page 29: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of Impact:
Facultative
P-Value: .026
Significantly Different
![Page 30: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Major Findings
• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of
Impact: Facultative Upland
P-Value: .040
Significantly Different
![Page 31: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Dominant Vegetation Type Per Class Among Levels of Impact.
Level of Impact Vegetation Class Dominant Species (Common) Dominant Species (Scientific) WIS
Reference Trees Balsam Fir Abies balsamea FAC
Reference Shrubs Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata OBL
Reference Herbaceous Bulbet Fern Cystopteric bulbifera FACW
Reference Moss Sphagnum Sphagnum flexuosum OBL
Minimally Impacted Trees Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC
Minimally Impacted Shrubs Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium FACU
Minimally Impacted Herbaceous Sedge Carex spp. FACW
Minimally Impacted Moss Sphagnum Sphagnum flexuosum OBL
Impacted Trees Speckled Alder Alnus incana FACW
Impacted Shrubs Meadowsweet Spiraea ulmaria FAC
Impacted Herbaceous Fine fescue Festuca spp. FAC
Impacted Moss Pincushion Leucobryum glaucum FACW
![Page 32: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Recommendations
• Integrate data from all groups to initiate an action plan used for ecological restoration.
• Restore impacted areas by regenerating with species found in reference conditions.
![Page 33: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Implications
• Lawn Species do not provide the same ecological benefits that were seen in reference conditions.
• The lack of inputs in impacted areas has great effects on the adjacent aquatic ecosystem (Lower St. Regis).
• Leaf Litter inputs to the lake bottom are low in these areas.
![Page 34: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Acknowledgements
• We would like to recognize and thank all whom have made this project possible. Thank you Dr. Craig Milewski, Robert McAleese, Dr. Celia Evans, Randall Swanson, and Dr. Elizabeth Harper. Your help is very much appreciated.
![Page 35: Capstone Final Presentation Dec 4](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5a6d37c87f8b9a16428b506b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)