Comparing Beech Fork Lake and Ritter Park
- 1. Comparison of Beech Fork and Ritter Park By Rowan Sales, Richie Combs, Alex Birdsong
- 2. Our Group Our team consists of Rowan Sales, Richie Combs, and Alex Birdsong. Rowan Sales will be covering the introduction. Richie Combs will be covering the body. Alex Birdsong will be covering the conclusion.
- 3. Our Purpose Our experiment involves performing a functionality assessment of a creek at Beech Fork and Ritter Park. Purpose is to determine the overall health of each stream.
- 4. Protocol The protocol used in this experiment was the Hydrogeomorphic Approach, as provided by Professor Jones and the Army Corps of Engineers. The protocol exists to determine the capacity and functionality of various streams and whether or not they are able to operate at a certain level.
- 5. History of Protocol The history of the protocol began in 1996 when various organizations like the Fish & Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers etc. came together to study the capacity of wetlands as whole. As time moved forward, however, this protocol eventually became used for collecting data from the designated area and measure the impacts on the area of land.
- 6. Explanation of Protocol This protocol is applied to two specific areas: eastern Kentucky and western West Virginia. This protocol covers several topics like characterizing the high- gradient streams of Appalachia (most notably eastern Kentucky and western West Virginia as mention earlier). Some of the variables used in the experiment include the following: embeddedness, tree diameter, canopy, erosion, and woody debris.
- 7. First Site-Beech Fork Campgrounds
- 8. Second Site-Ritter Park Tennis Courts
- 9. Explanation of where performed experiment We choose Beech Fork Lake State Park and Ritter Park because they were closest place in the area to conduct our research. Both areas were heavily forested. We used a car to get to our location, curtsey of the folks at the Autism Training Center. The equipment that was used included flags, tape measurement, tree calipers, canopy measurer, and boots for trekking in the water.
- 17. Variable 1 Variable 1 was the canopy cover. It was calculated by estimating how much foliage covered the sky.
- 18. Variable 2 Variable 2 was the embeddedness of sediment in the stream. It was obtained by observation and estimation.
- 19. Variable 3 Variable 3 consisted of the particle size. It was collected by observation and estimation.
- 20. Variable 4 Variable 4 consisted of erosion on the stream bank. Data was collected by observation and estimation.
- 21. Variable 5 Variable 5 consisted of woody stems and the data was collected by observation.
- 22. Variable 6 Variable 6 consisted of the DBH (diameter breast height) and it was conducted by using tree calipers and we got the data by measuring the diameter of the tree.
- 23. Variable 7 Variable 7 consisted of the number of snags (dead trees) and the data we collected was solely from observation.
- 24. Variable 8 Variable 8 consisted of the saplings and shrubs from upstream and data was collected by using observation.
- 25. Variable 9 Variable 9 consisted of the abundance of vegetation in the area. The data was collected by observation and estimation.
- 26. Variable 10 Variable 10 consisted of the organic material that was present in the area. Data was collected from observation and estimation.
- 27. Variable 11 Variable 11 was the amount of herbaceous vegetation that covered the area. Data was collected from observation and estimation.
- 28. Variable 12 Variable 12 consisted of watershed runoff. Data was collected from observation as well.
- 29. Data found Based on the data gathered during our time in the two parks, we copied the data onto Microsoft Excel and we ran four f-tests, t-tests, and correlations to get the data we wanted.
- 30. Statistical Tests Made When our expedition to the two parks was finished, we got the data organized and calculated on Microsoft Excel. The f- and t- tests were made to determine if there was a relationship between the each side of the bank. The correlation tests were made to determine how much one affected the other.
- 31. Canopy Cover Herbaceous Growth Right Side N 10 8 Mean 60.5 47.5 Variance 324.7222222 535.7142857 Standard Deviation 18.02005056 23.14550249 F Test T Test Significant? Beech Fork Canopy Cover vs Right Side Herbaceous Growth 0.474912376 0.198316113 No
- 32. Canopy Cover Detirius Right Side N 10 8 Mean 60.5 30.125 Variance 324.7222222 654.4107143 Standard Deviation 18.02005056 25.58145254 F Test T Test Significant? Beech Fork Canopy Cover vs Right Side Detritius 0.323441571 0.009273703 No
- 33. Canopy Cover Herbaceous Growth Right Side N 15 8 Mean 67 11.75 Variance 327.7142857 72.21428571 Standard Deviation 18.10288059 8.4978989 F Test T Test Significant? 0.051755075 6.70048E-08 Ritter Park Canopy Cover vs Right Side Herbaceous Growth Yes
- 34. Canopy Cover Detirius Right Side N 15 8 Mean 67 83.125 Variance 327.7142857 70.98214286 Standard Deviation 18.10288059 8.42509008 F Test T Test Significant? Ritter Park Canopy Cover vs Right Side Detritius 0.049390401 0.027617917 Yes
- 35. Herbs at Beech Fork Left Herbs at Beech Fork Right Herbs at Beech Fork Left 1 Herbs at Beech Fork Right -0.083319558 1 Detritius at Beech Fork Left Detritius at Beech Fork Right Detritius at Beech Fork Left 1 Detritius at Beech Fork Right -0.511699594 1 Herbs at Ritter Left Herbs at Ritter Right Herbs at Ritter Left 1 Herbs at Ritter Right -0.194858333 1 Detritius at Ritter Left Detritius at Ritter Right Detritius at Ritter Left 1 Detritius at Ritter Right 0.473814411 1
- 36. Function Function Capacity Index Hydrology 0.51 Biogeochemical Cycling 0.77 Habitat 0.58 Mean FCI 0.62 Beech Fork Function Function Capacity Index Hydrology 0.43 Biogeochemical Cycling 0.73 Habitat 0.61 Mean FCI 0.59 Ritter Park
- 37. Results From the experiments we conducted, our results came out showing that there was a relationship between the amount of herbaceous growth and fallen detritus compared to canopy cover on the right side at Ritter Park. The detritus at Ritter Park was also the only one to show a positive correlation.
- 38. Conclusion As more trees falls, this reduces the canopy cover and releases more leaves onto the ground. While there was plenty of fallen leaves and trees at Ritter Park, there was not a similar significant relationship at Beech Fork. The environments, while similar, are different in this regard.
- 39. What We Thought of Experiment Complications arose due to having to schedule when everyone would be available to go to the locations. We were able to identify a number of trees that were not native to the area, or at least, not available on the HGM documents.
- 40. What Could be Improved If there is was one thing that we could have improved in retrospect, it would probably be time management. Organizing schedules would ensure that the data could be acquired sooner. The other thing would be getting a full understanding of the content before we did our experiment. Being prepared and knowing what to look for will decrease the time it take to perform the experiment.
- 41. Advice for the Future Everyone should carry physical and digital copies of the protocol. Make sure that everyone has sufficient clothing for the trip. Ensure that all members are active in every portion of the experiment.