Reference no: EM13347954

Question 1. Tawny frogmouth home range use in Melbourne.

A recent study examined the home ranges of tawny frogmouths in urban environments. Kernel home range estimates were generated for each of 12 frogmouths based on data from intensive radio-tracking. The data you are provided with are: habitat availability within the home range of each animal (95% Kernel estimate); and the amount of each habitat available in a 1km buffer around each animals home range. You are provided with data for the three key habitat types, these being grass, impervious surfaces (i.e. concrete, roads, roof tops), and trees.

You need to calculate the difference between the amount of each habitat type inside the 95% home range and the amount of each habitat in the broader environment. We want to determine if frogmouths position their home ranges into parts of the environment carrying more or less of particular habitats (HINT: in transform data you can create a new column of data which represents the difference. If you subtract the habitat available in the 95% home range from what was available in the broad home range you will get the difference between the two scores for each habitat type (see picture below)).

Negative difference values in this case will suggest an avoidance of this habitat when establishing a home range and positive values will suggest a preference to this habitat type when establishing a home range - Is he difference in habitat between the home range and the broader landscape similar between all habitat types (SUPER BIG HINT: Is the habitat data related by the individual bird?)

- Explain what tests you have used
- Provide a null hypothesis
- Provide an interpretation of your results in context of your null hypothesis
- Provide a graph that best explains this data.

Question 2. Can a visual estimation of feather quality

Determine the level of success when DNA fingerprinting powerful owls (Ninox strenua)

The ability to extract DNA from feather samples has revolutionised population genetic studies. One of the difficulties however is that the DNA in dropped feathers degrades and can lead to failed results. Micro-satellites are a useful genetic technique and represent repeat sequences of genetic code that have proven effective in being able to genetically finger print individuals.

The ability to identify individual birds successfully depends on the number of micro-satellites that work during genetic analysis. The more micro-satellites that work the better the ability to determine individuals.

In a recent Deakin University study 13 powerful owl specific micro-satellites were developed.

It is extremely expensive to screen feather samples for micro-satellites so the researchers were looking for a way to determine which feathers had a good chance of producing a large number of successful micro-satellites. The researchers proposed that feathers that looked in good condition (no obvious environmental damage) would produce better outcomes than those feathers which were slightly poorer in quality (some signs of environmental damage)(classes as moderate quality). If this was the case they could reduce their costs by only testing for micro-satellites in feathers that were visually of high quality.

You are provided with data from 40 feather samples of powerful owls. The researchers screened 20 high quality feathers and 20 moderate quality feathers against 13 micro-satellite markers. The data provided represents the number of microsatellite markers which were successfully amplified during genetic analysis.

Conduct an analysis which allows you to determine if visually assessing feather quality has an impact on the number of successful micro-satellite amplifications.

Provide details on:-

- What test you used and why.
- What are your null hypotheses?
- What assumptions did you test and why
- Provide a graph which adequately summarises this data.
- Please provide detailed answers and show results from all tests and provide interpretations on each test.

Question 3. Do gullies in heathlands enhance native small mammal richness compared to upslope areas?

There is considerable international research about the importance of riparian habitats and gullies for enhancing regional biodiversity values. Comparatively little research is conducted on this in Australian ecosystems. Even less is understood about how local depressions in generally flat landscapes such as heathlands may impact upon species richness.

In 2010, a Deakin honours project looked at the role of gullies (depression points) in heathland systems on small mammal richness in the Grampians National park. 18 sites were established in heathland ecosystems across the low elevation areas of the Grampians National Park. Each site consisted of a gully (depression point), and a comparative upslope area (a higher elevation point within 200m of the gully). At each location (gully or upslope), 4 infra-red remote cameras were established and operated according to the methods developed in De Bondi et al. (2010). The cameras were operated for 14 nights at each location, and the total number of native small mammal species detected on the cameras across the 14 nights was determined. You are provided with the small mammal richness data from the 18 different sites. You need to determine if species richness is impacted by topographic position in the landscape.

Question 4. The relationship between remnant patch size and non-matrix bird species richness

A recent study in Melbourne examined the relationship between non-matrix bird species richness and the size of remnant patches. The sites ranged in size from 1 hectare to 107 hectares, and were surveyed on numerous occasions to determine the species present in the patches. (Non-matrix species are species not found within the urbanized streetscapes of Melbourne).

Using the data conduct an analysis that determines the degree of dependence of the number of non-matrix bird species found within a remnant patch on the size of the remnant patch.

- What is the null hypothesis of this test?
- What test would you use to test this hypothesis?
o Why?
- What assumptions did you test (display results)?
- Display the results of this test with the most appropriate graph.
- Generate a formula that allows you to estimate the number of species in a remnant given the size of a remnant.
o What is the estimated number of non-matrix bird species in a remnant, given the following remnant sizes:-
o 27 hectares
o 200 hectares
o Provide error estimates for each of these values
o How much confidence would you have in each of these estimates?

Question 5. Effect of streetscape vegetation on avian feeding guild composition

A recent Deakin study has examined the influence of urban streetscape vegetation on avian biodiversity. Four site types were compared, these being: Native remnants (parks); Established streets with native vegetation (native st); Established streets with exotic vegetation (exotic st); and new suburbs with limited vegetation (new suburb).

Nine replicate sites were chosen in each of these site types. Each site was one hectare in size and surveyed on four occasions. You are provided with data on the number of feeding guilds represented at each of the sites (guilds/ha). The number of feeding guilds may provide an index of community complexity, i.e. the more guilds the more complex the community. Note: Guilds describe feeding behaviour of the species for example a canopy nectarivore or a ground granivore etc.

- Is there a difference in the number of guilds represented in each site type?
- Explain what tests you have used
- Test any assumptions of the test.
- Provide a null hypothesis
- Provide an interpretation of your results
- Provide a graph that best explains this data.