You are on page 1of 15

Human Impact Lab

Page 1

Human Impact Lab (Pl, DCP, DEC)
Introduction
Human activities have a big impact on the environment in terms of affecting
various abiotic and biotic factors around them.
In this investigation, I intend to investigate the impact of human walking in the
student village area of the college. I have selected a walking trail (not a proper
path, but path made due to continuous walking of humans) going from student
village towards the Hoegh building, which is used very often by everyone.

Aim
The purpose of this investigation is to find out how the presence of humans
(walking) on a walking trail impacts the soil composition and plant biodiversity of
the trail as compared to the area closer to the trail (with minimal human
intervention).

Research question
How is soil composition and plant biodiversity influenced by human
presence(walking) compared to the nearby areas (with minimal human
intervention).

Hypothesis
The biodiversity will be less on the trail as it is exposed to human disturbances.
Furthermore the soil composition will be affected on the walking trail due to
continued pressure of human weight, resulting in it being different from that of
nearby areas.
I expect to see some form of soil erosion due to humans walking on the trail.
Soil erosion is the decline in quantity and quality of soil caused by external
factors such as cultivation, formation of roads or tracks, grazing, rainfall, climate
and wind.


Human Impact Lab

Page 2

Independent variable
Area with human activity : areas on the walking trail
Area with minimal human activity : areas next to the trail

Dependent variable
Soil composition: on the walking trail and areas next to it
Plant Biodiversity: on the walking trail and areas next to it

Controlled variables
Step 1) Temperature
All samples and measures were taken within 30 minutes to prevent
fluctuations of temperatures to affect the result.
The air temperature of the region was measured randomly at several places
to ensure that the environmental temperature was not different for
different areas considered.
Step 2) The slope of the trail
The slope of the section of the trail considered and the area next to it was
the same. This was done to prevent the slope as the factor to affect the
results.
This was confirmed by random measurements on areas of the selected
section of trail and the areas next to it. They all were totally flat (zero
degree slope).
Step 3) The weather conditions (sunlight, precipitation etc) and season were
held constant as the samples and measure were taken within 30 minutes.
Step 4) The size of the quadrats
Each quadrat size considered was 1 m x 1 m.
Step 5) The amount of soil sample
One scoop of soil (4 dl) was used for all soil samples collected.

Human Impact Lab

Page 3

Equipment and material
1 weighing scale (0.01g)
8 trays
1 soil sieve
4 quadrats (1m x 1m)
1 fork
1 soil collecting scoop (4dl)

Figure 1: Illustration of the quadrats (1m x 1m) positions, from where count of
different plant species was taken and the soil samples were taken. There was 20
cm distance between each quadrat position.
Off Trail On Trail

Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 are on the walking track. Areas 5, 6, 7 and 8 are off the track,
close to the walking track.


Human Impact Lab

Page 4

Method
Step 1) A walking trail frequently used by humans (in this case, college
residents) was identified.
Care was taken to ensure that the section of trail considered is flat (zero
slope), 5-6 m long, and does not have any tree cover or another
construction close to it.
Step 2) Four quadrats (1m x 1m) were positioned (as per figure 1) with 20cm
distance on the trail and given identification numbers as Quadrat 1,
Quadrat 2, Quadrat 3 and Quadrat 4.
Step 3) Another four quadrats (1m x 1m) positions were marked (as per
figure 1) with 20cm distance off the trail and given identification numbers
as Quadrat 5, Quadrat 6, Quadrat 7 and Quadrat 8.
Once all data is collected from positions of Quadrat 1, Quadrat 2, Quadrat 3
and Quadrat 4, the 4 quadrats will be picked up and placed on the marked
positions for Quadrat 5, Quadrat 6, Quadrat 7 and Quadrat 8 for further
data collection off the trail.
Step 4) The air temperature of the region was measured randomly at several
places to ensure that the environmental temperature was not different for
different areas considered.
The temperature was approximately 16.5
o
C for all 8 quadrat positions.
Step 5) Weigh each of the sieves of the empty soil sieve set and note it. Mark
each tray as tray 1, 2,8.

