Pt-Qtr Calculations Datasheet of Excel FieldTripData2007 filePoint-Quarter Calculations n= 17 points

Oak Forest Transects mean point to plant distance= 4.8 metersUnique Pt Species DBH Distance Basal Area total density of all spp= 436.43 trees >10cm dbh/ha1 American Elm 31 6.6 754.77

1 American Elm 27 3.6 572.56 Oak Forest5 American Elm 32 6.0 804.25 relative (no./ha) relative relative importance17 American Elm 23 5.7 415.48 density density dominance dominance frequency frequency value5 Beech 25 2.7 490.885 Beech 11 5.6 95.03 American Elm 5.88 25.67 16347.21 3.91 0.18 7.32 17.126 Beech 12 7.6 113.10 Beech 26.47 115.53 60211.96 14.41 0.47 19.53 60.416 Beech 30 5.3 706.86 Hornbeam 2.94 12.84 4284.65 1.03 0.12 4.88 8.857 Beech 33 1.5 855.30 Red Maple 10.29 44.93 37025.69 8.86 0.35 14.64 33.807 Beech 26 2.5 530.93 Red Oak 10.29 44.93 38375.36 9.19 0.35 14.64 34.127 Beech 30 5.9 706.86 Sugar Maple 10.29 44.93 30426.07 7.28 0.35 14.64 32.2213 Beech 20 2.6 314.16 White Oak 10.29 44.93 76881.77 18.40 0.35 14.64 43.3413 Beech 31 4.0 754.77 White Pine 10.29 44.93 79598.74 19.05 0.35 14.64 43.9914 Beech 14 7.3 153.94 Yellow Birch 10.29 44.93 75566.13 18.09 0.35 14.64 43.0315 Beech 20 0.5 314.1615 Beech 33 5.1 855.30 total= 97.06 423.59 418717.57 100.22 2.88 119.6015 Beech 27 8.2 572.56 should be 100.00 436.43 417787.75 100.00 2.41 100.0016 Beech 12 1.5 113.1016 Beech 11 8.5 95.03 yellow are correct, you have to edit other cells16 Beech 40 3.5 1256.6417 Beech 25 4.3 490.8817 Beech 35 6.2 962.125 Hornbeam 15 6.8 176.728 Hornbeam 25 3.5 490.881 Red Maple 12 2.1 103.872 Red Maple 51 4.4 2042.832 Red Maple 40 7.9 1256.644 Red Maple 35 3.6 962.126 Red Maple 33 8.9 855.308 Red Maple 23 5.1 415.4814 Red Maple 13 5.1 132.73

n= 20 points

mean point to plant distance= 5.1 meterstotal density of all spp= 386.36 trees >10cm dbh/ha

Mixed (Pine-Hardwood) Forest 20 sample pointsrelative (no./ha) relative relative importancedensity density dominance dominance frequency frequency value

Black Oak 3.75 14.49 14390.98 2.66 0.15 6.07 12.48Hemlock 5.00 19.32 24406.63 4.51 0.15 6.07 15.59Hornbeam 5.00 19.32 21590.26 3.99 0.15 6.07 15.07Mountain Maple 5.00 19.32 60841.15 11.25 0.15 6.07 22.33Pin Cherry 5.00 19.32 9482.72 1.75 0.15 6.07 12.83Red Maple 5.00 19.32 2564.13 0.47 0.15 6.07 11.55Red Oak 5.00 19.32 22816.19 4.22 0.15 6.07 15.29White Oak 5.00 19.32 82689.35 15.29 0.15 6.07 26.37White Pine 5.00 19.32 65134.93 12.05 0.15 6.07 23.12Yellow Birch 5.00 19.32 35188.20 6.51 0.15 6.07 17.58

total= 48.8 188.4 339104.5 62.7 1.5 60.7

Plot Calculations Datasheet of Excel FieldTripData2007 filePlot Calculations

Oak Forest Transects n=37 trees, Plot # Tree Species DBH (cm)Basal Area area = 19 plots * (5m x 10m) = 950m2/10000 = 0.095 ha6 Beech 30 706.96 Beech 26 530.9

6 Beech 30 706.9 Oak Forest6 Beech 16 201.1 relative relative relative importance6 Beech 17 227.0 density density dominance dominance frequency frequency value15 Beech 15 176.717 Beech 57 2551.8 Beech 105.26 22.91 70181.69 14.49 0.26 10.12 47.5318 Beech 12 113.1 Black Cherry 10.53 2.29 16005.63 3.30 0.05 2.02 7.6219 Beech 35 962.1 Hornbeam 10.53 2.29 1860.16 0.38 0.05 2.02 4.7019 Beech 25 490.9 Red Maple 10.53 2.29 1190.50 0.25 0.05 2.02 4.562 Black Cherry 44 1520.5 Red Oak 10.53 2.29 6026.91 1.24 0.05 2.02 5.565 Hornbeam 15 176.7 White Pine 10.53 2.29 89419.86 18.46 0.05 2.02 22.781 Red Maple 12 113.1 Yellow Birch 10.53 2.29 2389.27 0.49 0.05 2.02 4.812 Red Maple 27 572.63 Red Oak 104 8494.9 total= 168.4 36.7 187074.0 38.6 0.6 22.33 Red Oak 17 227.06 Red Oak 48 1809.6

