The Implications of Different Levels of Livestock Grazing fescue in Cypress Hills International Park, encompassing an endangered species. habitat. To better understand the effects of grazing on area diversity, a study was undertaken on three representative sites: ungrazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed. We assessed the abundance and diversity of arthropods and plants using fishing nets, traps, spot analysis, and plant biomass collection. Unfortunately, there was no significant difference between the three treatments in terms of arthropod abundance or diversity, apparently due to poor weather. However, plant abundance and diversity followed a significant trend, with intermediate pasture being the most diverse. In conclusion, it appears that moderate levels of grazing can be beneficial if implemented correctly. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIntroductionCypress Hills Interprovincial Park lies on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada. The area includes two subregions, a natural montane subregion as well as a natural mixed grassland subregion, composed mainly of fescue grasslands. In recent years, it has been a hot spot for research efforts due to the unique processes occurring in the region and the opportunity to study the incredible diversity. The fescue grasslands in this area are particularly important because they are an endangered habitat. Additionally, this area is not subject to fire suppression. Many studies suspect this is due to habitat route fragmentation, human activity, forest encroachment, introduction of invasive species, and grazing activities of both domestic and non-domestic ungulates. domestics. For this reason, there has been much controversy over the effect of grazing on this historic site and the potential that it could increasingly reduce the native species and productivity of the area. Our research group is particularly interested in the effects of grazing on the abundance and diversity of plants and arthropods. Three representative sites were chosen: an ungrazed exclosure, a moderately grazed field and a heavily grazed area where cattle are mainly released before grazing begins. We predicted that the heavily grazed site would have the lowest abundance and diversity of not only plants but also arthropods. Due to the presence of a large proportion of livestock in the area, competition for feed is high and it follows that livestock become less picky about their choice of foliage, choosing to eat what is available. In addition to competition, cattle are also known to trample the ground, resulting in more compacted soils. Therefore, this leads to a reduction in soil moisture content due to the inability of soils to absorb and retain water. Finally, erosion is also likely due to reduced vegetation cover and overall drier soils. Conversely, the ungrazed site was predicted to contain the greatest abundance of plants and arthropods due to the lack of competition for resources within the arthropods and the absence of a grazing suppression factor for the plants. Finally, weWe predicted that the intermediate site would likely have the greatest diversity of plants and arthropods due to the absence of crowding and the removal of aggressively dominant plants. Methods Location This study took place in fescue grasslands on the Alberta side of the Cypress Hills interprovincial area. Park. It included three different representative sites: ungrazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed, all considered different treatments. The ungrazed site was an exclosure where livestock were not allowed to enter, and although it is believed to be over ten years old, the exact date it was constructed is unknown. Prior to sampling, eight random positions in a 50 x 50 m grid were selected for each of the three sites using a random number table to serve as replicates. flying insects, and secondarily with pan and pit traps, to collect terrestrial insects and flying insects respectively. Net sampling was carried out first to avoid disturbing the arthropods present before further data collection. From the point of origin of each repetition, the net was swung ten times on alternating sides in step rhythm for a total of ten steps, making sure to brush foliage from the area with each sweep. This was carried out in each cardinal direction (south, east, north and west) for a total of forty scans per repetition at each site. Following net sampling, pitfall and pan traps were installed. Both contained water and dish soap to drown any arthropods that fell into the traps. Pitfall traps were set using red Solo cups, the tops of which were flush with the ground and filled with soil to ensure that no arthropods would fall into the cracks rather than the cup. A tile was then placed on top, supported by nails to ensure that potential rainfall would not overfill the cups. The pot traps were made of aluminum and painted yellow, as many flowering plants in the area display a similar color. They were placed on the ground and weighed down with rocks to ensure they would not move due to weather disturbances. All rocks placed in the traps were below the waterline to prevent arthropods from escaping once they fell into them. A total of 3 pitfall traps and 3 pan traps were set per repetition, approximately one