1

Robert Gregg
Ecology Lab
9/29/2014
TA: Timothy Meyers
Monday: 1:30-4:25
Abstract
By taking various measurements such; as trees per 25 x 25 m 2 plots, the DBH
(diameter at breast height/ the diameter of the tree) of trees in a 10 x 10 m 2 plot,
the amount of plants in a 1 x 1 m2 plot, and the amount of
herbivores/detritivores/carnivores in a 0.1 x 0.1 m2 plot, the overall biomass of an
environment can be estimated. With this information it also makes it possible to
make the biomass pyramids that show the distribution of biomass, pyramids of
energy that show the amount of energy at the different trophic levels and ecological
efficiency that shows percentage of energy that is passed from one trophic level to
the other. When this information was taken for Benedict Forest Preserve it allowed
this information to be estimated showing that the nature preserves energy flows the
pattern that a substantial amount of energy is lost going from one trophic level to
the next. It can also be seen that there is a very large drop off in the amount of
energy and biomass that goes from autotrophs into herbivores and detritivores.
From this study it can be taken away that there may an unaccounted for factor that
may be affecting the loss of energy and biomass.

Introduction
The study of energy and conservation and the distribution of biomass has
been an important topic in ecology for a long time. Biomass is the amount of living
matter in a given habitat, expressed either as the weight of organisms per unit area
or as the volume of organisms per unit volume of habitat (Biomass). The biomass of

2
an organism and environment can help to show where, how and how much energy
is being transferred in an environment. Unfortunately collecting the data to
determine these processes can be unreliable and in some cases hurt the
environment.
One such case of data being different based on the current weather of an
environment is that when soil is wetted the biomass of microbial is increased (Kieft).
Because of this it is important that when conducting experiment in when the
biomass is trying to be found that the weather conditions are constant and similar
to one another. Unfortunately some of the most accurate ways of measuring the
biomass of an environment involves the use of felling (cutting down) the trees that
are being used in the experiment (Monts). While this use may be more accurate to find the

biomass of the tree it also hurts the environment by taking away parts of it. But is important to
know the way in which the biomass and energy is transferred because it can be used in many
different ways. One of the most important aspects of biomass is that it can be used for energy
conservation (Forsberg).
This use of biomass makes it important to understand what limits biomass and how
biomass is made/transferred. Some of the limiting factor that have been distinguished include the
climate, competition, and predators (Polis). The objective of this lab is to look at the properties of
Benedict Forest Preserve so that we can look at the biomass and estimate the trophic composition
and whether or not the forest is a productive ecosystem.
Methods
In order to simulate this lab it is important that the weather is close to that in which the
original lab was performed. When the original data was produced it was on a warm day, with a

clear sky. This lab was conducted far enough into Benedict Forest that one could not see signs of
human life. The area that was surveyed was dense with trees and had much foliage on the
ground. All data was taken between 1:30 to 4 in the beginning of autumn.
The method in which all data was taken is that the lab began with creating a 25 x25 m2
land plot. After this plot was created the number of trees in the plot was counted and recorded by
a group member. Once the amount of trees were counted the group would then create a 10 x 10
m2 land plot within their original 25 x 25. Within this new 10 x 10 the groups would take the
DBH of the trees but would only record them if the DBH was greater than 3 cm. The DBH were
taken at chest height when standing uphill from the tree. A group would then create a new 1 x 1
m2 inside of the 10 x 10 and here they would count the number of herbaceous plants in the 1 x 1
plot. Finally the groups would create two 0.1 x 0.1 m2 land plots. Within one plot the group
would classify and count the amount of herbivore/detritvore and the amount of predators. In the
other plot the group would collect what was decomposing on the group.
After all of this data was taken it was combined with the data from the other groups that
had gone into the woods. Once all of the data was combined it was then used to calculate the
number per area (#/m2), the biomass per area (g/m2), and the energy per area. The way in which
the number per area was determine was the overall number of that organism (trees, herbs,
herbivores/detritvores, and carnivores) was divided by the quadrat area (the size of the plot times
the number of groups). The biomass of the area was calculated by using the biomass (14.32 times
DBH to the power of 2.9101) divided by the quadrat area of that organism. After the biomass
was calculated it was possible to calculate the energy (biomass times 4.54) per area by dividing
energy by the quadrat area. Finally with all these calculation the groups would calculate the
energy efficiency by dividing the energy of a group of organisms by the overall energy of the

group that they got the energy from and then multiple by 100. For example (energy of
herbivores/detritvore divided by the energy of autotrophs) * 100 or (the energy of carnivores
divided by the energy of herbivores/detritvore) * 100.