For each quadrat position :
Step 6) Measuring biodiversity
a. Each type of plant variety in the quadrat is noted with a brief
description of its identifying features.
b. Count of each plant type in the quadrat and note.
Human Impact Lab

Page 5

Step 7) Measuring soil composition
a. A sample of soil of 4 deciliters was collected from the top layer of the
soil from the marked quadrat position. Do not go deeper than 15 cm
in the soil.
b. Empty the measured soil in a marked tray (Tray 1 for quadrat 1).
Step 8) Repeat Step 6 and Step 7 for all 8 quadrat positions.
Step 9) After collecting biodiversity data and soil samples for each quadrat
position, leave all 8 trays with soil samples indoors for 48 hours, to allow it
to dry.
Step 10) Lumps were crushed into smaller pieces with a fork after the drying
period.
Step 11) For each soil sample:
a. Weigh the sample using weighing scale.
b. Pour the soil sample into the soil sieve and shake gently from side
to side in order to sieve the soil. (Do this for a couple of minutes).
c. The weight of soil left on each of the four sieves was measured
with the weighing scale.

Biodiversity : Qualitative Data
There were several species of plants present in the area.
Pointy Grass: Grass with pointy ends, dark green or brown in color. Can be
counted.
Trifoliate leaf plant: small plants with trifoliate leaf, dark green in color. Can
be counted.
Star Moss: Star shaped green colored moss . Difficult to count.
Grass moss: Pointy shaped green colored moss. Difficult to count.

Human Impact Lab

Page 6




The qualitative data makes it clear that the data should be recorded as
percentage to be able to do any calculations on raw data (units should be same
for calculations).

Biodiversity: Quantitative data
Table 1: Table recording raw data as % cover of different species on the trail and
off the trail.
Type of
plant
% cover of different types of plants
Quadrat1 Qudrat2 Quadrat3 Quadrat4 Quadrat5 Quadrat6 Quadrat7 Quadrat8
Grass
moss
0 0 0 0 80 76 82 87
Star moss
0 0 0 0 44 64 50 55
trifoliate
leaf plant
0 0 1 1 10 7 3 5
Pointy
grass
7 5 8 9 22 24 19 18
Quadrats are positioned as per figure 1.
The collected data shows that more species are present off trail than on trail.
Furthermore the number of individuals present off trail is greater than on it.

Figure 3: Trifoliate leaf plant

Figure 2: Pointy Grass
Human Impact Lab

Page 7

Biodiversity : Data processing
Simpsons biodiversity index is used to calculate the biodiversity. The formula is

where N is the total number and n is number of individuals of one


species.
At quadrat 5 the biodiversity is




Table 2: Table calculating biodiversity index for different quadrat positions on the
trail and off the trail.

On walking trail Off walking trail

Quadrat1 Qudrat2 Quadrat3 Quadrat4 Quadrat5 Quadrat6 Quadrat7 Quadrat8
Biodiversity
1.00 1.00 1.29 1.25 2.76 2.82 2.50 2.51
Average
Biodiversity
1.13 2.65


Human Impact Lab

Page 8

Soil composition: Qualitative data
After 48 hours of drying, all samples of soil were quite dry and any lumps, if there
were crushed. More gravel in soil collected from trail seen.
Soil composition: Quantitative data
Table 3: Table recording data as weight of empty sieves.
Sieve number from
the bottom
Soil type sieve will hold
after sieving
Weight of empty sieve
(0.01 g)
1 Gravel 57.22
2 sand 56.51
3 silt 47.52
4 clay 32.50
The sieve set has 4 sieves one on top of the other.
Table 4: Table recording data as weight of total soil sample and sample in
different sieves for the eight quadrat positions.
Soil
sample
total/in
sieve
Sieve + soil weight (0.01g)
Quadrate
1
Quadrate
2
Quadrate
3
Quadrate
4
Quadrate
5
Quadrate
6
Quadrate
7
Quadrate
8
Total
soil
weight
(0.01g)
189.62 200.64 201.75 177.98 172.32 165.05 185.29 176.38
Gravel
(0.01g)
96.27 105.76 108.38 100.64 89.09 85.54 89.61 83.65
Sand
(0.01g)
84.01 88.13 80.89 82.50 73.66 67.93 75.84 72.71
Silt
(0.01g)
75.61 71.39 76.20 71.89 75.72 72.89 73.73 80.95
Clay
(0.01g)
118.58 124.60 126.88 113.52 117.86 123.70 129.48 127.49
Each sieve section is measured with the soil sample that settles in the sieve. This
is done for all 4 sections of the soil sieve.
Human Impact Lab