meter apart. , and surrounding the origin. The traps were collected three days later and the six traps from each replicate were combined, filtered from water and stored in ethanol until they could be counted. Data from traps and nets were grouped after identification. The identification and enumeration of preserved species took place on the basis of an arthropod library previously established in the region. Plant sampling Plant species abundance and diversity were assessed using spot analysis. From the origin of each replicate, a 0.5 m long point marker was used twice for a total of 1 m and 20 points along the transect in a singular direction, and always the same direction for each repetition. Each time the pin hit a plant, it was identified and counted. Plants can have several impacts on the same given point. Counting continued until the pin touched the floor or litter. These data were used to calculate percent coverage. Since a single pinprick could touch more than one plant, it was possible to achieve a coverage percentage greater than 100%. In additionPlant diversity assessments, plant organic matter and litter biomass estimates for the area were carried out by establishing a 0.2x0 transect. 5m to the end of the marker. Plant material and litter were separated and removed from the grid before being dried at 60°C upon return to the laboratory. Finally, a 10 x 10 m area was marked in the southeast corner of the initially larger area for each treatment site to assess plant species diversity. Abundance was not taken into account, only whether the species was present or not. However, as there was only one replication per site, statistical analysis and error analysis could not be performed. Statistical analysis Data were statistically evaluated using single-way ANOVA to compare means in which there were three treatments (ungrazed, intermediate grazing, and high grazing). . Significance was assessed based on ap < 0. Level 05. If there was a significant difference between the three treatments, the evaluation was followed by a two-tailed Student's t-test assuming equal variance to compare between the two treatments. Calculations and data evaluations were performed using Excel. All error bars and error estimates were performed using the standard error of the mean (SE). ResultsArthropod Sampling Although no trough or pit traps were disturbed by the activity of the livestock, there was a significant amount of rain on the day of arthropod collection, which may have had an effect on the estimates due to the reduced presence of arthropods, or the washout of some samples already captured, notably regarding pot traps. However, all data collected was still taken into account because it was consistent across the three treatments. There was no significant difference in the mean abundance of distinct arthropod species present between the three sites (ANOVA, F2,21 = 2.51, p = 0.105). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a mean abundance of species present of 32.9 (±3.0), 27.0 (±1.7), and 26.1 (±2.1), respectively ( fig.1). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the mean number of individuals captured at each site (ANOVA, F2,21 = 2.77, p = 0.086). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a mean number of individuals captured of 185.0 (±23.5), 156.1 (±24.4), and 111.1 (±18.7), respectively. . Additionally, there was no significant difference between mean arthropod species richness, as calculated by the Mehinick index (ANOVA, F2,21 = 0.35, p = 0.712). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a species richness index of 2.48 (±0.22), 2.32 (±0.27), and 2.62 (±0.27) respectively (Fig. 3). Finally, there was no significant difference in gender diversity, as calculated by the Shannon Weiner Diversity Index (ANOVA, F2,21=3.22, p=0.0599). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a diversity index of 1.13 (±0.05), 0.927 (±0.07), and 1.67 (±0.07) respectively (Fig. 4). Plant sampling There was a significant difference in percent plant cover, and therefore abundance, between the ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments (ANOVA, F2,21=43.25, p=0.000000036 ). Additionally, all treatments were found to be significantly different from each other. The intermediately grazed treatment had significantly more plant cover than the non-grazed treatment (two-tailed t-test, t14 = 2.18, p = 0,047) as well as the heavily grazed treatment (two-tailed t test, t14 = 10). .96,p=0. Additionally, the ungrazed treatment had significantly greater vegetation cover than the heavily grazed treatment (two-tailed t-test, t14 = 6.68, p = 0.00001). The average percent cover in the ungrazed, intermediate, and heavily grazed treatments was 118.1% (±12.8%), 154.4% (±10.6%), and 26.9% (±4.7%). % ) respectively. There was a significant difference between litter biomass between the three treatments (ANOVA, F2,21=7.75, p=0.003) as well as plant organic matter biomass between the three treatments (ANOVA, F2, 21=18). .0,p=0. Once this was established, a two-way Student's t test was performed to compare significant differences between two of the three treatments. Plant biomass was shown to be significantly lower in the heavily grazed treatment compared to the intermediate treatment (two-sample t-test, t14 = -2.73, p = 0.016), as well