Mixed Forest Transects n=25 trees, Plot # Tree Species DBH (cm)Basal Area area = 24 plots * (5m x 10m) = 1200m2/10000 = 0.12 ha2 Beech 33 855.35 Mountain Maple 30 706.9

5 Pin Cherry 10 78.5 Mixed (Pine-Hardwood) Forest5 Pin Cherry 11 95.0 relative relative relative importance15 Red Maple 74 4300.9 density density dominance dominance frequency frequency value24 Red Maple 24 452.43 Red Oak 36 1017.9 Beech 8.33 1.81 7127.51 1.47 0.04 1.60 4.895 Red Oak 25 496.6 Mountain Maple 8.33 1.81 5890.50 1.22 0.04 1.60 4.637 Red Oak 93 6792.9 Pin Cherry 16.67 3.63 1446.45 0.30 0.08 3.21 7.135 White Pine 64 3217.0 Red Maple 16.67 3.63 36632.37 7.56 0.08 3.21 14.406 White Pine 16 201.1 Red Oak 16.67 3.63 39610.34 8.18 0.08 3.21 15.019 White Pine 16 201.1 White Pine 16.67 3.63 12252.24 2.53 0.08 3.21 9.3616 White Pine 31 754.8 Yellow Birch 16.67 3.63 12621.00 2.61 0.08 3.21 9.4416 White Pine 31 754.816 White Pine 41 1320.3 total= 100.0 21.8 115580.4 23.9 0.5 19.216 White Pine 36 1017.916 White Pine 27 572.6

The sea palm Postelsia colonizes gaps in mussel beds, and coexists by ephemeral occupation of these patches

- but coexist only if high rates of gap formation

Poorer competitors but better colonizers

Early germinating and growing plants

% Bromus depends on when germinates

Physa snails reproduce earlier and survive better in ephemeral ponds than superior competitor Lymnaea

First come, first served

Experimental plantings from seedsin different mixtures of 3-4 coexisting annual plant species

Three competitive inferiors grew better when aggregated than randomly planted

…but competitively superior Stellaria plants grew less well when seeds were aggregated illustrates coexistence in heterogeneous environments

Aggregated distributions can deflect superior species towards intraspecific competition

Evolutionary effects of interspecific competition

Limiting similarity: how differentiated must niches be to allow coexistence?

- note: selection favors individuals with less overlap with competing species

- coexistence easier when individuals compete more with conspecifics

d>w, narrow niches & little competition d<<w, wide overlapping niches & high competition

Character displacement: evidence of the “ghost of competition past”

-competitive release on islands

male & female Indian mongoose canine size(H. javanicus)

H.j.

H.e.

Distribution of 3 Herpestes species

Character displacement:

Stickleback fish in freshwater lakes (British Columbia)

- if two species, feeding apparatus morphology diverges

Species “packing” in communities structured by competition: Phytoplankton diversity associated with number of limiting resources (nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon & light)

n=221 samples from 3 Wyoming lakes

Species diversity increased with no. resources limiting growth

Predation, Grazing & Parasitism

Definitions of these species interactionsNegative effects on vital rates and fitness of prey or host speciesCompensatory responses by individual preyEffects on prey or host populationsForaging behavior by predators & grazersPredator -prey population cyclesParasite-host population dynamics

Predation & Grazing - animal foraging behavior determines intensity and population consequences- negative interaction for prey or plant

Predation: The consumption of one organism, in whole or in part, by another, where the consumed organism is alive when the consumer first attacks it.Predator: An organism that consumes other organisms, divisible into true predators, grazers, parasites and parasitoids. NO- too broad not fruits, nectarHerbivory: The consumption of living plant material.--NOGrazer: A consumer which attacks large numbers of large prey during its lifetime, but removes only a part of each prey individual, so that the effect, although often harmful, is rarely lethal in the short term, and never predictably lethal.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Parasitism Parasite: An organism that obtains its nutrients from one or a very few host individuals, causing harm but not causing death immediately.

