Biotic and Abiotic Factors and How They Interrelate

Jessica Lavigne
0590215
BIOL 1020H

Abstract
This experiment was conducted to determine how abiotic and biotic factors
affected one another in a field and forest setting. The experiment was conducted off of Rotary
Trail next to Trent University. The experiment was to analyze abiotic and biotic factors that
included soil moisture, light levels, species richness, percentage of grass, and native vs nonnative species. The experiment went over the course of approximately two hours and data was
compiled from two groups of classes. The experiment showed links between the biotic and
abiotic factors observed, and in contrast, a lack of relation between the two factors. The materials
used to perform this experiment included a light meter, soil moisture reader, a cloth, photos of
species likely to be discovered, a measuring tape, and a 0.25m2 plot using a quadrat. The data
collected determined that there was a not significant difference in soil moisture between the
forest and the old field (t=-1.77; p < 0.081) and a significant difference in the light level between
the forest and the old field (t=-6.509; p < 0.001). Both the percentage of grass and species
richness had significant differences with the percent grass having values of t=-13.766; p < 0.001
and the species richness having values of t=-8.953; p < 0.001. Factors that could be observed that
could build on this study would be further investigation into soil type. This would give a look
into what factors other than light affect the percentage of grass and species richness.
Introduction

The variables observed in this experiment include soil moisture, light levels, species
richness, and percentage of grass taken from two environments; a field and a forest. Factors that
affect the levels of light to an environment can include the time of year, the location of the
environment in reference to the equator, the type of environment and occurring obstructions to
the light (e.g. trees in a forest), and current climate of the environment. The soil moisture levels
can be affected by the type of soil and soil density, the time of year, the current climate of the
environment (e.g. precipitation, frost etc.), and species inhabiting the environment. The abiotic
features play a role in the development and success of the biotic features in this experiment. The
amount of light an area receives links to the amount of nutrients plants can produce. Plants
produce nutrients via photosynthesis which requires energy from sunlight to create glucose. The
type of plants inhabiting an environment can also be affected by the amount of light. Certain
types of plants need more or less light, depending on the species. This allows certain plants to
thrive in various light conditions. Soil moisture also plays a role
Various predictions can be made regarding the biotic and abiotic factors observed in this
experiment. The hypothesis that will be discussed include the following:
Soil moisture is affected by sun exposure. If this is true, soil moisture in a shaded forest that
provides a canopy will have greater soil moisture than in a field. This is true because trees shade
soil from the sun, thus less evaporation occurs compared to evaporation in a non-shaded area.
The more soil moisture, the higher the percentage of grass. If this is true, the percentage of grass
in a forest will be greater than the percentage of grass in an open field. This is true because grass
will grow more successfully where there is a sufficient amount of water to support life.

The more soil moisture, the less likely a chance of species richness. If this is true, the amount of
various species will be low for each environment and similar species will inhabit similar soil
moisture environments. This is true because certain plant species require different amounts of
moisture to thrive.
The more light available, the higher the percentage of grass. If this is true, the percentage of
grass will be higher in the environment with the most light. This is true because grass requires a
significant amount of light to thrive.
Different light conditions will be more successful for different species types. If this is true, there
should be minimal overlapping of species in the two environments because of the assumed
different light levels for each environment.
Methods
The experiment was conducted on the Rotary Trail approximately one kilometer from the
Chip Truck. The two environments the experiment were conducted in includes an old field and a
forest. The old field was absent of trees, contained a large abundance of grass, and several
species. Some of the species identified in the field included Solidago canadensis, Streptopus
amplexifolius, Vicia cracca, Thalictrum dioicum, Symphyotrichum ericoides, Asclepias syriaca,
Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, Daucus carrota, and Potentilla spp. The forest consisted of a
large abundance of grass, bushes and a lack of grass comparatively. Some of the species
identified in the forest area included Solidago canadensis, Streptopus amplexifolius, Thalictrum
dioicum, Eurybia macrophylla, Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, Anemone americana, Anemone
quinquefolia, Solidago flexicaulis, Trifolium spp, Fragaria spp. There four were overlapping
species in both the old field and the forest. The information that was being collected consisted of