as in the non-grazed treatment ( two sample t -test, t14=-7.11, p=000005). Similarly, there was significantly less plant biomass in the intermediate treatment compared to the ungrazed treatment (two-sample t-test, t14 = -4.05, p = 0.0012). The average plant biomass of ungrazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed areas was 6.63 g (±1.4 g), 13.85 g (±2.1 g) and 26.43 g (±2.3 g), respectively. g) (fig. 6, blue bars). In terms of litter biomass, a similar trend emerged. The biomass of heavily grazed treatment litter was significantly lower than that of intermediately grazed treatment litter (two-sample t test, t14 = -4.44, p = 0.0006) and that of heavily grazed treatment litter (two-sample t test, t14 = -4.44, p = 0.0006) and that of heavily grazed treatment litter (two-sample t test, two samples, t14 = -3.42, p=0.0041) treatments. However, there was no significant difference between the intermediately grazed and non-grazed treatments in terms of litter biomass (two-sample t-test, t14 = -1.686, p = 0.114). The average litter biomass of ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed areas was 1.59 g (±0.40 g), 19.16 g (±4.0 g), and 38.55 g (±10 g), respectively. , 8 g) (Fig. 6, orange bars).DiscussionEffects of grazing on arthropodsA surprising result from this experiment is that there was no difference or distinct pattern between treatments regarding the abundance or diversity of arthropods. This did not confirm our predictions, as we expected the intermediate treatment to produce the greatest species richness and the ungrazed site to produce the greatest abundance of individuals. Unfortunately, there was no significant difference in mean species abundance, mean number of individuals captured, mean species richness, or mean order diversity between the three treatments. Although one might think that the data suggests that grazing has no impact on arthropod abundance or diversity, this can be misleading. In a study done on mites, they found that the abundance and diversity of these arthropods were significantly different under different grazing intensities. Likewise, data from previous years undertaking the same study would not support our data from this year. We believe that due to the cold weather and heavy rain, these two factors combined may have had confounding effects on our arthropod study. In general, arthropods have reduced activity levels in cold weather because their metabolism decreases and their locomotion becomes restricted. This may not have been a significant factor during the day we used the sweeping net, but it may have had an impact on arthropod numbers.

Essay / The Implications of Different Levels of Livestock Grazing fescue in Cypress Hills International Park, encompassing an endangered species. habitat. To better understand the effects of grazing on area diversity, a study was undertaken on three representative sites: ungrazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed. We assessed the abundance and diversity of arthropods and plants using fishing nets, traps, spot analysis, and plant biomass collection. Unfortunately, there was no significant difference between the three treatments in terms of arthropod abundance or diversity, apparently due to poor weather. However, plant abundance and diversity followed a significant trend, with intermediate pasture being the most diverse. In conclusion, it appears that moderate levels of grazing can be beneficial if implemented correctly. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIntroductionCypress Hills Interprovincial Park lies on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada. The area includes two subregions, a natural montane subregion as well as a natural mixed grassland subregion, composed mainly of fescue grasslands. In recent years, it has been a hot spot for research efforts due to the unique processes occurring in the region and the opportunity to study the incredible diversity. The fescue grasslands in this area are particularly important because they are an endangered habitat. Additionally, this area is not subject to fire suppression. Many studies suspect this is due to habitat route fragmentation, human activity, forest encroachment, introduction of invasive species, and grazing activities of both domestic and non-domestic ungulates. domestics. For this reason, there has been much controversy over the effect of grazing on this historic site and the potential that it could increasingly reduce the native species and productivity of the area. Our research group is particularly interested in the effects of grazing on the abundance and diversity of plants and arthropods. Three representative sites were chosen: an ungrazed exclosure, a moderately grazed field and a heavily grazed area where cattle are mainly released before grazing begins. We predicted that the heavily grazed site would have the lowest abundance and diversity of not only plants but also arthropods. Due to the presence of a large proportion of livestock in the area, competition for feed is high and it follows that livestock become less picky about their choice of foliage, choosing to eat what is available. In addition to competition, cattle are also known to trample the ground, resulting in more compacted soils. Therefore, this leads to a reduction in soil