Activity 2.3 Island Biogeography Simulation Report

 

Activity 2.3 – Island Biodiversity Technical Report

Nevaeh Joseph

Northwest Vista College

Geography and Environmental Studies Program

San Antonio, Texas, USA


1.0 Introduction

The main term that is going to be used within this report is the term “biodiversity” with small mentions of biogeography. The correlation between the two is what will be discussed and analyzed in this report. For reference biodiversity is “ the variety of life in the world or a particular habitat or ecosystem ( Oxford languages, 2022).” and biogeography means “the branch of biology that deals with the geographical distribution of plants and animals. ( Oxford languages, 2022.)”  We know that various factors can affect how an island's biodiversity can change based on its conditions. Biodiversity is very important for any environment to thrive because the more biodiversity an environment has the better it can self sustain. Different species play different roles in how it affects the environment it lives in. With multiple species working together and depending on each other the healthier the environment becomes.


2.0 Data Collection and analysis

To conduct this experiment I used the Virtual Biology Lab Island Biogeography Simulator (Jones et al., 2016). It's a computer simulator that allows its user to manipulate two hypothetical islands and change specific conditions of each island. The first thing I did was set up a control for the experiment. Island 1 and Island 2 had the same measurements for everything. They were both 256km in diameter and 10 km away from the mainland. Their extinction rate was at 0.05, while their migration rate was at 2. The environment and animal type that I was measuring were birds living in a tropical habitat. The data that was recorded from the two islands throughout the experiment was their current number of species, the average number of species, the top two most abundant species, and how many birds were on the islands at the given time. During each trial, the islands were timed for two minutes at a speed of 8x. Each island was also put through two trials per tested variable.

 During the first trial and second trial on the two islands each trial yielded similar results. The only difference between the two trials is the number of species on island 2 during the 1st trial, it was 9 instead of 10 like the rest of the data. For the average number of species both islands during the first trial had the same average( 9.5), and the same thing happened for the second trial (9.4). When measuring the most abundant species in the first trials the most abundant species were 1,7, and 10. In the second trial, the most abundant species were 1,6, and 7.

The first type of manipulation that was tested on the two islands was the effect distance from the mainland would have on the island's biodiversity. Island 1 was kept the same, while island two was moved 70 km off the coast of the mainland. On island two everything was kept the same as well, the only difference was the distance. While recording the current number of species all the islands have the same current number of species except for island 2 during the second trial. (it had 9 while the other islands during the other trials had 10). I noticed that the average number of species for each island during each trial was also very similar. Island 1 during the first trial had an average of 9.7 while island two during the same trial had an average of 9.3. The numbers were even closer during the second trial with island one having an average of 9.4 and island two having an average of 9.5. The most abundant species in trial one were species 4,5,6 and 8. During the second trial, the most abundant species were species 5,6,7, and 10.

The next type of manipulation that was tested was whether the land mass or size of the island would affect each island's biodiversity. Island 1’s size was changed from its original size (256km) to 96km in diameter. Everything else about the island remained the same, along with no changes being made to island two. For the current number of species, both trials had very similar patterns with island one during both trials having a lower species average and the current number of species. During the first trial island, the average number of species and the current number of species was 4. During the second trial for an island, the average number of species and the current number of species were 3 and 3.8. Which is a drastic difference between the second islands during both trials. In the first trial for the second island, the current number of species was 9 and the average number of species was 9.6. The second trial on the second island had an average species size of 9.2 and a current number of species of 10. For the first trial, the most abundant species were species 2,5, and 8. For the second trial, the most abundant species were species 1,3, and 5.

Within the next type of manipulation, both location and mass of each of the islands were changed. Island 1 was 350km offshore and now was 192km in diameter. Island 2 is 110km offshore and 128km in diameter. The only consistency between the two islands was their migration and death rates. During the first trial on island 1, it had no current number of species or the average number of species. Its data was quite different from island two when you compare the two. On island two it had 4 current species and 5.7 for the average number of species found on the island. During the second trial, they had a closer range of numbers when compared to the first trial. On island one, it had an average species count of 3.4 and 5 current species within it and on the second island, it had an average of 5.7 species with six current species. The most abundant species on island 1 from both trials were species 3 and 1. On island two the most abundant species were species 6,8,9, and 10.

The last manipulation tested on the islands was the effect of migration and mortality rates. Each island kept their changes done to them from the last manipulation where their location and mass were changed. Islands one and two now had a migration rate of 4 and a mortality rate of 0.06. Each trial had almost the same data. During the first trial, the current number of species was 4 on island 1 and 7 on island two, while during the second trial the number of species was 6 and 8. While studying the average number of species I noticed the same thing that happened during the current number of species happened for the average number of species. During the first trial island, 1 had an average of 3.1 while the second island had an average of 7. During the second trial island, 1 had an average of 4.8, while the second island had an average of 7.4. However, they had vastly different outcomes for the most abundant species found on each island. In trial one on the first island, the most abundant species were species 1 and 4, while on the second island the most abundant species were 2 and 9. During the second trial on the first island, the most abundant species were 3 and 8, while on the second island the most abundant species were 4 and 6.


3.0 Discussion

What I observed from this experiment was that an island's distance from the nearest land mass and its diameter greatly affected its biodiversity rates. The closer and smaller an island was, the greater its biodiversity was, while the opposite of that would result in an island having a low biodiversity rate. A large island far from the mainland will still have a certain level of biodiversity but due to its location, it wouldn't be able to sustain those species over an extended period. A large island closer to a large land mass should be able to sustain higher levels of biodiversity but because it has more land that needs to be sustained, it won't be able to have a large amount fo biodiversity when compared to a smaller island.Since I based this experiment on tropical birds it was able to have more data than compared mammals in a tropical climate. The bird's ability to fly also played a role in each island's biodiversity. Since they can fly it was easier for the species to migrate and therefore increase an island's biodiversity.



4.0 References

Our Dictionaries | Oxford Languages. (2022, August 19). Retrieved September 19, 2022, from https://languages.oup.com/dictionaries/


Island Biodiversity ( spreadsheet used)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activity 5.1 - Introduction to Environmental Justice

Image
  Environmental Justice: Environmental justice is a political/social justice movement that plans to fix the environmental policies we have in place currently. Many of these policies disproportionately affect people of color across the globe and contribute to poor-quality living areas. The people who are advocating for environmental justice plan on developing and creating a more sustainable way of living.  (picture:https://www.pennfuture.org/Blog-Item-More-than-Skin-Deep-Environmental-Racism-Justice-and-Pennsylvania) Environmental Racism: Environmental Racism is a term used to describe how areas with a high population of people of color tend to have a lower-quality environment compared to their white counterparts. Communities of color on average have lower air quality, increased rates of ocean acidification, as well as prolonged damages after natural disasters. Environmental Equity: Environmental equity is essentially the goal of environmental racism and environmental justice....
Read more

Activity 3.6 – Research Paradigms

  Case Study: Scenario Three Alternative energy sources have always included and affected different aspects of our lives from racial prejudice to social constructs. When conducting research into this topic you have to take into account how different sources could end up affecting people. A critical race theorist might look into how and why the excess materials would negatively affect communities of color or why it would disproportionately affect people of color versus white people. They would look at this problem with the intention of analyzing why people of color would have to face the negative effects of green energy instead of the positives. A critical race theorist might also question how being surrounded and exposed to trash could affect a person of color's perspective/relationship with the environment around them and how they treat it. Someone looking at this scenario through a conflict paradigm might look into how there might be a new conflict when it comes to the rare res...
Read more

Activity 4.1 – Tragedy of the Commons: A Case Study

  Introduction: Tragedy of the commons refers to a situation that happens when multiple people use too much of a limited resource. The majority of the resources we had have been able to renew themselves over time however when people do not give that resource enough time to recover it causes the overall amount of it to drastically decrease over a shorter period of time than if people had only taken what they needed. When one person consumes more of the resource compared to other people they then cause a chain reaction where other people try to take more into account of the shrinking availability of the resource. A descriptive explanation of the tragedy of the commons problem: An example of a current-day “ Tragedy of the commons” would be Line 3 which is currently being built by Enbridge Corporation. Line three is a tar pipeline that will go through areas of Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline will carry 915,000 gallons of tar every day across the above-listed areas....
Read more