Page 9

Soil composition: Data processing
The amount of soil sample in each sieve is calculated by subtracting the weight of
empty sieve(table 3 ) from total sieve + soil sample weight (table 4).
Table 5: Table showing actual amount of soil in each sieve showing the
composition of soil taken from different quadrat positions.
Soil
sample
weight
Quadrate
1
Quadrate
2
Quadrate
3
Quadrate
4
Quadrate
5
Quadrate
6
Quadrate
7
Quadrate
8
Gravel
(0.02g)
39.05 48.54 51.16 43.42 31.87 28.32 32.39 26.43
Sand
(0.02g)
27.50 31.62 24.38 25.99 17.15 11.42 19.33 16.20
Silt
(0.02g)
28.09 23.87 28.68 24.37 28.20 25.37 26.21 33.43
Clay
(0.02g)
86.08 92.10 94.38 81.02 85.36 91.20 96.98 94.99
Calculat-
ed soil
sample
weight
(0.02g)
180.72 196.13 198.60 174.80 162.58 156.31 174.91 171.05
The percentage of each type of soil is calculated with the formula


.
At quadrate 1 the percentage of gravel in the soil sample is




Similarly, loss of soil as percentage, for each sample, can be calculated as




Human Impact Lab

Page 10

Table 6: Table showing different types of soil present in each quadrate measured
as percentage, and loss of soil as percentage during the experiment
Soil
sample
weight
Quadrate
1
Quadrate
2
Quadrate
3
Quadrate
4
Quadrate
5
Quadrate
6
Quadrate
7
Quadrate
8
Gravel
%
21.61 24.75 25.76 24.84 19.60 18.12 18.52 15.45
Sand %
15.22 16.12 12.28 14.87 10.55 7.31 11.05 9.47
Silt %
15.54 12.17 14.44 13.94 17.35 16.23 14.98 19.54
Clay %
47.63 46.96 47.52 46.35 52.50 58.35 55.45 55.53
Loss of
soil %
4.69 2.25 1.56 1.79 5.65 5.30 5.60 3.02
As an average:
On trail: Gravel 24%, Sand 15%, Silt 14 % and Clay 47 %
Off trail: Gravel 18%, Sand 10%, Silt 17 % and Clay 55%
Data presentation
Figure 4: Graph showing diversity index of the quadrats as per figure 1.

Quadrat 1, 2, 3 and 4 are on walking trail. Quadrat 5, 6, 7 and 8 are on walking
trail (as per figure 1).
2.76
2.82
2.50 2.51
1.00
1.00
1.29 1.25
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
S
i
m
p
s
o
n
'
s

D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x

(
D
)

Quadrat positions
Simpson's Diversity Index
Human Impact Lab

Page 11

Figure 5: A graph showing average biodiversity on trail and off trail.


Figure 6: A graph showing composition of soil, on trail and off trail.





1.13
2.65
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
On trail Off trail
S
i
m
p
s
o
n
'
s

B
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x

(
D
)

Areas with different level of human impact
Average Biodiversity : On walking trail and
Off trail
24
15
14
47
On trail
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
18
10
17
55
Off trail
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
Human Impact Lab

Page 12

Discussion
Biodiversity is greatest off trail where more species are present and the
population of each species is greater. As per figure 4, the biodiversity off trail is
between 2.50 to 2.76 (average 2.65) which are rather high values compared to on
the trail where the greatest biodiversity measured was 1.29.
The average biodiversity off trail is less than half of the average biodiversity on
trail showing that some species such as star moss and grass moss cannot exist at
places where they are stepped on, whereas a species such as grass is more tough
1

and exist both off and on the trail thus resulting in some biodiversity on the trail.
However, there are not many of such specimen on the trail.
Figure 5 shows that the biodiversity index is much higher off trail. This means that
more species with a greater population exists off trail where they are not directly
influenced by human walking and interference.
As per figure 6, the composition of soil on trail differs from the composition off
trail as the average percentage of clay on trail is less than the one off trail. It
seems like clay is lost from the presence of humans on the trail as it is not present
in the same amount as off trail, thus the heavier and bigger types of soil sand and
gravel are left on the trail therefore taking up a greater percentage. The average
percentage of gravel on the trail is 24 % compared to 18 % off trail, but this is only
significant when measured in percentage as there is no clear difference in the
weight of gravel off and on trail.
Gravel have a poor water-holding ability due to its considerable size and since it
takes up a relative great part of the soil on trail, the water is not stored but drains
through instead
2
. On the other hand the soil off trail consists of more than 50 %
clay on average which has relative small particles thus it has a greater water-
holding ability and store more water.