moisture content due to the inability of soils to absorb and retain water. Finally, erosion is also likely due to reduced vegetation cover and overall drier soils. Conversely, the ungrazed site was predicted to contain the greatest abundance of plants and arthropods due to the lack of competition for resources within the arthropods and the absence of a grazing suppression factor for the plants. Finally, weWe predicted that the intermediate site would likely have the greatest diversity of plants and arthropods due to the absence of crowding and the removal of aggressively dominant plants. Methods Location This study took place in fescue grasslands on the Alberta side of the Cypress Hills interprovincial area. Park. It included three different representative sites: ungrazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed, all considered different treatments. The ungrazed site was an exclosure where livestock were not allowed to enter, and although it is believed to be over ten years old, the exact date it was constructed is unknown. Prior to sampling, eight random positions in a 50 x 50 m grid were selected for each of the three sites using a random number table to serve as replicates. flying insects, and secondarily with pan and pit traps, to collect terrestrial insects and flying insects respectively. Net sampling was carried out first to avoid disturbing the arthropods present before further data collection. From the point of origin of each repetition, the net was swung ten times on alternating sides in step rhythm for a total of ten steps, making sure to brush foliage from the area with each sweep. This was carried out in each cardinal direction (south, east, north and west) for a total of forty scans per repetition at each site. Following net sampling, pitfall and pan traps were installed. Both contained water and dish soap to drown any arthropods that fell into the traps. Pitfall traps were set using red Solo cups, the tops of which were flush with the ground and filled with soil to ensure that no arthropods would fall into the cracks rather than the cup. A tile was then placed on top, supported by nails to ensure that potential rainfall would not overfill the cups. The pot traps were made of aluminum and painted yellow, as many flowering plants in the area display a similar color. They were placed on the ground and weighed down with rocks to ensure they would not move due to weather disturbances. All rocks placed in the traps were below the waterline to prevent arthropods from escaping once they fell into them. A total of 3 pitfall traps and 3 pan traps were set per repetition, approximately one meter apart. , and surrounding the origin. The traps were collected three days later and the six traps from each replicate were combined, filtered from water and stored in ethanol until they could be counted. Data from traps and nets were grouped after identification. The identification and enumeration of preserved species took place on the basis of an arthropod library previously established in the region. Plant sampling Plant species abundance and diversity were assessed using spot analysis. From the origin of each replicate, a 0.5 m long point marker was used twice for a total of 1 m and 20 points along the transect in a singular direction, and always the same direction for each repetition. Each time the pin hit a plant, it was identified and counted. Plants can have several impacts on the same given point. Counting continued until the pin touched the floor or litter. These data were used to calculate percent coverage. Since a single pinprick could touch more than one plant, it was possible to achieve a coverage percentage greater than 100%. In additionPlant diversity assessments, plant organic matter and litter biomass estimates for the area were carried out by establishing a 0.2x0 transect. 5m to the end of the marker. Plant material and litter were separated and removed from the grid before being dried at 60°C upon return to the laboratory. Finally, a 10 x 10 m area was marked in the southeast corner of the initially larger area for each treatment site to assess plant species diversity. Abundance was not taken into account, only whether the species was present or not. However, as there was only one replication per site, statistical analysis and error analysis could not be performed. Statistical analysis Data were statistically evaluated using single-way ANOVA to compare means in which there were three treatments (ungrazed, intermediate grazing, and high grazing). . Significance was assessed based on ap < 0. Level 05. If there was a significant difference between the three treatments, the evaluation was followed by a two-tailed Student's t-test assuming equal variance to compare between the two treatments. Calculations and data evaluations were performed using Excel. All error bars and error estimates were performed using the standard error of the mean (SE). ResultsArthropod Sampling Although no trough or pit traps were disturbed by the activity of the livestock, there was a significant amount of rain on the day of arthropod collection, which may have had an effect on the estimates due to the reduced presence of arthropods, or the washout of some samples already captured, notably regarding pot traps. However, all data collected was still taken into account because it was consistent across the three treatments. There was no significant difference in the mean abundance of distinct arthropod species present between the three sites (ANOVA, F2,21 = 2.51, p = 0.105). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a mean abundance of species present of 32.9 (±3.0), 27.0 (±1.7), and 26.1 (±2.1), respectively ( fig.1). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the mean number of individuals captured at each site (ANOVA, F2,21 = 2.77, p = 0.086). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a mean number of individuals captured of 185.0 (±23.5), 156.1 (±24.4), and 111.1 (±18.7), respectively. . Additionally, there was no significant difference between mean arthropod species richness, as calculated by the Mehinick index (ANOVA, F2,21 = 0.35, p = 0.712). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a species richness index of 2.48 (±0.22), 2.32 (±0.27), and 2.62 (±0.27) respectively (Fig. 3). Finally, there was no significant difference in gender diversity, as calculated by the Shannon Weiner Diversity Index (ANOVA, F2,21=3.22, p=0.0599). The ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments showed a diversity index of 1.13 (±0.05), 0.927 (±0.07), and 1.67 (±0.07) respectively (Fig. 4). Plant sampling There was a significant difference in percent plant cover, and therefore abundance, between the ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed treatments (ANOVA, F2,21=43.25, p=0.000000036 ). Additionally, all treatments were found to be significantly different from each other. The intermediately grazed treatment had significantly more plant cover than the non-grazed treatment (two-tailed t-test, t14 = 2.18, p = 0,047) as well as the heavily grazed treatment (two-tailed t test, t14 = 10). .96,p=0. Additionally, the ungrazed treatment had significantly greater vegetation cover than the heavily grazed treatment (two-tailed t-test, t14 = 6.68, p = 0.00001). The average percent cover in the ungrazed, intermediate, and heavily grazed treatments was 118.1% (±12.8%), 154.4% (±10.6%), and 26.9% (±4.7%). % ) respectively. There was a significant difference between litter biomass between the three treatments (ANOVA, F2,21=7.75, p=0.003) as well as plant organic matter biomass between the three treatments (ANOVA, F2, 21=18). .0,p=0. Once this was established, a two-way Student's t test was performed to compare significant differences between two of the three treatments. Plant biomass was shown to be significantly lower in the heavily grazed treatment compared to the intermediate treatment (two-sample t-test, t14 = -2.73, p = 0.016), as well as in the non-grazed treatment ( two sample t -test, t14=-7.11, p=000005). Similarly, there was significantly less plant biomass in the intermediate treatment compared to the ungrazed treatment (two-sample t-test, t14 = -4.05, p = 0.0012). The average plant biomass of ungrazed, moderately grazed and heavily grazed areas was 6.63 g (±1.4 g), 13.85 g (±2.1 g) and 26.43 g (±2.3 g), respectively. g) (fig. 6, blue bars). In terms of litter biomass, a similar trend emerged. The biomass of heavily grazed treatment litter was significantly lower than that of intermediately grazed treatment litter (two-sample t test, t14 = -4.44, p = 0.0006) and that of heavily grazed treatment litter (two-sample t test, t14 = -4.44, p = 0.0006) and that of heavily grazed treatment litter (two-sample t test, two samples, t14 = -3.42, p=0.0041) treatments. However, there was no significant difference between the intermediately grazed and non-grazed treatments in terms of litter biomass (two-sample t-test, t14 = -1.686, p = 0.114). The average litter biomass of ungrazed, medium-grazed, and heavily grazed areas was 1.59 g (±0.40 g), 19.16 g (±4.0 g), and 38.55 g (±10 g), respectively. , 8 g) (Fig. 6, orange bars).DiscussionEffects of grazing on arthropodsA surprising result from this experiment is that there was no difference or distinct pattern between treatments regarding the abundance or diversity of arthropods. This did not confirm our predictions, as we expected the intermediate treatment to produce the greatest species richness and the ungrazed site to produce the greatest abundance of individuals. Unfortunately, there was no significant difference in mean species abundance, mean number of individuals captured, mean species richness, or mean order diversity between the three treatments. Although one might think that the data suggests that grazing has no impact on arthropod abundance or diversity, this can be misleading. In a study done on mites, they found that the abundance and diversity of these arthropods were significantly different under different grazing intensities. Likewise, data from previous years undertaking the same study would not support our data from this year. We believe that due to the cold weather and heavy rain, these two factors combined may have had confounding effects on our arthropod study. In general, arthropods have reduced activity levels in cold weather because their metabolism decreases and their locomotion becomes restricted. This may not have been a significant factor during the day we used the sweeping net, but it may have had an impact on arthropod numbers.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch