Ecology LabWhat Are the Effects of Disturbance on a Community?

Michelle Ecarma
Professor Mark Cooper
December 4th, 2013

Introduction
As biologists, it is important to know about the environment in which we are studying.
Living in the Walnut area, we are lucky to experience a greater amount of species than other
suburban areas, where Mt. SAC sanctuary is within close proximity of our school. The hills as
part of the sanctuary represent the coastal sage scrub community, which is what we observed for
our ecology field trip. Coastal sage scrub (Artemesia californica) or soft chaparral resides
mostly in lower elevations below chaparral, according to the biological sciences at Santa Barbara
City College, from just above sea level to 1,800 feet. It can be described as a, Low-statured,
aromatic, drought-deciduous shrubs and subshrub species and distributed well throughout a
community (Riverside County 2002). Being the dominant species, the community is named after
the scrub, which it shares with other dominant species such as coyote bush, monkeyflower, black
sage, California buckwheat, and prickly pear cactus (USDA 2012). Plants are important to the
survival of the animal species as their natural habitats and for feeding. As we learned this
semester, an ecosystem cannot thrive without primary producers as well as keystone species,
such as the coyote in the Walnut area. We now know that 10 percent of the energy radiated from
the sun is consumed by a primary consumer, and continues to divide by 10 percent for each level
of consumption due to energy loss in the form of heat. With their higher energy content, plants
are vital to the community as a source of energy as well as shelter for many of the species living
amongst a coastal sage brush community. The ecology field trip sought for the difference in the
growth of the habitats affected by damaging factors like wildfires, which in the case of the
sanctuary, the damage caused by cattle grazing. In some areas, one can see the difference in the
hillside where there has been heavy grazing and areas where the grazing trails are absent.
Viewing these habitats allowed us to see a difference in a healthy community versus disturbed.

Results
After completing a line-intercept test on both hillsides, it can be said that the diversity of
the two hills are not so similar despite being neighbors to each other. The presence of species
indicating disturbance include mustard, ragweed, telograph weed, purple aster, and various
grasses, which were mostly found on the North side hill, where defined trails of grazing had
occurred. With more invasive species, we can confirm the impact of grazing on the community
for the north side hill. On the other hand, the West side hill still showed signs, albeit fewer, of
disturbance through the presence of mustard and star thistle.
Looking at the t-test with a p value of 0.1108, we can determine a significant difference
between the mean number of species per five meters between the two areas. Viewing the
frequencies of the species we found, we cannot state the same species to be dominant in both
areas except for the coastal sage scrub. However, by creating a contigency table and taking the
most populous species from both sections, the coastal sage scrub had about the same number,
while the other two species were on opposite extremes of their own numbers. The prickly pear
cactus was able to thrive on the West side hill with a count of 35 members of species on that hill,
while the North side hill only contained two, by our findings through the line intercept method.
Likewise, there was a surprising amount of grasses found with a high relative frequency of 66.7
percent found on the North side hill, while being absent on the West side hill. Viewing the
second contigency table created, which compared the amount of trees, forbs, and shrubs on both
hills, it can be further confirmed of the disturbance by the population of forbs on the North side
to be 146 while the West side hill only contained five. Finding 87 shrubs on the West side as
opposed to 44 on the North side also indicates a less-invaded population of the coastal sage
scrub.

With a probability of 0.00, which is less than 0.05, for a chi square statistic of 116 from the first
test, as well as 0.00 for a chi square of 128 from the second test, both contingency tables
reflected the effects of disturbance on the hill in relation to the number of species per five meters
to be highly linked. These extremes in results emphasize the impact of disturbance as a result of
grazing, in one community versus another undisturbed community.
The Simpsons D value was calculated to be 1.57 for the North side and 1.16 for the West
side. In comparison to each other, there was more size class diversity in the North side of the
hill, with less diversity on the West side of the hill. This makes sense due to the increase of forbs
species due to a disturbance in the area. The data for all tests are shown in the tables below:

Discussion
In observance of our disturbed and undisturbed communities, using the line-intercept
method tested for their differences in species ability to thrive in these environments. Our overall
null hypothesis is that disturbance has no effect on these communities. Likewise, our alternative
hypothesis states the disturbance to significantly alter the growth of the community.
In our first contingency table and chi square test, a more focused null hypothesis would
be that the most populous species have no correlation to disturbance in the area, while the

alternative hypothesis states the numbers of species are affected in disturbed versus undisturbed
areas. The first chi-squared test, which was mentioned earlier, showed the significance of
disturbance in the growth of these populations. This in turn accepts the alternative hypothesis in
the agreement of species populations being affected by disturbance.
Next, in the second contingency table and chi square test, we compared the categories of
trees to shrubs to forbs, also focusing on their numbers in relation to disturbance. Our null
hypothesis for this test denies the difference in the growth of these categories in proportion to
disturbance with a homogenized dispersion, while the alternative hypothesis emphasizes a lack
in even distribution with more growth in invasive species. Again, the chi-squared test shows the
strong relationship between disturbance and growth, where we can once more accept the
alternative hypothesis in which the larger amount of forbs indicates more invasive species in the
disturbed areas.
Lastly, for our t-test, which generally averages the number of species per five meters, we
compare the difference in the group means. Our null hypothesis for the t-test is that disturbance
does not affect the number of species per five meters in an area. The alternative hypothesis says
otherwise, with disturbance affecting the density in a conducted line-intercept test. Contrary to
the contingency tables, with p= 0.1108, which is significantly larger than 0.05, we must accept
the null hypothesis for our t-test, in which disturbance is not a factor of density in a line-intercept
method test.
With the combination of these conclusions, we cannot infer the impact of disturbance to
the species that grow in an area, as shown in the t-test. However, we can deduce its effects in
population numbers of species in a healthy community versus a disturbed community, as show
in the first chi-squared test, as well as the increased variety of invasive species in a disturbed

community versus the undisturbed one in the second chi-squared test. Furthermore, we can
affirmate the alternative hypothesis of an overall impact of disturbance, and its effects on the
interrelation of an ecosystem.

Recovery of the Plant Community After Grazing?

Recovery of the plant community is questionable in the viewpoint of fire and grazing
differences. In a comparative table created by the University of Idaho, fire and grazing have
different factors in their outcomes. Facts listed on the table made about fire include: Recycles
nutrients in inorganic form, Nutrients [form] in a relatively even layer across the landscape
and are Not selective for specific plants, to a community, whereas grazing on the other hand:
Recycles nutrients in organic (feces) and inorganic (urine) forms, Nutrients in patches, and
[Grazing] selects palatable over unpalatable (University of Idaho 2013). Overgrazing by
domestic livestock causes substantially greater erosion rates that can affect both soil nutrient
and water-holding capacity through influences on erosion of topsoil which can make it harder
for a plant community to grow back (USDA 2006). In the document, they mention the huge
impact from good grass cover to little herbaceous cover over 30 years due to excessive
grazing in an Arizonian community (USDA 2006). On the other hand, fires when not too
frequent, allow communities to recover in a much shorter amount of time. Damage is not as
destructive, and in fact, Dominant species of both hard and soft chaparral sprout back
vegetatively from root crowns after a fire or other disturbance (Santa Barbara 2010). However,
both sources agree, too often of a wildfire may force the community to, Be replaced by
grasslands that are often dominated by non-native species. (Santa Barbara 2010). In a sense,
fire and grazing, when done at exceeding frequent levels, are very damaging to the coastal sage

scrub community. However, since grazing occurs over a long period with short recovery time
caused by the human introduction of domestic animals to the areait may be much more
detrimental, as seen in the community in Arizona, as opposed to a much shorter wildfire that
allows for resprouting afterwards. The higher intensity of harm to the coastal sage scrub
community from grazing is overall a much more unfavorable effect in comparison to fires.

Works Cited
Riverside County Integrated Project. (2002). Coastal Sage Scrub. Riverside, CA.
Habitat Accounts.
Santa Barbara City College. (2010). Soft Chaparral or Coastal Sage Scrub Community.
[Data file]. Retrieved from http:// http://www.biosbcc.net/b100plant/htm/soft.htm
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2006).
Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States. Rocky

Mountain Research Station. Retrieved from

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_013583.pdf
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2012).
Plant Guide. Cape May, NJ. Cape May Plant Materials Center.
University of Idaho. (2013). Interaction of Grazing & Fire. [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/range456/Class_Notes/Grazing-Fire-Interactions.pdf