1
Berthelsen, Hans Erik. Ny Biologi 1liv Og Natur Grundbog. 1st ed. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2009. Print.

2
Davis, Andrew, and Nagle, Garrett. "The Soil System." Environmental Systems and Societies. Edinburgh:
Pearson Education Limited, 2010. 124. Print.

Human Impact Lab

Page 13

The biodiversity is less on trail compared to off trail and at the same time the soil
contains less clay but more gravel here thus the soil do not hold as much water as
off trail. The soil might have been eroded because of the human influence on
biodiversity meaning that less plants are present to hold the soil, thus clay is
flushed away as. This process is shown in the diagram below where human
presence cause less biodiversity causing erosion of soil.

Figure 7: Illustration of the influence of human presence on biodiversity and soil

On the other hand clay might be eroded directly by humans resulting in
diminishing biodiversity on the trail as less clay is available to store water for the
plants. This process is shown in the diagram below here.

Figure 8: Illustration of the influence of human presence soil and biodiversity.

Since both diminishing biodiversity cause erosion of soil as less plants hold on to
the soil and soil erosion cause less biodiversity as less water is stores it seems like
a system of positive feedback is happening on the trail as positive feedback
occurs when a change in the state of a system leads to additional and increased
change
3
as shown in diagram below.


3
Davis, Andrew, and Nagle, Garrett. "The Soil System." Environmental Systems and Societies. Edinburgh:
Pearson Education Limited, 2010. 7. Print.

Human Impact Lab

Page 14

Figure 9: Illustration of diminishing biodiversity and erosion of soil as positive
feedback.


Evaluation
Simpsons biodiversity index gives an index number, but it only compares the
number of different species present and the size of each population and not the
total number. An example where it goes wrong could be an area with a total
number of five plants, but each plant is a different species, then the biodiversity
would be

, but if there are five plants and four different


species the biodiversity would be

, so a better way of doing it


would have been to use the Simpsons biodiversity index, but at the same time
look at the total number of species, thus conclude whether the area provides a
habitat for several species to reside.
Doing a bit research on each plant habitat requirements could give indications of
abiotic environment of the area and helped in discussion. Direct measurements,
like pH of soil using a pH meter, could have also helped in analyzing the
distribution of plants in the area and thus the impact on biodiversity and soil.
Although I was extra careful, still there has been a loss of soil (upto 5.6 %) while
sieving, which is evident from table 6 . To minimize this, I could have waited after
sieving for some time, to let the soil settle down, so that when the sieve is
opened, there is no loss of fine soil particles. Since clay is the finest particle, my
assumption is that the loss is mostly of clay.

Diminishing
biodiversity
erosion of
soil
Human Impact Lab

Page 15

More readings could help minimize the random errors.
Conclusion
As both soil erosion affect biodiversity and diminishing biodiversity affect the
composition of soil in a system of positive feedback it seems to have been started
by human presence as both biodiversity and the composition of soil on the
chosen trail differs from off trail, thus humans can be assumed to have been the
initial factor starting erosion of soil and diminishing biodiversity. Biodiversity is
considerable greater off trail and more clay with water-holding ability is present
off trail showing that the presence of humans on a trail affects nature in certain
ways.
The biodiversity off trail is between 2.50 to 2.76 (average 2.65) which are rather
high values compared to on the trail which is between1.00 to 1.29 (average 1.13).
Also on trail, the percentage composition of soil is found to be : Gravel 24%, Sand
15%, Silt 14 % and Clay 47%, whereas Off trail, the percentage composition of soil
is found to be: Gravel 18%, Sand 10%, Silt 17% and Clay 55%.
Further investigation
The experiment has shown the biodiversity and soil composition and certain
points on a trail and next to it but for those observations to be valid more
measures over a longer period of time might be necessary where the number of
humans presence varies to see whether it has a direct impact upon biodiversity
and soil composition.

References
Davis, Andrew, and Nagle, Garrett. "The Soil System." Environmental Systems and
Societies. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 2010. 7, 124. Print.
Berthelsen, Hans Erik. Ny Biologi 1liv Og Natur Grundbog. 1st ed. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 2009. Print.

You might also like