Parasitoid: Insects (mostly flies & wasps) in which the adults are free-living, but eggs are laid in, on or near an insect host after which the larvae develops in the host, eventually killing it before or during the pupal stage.

a) epiphytic flowering plant (Spanish moss)

b) hemiparasite (mistletoe)c) parasite (dodder)Also- hemiepiphytes (many tropical figs) &lianas (= woody climbers)

Distinguish parasites from commensuals--which use tree architecture for structural support but do not harm

Trees as hosts

- structural support for epiphytes, hemiepiphytes and lianas

Are these commensuals or parasites?

Are these parasites or commensuals? - do they affect host fitness?(e.g., vital rates of growth, survival and reproduction)

12 species of protozoa and rotifers live on the water louse Asellus, filtering food from moving water

a) Polychaete worm on brown seaweed Fuscusb) Red seaweed commensual w/Ascophyllumc) Clava colonies on Ascophyllum

Ectoparasites•Of plants: aphids, fungi which form a phyllospere of species living on plant leaf surfaces

•Of animals: fleas, lice, blood-sucking flies, etc.. (see Table 7.2 for % single or 2-host specialists of birds and mammals)

•Many are specialized to a single host species, so if host goes extinct, so do many of its ectoparasites

Endoparasites

Dipsersal can involve secondary hosts & complex life cycles

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Grazing influences plant vital rates: growth rates in the sand dune willow Salix cordata

1990: ample rain, no effect, but 1991: drought + high herbiv. = 80% mortality, vs. 0%

& 40%

Effect of disease on fitnessLate arriving male pied flycatchers reproduce poorly, and have a higher incidence of worm infection

Control of host population by parasitoid wasp

Long-term population dynamics of laboratory host-parasitoid system (Venturia wasp & Indian meal moth)

-the wasp controlled the moth at 1/10th of its abundance (note log scale)

Competition & parasitisim influence salt marsh community- Salicornia competitive ability affected by the parasite dodder

Nematode worm makes red grouse more susceptible to predation

a) grouse shot for sport (+/- unbiased sample of pop)

b) killed by predators

Trichostongylus tenuis

Grazing & Competition Interactions- enhanced effect of herbivory

Effect of beetle grazing and competition, alone and in combination, on Rumex crispus plant performance (as measured by leaf area)

R. obtusifoliusR. crispus (left)Gastrophysa

- simulated herbivory (clipping) of gentian plants change architecture & flowering… but note potential to compensate for herbivory depended on developmental stage during July

Compensation for herbivory within plants: reallocation of nutrients

Compensatory production of defensive chemicals- grazers may have different effects: snails vs. isopods

Ascophyllum

-Caterpillar induced production of defensive chemicals in wild radishes reduced leaf damage and led to higher fitness

Benefit of reduced grazing comes at cost of resource allocation for defenses… net benefit to fitness over longer term?

Antipredator chemical defenses in animals- especially sedentary species- marine sponges seem defenseless, but suffer little herbivore damage

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Anti-predator defense through mast fruiting & predator satiation- recall Borneo seed predation examples- New Zealand grasses of Chionochloa

Effects of predation on prey population dynamics- unpredictable outcomes1) individuals killed may not contribute much to reproduction (very young or old)2)compensatory changes in growth, reproduction or survivorshipa) Reduced woodpigeon hunting: reduced food

abundance & immigration maintained similar winter mortality

b) Prey not food limited: spiders & grasshoppers

Imperfect compensatory mortality with reduced predation -Predator mortality may be replaced by other source of mortality

-Reduction in vertebrate seed predation is not proportionally matched by increase in survival in Doug fir seeds (seedling survivorship doubled)

Effect of predators on prey population size depends on which age/sex classes

killed

Left: proportion Thompson gazelle killed different from availability

Right: zig-zagging escape behavior by adults effective Result: predation on young & old may not much effect pop

Foraging Behavior- sit & wait predators vs. active predators

- caddisfly larvae make nets (sit & wait) if fed (high density)

b)Aggregative response to prey density

Foraging decisions

a) which habitat?b) foraging vs. predation risk

c) how long to stay in a food patch?d) patch quality vs. competition

e) what foods to include in the diet(diet breadth)?

Optimal Foraging Theory:

Predators select most profitable prey (high e/t)- not prefer those with greatest e -- but rate of return (net e/time spent feeding)

Optimal Diet WidthHow many food species to eat?• Preference determined by e/(h+s) for each item- the net energy

return from searching for and handling a food type• Evolutionary ecology perspective: to foraging optimally, select a diet

that maximizes E/t, where t = h+s

• If long handling times & short search times, then specialize (e.g., lions)

• If long search times, but short handling times, then generalize (e.g., insectivorous birds)

The Diet Width (or Breadth) ProblemBroaden diet to less-preferred (lower e/t) foods if environment less productive; specialize as density of preferred food type increases

Specialize as habitat quality improvesBlack & brown bears consume more of each salmon when at low density; at high densities, specialize on energy-rich parts

Predator Switching to more common food type- effect can be to allow rare prey to recover or coexist