two abiotic factors and two biotic factors. The biotic factors that were assessed were the species
richness and percentage of grass. The abiotic factors included the light level and soil moisture
level.
The materials used to perform this experiment included a light meter, soil moisture
reader, a cloth, photos of species likely to be discovered, a measuring tape, and a 0.25m2 plot
using a quadrat. To conduct this experiment with as little bias as possible, random sampling
method was used. This method was done by picking a point of reference for each plot of land.
From the reference point, the tape measure was used to pick a random length and disperse in
random directions to acquire the plot of land. This was repeated three times. Once the plot was
selected, the light meter was held in the middle of the plot facing south toward the sun. This was
held for approximately one minute and the reading was taken and recorded. The soil moisture
reader was also placed in the middle of the plot into the ground, approximately half was placed
into the ground and this was left for the entire duration of the plot sampling. The approximate
percentage of grass was recorded as well as the amount of stems, also determining the species.
The data was gathered and compiled from both lab groups F06 and F08. The data
collected determined that there was a not significant difference in soil moisture between the
forest and the old field (t=-1.77; p < 0.081) and a significant difference in the light level between
the forest and the old field (t=-6.509; p < 0.001). Both the percentage of grass and species
richness had significant differences with the percent grass having values of t=-13.766; p < 0.001
and the species richness having values of t=-8.953; p < 0.001.

Results

Figure 1. Percent grass in habitat type. The relation between the percentage of grass and the two
environments. Rotary trail, Trent University

Figure 2. Moisture levels in habitat type. The relation between the moisture levels and the two environments.
Rotary trail, Trent University

Figure 3. Species richness in habitat type. The relation between the variety of species present in the two
environments. Rotary trail, Trent University

Figure 4. Light levels in habitat type. The relation between the light levels in the two environments. Rotary
trail, Trent University

As stated above, the data collected determined that there was a not significant difference
in soil moisture between the forest and the old field (t=-1.77; p < 0.081) and a significant
difference in the light level between the forest and the old field (t=-6.509; p < 0.001). Both the
percentage of grass and species richness had significant differences with the percent grass having
values of t=-13.766; p < 0.001 and the species richness having values of t=-8.953; p < 0.001.
The mean values for the percent grass were 25.714 for the forest and 86.889 for the field. The
mean forest for the species richness was only 0.895 and the 2.611 for the field. For the abiotic
factors, the moisture level in the field had a mean of 4.556 and 3.952 which were the only values
of similar amounts. The mean levels for light were drastically different with the forest having a
mean of 53.58 and the field of 647.25.

There four were overlapping species in both the old field and the forest. The species found in
both habitats included Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, Thalictrum dioicum, Solidago
canadensis, and Streptopus amplexifolius. Although overlapping occurred, there is a vast
difference between the amounts of stems found in each plot. As an example, Solidago
canadensis was found 57 times in the old field while only once in the forest. This is due to the
fact that plants require specific conditions to live and the quantities of each vary for each species.
If a species does not have the amount of a required resource, it will not thrive (Ec.gc.ca). This
occurred to some degree for all of the overlapping species, and also a trend for the species that
were found most commonly. In each of the habitats, the species that thrived did not in the
contrasting environment. The species that was found most commonly in the old field were
Solidago canadensis (57), Vicia cracca (64) and Symphyotrichum ericoides (56). The least
commonly found in the old field was the Streptopus amplexifolius (2). The species most
commonly found in the forest was the Solidago flexicaulis (62) with Solidago Canadensis (1),
Symphyotrichum novae-angliae (1) and Anemone quinquefolia (1) being found the least.
Discussion
During this experiment, not all hypothesis were supported by the results. The hypothesis
that soil moisture is affected by sun exposure was not supported. This is because both
environments had similar soil moisture levels and greatly different light exposure levels. The p
value for the moisture levels was p=0.81 which is not a significant difference. The second
portion of this hypothesis included the percentage of grass. It was hypothesized that the more soil
moisture, the higher the percentage of grass. Based on the previous hypothesis, this would mean
that the percentage of grass in a forest the same. This again was incorrect and yielded an opposite
result. The percentage of grass had a p value of p < 0.001, meaning a significant difference