Results
From the data that was received it can be seen that in the breakdown of
numbers per area carnivores accounted for the most populated followed by
herbivores/detritvores, then herbs and finally trees (Figure 1). It can also be seen
that trees account for almost all of the biomass and energy with carnivores behind it
and then herbivores/detritvores, and then herbs (Table 1). As for the energy
efficiency the data shows that herbivores/detritvores receive 0.0015% of the energy
the autotrophs has stored and carnivores receive 129.03% of the energy they could
receive from consuming herbivores (Table 2).

Table 1: Table showing numerical

values of Number per area, biomass
per area, and energy per area of trees,
herbs, herbivores/detritvores,
Figure and
1: Graph showing the how the
carnivores
number per area, biomass per area,
and energy per area is divided
percentagewise

Table 2: Energy Efficiency of

autotrophs to herbivores/detritvores
and energy efficiency of

Discussion
In this lab it can be seen that while carnivores are the most abundant
organism in the forest, trees accounted for the more than 99% of the overall
biomass and the energy of the forest. These results go along with the idea that less
than 1% of NPP (net primary production) moves on to the next trophic level
(Hairston). This lab also came up with results that while herbivores/detritvores only
get around .0015% of the overall energy from autotrophs carnivores are able to
receive 129.03% of the overall energy that could be supplied from
herbivores/detritvores. Unfortunately this result is realistically impossible since an
organism cannot receive more energy than is supplied. If it were possible it would
help to solve the problems of transferring biomass and energy since it would mean
that energy is unlimited.
While the lab was conducted properly it may have run into problems that
would cause inaccuracy. One of the main problems that the lab could run into is that
there were not enough groups to sample the area. Because there were only six
groups this means the margin for error in the lab is extremely high. This margin of
error could lead to the problem of the carnivores receiving 129.03% of the energy
that could possibly be passed down to them. Another variable that the lab could run
into is if the weather conditions played a factor. This would be true since we only
went to the forest one time we do not know if the weather was abnormal or not.

6
Abnormal weather could have caused animals to not be out so that would throw the
numbers per area off. Finally even though there were only six groups since a large
amount of people were there it would make it more likely for there to be high
human error. An example of this would be people crossing sections so they are
counting the same trees and organisms or it makes it more likely that people were
lazy and did not count as many organisms that they could. With this error possible it
could make the data vary in many different ways.
If changes were to be made to this lab it is recommended that more groups
be used even if that meant that the amount of people in each group were smaller. I
would also recommend that the groups go on different days that have similar
weather in order to account for the weather possibly being an abnormal occurrence.
One final change I would recommend is the groups are assigned areas away from
each other so they do not interfere with one another and so that majority of the
forest is covered by the lab.
Literature Cited
Biomass. (n.d.). The American Heritage Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition.
Retrieved September
27, 2014
Forsberg Gran, Biomass energy transport: Analysis of bioenergy transport chains
using life cycle
inventory method, Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 19, Issue 1, 1 July 2000,
Pages 17-30

7
Hairston, Jr. Nelson G. "Cause-Effect Relationships in Energy Flow, Trophic Structure,
and Interspecific
Interactions." The American Naturalist 142.3 (1993): 379-411.
Kieft Thomas L., Soroker Edith, Firestone Mary K., Microbial biomass response to a
rapid increase in
water potential when dry soil is wetted, Soil Biology and Biochemistry,
Volume 19, Issue 2, 1987, Pages 119-126
Monts N., Gauquelin T., W. Badri, Bertaudire V., Zaoui El H., A non-destructive
method for estimating
above-ground forest biomass in threatened woodlands, Forest Ecology and
Management, Volume 130, Issues 13, 1 May 2000, Pages 37-46
Polis, Gary A. "Why Are Parts of the World Green? Multiple Factors Control
Productivity and the
Distribution of Biomass." Oikos 86.1 (1999): 3-15. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.