Research Proposal

Hey fellow bloggers!

This week I worked on my research proposal. When I saw the assignment my initial reaction was "How do I....", but after reading through the assignment and talking with my mentor Dr. Ortiz I was able to put together a rough draft and then went from there. Here I present to you my research proposal, let me know what you think! (Also, there is a picture of the PC garden at the bottom of the proposal because, why not?)

Do your best whenever you are doing anything!

-Chris

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The CAP-LTER (Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research) project through ASU includes a long term study on ground dwelling arthropod biodiversity in diverse locations around the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. This study seeks to understand the impact urban development has on the biodiversity of ground dwelling arthropods, which include insects and arachnids among others. It is important to study arthropods because they are the base of the food chain along with plants. Changes in arthropod biodiversity can have a cascading effect on the biodiversity of larger animals which can make up the secondary, tertiary, and quaternary levels of the local food chains. Phoenix College is following the CAP-LTER protocol to study arthropod biodiversity on two plots of land on the Phoenix College campus. One plot is an edible/flower garden without pesticide use and the other is a mostly empty plot, with pesticide use, that is planned for development into a native pollinator/wildlife garden. Our research will enable us to become aware of the current biodiversity of the arthropod communities, in both plots, before the native pollinator/wildlife garden is developed, and to see how those communities, in both plots, change in response to the development of the garden.

We will be collecting garden arthropods for observation using a technique called pitfall trapping. The trap is a simple setup consisting of a hole in the ground, and a plastic cup that fits into a PVC tube which is then placed into the hole. The trap is set level to the ground so that the arthropods, unaware of the hole, fall into it for collection. Our project will first undergo a trial run in our edible/flower garden, to make sure that the traps work, and then it will be rolled out to also include the future site of the pollinator/wildlife garden. We will be cataloging the arthropods by number of orders and possibly into number of morpho-species depending on if species of an order can be differentiated visibly.

GROUND DWELLING ARTHROPOD VARIABLE TABLE
NAME	I/D/C	SYMBOL	UNITS	DESCRIPTION
Plant Biodiversity	I	#P	# of species	Plant species present during observation.
Plant Cover vs Bare Area	I	PC% / BA%	%	Percentage of area covered by plants.
Location	I	Latitude / Longitude	Coordinates	Latitude and Longitude of specific garden plots.
Length of time studied	C	Week/Day	Week/Day	Timeframe that specimens were trapped and observed.
Arthropod Biodiversity (Number of specimens)	D	#AS	# of	Arthropod specimens catalogued during observation.
Arthropod Biodiversity (Number of  orders represented)	D	#AO	Number of orders / Number of morpho-species	Arthropod order/morpho-species catalogued during observation.

              This project is long-term and seeks to understand how landscape changes affect the local arthropod biodiversity. Because the native pollinator/wildlife garden will not be developed until after the 2020 spring semester, our short-term question is looking to compare the difference of arthropod biodiversity in our edible/flower garden versus our future native pollinator/wildlife garden site. We expect to see a greater biodiversity and number of species in our edible/flower garden versus the undeveloped native pollinator/wildlife garden due in part to the number of plants currently present in each location and because of the water availability between the two areas. I expect that we will find major differences in the arthropod orders that will be catalogued between both areas. Due to available resources, the undeveloped area may have a more homogeneous community of arthropods whereas the edible/flower garden may be more heterogeneous.

Sources

·       Bang, Christofer, and Stanley H. Faeth. “Variation in Arthropod Communities in Response to Urbanization: Seven Years of Arthropod Monitoring in a Desert City.” Landscape and Urban Planning, Elsevier, 5 Oct. 2011, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611002647?via=ihub.

·       Hancock, M. H., & Legg, C. J. (2011). Pitfall trapping bias and arthropod body mass. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 5(4), 312–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00162.x

·       Lagucki, E., Burdine, J. D., & McCluney, K. E. (2017). Urbanization alters communities of flying arthropods in parks and gardens of a medium-sized city. PeerJ, 5, e3620. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pc.maricopa.edu/apps/doc/A503257872/AONE?u=mcc_phoe&sid=AONE&xid=4a30190a

·       Larson, K. L., Hoffman, J., & Ripplinger, J. (2017, September). Legacy effects and landscape choices in a desert city. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.014

·       Sattler, Thomas, et al. “Urban Arthropod Communities: Added Value or Just a Blend of Surrounding Biodiversity?” Landscape and Urban Planning, Elsevier, 22 Sept. 2011, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611002593.

Edible/flower garden at PC