between the two environments. Due to the other results obtain, it would be correct to assume that
soil moisture did not have as great of an influence as light exposure, as the percentage of grass
was significantly higher in the open field. The third hypothesis was also incorrect stating that the
more soil moisture, the less likely a chance of species richness. Because the soil moisture levels
were similar and the amount of species richness was significantly different, it is not a correct
hypothesis. The hypothesis that the more light available, the higher the percentage of grass was
correct. The field had a mean of 86.889 for grass percent and a mean of 647.25 for the light level,
whereas the forest has a mean of 25.74 for percent of grass and a mean of 53.58 for the light
level, both having p values of p < 0.001 meaning a significant difference.
The amount of light available ultimately affected the species richness and percentage of
grass that occurred in the environment types. All three of the factors had be values of p < 0.001,
with the same trends as seen on figures 1, 3, and 4 above. This means the more light, the higher
percentage of grass and the higher amount of various species. If low light was observed in the
field, based on the data is it safe to assume the percentage of grass and species richness would
drastically decrease, possibly to levels similar to the forest. The moisture levels were nearly the
same, meaning that that amount of moisture available in the soil did not affect the percentage of
grass and species richness. This means other factors, such as light as stated above, were the
contributing factors to the amount of grass and species richness.
Factors that may have contributed to the differences between percent of grass in the field
and the forest could be the type of soil present in each environment. Soil type can be broken
down into multiple factors. These factors include nutrients levels, chemical structure, organic
matter, density, pH, and texture (Marritz, 2014). Additional biotic factors may contribute as well.
The absence or presence of microorganisms, worms and predacious organisms can also

contribute to whether or not grass would thrive in an environment (Ransom & Billak, 2015).
Factors that may have contributed to the species richness may be the ability for the multiple
species to coexist. The easier species are able to coexist, the greater the species richness will be.
Soil type, similarly to the grass percent can also be a factor for species richness. The more fitting
the soil is for various plant species, the more plant species will thrive in the environment
(Marritz, 2014). The absence of predacious insects and other biotic factors will also contribute to
whether or not a species will be able to thrive (Ransom & Billak, 2015). As collected in the data,
the amount factor of native vs. non-native species also has an effect on species richness
(Ec.gc.ca). The more species that are present in an environment, whether they are native or nonnative still contribute to the amount of species present. Both of the biotic factors share similar
reasons as to why they may thrive in a particular environment.
There were biases in the data collected. Each group had a different sampling method.
This means that there is a possibility that two or more groups sampled the same area, resulting in
the data being collected twice. In contrast, many of the areas in both environments data were not
collected. This may have excluded entire species from the data set and flawed the results. The
materials used to collect the data may have been faulty, given different results or not been used
correctly. Because there were no rules or exact measurements required when using the
instruments, each group may have placed gotten different reading. Every group had the option of
where to place the light meter and soil moisture reader, therefore there is bias as to where the
data was collected. The soil moisture reader may not have been placed in the ground to the same
depths for every sample taken, therefore skewing the results. Different models of equipment
could have been used, which could create different reading for the same environments. The time
of year also created a bias in the data. The data was collected one day after a rainfall, which

would create a flaw in the soil moisture levels. Also, many times during the experiment, clouds
covered the sun altering the light meter readings. It would take many more days and weather
conditions to accurately gather information for these types of readings because they are very
sensitive.
Factors that could be observed that could build on this study would be further
investigation into soil type. This would give a look into what factors other than light affect the
percentage of grass and species richness.

References
Ec.gc.ca,. 'Why Are Invasive Alien Species A Problem? - Nature - Environment Canada'. N.p.,
2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Marritz, L. (2014). Whats the Difference Between Urban Soil and Forest Soil? | DeepRoot Blog.
Deeproot.com. Retrieved 8 November 2015, from http://www.deeproot.com/blog/blogentries/whats-the-difference-between-urban-soil-and-forest-soil
Ransom, T., & Billak, B. (2015). Invertebrate Biology. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved 4
November 2015, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ivb.12078/pdf